Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • TORBOV

    Uploaded by

    Tutulescu Ion
    132 views13 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    132 views13 pages

    TORBOV

    Uploaded by

    Tutulescu Ion

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    i ce CHAIN-MAILS FROM NORTHERN BULGARIA (III-I C BC) NARTSIS TORBOV All the chain-mails found in present-day northern Bulgaria come from graves ~ flat gra- vves and tumuli. These are located at Varbesh- nitsa, Mezdra and Tarnava (district of Vratsa), Doyrentsi and Smochan (district of Lovech), Kalnovo and Zhelad (district of Shumen) (Aranacon 1992, 5; Aranacon 1995, 29-32, 82, o6p. 86; Kirron/Tanmos 1986, 56; Kron 1987, 39-40; Teoocuten/Top6on 1995, 43- 44, o6p. 17; KitoviPawlov 1987, 21-24) ‘The finds from Doyrentsi, in graves wi der tumuli, date to the period III-I ¢. BC (Kiron 1987, 37-40), while the chain-mail from Kalnovo is III-II c. BC (Atanacos. 1992, 5-15). All the other finds mentioned above can be dated much more precisely. ‘The chain-mail from Varbeshnitsa, Mezdra and Tarnava was found in graves of Thra- cian warriors together twith brooches, swords and shield bosses, similar to those used by the Celts during La Tene D — in other words at the end of IIIc. BC (Teo- aocuen/TopGon 1995, 11-58). It is obvious that in this late period chain-mail became a typical item of Thracian military equipment. Any graphic reconstruction of the origi- nal chain-mail is bound to be inaccurate, be- cause the warriors who wore them were cte- mated together with their armaments, thus largely destroying their original form. Thus the piece from Smochan has also been inter- preted as a chain veil, attached to a Celtic helmet (Kuros 1996, 15). Probably tradi- tional Thracian dress was the prototype of the chain-mail’s shape, such a garment being was put on under the mail (Teopruesa 1999, 130-134; Pexo 1999, 156). Probably the ring mail was without sleeves — its upper section had three openings, one for the head and two for the arms. Some of them were even decorated with silver phalerae; such seems to be the function of the phalerac from Galiche, district of Vratsa (Nikolov 1988) and the appliqués from Tumulus 2 at Doy- rentsi (Kuros 1987, 39-40), All the chain-mail from northwestern Bulgaria was made out of oval shaped iron rings, the diameter of which varies between 5 and 10 millimeters which were soldered to cach other (Kiros 1987, 39), One fragment of chain-mail from Vurbeshnitsa (fig. 6 B), now in the northwestern Regional Museum of History (NRMH), Vratsa, inventory # 113, differs considerably from this norm. Here the opposing arc of each ring is thick- ened and pierced after which the rings were joined by rivets. This was a highly precise and labor-consuming process, executed by very skillful craftsmen, Undoubtedly there were only few armories’ workshops in an- cient Thrace. Such ring-constructed chain- mail was obviously very costly and only the Thracian aristocracy could afford such luxury which accounts for their rarity and the value accorded to them. Part of the chain-mails from northern Bulgaria has been found together with their clasps, also made out of iron. Unfortunately, due to the effects of the cremation pyre, the way they func- tioned is also questionable. The elements that have survived fire and corrosion allow for three possibilities: Variant 1 Probably the clasp consisted of vo elements. Firstly, there was a hook, at- {ached to the body of the mail by a rivet and a small washer (fig. 1 A, 2). The second partis a rectangular frame, jointed to the plate (fig. 1 A, 3). Finally, the mail coat was firmly secured by hitching the hook to the frame (fig. 1B, 1). Variant 2 The clasp here also is composed by two elements, which are shaped quite dif- ferently from the previous model. First is a thin rectangular metal plate (fig. 2 A, 1), pierced in order to be joined firmly to the mail coat by a rivet and washer (fig. 2 A, 2). The second ele- ment of the clasp is a short cylinder with two 37 Nartsis Torbov metal washers ~ one for each end of the cylinder. One end is riveted to the mail coat (fig. 2 A, 3) Putting on the mail coat was achieved when the cylinder was fit- ted into the slot of the metal plate (fig. 2 B, 1). This allows the chain- mail to be fixed securely too the body of the warrior. Variant 3 This variant is a com- bination of the previous two mod- els. The clasp is composed by two elements. The first element is a rectangular metal plate (fig. 3 A, 1). It is fixed to the mail by a rivet and metal washer (fig. 3 A, 2). One of the ends of this element is cut off. Another element, formed into a hook, once more is riveted (fig. 3 A, 3). This second element of the clasp consisted of two parts Firstly, an iron plate was yet again fixed to the mail by a rivet and a washer (fig. 3 A, 4). The second part is an iron frame, fixed to the plate (fig. 3 A, 5). The mail coat in this case was put on by hitching the hook of the first element to the frame of the second (fig. 3 B, 1). Specific to this third model is the fact that the tightening to the body can be adjusted by moving the rivet. of the first element in the slot cut into the plate (fig. 3 B, 2). This operation was probably ear- tied out by the craftsman who manufactured the mail coat. Best preserved of the clasps is that from Tamaya, now in the NRMH, Vratsa, inv. # 6 (Teouocues/Top6on 1995, 43-44, o6p. 17). ‘The rectangular plate is broken into two pieces. Each of the short sides has *L? shaped slots in order to tighten the mail to the body. Two more elements belong to this clasp~ a hook and a ‘metal plate with frame (fig. 4 A, 6 A) From the clasp mechanism, found at Doy- rentsi remain just one fragment of a plate with an ‘L’ shaped slot; this is now in the Lovech Museum of History (fig. 4B). This must have functioned in the same manner as the example from Trnava —the only difference is the larger 58 CSS cB 2 3 i, ring mail, SS) Fig. 1. Method of fastening chain-mail - variant I and better formed rivet, possibly intended as a decorative feature (fig. 4 B). Probably the missing part of the plate was intentionally eut off so that the mail coat would have been tight- ened to the body by only a single slot The clasp mechanism from Smochan, also in the Lovech Museum of History, isa little dif- ferent, It is broken into two pieces and the rec~ tangular plate has only one simple slot. In this slot a piece of the other clement of the clasp was found. This mechanism was fixed to the mail by two rivets ~ one at its end and one in the middle (fig. 4 A). The head of the first rivet is similar to that from Tarnava (fig. 4 A, 6 A); the form of the second rivet recalls that on the Doyrentsi clasp (fig. 4 B). ‘Another mail clasp was found at Mezdra and is now in National museum of History, So- fia. Of this clasp remained only a plate and the frame, jointed to it (fig. 5 B). This piece is similar to that from Tarnava (fig. 4A, 6 A) Chain-Mails from Northern Bulgaria (IL-1 C BC) ring 2 sume that the swan’s neck formed a hook which was attached to the 1A. frame of the second element. ‘The decoration of the clasps is typi- cal for Thracian weaponry in the 3- Tc. BC. It consists Fig. 2, Method of fastening ehain-mai - variant 2. with the only difference being that the clasp from Mezdra was better made - it is five-sided in form and the head of the rivet is both larger as well being more skillfully formed (fig. 5B). ‘An unusual clasp comes from Doyrentsi and is now in the Lovech Museum of History. It also consists of two elements though one is missing. Itis made of two parts, formed like the heads of wild duck or swan. They were joined to each other and to the mail coat by one rivet, while another rivet through the curving neck of one of the birds assured that the clasp was more securely fixed to the mail coat (fig. 5 C). This clasp from Doyrentsi is similar to the one from Smochan, insofar as they ate both attached to the mail by two rivets (fig. 5 A). ‘The second element of the Doyrentsi clasp ‘mechanism (fig. $C) is missing destroyed by the corrosion. It was probably constructed in a similar manner as the pieces from Mezdra (fig. 5B) and Térnava (fig. 4 A, 6 A). One may as- of parallel grooves and thin bronze strips soldered on (fig. 5 ©). Exam- ples are a scabbard from Tarnava, dis- trict of Vratsa (Te- onocnes/Topson 1995, 45, o6p. 21; Top6ox 1997, 36) and the socket of a spearhead from Doyrentsi, district of Lovech (Top6os 2003). The swan’s neck terminals of the clasp are similar to the cheek-pieces of some horse-bits also from northwestern Bulgaria (Top6on 1998, 30, o6p. 5, 17). The heads of the rivets on the clasps are decorated by incised cross-ormament (fig. 5 C). Similar decoration can be seen on the upper part of the bit from Lipnitsa, district of Vratsa (Top6on 1998, 29, o6p. 15) and on the terminals of a spur from Dobrusha, district of Vratsa (Torbov 1998, 58, fig. 4). Obviously, such decoration is peculiar to Thracian deco- tative art which absorbed some foreign influ- ences ~ swan’s or duck’s heads often decorate the handles of Italic imported vessels found in northwestern Bulgaria and northeastern Serbia (Teonocnen/TopGox 1995, 20, 49, 51, o6p. 38, 43; Popovié 1992, 63-66, Abb. 2, 4). The Doyrentsi clasp also testifies to considerable Roman cultural influence in Thrace during Ie, BC. Another significant feature of the three clasps from Tarnava (fig. 4 A, 6 A), Doyrentsi 59 Nartsis Torbov (fig. 4B) and 4 Smochan (Gig. 5 A) is that they were 5 8: I 2 found in fragments — a coincidence that can hardly have been accidental, ‘They ust have been in- tentionally broken as part of the normal Thracian burial ri- twal in which not only the dead war- rior was put (0 rest but his military eq- uipment as well (Teonocues/Top- Gon 1995, 29). This same ritual can be better seen in the Sofronievo cemetery, where in ‘one wartior grave was found a iron sword, bent into four (HuKoxon 1981, 38, o6p. 56). The problem of the origin of chain-mail is a complicated one and the evidence offered by archaeology so far has not provided a final answer. Fragmentary chain-mail, similar to that from northwestern Bulgaria, have also been found in other parts, ‘of ancient Thrace. From the area to the south of Stara Planina Mountain come fragments of mail found in the graves in tumuli Land IX at Ravnogor in Rhodope Mountain and in a grave under the tumulus of Sashova at Shipka, dis- trict of Kazanluk (Kron, 1988, 26; Kron. 1989, 36, 39; Kuron 1996, 15). There is even evidence that chain-mail was used after the Roman invasion; this comes froma grave in the Roshava Dragana tumulus near Stara Zagora, grave dated to the end of Ic. (Byroxsmues 1986, 4l, 71, o6p. 96; Huxonos/Byroxaues 1967, 21). These examples from southern Thrace do not continue the metal-working traditions of the workshops which functioned before III c BC, They were manufactured in a completely ci) Fig. 3. Method of fastening chain-mail - variant3. different matter, including the manner in which the individual rings were formed. In northeastern Bulgaria mail was con- structed made out of iron plates. An example is that from Branichevo, district of Shumen, where the individual plates overlap each other and are linked by rings. Each plate is decorated with embossed circles with a central dot Clpemcnsosa 1958, 447-449, o6p. 34-6). An- other similar example was found at Kyolmen which is in the same region but its individual iron plates were undecorated (JIpemcus0Ba- Heasuniona 1970, 209, 218, o6p. 3). The mail from Yankovo (again in the district of Shumen) is quite different. Its plates are soldered to each other, and bear appliquéd bronze rings which function only as decoration (LIpemcisona 1955, 74-75, o6p. 19). Itis generally accepted in the literature that the mail coats constructed of plates rather than of rings were used from the beginning of the Chain-Mails from Northern Bulgaria (IL-1 C BC) brooches make her think that the first grave is from the beginning of the Ill c. BC, while the second grave in which the mail was found may be earlier and should be dated in the end of the IV c. BC. Dremsizova adds that the surface of the mail bears signs of repair and thus it was Fig. 4. Chain-ma distict of Lovech IV c, BC to the beginning of III ¢. BC (Or- nenona 1959, 36; Ognenova-Marinova 2000, 11-22), but these dates are not precise. The ex- amples from Kyolmen and Yankovo, district of Shumen are grave finds, buried between the middle of the IVe. BC and the beginning of the lc. BC (Lpeensopa 1955, 81-82, o6p. 19; Tpemensona-Heunstona 1970, 209, 218, 228, o6p. 3). Tsvetana Dremsizova relates the two graves from tumulus X at Branichevo, dis- trict of Shumen to the end of IV ¢, BC or to the first decades of the IIT c. BC. A pair of clasps Irom: A "Tamava, district of Vratsa; B — Doyrentsi, obviously originally made much earlier be- fore being placed in the grave (Ipemcusona 1958, 448, 456). In con- trast, the mail coats made out of separate metal plates were not used in the Ill c. BC; there are no such grave finds from this period. Being both uncomfort- able to wear and unreli- able as a form of armor their production prob- ably ceased in the end of the IV c. BC. They were slowly superceded by true chain-mail which should be re garded as a separate and significant stage in the development of Thra- cian armament. Pro- bably chain-mail first appeared even before III c. BC. However, the only evidence in support of this early date is the chain-mail found in 1851 in a grave at Rozovets (Rahmanlii) which has been dated to Vc. BC (Kiron, 1987, 39; Kuron 1989, 39; ‘@uion 1934, 159). The question of the origin of chain-mail must be related to the Celtic presence in ‘Thrace, because the example from Trnava, district of Vratsa (fig. 4 A, 6 A) was found ina barrow burial associated with weapons which are similar to La Tene D types (Teonocutes! 61 Navisis Torbov TopGos 1995, 43-44, 6p. 17). Similar chain- mail was found at Ciumesti, Romania in the famous grave of a Celtic chief, buried in the Ill c. BC (fig. 7 A). ‘The mail coat was ad- justed by a bronze clasp, decorated with a rosette design in ow relief (Rusw/Bandula 1970, Rusu 1971, Schlette 1979, 118, Zeller 1980, 129, Abb. 22), More or le temporary if consider- ably further to the north and west of the areas we are consider- ing here, is the chain mail found in grave KS at Kirkbum, East York- shire in the northeast of England (Stead 1991, 54-56). Classical sources add to the evidence of archaeology. Diodoros and Strabon testify that Gauls used — similar chain-mail Zeller 1980, 129) anda, BC statue from Vacheres (Basses- Alpes) in the south of France (fig. 7 B) represents a Celtic warrior wearing chain-mail, and carrying a sword and shield (Schlette 1979, 49, 118, Zeller 1980, 128-129, Abb. 20). Varro also mentions that mail similar to tunics, and made out of rings was invented by the Celts; certainly it seems that the Romans soon assimilated this technol ogy (Homapanckn 1984, 45; Zeller 1980, 129). Chain-mail (lorica hamata) was used by the Roman army in the early Empire. Exemples were found in fortresses of the Roman limes at Saalburg and Mainz in Germany. Another coat of iron chain-mail was found in Carnuntum where the military camp was established on the 2 Fig. 5. Chain-mail clasps from: A ~ Smochan, district of Lovech, B ~ Mezdra, istrict of Vratsa, C —Doyrentsi, district of Lovech. territory of the Celtic tribe of the Boii (Filip 1969, 997-998). ‘The appearance and us, age of chain-mail in Western and Central Europe seems to have been the result of the spread of Celtic tribes in this area and their complex association with the Roman Empire, But was this type of mail in use amongst those Celtic tribes who dwelt next to the Thracians in the area of present-day north- cern Bulgaria? The territory between the rivers Danube, Drava and Sava was inhabited in the beginning of IIc, BC by the Celtic tribe of the Scordisci, who gradually extended eastwards. ‘Strabon mentions, that one part, the Small Chain-Mails from Northern Bulgaria (HI-IC BC) Fig. 6, Chain-mail fragments: A — clasp and other fragments from Tamava, district of Vratsa, B~ fragments [rom Varbeshnitsa, district of Vratsa Scordisci, settled in the lands east of the Mora~ va River, pushing back the Thracian Triballoi (lomapaackn 1984, 92, 107-110). But those La Tene type flat grave cemeteries in ex-Yugo- slavia which have so far been investigated do not contain any traces of chain-mail (Bozié 1981, 315-336; Gustin 1984; Todorovié 1972). ‘There is also a lack of any other artifacts with representation of chain-mail — sculpture, bron- ze reliefs and so forth. The ancient authors also offer no support for the usage of chain-mail in the territory of the Scordisei. Obviously, mail ‘was not a typical feature of the armor of the Scordisci Sc_ mail as found in northwestern Bulgaria ‘was not introduced there by the Small Scordisci. In addition, there is no evidence for continuous Celtic presence east of Timok in Bulgaria be- fore Ie. BC. The earliest indication of a typical piece of Celtic weaponry is the sword from Pavolche, district of Vratsa (northwestern Bulgaria). The Pavolche sword was formally at- tributed to La Tene C2 (Top6ow 2000, 11-13, Gp. 15), But a more re- cent examination has dated it more precisely. Some of features of this, sword and particularly the decorative elements of the scabbard are asso ciated with the so-called “Hungarian Sword Style of La Tene Cl (Megaw et al. 2000, 25-43). The Pavolche barrow burial wasn’t excavated by ar- chacologists, so the grave cannot with cer- tainty be ascribed either as Thracian or Celtic (Huxonon 1965, 179-180, o6p. 21). Later bar- row burials in the area clearly however follow local custom (Teorocwen et al. 1994, 172-178; Teonocues!TopGow 1995, 11-58) and the types of weapons and other metal goods found in them of the armaments, find in them ~ kni- ves, spears, horse-bits and spurs — are all Thracian (Top6on 1997, 15-46; Top6o» 1998, 11-43, Top6os 2003; Torbov 1998, 54-63). The swords, shield-bosses and brooches are similar to La Tene D forms (TopGox 2000, 13- 25). While they do not testify to Celtic pres cence in Thrace during the end of the IT ~ begin- ning of Lc. BC, such types do suggest signifi- 6 Nartsis Torbov 7.A~ chain-mail f B~ statue of Celtic warrior wearing chain-mail, m Ciumesti, jud, Maramures, Romania, after Zeller 1980, 129, Abb. 22: fachéres (Basses~Alpes), southern France, after Zeller 1980, 128-129. Abb. 20. cant La Tene influence. This can be observed particularly in some classes of weapons. Influ- tence in the opposite direction is also clear ~ Celts in the Balkans also absorbed strong cul- ‘ural influence from the indigenous population. However, the theory that chain-mail was part Of this influence in the Ie. BC (Jlosapaexit 1984, 144-145), in view of the lack of a chaeological or historical evidence in support, must be discarded Even harder isto solve is the question of the origin of the type of chain-mail represented by the examples from Kalnovo and Zhelad, dis- trict of Shumen (Atanacon 1992, 5; Aratt cos 1995, 29-32, 82, o6p. 86) in the light of the Celtic ethnic presence in northeastern ‘Thrace. The finds from a tumulus at Kilnovo are of particular interest. Some of these, typi- cal for the La Tene world, are chance discov- eries without any recorded archaeological context and it is thus impossible to decide if they come from graves (Aranacos 1992). Up to now, the closest similar graves to those from northeastern Thrace have been found at some 64 considerable distance ~ in Romania north of the estuary of the Danube. The ancient authors. speak of close relations between the local population and the tribes of the Coralli and Bastar, That these were not Thracian seems clear but the problem of their origin is still open. There is not much information about their further settlement south of the Danube. ‘The question of the Celtic toponyms in eastern Stara Planina mountains is another problem. waiting to be solved (Jlomapastexit 1984, 110- 114). In the light of all these arguments, the mail from Kalnovo and Zelad, Shumen ca not be regarded with any certainty as Celtic and related to Celtic enclaves in northeastern Bul- aria ‘Though it is minimal, the possibility of a Celtic origin for chain-mail cannot be abso- lutely ruled out. There is evidence that the t ritory between Stara Planina and the Danube was inhabited by Celtic ethnic groups. Future archaeological research will surely help to solve this enigma. A significant element ap- pears to be the distribution and chronology of Chain-Mails from Northern Bulgaria (1-1 C BC) Fig. 8. Dist burnished early Roman I c. BC ~ Ile. pottery discovered in eight sites on the right bank of the Lower Danube. The profile and decoration. of these vessels is similar to ones found ine: tral European Celtic complexes (Vagalinski 2002, 41-84). This represents the first hard evi- dence so far for the existence of Celtic en- claves in northern Bulgaria, But insufficient information from the ancient writers and the present incomplete state of regional surveys are serious obstacles to defining any of the pre- Tc. settlements as typically Celtic. On the other hand, if one accepts the proposition that north- em Bulgaria was once inhabited by discrete groups of Celts naturally results in denying the of mal finds found in Thrace south of Danube (IV ¢, BC Te. AD). individuality of local Thracian culture, This hypothesis could result in a total re-evaluation ‘of many theories about the Roman conquest of northern Thrace and about the origin of the military equipment in the Ic. In graves south- em of Stara Planina examples of plate-mail have be found ~ where plates are attached to one to another other in separate rows. The first undisputed example is from the rich tumulus dating to the first half of the Ic. at Viza, now in Turkey (Mansel 1941, 165, 187-189, Abb. 203a). In contrast, the function of the second fone is quite problematic. It consists of a cou- ple of rows of plates, attached to the neck tion of a helmet, found in a grave at Lyaskovets 65 Nartsis Torbow (Karaagach), district of Burgas, SE Bulgaria; it is also dated the Ic, (Beno 1929, 16-17, 26, 6p. 9). Two other fragments have been found in the Roshava Dragana tumulus at Stara Zagora, again dated to the end of the Tc. (By- roanen 1976, 26, o6p. 10; Byroxnnen 1986, 41-42, TL, 06p. 94-95; Huxonos/Bytoxmen 1967, 21-22, 28). However, here also occurs chain-mail (Bytoxnnes 1986, 41, 71, o6p. 96; Hirxonon/Bytoxaes 1967, 21); its presence complicates not only the ethnic interpretation of the buried warrior, but also the presence of different ethnic elements amongst the ‘Thracians south of Stara Planina Mountain af- {er the establishment of the Romans in the area. Acknowledgments, ‘This study has been accomplished through the kind co-operation of a number of fellow archaeologists: Dr. Georgi Kitov from the Ar- chaeological Institute with Museum by Bulgar- ian Academy of Sciences, who allowed me to study the finds from the district of Lovech, Gavrail Lazov from the National Museum of History at Sofia and Radoslav Gushterakliev from the Museum of History at Lovech, let me draw some pieces. BIBLIOGRAPHY Amanacos, P. 1995, Tpaxnitexo wuopwxeime oF hora na icropusecen myseti-Lyaert In: Boop 2xeine or apeuiia Tpaxus. Myer 1992. Chopixeimis oF LIE w. np. ue. oF oxomoctare ta e, Keamono, Ilysencxo,- Ha ecru na Meropaiecki sy ei-Llywen 7, 5-9, Byiowmer, X, 1986, Tpaxiiewa® Moran iexpo- sno: np Haranka, Craposaropexn oxper (= Paskor- 1x poysnanen 16). Cots Bywoxmen, X. 1976, 3a waxneIMeTo Wa TeRKORLO- hxc xomm 8 Prowcxa Tpaxna. - Myseit 1 ma Merimutna Ky-trypara 2, 18-28. Bewos, H. 1920. Hoo worn uaxogxs, - Hae sect na Baarapexsix apxconorueexu weturyr 5, 13.55, Teopeucea, P. 1999. Toxain 1 Mectuo o61eK0 (pas nia T-L ump. at .). In: Ertonorit ta tpanvere. Coup. 112-154. Aowapadesu, M. 1984, Kermare na Bankancna oayoctpon. IV-L 0, np. 1. e. Codi. Apencusoea, I. 1958. HaarpoGwa woruna mpi ce- 66 Amanacor, P 410 Bpannteuo. In: Bemensnes, B/Peoprice, B. (ed), iscrensanis 6 ect na axaze nk Thaaerap Jesen no coytai 80-romamimazara wy. Cogs. 445-457, Apencusowa, I. 1955, HaarpoGua moramcmpt ce- 10 Sinxono, - Hanectis na Apxeonoriteckia wien sryt 19, 61-83, Apencusosa-Hexusoea, I, 1970. Tpaxaitexs wo- uni norpeGems xpai c, Kpomaet, Llywcucxit ox- por. - Mavecrua nia Apxeosorisicckies neicriyt 32, 207-228. Kumroe, P1996. Caurova worusia (Monywenra- ha neorpaGeva rpaxnitexa rpoGrita Mexsay Lika leenio80). - Apxeoworus 38, 2-3, 9-22. Kumoe, P1989. Kynoanrre rpo6muunt np Pa Horop ® Poonitre. - Apxeostorus 31, 3, 28-41 Kumoe, P1988, Conaerenersa 3a Tpaxiiexara xymtypa npu Pasniorop. - Berose 17, 4, 24-30, Kumoa, £1987. Tpaxuice worn oF Ls. np. 4.e, xpaite. Jofipermtt, Jopeumen oxpsr In: Pon, Ad Hopnation, K. (ed.). Bearapexure sexu» apemsiocrra Buarapus mpes cpesmonexonuero. Bropit Mexayia- poneH kourpec no Gusrapnerina. Cogs, 23 wait - 3 rou 1986, Jloeaasus 6. Cospus. 37-40. Kumos. F Alaexos, 1. 1986. Pasxonein va TpaKstit- xr morse xpait Coat» Jlonenst ox. In: Bea op, B. (ed). Apxeosioriseexit oTepieTHs Ht PAEIKOIT pes 1985 r-XXXI Harmtontata xomepeaays no ap- xeoxioris won Benitko Tepniono. 56-57 Husonos, 6.1981. Tpaxutiexu norpebena mpc Coppormeso, Bpasiantesn oxpor. ~ Apxconoris 2 3, 30-41 Huxonoe, 6. 1965. Tpaxniiexw nayeramn a8 Bpawatcxo,— Hissecran wa Apxeonormecxia wien ayr 28, 163-202, Husonoe, A/Byioxmee, X. 1961, Tpaxtenst Mo siuunt rpoGoae or Yaraaxa, Craposaropero. Apxe- norms 9,1, 19-31 Oenenoea, JJ. 1959, Preommgt a -Tpass or VI 8 np. 1 €.- Apxeonorus 1, 1-2, 30-37. Pexo, M. 1999. Tpaximre n THxH0TO OBneK:T0 BYP xy umnucesara pucynana kepasiika, In; Exiostorit nia tpawire, Cogs, 155-166, Teodocuce, H/Topboe, H. 1995. Tpaxaies worse au or KicHocammtcTHCIccKaTA enOXA apK TopHiana, Bexocsiariuiexo. - Vimectus na myneure x Cenepoza- naga Buarapas 23, 11-38, Teodocues, H./Teodocuee, ILJTop60e, H. 1994. Apxeonorieckn npoysaas 1a npaxniiexn Morten of Kbcttoeammicritieckata entoxa mpm ¢. Tepiiana, BesoctaTiniexo. - Foam nia Cogputexss yrunep- carer. Heropinieckn axyster. Cneunamnoer Apxe- ‘onorns 1, 172-178, Toptos, H. 2003, Bupxone w naxpasinn (caypo- ‘Tepn) sa xomns or Ceneposariatna Basrapns (II 8 Chain-Mails from Northern Bulgaria (ULI C BC) mp. Xp.) - Maseerus 1a myseurre » Ceseposanaia Busrapies 29 (nox mewar). Toptoe, H, 2000, Mevone or I. np. Xp. orKpit- ‘rm Ceveposaraana Buarapia. « Hssecrit wa Myse~ uve » Coneporanantia Brarapust 28, 11-34 Top6os, H. 1998. Tpaxniicxn waast oF TL». np. Xp. «Im, orkpirnir xa repuroputsra na Ceneposara- na Buarapna. - Hamectss a myacure Ceneposaraa- sna Buarapus 26, 1 Top6os, H. 1997. Kpunn rpaxwiiceit Hoxose oF la, np. Xp.- Ip, orxpirra Ceneposaraina Beara pits. - Havecria ia syaevere n Ceneposanaa Buara- is 25, 15-46, dbuaos, B. 1934, HaarpoGwire orn pa Jly= saxeait 6 Maosanscxo. Cos Boi, 1981, Relaivna keonologija mlajSe lene

    You might also like