THE HELLENISTIC TOMB OF MAL TEPE IN THRACE: A RECONSIDERATION OF BURIAL

SEQUENCE AND DATING*

CHAVDAR TZOCHEV

AbstractMany scholars have tried to make sense of the puzzling situation in the Mal Tepe tomb, which contained traces of multiple burials and objects of Greek, Thracian and Celtic origin. A widely accepted view holds that the monument had three phases of use, with four succes-sive burials in the tholos, the two antechambers and the corridor. By rethinking the dates of the grave-goods and their connections with individual burials, as well as by considering previously overlooked evidence, the present paper challenges this view and suggests a simpler scenario.

The Mal Tepe tomb near Mezek (south-eastern Bulgaria), is remarkable in many ways, but it is the size of the dedicated bibliography that makes it special when compared with other Thracian tombs. Such extraordinary interest has only one explanation: the chariot fittings of Celtic origin and the opportunities for historical interpretations their presence in the tomb provide. This subject has been a main line of research ever since Paul Jacobsthal,1 and continues to be a leitmotif today.2 With the present article I would like to shift the focus to another problem, which has not been looked into since Mieczys¥aw Domaradzki’s posthumous publication,3 namely the tangled question of the sequence of burials and their absolute dates.

The monument hardly needs presentation. After the initial publication of Bog-dan Filov,4 descriptions of the tumulus, its architecture and inventory have been repeated as introductions to a number of scholarly attempts at solving the history of the tomb. Yet, with the risk of boring readers familiar with the subject, I will set the scene with a brief sketch of the complex and the circumstances of its discovery.

* I am most grateful to Julij Emilov and Milena Tonkova for stimulating discussions, which helped me to clarify my own thoughts, as well as for correcting certain points of confusion at earlier stages of this paper.

1 Jacobsthal 1944, 151–52. 2 Most recently Stoyanov 2010; Emilov and Megaw 2012. 3 Domaradzki 1998, 50–53. 4 Filov 1937a. For a short version of this publication in English, see Filov 1937b.

doi: 10.2143/AWE.13.0.3038730 AWE 13 (2014) 49-62

97030.indb 4997030.indb 49 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

50 C. TZOCHEV

The modern story of Mal Tepe begins in 1903 with the incidental discovery of a life-size bronze statue of a boar, probably a part of a statuary group set up some-where in the southern periphery of the tumulus.5 The burial mound, 14 m high and 90 m in diameter, kept its secrets until 1931, when treasure hunters from a nearby village discovered the entrance to the tomb and looted the movable grave-goods found inside. Following an investigation they returned the objects, and testified. The original find-spots of many items were recovered, but doubts will always exist, not only about the authenticity of the information, but also about the completeness of the inventory, in which the paucity of silver and gold is particularly suspicious.

Scientific excavations and study clarified the architectural plan of the tomb: a remarkably long corridor, two rectangular antechambers, and a tholos, all built on one axis (Fig. 1). Filov found that the slabbed floor in the tholos and the ante-chambers lay above an earlier floor level. Upon lifting the slabs in the first ante-chamber, he discovered cremated human remains along with gold jewellery.6 A similar situation appeared when he excavated the floor of the second antechamber.

Based on their discoveries, Filov and his followers were faced with a puzzling situation. In terms of spatial organisation, the tomb has dedicated areas for three individuals in the tholos, which is equipped with a funerary bier and two stone urns. In terms of human remains, there are only two certain burials in Mal Tepe: the cremated remains of the two individuals buried between the two floor levels in the antechambers. In terms of grave-goods, the situation is much more complicated. Apart from the two certain burials that go with their own grave-goods, scholars have been unanimous concerning a third burial in the tholos to which the objects placed there belong. This is made explicit by the fact that the grave-goods buried with the cremations consisted mainly of women’s jewellery, while those in the tholos included armaments.7 In addition, since Jacobsthal recognised the Celtic chariot fittings found in the corridor (Fig. 2),8 the idea of a fourth burial became fundamental.

Domaradzki’s attempt at arranging the sequence of burials based on the grave-goods and their dates9 represents another landmark in studies on the tomb. Draw-ing from his knowledge of the funerary practices of the Thracian elite, he saw logic

5 Filov 1937a, 34–38, figs. 34, 35. On the hypothetical reconstruction and the location of the statuary group, see Stoyanov 2010.

6 On the jewellery from Mal Tepe, see Pfrommer 1990, 250; Tonkova 1997; 2002, 103; 2010. 7 An iron pectoral with silver gilt decoration (Ognenova 1961; Venedikov and Gerasimov 1973,

104–05, fig. 230; Phaklaris 1985; Archibald 1985; 1998, 255–56) and a sword (Filov 1937a, 72, no. 46).

8 Jacobsthal 1944, 151–52. 9 Domaradzki 1998, 50–53.

97030.indb 5097030.indb 50 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

THE HELLENISTIC TOMB OF MAL TEPE IN THRACE 51

in the arrangement of the finds as described by witnesses of the looting, and suggested that this was their original situation. Then he organised the evidence into the following tidy scheme of four burials and three phases of use:1. A burial in the tholos, which Domaradzki dated not earlier than the last quarter

of the 4th century BC, but refrained from assigning a more precise date, stating that none of the objects allow such a determination.

2. Two burials under the floor of the antechambers, presumably contemporary; dated to the end of the first quarter of the 3rd century BC.

3. An isolated burial in the corridor based on the bronze chariot fittings, golden ornaments and a spur; dated to the middle of the 3rd century BC.

Fig. 1: Plan of the Mal Tepe tomb (after Filov 1937a, 11, fig. 5).

Fig. 2: Chariot fittings from Mal Tepe (photographs, National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia).

97030.indb 5197030.indb 51 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

52 C. TZOCHEV

Domaradzki’s scheme is widely accepted, and since its publication scholarly efforts refocused on the Celtic theme, leaving the first two phases behind. However, the burials in these phases are problematic in terms of both sequence and absolute dates. Curiously, Filov’s idea that the two cremations are secondary in relation to the warrior burial10 has never been doubted, despite the lack of explicit supporting indications. On the one hand, to Filov the objects in the tholos seemed younger that those in the cremated graves, in particular, younger than the two coins found in the graves. On the other hand, the cremations were made after the reconstruction of the floor, which presumably (but not necessarily!) happened at some stage during the use of the tomb. Domaradzki followed this logic, and only corrected the dating of these first two phases. The dates he assigned to the cremations – the end of the first quarter of 3rd century BC – have been supported with a mere reference to the coins, the gilded wreaths, and the jewellery found among the cremated remains.

The two silver coins found in the cremation graves have been described as heav-ily worn and burnt drachms of Alexander the Great.11 Sadly, the only information one gains from this description is a terminus post quem of 336 BC for both crema-tions. The funerary wreaths and gold jewellery belong to some of the most popular Early Hellenistic types, and have quite large chronological margins; similar adorn-ments were certainly used in Thracian burials long before the 270s BC. The set from Grave 2, for example, is comparable with the one from Tumulus 1 of the necropolis of Koprinka (Seuthopolis), dated by amphora stamps to the last decade of the 4th century BC (Figs. 3–5).12 More problematic is the dating of the carnelian-encrusted gold lamella found in Grave 1 (Fig. 6 left).13 M. Pfrommer’s post mid-3rd century date14 has been based on the general observation that encrusted jewellery became popular after this date, rather than on concrete parallels. The piece is some-what unusual, but similar use of coloured gems in gold ‘dog-tooth’ bezels is known on jewels from archaeological contexts as early as the late 4th century.15

The rest of the grave-goods from the cremations cannot be dated any better; actually, none of these objects seem obviously later than the ones in the tholos. The problem becomes more evident if we allow for a moment that the cremated remains and their offerings were originally interred in the two stone urns in the

10 Filov 1937a, 29. 11 Filov 1937a, 76, 79. 12 Cf. Filov 1937a, 32, 74, figs. 30.1–4, 94.1–2; Dimitrov and Cicikova 1978, figs. 89–90,

fig. 2a–c. On the date of the stamps from the tumulus, see Balkanska and Tzochev 2008, 193, tabl. 1.

13 Filov 1937a, 75, no. 2. 14 Pfrommer 1990, 250. 15 For example Themelis and Touratsoglou 1997, 121–29, no. Z10, fig. 28.

97030.indb 5297030.indb 52 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

THE HELLENISTIC TOMB OF MAL TEPE IN THRACE 53

tholos, and later on were reburied under the floors of the antechambers. Filov already noted this as a possibility,16 but missed a piece of supporting evidence: the coun-terpart of the encrusted gold lamella found in Grave 1 (Fig. 6 right) has an ‘unknown provenance’,17 meaning that it was among the objects looted by the villagers before the two graves were excavated.18 This second lamella, which undeniably belongs to the same set of adornments, could have been lost during the ancient reburial.19

16 Filov 1937a, 29–30. 17 Filov 1937a, 32, no. 4. 18 Filov explicitly states that the second plate was not found in Grave 1 (Filov 1937a, 75). 19 Zofia Archibald (1998, n. 22) already noted that the two jewels may indicate contamination

between the burial in the tholos and the cremations under the floor.

Fig. 4: Earrings and necklace from Seuthopolis, Tumulus 1 (photographs,

National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia).

Fig. 3: Earrings and necklace from Mal Tepe, Grave 2 (photographs, earrings: National Archaeological Institute with

Museum, Sofia; necklace: after Venedikov and Gerasimov 1973, fig. 198).

97030.indb 5397030.indb 53 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

54 C. TZOCHEV

When considered in this way, the sequence of the three burials and the existence of the first two phases do not seem certain at all. In fact, the warrior and the two cremated women could have been buried in any order within 30–40 years, or all at the same time, without this being visible in the grave-goods. The women may have preceded the warrior in the tholos if one accepts the reburial scenario. A second pavement of the floor certainly took place before the interment of the cremations in the antechambers, but the relation of this operation to the male burial in the tholos is uncertain. The second layer of slabs may have been in place before any burials were made in the tomb.

The third phase of use is no less problematic. Existing interpretations include a burial of a Celtic warrior, a burial of a Thracian leader who captured the Celtic objects or received them as a gift,20 or a votive by a Thracian on occasion of a vic-tory over the Celts.21 Now Julij Emilov convincingly suggests that the fittings, along with other parts of the chariot, are better explainable as an addition to a sacrificed horse, rather than to a separate human burial.22 If so, a relationship between this sacrifice and the warrior burial in the tholos seems a completely legitimate option.

20 Fol 1991, 384; Cunliffe 1997, 174–75; Domaradzki 1998, 51; Megaw 2005, 213. 21 Stoyanov 2005, 127. 22 Emilov and Megaw 2012, 11–14.

Fig. 5: Thasian amphora stamp from the embankment of Seuthopolis, Tumulus 1 (photographs by author).

97030.indb 5497030.indb 54 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

THE HELLENISTIC TOMB OF MAL TEPE IN THRACE 55

* * *

The riddle described above seems discouragingly difficult to solve without closely datable objects associated with the burials. Bronze vessels, armour and gold orna-ments are not only hard to date, but can also have unpredictably long periods of use before interment. However, besides the metal pieces, the other objects from the tomb included two ceramic transport amphorae which have been disregarded since 1937. The initial publication presented these amphorae along with general-plan photographs and brief descriptions, including Filov’s note that the handles of both jars bear stamps with pictorial devices. Instead of raising scholarly interest, this remark sank into oblivion. Photographs of the stamps were never published, while the amphorae were only briefly mentioned as examples of Thasian containers from the first half or the middle of the 4th century BC.23 Paradoxically, one of the amphorae24 was displayed until recently in the permanent exhibition of the National Archaeological Museum in Sofia, and was one of the first objects that visitors saw when entering the Museum. My focus in the following paragraphs will be this jar, which I believe, along with the chariot fittings, is a key piece of evidence for recon-structing the Mal Tepe tomb’s history.25

The shape of this vessel (Fig. 7) can be termed the canonical Thasian amphora of the late 4th–first half of the 3rd century BC. During this period the workshops on the island produced two different shapes, corresponding to different units of volume. After around 310 BC vessels of the smaller unit are very rare;26 most of the

23 Bon and Bon 1957, 19; Lazarov 1973, 29. 24 Filov 1937a, 72, 74, no. 56, fig. 82. 25 The other ceramic transport amphora, inv. 6399, while not less interesting, is not relevant to

the dating of the burials. I will discuss this amphora in another study. 26 For example Tsibidou-Auloniti 2005, 65, pl. 19.

Fig. 6 (left): Carnelian-encrusted gold lamella from Mal Tepe, Grave 1; (right) Similar lamella found elsewhere in the tomb

(photographs, National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia).

97030.indb 5597030.indb 55 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

56 C. TZOCHEV

complete jars that survive, including our amphora, belong to the larger unit. Their shape is very much standardised and only changed slightly during the period in question. A number of complete stamped vessels dated to the 290s–270s BC have silhouettes very similar to the Mal Tepe amphora.27 Variations occur mostly in the profile of the toe, but these depend more on the habits of individual potters, and at this stage of research are not chronologically indicative. The evolution of the

27 Cf. Lazarov 1973, no. 145 (Kleof¬n II); Monakhov 2003, pl. 49.4 (Déalkov); Akamatis 2011, 312, fig. 1 (Megakleídjv); Delemen 2004, 73, fig. 73 (Poluneíkjv); Pulak et al. 1987, 50, fig. 25 (Puqíwn V); Bon 1957, 22, fig. 6.5 (Aûtokrátjv); Monakhov 2003, pl. 49.6 (Skúmnov I); Monakhov 1999, 484, pl. 206.1 (Puqíwn II/IV).

Fig. 7: Transport amphora from Mal Tepe. National Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia, inv. 6398. Found in January, 1932. Intact. H: 71.7 cm; diameter max.: 33 cm;

diameter rim: 10.7 cm. Reddish micaceous fabric (photograph and drawing by author).

97030.indb 5697030.indb 56 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

THE HELLENISTIC TOMB OF MAL TEPE IN THRACE 57

shape in the 260s–250s BC is not very clear, but what emerged from it in the later 3rd century is a narrower, bobbin-like jar.28 Looking more closely at the shape of the Mal Tepe amphora eventually will provide some indication to which stage of the evolution it belongs, but this would be an unnecessary effort if the stamp is legible.

In the primary publication, Filov noted that the stamp on the handle depicts a small pointed amphora without any accompanying text, and that this device com-monly appears on Thasian stamps. He was right about the origin of the stamp, but he failed to notice the inscription, which is fairly worn. Placing the handle in con-trasting light makes parts of the legend become visible above and below the device (Fig. 8). The imprint is not unique; a number of stamps imprinted by the same die29 help to complete the reading:

Qasí[wn]amphora ←A[î]néa[v]

Fig. 8: Stamp on handle of Thasian amphora from Mal Tepe (photographs by author).

The date of Thasian official Ainéav varies according to different specialised publica-tions: ca. 285, ca. 294, ca. 292 or ca. 291 BC.30 These dates are achieved through calculation, although none of them can claim precision, they show the margin of possible variation. The term of Ainéav falls in a section of Thasian amphora-stamp chronology, which is well grounded and unlikely to change much in the future. This is because between the 310s and the 260s BC the list of officials is complete, there are few problematic homonyms, and most of the names are bound in order

28 Cf. Garlan and Blondé 2004, 125, fig. 8 (Sâturov II); Bon 1957, fig 4.5 (Boulßkritov Ai(-)). 29 Lenger 1957, no. 7; Avram 1996, no. 383; Debidour 1999, no. 1206. 30 Respectively: Avram 1996; Garlan 2004–05; Tzochev 2009; Debidour 2011.

97030.indb 5797030.indb 57 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

58 C. TZOCHEV

by various interdependencies. Uncertainty about the date of Ainéav comes from the lack of indications for his position in relation to the other officials of chrono-logical groups VI–VII, which gives seven to eight years of play. To this one should add a couple more years, because the absolute dates of the whole sequence could move up or down depending on what dates one accepts for the officials of the Koroni group. In all cases the year of Ainéav falls either in the 290s or in the early 280s BC.

Now that we finally have a well-dated object among the artefacts from the tomb, a certain amount of doubt still remains about which burial it belongs to. The infor-mation that the amphorae were found in the tholos and not in the antechambers suggests that they are associated with the warrior. However, choosing the reburial scenario, one can imagine that the two amphorae belonged to the cremations, but being too big for the new graves were left in the tholos. Since the situation in Mal Tepe is so far without parallels in other tombs, and is made further uncertain by the robbery, it would be best not to build an interpretation based only on the spatial arrangement of the grave-goods.

In terms of function, the amphorae also make more sense as part of the warrior burial in the tholos, than the cremated graves. As wine containers, the jars combine with the other vessels to form a dining set, which originally should also have included drinking cups.31 Such luxury dining sets are essential equipment for the tombs of the Thracian and Macedonian elite. In contrast to Macedonia, where grave-goods rarely include transport amphorae,32 in Thrace one or several Greek wine jars (most often two) are an integral part of funerary dining sets. Actually, the warrior burial appears rather odd without the two amphorae. Based upon multiple funerary deposits containing dining sets and wine jars along with weapons and sacrificed horses,33 one can safely consider this combination a norm for the Thracian

31 In Thracian elite tombs these vessels were usually made of silver or gold. The fact that no such vessels were returned or reported after the plunder makes it very probable that they were stolen either by the modern robbers or in antiquity. Indeed, Filov reported small pieces of a silver vessel found in the corridor, near the entrance to the tomb (Filov 1937a, 72, no. 45).

32 To date I know of only six cases: Amphipolis (Lazaridis 1957, 71, fig. 20a); Nikisiani (Lazaridis et al. 1992 – for the amphorae, see p. 18, pl. 12), however, the Macedonian interpretation of this complex is problematic both in terms of geography and burial rite; Pella (Chrisostomou 1998, p. 60, pl. 11); Syndrivani (‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1957’. BCH 82.2 [1958], 758–59, 769); Thessaloniki (Tsibidou-Auloniti 1986, 127, pl. 4b); Thessaloniki (Tsibidou-Auloniti 2005, p. 65, pl. 19). It is possible that the custom of including a transport amphora in the burial dining set spread to Macedonia from Thrace. The Macedonian examples are much fewer, never related to royal necropoleis, and all of them postdate Macedonian expansion into Thrace under Philip II.

33 Undisturbed, archaeologically documented examples include: Dalakova mogila (Kitov and Dimitrov 2008; Tzochev 2009, 56–57); Kaloyanovo (Chichikova 1969); Naip (Delemen 2004); Peychova Mogila (unpublished excavations of Georgi Kitov); Sashova Mogila (Kitov 1996a; Tzochev

97030.indb 5897030.indb 58 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

THE HELLENISTIC TOMB OF MAL TEPE IN THRACE 59

military elite of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. This leads us to the final question: if the parts of the Celtic chariot were deposited with the sacrificed horse, could this act be concomitant with the same burial which included the Thasian amphora?

Mal Tepe is one of the few funerary deposits in which Aegean and La Tène chronologies meet,34 but unfortunately in such obscure circumstances. Yet Jacobsthal expressed regret for the complicated situation,35 which inhibited a synchronisation between the Greek and Celtic objects from the tomb. Such association has never been tested even hypothetically, not only because the absence of closely dated objects among the Greek imports, but also because the Celtic bronzes seemed considerably later than the artefacts from the tholos.36 Now the first of these prob-lems is remedied with a solution that makes the second problem surmountable.

If we set aside the historical interpretations of the Mal Tepe chariot fittings, they could easily be contemporary or even earlier than the Thasian amphora. A profound analysis offered by Vincent Megaw37 clearly demonstrates the problems with their dating: isolated parallels scattered over a very large area, few of them from dated deposits, unclear production centres, all this leaving us with a loose dating ‘centred on the earlier part of the third century BC’.38 This would give a great deal of latitude to the date of the Mal Tepe items, if they had been found in western or central Europe. But their discovery in a Thracian milieu has delineated the opinions on their date with the assumption that they arrived in south-eastern Thrace with the Celtic invasions. The supposed date of deposition varies from one scholar to another depending on which particular historical scenario is chosen.39 Most opin-ions cluster around the defeat of the Celts at Lysimachia in 277 BC, while the earliest possibility suggested so far coincides with the beginning of the Great Celtic invasion in Thrace somewhere around 280 BC.40

2009, 58, 59, fig. 2); Simeonovgrad-Asara (Domaradzki 1998, 54); Zlatinitza (Agre 2011). For many plundered deposits the information is incomplete and usually the metal vases are missing: Dolno Izvorovo (Nekhrizov and Parvin 2011); Kazanlak (Mikov 1954); Ostrusha (Kitov 2003, 23–25; Valeva 2005, 12–14); Panchova Mogila (unpublished excavations of Georgi Kitov); Ploskata Mogila (Kitov et al. 2006, 129); Slavchova Mogila (Kitov 1996b). Information for horses is absent in several cases which are not documented archaeologically, for example Mramor Mogila (Filov 1918, 14–29) and Brezovo (Filov 1918, 3–14), but their inventories include horse trappings.

34 For other instances, see Kavur and Kavur 2010. 35 Jacobsthal 1944, 151. 36 An earlier opinion of Ivan Venedikov offers an exception. He did not accept the Celtic origins

of the chariot fittings, and related them to the main burial in the tholos, which he dated to the 4th century (Venedikov and Gerasimov 1973, 68–70). In a later publication Venedikov (1998, 83) expressed doubts, but allowed for a Celtic origin and a date after 279 BC for the fittings.

37 Emilov and Megaw 2012, 14–23. 38 Emilov and Megaw 2012, 18. 39 Cf. Emilov 2007, 59. 40 Megaw 2005, 213.

97030.indb 5997030.indb 59 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

60 C. TZOCHEV

Let us leave aside the speculations of whether or not the chariot could have arrived earlier in Thrace – theoretically, it could have belonged to ‘the range of diplomatic gifts which circulated between the Greek world and the Celtic aristocrats from the region of the middle course of [the] Danube’.41 Synchronisation between the Thasian amphora and the Celtic chariot is possible in either case. Judging by other funerary deposits containing multiple stamped jars, there is a great chance that the amphora was not deposited brand new in the tomb. A variance of up to ten years should be considered normal in such cases,42 which allows synchronous deposition for the amphora and the Celtic bronzes, even if the latter arrived in Thrace after 280 BC. Choosing this option makes the Mal Tepe complex look more comprehensible in its Thracian context. It eliminates the problematic third phase and the need to look for a burial in the corridor. Instead, it offers a less extra-ordinary example of a local leader buried with his arms, horse, dining set, and somewhat unusual war trophies. Since the horse sacrifice would have blocked the corridor, the two cremated individuals seem better explained as preceding the main burial, initially in the tholos, and later on (reburied) in the antechambers.

This is of course only a hypothetical reconstruction, and it will hardly be the last one. The beauty of the Mal Tepe tomb is that 80 years after its discovery it still offers an intellectual challenge, and after so many attempts, missing pieces of the puzzle still await discovery.

Bibliography

Agre, D. 2011: Golyamata mogila krai Malomirovo i Zlatinitsa (Sofia).Akamatis, I.M. 2001: ‘Thasion Megakleides stin Pella’. In Pingiatoglou, S. and Stephanidou-Tiveriou, T.

(eds.), Namata: timitikos tomos gia ton kathigiti Dimitrio Pantermali (Thessaloniki), 311–24.Archibald, Z.H. 1985: ‘The gold pectoral from Vergina and its connections’. OJA 4.2, 165–85.— 1998: The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford).Avram, A. 1996: Histria VIII: Les timbres amphoriques 1. Thasos (Paris).

41 Kavur and Kavur 2010, 83. 42 Monakhov (1999, 573) suggests 20–30 years, based mainly on funerary deposits from the

periphery of the northern Black Sea. Before him, Vinogradov (1972, 8) estimated less than 20 years, while Brashinskii (1984, 128) opted for much shorter period. Several Thracian deposits contain Thasian stamped handles naming different annual officials: Dalakova Mogila (Tzochev 2009, 56, 57, tabl. 1), four officials dated within five or six years; Ivanski (Tzochev 2009, 65, tabl. 3) and Seutho-polis, Tumulus 1 (Balkanska and Tzochev 2008, 193, tabl. 1; fig. 2b–c). Each of them yielded stamps of five officials spanning nearly a decade. Note that the chronological difference does not necessarily mean that the amphorae were put in the tombs after certain periods of use. Jars bearing the same stamps may have been offered for sale in different years, either because they were in storage for a period of time before being filled or because of the deliberate aging of the product they contained (as in the case of wine).

97030.indb 6097030.indb 60 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

THE HELLENISTIC TOMB OF MAL TEPE IN THRACE 61

Balkanska, A. and Tzochev, C. 2006: ‘Amphora stamps from Seuthopolis – revised’. In Bozhkova, A., Popov, C. and Kuzmanov, M. (eds.), Phosphorion: Studia in honorem Mariae Cicikova (Sofia), 188–205.

Bon, A.-M. and Bon, A. 1957: Les timbres amphoriques de Thasos (Paris).Brashinksii, I.B. 1984: Metody issledovaniya antichnoi torgovli (na primere Severnogo Prichernomor’ya)

(Leningrad).Chichikova, M. 1969: ‘Trakiiskata mogilna grobnitsa ot s. Kaloyanovo, Svilenski orkag (IV v. pr. n. e.)’.

BIABulg 31, 45–90.Chrysostomou, P. 1998: Makedonikoi taphoi Pellas: I. Taphos B’, o asylitos (Thessaloniki).Cunliffe, B. 1997: The Ancient Celts (Oxford/New York).Debidour, M. 1999: Les timbres amphoriques thasiens de type récent. Méthodologie, chronologie et inter-

prétation (Habilitation, Université Lumière Lyon 2).—. 2011: ‘Etudier le commerce des amphores thasiennes: quelques remarques à propos des trouvailles

autour du Pont-Euxin (IVe–IIe s. av. J.-C.)’. In Tzochev, C., Stoyanov, T. and Bozkova, A. (eds.), PATABS II: Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea (Sofia), 35–53.

Delemen, I. 2004: Tekirdag Naip tümülüsü (Istanbul).Dimitrov, D.P. and Cicikova, M. 1978: The Thracian city of Seuthopolis (Oxford).Domaradzki, M. 1998: ‘Trakiiskata kultura v prehoda kam elinisticheskata epoha’. In Domaradzki,

M. and Taneva, V., Emporion Pistiros 2 (Septemvri), 11–76.Emilov, J. 2007: ‘La Tène Finds and the Indigenous Communities in Thrace. Interrelations During

the Hellenistic Period’. Studia Hercynia 11, 57–75.Emilov, J. and Megaw, J.V.S. 2012. ‘Celts in Thrace? A re-examination of the tomb of Mal Tepe,

Mezek with particular reference to the La Tène chariot fittings’. Archaeologia Bulgarica 16.1, 1–32.

Filov, B. 1918: ‘Pametnitsi na trakiiskoto izkustvo’. Izvestiya na Balgarskoto arheologichesko druzhestvo 6, 1–56.

—. 1937a: ‘Kupolnite grobnitsi pri Mezek’. BIABulg 11, 1–107.—. 1937b: ‘The beehive tombs of Mezek’. Antiquity 11, 300–05.Garlan, Y. 2004–05: ‘En visitant et revisitant les ateliers amphoriques de Thasos’. BCH 128–129,

269–329.Garlan, Y. and Blondé, F. 2004: ‘Les représentations de vases sur les timbres amphoriques thasiens’.

In Eiring, J. and Lund, J. (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (Aarhus), 123–36.

Jacobsthal, P.J. 1944: Early Celtic Art (Oxford; repr. 1969).Kavur, M.B. and Kavur, B. 2010: ‘Grob 22 iz beogradske nekropole Karaburma: retrospektiva

i perspektiva’. Starinar 15, 57–84.Kitov, G. 1996a: ‘Sashova mogila (Monumentalna neograbena trakiiska grobnitsa mezhdu Shipka

i Yasenovo)’. Archeologia (Sofia) 2–3, 9–22.—. 1996b: ‘Slavchova mogila krai s. Rozovo, Kazanlazhko (Monumentalna trakiiska grobnitsa)’.

Archeologia (Sofia) 1, 1–9.—. 2003: ‘Dolinata na trakiiskite vladeteli (I)’. Archeologia (Sofia) 1, 13–28.Kitov, G. and Dimitrov, P. 2008: ‘A 4th century BC Thracian gold signet-ring from the Dalakova

tumulus (SE Bulgaria)’. Archaeologia Bulgarica 2, 25–32.Kitov, G., Dimitorva, D. and Dimitrova, E. 2006: ‘Dolinata na trakiiskite tsare’. In Dimitrov,

P. (ed.), Archeologicheski otkritiya i razkopi prez 2005 g. (Sofia), 128–30.Lazaridis, D. 1957: ‘Anaskaphi tis nekropoleos Amphipoleos’. Prakt, 70–72.Lazaridis, D., Romiopoulou, K. and Touratsoglou, G. 1992: O Tymvos tis Nikisianis (Athens).Lazarov, M. 1973: ‘Antichni amfori (VI–I v. pr. n. e.) ot balgarskoto Chernomorie’. Izvestiya na

Narodniya muzei Varna 9(24), 3–51.Lenger, M.-T. 1957: ‘Anses d’amphores et tuiles timbrées de Thasos (trouvailles des années 1955 et

1956)’. BCH 81, 302–21.

97030.indb 6197030.indb 61 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28

62 C. TZOCHEV

Megaw, J.V.S. 2005: ‘Celts in Thrace? A reappraisal’. In Bouzek, J. and Domaradzka, L. (eds.), The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours (Oxford), 209–14.

Mikov, V. 1954: Antichnata grobnitsa pri Kazanlak (Sofia).Nekhrizov, G. and Parvin, M. 2011: ‘Burial, mound with a tomb near Dolno Izvorovo village,

Kazanlak district’. Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology 1, 41–69, <www.be-ja.org>.Ognenova, L. 1961: ‘Les cuirasses de bronze trouvées en Thrace’. BCH 85, 501–38.Pfrommer, M. 1990: Untersuchungen zur Chronologie früh- und hochhellenistischen Goldschmucks

(Tübingen).Phaklaris, P. 1985: ‘Peritrachilion’. ArchDelt 40, 1–16.Pulak, C., Townsend, R.F., Koehler, C.G. and Wallace, M.B. 1987: ‘The Hellenistic shipwreck

at Serçe Limanı, Turkey: Preliminary report’. AJA 1, 31–57.Stoyanov, T. 2005: ‘The Mal-tepe complex at Mezek’. In Bouzek, J. and Domaradzka, L. (eds.), The

Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours (Oxford), 123–28.Themelis, P. G. and Touratsoglou, P. 1997: Oi taphoi tou Derveniou (Athens).Tonkova, M. 1997: ‘Traditions and Aegean influences on the jewellery of Thracia in Early Hellenis-

tic times’. Archaeologia Bulgarica 1, 18–31.—. 2002: ‘Nakiti s polihromna ukrasa ot V–I v. pr. Hr. ot Trakiya’. Izvestiya na Narodniya muzei v

Burgas 4 (= Studia in honorem Ivani Karayotov), 98–113.—. 2010: ‘Les parures d’harnachement en or de Thrace et l’orfèvrerie de la haute époque hellénis-

tique’. Bolletino di Archeologia on line 1, 44–63, <http://www.bollettinodiarcheologiaonline. beniculturali.it/>.

Tsibidou-Auloniti, M. 1986: ‘Enas neos makedonikos taphos sti Thessaloniki’. Makedonika 25, 117–42.—. 2005: Makedoniki taphoi sto Phoinika kai ston Agio Athanasio Thessalonikis (Athens).Tzochev, C. 2009: ‘Notes on the Thasian amphora stamp chronology’. Archaeologia Bulgarica 13.1,

55–72. Valeva, J. 2005: The Painted Coffers of the Ostrusha Tomb (Sofia). Venedikov, I. 1998: ‘Thracian royal tombs’. In Marazov, I. (ed.), Ancient Gold: The Wealth of the

Thracians. Treasures from the Republic of Bulgaria (Exhibition Catalogue) (New York), 72–83.Venedikov, I. and Gerasimov, T. 1973: Trakiyskoto izkustvo (Sofia).Vinogradov, Y.G. 1972: ‘Keramicheskie kleima ostrova Fasos’. Numizmatika i Epigrafika 10, 3–63.

SofiaBulgaria

tzochev@gmail.com

97030.indb 6297030.indb 62 2/09/14 08:282/09/14 08:28