Eirene XLVII, 2011, pp.

44–59

Greeks in Inner Thrace*

Jan Bouzek – Lidia Domaradzka

Prague – Sofia

1. Why and when the Greeks came into inner Thrace

The first reason usually suggested was the trade, so first we should remember us how the Greek
trade developed. Phoenician and Greek pre-colonisation in the West entered now more into the
focus of interest of scholarship than it was usual earlier (cf. esp. CELESTINO ET ALII, eds. 2008) and
the time seems to be ripe to approach a similar phenomenon not only in the Black Sea, but also in
inland Thrace (cf. BOUZEK 1990: 13–17). The second phenomenon of the recent studies is the en-
larged interest in the relations between the colonial Greeks and their neighbours, the problems of
acculturation and of transfer of technologies from the Greeks to their neighbours; a good example
of this approach is the volume of conferences organized by Centre Jullian and published in 2010
(TRÉZINY, ed. 2010).
The well-known passage from Herodotus distinguishes several kinds of trade contacts, start-
ing with the silent trade: in the silent trade the newcomers put their goods on the exhibits and the
other side also puts besides theirs as an exchange. Something may be added regularly from both
sides, and when both are content, they pack the good of the other side and leave. The next step is
the merchant coming in regular intervals and expecting his customers waiting. Both sides had to
gain some knowledge on the other, including the rules of hospitality, even if sometimes this was
replaced by piracy or bandits. The third stage requires regular marketing places and some agents on
the spot (port of call, or the main village in the area, under the supervision of the local ruler), while
the more sophisticated stage requires some metoikoi living in the place and organizing the system
of trade/exchange. The business during the early stage may have been similarly profitable as that by
Kolaios of Samos mentioned by Herodotus (IV,52) and so worth of risking even the life. As against
the Bronze Age with its state-organized international trade, the Iron Age trade was privatized and
depending of the initiatives of private entrepreneurs.
If more of the tradesmen settled, an emporion is founded or a quarter of foreign traders (like
already the Assyrian merchants had at Boghazköy). Pistiros seems to be a representative of some
kind of initial colonisation to improve the conditions of trade with the locals and safeguarding the
base against the rivals (as did e.g. the Portuguese stations in 16th century in Africa or the Genuans
in the medieval Black Sea). The first groups of settlers have usually few women with them and they
take wives from the local population, what was apparently also the case of Pistiros. Such founda-
tions could not be established – and could not exist later – without the consent of the local rulers
(cf. BOUZEK – DOMARADZKA 2008, and in PISTIROS III: 254–260). Full scale colonization including
large groups of settlers with their families leads to real apoikia polis; this stage was not reached at
Pistiros. Such colonization was nearly everywhere in human history caused primarily by economic
or political difficulties in the original homeland.

*
The paper was prepared in the frame of the project of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic no. P405/11/0098:
Greeks, Thracians and Celts in the Balkans and Central Europe: Emporion Pistiros.

44
 GREEKS IN INNER THRACE

Pottery is much more important for archaeologists that it was for ancient people. Even
nowadays, it does not have especially important role in cultural identity of people who
use them.

2. The Dark Age predecessors

The story on the Argonauts’ expedition to Colchis and their return via Danube and the Adriatic,
the story of Iphigenia in Tauris and her brother visiting her there have also some parallels in materi-
al evidence; the limited number of analyses made so far pointed out that the Shaft Graves gold came
from Transylvania. Mycenaean swords are known from Bulgaria and Romania (cf. BOUZEK 1990:
13–17; 2007a: 1222).
Reports on Thracian thalassocracy following that of the Pelasgians can be placed in the Dark
Age. The finds of Bronze Age types of stone anchors from the Bulgarian coast are not dated
properly, while the finds of Mycenaean pottery in Bulgaria are rare and in most cases doubtful
(BOUZEK 2007b; DE BOER 2010: 179–180). The alleged finds of Geometric pottery from Histria and
Berezanj have not been confirmed by modern digs; the Cypriot Black-on-Red fragments of Histria
are not exactly dateable (BOUZEK 1990: 17f.).
In the field of bronze objects, some parallels derived from links caused by others, like the
Belozerka elements with links westwards, but the Hordeevka cemetery already shows influences
from the south, west and east in its jewellery; the Tiryns and Alumière types of amber beads show
links to the Baltic region and to the Aegean as well. In the Cimmerian period, many types of bronze
objects link the Caucasus area with the Balkans and even with central Europe are attested, while
Caucasian bronzes are known for ex. from Samos Heraeaum. The earliest of the Caucasian fibulae
are closely similar to East Greek variants (cf. BOUZEK 1990: 16–18; 2010ab; cf. also FORNASIER 2009).
All these elements show that some contacts between the Aegean and the Black Sea existed prior to
colonization and pottery imports, too.
It should be noticed here that even the largest disc of the Valčitran treasure contained in its
centre a piece of amber. The pre-pottery phase of Greek trade with Thrace was apparently concen-
trated in the more important commodities; metals were as important for antiquity as the crude oil
is for us now. Besides copper and gold also iron was expensive metal at the beginnings, and metals
were also available outside the coastal zone of Thrace.
The foundations of Greek settlements in the second and third quarter of the 7th century along
the Black Sea coast could not be realized without previous knowledge. There was some oral tradi-
tion recording that the Greeks tried to settle in the Black Sea region in late 8th century. However,
this attempt had no good luck due to the Cimmerian invasion (cf. MAXIMOVA 1956; DOONAN 2007;
DE BOER 2007).

3. First certain finds of Greek pottery in Thrace

and in the Thracian Black Sea area

The beginnings show first attempts of Greek settlements cotemporary with the Ionian mi-
gration (so Torone, PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. 2005), and the northern PG style also penetrated into
Thrace (CATLING 1998; ILIEVA 2007; MATSAS 2007; for the local pottery NIKOV 2007; PAPADOPOULOS,
S 2001; for the mountain area BARALIS – R IAPOV 2007). Even earlier the of LH IIII C pottery
made in the Saronic gulf penetrated further north, up to Koprivlen (BOŽKOVA 2005; WARDLE 1993;

45
JAN BOUZEK – LIDIA DOMARADZKA

PODZUWEIT 1986; K IRIATZI 1997). In 8th century B.C. a number of Greek settlements existed al-
ready in Chalcidice and its Thracian 8th – 7th century B. C. bronze pendants are known from
Greek sanctuaries, including Athenian Acropolis and Ephesus; the Sevlievo stag shows that
its producer knew the same technology as the Greeks knew at this time (BOUZEK 2005: 40–41).
North Greek Protogeometric pottery is known from Koprivlen (BOŽKOVA 2002) and from other
sites in central Thrace art (cf. below).
The knowledge of the earliest painted pottery and trade amphorae in the northern and
western Black Sea much enlarged during the last decade. The Middle White Goat I pottery
is known not only from a number of Scythian tumuli, but also from the first Greek colonies
at Orgame, Histria and Berezanj, from inland sites, like Belskoe gorodishte, and it was also
identified among the finds from the Taganrog site (survey TSETSKHLADZE 2007). Similarly the
bird bowls set from Taganrog started in the second quarter of the 7th century, and the third
quarter of 7th century is already well attested in many sites (BOUZEK 2007a: 1223–1228), while
the earliest transport amphorae came there not much later. This situation was now again docu-
mented by G. Tsetskhladze (TSETSKHLADZE 2007), while the historical sources for the earliest
colonisation are now summed up by Jan de Boer (DE BOER 2007, cf. also MAXIMOVA 1956;
DOONAN 2007; IVANCHIK 2001). The same situation now appears to be documented also in
Thrace. New finds in the Yambol region (BAKARDŽIEV 2010: fig. 2–3) of Bird Bowl and Rosette
bowl fragments (Fig. 1) show similar situation. Other finds of Early Greek pottery in SW
Bulgaria were summed up by BOŽKOVA (2002, 2005), DE BOER (2010: 180–182) and NIKOV
(2007), while more evidence was in the volume on SE Bulgaria in 2nd and 1st millennium B.C.
(GEORGIEVA – STOYANOV – MOMČILOV, eds. 2010). The supposed Mycenaean fragments from
Drama are now reclassified as Archaic Ionian, but I. K ARADŽINOV (2010) added a number
of other sites with Archaic finds, including a supposed skyphos with pendant semicircles
from Svilengrad (K ARADŽINOV 2010: fig. 2: 1–2) and other early fragments from Drama, while
R. GEORGIEVA with K. NIKOV (2010) added a series of Ionian Archaic vessels from the area of
Karnobat, of which some were models for Thracian Grey Ware, as stated already elsewhere
(BOUZEK – DOMARADZKA 2010b). T. STOJANOV (2010b) added to earlier evidence a new find
of Ionian Archaic mirror. This confirms that the trade of Greek entrepreneurs penetrated
inland Thrace similarly as it happened in Scythia. The fact that the mid-7th century Greek
pottery came even in remote places shows that Greek contacts with the population of the area
(Thracians, Scythians, Colchis, etc.) already existed.
There is an ongoing discussion on for whom Greek pots were imported. John Boardman
thought that they came for Greek colonists (BOARDMAN 2004), while Nicolas Coldstream was
convinced that they were attractive enough also for non-Greeks (COLDSTREAM 2005). Finds
of Greek pottery from Scythian and Thracian tombs and settlements speak in favour of
the second opinion. Greek drinking service was probably more important for the settlers
who wanted to continue their way of life with their drinking habits, but it was also recog-
nized as valuable exotic objects contributing to the prestige of its possessors, among them
non-Greeks, too.
In 5th century Attic pottery became common in the main sites of inland Thrace, like
Pistiros, Krstevič or Vasil Levski, and in the 4th century B.C. it was accessible practically eve-
rywhere (cf. BOŽKOVA 2010; ARCHIBALD, in PISTIROS I, PISTIROS II; and BOUZEK, in PISTIROS III,
PISTIROS IV: 186–192).

46
 GREEKS IN INNER THRACE

4. Ionians, Persians, Athenians, Macedonians and Thracian jewellery

and toreutics

While the Trebenishte jewellery was mainly influenced by the Corinthian school, the Duvanli
tumuli yielded materials deriving from the Ionian artistic tradition (BOUZEK – ONDŘEJOVÁ 1988).
Excellent Archaic figurines of amber in the area of former Yugoslavia testify that highly quali-
fied artists worked also in inland Illyria (PALAVESTRA – K RSTIĆ, eds. 2006). Around 640 B.C.
the Ionian influence became the most decisive even in the North Pontic area and it remained so
until the end of the 6th century both in jewellery and toreutics (BOUZEK 2007c). What is normally
considered the impact of Persian art was also mainly made by the Ionians working for Persian
satrapies in Anatolia.
In the field of terracottas, connected with traditional cults introduced by the colonists, non-
Greeks had less interest in adopting foreign models, but as concerns male and female jewellery
and toreutics, Thracians were willing to be served by their Greek neighbours and the Greeks will-
ing to work for their Thracian customers. After the Graeco-Persian wars Athens took the leading
position among the models for Thracian toreutics and jewellery, and only in later 4th century it was
replaced by the emerging Macedonian school. Local schools of toreutics and jewellery at the courts
of Thracian rulers were probably also founded either by the Greeks or by their pupils. The Odrysian
school and that of southern Getae accepted Greek models willingly, while those of the Triballoi and
northern Geti were more independent in their taste (BOUZEK 2005: 92–104)

5. Coins

A recent survey of K. DIMITROV (2008) gives a useful outline of the situation in 5th and ear-
ly 4th century B.C. The first Odrysian centre in the Stryama valley (rich tombs at Duvanli, and
Kaloyanovo, the fortified manor house in Vasil Levski, which may have been in its time the Odrasian
capital mentioned by Xenophon ca. 400 B.C.) is discussed here from the numismatic point of view.
Several hoards in this area date from the 5th century (from Starosel, Plovdiv and Benkovski), while
later hoards (dated ca. 385/380 B.C.) came from Kruševo, Armutli, D’bene, Gorni Domljan and
Kr’stevič. These hoards and individual finds show Thasian coins of the Siilen and nymph type, both
original and imitations, further coins of Athens, Parion, Apollonia Pontica and the electrum staters
of Cyzicus. The last class, the standard currency of the Athenian league, came into central Thrace
probably via Hebros and Tundža. The Thasian coins belong to Picard’s groups I, II/I, II/II, II/III
and III. The imitations of Group II/III were probably minted at Pistiros, as suggested by PICARD
(1999), and were considered common currency both by Greeks and Thracians. Later coins point to
another eastern trade link – with Parion. The issues belong to different systems and denominations,
what shows well developed internal market, into which Pistiros was included. Maroneian coins are
especially characteristic for the area further south, in the Rhodopes (cf. NEHRIZOV – MIKOV 2000
and PODOMA ET ALII 2008).
Coins of Thracian rulers – Metokos, Amatokos I, Southos II, Kotys, Amatokos II and Teres –
are mainly known from Pistiros and from the Upper Maritsa valley; they date from the first half of
the 4th century and the set includes small change. K. Dimitrov supposes that they were minted in
Pistiros, where a number of them have been found.
Later coins dating from the second half of the 4th century are Macedonian (TANEVA, in PISTIROS
II: 255–270) and from autonomous Greek cities in SE Thrace. Coins of Greek cities in SW Thrace
(Damastion, Kardia, Parion, Ainos, Thracian Chersonesus – cf. TANEVA, in Culture of Thracians:

47
JAN BOUZEK – LIDIA DOMARADZKA

27–30; and TANEVA 1999) show than the trade relations – even after the Philip’s conquest (which
damaged slightly the city walls, but let it live under similar condition as it was under Thracian rul-
ers) – were directed towards South-West, along the Maritsa/Hebros river.
The Pistiros hoard (cf. here the article by B. RUSSEVA) was compiled probably by a participant of
the final Lysimachus’ battle near Corupedium, in which the diadoch fell, but it was hidden during
the Celtic attack in 279/8, as were also other hoards in the Vardar valley discussed by B. HUSENOVSKI
(2005): Vardarski Rid, Prilepec, Bukri and Furka; the Pistiros and Vardarski Rid hoards were both
buried under the floor in the moment of imminent danger. The Celtic invasion marked a sudden
dramatic change in many parts of the Central and Eastern Balkans

6. Greek masons, architects and stonecutters in Thracian architecture

Greek producers of decorative tile for the roofs appear in central Thrace roughly at the same
time as in Etruria, in 6th century B.C. (Vasil Levski, K ISJOV 2009), and their number apparently en-
larged at the time of the first stone sarcophagi with painted decoration, known in 5th century tombs
in the Rose Valley and the area of Duvanli and Kaloyanovo. Their impact is even more visible in the
stone chambers built since the end of the 5th century; it might be reminded of the same stone masons
working in the Vetren tomb and the Pistiros fortification. The monumental built tombs developed
specific traits against their Macedonian and West Anatolian neighbours, but they also derived from
Greek models (cf. BOUZEK 2005: 83–92).1
The dressed granite blocks deriving from Greek poliorketics are characteristic for many
Thracian tombs. The defensive architecture derives from the Greek tradition, as did the forts,
sanctuaries and thurseis, of which a number is known from modern excavations. New discover-
ies at K’rstevič (MADŽAROV – TANČEVA 2009, 2010; Figs. 2–4), Kozie gramadi (CHRISTOV 2006),
Sborjanovo (STOJANOV ET ALII 2009, 2010), Koprivštica (AGRE – DIČEV 2009–2010; Fig. 7), Ostrec
(GERGOVA ET ALII 2010; Fig. 5) and Goljata Niva near Sinemorec (AGRE – DIČEV 2009–2010) have
shown, in addition to Vasil Levski (Fig. 6)and Pistiros, that good masonry using dressed stones was
well represented in Thracian thurseis, royal residences and in the most important sanctuaries. The
best stonecutters were also well experienced in cutting letters into stone, as was esp. the author of
the Pistiros inscription. It should be stressed that while some larger complexes were probably royal
residences (Vasil Levski, Kr’stevič, Kozie gramadi, later Sborjanovo (Fig. 9) and Seuthopolis, per-
haps Golata Niva near Sinemorec (Fig. 8), other more probably small thurseis (Koprivštica, Goljata
Niva, Durankulak, probably also Nebettepe in Plovdiv – cf. V. KOLAROVA and M. BOSPAČIEVA, in
Culture of Thracians: 69–84), while in other places the character of sanctuary prevails (Ostrec,
GERGOVA ET ALII 2010, Kr’stevič, acropolis; Perperikon, OVČAROV – NODŽATANOVA, undated; Tatul,
OVČAROV ET ALII 2009). All of them show in their monumental buildings some inspiration of Greek
models. It should be, however, stressed, that – with the exception of Seuthopolis – Pistiros fortifica-
tion and drainage system (Fig. 10) has no known parallels in Central Thrace as yet.
The sites situated more to the west have their floruit in late 4th and mainly 3rd century B.C. It
concerns Pernik, a site believed to be foundation by Filip II, though in a modest way it may have
existed earlier, Kruševica in SW Serbia (POPOVIĆ – VRANIĆ 2008, with bibliography) and several
sites along the Vardar river in Macedonia (cf. esp. MITREVSKI, ed. 2005 with bibliography).
Pistiros had its plots divided into kleroi according to one rectangular plan, and even Seuthopolis
had regular chessboard urban planning (cf. BOUZEK 2005: 82–83). But compared with other sites
mentioned above, Pistiros has no close parallels as yet in inner Thrace.

1
For newly uncovered tombs cf. esp. in AOR prez 2006–2009.

48
 GREEKS IN INNER THRACE

7. Wall paintings, literacy

The wall paintings known as yet go with the Macedonian tradition, but the original in-
spiration may well be from Athens or from the art of the second Athenian confederation
(cf. BOUZEK 2005: 90–92).
Greek grafitti are known not only from Pistiros (L. DOMARADZKA, in PISTIROS II: 209–229; EADEM
in PISTIROS III: 221–236, 283–285), but also from the graves at Akandjievo (DOMARADZKA 2002, 2005;
and in Culture of Thracians: 19–27). They are much rarer elsewhere in Thrace (Kabyle, Sborjanovo,
Seuthopolis, Pernik, Asara [Simeonovgrad], Chalka Bunar, municipality Bratia Daskalovi); in
Pistiros they attest a relatively high level of literacy, including the knowledge of Ionian orthog-
raphy. The inscription from Parvenec, the tomb with inscription of Gonimasedze, Seuthou gyne,
from Smjadovo near Šumen (BOUZEK – DOMARADZKA 2006; BOUZEK 2005: 88, 226) also show some
knowledge of literacy even outside the cities.

8. Mining and metal processing

Though Thracians had enough knowledge and were working their mines successfully, the
Greek involvement is marked well at Pistiros, with its smith’s furnaces, tuyères, moulds, gold drops
and also lead seals, probably fixing diptycha with contracts or mining rights (cf. DOMARADZKI,
Emporion Pistiros I: 65–66; and in PISTIROS II: 249–254; G. LAZOV, in PISTIROS II: 243–248; D.
K ATINČAROVA in PISTIROS II: 235–242, and in Culture of Thracians: 31–36). The toreutics and other
fine metal objects were made here.

9. Trade

Pistiros was probably the last river harbour for flat-bottomed boats on the Maritsa (cf.
BOUZEK, in PISTIROS I: 221–222; DE BOER 2010: 180–182), but carts (mentioned in the inscription,
cf. VELKOV – DOMARADZKA, in PISTIROS I: 205–216), pack animals and porters came to the city at
least partly through the Eastern Gate (cf. BOUZEK, in PISTIROS IV: 221–223). Trade was among the
main activities of Greeks in Thrace also according to literary sources (THUC. I,100,2; PSEUDO-
SKYLAX, Periplus 67; ARIAN, Anabasis I,1,6; BOUZEK – DOMARADZKA 2000; DE BOER 2010:181).
The position of Pistiros enabled also access to the second richest kingdom of Thrace, to the
Triballoi. It should also be mentioned that slave trade was undoubtedly part of the deal (cf.
BOUZEK 2005: 122; ARCHIBALD 2004).

10. Social position of Greeks in Thrace and their role

About Decebal we know that he accepted fugitive slaves, and the fringes of the Greek world
in Thrace may have given them some hiding even earlier. But some free persons cold be enslaved
here, too, as we know e.g. from the letters on lead sheets, as read by Ju. Vinogradov. Poverty was
always the sister of Greece, as mentioned already by Herodotus, and Thracian rulers could pay
for rare goods and specialized work. As we see from the Pistiros inscription, the position of the
better of them was not lawless. Fringes can make a man rich even nowadays, but the risk is high.

49
JAN BOUZEK – LIDIA DOMARADZKA

Demosthenes describes the emporitai in Thrace as bad people, and the forged coins at Pistiros sup-
port his view. But it should be remembered that the Greek artists, artisans and workers served their
clients with respect to their taste; no strict rules were dictated by them, as we know it later from the
cultural “Gleichschaltung” in the Roman Impire.

11. Thrace under Philip, Alexander and Lysimachus and the Celtic campaigns

The governors were Greeks, but the structure of tribal chieftains and local dynasts was kept
largely intact. Thracian was still the main language of the population, while Geek became the lan-
guage of administration.
The destruction of Pistiros shortly before 300 was probably the result of local wars between
Lysimachus and Thracian sub-reguli (cf. esp. DIMITROV 2009 with earlier bibliography). The de-
posits of this destruction yielded “Scythian” triangular arrowheads of bronze, while the Celtic
conquest deposits contained iron arrowheads of different type.
The Celtic campaign destroyed the organisation of Thrace as established under Philip, Alexander
and Lysimachus, and the country was again split into smaller units. But Thrace continued to be
a part of the Hellenistic world, the activities of the Greeks inland Thrace continued and the Greek
literacy was apparently commonly distributed on the courts of Thracian rulers in present-day
Bulgaria. Even the Celts in the Balkans adopted Greek alphabet and to some extent they managed
to use Greek language as lingua franca for relations with their neighbours.

Summary

The article analyses various categories of sources showing the presence of Greeks in in-
ner Thrace since the 7th century B.C.: imported Greek pottery and its impact on local wares,
metal vessels and other toreutic works, bronze objects artistic and functional, architecture, in-
scriptions and graffiti, coins and other phenomena. The evidence shows that in Late Archaic,
Classical and Hellenistic periods many Greeks were in inner Thrace as traders, artists and
artisans and in other expertises on the courts of Thracian rulers and also in the autonomous
emporia like Pistiros.

Keywords: Thracians; Greeks in Thrace; architecture; numismatics; pottery; metal work

Abbreviations

AOR: Archeologičeski otkritia i raskopki, Sofia

Culture of Thracians: BOUZEK, J. – DOMARADZKA, L. (eds.), The Culture of Thracians and Their
Neighbours. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. M. Domaradzki,
with a Round Table Archaeological Map of Bulgaria, BAR IS 1350, Oxford 2005.
Emporion Pistiros I: ДОМАРАДСКИ, М. 1996, Емпорион Пистирос І. Трако-гръцки търговски
отношения, Септември.
Emporion Pistiros II: ДОМАРАДСКИ, М. – ТАНЕВА, В. 1998, Емпорион Пистирос ІІ. Тракийската
култура в прехода към елинистическата епоха, Септември.
PISTIROS I: BOUZEK, J., – DOMARADZKA, M. – ARCHIBALD, Z. (eds.), Pistiros. Excavations and Studies.
Vol. I, Prague 1996.

50
 GREEKS IN INNER THRACE

PISTIROS II: J BOUZEK, J., – DOMARADZKA, M. – ARCHIBALD, Z. (eds.), Pistiros. Excavations and
Studies. Vol. II, Prague 2002.
PISTIROS III: BOUZEK, J., – DOMARADZKA, M. – ARCHIBALD, Z. (eds.), Pistiros. Excavations and
Studies. Vol. III, Prague 2008.
PISTIROS IV: BOUZEK, J., – DOMARADZKA, M. – ARCHIBALD, Z. (eds.), Pistiros. Excavations and
Studies. Vol. IV, Prague 2010.
SH VII: Studia Hercynia VII, Prague 2003.

Bibliography

AGRE, D. – DIČEV, D. 2009–2010: ‘Archeologičeski raskopki na ukreplen dom v m. Golata Niva kraj
s. Sinemorec, obština Carevo’, AOR prez 2008 godina, Sofia 2009, pp. 212–221, and AOR prez
2009 godina, Sofia 2010, pp. 217–219
AGRE, D. – DIČEV, D. 2010: ‘Archeologičeski raskopki na trakijski ukreplen obekt v m. “Smilovene”
v zemlivšteto na grad Koprivštica’, AOR prez 2009 godina, Sofia, pp. 214–216.
ARCHIBALD, Z. 2004: ‘Inland Thrace’, in: HANSEN, M. H. – NIELSEN, T. H. (eds.), An Inventory of
Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, pp. 885–899.
BAK’RDŽIEV, S, 2010: No. 19. ‘Spasitelni archeologičeski proučivanija na obekt o. 12 (Selište ot
rannoželeznata epocha, LOT 4, km. 286+110 – 286+260 po traseto AM Trakija, zemlište na
selo Zavod, obština Tundža, oblast Jambol’, in AOR prez 2009 godina, Sofia, pp. 149–152.
BARALIS, A. – R IAPOV, A. 2007: ‘Le massif des Rhodopes occidentaux et ses marges (XIème –
VIème s. av. J.C.) : aperçu sur l’archéologie d’une région montagneuse de la Thrace,’ Eirene 43,
pp. 8–24.
BOARDMAN, J. 2004: ‘Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean’, in: Lomas, K. (ed.), Papers in
Honour of Brian Shefton, Mnemosyne suppl. 246, Leiden – Boston, pp. 149–162.
BOUZEK, J. 1990: Studies of Greek Pottery in the Black Sea Area, Prague.
BOUZEK, J. 2005: Thracians and Their Neighbours, Prague (Studia Hercynia IX).
BOUZEK, J. 2007a: ‘Greek Fine Pottery in the Black Sea Region’, in: GRAMMENOS, D. V. –PETROPOULOS,
E. K. (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, II, 2, BAR IS 1675 (II), pp. 1221–1262.
BOUZEK, J. 2007b: ‘Thracian Thalassocracy – Fact or Fiction?’, in: Festschrift. M. Lazarov, Acta
Musei Varnensis V, 2007, pp. 109–120.
BOUZEK, J. 2010a: ‘Precolonisation in the Black Sea’, Studia Hercynia 14, pp. 91–94.
BOUZEK J. 2010b: ‘The Eastern Amber Route between the Baltic and the Black Sea in Ancient
Times’, Studia Hercynia 14, pp. 95–101.
BOUZEK, J. – DOMARADZKA, L. 2000: ‘More than 300 Talents from the Emporia for Kersobleptes’,
in: Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Thracology: Thrace and the Aegean 2000,
vol. I, Sofia 2002, pp. 391–397.
BOUZEK, J. – DOMARADZKA, L. 2006: ‘Social structure in Central Thrace, 5th – 3rd century B.C.’, Acta
Terrae Septemcastrensis, V/1, Sibiu, pp. 89–114.
BOUZEK, J. – DOMARADZKA, L. 2008: ‘The Emporion Pistiros near Vetren between Greater Powers,
450–278 B.C.’, in: Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World, Athens 2008, pp. 86–94.
BOUZEK, J. – ONDŘEJOVÁ, I. 1987: ‘Sindos – Trebenishte – Duvanli. Interrelations between Thrace,
Macedonia and Greece in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.’, Mediterranean Archaeology I, 1988,
pp. 84–94.
BOŽKOVA, A. 2002: ‘Monochromna keramika s angobirano pokritie’, in: Koprivlen, pp. 146–154.
BOŽKOVA, A. 2005: ‘A pottery Group with Geometric Decoration from Thracian Site at Koprivlen,
Bulgaria’, in: BOUZEK – DOMARADZKA (eds.) 2005, pp. 85–90.

51
JAN BOUZEK – LIDIA DOMARADZKA

BOŽKOVA, A. 2010, ‘La céramique à vernis noir à l’époque classique dans les colonies ouest-pon-
tiques et en hinterland thrace (territoire de Bulgarie)’, in : TRÉZINY (ed.) 2010, pp. 487–491.
CATLING, R. W. W. 1998: ‘The Typology of Protogeometric and Subprotogeometric Pottery from
Troia and its Aegean Context’, Studia Troica 8, pp. 151–187.
CHANKOWSKI, V. – GOTZEV, A. 2002: ‘Pistiros et son territoire: les premiers résultats de la prospec-
tion franco-bulgare’, in: PISTIROS II, pp. 271–282.
CELESTINO, S. – R AFEL, N. – AMADA, X.-L. (eds.) 2008, Contacto cultural entrée el Mediterráneo y
el Attlantido (siglos XII–VIII an). La precolonización a debate, Madrid.
CHRISTOV, I. 2006: Tajstvennata trakijska rezidencia, krepost i svetilište na odriskete cari v Sredna
Gora, V–IV v. pr. Chr., Sofia, National Museum (Kozi gramadi).
COLDSTREAM, J. N. 2006: ‘Ceramic Borrowing between the Early Greeks and the Levantins in
Various Mediterranean Contexts’, in: Across Frontiers. Studies presented to D. and F. Ridgway,
London, pp. 49–55.
DE BOER, J. 2007: ‘The Earliest Possible Dates of the Greek Colonisation along the West Pontic
Coast’, in: Festschrift. M. Lazarov, Acta Musei Varnensis V, pp. 123–139.
DE BOER, J. 2010: ‘River Trade in Eastern and Central Thrace from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic
period’, Eirene 46, pp. 177–190.
DIMITROV, K. 2008: ‘K’m v’prosa za trako-gr’ckite kontakti v rajona na Strjama prez V – p’rva ta
polovina na IV v. pr. Chr. [On the Thracian-Greek Contacts in the Valley Stryama during the
5th – First Half of 4h Century B.C.]’, in: Spisania BAN 6, pp. 35–43.
DIMITROV, K. 2009: ‘Wars and Policy of the Royal Dynasty of Seuthopolis’, Thracia 18, pp. 271–294.
DOMARADZKA, L. 2002: ‘Pistiros and Its Contributions to Classical Greek Epigraphy’, in: PITYE.
Studia in honorem prof. Ivani Marazov, Sofia 2002, pp. 294–306.
DOMARADZKA, L. 2005: ‘Greek Classical and Hellenistic Graffiti from Thrace (6th/5th – 3rd c. B.C.)’,
in: STOYANOV, T. – ANGELOVA, S. – LOZANOV, I. (eds.), Stephanos archaeologicos in honorem
Professoris Ludmili Getov, Sofia 2005, pp. 296–307.
DOONAN, O. 2007: ‘Colony and Conjecture: the Early Greek colony at Sinope’, in: COBET, J. ET ALII
(eds.), Milesische Forschungen 5, Mainz 2007, pp. 613–620.
FORNASIER, J. 2009: ‘Zum Begin der griechichen Kolonisation im nördlichen Schwarzmeegebiet’, in:
EINICKE, P. ET ALII (eds.), Zurück zum Gegenstand. Festschrift A, Furtwängler, Langenweißbach,
pp. 483–491.
GEORGIEVA, R. – NIKOV, K. 2010, ‘Ranni trako-ellinski kontakti (po archeologičeski danni ot
Karnobatsko)’, in: GEORGIEVA, R. – STOJANOV, T. – MOMČILOV, D. (eds.) 2010, pp. 142–155.
GEORGIEVA, R. – STOJANOV, T. – MOMČILOV, D. (eds.) 2010: Jugoiztočna Bulharka prez II–I chliado-
letie pp. Chr., Varna.
GERGOVA, D. – SALKIN, A. – BAJRAKOV, D. 2010: ‘Svetilište na Dionis na vr’ch Ostrec, Velingrad’,
AOR prez 2009 godina, Sofia, pp. 185–188.
IAKOVIDOU, A., ed. 2007: Η Θράκη στον ‘Έλληνο-Ρωμαϊκο κόσμο. Thrace in the Graeco-
Roman World. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Thracology, Komotini-
Alexandroupolis, 18–23rd October, 2005, Athens.
HUSENOVSKI, B. 2005: ‘A Hoard of Silver Tetradrachms from the 3rd Century B.C.’, in: MITREVSKI,
D. (ed.) 2005, pp. 323–346.
ILIEVA, P. 2007: ‘Thracian-Greek συμβίωσις on the Shore of the Aegean’, in: IAKOVIDOU, A. ed. 2007,
pp. 212–226.
K ARADŽINOV, I. 2010: ‘Rana gr’cka risuvna keramika ot sredno tečenie na Marica I Tundža’, in:
GEORGIEVA, R. – STOJANOV, T. – MOMČILOV, D. (eds.) 2010, pp. 158–180.
K ISJOV, K. 2009: ‘Archeologičeski proučivabija na trakijski selišten cent’r ot klasičeskata epochykraj
s. Vasil Levski, obština Karlovo’, AOR prez 2008 godina, Sofia, pp. 237–239.

52
 GREEKS IN INNER THRACE

LESHTAKOV, K. 2007: ‘The Eastern Balkans in theAegean Economic System during the lBA. Ox-
hide and Bun Ingots in the Bulgarian Lands’, in: Between the Aegean and the Baltic Sea,
Aegaeum 27, Liège, pp. 447–458.
LOUKOPOULOU, L. 2005: ‘Addendum on the Inscription of Vetren: Custom Duties of the Odrysians,’
in: BOUZEK – DOMARADZKA (eds.) 2005, pp. 13–16.
MADŽAROV, M. – TANČEVA, D. 2009: ‘Archeologičeski raskopki na trakijski selišten complex ot
V–IV v. pr. Chr, pri s. Kr’stevič, obština Hisarja’, AOR prez 2008 godina, Sofia, pp. 240–244.
MADŽAROV, M. – TANČEVA, D. 2010: ‘Archeologičeski raskopki na trakijski kultov complex ot V–III
v. pr. Chr. V mestnostta Sekizarman pri s. Kr’stevič,obština Hisarja’, AOR prez 2009 godina,
Sofia, pp. 199–291.
MATSAS, D. 2007: ‘Archaeological Evidence for Greek-Thracian Relations on Samothrace’, in:
IAKOVIDOU, A. (ed.) 2007, pp. 387–402.
MITREVSKI, D. (ed.) 2005: Vardarski Rid I, Skopje.
NEHRIZOV, G. – MIKOV, R. 2000: ‘Relations commerciaux dans les Rhodopes de l’Est, 5ème – 1er siè-
cles avant J.-C.’, in: Pistiros et Thasos, pp. 160–180.
NIKOV, K. 1997: ‘“Aeolian” bucchero in Thrace?’, Archaeologia Bulgarica 2, 1999, pp. 31–42.
NIKOV, K. 2007: ‘Macedonia, Southern Thrace and the Geometric Pottery Koine’, in: Ancient
Macedonia 7, Thessaloniki, pp. 407–421.
OVČAROV N. – LEŠAKOV, K R. – DIMITROV, Z. – KODŽAMANOVA, D. 2009: ‘Antičnijat heroon pri Tatul’,
Archeologija 49, 1–2, pp. 46–57.
OVČAROV, N. – NODŽATANOVA, D., undated: Sveštenijat grad Perperikon, Sofia.
PALAVESTRA, A. – K RSTIĆ, V. (eds.) 2006: The Magic of Amber, Beograd.
PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. 2005: The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone, 2 vols., Monumenta
Archaeologica 24, Los Angeles.
PAPADOPOULOS, S. 2001: ‘The “Thracian” Pottery of South-East Europe: a Contribution to the
Discussion on the Handmade Pottery Traditions of the Historical Period,’ BSA 96, pp. 157–194.
PICARD, O.1999: ‘Le commerce d’argent dans la charte de Pistiros’, BCH 123, pp. 341–344.
Pistiros et Thasos 2000: Structures économiques dans la péninsule balkanique aux VIIe – IIe sie-
cles av. J.-C., textes réunis par M. DOMARADZKI, Opole.
PODZUWEIT, Chr. 1986: ‘Der Spätmykenische Einfluss in Makedonien’, Ancient Macedonia IV, pp.
467–484.
POPOVIĆ, P. – VRANIĆ, I. 2008: ‘The Textile Industry at Kruševica in SE Serbia, in the 4th – 3rd
Century B.C.’, Starinar NS 56 2006 (2008), pp. 309–326.
PSOMA, S. – K ARDIMA, CH. – TERZOPOULOU, D. 2008: The Coins of Maroneia and the Classical City
at Molyvoti, Athens.
STOJANOV, T. – NIKOV, K. – NOKOLAEVA, M. – STOJANOVA, D. – BONEV, V. 2009: ‘Proučivanija na traki-
jski grad v IAR Sborjanovo prez 2008 godina’, AOR prez 2008 godina, Sofia, pp. 228–233.
STOJANOV, T. ET ALII 2010a: ‘Proučivanija na trakijski grad v IAR “Sborjanovo”’, AOR prez 2009
godina, Sofia, pp. 209–212.
STOJANOV, T. 2010b: ‘Ogledaloto ot Čukarka v konteksta na archeologičeskite pproučivanija prez
poslednite godini v jugoiztočna Bulhgaria’, in: GEORGIEVA, R. – STOJANOV, T. – MOMČILOV, D.
(eds.) 2010, pp. 181–187.
TRÉZINY, H., ed. 2010: Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer Noire, Errance, Centre Jullian.
TSETSKHLADZE, G. R. 2000: ‘Pistiros in the System of Pontic emporia (Greek Trading and Craft
Settlement in the Hinterland of Northern and Eastern Black Sea and Elsewhere)’, in: DOMARADZKI
ET ALII (eds.) 2000, pp. 233–246.
TSETSKHLADZE, G. R. 2002: ‘Ionians abroad’, in: TSETSKHLADZE, G. R. – SNODGRASS, A. M. (eds.), Greek
Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the Black Sea, BAR IS 1062, pp. 81–96.

53
JAN BOUZEK – LIDIA DOMARADZKA

TSETSKHLADZE, G. R. 2007: ‘Pots and Pandemium: the Earliest East Greek Pottery from North Pontic
Native Settlements’, Pontica 40, pp. 37–70.
VELKOV, V. – DOMARADZKA, L. 1994: ‘Cotys I (383/2 – 359 av.J.C.) et l’emporion Pistiros de Thrace’,
BCH 118, pp. 1–15.
WARDLE, K. 1993: ‘Mycenaean Trade and Influence in Northern Greece.’ in: ZERNER, C. L. –ZERNER,
P. S. (eds.) 1993, pp. 117–141.
ZERNEER, C. L. – ZERNER, P. S. (eds.) 1993: Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the
Aegean Bronze Age (1939–1989), Amsterdam.

54
 GREEKS IN INNER THRACE

Fig. 1. Fragments of Bird Bowl and Rosette Bowl from Tundža near Jambol, after BAK’RDŽIEV,
AOR prez 2009 godina, 151, fig. 3.

Fig. 2. Kr’stevič, detail of the cult complex on the acropolis, fi rst perod, after M ADŽAROV – TANČEVA 2009, p. 197.
5th – 4th century B.C

Fig. 3. Kr’stevič, temenos with sanctuary on the acropolis, after M ADŽAROV – TANČEVA 2010, p. 200.

55
JAN BOUZEK – LIDIA DOMARADZKA

Fig. 4. Kr’stevič, palest buildings (?), after M ADŽAROV – TANČEVA 2008, p. 217.

Fig. 5.Ostrec near Velingrad, sanctuary with temple, after GERGOVA ET ALII 2010, p. 186, fig. 2.

56
 GREEKS IN INNER THRACE

Fig. 6. Vasil Levski, “Manor House”, 5th – 4th century B.C. After K ISJOV 2009, p. 238.

Fig. 7. Smilovene, community Koprivštica, thursis, 4th century B.C., after AGRE – DIČEV 2010a, p. 215.

57
JAN BOUZEK – LIDIA DOMARADZKA

Fig. 8. Golata Niva near Sinemorec, fort, 3rd century B.C. After AGRE – DIČEV 2010b, p. 218.

Fig. 9. Sbeštari, general plan of the Early Hellenistoc city, after T. STOYANOV.

58
 GREEKS IN INNER THRACE

Fig. 10. Pistiros, quarter at the Eastern Gate, after PISTIROS IV.

59