ЖУРНАЛ

ЗА ИСТОРИЧЕСКИ И
АРХЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИ ИЗСЛЕДВАНИЯ

JOURNAL
OF HISTORICAL AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

2БРОЙ / 2019

УНИВЕРСИТЕТСКО ИЗДАТЕЛСТВО „ЕПИСКОП КОНСТАНТИН

ПРЕСЛАВСКИ”
ШУМЕН, 2019
ЖУРНАЛ ЗА ИСТОРИЧЕСКИ И АРХЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИ
ИЗСЛЕДВАНИЯ

СЪСТАВИТЕЛИ:

д-р Невян Митев

Симеон Кулиш

ОТГОВОРЕН РЕДАКТОР:

проф. д.и.н. Иван Русев, Икономически университет - Варна

РЕДАКЦИОННА КОЛЕГИЯ:

проф. д.и.н. Дариуш Розмус, Университет Humanitas в Сосновиец, Полша

проф. д-р Атила Барани, Университет в Дебрецен, Унгария
проф. д-р Росица Ангелова, ШУ „Епископ Константин Преславски”
доц. д-р Васил Параскевов, ШУ „Епископ Константин Преславски”
доц. д-р Иво Топалилов, ШУ „Епископ Константин Преславски”
доц. д-р Николай Кънев, ВТУ „Св. св. Кирил и Методий“
доц. д-р Стела Дончева, НАИМ-БАН
доц. д-р Стефан Минков, ШУ „Епископ Константин Преславски”
доц. д-р Цветана Иванова, ШУ „Епископ Константин Преславски”
гл. ас. д-р Иван Вълчев, СУ „Св.Климент Охридски”
гл. ас. д-р Михаил Христов, ВТУ „Св. св. Кирил и Методий“

Финансирането на изданието се осъществява с личните

средства на съставителите. Този брой се издава със съдействието на
Драган Илиев и Кольо Хубенов.

ISSN 1314-748X

© Университетско издателство “Епископ Константин Преславски”,

Шумен, 2019
JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEОLOGICAL
RESEARCH

COMPILERS:

Dr. Nevyan Mitev

Simeon Kulish

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:

Prof. Dr. Hab., Ivan Roussev, University of economics - Varma

EDITORS:

Prof. Dr. Hab., Dariusz Rozmus, Humanitas University in Sosnowiec, Poland

Prof. Dr., Attila Barany, University of Debrecen, Hungary
Prof. Dr., Rositsa Angelova, „Konstantin Preslavsky” University of Shumen
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Vasil Paraskevov, „Konstantin Preslavsky” University of
Shumen
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Ivo Topalilov, „Konstantin Preslavsky” University of Shumen
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Nikolay Kanev, “St. Cyril and St. Methodius” University of
Veliko Tarnovo
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Stela Doncheva, National archaeological institute with
museum, BAS
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Stefan Minkov, „Konstantin Preslavsky” University of
Shumen
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Tsvetana Ivanova, „Konstantin Preslavsky” University of
Shumen
Chief Assistant Dr., Ivan Valchev, „St. Kliment Ohridski” Sofia University
Chief Assistant Dr., Mihail Hristov, “St. Cyril and St. Methodius” University of
Veliko Tarnovo

The Journal is funded by the compilers. The following issue is publish

with the help of Dragan Iliev and Kolyo Hubenov.

ISSN 1314-748X

© Konstantin Preslavsky Publishing House, Shumen, 2019

 СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ:
СТАТИИ И СЪОБЩЕНИЯ:

CONTENTS:
ARTICLES AND REPORTS:

PREHISTORY ПРАИСТОРИЯ

Иван Коцов - За появата на калъпите с леярско сърце през халколита в

днешните български земи
Ivan Kotsov – On the appearance of the molds with casting heart in the
contemporary Bulgarian ................................................................................ 7

Petar Minkov – Characteristics and Chronology of Bronze Age Site near

Velikan, Dimitrovgrad District
Петър Минков – Характеристики и хронология на обекта от
бронзовата епоха до с. Великан, Димитровградско................................. 16

ANTIQUITY АНТИЧНОСТ

Илиян Илиев – Върхове на копия от Античната епоха във фонда на

Исторически музей – Дългопол
Iliyan Iliev – Spears of the Antique age from of the Historical Museum –
Dalgopol ...................................................................................................... 47

RENAISSANCE, EARLY MODERN AND MODERN HISTORY

ВЪЗРАЖДАНЕ, НОВА И СЪВРЕМЕННА ИСТОРИЯ

Жоро Цветков – „Великото хуманно дело“(Българският въпрос в

руската източна политика)
Zhoro Tsvetkov – „The Great Human Cause” (Bulgarian Issue in the
Russian Eastern Policy) ............................................................................... 82

5
Симеон Кулиш – Посещението на първия космонавт Юрий Алексеевич
Гагарин във Варна през 1961 година
Simeon Kulish – Тhe visit of the first cosmonaut Yuri Alexeevich Gagarin in
Varna in 1961 .............................................................................................101

NUMISMATICS НУМИЗМАТИКА

Любомир Василев – Сребърна сикла на Ахеменидска Персия от района

на град Сливен
LubomirVassilev – Silver siglos of Achaemenid Persia from the Region of
Sliven town ..................................................................................................114

Янислав Тачев – Римските императори върху реверсните печати на

бизийските монети
Yanislav Tachev – The Roman Emperors on the Reverse Dies of Bizye’s
Coins...........................................................................................................117

Янислав Тачев – Нови типове монети на Бизия

Yanislav Tachev – New Coin Types of Bizye ..............................................123

6
 Characteristics and Chronology of Bronze Age Site near
Velikan, Dimitrovgrad District 1

Petar Minkov

Характеристики и хронология на обект от бронзовата

епоха до с. Великан, Димитровградско

Петър Минков

Резюме: Целта на настоящата статия е да разгледа

археологическите структури, масовия керамичен материал и малките
артефакти от бронзовата епоха, открити на обекта до с. Великан,
Димитровградско. По време на разкопките са открити шест ями,
които сигурно могат да се отнесат към ранната бронзова епоха.
Всички ями са с кръгла форма и овален профил. Структурите са
вкопани в седимент с жълт до жълто-кафяв цвят. Ямите, в които е
открит само материал от ранната бронзова епоха, са плитки (не по-
дълбоки от 1 м) и са с кръгла форма на отвора, чийто диаметър
варира между 0,50 и 0,60 м. Структурата на депозита в описаните
долу примери (ями № 2, 6, и 27) включва сиво-кафява пръст песъкливи
включения и въглени. Керамичният материалeпредставен от
фрагменти на купи, паници, амфори и кани. На база откритите
находки и анализа на масовия керамичен материал,за относителна
хронология на ямите, може да се предположи периода – края на
втората фаза/началото на третата фаза на ранната бронзова епоха
(2600 – 2400 г. пр.Хр.). На база анализираните материали и техните
паралели от други познати обекти може да се предположи, че
обектът при Великан принадлежи към същия кръг от обекти, чиято
материална култура е сравнима с етапите при Михалич и Свети

1
The publishing of the article is supported by the program of the International Assessment
Panel implemented under the Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility (PSF), which is aimed at
promoting young scientists. I would like to express my deeply gratitude to the program.
The present article is already published shortly in Bulgarian language – “Датировка и
културна принадлежност на раннобронзови структури и находки при Великан,
Димитровградско” in Volume dedicated on 90-th anniversary of the museum in Haskovo.
Because the volume was published without ISBN number, the article is published here again,
this time in English, with some changes and additions to the text, conclusions and
illustrations.
16
Кирилово в Горнотракийската низина и не демонстрира съществени
различния от тях.

The aim of the article is to publish structures, archaeological

materials, and finds originating from the recent excavations near Velikan,
Dimitrovgrad district.2

History of the research

The rescue excavations at the archaeological site were conducted as
part of the construction preparations for the building of a part of Maritsa
highway. The site (No. 4.1 on the trace of Maritsa Highway) is located on the
non-footed terrace of Stara reka river, which bed is approximately 3 km to
the north from Maritsa river.3 During the excavations 128 pits and 5 graves
were detected. They belong to the Early Bronze Age and the Hellenistic times
(figs. 2–3). 4
Based on the consultations received during the excavations it was
concluded that 6 of the pits could have been from the Early Bronze Age and
that their overall number could have been higher.5 In the preliminary
publication is pointed out that piece of wall-burnt clay (plaster) and pottery
sherds of tick-wall/storage vessels or pithoi are present in almost every pit.
Among the typical sherds stand out the ones with tunnel handle, and singles
sherds with corded print decoration. The mentioned finds are clay weight and
spindle whirl. 6

2
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the excavation team – Chavdar Lalov, Elena
Nikolova, Vladislav Zhivkov – for giving me the opportunity to publish my observations
about the structures and material from the Early Bronze Age at site 4.1. – Velikan. The
graphics and photo illustrations are made by the Ch. Lalov, E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov.
3
Лалов, Ч., Николова, Е., Живков, В. Спасително археологическо проучване на
обект 4.1 по трасето на АМ „Марица”. Ямен комплекс и погребения от
късноелинистическата епоха. – В: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2014 г.,
2015, с. 178.
4
Лалов, Ч., Николова, Е., Живков, В. Спасително археологическо проучване на
обект 4.1 по трасето на АМ „Марица”. Ямен комплекс и погребения от
късноелинистическата епоха. – В: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2014 г.,
2015, с. 178 – 179.
5
The first consultations for the chronology of the site come from Assos. Prof. Stefan
Alexandrov – Лалов, Ч., Николова, Е., Живков, В. Спасително археологическо
проучване на обект 4.1 по трасето на АМ „Марица”. Ямен комплекс и погребения от
късноелинистическата епоха. – В: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2014 г.,
2015, с. 179.
6
Лалов, Ч., Николова, Е., Живков, В. Спасително археологическо проучване на
обект 4.1 по трасето на АМ „Марица”. Ямен комплекс и погребения от
късноелинистическата епоха. – В: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2014 г.,
2015, с. 179.
17
 The processing of the additional pottery materials and finds showed
few “new” findings – single fragment of clay axe; two fragments from the
rear of stone axes (or both from the same axe?); clay object with unknown
functions.
In the coming pages the presentation of the data from the site and its
analysis will be done in the following order: І. Archaeological structures; ІІ.
Mass pottery materials; ІІІ. Finds.

І. Archaeological structures
The pits from the Early Bronze Age are concentrated on the eastern
part of the site. Those are structures № 2, 6, 8, 20, 27 (figs. 4–8). In three of
them – № 2, 6, 27 (figs. 4–6) –pottery sherds and finds solely from the Early
Bronze Age were found, while in the others were found mixed materials from
the Early Bronze Age and the Hellenistic age. The structures were dug in
layer of yellow to yellow-brown soil. The pits with materials only from the
EBA are shallow (no more than 1 m deep) with circle shape of the mouth,
which diameter varies between 0.50–0.60 m. The vertical section of the pits
is irregularly-oval or conical-oval as the inequalities of the contour were
probably caused of episodically dilapidation of the pit’s walls. The structure
of the fill in the abovementioned pits (№ 2, 6 and 27) includes grey-brown
soil, and burnt clay pieces and charcoals. In comparison, the pits with mixed
materials are deeper (pit № 8 – 1.43 m; pit № 20 – 1.73 m). In the structure
of the fill large single stones (0.40–0.50 m), sandy inclusions and yellow soil
are present.
The excavators pointed out that in comparison to the pits from the
Hellenistic period the concentration of ceramic find in the “clear” EBA pits is
significantly lower. 7 Other structures from the Early Bronze Age were not
discovered at the site.
ІІ. Pottery (Tabs. 1–6)
The study of the pottery is in the following order:
1. Technology of the vessels’ making. Types of impurities.
Technological groups;
2. Vessels categories;
3. Decoration;
4. Parallels;
5. Chronology.

7
Лалов, Ч., Николова, Е., Живков, В. Спасително археологическо проучване на
обект 4.1 по трасето на АМ „Марица”. Ямен комплекс и погребения от
късноелинистическата епоха. – В: Археологически открития и разкопки през 2014 г.,
2015, с. 179.
18
 The methodology of the research in each of those categories will be
based on the model for analyzing pottery material accepted by Krassimir
Leshtakov.8
The mass pottery material is presented by a whole profile of a jar and
pottery sherds. They were found in pits № 2, 6, 27. 132 sherds were
analyzed. The significant pieces are from pits № 2 (25 specimens) and pit №
6 (23 specimens). Some uncharacteristic sherds were found in pit № 27.
Their features are described below before the observation of the
characteristics of the significant material, because they can’t be included in
the full analysis.
In pit № 27 were found 84 sherds, 63 of which are uncharacteristic.9
Based on their wall’s thickness three groups are separated – thick-walled
sherds (with thickness more than 1.00 cm); sherds with medium thickness of
the wall (between 0.5–1.00 cm); thin-walled sherds (less than 0.5 cm).
The thick-walled sherds are 6 in number. The colors recognized as
original after the firing are brown, beige and grey-brown; the surface varies
from rough to medium smoothed; there is high concentration of quartz
stones, white pieces and mica – 0.1–0.2 cm and middle to high concentration
of impurities – which sizes are bigger than 0.3 cm. Тhе fractures are
monochromatic with dark grey color and one example with grey-beige color.
The sherds with medium thickness of the wall sherds are 50. Тhey are
separated into tree subgroups according their color and technological
specifications – AW.1. – sherds (28 specimens) with grey-brown color;
medium to well smoothed surface (as on some places are observed
inequalities on the surface); on some of them are preserved traces of angoba;
there is high concentration of stone quartz, white pieces and mica – 0.1–0.2
cm; the fractures are monochromatic with dark grey to black color. AW.2. –
sherds (9 sps.) with beige-brown inner and outer side; rough to medium
smoothed surface; high concentration of stone quartz, white pieces and mica;

8
Лещаков, К. Основни класификационни принципи за керамиката от ранната и
средната бронзова епоха в Тракия. Археология, 1988, 3, с.1 – 13; Лещаков, К.
Раннобронзови съдове от обекти в Новозагорския район. – В: Археологически и
исторически изследвания в Новозагорско, 1, 1999, с.57 – 90; Лещаков, К. Относителна
хронология на пласта от ранната бронзова епоха в селищна могила Казанлък. – В:
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA UNIVERSITATIS SERDICENSIS Supplementum IV.
Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem Professorisл Ludmili Getov, 2005, с.442 – 454.
Кънчева-Русева, Т., Лещаков, К. Характеристика и датировка на праисторическо
селище от бронзовата епоха до селищна могила Нова Загора. (Археологически и
исторически проучвания в Новозагорско), 2008, ІІ, с.51 – 86.
9
The more detailed description of the uncharacteristic fragments is due to the fact that they
are the only ones from the Early Bronze Age and originating from a concrete structure. None
of the uncharacteristic fragments has a contact surface with some of the characteristic
fragments.
19
the fractures are two types, based on their color – beige-brown outer and
black inner. AW.3. – sherds (14 sps.) which color vary from beige to brown
on the inner and outer surface; the latter is very well smoothed; low to middle
concentration of stone quartz, white pieces and mica; the fractures are
monochromatic as the inner part is dark brown to black, while the edges are
with the colors of the inner and outer surface.
The thin-wall sherds are 7. They are separated in to two subgroups –
TW.1. – sherds (4 sps.) with grey-brown color; well smoothed surface (with
some inequalities); traces of angoba on almost of all sherds; high
concentration of stone quartz, white pieces and mica – 0.1–0.2 cm; the
fractures are monochromatic with grey to black color. TW.2. – sherds (3
sps.) with beige-brown colored outer and grey-brown inner side; rough to
medium smoothed surface; high concentration of stone quartz, white pieces
and mica – 0.1–0.2 cm; the fractures are two-part – the outer color is beige-
grey, while the inner is grey-brown.
Summarizing the above observed sherds, we can say that they belong to
category of medium-fine and medium-rough pottery. On the surface of most
of the specimens are present pots from secondary firing, which clearly stand
out from the original color of each sherd.

1. Technology of producing vessels. Types of the impurities.

Technological groups
The sherds are from handmade vessels. The vessels’ original colors after
their firing that are recognizable are (based on how often they appear): grey-
brown, brown-beige, grey-beige, beige, dark-brown, brown, red-brown. The
predominant colors are the first three from the mentioned above. There is no
concrete connection between the different types of vessels and their coloring,
but some ascertainments could be made. 10
On the bowls are distinguished the following colors after firing: grey-
black; brown; grey; beige; grey-brown; grey-beige; brown-black.
The colors observed on the jars are: grey; grey-black; grey-beige; beige;
On the amphorae the colors are: dark-grey to black and beige;
The jugs have the following colors: grey to grey-brown (for the rims);
grey-brown, dark-grey to black, grey-beige (for the walls); one jug’s bottom
with black color for the outer surface and grey-brown for the inner surface;
According to the treatment of the surface, the shreds (characteristic,
uncharacteristic, thin-wall, average-wall and tick-wall) could form 6 groups:
black polished surface; brown very well smoothed surface; brown smoothed
surface; grey-brown smoothed surface; beige and grey-beige smoothed

10
The order in which the colors of the different categories of vessels are listed is from the
higher to the lower number of fragments of such color.
20
surface; pottery with well smoothed surface, but without the original cover;
pottery on spots; pottery with rough surface (lowest concentration).
On all the examples with traces of polishing, it was done in horizontal
manner.
2. Vessels categories
The ceramic repertoire of Bronze Age object next to Velikan are listed
below from the most common to the less popular: Bowls; Jars; Amphorae;
Jugs. The observed materials belong to fine, semi-fine and semi-rough
pottery.
Bowls (B) – The only recognizable kind is pots with conical or sphere-
conical shape. The strong fragmentation of the material, as well as the limited
number of sherds make it almost impossible to define specific types.
However, there are several variants based on the modeling of the of rim’s
edge: B.1. – slightly curved (8 examples), which may be rounded, slightly
thinner at the top, slightly thicker on the inside; B.2. – strongly curved mouth
edge (2 exs.), which is rounded (on two of the shreds is observed longitudinal
edge due to rounding); B.3. – obliquely cut inward edge (1 ex.), spherical-
conical profile with straight walls; B.4. – evenly cut mouth edge, conical
profile having a straight wall; B.5. – T-shaped rim’s edge, profiled with a
relief edge on its inner and outer sides (1 ex.), spherical profile.
The surface of the bowls is: polished to shine (B.2.); very well
smoothed (B.1.–4.); medium well smoothed (B.5.). There are fragments,
which original surface is not preserved. Most of the sherds are from vessels
with medium thickness of the wall (B.1.–5.) and thin-walled ones (B.1.–2.).
Several of the sherds are with preserved handle – tunnel-shaped (B.1.);
tongue-shaped (ezichesta) handles (B.1., B.4., B.5. – with two perforation);
vertical flat handles (B.1.).
Several sherds from bowls have decoration, made by two techniques –
relief – “ribs” and negative – pricking /notches on the outer edge of the rim
(B.5.).
Jars (Ja) – The category is recognized based on 5 sherds of rims and
9 sherds of walls with relief band. Despite the strong fragmentation of the
material, two forms can be distinguished – conical and S-shaped profiles. All
fragments except one belong to vessels with conical profile. In this case, the
shape of the mouth may be: evenly cut (G.1.); evenly cut with a relief edge
on the outer side (G .2.); rounded (G. 3.). One example from the vessels with
"S"-shaped profile is with highly curved outward rim with tinned out edge at
the top (G. 4.).
The surfaces are: well to very well smoothed (G .1.–2); medium-
smoothed (G. 3.–4.). On two of the rims the original surface is not preserved.
The walls of the pots (with relief decoration) are black (4 exs.), beige
(4 exs.) and a wall of brown-gray color. They belong to vessels with medium
21
thickness of the wall. A medium to high concentration of quartz and mica
impurities of 0.1–0.2 cm in size is observed; the fractures are monochromatic
with beige and black color.
The ornamentation at the mouth is a relief strip/band, at the edge of
the rim and may be – separated by a finger (G.4.), with notches (G.1.)
modelled by an object with a circular cross section (G.2.–3.). Along the
walls, the relief strip has different ways of "interruption“ – pinching, notches.
In one case, the relief band was embossed with small in diameter tubular
bone. In one case, the relief strip is vertically stuck – two parallel vertical
strips.
Amphorae (А) – They are identified on the basis of fragments of walls
with a preserved neck-to-body transition, walls with decoration and single
fragments with preserved handles. The fragments with entirely preserved
handles (4 exs.) are beige and dark-gray to black in color. The handles are
vertical, flat, to slightly curved – with an arcuate cross section. In the
modeling of some of them, lateral edges on both sides were formed. Their
surfaces are very well smoothed (black) and medium well smoothed (beige).
The decoration is made by two techniques – a relief band with notches –
immediately above the upper base of the handles, and in one case the
decoration is made by printed cord – hanging triangles, which are located at
the level of the upper base of the handle.
The walls with decoration (6 exs.) have the following colors: black,
gray-black, gray-beige. Their surfaces are smoothed, with no traces of
angoba. High concentration of impurities – 0.1–0.2 cm (quartz pebbles and
mica) is observed. The fractures are monochromatic with gray-black and
brown color. The decoration is represented by a relief band with notches and
a relief edge, with round prints. It is possible that two of the latter originated
from the same pot.
The handles (4 exs.) are vertical with an amorphous ellipsoidal cross
section. They are gray-brown, brown and beige. The surfaces are medium to
well-smoothed (the handle sherds have the same characteristics as the walls
with decoration). The sherds with handles do not differ from the features of
the above-mentioned fragments of walls with entirely preserved handles.
Based on the processing of these fragments, it is impossible to
distinguish different types in the category of amphorae vessels.
Jugs (Js) – This category is identified based on three fragments of
rims; three fragments of walls with a preserved neck-to-body transition and
one fragment from a bottom.
The rims are gray to gray-brown in color. They are rounded (in one
case the mouth is strongly curved outwards, while in the other two cases the
mouth is straight).

22
 Neck-body walls are gray-beige, gray-brown and dark gray to black.
The bottom has a dark gray to black outer surface and a gray-brown inner
surface. From the available walls, where the transition between the neck and
the body is preserved, is visible that the neck is conical and the body has a
spherical profile. The bottom is flat and unprofiled. The preserved wall above
the bottom shows that the lower part of the bottom is spherical. The surfaces
of all the fragments are very well smoothed (with the exception of one rim).
A medium impurity concentration of 0.1–0.2 cm (quartz pebbles and mica) is
observed.
One of the walls has a preserved base of a vertical flat handle with a
rectangular cross-section. The decoration is presented by one technique – a
printed cord – on three fragments of walls, in which the neck-body transition
is marked. The motif is a single horizontal line of transition – a large printed
cord in two of the fragments, while in the third there are three horizontal
parallel lines of finely printed cord decoration.
The observation of the material didn’t allow us to distinguish different
types of jug category.
ІІІ. Finds (clay; stone) (Tabs. 7–9)
The objects from the Early Bronze Age were founds in five pits (№ 2,
6, 8, 20, 27). As we mentioned above in three of these structures (№ 2, 6, 27)
the discovered pottery materials are exclusively from EBA. The finds were
also discovered in other parts of the site (in the main layer) without belonging
to specific structures. Those are: one entirely preserved pot (№ 79); clay
loom-weights (№ 10, 41); spindle whirls (№ 44, 49, 52); fragments from
stone axes (№ 16, 31, 41), clay model of axe. Most numerous are the finds
from pit № 6, which can most certainly be related to the Early Bronze Age.
There were found spindle whirl, weight for a loom, fragment from stone axe.
Particularly noteworthy is one object with a rhombus-rectangular
shape, flat on one side (the lower one?) and with a small ellipsoid shaped
pool (?) on the upper side. Its decoration is made by printed cord, notches and
relief decoration. Similar objects are unknow for modern Bulgarian lands and
the neighbor territories. The serious fragmentation of the find doesn’t allow
more in-depth analyzes, which make it hard for some concrete conclusions to
be made. However, some hypothetical assumptions about its nature could be
mentioned. One is that this object was a mold, a model of a real existing other
object – a boat, a rig, etc..; andiron.
Mold (?) – Several clay molds are known from the territory of the
Bulgarian lands, which have already been discussed in the literature. They
were discovered at Tell Ezero, Tell Nova Zagora, the open-air settlement near

23
Momchilgrad. 11 The molds are rectangular in shape, with rounded corners,
and vertical walls with even edges (sills). The molds from these settlements
are for axes and are generally dated to the Early Bronze Age. A more specific
date may be mentioned about the mold from Momchilgrad, from which site
are published 14C dates – 2890–2620 and 2880–2580 BC.12 The molds were
used for casting axes with a hole and are identical to each other. They are
similar to the finds from Anatolia, but differ significantly from the find from
the Velikan, both in terms of shape and lack of decoration on their surface.
None of the known molds from the Bulgarian lands and from Anatolia13, and
the neighbors around have examples with decorated. These observations
prevent us from referring the find from Velikan with certainty to the group of
molds at this time.
Model of boat (?) – the assumption is based on the similarities with
some models of Bronze Age boats14. There are no similar findings originating
from the Bulgarian lands, so the identification of the object from Velikan is
significantly difficult.
Andiron/Firedog (?) – this hypothesis was admitted because of the
presence of a later chronological period – the Hellenistic era, during which
these findings were most widely spread in the Upper Thracian Plain. From

11
Черных, Е. Н. Метални изделия и калъпи за отливане. Езеро. Раннобронзовото
селище. София, 1979, с.171 – 176, обр. 109-л, м, н; Черных, Е. Н. Конструкции
литейных форм топоров и вопросы периодизации. Типология металлических изделий.
Ранний и средний бронзовые века. Горное дела и металлургия в древнейшей Болгарии,
1978, с.138; Нехризов, Г., Иванов, Г., Селище от ранната бронзова епоха при с.
Седларе, мах. Градинка, общ. Момчилград. – Археологически открития и разкопки
през 2010 г., София, с.113, обр. 3 – 42.
12
Нехризов, Г. Спасителни разкопки на селище от ранната бронзова епоха при с.
Седларе, мах. Градинка, община Момчилград (обект № 19Б по трасето на път І-5,
участък Подкова – разклон за Джебел). – Археологически открития и разкопки през
2009 г., 2010 г., с. 117.
13
Müller-Karpe, A. Anatolisches Metallhandwerk, Wahholtz Verlag Neumunster, 1994, taf.
pp.8-14; Bicer, K. Multifaceted Stone and Ceramic Moulds from Bronze Age Anatolia:
Building an Analytical Protocol of Mould Properties and Behavior During the Process of
Metal Casting, 2005 –
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37994500_Multifaced_stone_and_ceramic_moulds
_from_Bronze_Age_Anatolia_building_an_analytical_protocol_of_mould_properties_and_b
ehavior_during_the_process_of_metal_casting - [10.09.2019, 17:04]; Găvan, A. Metal and
metalworking in the Bronze Age tell settlements from the Carpathian Basin, 2015, Pl. pp.1-2.
14
Kaverzneva, E. Bronzezeitliches Tonmodell eines Boots der Meščera-Kultur. –
БРОНЗОВЫЙ ВЕК ЕВРОПА БЕЗ ГРАНИЦ. Четвертое — первое тысячелетия до н.
э/BRONZEZEIT EUROPA OHNE GRENZEN 4.–1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., 2013, с.259 – 263,
с.543 – 237.8.2.
24
site 4.1. few finds have already been published15, which, hypothetically,
means it is not excluded that the object may be from a later date than the
Early Bronze Age and be part of a portable hearth or ledge. However, similar
objects are not known in the literature.16 The fragmentation and the lack of
clearer evidence leave this hypothesis debatable, pending on the
accumulation of more similar objects, such as the one from Velikan.
The whole vessel has S-shaped profile, straight rim with narrowed
oval edge, vertical neck and globular low part of the body, staying on flat
non-profiled bottom. The part of the maximal diameter is covered of relief
buds (they are conical with round bases). Almost whole preserved shaped
demonstrate a bowl with conical shape and horizontal “tunnel” handle.
Interesting is one fragment of a ceramic axe found in pit № 2. The
front part of the find has been preserved. Without specifying unnecessary
details, it is important to mention that the presence of ceramic axes in a clear
pit context was unknown till now, i.e. this is the first time that a clay model
of axe has been discovered in a pit in the Upper Thracian Plain. Usually,
these objects are found in dwellings or as accidental finds in the strata of the
Early Bronze Age settlements. According to K. Leshchakov, they have a
dating significance – until the end of the second phase of the early Bronze
Age, since they do not appear after its end.17
Chronology, cultural affiliation and interpretation
The chronology of the structure and the finds of site 4.1. – Maritsa
highway, is determined by the pottery mass materials found in the pits and
their corresponding parallels. Among the significant sherds are present bowls
with T-shaped rim edge and tunnel handles, sherds of bowl’s rims with
horizontal relief edge under the rim or in the middle of the pot.
Among the characteristic sherds from the category of the amphorae
and jugs could be distinguished sherds with cord-printed decoration (motifs –
hanging or standing triangles, angles, horizontal lines and etc.)
Among the ceramic materials are missing any examples of the
decoration typical for the classical period of the phase “Mihalich” – bowls

15
Живков, В. Преносими огнища от късноелинистическата епоха, открити при
разкопките на АМ "Марица". – В: Тракия и околният свят. Сборник с доклади от
национална научна конференция. 27 – 29 октомври 2016. Шумен, 2016, с.248 – 259.
16
Leshtakov, K. On the origins and functions of Thracian andirons. – Древние культуры
юго-восточной Европы и Западной Азии. Сборник к 90-летию со дня рождения и
памяти Н. Я. Мерперта, 2014, с.227 – 243.
17
Лещаков, К. Сравнителна стратиграфия на селищните могили от ранната бронзова
епоха в Югоизточна Тракия. Годишник на Софийския университет „Св. Климент
Охридски”, Исторически факултет, 1992, с.29, с.38; Лещаков, К. Относителна
хронология на пласта от ранната бронзова епоха в селищна могила Казанлък. – В:
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA UNIVERSITATIS SERDICENSIS Supplementum IV.
Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem Professorisл Ludmili Getov, 2005, p.447.
25
with a wide rim edge and decoration on the outer and inner surfaces, as well
as the rich and various decorative schemes made in the technique of the
printed cord, which is typical for the indicated period. The decorated
fragments are relatively small and their decoration is of simple motifs that are
carelessly executed. At the same time, are also missing elements from the
later phase of the Early Bronze Age, known also as "Sv. Kirilovo” ("St.
Kirilovo” cups, relief outgrowths of vessels’ handles, “Assenovets” handles,
decoration of embossed edges and elements on the walls of vessels).
All this suggests that the probable relative date of the structures and
the materials from Velikan could possibly be related to the second half/end of
the IInd phase and the beginning of the IIIrd phase of the Early Bronze Age
(2600–2400 BC). It is not excluded that part of the analyzed materials belong
to the transition between these phases of the Early Bronze Age.
The presented chronological value corresponds to the chronological
frame 18 provided for the duration of the phases of the Early Bronze Age in
Upper Thrace and shown below:

Бояджиев Ist Phase Ezero IInd Phase IIIrd Phase Nova

2003 3250/3200– Mihalich Zagora/Yunatsite
2950/2900 BC 2950/2900– 2600/2500–2200/2000
2600/2500 BC BC
Александров Ist–IInd Phases 3200/3100– IIIrd Phase Sv.
2018 Ezero and 2500/2400 Kirilovo
Mihalich 2500/2400–2200/2100

The suggested hypothesis is based on the parallels of the ceramic

repertoire from the site. As such can be mentioned materials from
Ognyanovo19; Gudjova mogila20; Polski gradets – the settlement 21; the open-

18
Бояджиев, Я. За някои проблеми на хронологията и периодизацията на бронзовата
епоха от територията на България. – Studia Archaeologica. Suppl. I., София 2003, p.20 –
26; Александров, С. Ранната и средна бронзова епоха в българските земи:
хронология, периодизация, културни контакти и находки от благородни метали. – В:
Злато и бронз. Метали, технологии и междурегионални контакти на територията на
Източните Балкани през бронзовата епоха (Александров, Димитрова, Попов, Хорейш,
Чукалев съставители), София, 2018, с.90.
19
Leshtakov, K. The pottery from Maletepe Tell near Ognyanovo (Characteristic,
Chronology and Interrelations). – In: L. Nikolova (Ed.), Technology, Style and Society.
26
air settlement at Nova Zagora22; the open-air settlement at Svilengrad23; Tell
Ezero24. The pointed-out parallels refer to the bowl with T-shaped rim’s edge,
the rim of the bowls with horizontal relief lines under the rim, the amphorae
and the walls of jugs decorated with singles cord-printed horizontal lines.
In regard to the finds, parallels of the model of axe are known from
settlements and sites from the Early Bronze Age at Pernik, Yunatsite, Nebet
tepe, Kazanlak, Ovcharitsa, Karanovo, Dyadovo, Nova Zagora (settlement
mount and open-air site), Ezero, Sokol, Mihalich, Veselinovo and Drama.
They are dated to the second and third phases of the Early Bronze Age.
Other finds, supposedly related to the site near Velikan and relevant
to the detected finds are the clay spindle whirls with incised decoration –
published as unknown finds from the region of the same village.25 Those are
objects with negative decorations – lines and holes on the surface which are
very closed to the found at site 4.1. near Velikan.
Based on the analyzed materials and similar analogies from others
well known sites we could accepted that Velikan belongs to circle of places,
which material culture is comparable to the phases – “Mihalich” and “St.
Kirilovo” in the Upper Thrace and do not differ from it.26
It could be pointed out that certain objects, such as the ceramic model
of the axe, are unified and common even to both the Ezero, Mihalich,
Karanovo, Dyadovo, Nova Zagora during this time, as well as to the

Contribution to the innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory, BAR-
Series, 2000, 254 fig. 16.9 – 1-3.
20
Leshtakov, K., Kancheva-Ruseva, T., Stoyanov, S. Prehistoric studies. Settlements sites.
(Maritsa-Iztok. Archaeological Research, Vol. 5), Radnevo, 2001, p.56 – fig. 26-k.
21
Leshtakov, K., Kancheva-Ruseva, T., Stoyanov, S. Prehistoric studies. Settlements sites.
(Maritsa-Iztok. Archaeological Research, Vol. 5), Radnevo, 2001, p.64 – fig. 34-e.
22
Кънчева-Русева, Т., Лещаков, К. Характеристика и датировка на праисторическо
селище от бронзовата епоха до селищна могила Нова Загора. (Археологически и
исторически проучвания в Новозагорско), II, 2008, с. 71 – обр. 11-3; с.73 – обр. 13-10.
23
Валентинова, М., Ненова, Д. Обект от ранната бронзова епоха при Свиленград. В:
В. Николов, Г. Нехризов, Ю. Цветкова (ред) Спасителни археологически разкопки по
трасето на железопътната линия Пловдив-Свиленград през 2005, 2008, с.512 – табл. V-
5-10.
24
Катинчаров, Р., Мерперт, Н. Я. Украса на съдовете. Дръжки на глинените съдове.
Украса върху дръжките на глинените съдове. Езеро. Раннобронзовото селище. София,
1979, с.349 – табл. 202; с.350 – табл. 203; Черных, Е. Класификация на формите на
глинените съдове. Езеро. Раннобронзовото селище, София, 1979, с. 230 – обр. 134-г;
с.232 – обр. 136-а; с.235 – обр. 137-а, б; с.239 – обр. 139-а; с.247 – обр. 142-б; с.280 –
обр. 154-а.
25
Петрова, В. Текстилното производство през бронзовата епоха според материали от
днешните български земи. – Известия на Исторически музей Хасково, 2, 2004, с. 106 –
фиг. 18-1,5.
26
The map is made by D-r Nikola Tonkov to whom I express my deepest gratitude for
allowing me to use it!
27
Yunatsite and Sitagri despite the existing cultural differences between them
in the elements of the material culture.
The number of the archaeological structures and finds presented here
is not sufficient for complete interpretation. This is due to the lack of other
structures and facilities, as well as the lack of other sites – present from the
same time period are only pits. An exception is the site Yazdach – the area
“Korutarla”, Chirpan district, where Early Bronze Age pits were detected. 27
In the publications for the excavations the types of the structures and the
materials originating from there are indicated. Part of the materials refer to
Cherna voda III, others belong to later period – 3rd phase of the Early Bronze
Age (vessels with spouts and etc.).28 The finds from Velikan belong to the
inventory for daily use and they could hardly be connected to some ritual
activities. On the other hand, their deposition in pits (in the absence of other
structures and fitments) rise the question whether they were related to cultic
manifestation or they were part of waste landfills of a site that possibly
excited near the studied area.
The presented information shows a site, which characteristics are
rarely evidenced during the Early Bronze Age in the Upper Thrace. The
scarce data and the lack of more details, and well-preserved archaeological
structures and materials prevent us from making more secure definition of the
site’s character. This leaves the discussion about those types of objects open,
until more reliable information is acquired.

27
Панайотова, К., Миков, Р., Христов, М. Спасителни археологически проучвания
на обект № 16 по АМ „Тракия“, в землището на с. Яздач, Община Чирпан, през 2003 г.
– Археологически открития и разкопки, 2004 г.,с. 48; Panayotova, К., Mikov, Р.,
Hristov, М. Ein Komplex aus der Bronzezeit in der Flur des Dorfes Jasdač, Bez. Čirpan
(vorläufiger Bericht). – In: V. Nikolov, K. Bacvarov (eds.). Von Domica bis Drama.
Gedenkshrift für Jan Lichardus, 2004, pp.190-197 – Fig 1; Панайотов, И., Христов, М.,
Миков, Р. Спасителни археологически проучвания на обект № 16 по трасето на АМ
„Тракия“, ЛОТ 1, в м. „Корутарла“, до с. Яздач, община Чирпан. – Археологически
открития и разкопки за 2004 г., 2005, с. 78-79.
28
Panayotova, К., Mikov, Р., Hristov, М. Ein Komplex aus der Bronzezeit in der Flur des
Dorfes Jasdač, Bez. Čirpan (vorläufiger Bericht). – In: V. Nikolov, K. Bacvarov (eds.). Von
Domica bis Drama. Gedenkshrift für Jan Lichardus, 2004, pp.190-197.
28
Обр. 1 – Карта на обекти със сходни на обект 4.1. – Великан, материали
(картна подложка – Д-р инж. Н. Тонков)
Fig. 1 – Map of the EBA site near Velikan and sites with similar materials
(map made by D-r Ing. Nikola Tonkov)

29
 Обр. 2 – Обект 4.1., Великан. Общ план на структурите
(Ч. Лалов, Е. Николова, В. Живков).
Fig. 2 – Site 4.1., Velikan. Graphic plane of the structures
(drawing by Ch. Lalov, E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov)

30
Обр. 3 – Обект 4.1., Великан. Аерофотоснимка
(Ч. Лалов, Е. Николова, В. Живков)
Fig. 3 – Site 4.1., Velikan. Air-photo
(taken by Ch. Lalov, E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov)

31
 Обр. 4 – Обект 4.1., Великан. Яма 2
(Ч. Лалов, Е. Николова, В. Живков)
Fig. 4 – Site 4.1., Velikan. Pit 2.
(drawing by Ch. Lalov, E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov)

32
 Обр. 5 – Обект 4.1., Великан. Яма 6
(Ч. Лалов, Е. Николова, В. Живков)
Fig. 5 – Site 4.1., Velikan. Pit 6.
(drawing by Ch. Lalov, E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov)

Обр. 6 – Обект 4.1., Великан. Яма 8

(Ч. Лалов, Е. Николова, В. Живков)
Fig. 6 – Site 4.1., Velikan. Pit 8.
(drawing by Ch. Lalov, E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov)
33
 Обр. 7 – Обект 4.1., Великан. Яма 20
(Ч. Лалов, Е. Николова, В. Живков)
Fig. 7 – Site 4.1., Velikan. Pit 20.
(drawing by Ch. Lalov, E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov)

34
 Обр. 8 – Обект 4.1., Великан. Яма 27
(Ч. Лалов, Е. Николова, В. Живков)
Fig. 8 – Site 4.1., Velikan. Pit 27.
(drawing by Ch. Lalov, E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov)

35
 Табла 1-2 – Обект 4.1., Великан. Яма 2 – керамика
Tables – Site 4.1., Velikan. Pit 2 – pottery

36
Табло 3-5 – Обект 4.1., Великан. Яма 6 – керамика.
Tables 3-5 – Site 4.1., Velian. Pit 6 – pottery

37
38
39
 Табло 6 – Обект 4.1., Великан. Яма 27 – керамика
Table 6 – Site 4.1., Velikan. Pit 27 – pottery

40
Табло 7 – Обект 4.1., Великан, находки – фотоизображения
(Ч. Лалов, Е. Николова, В. Живков)
Table 7 – Site 4.1., Velikan, finds – photo-illustrations
(drawing by Ch. Lalov, E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov)

41
 Табло 8 – Обект 4.1., Великан, находки – графични изображения
(В. Живков)
Table 8 – Site 4.1., Velikan, finds graphic illustrations
(drawing by V. Zhivkov)

42
 Табло 9 – Обект 4.1., Великан, керамичен съд (фото и графично
изображение - (Ч. Лалов, Е. Николова, В. Живков)
Table 9 – Site 4.1., Velikan, vessel (photo and graphic drawing by Ch. Lalov,
E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov)

Табло 10 – Обект 4.1., Великан, цял профил на паница

(Ч. Лалов, Е. Николова, В. Живков)
Table 10 – Site 4.1., Velikan, whole shape of bowl
(drawing by Ch. Lalov, E. Nikolova, V. Zhivkov)

43
 Табло 11 – Глинени калъпи: А. Езеро
(Черных 1979, 175 – обр. 109-л, м, н);
В. Момчилград (Нехризов, Иванов 2011, 113 – обр. 3-42)
Table 11 – Clay moulds: A. Tell Ezero
(Черных 1979, 175 – обр. 109-л, м, н);
B. Momchilgrad (Нехризов, Иванов 2011, 113 – обр. 3-42)

44
 Табло 12 – Яздач, Корутарла. Керамика
(Panayotova, Mikov, Hristov 2004, 195, Abb. 1 – 3, 4, 5, 6)
Table 12 – Yazdach, Korutarla. Pottery
(Panayotova, Mikov, Hristov 2004, 195, Abb. 1 – 3, 4, 5, 6)

45
 Табло 13 – Яздач, Корутарла. Керамика
(Panayotova, Mikov, Hristov 2004, 196, Abb. 2 – 2, 3)
Table 13 – Yazdach, Korutarla. Pottery
(Panayotova, Mikov, Hristov 2004, 196, Abb. 2 – 2, 3)

46