Celts in Thrace? A Re-Examination of the Tomb of Mal Tepe, Mezek with Particular Reference to the La Tène Chariot Fittings Archaeologia Bulgarica XVI, 1 (2012), 1-32 1 For the latest of previous reviews see: Megaw 2005; Emilov 2005; Stoyanov 2005; 2010. Julij EMILOV / Vincent MEGAW INTRODUCTION More than a century has passed since the first accidental discoveries of finds around the Mal Tepe tumulus, the “Mound of the Treasure” near the village of Mezek in south-eastern Bulgaria (Hamdy 1908, pl.VIII-IX) and eight decades since Bogan Filov explored the tholos tomb there. Despite the efforts of several generations of researchers and general progress in later studies on tomb architecture (Стоянова 2002; Stoyanov 2005; Theodossiev 2007), breastplate and bronze vessels (Ognenova 1961; Venedikov 1977; Archibald 1985; 1998, 253-258, 277), jewellery items and horse-harness (Pfrommer 1990; Tonkova 1997; 2010; Stoyanov 2010) or the attempts of Domaradzki to analyze the sequence in burial practice (Домарадски 1988; 1998), it is still difficult to achieve a coherent explanation of multiple activities in the Mal Tepe tomb as reflected in the available archaeological data. Following this retrospective line it is may be an appropriate occasion to mark one more anniversary. Seven decades ago Paul Jacobsthal (1940) recognized some of the objects from the tomb as Celtic and associated with the totemic bronze figure of a boar – “it obviously belonged to the Celtic burial” though a provincial piece (Jacobsthal 1944, 152). Thus was included an additional unknown variable in the already complex Mal Tepe equation. The imagery of the chariot fittings from Mezek (fig. 1-6) is probably the first aspect of the tomb which springs to mind when one is looking for material evidence of the early third century BC Celtic raids in the Eastern Balkans. Considered as one of the finest examples of the “Plastic” or “Disney style”, the mounts with their immediately recognisable La Tène design as will be discussed below serve almost like a trade-mark of the Thracian Galatians and the historically documented Celtic expansion to the south-eastern corner of Europe (Домарадски 1984; Megaw / Megaw 2001, 140-141; Fol 1991; Mac Congail 2008; Megaw 2010; Anastassov 2011; Anastassov et al. forthcoming). Beyond any doubt to find chariot fittings with a presumed western origin among the objects from an Early Hellenistic tholos tomb in Thrace is an extraordinary discovery and one which has provoked many discussions and various interpretative scenarios1. How, when and why parts of a Celtic chariot were deposited in the tomb are still troublesome questions and a constantly recurring topic in contemporary academic debates on the interrelations between Celts and local 2 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW a b d c Fig. 1a-d. Mal Tepe, Mezek. Four of the five surviving bronze terrets or rein-rings. National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia. Photos: Roza Staneva Fig. 3. Mal Tepe, Mezek. Bronze finial from larger rein-ring. National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia. Photo: Roza Staneva Fig. 2. Mal Tepe, Mezek. Five rein-rings photographed prior to cleaning in the 1970s. National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia. Photos: Roza Staneva CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... Fig. 4a-b. Mal Tepe, Mezek. Bronze linchpins. National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia. Photos: Roza Staneva a b Fig. 5a-c. Mal Tepe, Mezek. Right-angled bronze fitting. National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia. Photos: Roza Staneva Fig. 6. Mal Tepe, Mezek. Bronze forked fitting. National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia. Photo: Roza Staneva c 3 4 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW communities in the eastern Balkans. The very nature of the evidence currently available, however, does not allow any definitive solution of the Mal Tepe puzzle and problems concerning dating and interpreting the “Disney style” chariot mounts found at the site remain (see further p. 13-14 below). Therefore, the authors of the present paper offer their contextual and stylistic comments on this fascinating material in order to reassess the issue and to explore the various options in the analysis of the “Celtic” artefacts from the tomb. In Search of Context Dealing with the first of the essential questions – how the chariot fittings were deposited in the tomb – we face a major problem of uncertainty about their exact provenance. Filov went to great lengths to obtain information on the original position of the artefacts from local residents who had entered into the building (Филов 1937, 4, 28). It was however not possible to reconstruct the spatial distribution of a large number of finds, including the “Disney style” chariot mounts (Филов 1937, 22, 55, 61, #15-16, 29-31, обр. 23, 52-53, 69; Домарадски 1998, 50-51; Stoyanov 2010, 116). In his review of the circumstances of the Mal Tepe discoveries Filov is also in doubt if the information about their provenance provided by the local residents should be regarded as truly indicative of their initial position within the tomb (Филов 1937, 28-30). Evidence of significant changes in the structure and secondary graves, located under the upper pavement of the superimposed floor levels in the antechambers support Filov’s hypothesis of multiple entries having occurred over time inside the building and that such activities had been taking place there already in the Hellenistic period. Disturbances in the interior of the tomb noted by Filov could have been caused by treasure-hunters either in antiquity or in later periods, but having in mind the observations on the strata in front of the corridor and the analysis of the finds it is an unconvincing explanation. The only traces of breakthrough are related to the modern discovery of the monument in mid-January 1931 (Филов 1937, 13-15). Hence, it is plausible that the structure of Mal Tepe was an unplundered tomb until the villagers from Mezek uncovered the entrance of the dromos, removed one of the slabs, which was blocking access, and collected all the remains – artefacts and horse bones – from the inner compartments (Филов 1937, 3-14; Домарадски 1998, 50-51; Stoyanov 2005, 123). Transferring the precious objects to the Mezek County Chambers was a well-intentioned initiative, but it placed research on the tomb inventory at a considerable disadvantage in the light of the resultant incomplete record of contexts for the find-spots. Available data on the location of some of these finds indicated in Filov’s publication (Филов 1937, 28-31, 38-41, 56-75) contains information on spatial distribution of items “at the last using of the tomb”, prior to its closure (Домарадски 1998, 51; Stoyanov / Stoyanova forthcoming). Attribution of objects, discovered by the local residents on or above the upper paved floor (fig. 7/A, C), to earlier or later grave inventories (Filov 1937, 302) as well as attempts to make a division in the assemblage rely exclusively on speculations about function and the narrow dating of these items (see Tzochev forthcoming). Another group of finds from the interior of the building were discovered during the archaeological exploration of the structure. In the CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... Fig. 7. Cross section of the Mal Tepe tomb and known location of basic find deposits in the building: A – tholos chamber; B1 and B2 – below the upper floor in the ante-chambers; C – in the corridor (adapted by JE after Русева 2000 with additions) 5 fill between the lower and the upper paved floors of the antechambers, Filov found cremated human remains and grave inventories (Филов 1937, 18-19, 29-30, 75-79); these were published as separate contexts in the light of their observed location (fig. 7/B1, B2). Particular emphasis is also laid on the fact, that “competent persons” investigated the graves below the upper floor in the ante-chambers in contrast to the circumstances of the original discovery of the Mal Tepe tomb (Филов 1937, 4-5; Filov 1937, 300, 302; Dimova 2010). This division according to the location of the artefacts and the reliability of information received concerning their provenance is reflected in the different approaches toward their context. The items from the “two intact cremation burials” are perceived as “unproblematic” and the later group received merely a summary, while the focus of attention is on the former as evidence of “earlier funeral ceremonial” (Filov 1937, 302). After this brief overview of the story of the discoveries in Mal Tepe let us examine in detail the information about the chariot mounts. Despite the fact that “the exact location of these bronze items in the tomb can not be determined” Filov tried to “reconstruct” their original place by formal and functional analysis (Филов 1937, 21-22). He considered the pair of linchpins (fig. 4) as decoration of the bronze door at the entrance to the tholos chamber (Филов 1937, 22, обр. 23), while the “massive bronze ring with bended handle” (the fitting with the disk) (Филов 1937, 55, #15, обр. 52) (fig. 5) is tentatively recognized as part of candelabrum or “some device with similar use”. It is supposed “to had been (suspended) hanged on a handle with endings, resembling snake heads” (the bi-forked mount) (Филов 1937, 55-56, #16, обр. 53) (fig. 6) and attached to the walls of the tholos chamber or antechambers. The “large quantity of lead” on the bi-forked mount is taken as additional hint to such interpretation, but Filov (Филов 1937, 56) was unable to prove his hypothesis and to determine the exact hole in the tomb walls where the object was “inserted”. To define function and probable positioning of the “massive rings with balls” (bronze terrets or rein-rings) (Филов 1937, 61, 63, # 30, 31, обр. 69) (fig. 1-2) appeared to be no easier a task. General observations on their form resulted in the identification of the pairs of smaller 6 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW pieces as shaft rings of the bronze door at the entrance to the tholos chamber. The explorer of the Mal Tepe tomb tested his hypothesis and noticed considerable difference in dimensions, which were not in favour of such explanation. An alternative solution of the problem about the rings is his suggestion the items “belonged to some large wooden object, which had been destroyed and cannot now be reconstructed” (Филов 1937, 63). To the same direction points his hypothesis these rings were attached to “wooden frame or some sort of flat object” (Филов 1937, 61). As to the suggestion that we are dealing with the rein-rings of a chariot, this can still be considered as valid as well as Filov’s conclusion about the difficulties in reconstructing the position and the original arrangement of the items (Schönfelder 2002, 270, 393). Decorated Fittings on Tomb Walls or Iron Parts of a Dismantled Chariot above a Kline? The initial proposition about hanging some of the bronze mounts on the Mal Tepe tomb walls deserves attention even if their primary functional definition has been re-evaluated in later studies. A short remark in Filov’s description of the tholos chamber contains information about several “large iron nails, discovered in the walls at human height, which had been used for suspension of objects” (Филов 1937, 20-21). Three years earlier the archaeologist proposed a similar explanation about large iron nails on the inner walls of the Rozovets monumental tomb and mentioned the discoveries near Mezek as example of hanging funeral paraphernalia on iron nails or hooks2. Reference to the late second century BC Heroon at Calydon with iron clamps, pinned in every one of the four stone walls of the subterranean burial crypt (Dyygve et al. 1934, 99-100) does not provide a clear solution of the problem, but analogies to representations of weaponry and drinking equipment, hung on the walls as depicted in Hellenistic frescoes point to real-life inspiration for these images in sepulchral contexts (Dyygve et al. 1934, 105, Abb. 114-115). The list of monumental grave structures in Southern Thrace dated to the Early Hellenistic period with iron fittings on their inner walls is complemented by the famous Kazanlak tomb with frescoes in the Tulbe tumulus and the Tomb of the Griffin in the same region. V. Mikov noted remains of two “pairs of iron hooks”, located on each side wall of the Kazanlak dromos (Миков 1954, 2) but their exact function cannot be determined (Русева 2002, 57). Kitov however is in favour of a “ritual” explanation of the nails as he is convinced these were used either to hang the costume of the participants in mystery cults taking place with the tomb or for suspension of lamps, curtains or decorative textiles on the walls (Китов 2003а, 36; 2005, 15). The uncertainty, which still surrounds these examples is in contrast to the recorded use of iron nails as fasteners and elements of wooden construction in tomb architecture (Стоянова 2002, 67-71). Examples of iron nails and hooks in Mal Tepe, Rozovets and the tombs near Kazanlak form a separate group, which leaves an overall impression to be related to deposition of grave goods on the inner walls of the monuments, rather than the use of nails in the primary construction phases. In the light of recent historical scenarios about the chariot mounts in Mal Tepe as trophies deposited in the tomb3 it is an attractive op- 2 Филов 1934, 160; see the recent reexamination of the Rozovets tomb by Theodossiev 2005, 678. 3 Latest reviews in Stoyanov 2005, 127; 2010, 115 and Anastassov et al. forthcoming. CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... 7 Fig. 8. Mal Tepe, Mezek. Stone kline in the tholos chamber, photo and reconstruction of the iron bands (after Филов 1937, обр. 25, 26) tion to suggest the iron nails in the tholos chamber as probable or at least an appropriate place for display of decorated fittings as the spoils of war. The proposition that these objects may have been suspended on the stone walls however remains equally conjectural whether one follows Filov’s earlier hypothesis or the latest attempt by Kitov to find both practical and ritual explanations of the nails. Discovery of chariot mounts in the interior space of Mal Tepe tomb is still without available comparanda in the archaeological data from the eastern Balkans which could support or reject different variants for reconstruction of their final arrangement in the early Hellenistic tomb, prior to modern entry into the building. An unusual find discovered on the stone kline of the tholos chamber raises additional questions related to the problem of how were the chariot pieces deposited in the monumental structure. Two large pieces of iron band with a horizontal and vertical bars are reported and illustrated as an iron fence (“Eisenschranke”), located over the kline (Филов 1937, 24, обр. 25, 26). These items were removed from the tomb by the local residents and transferred to Mezek County Chambers, where Filov had the opportunity to examine them and to photograph the surviving pieces. According to information about their findspot the explorer of Mal Tepe assumed the iron bands were constructive element or decoration, attached to the stone kline. Comparison between the preserved length of the fragments (211 cm in total) and the length of the stone kline (240 cm) however reveals considerable difference in dimensions. The attempt at reconstruction of the original design of the kline faces another problem due to lack of holes on its slabs where the vertical bands of the “iron fence” could be inserted (Филов 1937, 24). In a short article on the Mal Tepe discoveries – the first in English – one finds the following statement: “to the edge of the coffinrest was fixed a single iron bar, still preserved in its entirety” (Filov 1937, 301). Readers of the investigation report in Bulgarian, published in the same year, were presented with a slightly different and detailed version on the matter: “it was impossible to determine how the fence had been attached over the bed. … Therefore, it seems [the fence] was simply (sic) positioned at the edge of the bed” (Филов 1937, 24). In spite of these shortcomings in analysis and the growing number of funeral beds executed in marble, stone or bricks, discovered after the 8 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW Mal Tepe publication in Thracian Late Classical and Early Hellenistic monumental tombs (including some examples with elaborately carved pillows and cushions4), Filov’s interpretation of the iron “fence” on the stone kline continues to escape the scrutiny of modern scholarship. His assumption that “the coffin-rest stood empty” (Filov 1937, 301 ) was reiterated in later studies of the tomb and focused attention on the fact “there were no remains of a body or other traces of burial in the round chamber” (Venedikov 1998, 72). The presence of a stone funerary bed in the tholos chamber is considered as a strong indicator for an inhumation burial, although such a correlation can hardly be accepted, regarding the circumstances of the Mal Tepe discovery. The funeral bed itself is devoid of elaborate sculptured or painted decoration like the finest examples in stone from Ostrusha tomb (Китов 1994, 14; Valeva 2005, 12, fig. 4), from the Tomb of the Griffin (Kitov 1999, 17-18, fig. 22; 2003, 17-18) and the marble kline in the tomb near Naip (Delemen 2006, 256, fig. 5, 6), all of which evoke direct analogies to the furnished interiors of the Macedonian tombs or contemporary Hellenistic houses (Andrianou 2006, 232-250; 2009, 31-50 with op. cit.). The lack of any parallels for the iron “fence” on the kline is not a compelling argument against Filov’s hypothesis, but it remains unclear what purpose could be served by a barrier installed over the funeral bed. Accepting the reconstruction in the excavation report as trustworthy (fig. 8) Kitov (2005, 15) proposed a ceremonial explanation for the fence. In line with his interpretation of the monumental structures in Late Iron Age tumuli as temples Kitov (2003а, 35-36) also tried to redefine the function of the couches in the tombs from “funerary” to “ritual” and mentioned the iron barrier from Mal Tepe in support of the latter assumption5. An antithesis between “ritual” beds and their burial function also seems to ignore an old, but still valid observation about couches in a mortuary context “to be those on which the dead recline at their funerary banquets, and […] not merely the bed on which they sleep the everlasting sleep of death” (Tomlinson 1974, 249-150). After such a poetic description it is appropriate to recall the comment of C. F. C Hawkes (1947, 197) on the method used by Jacobsthal to recognize the chariot elements among the Mal Tepe finds: “the evidently Celtic burial in the Thracian tholos-tomb in Mezek was unhappily not separable in excavation from the accompaniments of its other burials”, but the “belongings [of the Celt] display the Plastic Style”. These lines clearly explain the basis of the hypothesis about the “Celtic” burial in the monumental building and raise suspicions as to whether more pieces without distinctive stylistic features such as the iron bands on the kline or a pair of flat bronze rings with central ribs (fig. 9) discovered in the dromos (Филов 1937, 65-66, #36, обр. 70) could not have also belonged to the dismantled chariot (Stoyanov 2010, 116), deposited “pars pro toto” at various places in the interior of the Mal Tepe tomb (fig. 7/A, C). Problems of Dating and Historical Scenarios (Fig. 10) As it has been demonstrated above, the attempt to answer the essential contextual questions “where” and “how” has provided multiple and inconclusive results which should be taken into account in any discussion of “when” and “why” the chariot elements should be found Fig. 9. Mal Tepe, Mezek. Bronze ring from the corridor (after Филов 1937, обр. 71) See discussion in Иванов 2006, 133135 and Delemen 2004, 27-34; 2006, 256-257. 5 For the latest critique of the various interpretations see Рабаджиев 2011, 4951; 2011a, 25-26. 4 CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... Fig. 10. Table with comparison between the suggested dating of find deposits in the tomb according to different authors. All dates are BC A Filov (1937; 1937a) 350 BC Jacobsthal (1944) Venedikov (1973; 1998) 359-340 BC Domaradzki (1984; 1988; 1998) 325-300 BC 333-300 BC 330-300 BC 285-275 BC 250 BC 325-300 BC Pfrommer (1990) post 250 BC Fol (1991) 320-300 BC post 279 BC Archibald (1998) 325-300 BC post 300 BC 279-250 BC Tonkova (1997; 2008) 325-290 BC 310-290 BC 275-250 BC 287 BC post 287 BC 277-250 BC Stoyanov (2005; 2010; forthcoming) For a detailed discussion, see Stoyanov 2005, Tzochev forthcoming, and Stoyanov / Stoyanova forthcoming. C post 280 BC Gebhard (1989) 6 B1, B2 9 in the Early Hellenistic tomb. Once again it is worth to repeat Filov’s general conclusion about the finds discovered above the upper paved floor in Mal Tepe: “it was not possible to determine whether the objects found belonged to the original burial or a later one” (Filov 1937, 302) – hardly an optimistic starting point for any further reconsideration on the subject. In this respect the absolute dating of the burial sequence in the Mal Tepe tomb relies heavily on defining chronological indicators among the items from the secondary cremation graves between the paved floors in the ante-chambers (Филов 1937, 75-79) as well as objects with known find-spots amongst the group of finds discovered above the upper paved floor, which could provide hints about the temporal range of numerous activities within the structure. Following the same principle, Filov suggested the last third of the fourth century BC as a probable date for the secondary graves in the ante-chambers (Филов 1937, 90; Filov 1937, 302); this was based on two silver drachmae of Alexander the Great. The first half of the same century or about 350 BC “at the latest” was assumed for the erection of the tholos tomb, “the earlier funeral ceremonial” on the kline and the burials in the stone chests6. Multiple transformations of the monument reflected in major structural changes such as additions to the dromos, krepis and upper paved floor as well as what is known of the unusual distribution of the finds support the idea of Mal Tepe as a family tomb which was used repeatedly for several generations. Less than a decade after Filov’s meticulous report of discoveries in the vicinity of Mezek Jacobsthal (1944, 152, see further p. 14-16 below) extended the time-span of the Mal Tepe tomb to the middle of the third century BC “rediscovering” the chariot fittings in “Plastic style” among the finds and introducing into the equation the historical date of the Celtic migrations to Thrace in the end of the first quarter of the third century BC as a terminus post quem for a chariot burial in the dromos. The value of the bronze mounts as chronological indicators is recognized even by Venedikov (1998, 72-73) who expressed sceptical comments on their “Plastic style” definition and proposed evolutionary rather than diffusionist or migrationist explanations of these items in following his middle fourth century BC historic dating generally on the grounds of Filov’s phases of the tomb’s use (Венедиков / Герасимов 1973, 68-70; Venedikov 1978; critique in Megaw 2004; 10 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW 2005, 213; Stoyanov 2005, 127). In the same vein is the statement: “if the Mal Tepe yoke ornaments were indeed made by the Celts, they would have to be dated to a period after the Celtic settlement of Thrace in 279 BC. However, if the ornaments are Thracian, they would be from an earlier period” (Venedikov 1998, 73). The reason for these stylistic, chronological and above all “ethnic” doubts as to the “Celtic” items lies in an attempt to identify “the ruler, buried in the Mezek tomb” with representatives of the Odrysian royal line at the time of Philip II (359-336 BC) and his military campaigns in the Hebros valley. The view that monumental tombs in ancient Thrace were “always reserved for the burial of kings” (Venedikov 1998, 83) in combination with the paradigm of foreign invasions and their catastrophic impact on political and cultural development of the local communities in the eastern Balkans (further comments in Theodossiev) leaves almost no room for “Celtic” chariot fittings in a “pristine” Thracian tomb such as the one in the Mal Tepe tumulus. In support of the “Thracian” interpretation and an earlier dating of the chariot mounts to the fourth century BC Venedikov tried to establish a functional correlation between tomb plan and finds in the Mal Tepe complex. He claimed the ante-chambers were initially intended as places for the horse and the chariot of the ruler, who was buried in the tholos chamber, but later reconstructions and looting during periods of crisis resulted in relocation of the items in the tomb (Венедиков / Герасимов 1973, 68; Venedikov 1998, 83). Close interrelation between historical explanation and the suggested dating of archaeological material is also evident in Venedikov’s final conclusion that “a number of other fourth-century-BC burials, including one of a horse and chariot” were discovered “outside the tomb’s entrance” (that is, inside the corridor and the ante-chambers) (Venedikov 1998, 73). There is no doubt the bronze mounts belonged to a chariot, but Jacobsthal’s point about the “Celtic” burial – in the dromos – is adapted to Filov’s chronological framework and the assumption of the Mal Tepe tomb as the burial place of the Odrysian royal family in the turbulent times of the Macedonian conquest. The “Thracian” hypothesis about the origin of the bronze mounts is abandoned in later studies7, but their dating and place in the burial sequence in Mal Tepe has remained a matter of debate. The riddle of “Plastic style” chariot fittings in one of the most representative “Thracian” tombs is a major topic in Mieczysław Domaradzki’s research on the Celts and La Tène finds in Thrace since the start of his investigations in the Eastern Balkans (Domaradzki 1976, 32-33; 1980, 461-463; Домарадски 1983; 1984, 125-126). Various aspects of the issue are explored in his attempt for analysis and refined dating of Late Iron Age rich burials in the region (Домарадски 1988; 1998, 44-64). Several formal and typological criteria provide a basis for comparison of the grave structures and definition of five successive horizons of rich burials in Thrace from the end of the sixth to the first century BC which indicate the emergence of local and regional centres of power, social stratification process as well as significant temporal changes in the selection of status markers deposited in the grave inventories. Examination of the finds from the Mal Tepe tomb reveal not only an example of rich burials in the tumulus group near Mezek, but also 7 See discussion in Megaw 2005. CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... 11 an extraordinary case of several consecutive rich burials located in different parts of the tomb interior (fig. 7). By cluster analysis, seriation and analogies of the bronze vessels and the breast-plate discovered in the tholos chamber, Domaradzki attributed these items to a primary grave (fig. 7/A) and placed its terminus post quem in the last quarter of the fourth century BC (Домарадски 1998, 50-53), which corresponds to the time of transition between the second (375-325 BC) and the third horizon (325/300-250 BC) of rich burials in Thrace, according to his chronological system. The secondary graves in the ante-chambers (fig. 7/B1-B2) are dated to the end of the first quarter of the third century BC and belong to the third horizon. In addition to these phases of tomb use and modification in dating of the “earlier funeral ceremonial” and of the assemblages under the upper paved floor Domaradzki interpreted the finds from a known location in the long corridor in Mal Tepe (fig. 7/C) as representing a grave (Домарадски 1998, 51) which otherwise had remained unrecognised in earlier studies. The inventory of this presumed burial includes a silver “Thracian” type brooch and spur, bronze askos and lamp as well as gold and bronze horse harness adornments (Филов 1937, 30-31, 56-57, 61, 65-66, 72, # 1, 2, 19, 20, 27, 35, 38, 42, 44, обр. 27, 28, 57, 58, 67, 70, 74). It is dated to the middle of the third century BC on the grounds of horse harness analogies (Tonkova 1997, 28-29; 2010, 57-59), spur distribution in the region (Stoyanov 2003, 200) and the value of the bronze mounts from Mezek as chronological indicators in line with Jacobsthal’s conclusions about “Plastic style” objects and the supposed “Celtic burial” in the dromos of the tomb. If, despite the earlier scenario offered by Gebhard (1989a, 126-127), the answer of the question “when” the chariot fittings were deposited in Mal Tepe once again points to the second quarter of the third century BC and after the Celtic raids in Southern Thrace, the results of the other troublesome query, “why”, do not coincide with Jacobsthal’s explanation. Domaradzki considered the “burial in corridor” as “most probably a Thracian dynast (king) laid in his family tomb”, while the “Celtic” chariot was “a diplomatic gift or booty sized by the Thracians” (Домарадски 1984, 125-126; 1998, 51). Detailed analysis of the items from Mal Tepe as well as temporal and spatial reconstruction of the burial sequence in the tomb suggested by Domaradzki (Домарадски 1998, 50-53) seems persuasive, but re-evaluation of several basic elements in his account casts doubt on the latest fixed point of “the rhythm of burial activity” in the tomb. The idea of a burial in the corridor is based on an assumption of similarity between the content of the secondary grave inventories under the upper floor in the ante-chambers (fig. 7/B1-B2) and the finds from the dromos (fig. 7/C). However, finding correlations in order to substantiate such a conclusion is a difficult if not impossible task. The assemblages of the former group located between the superimposed floors consist mainly of various jewellery items (golden necklaces, earrings, buttons, elements of wreaths (Филов 1937, 75-79)), while the latter group contains just a single object related to costume and personal adornments ‒ a silver brooch. Another significant difference is the predominance of horse harness elements among the finds from the dromos and total absence of such items with the remains of the cre- 12 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW mations in the ante-chambers. There is indeed close resemblance in manufacture techniques between the gold horse-harness mounts and personal adornments (Tonkova 1997, 28; Stoyanov 2010, 116-117), but these features do not support the explanation of the finds from the corridor as representing a grave inventory. Furthermore, when eight decades ago Filov and Velkov entered the dromos of Mal Tepe tomb it had been already completely cleaned out by the villagers, who reported “a lot of equine bones and teeth there, which could not be preserved due to their condition” (Филов 1937, 4). In terms of a zonal reconstruction of the activities in the building this evidence for horse bones and the location of horse equipment at both ends of the corridor do not suggest a secondary grave of a “Celt leader or of a person closely connected with the Celts”8 nor of a “Thracian” noble, but rather the common practice of “horse sacrifice” marked in the corridor or in front of similar monuments in the eastern Balkans, a feature which is related to the end of their use (Китов 2003; 2003а, 37; Кузманов 2005; Kouzmanov 2005 with op. cit.). Reviewing the analogies of the horse-harness mounts (Tonkova 1997, 28 with op. cit.; 2010; Stoyanov 2010, 117) and the value of the silver spur (Stoyanov 2003; Aтанасов 2006) as a chronological indicator confirms a broader time frame for the last activities in the tomb interior in the first half of the third century BC. The fixed point in the middle of the same century proposed by Domaradzki (Домарадски 1998, 53) is a result of the identification of Mal Tepe as a “family tomb” and his attempt to establish direct correlation between rich burials in the building with several successive generations of the elite. The previous phase is set in the end of the first quarter of the third century BC or at a similar interval “of one generation” between the initial burial in the tholos and the latest “grave” in the dromos outlining both spatial and temporal dimensions of the model, but in contrast to Pfrommer’s (1990, 250) ex cathedra statement: “Anlage des Brandbesttatungen nicht vor dem mittleren 3. Jh”. The danger of chronological conclusions following “a firm belief in a rigid line of development of shapes and forms” (Miller 1993a) however is relevant not only to Pfrommer’s approach to Hellenistic jewellery and to his dating of the secondary burials in the Mal Tepe ante-chambers. Personal adornments in “Greek style” among the grave finds are considered as main distinctive features of the third horizon of rich burials in Thrace (325/300-250 BC) and markers of changing fashions under strong Hellenistic influence (Домарадски 1998, 46), but it is questionable if the ornaments in the layer between the paved floors (fig. 7/B1-B2) could provide a true chronological fixed point for the “secondary” burials in Mal Tepe ante-chambers and a reliable terminus post quem for deposition of the chariot fittings into the tomb9. Taking into account various options for processual explanation of the assemblages under the upper paved floor makes it even more difficult to support the Domaradzki’s scheme for definition of time intervals between successive generations laid in the “family” burial place. Against his concept of regular recurrence in the “rhythm of burial activity” with direct repercussions in the archaeological record goes the evidence for reburial into the ante-chambers from the original content of the stone chests in the tholos, discovered empty after the 8 Contra Bouzek 2005, 97; 2005a, 106 and Emilov 2007, 53. 9 See discussion on the “female graves” in Tzochev forthcoming. CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... 13 last using of the tomb (Филов 1937, 25-30; Tzochev forthcoming with additional argumentation). In the same line of enquiry is the opinion of Venedikov, who supposed full transferring of the grave inventory out of the building during the reconstruction phase and new allocation of the items in the interior as soon as the monument had been redesigned (Венедиков / Герасимов 1973, 70). On a basis of analysis on the Thasian storage amphora as the most chronologically sensitive artefacts among the finds from the tomb Chavdar Tzochev now suggests a reappraisal on the sequence and the time-span of burial activities in Mal Tepe (Tzochev forthcoming). His attempt for synchronization between the deposition of already old Thasian amphora located over empty stone chest in the tholos chamber and the La Tène chariot fittings points again to the third decade of the third century BC at the time or just a few years after the “Celtic” raids in Southern Thrace as recorded in the ancient written sources. Whether these jars once belonged to grave goods of the initial internment in the structure (Stoyanov / Stoyanova forthcoming), or that they were placed in the tholos chamber after the reconstruction and reburial phase together with some parts of the captured “Celtic” chariot is another open question in the Mal Tepe puzzle. Following the line of reference to the chronology of Thasian stamps, it is worth paying attention to the fact that golden horse-harness mounts similar to the finds from Mal Tepe dromos were discovered in tumulus 3 near Kralevo associated with amphora, dated to ca. 270 BC (Гинев 2000, 29-33; Tonkova 2010, 53-54; Tzochev 2009, 66, tab. 3; Маджаров 2011, 245 note 18 with op. cit.). In comparison to earlier interpretations of the “Plastic style” mounts from Mal Tepe as grave goods associated to isolated “burial in corridor” Tzochev (forthcoming) takes a holistic functional approach and relates their deposition to finds with various spatial arrangement in the structure. Reconsidering the evidence for Filov’s definition of “earlier funeral ceremonial” confined to the tholos chamber as well as the multiple issues, concerning the assemblage(s) in the dromos leads to suggestion that the finds above the upper floor level represent later grave of “a local leader buried with his arms, horse, dining set, and somewhat unusual war-trophies” (Tzochev forthcoming). As it has been demonstrated above we share similar doubts “on the need to look for a burial in the corridor” and argue for chariot pieces, deposited at several places in Mal Tepe interior. The explanation for multiple transformations in the tomb as concomitant events to presumed elite burial however is difficult to follow. unfortunately if “the problematic third phase” is entirely eliminated due to our current limitations to find narrow chronological indicators among the finds from the other compartments of the tomb, comparable to the Aegean pottery imports in the tholos chamber, we are not getting closer to solution of the Mal Tepe puzzle in understanding the variety of motivations and circumstances, which shaped the changes in monument design and function. Beyond any doubt the remains of “horse sacrifice(s)” in the corridor marked the end of the activities in the interior of the tomb, but reconstructions and deposits in front of the tomb entrance as well as setting there of the bronze statue of a boar (statuary group?) (Stoyanov 2005) raise numerous questions without answers on the temporal dimen- 14 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW sions of the “the problematic third phase” and its relation to the graves inside the building. In summary, concerning the date of deposition of the “Disney” style chariot mounts among the objects in Mal Tepe, it is still difficult to link these finds to separate grave inventories in the edifice. Re-examination of the tomb history however suggests re-burial of cremated remains in the ante-chambers and “horse sacrifices” in corridor rather than successive burials of several generations in a family tomb. Parts of a dismantled chariot together with distinctive “Disney” style mounts were probably inserted into the round chamber and the dromos during final reconstruction of the edifice and of the mound into a heroon sometimes in the second quarter of the third century, which makes the historic explanation of the items as spoils of war after the Antigonos Gonatas victory over the Celts near Lysimachia (277 BC) an attractive scenario. JE The la Tène Metalwork Turning to consider the “Celtic” bronzes in greater detail, it was Paul Jacobsthal who in publishing illustrations of the boar and three other bronzes in 1940 first drew attention to their significance – repeating his earlier comments written in 1938 which were included in his Early Celtic art when he was unsure whether his original publication would ever appear (Jacobsthal 1944, 151-152, # 164 and 179); he also followed the erroneous interpretation that they were evidence for a Celtic chariot burial having been inserted into the dromos (See more recently Fol 1991, 184). Jacobsthal considered the boar figure (Jacobsthal 1944, pl. 260g; see most recently Stoyanov 2010, 117) to have been provincial work possibly removed by Gaulish trophy-hunters from a larger group. Despite the bronzes having been frequently illustrated (See for example Venedikov 1976, # 382-386; Venedikov 1979, # 383-387; Fol / Egami 1979, # 383-387; Prévost 1987, # 465-469), notably in the series of major touring exhibitions of Thracian gold which, in the 1980s and ’90s traversed the globe from Japan to Canada and in 2012 will be seen in Stuttgart as part of Die Welt der Kelten, this is the first occasion that a complete catalogue of them has been made available. The pieces, totally cast in bronze and all now in the National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia, currently comprise some ten objects. It should be noted that the list does not include pieces which clearly do not form part of the La Tène assemblage; an example is the rectangular bronze buckle surprisingly included by Jacobsthal (1944, 151) with the chariot fittings as “Celtic”. As Stoyanov (2010, 117 and fig. 1/10) convincingly demonstrates, there is nothing Celtic about this piece which is in fact a common type amongst Thracian horse trappings of the Classical and Hellenistic period and as such may have something to do with the evidence of horse sacrifice in the Mal Tepe mound. To be placed in the same category are the three large rings with tongue fastenings (Steckverschluss) published by Kull (Kull 1996, 430 and Abb. 8/3; Филов 1937, #37) in the context of bit- and related harness-types from the Carpathians (see also Schönfelder 2002, 372). Again this is not the place to pursue the discussion as to how many sets of fittings are represented here; Schönfelder, bases his argument on three rings while Filov in fact mentions four. As to the La Tène fit- CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... 15 Fig. 11. Map of sites and finds mentioned in the text: 1. Mezek 2. Calydon 3. Kazanlak 4. Rozovets 5. Dolno Izvorovo 6. Naip 7. Kralevo 8. Lysimachia 9. Poing 10. Kalefeld 11. Brå 12. Paris 13. “La Fosse Cotharet”, Roissy-enFrance 14. Manching 15. BrnoMaloměřice 10 On earlier La Tène “rein-rings” (“Führungsringe”) in general see Schönfelder 2002, esp. 224-228 with Abb. 139/1 – where the Mezek piece is correctly shown with the ring uppermost. tings there seems no argument against all pieces – with the possible exception of #6 – having originally formed part of a single chariot and to have been made in the same workshop. 1. Four “rein-rings” each with a stylised human face (ultimately based on the palmette) forming an open “u” shape mounting presumably to attach them to the yoke. Three of them are illustrated on fig. 1/a-c, while the fourth (fig. 2 lower left) is now lacking its decorative element. NAIM inv. 6411-12. Diam. 73 mm, thickness 29 mm. Филов 1937, #30; Stoyanov 2010, fig. 1/1-3, 5. 2. One larger “rein-ring”. NAIM inv. 6411 (fig. 1d). Diam. 84 mm, width 33 mm. Филов 1937, #31; Stoyanov 2010, fig. 4. 3. Circular mount with opposing palmette faces (fig. 3), now attached to the larger “rein-ring” (fig. 1d). Diam. 84 mm, thickness 33 mm. Филов 1937, #31. Venedikov 1978, fig. 3. Filov makes it clear that originally all five rings were complete. A photograph of the five rings taken before the 1970s restoration shows the broken larger ring with the mount beside it (fig. 2)10. 4a-b. Pair of linch-pins, heads in bronze with shafts in iron, the surviving finial also being in bronze one face with knobbed pseudo-face heads with shafts in bronze decoration and plain backs. One is broken just above the end of the pin. NAIM inv. 6413 (fig. 4a-b). Max. height (a) 125 mm; (b) 121 mm. Филов 1937, #29; Stoyanov 2010, fig. 1/9 and 8. The pair of linch-pins offers the strongest evidence at Mal Tepe for the presence of a two-wheeled chariot – or rather parts thereof – and form the easternmost examples of a distribution of linch-pins with rectangular heads which extends westwards to the Middle Rhine and Champagne (Megaw / Megaw 1995; Schönfelder 2002, esp. 165-171). 5. Composite curved attachment with at one end a cast-in ring and at the other a flat circular disc with an encircling edging of contiguous S-commas; the lower sec- 16 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW a b tion is hollow and shares with the other bronzes similar large “eye” motifs. NAIM inv. 6413 (fig. 5a-c). Diam. of disc 103 mm Филов 1937, #15; Stoyanov 2010, fig. 1/6. The purpose of this piece is difficult to determine. Schönfelder (2002, 191-192 and Abb. 211) identifies amongst Ösenknäufe a similar class of object; these may possibly have been associated with attaching the body of the vehicle to parts of the traction. The ornament around the rim of the disc is what Jacobsthal (1944, 69-70) termed “the running spiral”, a sub-set of the S-spiral, a series of linked and rimmed eyes. 6. Bi-forked rein-lead (?) with waterbird’s head terminals. NAIM inv. 6413 (fig. 6). Height 113 mm. Филов 1937, #16; Stoyanov 2010, fig. 1/7. The forked mounting with birds’ heads (crested (?) grebe) seen in profile, despite the frequency of birds in Iron Age iconography, has few parallels known to us and when they do occur they are in much earlier or much later contexts. Amongst the former is a linch-pin from the Late Bronze Age wagon grave of Poing, Ldkr. Ebersberg (Winghart 1999) while later are the bird’s heads terminals on a wagon fitting from the third century AD battlefield site of Kalefeld, Ldkr. Northeim (Brock / Homann 2011, 50 and ill.). Closest in fact are the birds incised on the roundels of the bronze shield cover of the shield from the River Witham, Lincs (Megaw / Megaw 2001, ill. 337). Notwithstanding, the piece may with caution be included in the group of La Tène fittings. Stylistic Discussion (fig. 11) With the exception of two pieces, stylistically the Mezek bronzes have been frequently discussed – with varying degrees of usefulness – in a Fig. 12. “Sardinia”. Gold finger-ring. Diam. 25 mm. Victoria and Albert Museum, London. a Photo: Crown copyright reserved; b drawing: P. R. Ward CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... 17 b a c d Fig. 13. Brå, Horsens, Eastern Jutland. a fragment of bronze and iron cauldron. Width of iron ring-handle c. 215 mm; b detail of cast bovine fitting. Width between horns cа. 52 mm; c-d details of swingle mount in form of an owl. Width 44 mm. Forhistorisk Museum, Moesgaard. Photos: Lennart Larsen, National Museum, Denmark number of publications since Jacobsthal, by the present author amongst others (Klindt-Jensen 1953, esp. 68; Megaw 1966, esp. 122-125, Abb. 4 and Taf. 9; Megaw 1970a, #170; Sandars 1985, 365-373; Megaw / Megaw 2001, 139-144 and ill. 212-227; Duval 2000, 167-169 and ill. 126-132; and most recently; Stoyanov 2010, esp. 115-116). These belong to a sub-set of what Jacobsthal (1944, 266-273) called his “Plastic style”. The most spectacular examples of what we first dubbed, many years ago, the “Disney style” (Megaw 1970b, 275, fig. 5/1 and pl. 30), come from very disparate locations and largely, but not exclusively, are associated with chariot fittings. All demonstrate a particular type of stylization of human as well as animal heads which, together with seemingly more “abstract” forms ultimately have evolved out of elements of the 18 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW more two-dimensional “Vegetal” or Waldalgesheim “style” (Megaw 1966, 125-134; Frey 1995). This abstraction of natural forms shares with modern film animators the ability to produce recognizable forms by the economic use of basic curvilinear elements. As with such wellknown figures as Mickey Mouse or Asterix the Gaul and as viewed on cinema or television screens, divorced from the whole, no single detail is typical of an actual mouse or man but the total image is immediately identifiable. A further interpretation by Laurent Olivier and Philippe Charlier (2008) has recently suggested that our “Disney” group does not simply represent a cartoonist-like process of abstraction but rather a more meaningful approach to representing the human – including the grotesquely disfigured (fig. 14b) – and the inhuman. Examining the subtle differences in the faces of the Mal Tepe rein-rings – visible upside-down when mounted on the yoke (fig. 1) – it would be possible to fantasize that here were depictions of different characters representing differing emotions. There are, however, all too few examples in early La Tène art to support such an interpretation; from an earlier context are the reversible faces – youth (?) and old age, sorrow (?) and joy – from the rich but disturbed chariot burial of Bad Dürkheim, Kr. Bad Dürkheim first identified only some 150 years after the grave’s discovery (Megaw 1969). Another oddly naturalistic pair of faces forms one of the complex fittings from Brno-Maloměřice to be considered further in the following paragraphs (Meduna et al. 1992, Taf. 35/1; Čižmářová 2005, obr. 91/2). Certainly, all the Mal Tepe faces basically follow the “closed tendril” anthropomorphising of the human face from the classical palmette as I first argued many years ago in a “strip cartoon” commencing with a detail of an Apulian volute krater and ending with one of the finest of all “Disney” style pieces, a gold finger-ring, one of two early La Tène gold rings supposedly found in Sardinia (Megaw 1966, 122-125, Abb. 1/2 and 4; see also Megaw / Megaw 1995, esp. 142 and fig. 71) (fig. 12). Be that as it may, where there is any indication of a dateable context, objects of the Disney style are – once more pace Gebhard (1989a, 126-127) – to be dated to roughly a century centred on the earlier part of the third century BC – La Tène B2-C1 – or more or less contemporary with the historically attested Celtic incursions into the Balkans and beyond. However, some of the very finest examples are isolated finds or without certain origin. Such are the bronze mounts for a bronze cauldron found in a pit at Brå near Horsens in Eastern Jutland (Klindt-Jensen 1953) (fig. 13) and the gold finger-ring said to have been found in Sardinia. There are, however, apart from Mezek two other finds of chariot fittings with better context. First is a set of bronze and iron fittings purchased in 1907 for what is now the Musée d’Archéologie at St.-Germain-en-Laye as having been found in the region of Paris. This ascription was doubted by Jacobsthal amongst others though there seems no reason now to question its discovery in the rue Tournefort (Schönfelder 2002, esp. A. Teil I #58; contra Jacobsthal 1944, #175) (fig. 14). A further find in north-eastern France was the result of rescue excavations in 1999-2000 at the site of extensions to Roissy-Charles de Gaule Airport. These revealed a small but rich cemetery at “La Fosse Cotharet”, Roissy-en-France publication of which is ongoing (Lejars 2005) (fig. 15). Dated by the excavator to the begin- a b Fig. 14. Paris. a fragmentary bronze and iron linch-pin, width 85 mm; b rein-ring or terret – bronze over iron, diam. 70 mm, Musée d’Archéologie Nationale, St-Germain-en-Laye. Photos: a Musée d’Archéologie Nationale; b Inge Kitlitschka-Strempel, Klosterneuburg CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... a c Fig. 15. “La Fosse Cotharet” Roissyen-France, chariot grave 2; a-b one of a pair of bronze and iron linch-pins, total height 120 mm; c detail of head, width 65 mm; d one of a pair of bronze? reinrings, diam. 32 mm, Musée dArchéologie Nationale, St-Germain-en-Laye. Photos: J. V. S. Megaw 19 b d ning of the third century BC (LT B2) two of the graves contained the remains of a chariot, and in one the fittings have points of resemblance not only with the Paris mounts but particularly with the linch-pins found at Mal Tepe (fig. 4). The Brå cauldron mounts comprise the heads of bulls – or at least cattle – while they flank the handle mounts which are owls down the backs of which curls a low-relief tendril, a late version of the “Waldalgesheim” or “Vegetal” style; these possibly represent the Little Owl, Athene noctua (fig. 13) comparable with the bird’s heads on the top of another pair of linch-pins, from Manching, Ldkr. Pfaffenhofen (Krämer / Schubert 1979) (fig. 16). Found in a corner of an abandoned enclosure ditch, like the Brå cauldron the Manching linch-pins possibly represent ritual deposition since less than 50 m distant, remains of two wheels were discovered (Jacobi 1974, #1796; Lorenz 2004, 94-95). Despite the find also of late LT painted pottery and Middle LT wheel-turned wares in the general area (Gebhard 1989a, 44 and Anm. 143) the linch-pins must have been old when deposited. More specifically, the Manching birds may represent respectively the Eagle 20 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW Fig. 16. Manching, Kr. Pfaffenhofen: a-b details of pair of bronze and iron linch-pins; a with traces of “enamel” inlay, width c. 36 mm. Archäologisches Staatsammlung, Munich. Photos: J. Bahloo, Römisch-Germanische Kommission, Frankfurt a. M. Owl (Bubo bubo bubo) and a falcon or kestrel (Falco sp.) (Megaw 1981, 141-142 and fig. 9). The addition of red “enamel” – strictly a vitreous paste – on the head of one of the linch-pins is very similar to that employed on a complex belt-chain from Manching-Steinbichel grave 37 (Krämer / Schubert 1979, 375 and Taf. 1/3; Krämer 1985, Taf. 23/1; Challet 1992, 85 and fig. 39/1: “LT C2”) suggesting perhaps the product of the same workshop (Gebhard in lit.). It is still an open question as to what a degree the Disney style can strictly be regarded as a localised style or whether it should rather be regarded as similar responses by several disparate crafts-centres to the same artistic stimuli. Indeed, a sobering thought – it is by no means impossible to regard many of the works discussed here as the product of one workshop. Certainly, insofar as absolute dating may be applied to the group, this fits in with the historic mass movement of the Celts into the Balkans. The discovery in 1941 on the edge of a late 4th-early 3rd century BC flat cemetery at Brno-Maloměřice, “Plíze”, okr. Brnovenkov in Moravia of a number of openwork bronze mounts presumably for a spouted wooden flagon with animal, bird and human forms (Meduna et al. 1992; Čižmářová 2005) (fig. 17) has resulted in the locus for the style having been placed in Central Europe (Klindt-Jensen 1953, 67-73); a noticeable feature of the Brno mounts is the way in which grotesque animal, or rather bird’s heads appear at almost every turn. Another detail which links Brno (fig. 17f-g), Brå, Paris (the terret with “grotesque” faces: fig. 14b) and a pair of small terrets with curious little snouted heads from the second of the Roissy chariot graves (fig. 15d) is the parallel combed hair or main (see further below). The argument for a Central European source for the “Disney” style might seem to be strengthened by the recent discovery in Moravia at Němčice nad Hanou, okr. Prostšjov of a “Plastic” ornamented single-edged knife handle (Čižmář / Kruta 2011). The basic motif is the rimmed “eye” which is the trade-mark of many of the “Disney” group. The site, an important open settlement with evidence of glassmanufacture and coinage from a number of Mediterranean locations CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... 21 b a c d f e g Fig. 17. Brno-Maloměřice, “Plíze”, okr. Brno-venkov. Bronze mounts probably from a spouted wooden flagon from a disturbed grave: a-b large mount fitting around spout, height cа. 12 mm; c-d mount, width 56 mm; e-g handle, max. width 115 mm. Moravské zemské muzeum, Brno. Photos: d, f J. V. S. Megaw; all others: Moravské zemské museum 22 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW contemporary with LT B2, would seem to support the argument – to which we shall return – of a date in the first half of the third century BC and the Balkan campaigns of 280 BC and after. However, in view of the recent French evidence, the primacy of Central Europe is not entirely secure. Flemming Kaul (1995, 32-34), while suggesting that, as with the later Gundestrup cauldron found at Rævemosen (Aars), Brå may have been brought from Central Europe by returning Cimbri, also draws attention not only to technological similarities to the Manching linch-pins but also to a ring mount from the Bavarian oppidum which has been identified as a fragment of a Hellenistic hanging-lamp in the form of a peacock (Ernst Künzl in litt.; see Krämer / Schubert 1979, n. 25 citing Klindt-Jensen 1953, 19, 65 and fig. 11) one is tempted to think of the Hellenistic bronzes in the Mezek tholos. That the Brno bronzes represent an astronomical chart of the heavens on the eve of Beltane, 14 June 280 BC as has been recently suggested (Kruta / Bertuzzi 2007), is intriguing if not believable. It is more pertinent to return to the topic of the rare occurrence in early La Tène art of “naturalistic” depictions of the human face. We have already observed that one of the Brno mounts depicts two opposing human heads is an extremely rare case in early Celtic iconography of a naturalistic, indeed portrait-like, depiction. Two other somewhat earlier examples are the head at the base of the handle of the spouted flagon from the “princess’s” chariot burial at Waldalgesheim, Kr. Kreuznach and the silver Scheibenhalsring supposedly from Mâcon (Saône-et-Loire) (Megaw 1967; compare Frey 1995, 238-239 and Taf. 35/1 and 32; Megaw / Megaw 2001, 101 and ill. 45 and 135). Nancy Sandars’ description of the Brno heads is of “two strikingly naturalistic human heads with contrasting expressions [which] could stand for genial and sardonic “humours” (Sandars 1985, 185, ill. 371). It would seem that the representational depiction of the human form must have had a powerful intent tantamount to running contrary to a virtual taboo. Despite the historical contacts with the Hellenistic world just noted, Gebhard’s suggestion that there is a good Hellenistic model for the Brno double “portraits” (Gebhard 1989b) also seems intrinsically unlikely. Certainly there are close points of stylistic similarity between the far-flung distribution of the pieces we have been discussing and as is the case so often in studying early Celtic art it is the details which are significant. At the cruder level there are obvious similarities which now can be made between the linch-pins of “La Cotharet” and Mezek – closer than with the Paris example as previously cited (See for example Kramer / Schubert 1959, Abb. 3). A general feature is the treatment of the eyes, in each case a pointed oval with a bordering raised ridge (see for example fig. 12; 13b; 14; 17c-d). But more telling is the similarity in the treatment of the hair on all our Disney style group. In each case the fringe – or forelock – of the Brå cattle, the two small circular fittings from “La Fosse Cotharet” and the main bull’s head of the largest Brno mount and the grotesque Paris mount, is shown brushed back in a series of parallel strands. But it should be noted that neither of these features appear on the Mezek bronzes and claims of close association between them and the Paris mounts look less certain than a b Fig. 18a-b. “Lower Danube”. Bronze mount (?), shield mount, diam. 35 mm. Private collection. Photos: Y. Hurni, Historisches Museum, Bern CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... 23 when Jacobsthal first made them. At this juncture, one should recall the long-held belief in the itinerant nature of much fine La Tène metal-working (Megaw 1985, 167-172; most recently Modaressi-Tehrani 2009, chap. VIII). Add to this that such are the stylistic similarities of the Disney style that the question of the location of a centre of production is not easily answered. A more westerly ultimate source than has previously thought to be the case seems a distinct possibility; the little bronze handle with a fine bull’s head reminiscent of both Maloměřice and Brå and supposedly from Mâcon may be significant here (Megaw 1962). On the other hand it is many years since Miklós Szabó first drew attention to the importance of Central and Eastern Europe in the development of the Plastic style (Szabó 1989). While there is no question as to Moravia’s rôle in certain aspects of Jacobsthal’s Plastic style, particularly with regard to the series of arm- and foot-rings found particularly there but also in southern Germany (Kruta 1975, 75-89), continued support for the region as the birthplace of our subgroup (Čižmář / Kruta 2011) is another matter. unfortunately, historical sources are of no help in establishing a route from either eastern France or Central Europe to Thrace. There are, however two other possible links between western and eastern Europe and the Hellenistic world. First is the well-known “warrior” grave in the cemetery of Ciumeşti, jud. Satu Mare (Rusu 1971; Rustoiu 2006; 2008b). Here certainly are all the attributes of a chieftain – the helmet with its articulated eagle which stylistically certainly does not look Celtic and probably was a secondary feature, the made-to-measure greaves (a product of a Hellenistic workshop) and the chainmail with its typically “Plastic” circular mount with its low relief triskele – once more reminiscent of elements of later sword-style. While classical sources ascribe the invention of chainmail to the Celts, the archaeological evidence is scattered spatially and chronologically (Rustoiu 2005, 49-52); more or less contemporary with Ciumești are the remains of chainmail from Kirkburn (Yorkshire) (Stead 1991, 5456 and fig. 45) and Fluitenberg (Drente) (Van der Sanden 2003-2004; Wijnhoven 2010). To be sure, the image that Rustoiu paints of a welltravelled warrior returning home from leading a band of mercenaries in the eastern Mediterranean, is a tempting one. Be that as it may and noticing in passing other possible and earlier evidence for the last resting places of Gaulish mercenaries in the Balkans (Guštin et al. 2011) attention must be drawn to the recent publication of a circular bronze fitting purchased by a Swiss couple in Wiesbaden with a possible provenance in the Lower Danube (Müller 2011) (fig. 18). While the lack of any firm evidence as to find spot or association is unfortunate, as Müller notes, the bronze is clearly in the “Plastic” style; features of the Ciumești roundel can be seen particularly in its central triskel. Even more telling are the crested bird’s heads with prominent oval eyes and down-curving bills which form the main elements of the design. These are very similar to the bird’s heads which are to be found on several of the Brno-Maloměřice bronzes (cf. Meduna et al. 1992, Abb. 4, 5, 7, 9). Again, visions are conjured up that we might have here a relic of a grave of one of those warriors who failed to return from the Balkan wars and the pendulum might be thought to be once more swinging towards Central Europe as the homeland of our “Disney” style. 24 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW In conclusion, we must return to the question of the reasons for establishing dating and context of the Mezek bronzes and to offer yet again a range of possibilities. As to chronology, while some time around the middle of the third century BC for their deposition would, as just noted, be possible having consideration of the dating of the historically dated Gaulish incursions into the Balkans, a reliance on Mezek as a fixed chronological point would appear to be no longer so secure as it seemed to Jacobsthal (1944, 151-152). It is therefore highly problematic to place the “Plastic” style at the end of the fourth century BC as the result of dating the Mezek burial(s) in the last quarter of the same century – for which there is no firm evidence (See Gebhard 1989, 126-127). Secondly, as we have argued, there is no support for the theory that these chariot fittings were part of a complete chariot burial as repeated most recently, albeit with an element of doubt, by Schönfelder (2002, 372). We are not alone in our view – see the brief but even-handed discussion by Müller (2009). Barry Cunliffe (1997, 174-175) has summed up the problem. He asks, was the “chariot burial” that of “a Celtic chieftain, his lineage laying claim to territorial legitimacy by choosing an indigenous tomb for the interment, was the chariot a diplomatic gift from a Celt to a Thracian, or was it a Celtic chariot captured by a Thracian?” Leaving aside the assumption that there was a chariot as opposed to a selection of fittings, we must remember the suggestive evidence of Manching and the long tradition of ritual deposition in the Iron Age (Kurz 1995; Bradley 1998, esp. chap. 4). Whatever may have been the intent – and by whom, Celt or Thracian – we can be certain that, as to the purpose for the deposition, for once that tired old explanation, ritual, must be justified. Not only do all the pieces discussed here have close stylistic links but they are associated with chariots or vessels clearly of considerable significance. These are objects indicating high status whose imagery must have had more than simply decorative significance even if we can only guess what that significance might have been. As already argued, there is no good reason to regard the Mezek bronzes as having been associated with a complete chariot burial or as a Celtic offering to Thracian nobility. Of the various scenarios that have been proposed, that by Totko Stoyanov (Stoyanov 2010; following Домарадски 1984, 126) seems most persuasive. Adaios, some of whose coinage bears a boar and spear, is assumed to have served as a general to Antigonos II Gonatas, the powerful King of Macedonia. Residing latterly in the area of Mezek, Adaios, having taken part in the decisive defeat of the Celts at Lysimachia in 277 BC, may well have collected the bronzes on the battlefield, then to have them placed as trophies in his last resting place, the great mound of Mal Tepe. JVSM Acknowledgements JE would like to thank Bela Dimova, Emil Nankov, Totko Stoyanov, Milena Tonkova and Chavdar Tzochev for discussions on various aspects of the topic, which helped to develop my ideas put forward in the article. I am also indebted to my co-author Emeritus Prof. Vincent Megaw for his patience and invaluable support during the preparation of the text. Responsibility for any inconsistencies however is entirely mine. CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... 25 JVSM wishes to record his thanks to a number of colleagues and first and foremost to the Great Britain/East Europe Centre who materially assisted my first visit to Bulgaria in 1980, a visit which gave me the opportunity to study the Mezek bronzes for the first time. For similar facilities and for discussing the objects in our paper over many years I have to thank three no longer with us: René Joffroy, Ole Klindt-Jensen and Werner Krämer. From a younger generation, I must thank – even when I have not agreed with their wise counsels – Miloš Čižmář, Jana Čižmářová, Rupert Gebhard, Thierry Lejars, Felix Müller, Martin Schönfelder, Nikola Theodossiev and Katja Winger. Both of us are particularly fortunate to have been able to reproduce the excellent photographs of Jürgen Bahlo, Lennart Larsen and Roza Staneva. Bibliography Aтанасов, Г. 2006. Шпори от късножелязната епоха, открити в Шуменския регион. – Известия на Историческия музей Шумен 13, 25-48. Венедиков, И. 1955. Келтското нашествие в нашите земи през ІІІ в. пр. н. е. под светлината на археологическите материали. – Исторически преглед 3, 77-97. Венедиков, И. / Герасимов, Т. 1973. Тракийското изкуство. София. Гинев, Г. 2000. Тракийски могили при село Кралево, Търговищко. Варна. Домарадски, М. 1998. Tракийската култура в прехода към елинистическата епоха. In: Домарадски, М. / Танева, В. Tракийската култура в прехода към елинистическата епоха (= Емпорион Пистирос 2). Септември. 11-76. Домарадски, М. 1988. Тракийски богати погребения. – Terra Antiqua Balkanica 3, 78-86. Домарадски, М. 1984. Келтите на Балканския полуостров. София. Домарадски, М. 1983. Келти и траки. – Изкуство 32, 4, 38-42. Иванов, Я. 2006. Възглавниците/ възглавията – художествен или сакрален елемент в гробничните съоръжения и погребения? In: Гергова, Д. (съст.). Гетите – култура и традиции. 20 години проучвания на Свещарската гробница и резервата „Сборяново“ (= Хелис V). София. 132-154. Китов, Г. 2005. Александровската гробница. Варна. Китов, Г. 2003. Долината на тракийските владетели (І). – Археология 44, 1, 13-28. Китов, Г. 2003а. Долината на тракийските владетели (IІ). – Археология 44, 2, 28-42. Китов, Г. 1994. Тракийски гробнично-култов комплекс в могилата Оструша край Шипка. – Проблеми на изкуството 27, 4, 13-20. Кузманов, М. 2005. Конят в погребалния обред у траките (по материали от V-І в. пр. Хр.). – Хелис 4, 98-107. Маджаров, К. 2011. За хронологията на монументалните гробни съоръжения от източния некропол в Историко-археологическия резерват Сборяново. In: Баръмова, М. / Стоянов, Б. (съст.). Collegium Historicum I. София. 241-255. Миков, В. 1954. Античната гробница при Казанлък. София. Нехризов, Г. / Първин, М. 2011. Надгробна могила със зидана гробница при с. Долно Изворово, общ. Казанлък. – Bulgarian е-Journal of Archaeology 1, 41-69. <www. be-ja. org> Нехризов, Г. / Първин, М. 2010. Надгробна могила със зидана гробница при с. Долно Изворово, общ. Казанлък. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2009 г., 232-234. Рабаджиев, К. 2011. Гробниците в Тракия: мавзолеи, храмове, хероони (Част 1). – Археология 52, 1, 44-60. Рабаджиев, К. 2011a. Гробниците в Тракия: мавзолеи, храмове, хероони (Част 2). – Археология 52, 2, 25-31. архитектура в българските земи през V-ІІІ в. пр. н. е. Ямбол. Стоянова, Д. 2002. Монументалната архитектура в Тракия V-ІІІ в. пр. Хр. Строителни материали, техники, конструкции, ордери. Дисертация за присъждане на образователна и научна степен доктор. София. Филов, Б. 1937. Куполните гробници при Мезек. – Известия на Българския археологически институт 11, 1-107. Филов, Б. 1934. Надгробните могили при Дуванлий в Пловдивско. София. Anastassov, J. 2011. The Celtic presence in Thrace during the 3rd century BC in the light of new archaeological data. In: Guštin, M. / Jevtić, M. (eds.). The Eastern Celts. The communities between the Alps and the Black Sea. Koper. 227-239. Anastassov, J. / Megaw, R. / Megaw V. / Mircheva, E. forthcoming. Walt Disney comes to Bulgaria. A bronze mount in the Museum of Archaeology, Varna. In: Colin, A. et al. (eds.). L’âge du Fer en Europe. Mélanges offerts à Olivier Buchsenschutz. Bordeaux. Andrianou, D. 2009. The furniture and furnishings of Ancient Greek houses and tombs. Cambridge. Andrianou, D. 2006. Chairs, beds and tables. Evidence of furnished interiors in Hellenistic Greece. – Hesperia 75, 219-266. Archibald, Z. 1998. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus unmasked. Oxford. Рабаджиев, К. 2002. Елински мистерии в Тракия. Опит за археологически прочит. София. Archibald, Z. 1985. The gold pectoral from Vergina and its connections. – Oxford Journal of Archaeology 4, 2, 165-181. Русева, М. 2002. Тракийска гробнична Bouzek, J. 2005. Celtic campaigns 26 in Southern Thrace and the Tylis Kingdom: The Duchcov fibula in Bulgaria and the destructions of Pistiros in 279/8 BC. In: Dobrzańska, H. / Megaw, V. / Poleska, P. (eds.). Celts on the margin. Studies in European cultural interaction 7th century BC – 1st century AD dedicated to Zenon Woźniak. Kraków. 93-101. Bouzek, J. 2005a. Thracians and their Neighbours. Their Destiny, Art and Heritage. – Studia Hercynia 9, 1-274. Bradley, R. 1998: The passage of arms: an archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoard and votive deposits. Oxford. 2 ed. Brock, T. / Homann, A. 2011. Schlachtfeldarchäologie: Auf den Spuren des Krieges. Archäologie in Deutschland. Sonderfet 2011. Carney, E. 2010. Macedonian women. In: Roisman, J. / Worthington, I. (eds.). A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Malden, MA / Oxford. 409-427. Chrysostomou, P. 2011. The Macedonian tombs. In: Lilibaki-Akamati, M. / Akamatis, I. / Chrysostomou, A. / Chrysostomou, P. The Archaeological Museum of Pella. John S. Latsis Fondation Museum Cycle. Athens. 269-281. Čižmář, M. / Kruta, V. 2011. un manche de coutelas exceptionnel de Němčice en Moravie. – Archeologické rozhledy 63, 425-452. Čižmářová, J. 2005. Keltské pohřebiště v Brně-Maloměřicích / Das keltische Gräberfeld in Brno-Maloměřice (= Pravěk supplementum 14). Brno. Delemen, I. 2006. The unplundered chamber tomb on Ganos Mountain in southeastern Thrace. – American Journal of Archaeology 110, 251-273. Delemen, I. 2004. Tekirdağ Naip Tümülüsü. Istanbul. Dimova, B. 2010. Ideological programs in Bulgarian Archaeology. unpublished BA dissertation. university of Cambridge. Domaradzki, M. 1980. Présence celte en Thrace au début de l’époque hellénistique (IVe – IIIe siècle av. n. è.) – Actes du IIe Congrès International de Thracologie. Vol. І. Bucureşti. 459-466. Domaradzki, M. 1976. Présence des Celtes en Thrace au IIIe siècle avant n. è. – Thracia Antiqua 1, 25-38. Duval, P.-M. 2009. Les Celtes. Paris. 1970 éd. revisée par C. Eluère. Dyygve, E. / Poulsen, F. / Rhomaios, K. 1934. Das Heroon von Kalydon (= JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Shifter 7, Ræke historisk og filolosofisk 4/4). København. Kitov, G. 2003. The Griffin tomb. In: Thracia 15 (in honorem annorum LXX Alexandri Fol). Sofia. 303-312. Emilov, J. 2007. La Tène finds and the indigenous communities in Thrace. Interrelations during the Hellenistic period. – Studia Hercynia 11, 57-75. Kitov, G. 1999. Royal insignia and temples in the Valley of the Thracian rulers. – Archaeologia Bulgarica 3, 1, 1-20. Emilov, J. 2005. Changing paradigms: Modern interpretations of Celtic raids in Thrace reconsidered. In: Dobrzańska, H. / Megaw, V. / Poleska, P. (eds.). Celts on the margin. Studies in European cultural interaction 7th Century BC – 1st Century AD dedicated to Zenon Woźniak. Kraków. 103-108. Filov, B. 1937. The beehive tombs of Mezek. – Antiquity 11, 300-305. Fol, A. 1991. The chariot burial at Mezek. In: Moscati, S. (ed.). The Celts (exh. cat.). Milan. 384-385. Fol, A. / Egami, N. (eds.). 1979. Thracian treasures from Bulgaria (exh. cat.). Tokyo. Frey, O.-H. 1995. Das Grab von Waldalgesheim: Ein Stilphase des keltischen Kunsthandwerks. In: Joachim, H.-E. Waldalgesheim: Das Grab einer keltischen Fürstin (= Kataloge des Rheinischen Landesmuseums Bonn 3). Köln. 159-206. Gebhard, R. 1989a. Der Glasschmuck aus dem Oppidum von Manching (= Die Ausgrabungen in Manching 11). Stuttgart. Gebhard, R. 1989b. Zu einem Beschlag aus Brno-Maloměřice – Hellenistische Vorbilder keltischer Gefäßappliken. – Germania 67, 2, 566-571. Guštin, M. / Kuzman, P. / Malenko, V. 2011. Ein keltischer Krieger in Lichnidos Ohrid, Mazedonien. – Folia archaeologica Balkanica 2, 185-195. Hamdy, O. 1908. La sanglier du Meuzek. – Revue archéologique 1, 1-3. Hawkes, C. F. C. 1947. Paul Jacobsthal. Early Celtic art. A review. – Journal of Roman Archaeology 37, 191-198. Jacobi, G. 1974. Werkzeug und Gerät aus dem Oppidum von Manching (= Die Ausgrabungen in Manching 5). Wiesbaden. Jacobsthal, P. J. 1944. Early Celtic art. Oxford. Reprinted with corrections, 1969. Jacobsthal, P. J. 1940. Kelten in Thrakien. – Επιτύμβιον Χρήστου Τσούντα. Αρχείον του Θρακικού Λαογραφικού και Γλωσσικού Θησαυρού 6, 391-400. Klindt-Jensen, O. 1953. Bronzekedele fra Brå (= Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter 3). Åarhus. Kouzmanov, M. 2005. The horse in Thracian burial rites. In: Bouzek, J. / Domaradzka, L. (eds.). The culture of Thracians and their neighbours (= British Archaeological Reports International Series 1350). Oxford. 143-146. Krämer, W. / Schubert, F. 1979. Zwei Achsnägel aus Manching: Zeugnisse keltischer Kunst der Mittellatènezeit. – Jahrbuch des Deutschen ArchäologischenInstituts 94, 366-389. Kruta, V. / Bertuzzi, D. 2007. La crouche celte de Brno. Dijon. Kurz, G. 1995. Keltische Hort- und Gewässerfunde in Mitteleuropa – Deponierungen der Latènzeit (= Materialhefte zur Archölogie in BadenWürttemberg 35). Stuttgart. Lejars, T. 2005. Le cimetière celtique de La Fosse Cotheret, à Roissy (Val- d’Oise) et les usage funéraires aristocratiques dans le nord du Bassin parisien à l’aube du IIIème siècle avant J.-C. In: Buchsenschutz, O. / Bulard / Lejars, T. (eds.). L’âge du Fer en Ile-de-France. Tours-Paris. 73-83. Lorenz, H. 2004. Chronologische untersuchungen in dem spätkeltischen Oppidum bei Manching am Beispiel der Grabungsflächen der Jahre 19651967 und 1971 (= Die Ausgrabungen in Manching 16). Stuttgart. Mac Congail, B. 2008. Kingdoms of the forgotten. Celtic expansion in southeastern Europe and Asia Minor – 4th-3rd centuries BC. Plovdiv. Meduna, J. / Peškař, I. / Frey, O.-H. 1992. Ein latènezeitlicher Fund mit Bronzebesclägen von Brno-Maloměřice (Kr. Brno-Stadt). – Bericht der Römisch-Germanische Kommission 73, 181-267. Megaw, J. V. S. 2010. Bearing the truth about Celtic art. Kunst der Kelten in Bern. – Antiquity 84, 250-255. Megaw, J. V. S. 2005. Celts in Thrace? A reappraisal. In: Bouzek, J. / Domaradzka, L. (eds.). The culture of Thracians and their neighbours (= British Archaeological Reports International Series 1350). Oxford. 209-214. CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... Megaw, J. V. S. 2004. In the footsteps of Brennos? Further archaeological evidence for the Celts in the Balkans. In: Hänsel, B. / Studenikova, E. (eds.). Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis. Neolithikum und ältere Bronzezeit. Gedenkschrift für Viera NemejcovaPavukova. Rahden. 93-107. Megaw, J. V. S. 1985. Meditations on a Celtic hobby-horse notes towards a social archaeology of Iron Age art. In: Champion, T.C. / Megaw, J.V.S. (eds.). Settlement and society: Aspects of west European prehistory in the first millennium B.C. Leicester. 161-191. Megaw, J. V. S. 1981. une “volière” celtique: quelques notes sur l’identification des oiseaux dans l’art celtique ancien. – Revue archéologique de l’Est et du Centre-Est 32, 3-4, 137-143, Megaw, J. V. S. 1970a. Art of the European Iron Age: A study of the elusive image. Bath. Megaw, J. V. S. 1970b. Cheshire cat and Mickey Mouse: Analysis, interpretation and the art of the La Tène Iron Age. – Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 261-279. Megaw, J. V. S. 1969. Doppelsinnigkeit in der keltischen Kunst, dargestellt an einem Beispiel aus dem Fürstengrab von Bad Dürkheim. – Pfälzer Heimat 3, 85-86. Megaw, J. V. S. 1967. Ein verzierter Frühlatène-Halsring im Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. – Germania 45, 59-69. Megaw, J. V. S. 1966. Two La Tène Finger Rings in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London: an Essay on the Human Face and Early Celtic Art. – Praehistorische Zeitschrift 43/44, 96-166. Megaw, J. V. S. 1962. A bronze mount from Mâcon: A miniature masterpiece of the Celtic Iron Age reappraised. – Antiquaries Journal 42, 1, 24-29. Megaw, J. V. S. / Megaw, M. R. 1995. An unprovenanced La Tène linchpin with “vegetal” decoration in the British Museum. In: Raftery, B. / Megaw, V. / Rigby, V. Sites and sights of the Iron Age. Essays on fieldwork and museum research presented to Ian Mathieson Stead (= Oxbow Monograph 56). Oxford. 139-148. Megaw, M. R. / Megaw, J. V. S. 2001. Celtic art from its beginnings to the Book of Kells. London. 2 ed. Miller S. 1993. The Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles. A painted Macedonian tomb. Mainz. Miller S. 1993a. untersuchungen zur Chronologie Früh-und Hochhellenistischen Goldschmucks by Michael Pfrommer. Book Review. – American Journal of Archaeology 97, 3, 580-581. Mortensen, P. 1991. The Brå cauldron. In: Moscati, S. (ed.). The Celts. Milan (exh. cat.). 375. Müller, F. 2011. Ein latènezeitlicher Zierkopf im plastischen Stil. – Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 41, 4, 521-529. Müller, F. 2009. A Celtic chariot in Thrace. In: Müller et al. Art of the Celts 700BC to AD700 (exh. cat.). Brussels. 220. Ognenova, L. 1961. Les cuirasses de bronze trouvées en Thrace. – Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 85, 501-538. Olivier, L. / Charlier, P. 2008. Masques et monstres celtiques: à propos d’un anneau passé-guide du IIIe s. av. J.-C. attribué à Paris (anomalies physiques et déformations plastiques). – Antiquités nationales 39, 121-128. Pfrommer, M. 1990. untersuchungen zur Chronologie des Früh und Hochhellenistichen Goldschmucks (= Istanbuler Forschungen 37). Tübingen. Prévost, B. (ed.). 1987. Gold of the Thracian horsemen: Treasures from Bulgaria (exh. cat.). Montreal. Rustoiu, A. 2006. A journey to Mediterranean (sic). Peregrinations of a Celtic warrior from Transylvania. – Studia universitatis “Babeş-Bolyai’: Historia 51, 1, 42-85. Rustoiu, A. 2008. Războinici şi societate în aria celtică transilvăneană: Studii pe marginea mormântului cu coif de la Ciumeşti. / Warriors and society in Celtic Transylvania: Studies on the grave with helmet from Ciumeşti. Interferenţe entice şi culturale în milenile i.a. Chr. 13. Cluj-Napoca. Rusu, M. 1969. Das keltische Fürstengrab von Ciumeşti in Rumänien. – 50. Bericht der RömischGermanischen Kommission (1971), 267-300. Sandars, N. 1985. Prehistoric Art in Europe. Harmondsworth / Middlesex. Schönfelder, M. 2002. Das spätkeltische Wagengrab von Boé. Studien zu Wagen und Wagengräbern der jüngeren Latènezeit (= Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Monographien 54). Mainz. Stead, I. M. 1991. Iron Age cemeteries 27 in East Yorkshire (= English Heritage Archaeological Report 22). London. Stoyanov, T. 2010. The Mal-Tepe tomb at Mezek and the problem of the Celtic Kingdom in south-eastern Thrace. In: Vagalinski, L.F. (ed.). In search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (IIIC BC). Sofia. 115119. Stoyanov, T. 2005. The Mal-tepe complex at Mezek. In: Bouzek, J. / Domaradzka, L. (eds.). The culture of Thracians and their neighbours (= British Archaeological Reports International Series 1350). Oxford. 123-128. Stoyanov, T. 2003. On the spurs’ development in Thrace, Macedonia and Illyria during Early Hellenistic times. In: Фол, А. (ред.). Пътят. Сборник научни статии, посветен на живота и творчеството на д-р Георги Китов. София. 198-203. Stoyanov, T. / Stoyanova, D. forthcoming. Early tombs of Thrace: Questions of chronology and the cultural context. In: Henry, O. / Kelp, u. (eds.). Tumulus as sema. Space, politics, culture and religion in the first millenium BC. Szabó, M. 1989. Contribution au problem du style plastique laténien dans la cuvette des Karpates. – Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 41, 17-32. Theodossiev, N. 2007. The beehive tombs in Thrace and their connection with funerary monuments in Thessaly, Macedonia and other oarts of the Ancient World. In: Ancient Macedonia VII. Macedonia from the Iron Age to the death of Phillip II. Thessaloniki. 423-444. Theodossiev, N. 2005. The Thracian monumental tomb at Rozovets. Reexamination of an old discovery. In: Rabadjiev, K. (ed.). Stephanos archaeologicos in honorem professoris Ludmili Getov. Studia Archaeologica universitatis Serdicensis, Suppl. IV. Sofia. 677-684. Theodossiev, N. / Emilov, J. forthcoming. History of Celtic archaeology in Bulgaria. In: Arnold, B. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the archaeology of the Continental Celts. Tomlinson, R. 1974. Thracian and Macedonian tombs compared. – Thracia 3, 247-250. Tonkova, M. 2010. Les parures d’harnachement en or de Thrace et l’orfèvrerie de la haute époque hellénistique. – Bolletino di Archeologia on 28 line 1, 44-63. Tonkova, M. 1997. Traditions and Aegean influences on the jewellery of Thracia in Early Hellenistic times. – Archaeologia Bulgarica 2, 18-31. Tzochev, Ch. forthcoming. The Hellenistic tomb of Mal Tepe in Thrace: A reconsideration of burial sequence and dating. Tzochev, Ch. 2009. Notes on the Thasian Stamp Chronology. – Archaeologia Bulgarica 1, 55-72. Valeva, J. 2005. The Painted Coffers of the Ostrusha Tomb. Sofia. JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW van der Sanden, W. A. B. 2003-2004. Terug naar Fluitenberg – over een maliënkolder uit der ijzertijd. – Palaeohistoria 45-46, 363-375. Venedikov, I. 1998. Thracian royal tombs. In: Marazov, I. (ed.). Ancient gold. The wealth of the Thracians. Treasures from the Republic of Bulgaria (exh. cat.). New York. 72-83. Venedikov, I. 1979. Gold der Thraken: Archäologische Schätze aus Bulgarien (exh. cat.). Mainz. Venedikov, I. 1978. Celtes ou Thraces? In: Studia in honorem Veselini Beševliev. Sofia. 315-324. Келти в Тракия? Преглед на гробницата в Мал-тепе, Мезек, с фокус върху латенските украси за колесница Юлий ЕМИлОВ / Винсент МЕГАу (резюме) Сред инвентара в куполната гробница под могилата Мал-тепе до с. Мезек, Свиленградско, проучена преди осем десетилетия от Б. Филов, са намерени бронзови апликации за колесница в „пластичен стил“, характерен за Западна и Централна Европа през латенската епоха (фиг. 1-6). Тези находки се разглеждат от различни изследователи като емблематични за тракийските галати или археологическо доказателство на „келтската“ експанзия към югоизточния ъгъл на континента. Въпросите за техния произход, датировка, както и обстоятелствата около депонирането им в подмогилното съоръжение продължават да предизвикват дискусии във връзка с взаимоотношенията между „келтите“ и местните общности в древна Тракия през ранноелинистическата епоха. С цел да предложат различни възможности за интерпретация на „келтските“ предмети от Мал-тепе авторите на статията предлагат контекстуален и стилов анализ на частите от колесница, като за първи път се публикуват всички апликации заедно с техните паралели от обширен географски ареал. В търсене на контекста на бронзовите апликации Юлий Емилов прави преглед на историята на откриването и проучванията в Мал-тепе, както и на наличните данни за местонахождението на отделни групи предмети в гробницата (фиг. 7). Отбелязва се значителна разлика между сведенията за находките от кръглата камера и коридора, които са събрани от местните жители, и информацията за гробните инвентари, открити от Б. Филов под Venedikov, I. 1977. Les situles du bronze en Thrace. – Thracia 4, 59-103. Venedikov, I. 1976. Thracian treasures from Bulgaria (exh. cat.). London. Wijnhoven, M. A. 2010. Over stansen en klinken. De vervaardiging van een maliënkolder uit de Ijertijd gevonden bij Fluitenberg. – Nieuwe Drents Volsalmanak 127, 141-156. Winghart, S. 1999. Die Wagengräber von Poing und Hart a.d. Alz. In: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Monographien 43/2. Mainz. 515-532. CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... 29 вторичното подово ниво в предкамерите. При липсата на данни за мястото на голяма част от находките от първата група, към която принадлежат и бронзовите апликации за колесница, всеки опит за реконструкция на пространственото разположение на предметите над горната каменна настилка в гробницата и тяхното определяне по хронологически или функционален признак към отделни гробни инвентари се квалифицира като хипотетичен. Във връзка с предположението на Б. Филов, че част от бронзовите предмети са били закачени към вътрешните стени в гробницата, Ю. Емилов дискутира проблема за предназначението на големи железни гвоздеи и куки в монументалните подмогилни съоръжения в Тракия. Изображенията на елементи на въоръжението и други ценни предмети, „окачени“ по стените на гробниците в древна Македония, се приемат като художествено отражение на антична практика за депониране на гробен инвентар върху куки и гвоздеи в интериора на паметниците, която е разпространена през ранноелинистическата епоха и в Източните Балкани. Интерпретацията на бронзовите апликации за колесница от Малтепе като военни трофеи е допълнителен аргумент в подкрепа на хипотезата, че някои от тези „необичайни“ за древна Тракия и Южна Европа бронзови апликации в „пластичен“ стил са украсявали стените в кръглата гробна камера. Друга насока в търсенето на контекст за частите от „келтска“ колесница е информацията от Б. Филов за желязна ограда (фиг. 8), открита върху каменното гробното ложе в кръглата камера. Първият изследовател на гробницата в Мал-тепе предполага, че тя е поставена там като конструктивен елемент или украса на ложето. Сред многобройните примери на каменни и мраморни легла в гробни съоръжения от древна Тракия и Македония, открити през следващите осем десетилетия, обаче липсва пример, който да потвърди предложената от Б. Филов реконструкция на ложе с желязна ограда. За разлика от апликациите в „пластичен стил“, определени според характерната си декорация от П. Якобстал за части от „келтска“ колесница, железните ленти от кръглата камера, както и два бронзови обръча от коридора не са украсени (фиг. 9). Тези находки от Мал-тепе могат да се причислят към конструктивните елементи от колесница единствено по формални признаци. Местоположението им е в основата на заключението, че само отделни части от предварително разглобена „келтска“ двуколка са депонирани „pars pro toto“ в различни помещения на гробницата. Въпросът за датирането и възможностите за историческа интерпретация на латенските украси и елементите от колесница в Мал-тепе е пряко свързан с трудностите при дефиниране на техния контекст и продължителната дискусия за периодите в използването на гробницата (фиг. 10). П. Якобстал предполага, че тези находки сред гробния инвентар отразяват „келтски“ гроб от времето на келтските походи към Балканите през втората четвърт на ІІІ в. пр. Хр., който е по-късен от двете фази, разграничени от Б. Филов. Въпреки опита на И. Венедиков да аргументира хипотезата за „тракийски“ произход на бронзовите апликации М. Домарадски потвърждава предложената от П. Якобстал идентификация на находките в „пластичен стил“ от Мал-тепе като импорт в древна Тракия от латенската културна зона. украсите от „келтска“ колесница са важен хронологически индикатор при определянето на третата последна фаза на 30 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW погребения в гробницата, която според М. Домарадски включва находките в дългия коридор и представлява гроб на тракийски династ от времето след „голямото келтско нашествие“ в Източните Балкани. Разположението на гробния инвентар и преустройствата в подмогилното съоръжение са в основата на неговата теза, че подмогилното съоръжение в могилата Мал-тепе при Мезек е семейна гробница на няколко поколения в рамките на третия хоризонт на богати погребения в Тракия (325/300-250 г. пр. Хр.), дефиниран от същия изследовател. Сравнение между „вторичните гробове“ в предкамерите и находките от коридора обаче поставя под съмнение както интерпретацията на предметите от дромоса като гробен инвентар, така и възможностите за прецизиране на тясна датировка и темпорална разлика „от едно поколение“ между археологическия материал в отделните помещения. Информацията за конски кости, намерени в коридора от местните жители при откриването на гробницата, и значителната разлика между комбинацията от предмети в дромоса с единствените сигурни контексти в елинистическата гробница – два гроба с кремация между каменните настилки в предкамерите – подкрепя заключението, че последната активност във вътрешността на комплекса е свързана с „конски жертвоприношения“. Подобна практика е регистрирана в коридора или пред фасадата на други монументални подмогилни съоръжения в Източните Балкани от същия период, поради което ситуацията в Мал-тепе не представлява изключение. Данните за препогребване в предкамерите на кремирани човешки кости и инвентар от каменните урни в куполното помещение също са в противоречие с тезата за последователни погребения на няколко поколения и дълъг период на използване на монументалното гробно съоръжение. Прегледът на историята на комплекса не позволява да се установи пряка връзка между депонирането на частите от „келтска“ двуколка с отделни гробни контексти във вътрешността на гробницата. Корелация с тесен хронологически индикатор като тасоска амфора с печат от кръглата камера и сходство между елементите от конска амуниция в Мал-тепе с украсите за конска сбруя от Кралево обаче отново насочват към втората четвърт на ІІІ в. пр. Хр. и кулминацията на келтските походи в Тракия. При липсата на други латенски находки в комплекса или индикации за „келтски“ или „тракийски“ гроб в дромоса изглежда вероятно военни трофеи от битката при лизимахия (277 г. пр. Хр.) да са поставени в различни помещения на гробницата като част от трансформациите на структурата и превръщането на могилата в хероон. Втората част на статията от Винсент Мегау предлага детайлен анализ на формата и стила на украсите на „келтската“ колесница от Мезек. Въпреки популярността на апликациите и включването им в многобройните международни изложби за „тракийско“ изкуство, за първи път в настоящата статия се публикува пълен каталог на латенските предмети от Мал-тепе (фиг. 1-6). Той включва само находки, които по стилови характеристики принадлежат на „келтското изкуство“ и представляват елементи от колесница, докато други като бронзова тока за ремък и халки с механизъм на затваряне „щекфершлус“ не отговарят на критериите за определянето им като латенски и причисляването им към тази група. С изключение на една апликация с птичи глави (?) (фиг. 6), останалите украси вероятно са произведени в една CELTS IN THRACE? A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE TOMB OF MAL... 31 работилница и могат да се разглеждат като част от комплект. Два бронзови клина (фиг. 4) за главините на колелата са най-източните екземпляри на тип с правоъгълна горна част, известен от обширна територия и разпространен на запад до средното течение на река Рейн и областта Шампан. Броят на тези предмети е единственият аргумент за предположението, че частите от колесница в Малтепе принадлежат на двуколка. Известните паралели на четирите малки (фиг. 2) и големия водач за ремъци (фиг. 1d), както и на апликацията, завършваща с халка и диск (фиг. 5), позволяват тяхната реконструкция като елементи от ярема. Стиловият анализ (фиг. 11) определя бронзовите украси за колесница от Мезек като представителни находки в дефинирания от П. Якобстал „пластичен стил“ на „келтското изкуство“. На Винсент Мегау принадлежи определението на тези паметници като „Дисни стил“, заради метаморфозата на форми и подхода да се композира сложен образ от извити и свързани линии, както в съвременната анимация. „Пластичният“ или „Дисни“ стил се отличава със специфичната стилизация на антропоморфни и зооморфни глави, която заедно с други абстрактни форми е развитие на елементи, характерни за двуизмерния „растителен“ или „Валдалгесхайм стил“. Изображенията на лицата върху апликациите от Мезек следват тенденция за превръщането на класическата палмета и нейните ластари в абстрактен човешки лик. Те са сравними с образите върху раннолатенски златен пръстен с предполагаемо местонамиране на остров Сардиния (фиг. 12), както и с по-натуралистичното представяне на лица върху металните части на съд от Бърно-Маломержице (фиг. 17). Голяма част от примерите за „пластичен“ или „Дисни“ стил са художествено оформени украси за колесница, но подобни образи са откриват и върху други предмети, както показват примерите от Сардиния, Моравия и апликациите върху котела от Бро (Дания) (фиг. 13). Общата датировка на образците е в първата половина на ІІІ в. пр. Хр. (латен B2-C1) и съвпада с времето на келтските на шествия към Балканите. Важно значение за нейното прецизиране са апликации за колесници от улица „Турнефор“ в Париж (фиг. 14) и подобни находки от раннолатенския некропол ла Фос Котаре при Роаси-ан-Франс (фиг. 15). Специално внимание заслужават два бронзови клина с правоъгълна горна част, открити като гробен инвентар и датирани към началото на ІІІ в. пр. Хр. (латен B2), които са сходни не само с екземплярите от улица „Турнефор“, но и с находките от Мал-тепе (фиг. 4). По-късните примери на изделия в същия стил включват бронзови клинове за главини от Манхинг (фиг. 16) и апликациите към котела от Бро, които са датирани към следващото столетие. Техният „култов“ контекст обаче предизвиква съмнения дали не са свързани с „ритуален депозит“ на вече стари предмети през период латен С2. Широкото географско разпространение на изделията с характерна форма и декорация поставя въпроса, дали те са продукт на един общ център, или са резултат на сходни художествени стимули, които въздействат на няколко отделни ателиета. Бронзовите апликации към съда от Бърно-Маломержице с животински, птичи и човешки изображения (фиг. 17), датирани към последното десетилетие на ІV в. и началото на ІІІ в. пр. Хр., и аналогии на представените мотиви с фигурите от Бро, Париж и апликациите от гробове с колесници при Роаси са в основата 32 JuLIJ EMILOV / VINCENT MEGAW на хипотеза за централноевропейски произход на „пластичния“ стил. Допълнителен аргумент на предположението е украсата на дръжка на нож от Немчице в Моравия, където по времето непосредствено преди и по време на балканските кампании съществува значителен регионален център. Анализът на характерните елементи при представянето на отделните антропоморфни изображения като оформянето на очите и прическата обаче показва, че въпреки общите сходства между екземплярите в „пластичен стил“ се отбелязват и значителни разлики. Като се има предвид мобилността на майсторите и трансфера на предмети, свързани с престижа, е трудно да се защити тезата за единен център на производство и общ произход на изделията. Апликациите от Мал-тепе са сравними с находките от съвременния Париж и неговите околности, но характерни детайли при оформянето на косата ги отличават както от продукцията на ателиетата в Западна Европа, така и от изображенията върху екземплярите от Моравия. В заключението на статията Винсент Мегау дискутира значението на келтските походи и феномена на наемничеството във връзка с разпространението на предметите в „пластичен стил“ на Балканите, а също и механизма на контакти между Западна с Източна Европа и елинистическия свят. Освен кръгла украса с трискел в нисък релеф, открита при плетена ризница в известния гроб на воин от Чумеш към образците с такива стилови характеристики принадлежи и находка без известен контекст и местонамиране „от Долен Дунав“ (фиг. 18). Нейните аналогии с централноевропейските екземпляри и по-специално с апликациите от Бърно-Маломержице „обръщат посоката на махалото“ отново към Моравия като възможна изходна територия за формирането и разпространението на изделия в „пластичен стил“. По отношение на апликациите от Мал-тепе се посочва отсъствието на данни, които да подкрепят интерпретацията на находките като свързани с гроб с цяла колесница по аналог с погребалните практики в Западна Европа, както и датировка на украсите за колесница в края на ІV в. пр. Хр. Ритуалното обяснение за тяхното депонирането в гробницата се допълва от хипотетичен исторически сценарий с участието на династа Адей, който участва в конфликта на Антигон Гонат с келтска бойна формация при лизимахия, а бронзовите апликации от пленената двуколка са поставени като трофеи в неговата гробница. Emer. Prof. J. V. S. Megaw Department of Archaeology Flinders university GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 S. Australia vincent.megaw@flinders.edu.au Julij Emilov PhD Candidate Department of Archaeology Sofia university St Kliment Ohridski 15 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd. BG-1504 Sofia stoyanoj@gmail.com