Miniature Axes with Zoomorphic Protomes from Greek Sanctuaries in the Light of Thraco-Greek Contacts in the 8th-6th Century BC

ArchAeologiA BulgAricA XV, 1 (2011), 1-12

1 H: 11.1 cm (Bammer

Ivaylo KARADZHINOV
The subject of the study are seven bronze miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes found in four sanctuaries in mainland and island Greece (the Artemision of Ephesus1 (2 pcs.), the temple of Aphaia on the island of Aegina2 (2 pcs.), Zeus sanctuary in Dodona3, the Acropolis of Athens4, and an example of an assumed Northern Greek origin5) that add up to the information about the nature of the contacts between ancient Thrace and Greece in the period 8th-6th century BC (fig. 1; fig. 4)6. These contacts are seen as a specific combination of direct and indirect relations in different spheres of material and non-material culture, which take place between certain areas in the two regions ( 1987, 56 f.; 2000; Bozhkova 2002; 2006; / 2010). The miniature axes have two or three zoomorphic protomes on the heel, as well as an opening for hanging. They are found solely in a ritual context and are not typical of toreutic traditions of the regions in which the relevant Greek sanctuaries are situated. These circumstances, along with the resemblance established by finds from Northwestern Thrace, allows their inclusion into the first group of bronze objects of Balkan origin differentiated by K. Kilian and found in Greek votive deposits in the Late Geometric and Archaic period (Kilian 1975b, 119-120). The presence of the bronzes in a Greek milieu is pointed out to be evidence of the existence of direct contacts with the inner Balkans in the period between the 8th and 6th century BC (Kilian 1975b, 119). Their deposition could have been done either by Greeks or by some population that was the bearer of the traditions of manufacturing and use of these artifacts (Kilian 1973, 431; Kilian 1975b, 119-120; Kilian-Drilmeier 1985; Kilian-Drilmeier 2002, 225-228). This phenomenon was part of general Mediterranean pattern (fig. 3/4-6) (Kilian-Drilmeier 1985; for the distribution of the Macedonian bronzes in Greek sanctuaries cf. Bouzek 1974, 175 f.; Bouzek 1997, 110-112; see Verger 2003 on synchronous votives from Western Europe). Closest parallels with the examples from Balkan Thrace are displayed by the miniature axe with the three zoomorphic protomes from the Artemision of Ephesus found near the early peripteros (fig. 1/7-8). In comparison with the finds from Teteven7 and Chomakovtsi8, considerable similarities are observed in the shaping of the edge and the positioning of the protomes, which follow an analogous species sequence (goat, ram, bull9) (fig. 2/10-12). Differences can be noticed with respect to the holes made. In the case of the find from Ephesus they are located sideways from the protomes (fig. 2/10). The adaptation of the shape of the axe with the need to make holes could indicate a further typological development. The find from Teteven has an opening for a handle, while the one from Chomakovtsi is equipped with holes for hanging that do not have an impact on its shape (fig. 2/11-12). This would mean that the Ephesus exemplar is a later one and can be dated to the first half of the 7th century BC according to the dating

1999, 400-401, Taf. 72/1; Klebinder-Gau, 2007, Taf. 58/796, Taf. 110/796) (fig. 1/7-8); H: 5.7 cm (Klebinder-Gau 2007, 122-123, 226, Taf. 58/795) (fig. 1/6).
2 H: 7.2 cm (Furtwngler

1906, 418, #176, Taf. 118/17; cf. Bouzek 1997, 200, fig. 232/1) (fig. 1/1-2); H: 4 cm (Maa / Kilian-Dirlmeier 1998, 83, Abb. 14/73) (fig. 1/3).
3 Preserved H: 6.1

cm (Carapanos 1878, 100, pl. LIV/6; KilianDirlmeier 1979, 243, Taf. 90/156) (fig. 1/5).
4 Unpublished. Cf.

Bouzek 1997, 200-201, #1; Klebinder-Gau 2007, 123, #866-867.

5 H: 5.1 cm (Kilian-

Dirlmeier 1979, 243, Taf. 90/1562) (fig. 1/4).

6 The sites mentioned in the

text in which miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes were found, are underlined.
7 H: 12.5 cm ( 1955,

359, . 2) (fig. 2/12).

8 H: 10.2 cm ( 1955,

259, . 1; cf. 1979, 14, 18, #14) (fig. 2/11). is defined as canonical and the species as preferred sacrificial animals ( 1993, 58; KlebinderGau 2007, 123).

9 Adherence to this sequence

ivaylo karadzhinov

features, suggested by G. Kitov ( 1979, 14-15)10. On the basis of the well known parallels from Northwestern Bulgaria, it seems plausible to determine the axe from the Artemision of Ephesus as a product of the traditions employed in the manufacture of the objects from Teteven and Chomakovtsi. The dating of the miniature axe from Ephesus depends on general stratigraphic observations in the site, in view of its finding in a layer with materials from Mycenaean Age to the Archaic period, while the parallels from Thrace referred to are accidental finds (Bammer 1999, 400-401; Klebinder-Gau 2007, 123; 1955, 359-360). The finding of bronze objects of Balkan origin in several isolated zones of the Artemision, according to G. Klebinder-Gau, evidences that contacts with Northern Greece, Macedonia and Thrace take place within a short period of time, between the end of the 8th and first half of the 7th century BC (KlebinderGau 2007, 211). The prevailing part of the early materials are discovered under the foundations of the so-called Croesus temple, built in 560 BC, which is terminus ante quem for the deposition of the find under study (Klebinder-Gau 2007, 213). Close similarity with finds from Northwestern Thrace is also displayed by one of the two miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes, which was found in the ramp of the temple of goddess Aphaia from the island of Aegina (fig. 1/1-2). On the heel of the axe, shaped as a horizontal axis with two holes, two protomes are
10 With respect to the dat-

Fig. 1. Miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from Greek sanctuaries: 1-3 Aegina, 4 Northern Greece, 5 Dodona, 6-8 Ephesus.

ing scheme proposed by G. Kitov, it must be noted that the assumed smooth evolutionary development of the miniature axes under analysis during the whole Early Iron Age (10th-6th century BC; henceforward EIA) on the basis of prototypes from the preceding period cannot be confirmed by any fixed dates of certainty, especially

as far as the early stages of this genesis are concerned. The singular miniature axes and their parallels, documented in archaeological contexts, are situated in EIA II (8th-6th century BC) and even later (see below). Therefore, regarded as more plausible here is J. Bouzeks position about the binding of the Thracian minor bronze plastic from EIA

with the general tendencies in the geometric art of Southeastern Europe and the determination of the time of their production and use within the period 8th-6th century BC (Bouzek 1974b, 319 f.; Bouzek 2005, 39-40).

miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from greek sanctuaries

11 H: 3.5 cm ( 1965,

170, . 10) (fig. 2/8).

12 H: 3.8 cm ( 1990,

18, . 5-6) (fig. 2/9).

13 H: 7 cm ( 1965,

. 8; Hnsel 1976, Taf. 67/11; cf. Langdon 1993, 147, cat. 50) (fig. 3/1-2).

14 According to J. Bouzek,

originating from todays Northern Greece are two miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes, which were probably found in the region of the lower courses of the rivers Vardar and Struma (i.e. in territories also inhabited by Thracian tribes) (Bouzek 1986, 21, #8-9, fig. 1; cf. Bouzek 1997, 110-111, fig. 112-114; Bouzek 2005, 39-40).
15 H: 6.1 cm; L: 9 cm

(Ivanov 2000, 35, fig. 19/1).

16 H: 6.4 cm; L: 4.3 cm

( 2010, 103-104, . 13-16, . 17).

inbuilt, turned in one direction (fig. 1/1-2). Considerable similarities in formal terms can be noticed at the finds from the villages of Kameno pole11 and Staro selo12 (fig. 2/7, 8-9). One of the protomes is close to the protome of a bull (ox?) on the bronze headstall from Sofronievo13 (fig. 3/1-2), and the second one with the head of a goat on the axe from Chomakovtsi as well as to a find from Northern Greece (fig. 2/5, 11; also Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 187, Taf. 59/1131). The heel of the miniature axe from Aegina, also shaped as a horizontal axis on which the plastic images develop, is similar with examples from Ephesus, Chomakovtsi and Teteven (fig. 2/7, 10-11). The analogies in form and style provide grounds for the miniature axe from Aegina to be identified as a product of the toreutic traditions, characteristic of the region bound between the Ogosta and Vit rivers (Bouzek 1974b, 321; Bouzek 1986, 21; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 243). On the basis of this observation, assumptions can be made concerning the chronology of the find from the island of Aegina. The miniature axe from Kameno pole is found in a tumulus grave, most probably with a fibula, which could be dated to the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 7th century BC ( 1965, 170; Gergova 1987, 43). The bronze headstall from Sofronievo is found in a complex from the 7th century BC (Vasi 1971, 6; Hnsel 1976, 175; Gergova 1987, 49, 60, 62-64, 68; 2009, 19-20). The upper chronological limit is determined by the example from Staro selo village, found in a tumulus with cremation grave, together with an iron bit, which dates the burial to the second half of the 4th century BC ( 1990, 17, . 4; Werner 1988, 45-47). The data available show that the prevailing part of the parallels of the miniature axe from the island f Aegina are dated in the period from the end of the 8th to the 7th century BC (Bouzek 1974b, 321). The discovery of the find from Staro selo village in a context of the second half of the 4th century BC can be explained by its continuous preservation as a relic (?) (Archibald 1998, 173 f.). On the other hand, it is possible for the use of this group of miniature axes to have continued also in the beginning of the Late Iron Age in the region. Analogies with examples from the territory of ancient Thrace can also be given with respect to the partially preserved miniature axe with an opening for hanging and the protome of a goat found in the region of Northern Greece14 (fig. 1/4). The protome, placed sideways to the edge, is positioned in a similar manner to the ones from the Ares15 and Stavri Topalov Collections16 (fig. 2/3, 5-6). With respect to the shaping of the protome of a goat, a parallel can be found in the find from Chomakovtsi and Aegina (fig. 1/2, 4; fig. 2/5, 11) (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 187, Taf. 59/1131). Two of the miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes found in the temple of Aphaia from the island of Aegina and in the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesus (fig. 1/3, 6) do not have exact parallels among the well known examples from Thrace. Characteristic of these is the marked stylization of their protomes with the find from Aegina these are barely touched upon (fig. 1/3). Grounds for their determination as influenced by, or belonging to, the group of Thracian bronzes are both the archetypal parallelism with the miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from the interior of Thrace (mostly expressed in the similarities in the shape of the edge), as well as, indirectly, the data of the finding in the same sites of miniature axes similar in shape and decoration that can, with a greater degree of certainty, be identified as Thracian (Maa / Kilian-Dirlmeier 1998, 83; Klebinder-Gau 2007, 123). In connection with the dating of the example from the Artemision of Ephesus, the observation of the placement of votive offerings of

ivaylo karadzhinov

Fig. 2. Miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from ancient Thrace, Greece and Italy: 1 Dodona, 2 Bitonto (Southern Italy), 3 Stavri Topalov Collection, allegedly from Targovishte region, Northeastern Bulgaria, 4 Chauchitsa (Macedonia), 5 Northern Greece, 6 Ares Collection, 7 Aegina, 8 Kameno pole, 9 Staro selo, 10 Ephesus, 11 Chomakovtsi, 12 Teteven.

Balkan origin in the sanctuary before the middle of the 6th century BC can again be adduced. Having a most uncertain Thracian identification is the miniature axe with two protomes of stylized birds found in Zeus sanctuary in Dodona (fig. 1/5). In contrast to the finds mentioned above, that, with a higher or lower certainty, can be referred to the toreutic traditions in Thrace, the example in question was probably influenced by the circle of Apulian metalwork (fig. 2/1-217) (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 243). In view of the presence of parallels in the shaping of ornithomorphic protomes among the group of so-called Macedonian bronzes (fig. 2/418), and the similarity with the edge of the axe from Stavri Topalov Collection (fig. 2/3), it is assumed that the Balkan origin of the miniature axe cannot be entirely ruled out (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 243; Kossack 1954, 53; Bouzek 1974a, fig. 3-8; Bouzek 2005, 39-40). The miniature axe from Athenian Acropolis is unpublished. The only available information is that it has three zoomorphic protomes modeled on its heel (Bouzek 1997, 200-201, #1; Klebinder-Gau 2007, 123, #866-867). It is possible that the find is similar to the examples from Teteven, Ephesus and Chomakovtsi.

17 Roes 1933, fig. 96; cf.

Kossack 1954, 100, 112, 122, Taf. 11/9, 20.

18 H: 7.7 cm (Kilian-

Dirlmeier 1979, 234, Taf. 84/1499; cf. Bouzek 1974a, fig. 5/29).

miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from greek sanctuaries

Fig. 3: 1-3 Sofronievo; 4-6 Votive offerings of non-Greek origin found at Olympia, Pherai and Samian Heraion during the 8th and the beginning of the 7th century BC (according to Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 233, Abb. 15, 223, Abb. 5, 239, Abb. 20).

ivaylo karadzhinov

The fact that the miniature axes with animal protomes served as votive offering in major sanctuaries in Greece raises the question about the models and mechanisms, which brought them there. The analysis of the objects of an internal Balkan, and in particular of Thracian origin, from Late Geometric and Archaic Greek sanctuaries, reveals the placing of mainly personal objects adornments (pendants, bracelets) and elements of the traditional costume (belts, fibulae, appliques)19 that were initially not designed as votives (Kilian 1973, 434; Kilian 1975b, 119; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 221, 224, Abb. 7, 229, Abb. 12, 234, Abb. 17, 240, Abb. 22; Kilian-Dirlmeier 2002, 225, 227-228; Klebinder-Gau 2007, 211 f.). According to a number of investigators, probably these unpretentious artifacts were not an object of trade and were most probably given as gifts directly by representatives of the Balkan population as individual male and female dedications (Maier 1956, 72; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 220-221, 228, 231, 235, 241; Kilian-Dirlmeier 2002, 227-288; Klebinder-Gau 2007, 206, 208; Kilian 1973, 431; 1987, 58 f.). The impressive plastic decoration and the sizes that do not presuppose their use as tools, along with their finding in grave complexes and cult places in Thrace, set apart the miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes as objects of a high symbolic value ( et al. 1999, 65, 67, 118, . 34/; 1965, 170, . 10/; 1990, 18, . 5-6; 1969, 10, 13; Bouzek 2005, 40; Klebinder-Gau 2007, 123). Perceived in this manner, they can be differentiated from the other votives of inner Balkan and Thracian origin. Concerning some of these artifacts, cf. the ring pendants, there is a suggestion about their use as pre-monetary forms or stylized female idols, and concerning the openwork belts found in a funerary context as signs symbolizing a higher social status (Bouzek 1997, 118; 1982, 66; Vassileva 2007, 673). The miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes, however, are clearly outlined as votives with an unambiguous unitary function in the sphere of ritual and belief20. What is striking is their considerable number in a Greek milieu, which is almost equal to the number of the finds from Thrace. Probably as objects with a cult purpose, they could be interpreted as preferred gift among the communities in Eastern Balkans for sanctuaries in Hellenic cultural milieu. Accepting this interpretation, logically the context of their finding in a Thrace could provide information about the social status and the gender of the dedicators. Concerning the miniature axe from Teteven, there is information about it having been found in the embankment of a tumulus ( 1999, 99; 2004, 45). A spearhead and a horse bit identify the grave from Staro selo village as a warriors ( 1990, 17-18). We have data of the presence of rich burial inventory about the interment from Kameno pole ( 1965, 170). The bronze headstall with a protome of a bull (ox?) from Sofronievo (fig. 3/1-2) that is regarded as functionally isomorphic to the miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes ( 1981, 22) is found in a grave whose inventory characterized the buried man as a warrior with a distinguished role in the local society (Terzan 1995, 85; Vasi 1995, 351, Abb. 2; Vasi 2005, 17; Thedossiev 2000, 92). A bronze phial of Greek (Ionian) origin (fig. 3/3) was found in the same grave, which is an indication of the existence of contacts with Greek centers or the sanctuaries associated with them ( 2009, 19-20). These data allow making the assumption that the axes under study were placed in Greek sanctuaries by the warrior stratum dominating among the communities in the Northwestern Thrace (Terzan 1995, 85). Its representatives would logically have the means and the opportunities to undertake such a journey to the South (Hdt. VI, 34, 1; Philipp 1981, 19; KilianDirlmeier 2002, 228; Bouzek 2005, 40).

19 Fibulae of type II2

according to D. Gergova (1987, 47 f.) (Pherai, Perachora), fibulae of type BI2 according to D. Gergova (1987, 39 f.) (Philia, etc.), openwork belts (Philia, Delphi, Perachora, Argos, Olympia), ring pendants (Philia, Pherai, Dodona, Acropolis of Athens), bracelets with profiled edges (Syphnos) (Payne et al. 1940, pl. 73/18, pl. 82/27; Brock / Young 1949, pl. 11/14-15; Kilian 1975b, Taf. 83-84, Taf. 91; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 7, Taf. 1; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, passim; KilianDirlmeier 2002, 227, Abb. 6, Abb. 10, Taf. 48/722, Taf. 59/905-913, Taf. 93/1463, Taf. 96/1558; Vasi 1977, 33; 1977, 56; Gergova 1980, Chart III; Bouzek 1986, fig. 2; Bouzek 1997, fig. 123, fig. 233; Vassileva 2007, 474; Philipp 1981, 18-19) (cf. fig. 3/4-5). On the finding of parts of horses harness of Balkan origin in sanctuaries from mainland and island Greece in the Late Geometric and Archaic Age cf. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 221, 235, 241-242, Abb. 17; Bouzek 2005, 40.
20 Concerning the

functioning of the axes as high status regalia see Venedikov / Gerassimov 1979, 18-19, 24; 1969, 13; 1981, 22; Klebinder-Gau 2007, 122; Hatas 2009, 215.

miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from greek sanctuaries

Fig. 4. Map of the distribution of miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes and other bronze objects of Eastern Balkan origin in Greece during the 8th-6th century BC.

21 Among the materials dis-

covered so far from the sanctuary in Delphi, an openwork belt characteristic of the Western parts of Thrace and the Central Balkan area in the period between the middle of the 7th and 6th century BC could be identified as a votive of Thracian origin (Kilian 1975b, Taf. 84/1; cf. Vasi 1971; Gergova 1987, 63; Vassileva 2007, 670).

In this context it is important to raise the question whether the finds under scrutiny were placed as individual or as collective gifts. As already mentioned, the offerings of Balkan origin are interpreted as personal dedications. Leading to a similar conclusion are also the individual burials at Staro selo village and Kameno pole. On the other hand, the story about the Thracian tribe of Dolonci, which in a difficult moment sent its basileis to consult the Delphic oracle21 on behalf of the whole community (Hdt. VI, 34, 1-2; 139, 1), shows that it is possible for some of the Thracian objects found in Greek votive deposits to mark not only a personal but also a collective act of placing gifts (Hdt. IV, 33, 1-5 about the sacred gifts of the Hyperboreans, made for the sanctuary on Delos; cf. also the discussion in Verger 2003, 568 f.). The processes leading to the emergence of the artifacts in question in Greek votive deposits are situated in the context of the direct Thraco-Greek contacts in the 8th-6th century BC. Usually these contacts are regarded in terms of the metal and ceramic Greek imports found in Thrace; or in the manufacturing of (mainly in the eastern parts of the peninsula) of island types of fibulae and the integration

ivaylo karadzhinov

of elements from the decoration of Aegean painting styles in the ceramic complex of Southeastern Thrace22 (Kilian 1975a, 163; 1977, 56-57; Stoyanov 1997, 74 f.; Stoyanov / Nikov 1997, 187, 232, 236-237, fig. 50-51; Nikov 1999; Nikov 2000; 2009, 19-24; Tzochev 2010, 98; / 2010, 151-153). The prevailing part of the finds of Thracian origin in general in Eastern Greek sanctuaries are synchronized with the early trade and colonization activity of the poleis associated with them in the region of Northern Aegean and the Southern Thracian coast. As is commonly known, the leading production and trade centers in Ionia took an active part in the colonization of Aegean Thrace that began about the middle of the 7th century BC. In this sense, the fact that the prevailing part of the well known votive offerings of Balkan origin originate precisely from sanctuaries of these centers could hardly be accidental23. In spite of the important role of trade relationships in the establishment of contacts between the regions under investigation, the presence of votives originated from the Thracian lands in sanctuaries from mainland and island Greece could hardly be solely determined as a phenomenon accompanying trade and colonization relations. The thesis that objects of Thracian origin were directly deposited by population from Eastern Balkans justifies the assumption of the existence of a custom for worshipping Greek sacred places by communities in ancient Thrace, based on their popularity and/or similar religious beliefs24 ( 1987, 56, 58 f., 65). These contacts can be classified as non-commercial, interregional contacts based on religious stimuli (Elsner / Rutherford 2005). The proposed contact model implies movement of people25, along with artifacts, which could mean that during EIA II individuals or groups of people (Dillon 1997, xvii) from the interior of Thrace undertook long journeys to prominent Greek sanctuaries26. It seems that religious contacts were the main line of communication between the two regions in a period when trade relations were not yet intensified.
22 According to K. Nikov,

the large sanctuaries in Greece played the role of a contact medium for acquainting the Thracian masters with Greek painting styles ( 2000, 31-32; cf. Risberg 1997, 194-195).
23 The Heraion in Samos is

one of the telling examples in this respect (cf. fig. 3/6) (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 240-241, 249, Abb. 20). On the active trade of the Samos centers in the Northern Aegean cf. Walter-Karydi 1986, 76 f.; Rubinstein / Greaves 2004, 1094-1098; Touratsoglou / Tsakos 2008, 106 f. About the finding of bronzes of inner Balkan origin in Chios, as well as about its colonization and trade activity in Aegean Thrace cf. Boardman 1967, fig. 138/240; Loukopoulou 2004,

879; Rubinstein / Greaves 2004, 1065 f.; Dupont / Skarlatidou 2005, 78-80; Skarlatidou 1986, 102-103; cf. also Roebuck 1986, 8. On Rhodes and Miletus cf. Bouzek 1974a, 175, 179; Kilian-Dirmeier 1985, 241; Klebinder-Gau 2007, 207, 211-212; Rubinstein / Greaves 2004, 1088; 2000, 26 f.; 2002, 482; Nikov 2002, 30 f. For Ephesos cf. Klebinder-Gau 2007, 29-31, Taf. 2/19-20, Taf. 3/21-22; Dominguez 1999, 80; Treister 1999. For Aegina, in general, see Boardman 1980, 16, 48-49, 122-123 and esp. 129-131.
24 Some of the Thracian

votive offerings are found in sanctuaries devoted to deities (Artemis and Hera) which are identified from the Greek written tradition

as goddesses worshipped also in Thrace (Hdt. V, 7, 1; Polyaen. 7, 22). It is assumed that the identification of Greek theonyms with local deities (or a deity such as the Great Mother-Goddess and her hypostases) reflects the existence of identical topoi in the religious concepts of Thracian and Greek communities ( 1981, 22 f.; 1994, 48 f.; 2006, 477, 481, 484; Gocheva 2009). The specific traits in the cult towards Artemis Ephesia, which borrows many aspects from the image of the Anatolian Great MotherGoddess, provide grounds for additional reasoning in this direction (cf. Burkert 1985, 149; Dominguez 1999, 75; Vassileva 2007, 673). As is well known, Cybele is often identified with the

Great Mother-Goddess in Thrace (cf. 1981, 22 f.; 1991, 22 f.; 1994, 65 f.). It is tempting to assume the placement of the miniature axes (and other relevant finds) from the Artemision of Ephesus on the basis of those aspects of the cult towards Artemis of Ephesus that correspond to the religious beliefs and practices related to the Great MotherGoddess among the communities in ancient Thrace.
25 Cf. 2004 who

assumes the presence of Aegean craftsmen in inner Thrace during the final stages of EIA II.

26 See Verger 2003, 564-

569 on different model of distribution of the gifts.

miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from greek sanctuaries

The finding of Thracian bronzes in the period of the 8th-6th century BC in sanctuaries situated in the mainland, island and Asia Minor part of ancient Greece adds still another aspect to the problem of Thraco-Greek contacts that precede or are synchronous to the early stages of the establishment of the apoikiai on North Aegean and West Pontic coast. These links were materialized through cultural interactions that were different in nature trade, exchange of techniques and information between different crafts (ceramic and toreutic) and participation of Thracian population in the worship of Greek sacred places.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

, . 1991. . - VI . . . . ( ). . , . 1969. . XXXI, 5-43. , . / , . 2010. - ( ). In: - . . . 142-157. , . 1987. . In: . . , 6. . 53-73. , . 1982. (I-VI . . . .). In: 1300. , 2. . 63-70. , . 1977. (IVI . . . .). 1, 47-57.

, . 2006. . 5, 476-490. , . / , . / , . / , . / , . / , . / , . / , . / , . / , . 1999. ( XXVI). . , . 2006. (VIII-VI . . .). ( ). . , . 2004. . I . . . . , . 1979. . 2, 13-19. , . 1994. . . , . 1981. . 1, 19-27. , . 1955. . 19, 359-373.

, . 2000. ( ). . , . 2002. , ? . In: . . . . 279-285. , . 1990. . 4, 14-26. , . 1965. . 28, 163-203. , . 1981. . . , . 2009. . . . , . 2004. . 2, 167-174. , . 2010.

. 15, 92-105. . . 1993. (VIII-VI . . .). 1, 56-60. , . 1999. . , . . . Archibald, Z. 1998. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Oxford. Bammer, A. 1999. Zur Bronzezeit im Artemision. In: 100 Jahre sterreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Wien. 399-404. Boardman, J. 1980. The Greeks overseas. London. Boardman, J. 1967. Greek Emporio: Excavations in Chios, 1952-1955 (British School of Athens, Suppl. 6). Oxford. Bouzek, J. 2005. Thracians and their neighbours (Studia Hercynia IX). Prague. Bouzek, J. 1997. Greece, Anatolia and Europe: cultural interrelations during the Early Iron Age (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 122). Jonsered. Bouzek, J. 1986. Les contacts entre la Grce et la Thrace: objets en bronze et cramique, VIIIe-VIe s. av. n. . Thracia Pontica 3, 20-29.

10 Bouzek, J. 1974a. GraecoMacedonian bronzes. Praha. Bouzek, J. 1974b. Macedonian bronzes. Their origins, distribution and relation to other cultural groups of the Early Iron Age. Pamtky Archeologick 2, 278-341. Bozhkova, A. 2002. Pottery with geometric decoration and related wares. In: Delev, P. / Vulcheva, D. (eds.). Koprivlen 1. Sofia. 133-144. Brock, J. / Young, G. 1949. Excavations in Siphnos. Annual of the British School at Athens 44, 1-92. Burkert, W. 1985. Greek religion. Cambridge. Carapanos, C. 1878. Dodone et ses ruines. Paris. Dillon, M. 1997. Pilgrims and pilgrimage in ancient Greece. New York. Dominguez, A. 1999. Ephesos and Greek colonization. In: 100 Jahre sterreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Wien. 75-85. Dupont, P. / Skarlatidou, E. 2005. Les dbuts de la colonisation grecque en mer Noire: lments de chronologie amphorique. In: Pont-Euxin et polis. Polis hellenis et polis barbaron. Hommage Otar Lordkipanidz et Pierre Lvque. 10e Symposium de Vani (Colchide), 23-26 sept. 2002. Besanon. 77-82. Elsner, J. / Rutherford, I. 2005. Introduction. In: Elsner, J. / Rutherford, I. (eds.). Pilgrimage in GraecoRoman & Early Christian antiquity. Oxford. 1-38. Furtwngler, . 1906. Aegina: Das Heiligtum der Aphaia. Mnchen.

ivaylo karadzhinov Gergova, D. 1987. Frh- und ltereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien (Prhistorische Bronzefunde XIV, 7). Mnchen. Gergova, D. 1980. Genesis and development of the metal ornaments in the Thracian lands during the Early Iron Age (11th-6th c. B.C.). Studia Praehistorica 3, 97-112. Gocheva, Z. 2009. The Hyperboreans myth and history. In: Studia Archeologiae et Historiae Antiquae. Chiinu. 135-140. Hatas, J. 2009. The Iranian elements in the Thracian art first millenium B.C. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Archaeologica 26, 213-222. Hnsel, B. 1976. Beitrge zur regionalen und chronologischen Gliederung der alter Hallstattzeit an der Unteren Donau. Bonn. Ivanov, D. 2000. Ares Collection. Sofia. Kilian, K. 1975a. Die Fibeln in Thessalien von der mykenischen bis zur archaischen Zeit (Prhistorische Bronzefunde XIV, 2). Mnchen. Kilian, K. 1975b. Trachtzubehr der Eisenzeit zwischen gis und Adria. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 50, 9-243. Kilian, K. 1973. Zur eisenzeitlichen Transhumanz in Nordgriechenland. Archologisches Korrespondenzblatt 3, 431-435. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 2002. Kleinfunde aus dem Athena Itonia-Heiligtum bei Philia (Thassalien). (Monographien des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Bd. 48). Mainz. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1985. Fremde Weihungen in griechischen Heiligtmern vom 8. bis zum Beginn des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 32, 215-254. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1979. Anhnger in Griechenland von den mykenischen bis zur sptgeometrischen Zeit (Prhistorische Bronzefunde XI, 2). Mnchen. Klebinder-Gau, G. 2007. Bronzefunde aus dem Artemision von Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos 12, 3). Wien. Kossack, G. 1954. Studien zum Symbolgut der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas (RmischGermanische Forschungen, Bd. 20). Berlin. Langdon, S. 1993. From pasture to polis. Art in the age of Homer. Columbia / London. Loukopoulou, L. 2004. Thrace from Strymon to Nestos. In: An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. Oxford. 854-869. Maa, M. / Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1998. Aegina, AphaiaTempel XVIII. Bronzefunde ausser Waffen. Archologischer Anzeiger, 1, 57-104. Maier, F. 1956. Zu einigen bosnisch-herzegowinischen Bronzen in Griechenland. Germania 34, 63-75. Nikov, K. 2002. Stamped decoration pithoi in southern Thrace from the Early Iron Age. Archaeologia Bulgarica 1, 19-44. Nikov, K. 2000. Bird images on Early Iron Age pottery from southern Thrace. British Archaeological Research, Int. Series 854, 303-308. Nikov, K. 1999. Aeolian bucchero in Thrace? Archaeologia Bulgarica 2, 31-42. Payne, H. / Bagenal, H. / Jenkins, R. / May, J. / Dunbabin, T. 1940. Perachora. The sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia. Oxford. Philipp, H. 1981. Bronzeschmuck aus Olympia (Olympische Forschungen, Band 13). Berlin. Risberg, Chr. 1997. Evidence of metal working in Early Greek sanctuaries. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature 143, 185-196. Roebuck, C. 1986. Chios in the sixth century BC. In: Boardman, J. / Vaphopoulou-Richardson, C.E. (eds.). Chios. A Conference at the Homereion in Chios 1984. Oxford. 81-88. Roes, A. 1933. Greek Geometric art. Its symbolism and its origin. Oxford. Rubinstein, L. / Greaves, A. 2004. Ionia. In: An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. Oxford. 1053-1107. Skarlatidou, E. 1986. The archaic cemetery of Abdera. Thracia Pontica 3, 20-29. Stoyanov, T. 1997. Early Iron Age tumular necropolis (Sboryanovo I). Sofia. Stoyanov, T. / Nikov, K. 1997. Rescue trench excavations of the Early Iron Age settlement and sanctuary near the village of Rogozinovo, Harmanli District (pre-

miniature axes with zoomorphic protomes from greek sanctuaries liminary report). In: Maritsa Project 1. Sofia. 171-240. Terzan, B. 2005. Handel und soziale Oberschichten im frcheisenzeitlichen Sdosteuropa. In: Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze- und frheisenzeitlichen Sdosteuropa. (Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa. Band 11). Mnchen / Berlin. 81-159. Touratsoglou, I. / Tsakos, K. 2008. Economy and trade routes in the Aegean: The case of Samos (archaic to Hellenistic times). In: Sailing in the Aegean (, 53). Athens. 105-137. Treister, M. 1999. Ephesos and the northern Pontic area in the Archaic and Classical period. In: 100 Jahre sterreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Wien. 81-86. Tzochev, Ch. 2010. Between the Black Sea and the Aegean: the diffusion of Greek trade-amphorae in southern Thrace. In: Tezgr, D.K. / Inaishvili, N. (eds.). PATABS I. Production and trade of amphorae in the Black Sea (Varia Anatolica 21). Istanbul. 97-101. Vasi, R. 2005. Triballi once again. Archaeologia Bulgarica 2, 17-19. Vasi, R. 1995. Gtertausch und Fernbeziehungen im frheisenzeitlichen Serbien. In: Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze- und frheisenzeitlichen Sdosteuropa (Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa. Band 11). Mnchen / Berlin. 350-362. Vasi, R. 1977. The chronology of the Early Iron Age in Serbia (BAR Suppl. Ser. 31). Oxford. Vasi, R. 1971. The openwork belts and the Early Iron Age chronology in the northern Balkans. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 12, 1-13. Vassileva, M. 2007. First millennium BC ritual belts in an Anatolian and Balkan context. In: 10th International Congress of Thracology. Athens. 669-679. Venedikov, I. / Gerassimov, T. 1979. Thracian art treasures. Sofia.

11

Verger, S. 2003. Des objets gaulois dans les sanctuaires archaques de Grce, de Sicile et dItalie. In: Comptes rendus de lAcadmie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Paris. 525-573.

Walter-Karydi, E. 1986. Zur archaischen Keramik Ostioniens. In: Milet 18991980. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektive einer Ausgrabung. Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main 1980 (Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beiheft 31). Tbingen. 73-80.

Werner, W. 1988. Eisenzeitliche Trensen an der unteren und mittleren Donau (Prhistorische Bronzefunde XVI, 4). Mnchen.

- V-V . . .
() , (. 1), V-V . . . . , (. . 3/4-6). , , . , . (. 2/7-12). (. 2/1, 4-6). , . .

12

ivaylo karadzhinov

V-V . . . , , , , . , . , , . , , . , , , .

Ivaylo Karadzhinov, PhD Student National Institute of Archaeology with Museum Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2 Saborna Str. BG-1000 Sofia ivaylo.karadzhinov@googlemail.com