|Published (Last):||26 April 2009|
|PDF File Size:||2.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.68 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Haskel J. All articles in Archaeologia Bulgarica are submitted to peer review. On the cover: anonymous copper Byzantine follis, class A2, AD ; antique and medieval fortress near the village of Slivarovo, Malko Tarnovo municipality, Burgas region, SE corner of Bulgaria; unpublished, excavations and photo of Lyudmil Vagalinski; see the paper of M. Choref in this issue. The classification presented here is based on data obtained during the ar- chaeological researches in the area in recent years.
Well dated precise parallels from the area concerned helped build a reasonably accurate chronological picture concern- ing the development of the manufacturing complex near Pavlikeni. From the data col- lected it can be assumed that its activity began during the reign of Emperor Hadrian AD or the early years of the reign of Antoninus Pius AD at the latest and continued without interruption until the invasion of the Costoboci in the early s AD.
The study of the local ceramic production on the territory between the Danube and the Balkan mountain range became possible only af- ter the discovery of the ceramics centres on the territory of Nicopolis ad Istrum in the s and s. Without doubt, the most compre- hensively researched is the manufacturing complex in the Varbovski Livadi site near Pavlikeni1 map 1. The archaeological excavations brought to the discovery of the remains of three architectural com- plexes and approximately fifty pottery kilns fig.
Thanks to the conducted research we now possess a high number of complete preserved vessels, tens of thousands of frag- ments and defectively made articles from the kilns fig. The data represent sure evidence of an intensive production process. In recent decades, sufficient ceramic material was found and pub- lished, which allows for a more precise dating and typology of the pot- tery produced in the already known centres.
The purpose of this pa- per is to identify clearly the chronology of the red slip ware produced in the manufacturing complex in the Varbovski livadi locality near Pavlikeni. The classification presented here is based on data obtained in recent years during the archaeological researches in the area.
Classification Developing a new classification is necessary for several reasons. In the first place, it is the lack of clear criteria for making such classification in the previous studies related to the red slip ware from the researched area.
Sultov without interruption in the period Sultov , is not acceptable because it can be applied for a by B. Table red slipware: plates drawings by S. Ivanov Hayes , 20, fig. A close parallel of the type comes from a grave in the Golyamata Mogila site near the village of Madretz, Stara Zagora region, which is dated to the middle of the 2nd century at the latest Буюклиев , ; Иванова , Identical plates were found in the necropolis near Butovo together with coins of the emper- ors Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius Sultov , The production of this type may be attributed generally to the period from the first half of the 2nd century to the s.
Inside and on the bottom — belts of roulette decoration. On the outer surface — wide in- cised line. Ring-footed flat bottom. Orange clay without inclusions and orange-red slip. Diameter of the mouth The type is represented by an almost completely preserved exam- ple and several fragments, which suggests that the plates of type III were produced in a small amount and within a short period. Many are still guided in the interpretation of those data by an uncritical understanding of the written sources.
Ethnographic concerns greatly distort the traditional framework of the periplus, and make room for digressions on such things as customs, religion, government, and the like.
In spite of the common opinion on the matter, Procopius does not describe nomads moving around in the steppe lands. Only in the northern segment is a three-tiered classification introduced, as in the case of the Huns-Cimmerians- Cutrigurs.
That classification allows the distinction between foes and friends of the Romans. Those closer to the Romans Cutrigurs are their enemies, while those far- thest from them Utigurs, Trapezites are their allies. Both Procopius and Pseudo- Zachariah wrote about Huns, albeit in different languages. Procopius and Agathias mention Cutrigurs, but Jordanes has only Bulgars.
Are assemblages dated to the 6th century and discovered in the lands north of the Black Sea the remains of the Bulgars or of the Cutrigurs?
What is, in fact, the basis for any linkage between the historical and the archaeological evidence? The second section of the paper is based on a critical approach to the archaeological record. Such practices may have been connected with claims to the ancestors supposedly buried underneath the mounds. At the same time, the idea of placing the dead in prehistoric mounds may have something to do with the desire to make their tombs visible in the landscape, and thus to communicate the status of an individual or of a family In the steppe lands north of the Black Sea, burial within a prehistoric mound was probably meant to conjure the imagined past in order to re-invent traditions.
That the earliest cases are from the northwestern area of the Black Sea Lowlands, while in the late 6th and early 7th century burials in prehis- toric barrows appear also in the northwestern region of the Sea of Azov and in Crimea may not be an accident.
During the second half of the 6th and the early decades of the 7th century, the Black Sea Lowlands between the Dniester and the Molochna rivers were troubled borderlands, and the written sources clearly point to the dissolution of earlier tribal confederacies, such as the Cutrigurs and the Utigurs, as a result of attacks from Avars and Turks.
It is possible that burial in ancient barrows was a response to the claims laid on the Black Sea steppe lands, particularly those in northern Crimea and those between the Dnieper and the Danube, in close proximity to the Empire. Key words: ethnicity, Procopius of Caesarea, Agathias, John Malalas, Jordanes, Menander the Guardsman, ethnography, barrows, coin hoards, memorial monuments.
Distribution of late 6th and early 7th-century burial assemblages in the northern Black Sea region. Numbers refer to Appendix 3 ; Curta , , A gold medallion with a central cabochon and granulated ornament was found in Natashyne western Crimea Рашев , 23, , fig.
It is clearly an imitation of medallions such as those from Dzhiginka. But the latter grave was that of a young man buried together with a single-edge sword, the scabbard of which was attached to a strap by means of P-shaped mounts, which are typical for the late 6th and early 7th century Комар et al.
Two strap ends with open- is square and very similar to the cabochons decorating the ends of the two gold bracelets work ornament found in Dmytrivka have good analogies in grave 7 of from the first grave in Morskoi Chulek. However, the simple , 39 pl. The project for their release was developed under Nikephoros II Phokas. The coins were issued under reli- gious, ideological and political considerations. Giving the order to mint coins on behalf of Christ, the Emperor claimed his humility, promoted the idea of Holy War and sought to raise the prestige of military service.
He intentionally stated that Byzantine warriors who died in the war against the Muslims should be considered martyrs. Not all ambitions of Nikephoros II Phokas were achieved. His successor, John I Tzimiskes, abandoned the idea of considering war victims to be Martyrs. However, the release of the anonymous follis was continued by his successors.
The significance of the influence of the provincial aristocracy that was strengthening its prestige in the Empire by means of the army duration that the anonymous follis emission testified to. As such, these coins are most valuable sources of historical information. As a result, many DOC 4. After all, the technology of money production is also 3 This name is generally accepted but the subject of numerous scientific studies Моржерин , ; the original name of these coins is un- Чореф ; , This be considered as complete.
The anonymous follis3 fig. But, in fact, in the est. And this nick- or legends in which their names or titles are mentioned. This gives name fit the stunted Emperor as well as us grounds for considering these coins as anonymous. It is remark- possible. In Greek, the word sounds like able that they are decorated with great skill. Christ, Virgin Mary or Saints and inscriptions glorifying them, as well 5 His headed bronze coins were minted as religious symbols are present on the coins.
It is beyond argument only in Cherson Анохин , , that the images are icon-like. Anonymous Class A1 follis Fig. John I Tzimiskes took power following the assas- sination of Nikephoros II Phokas , and successfully ruled the state with the aid of his army.
Moreover, he did not propose any new ideas for his power legitimization. In fact, John I Tzimiskes continued the policy of his predecessor. Such interest does exist. It is believed that the idea of the Holy War against the Infidels is not known in Orthodoxy. Indeed, this idea con- tradicts the tenet of non-violent resistance. In fact, Christianity con- demns war as a legalized murder. However, that does not mean that such an idea could not have been proposed. He was pressing the patriarch and the bishops to agree to this doctrine but some of them vigorously withstood him and frustrated his intent.
At first sight, this is purely a religious matter. However, at closer in- spection it is clear that this is not so. Nikephoros II Phokas, who had usurped the throne with the aid of his army, counted on its support in the future. So, it was extremely important for him to raise the prestige of the military service. To do so, it was necessary to justify the most ordi- nary event, which is inevitable in military service.
This means the killing of enemies in war. Judging from the text by John Skylitzes, the Emperor insisted that killing the enemy was not considered a sin. Otherwise, if they died in war without repentance, those fallen in battle could not count on a better plight and could not have become Saint.
The results from the detailed analyses of the fortifica- tion, pottery, artifacts and coins, rejects the hypotheses of raising it during the Roman — Early Byzantine period 1st — 6th c. The author argues that the fortress was constructed approximately during the early 10th c. It is particularly similar to the external fortress wall of the Capital Preslav synchro- nous with it in date, manner of building and similar gates.
The harbour displays a different way of construction and it is dated to after when Byzantium established its authority over the Lower Danube. The identification of PLS with Mundraga and Vicina is contested and the hypothesis is put forward suggesting that Glavinitsa can be localized there. As for the harbour revealed on the bank along the eastern fortress wall fig. However, arguments have already been raised in the failure of this idea Tapkova-Zaimova , ; Йорданов , 33; Атанасов , We have undisputed sources for the emergence and mooring of a military and merchant fleet — in this case Byzantine — in separate harbours along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast and the Danube bank only after Byzantium conquered these lands.
Archaeologia Bulgarica journal