1

YABALKOVOvolume 1.

The Early Neolithic site of Yabalkovo originated from the end of the 7th, or the very beginning of the 6th mill. BC. Its life thrives for a few hundred years till the end of the 6th mill. BC. In the same place, attracted by the favourable natural environment, people settled in the mid. 5th, 3rd and 1st mill. BC. Life here ends in the beginning of the 13th cen. AD, when the Crusaders de-stroyed the fl ourishing mediaeval village with a church, stone architecture and well developed trade.Yabalkovo is the largest in area EN site, explored till now, not only on the Balkans, but in Southeastern Europe and Northwestern Anatolia. The whole inhabited area is ca. 1.2 km by 0.75 km. The central settlement was surrounded by a triple ditch system – three concentric ditches, with a depth of max. 5 m and a width of up to 4 m at the opening, surround an area with a diameter of 220 m. In the encircled space, the places for stone and fl int tools manufac-ture, for storage of supplies, ritual places and the ‘district’ with the luxurious dwellings, etc., were plotted. During the rescue excavations, a huge amount of information was gathered, which we plan to publish in several volumes.You hold Yabalkovo, Volume 1 which has the character of introductory or panoramic publica-tion and includes data not only from the early Neolithic, but also from all later periods pre-sented at the site. We plan to follow it with monographic studies of the ceramics, small fi nds, stone and fl int tools, stock-breeding, agriculture, etc. The editors hope these investigations would be a step forward in our understanding of the Neolithisation of Europe and realising of the process of European enclaves formation which started more than 8000 years ago.

YABALKOVO volume 1.

MARITSA PROJECT volume 2.

Edited by:

J. Roodenberg, K. Leshtakov, V. Petrova

ATE – Ars et Technica Explicatus, SOFIA UNIVERSITY “ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI”Sofi a, 2014

4

Yabalkovo, volume 1.

© Jacob Roodenberg, Krassimir Leshtakov, Vanya Petrova, editors, 2014© M. Songül Alpaslan Roodenberg, Chelsea Budd, Aleta Guadelli, Maria Gurova, Ivaylo Dedov, Iliya Hadzhipetkov, Alexander Harizanov, Nikolaj Iliev, Georgi Katsarov, Laszlo Klein, Krassimir Leshtakov, Malcolm Lillie, Philip Machev, Georgi Mavrov, Encho Myanushev, Nikolina Nikolova, Vanya Petrova, Tsvetana Popova, Jacob Roodenberg, Mariana Slavova, Nikolaj Spassov, Asen Stanchev, Nadezhda Todorova, Nikola Tonkov, Milena Tonkova, Dian Vangelov, Zheni Vasileva, Radka Zlateva, authors, 2014© Viktor Paunov, design, 2014© ATE – Ars et Technica Explicatus, publishing, 2014

ISBN 978-619-90348-1-1

All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,without the prior permission of the publisher.

5

Transliteration / 7

List of Abbreviations / 8

List of Tables and Figures / 9

Preface / 21J. Roodenberg

Chapter I. Introduction. Structure of the fi eldwork. Documentation and archive / 25K. Leshtakov

Chapter II. Quaternary paleogeographic interpretation and geomorphological environment of Early Neolithic Yabalkovo / 51D. Vangelov, F. Machev, L. Klein

Chapter III. Soil analysis in archaeological research. Yabalkovo case study / 65E. Myanushev, A. Stanchev

Chapter IV. Geophysical survey at the Early Neolithic settlement of Yabalkovo / 73N. Tonkov

Chapter V. Cultural environment of Early Neolithic Yabalkovo / 79K. Leshtakov

Chapter VI. Chronicles of the excavations / 119K. Leshtakov

Chapter VII. Settlement topography / 217 Chapter VII. 1. Early Neolithic subterranean structures (pits and ditches). An introduction / 217V. Petrova, N. NikolovaChapter VII. 2. Early Neolithic ditches / 223 Chapter VII. 2. 1. Early Neolithic ditches in Sector North. Stratigraphy / 223 V. Petrova Chapter VII. 2. 2. Early Neolithic ditches in northern part of Sector Southwest. Stratigraphy / 231 V. Petrova Chapter VII. 2. 3. Early Neolithic ditches in southern part of Sector Southwest. Stratigraphy / 253 G. KatsarovChapter VII. 3. Early Neolithic pits / 275 N. Todorova, I. Hadzhipetkov Chapter VIII. The Early Neolithic burials: an overview / 297S. Alpaslan Roodenberg, N. Todorova, V. Petrova

Chapter IX. The Early Neolithic pottery from Yabalkovo. An interim report / 305K. Leshtakov

Chapter X. Early Neolithic small fi nds from Yabalkovo / 341Chapter X. 1. Small fi nds. Introduction / 341 V. Petrova, K. Leshtakov

Contents

6

Yabalkovo, volume 1.

Chapter X. 2. Stone tools / 353I. HadzhipetkovChapter X. 3. Chipped-stone industry / 371 R. ZlatevaChapter X. 4. Flint assemblage: formal toolkit and functional connotation / 381M. GurovaChapter X. 5. Bone and antler artefacts. Preliminary analysis / 391A. GuadeliChapter X. 6. Loom weights / 403 V. PetrovaChapter X. 7. Ornaments / 409 Zh. Vasileva, I. Hadzhipetkov

Chapter XI. Plant Husbandry of Early Neolithic Yabalkovo / 415Ts. Popova

Chapter XII. Faunal remains from Early Neolithic Yabalkovo / 425 Chapter XII. 1 Bone remains from domestic and wild animals / 425 N. Spassov, N. IlievChapter XII. 2. Molluscs / 433I. Dedov

Chapter XIII. Red ochre / 437I. Hadzhipetkov, F. Machev

Chapter XIV. Stable isotope analyses and AMS dating of human and faunal remains / 441Ch. Budd, M. Lillie

Chapter XV. Yabalkovo’s radiocarbon dates and the spread of agriculture / 447J. Roodenberg

Chapter XVI. Post-Neolithic periods at Yabalkovo / 453Chapter XVI. 1. Ditch from the Early Bronze Age 3, Sector North / 453V. Petrova, K. LeshtakovChapter XVI. 2. Bronze lion fi gurine from a LIA pit, Sector North / 463K. Leshtakov, M. Tonkova, G. MavrovChapter XVI. 3. Late Roman ceramic kiln, Sector North / 469A. HarizanovChapter XVI. 4. Byzantine gold coins from Yabalkovo / 475M. Slavova

List of Contributors / 478

Index / 480

7

Bulgarian letters/Latin transliteration

A B V G D E Zh Z I Y K L M N O P R S T U F H Ts Ch Sh Sht A Y Yu Ya

The main source http://www.translitteration.com/translitera-tion/en/bulgarian/streamlined/. There are some exceptions broadly adopted in the literature due to longstanding tradition, for instance – Bulgaria or Maria.

Cyrillic (Bulgarian) – Latin transliterationused in the volume

А, аБ, бВ, вГ, гД, дЕ, еЖ, жЗ, зИ, иЙ, йК, кЛ, лМ, мН, нО, оП, пР, рС, сТ, тУ, уФ, фХ, хЦ, цЧ, чШ, шЩ, щЪ, ъЬ, ьЮ, юЯ, я

Bulgarian digraphs/Latin transliteration

дж dzhдз dzьо yoйо yoия (end of word) ia

8

EN – Early Neolithic

MN – Middle Neolithic

LN – Late Neolithic

ECh – Early Chalcolithic

Ch – Chalcolithic

LCh – Late Chalcolithic

EBA – Early Bronze Age

MBA – Middle Bronze Age

LBA – Late Bronze Age

EIA – Early Iron Age

LIA – Late Iron Age

MA – Middle Ages

NE – Northeast

NW – Northwest

SE – Southeast

SW – Southwest

NS – North-South

EW – East-West

Abbreviations used in the text

Yabalkovo, volume 1.

409

The desire to adorn the body inspired man as early as the prehistoric period. Being crafted in a great variety of raw materials (clay, bone, stone, seashells) associated with different manufacturing technologies and characterised by a multitude of forms, (beads, pendants, rings, bracelets, buckles, etc.), ornaments were not always studied as a distinct artefact category. During the Neolithic period, the widespread use of various forms did not simply constitute elements of personal adornments, but also carried social symbolism. Most of the ornaments are not found in graves and hence are related to life rather than death.

The stone, shell, bone or clay ornament collection from Yabalkovo is relatively small in terms of quantity compared to the occurrence of Neolithic ornaments in Bulgaria. Characteristic ornaments in-clude adornments and functional items for clothes. Adornments include bracelets, rings, elements of necklaces like beads and pendants. The functional items include amulets and belt-buckles. Artefacts are made of stone, bone, clay or shell.The number of ornaments made of stone is relatively small. They can be divided into three main groups based on the assumed form and function, namely pendants, am-ulets and rings. This group includes also beads made of stone. The small number of ornaments, however, requires separate attention for each artefact because of their differences.Pendants. The collection includes three artefacts (Fig. 1). The fi rst was made from a small fl at pebble with a hole drilled into the middle (Fig. 1d). Its diameter is 4.5 cm and its thickness 1.5 cm. The hole was drilled bilaterally and its diameter is 4 mm at the narrowest part. The second pendant is similar in appear-ance (Fig. 1b). This item was made of a

CHAPTER X. 7. ORNAMENTS

Zh. Vasileva, I. Hadzhipetkov

Fig. 1. Stone pendants (a-d) and a marble ring

(e).

410

Yabalkovo, volume 1.

little pebble of volcanic tuff. Its length is 4.7 cm, its width 3.5 cm, its thickness 0.5 cm. The diameter of the perforation is about 5 mm.The third ornament in this group is a conical marble pendant with a small hole in the upper part (Fig. 1c). The height is 3.2 cm, the diameter at the base is 1.5 cm and at the top 0.3 cm. The diameter of the perforation is 0.3 cm. Such an artefact is known from Kovachevo (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002, 124, Pl. 21.3).To determine the difference between amulets and jewellery is almost impos-sible, although it is assumed that amulets are objects with an immediate purpose beyond adornment. A stone pendant discovered on the fl oor of a dwelling con-stitutes a unique fi nd. It was made from a light greenish-grey stone; the shape is fl at in section, with four wing-like projec-tions and a hole in the middle (Fig. 1a). The surface is well smoothed and highly polished. The item is broken and evidently was worn a long time on cloths (Leshtak-ov et al. 2007, 8-9). This amulet gives proof of highly skilled stone working. Similar items made of precious or semi-precious stones are known from other Early Neo-lithic sites in Bulgaria and elsewhere (cf. Hansen 2003 for a recent overview), but the closest parallels are maybe the ones from Kardzhali (Pejkov 1986, 208, fi g. 2-3), Kovachevo (Perničeva 1990, 167, Fig. 14.3), and tell Azmak (Höckmann 1968, 100, Taf. 19, 1088), all in Southern Bulgaria. A special study on zoomorphic amulets or pendants made of jade was produced by R. Kostov. The author discussed the distribution of raw materials and the in-terpretation of the Early Neolithic fi ndings from Kardzhali and Kovachevo (Kostov 2010, 391). Kostov noted that amulets made from jade are known also from the Chalcolithic period (Kostov 2010, 392-3). Generally, these objects, which are in the shape of amphibian animals such as frogs, lizards or snakes, are interpreted as fertil-ity amulets (Николов 2006, 70).Rings. A ring made of pink marble is quite a unique fi nd (Fig. 1e). The origin of this marble is unknown. The diameter and

thickness are respectively 3.2 and 0.8 cm. Such objects are known from the Early Neolithic settlement of Kovachevo (Lich-ardus-Itten et al. 2002, 124, Pl. 21.4-5). Typical Neolithic bone artefacts include amulets (Fig. 2a-c), beads (Fig. 5a) and hook-shaped buckles (Fig. 2d-h). Bone is one of the oldest materials used for the manufacture of adornments. Of particular interest are two intact (Fig. 2d, f) and three partially preserved (Fig. 2d, g-h) hook-shaped artefacts, which were most probably used as ‘buckles’. The artefacts were manufactured from animal bones or antler. The length of the preserved hooks is between 2.9 cm and 7.9 cm, and their maximum thickness is be-tween 0.7 cm and 1 cm. From the archaeo-

Fig. 2. Bone ornaments: amulets (a-c) and hook-shaped artefacts (d-h).

Chapter X. 7. Ornaments. Zh. Vasileva, I. Hadzhipetkov

logical excavation of Yabalkovo, only one example with an animal-shaped head at the top of the buckle is known. The three intact hooks were discovered in situ on the fl oor of early Neolithic dwellings, while the fragmented hooks were found in the fi ll of the early Neolithic ditches. In burial contexts these types of bone artefacts are sometimes found near the waist of the deceased and are interpreted as belonging to belts, i.e. parts of eye-and-hook belt-buckles, for example burial N 6 from the settlement of Kardzhali, dated in the Karanovo 1 – Early Neolithic period. According to A. Peykov, the hook was part of a belt-buckle (Пейков 1978, 16-17, Обр. 41). Belt-buckles are also known from a Neolithic settlement near Kapitan Dimitrievo (Бъчваров 1999, 62, табл. 6:2). A bone belt-buckle with a bird head at one end was found at the Early Neolithic site of tell Azmak and another one end-ing with an animal head with three small lateral orifi ces at Early Neolithic Ploska mogila, near Stara Zagora (Калчев 2005, 55). Belt-buckles manufactured from bone are widespread in Neolithic Anatolia and Greece. Some of them have one or two perforations at one end, presumably for attaching it to the belt. Very interesting examples come from Nea Nikomedeia, Soufl i Magoula (Perlès 2001, 54, fi g. 4.2),

Çatalhöyük (Mellaart 1963, 102, fi g. 44), and Lepenski Vir (Srejovic 1981, 94, N 294-295).Amulets were supposed to offer pro-tection. A few bone amulets of specifi c interest from Yabalkovo are described separately. The fi rst perforated amulet was made from an animal tooth and has an approximate length of 4.7 cm and a hole of diameter 0.4 cm (Fig. 2a). The second bone amulet has an approximate length of 5.9 cm and is 0.3 cm thick. The third specimen is 3.5 cm long, with a diameter of 0.7 cm (Fig. 2c).Of particular interest is a bone fi gurine with incised decoration on the body, which was probably used as an amulet (Fig. 2b). The preserved length is 3.6 cm and its thickness 0.6 cm. This object may be interpreted as a personal adornment bearing symbolic meaning.Some of the ornaments are made from clay and include bracelets, pendants, amulets and beads. Most common are bracelets.A very characteristic personal ornament from the Balkan Neolithic is the ring bracelet made of clay, bone or shell. Bracelets are particularly common in Yabalkovo, but unfortunately there are no complete examples (Fig. 3). Over thirty fragments of clay bracelets were collected (Fig. 3c, e-j). Diameters are between 5 and

Fig. 3. Bracelets made from bone (a-b), clay (c,

e-j) and shell (d, k).

412

Yabalkovo, volume 1.

9 cm and cross-section diameters between 0.5 – 1.1 cm. They have round sections and well smoothed and polished surfaces. Bracelets are common in almost all pre-historic settlements in Bulgaria. They are usually broken, made from fi ne, levigated clay, polished and well baked. We know similar clay items from other Early Neo-lithic sites in Bulgaria and elsewhere. The closest parallels are those from Kovachevo (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002, 124), tell Az-mak (Георгиев 1963, 173), Dzhulyunitsa – Smardesh (Еленски 2006, обр. 14: 9, 10). A clay bracelet with a round section and a black polished surface, diameter 0.8 cm, was recorded from the Neolithic settlement of Kapitan Dimitrievo, dated in the pe-riod Karanovo III - IV (Бъчваров 1999, 62, табл.6:8). There is also evidence for brace-lets in early neolithic Kardzhali (Пейков 1978, 16-17). This makes this type of object one of the most widespread and character-istic items of the Balkan Neolithic. Two bracelets made of shell are quite interesting fi nds (the type of shell has not yet been studied). The fi rst is a fragment of a shell bracelet discovered in the out-ermost south ditch (Fig. 3d). Its diameter is 4.7 cm and its cross-section 0.5 cm. The second shell bracelet has a diameter of 6 – 7 cm (Fig. 3k). Shell bracelets manufac-tured from Spondylus occur at Kovachevo (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002, 157, Pl. 21, 23). Many Early Neolithic sites in the Balkans have yielded bracelets made from shells. They are usually thin and fragmentary, while their size and thickness depend upon the type of the shell that was used as a raw material. Probably they were worn by young women and/or children. Sea-shell bracelets are often associated with prestigious objects, because this material was brought from distant regions. Of particular interest is a fragment of Hexaplex trunculus, a seashell that origi-nates from the Mediterranean region and was exploited to extract purple, a blue pig-ment used in ancient times. This shell is the only example found in Yabalkovo and may have been used as an adornment (cf. Dedov this volume).Clay ornaments were also recovered at

Yabalkovo. They are relatively common in the Early Neolithic sites throughout the Balkans, made of carefully prepared clay, well smoothed and polished. Clay orna-ments from Yabalkovo comprise pendants (Fig. 4) and beads (Fig 5b).The fi rst artefact is an ovoid pendant with a perforation in the upper part (Fig. 4a). It is in its original condition and due to the perforation it could be worn with a string around the neck. The diameter is 3.7 cm and the diameter of the hole 0.8 cm. The second pendant has a round circular shape and has a perforation in the middle (Fig. 4b). The diameter is 3 cm, the diameter of the hole is 0.8 cm. Similar artefacts were recovered in Kovachevo (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002, 124, Pl. 21.8). Pendants with holes drilled through the side could be attached by a looping thread through the hole. These pendants were probably strung in necklaces. The beads will be discussed together because there were so few of this kind of artefact recovered at Yabalkovo. Many ornaments, for example necklaces, were made of beads. Some were perforated nat-ural objects such as small shells or animal teeth; others were made from decorative stone, bone or other attractive materials. The few beads found at Early Neolithic Yabalkovo were made of clay, shell or stone (Fig. 5). There was no relationship between the material used and the diam-eter of the bead (and of its perforation). The diameter of these carefully made and polished objects is between 1 and 0.4-0.5 cm and the diameter of the perforations is between 0.8 and 0.1 cm. Beads manufac-tured from bone are known from Kard-zhali (Пейков 1978, 16-17), where it was, among other things, part of the inventory from burial N 4 (Бъчваров 2003, 42-43, fi g. 2.2), while shell beads were recorded in Kovachevo (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002, 124, Pl. 21.2). Stone beads remain a special interest because of their size and elaborate manu-facture. Stone beads are mostly single fi nds in Early Neolithic sites of Bulgaria, but the regular occurrence of small beads presumably indicates that bead necklaces

413

Chapter X. 7. Ornaments. Zh. Vasileva, I. Hadzhipetkov

were rather common ornaments. Among them, the necklace found at Early Neo-lithic Gulubnik, which consisted of more than one hundred beads made of marble, steatite and shell, must be considered as an exceptional fi nd (Чохаджиев 2007, 133).The excavations at Yabalkovo yielded only a few stone beads. The fi rst bead was made from a blue stone and has a diam-eter of 0.07 cm, a thickness of 0.2 cm, while

the perforation diameter is 0.1 to 0.2 cm. Another bead was made from light green stone without perforation (Fig. 5d). Its diameter is 0.7 cm and its thickness – 0.4 cm. Of particular interest is the third bead, found in a pit fi ll, which was made from marble. It has a diameter of 0.4 cm and is 0.15 cm thick. We know marble beads also from Kovachevo (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002, 157, Pl. 21) and from Early Neolithic sites in Greece (Perlès 2001, 223-226).Three beads, made from stone or shell, are found together in a pit (Fig. 5c). They had almost identical dimensions and shape with one another and as well with the bone bead discussed above (Fig. 5a). They have diameter between 0.4 and 0.5 cm, perfora-tion 0.1 cm and a thickness of 0.1 cm.Although it has not been possible to iden-tify distinct traces of wear on the Yabalk-ovo beads, it is probable that they were worn over several generations. There are various interesting possibilities regarding the use of these ornamental items. During the Early Neolithic in Greece one of the most popular ornaments was the necklace, which often had a large pendant bead in the middle fl anked by smaller beads (Per-lès 2001, 54). The skilfully worked ornaments from Yabalkovo have parallels at many Early Neolithic Balkan sites. These ornaments were certainly made by artisans who were familiar with craft technologies. It is generally accepted that ornaments served a wide range of purposes in small-scale societies. They may have functioned as a symbolic code for communication and seem to have had a profound meaning in Neolithic society because we fi nd them everywhere, and some have their quasi-identical counterparts in faraway places.

Fig. 4. Terracotta pen-dants (a-b).

Fig. 5. Beads made from shell or stone (a, c), clay

(b), and stone (d).

414

Yabalkovo, volume 1.

REFERENCES

Hansen, S. 2003. Anhänger-Amulete-Siegel: Zu einer neolitischen Fundgruppe. In M. Özdogan, H. Hauptmann, N. Bașgelen (eds.), From village to cities. Studies presented to Ufuk Esin. Istanbul: Arke-oloji ve Senat Publications, 343-360.Höckmann, O. 1968. Die menshengestaltige Figuralplastik der südosteuropäischen Jungesteinzeit und Steinkupferzeit. Hideshein: August Lax.Kostov, R. 2010. Gem minerals and materials from the Neolithic and chalcolithic periods in Bulgaria and their impact on the history of gemmology. Scientifi c Annals, School of Geology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Proceedings of the XIX CBGA Congress, Thessaloniki, Greece Special volume 100. School of Geology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 391-397. Leshtakov, K., N. Todorova, V. Petrova et al. 2007. Preliminary Report on Salvage Archaeological Excavations at the Early Neolithic Site Yabalkovo in the Maritsa valley, 2000 - 2005 Field Seasons. Anatolica XXXIII, 185-234.Lichardus-Itten, M. and J.-P. Demoule, L. Perničeva, M. Grebska-Kulova, I. Kulov 2002. The site of Kovačevo and the Beginnings of the Neolithic period in Southwestern Bulgaria. The French-Bulgarian excava-tions 1986-2000. In M. Lichardus-Itten, J. Lichardus, V. Nikolov (eds.), Beiträge zu Jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien. Bonn, 99-158.Mellaart, J. 1963. Excavations at Çatalhöyük. Second preliminary report, 1962. Anatolian studies 13, 43-103.Perlès, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pejkov, A. 1986. Zwei interessante Kultgegenstände aus der neolitischen Siedlung in Kărdžali. Studia Praehistorica 8, 208-211.Perničeva, L. 1990. Le site de Kovačevo, néolitique ancien, dans le department de Blagoevgrad. Studia Praehistorica 10, 142-196.Srejovic, D. 1981. Lepenski Vir: Menschenbilder einer frühen europäischen Kultur. Mainz am Rhein.Бъчваров, К. 1999. Предмети от неолитната материална култура. В В. Николов (ред.), Селищна могила Капитан Димитриево. Разкопки 1998-1999 г., 55-75. София-Пещера: Агато.Георгиев, Г. И. 1963. Главни резултати от разкопките на Азмашката селищна могила през 1961 г. Известия на Археологическия институт XXVI, 157-176.Еленски, Н. 2006. Сондажни проучвания на раннонеолитно селище Джулюница-Смърдеш, Великотърновско (предварително съобщение). Археология 47, 96-117.Калчев, П. 2005. Неолитни жилища в Стара Загора. Каталог към експозицията. Стара Загора: РИМ Стара Загора.Николов, В. 2006. Култура и изкуство на праисторическа Тракия. София: Летера.Пейков, А. 1978. Сондажни разкопки на неолитното селище в Кърджали през 1972 г. В Сб. Ахридъ, Кърджали, 7-44.Чохаджиев, С. 2007. Неолитни и халколитни култури в басейна на река Струма. Велико Търново: Faber.

MARITSA PROJECTvolume 2.

YABALKOVOvolume 1.

Language editor Shannon Martinolanguage checkers Nikolina Nikolova, Denitsa Ilieva, Vanya PetrovaDesign and prepress Viktor Paunov

size 21 x 28 cm, number of pages 488

Printing HELIXPRESS Ltd

ATE – Ars et Technica Explicatus, SOFIA UNIVERSITY “ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI”Sofi a, 2014