Archaeologia

Toward the Bulgarica

Thracian Religion inXI 2007 Period: A3Terracotta Figurine
the Early Hellenistic 47-67 of Kybele
Sofia
...

TOWARD THE THRACIAN RELIGION IN THE EARLY HELLENISTIC

PERIOD: A TERRACOTTA FIGURINE OF KYBELE FROM
SEUTHOPOLIS RECONSIDERED

EMIL NANKOV

1. Introduction wider context for appreciating the significance

The purpose of this article is to draw atten- of an object, which in many aspects is as elu-
tion to a terracotta figurine of Kybele (fig. 1) sive as it is unique.
1
excavated at Seuthopolis . Briefly mentioned in 2. Description
the preliminary reports (Äèìèòðîâ 1957à, The figurine was found in a fragmentary con-
216; ×è÷èêîâà 1970, 24; Dimitrov/Èièikova dition, with head, shoulders and backside miss-
1978, 32), its detailed description appeared, for ing. The height of the preserved part is 12.8 cm.
the first time, in the delayed publication of the Although Ognenova-Marinova does not mention
Seuthopolis series (Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíîâà fragmentation, it is obvious from the photograph
2
1984, 167, Êàò. # 367, ôèã. 76) . Understan- that the figurine was restored out of the avail-
dably, it has gone unnoticed by the scholarship able pieces. Its fabric is described as pale-pink
dealing with the problems of the religious cults clay with bluish coloration at spots, which
at Seuthopolis (Äèìèòðîâ 1957á; Ðàáàäæè- renders it unique among the terracotta figurines
åâ 2002, 10-54) or with the monuments related and clay objects recovered from the city
to the cult of Kybele, in particular (Tacheva- (Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíîâà 1984, Êàò. # 368-
Hitova 1983; Naumann 1983; Vermaseren 398). The field reports put the find in square Ô
4
1989; Ãî÷åâà 1993; Ðáðáãåùñãßïõ 1997; 4, at a depth of 0.60-0.80 m (fig. 2/3).
Vassileva 2001; Roller 2002). This state of af- The figurine (fig. 1) represents a female fig-
fairs is unexpected in view of the scarcity of ure seated on a throne, with a phiale in her right
monuments testifying to the cult of Kybele from hand, and some unpreserved object in her out-
inland Thrace dating to the Classical and the stretched left hand. The feet are rested on what
Hellenistic periods (Tacheva-Hitova 1983, appears to be a footstool. The right foot is
3
154) . Regrettably the Seuthopolis figurine slightly advanced but clearly does not project
continues to receive attention only in a over the edge of the footstool. The figure is clad
very general manner (cf. Ñòîÿíîâ 1991, 31, in a long Ionic chiton, which is falling gently
áåë. 81; Stoyanov 2003, 565; Valeva 2005, over the lower legs, visible from slightly under
128, n. 26) and an in-depth study is still the knees and continuing all the way down to
lacking. With these observations in mind, the footstool and the feet. The light nature of
my goal is to provide a firmer ground and a the garment, normally made of linen, is rendered
1
The author’s study of the object is based on its photograph and description in the catalogue published in volume 1 of the
Seuthopolis series (Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíîâà 1984, 206, êàò. # 367, ôèã. 76).
2
Ognenova-Marinova quotes a parallel from Syria, when she describes the advanced position of the right foot, but
without supplying further details. Stoyanov (1991, 31, áåë. 82) has pointed out to the Kybele terracotta figurines
from Priene (cf. fig. 12) and Halicarnassos as two other possibilities for further comparanda.
3
See, however, the rock relief from Paros dedicated by a certain Adamas, the Odrysian (IG XII 5. 245), dated to the second
half of the fourth century BC (cf. Naumann 1983, 196-202, Cat. # 427). For a possible representation of Kybele on the
coffered ceiling (coffer no. 22) of the Ostrusha tomb, see Valeva 2005, 121-128, fig. 1 a, b; pl. 15-1. Albeit contemporary,
the Seuthopolis figurine does not belong to the sizable group of Hellenistic monuments from Tomi, Callatis, Histria and
Perinthos, since the popularity of Kybele’s cult on the fringes of Thrace is normally explained through the contacts between
the Black sea colonies and the Ionian cities of Asia Minor, which facilitated the arrival of the Anatolian cult there as early
as the sixth century BC (Tacheva-Hitova 1983, 137-138, 154-155).
4 st
The excavation grid at Seuthopolis utilizes the Cyrillic alphabet, in which ‘Ô’ is the 21 letter.

47
 Emil Nankov

through its neatly arranged vertical folds. That

the chiton was Ionic is supported by the pre-
served fragment of the left upper arm on which
a small part of the sleeve, held with brooches
on top (cf. fig. 9), is clearly visible (cf. Abra-
hams 1908, 60; Thompson 1963, 34-35).
On the upper torso, over the chiton, a fold-
less garment of a rather smooth surface, ar-
ranged into six squares divided by intersecting
shallow grooves is presented. The upper mid-
dle square of it, however, recedes back and has
its space taken up by a large crescent pendant,
which, to judge from the small hook on its top,
quite possibly belongs to a necklace, now lost
(cf. fig. 3). Regrettably, the poor visibility
around the lap area precludes us from estab-
lishing whether the arrangement of the project-
ing squares and intersecting grooves upon the
chest and abdomen has been applied to the up-
per part of the legs too.
The lower part of the upper garment falls
straight down covering the lower legs in a man-
ner described by Ognenova-Marinova “as if it
5
were made of lead”. Apparently, this is be-
cause it was made of much thicker fabric, prob- Fig. 1. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from
ably wool, as is also indicated by the tightly ar- Seuthopolis; pr. height 12.8 cm
ranged vertical folds, creating the impression of (after Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíîâà 1984, ôèã. 76)
6
separate strips, as Ognenova-Marinova put it,
in contrast with the looser and freely flowing possibility that these are in fact two separate
folds of the chiton underneath. pieces of clothing. This will be treated in greater
To decide on the nature of the garment worn detail below.
over the chiton is a daunting task. Ognenova- b) It is true that, for the most part, Kybele is
Marinova interprets it as a himation. She also shown with a himation, drawn over her knees
thought that the horizontal groove in the middle and falling down from her left shoulder, often
represented the girdle of the chiton, which reaching down to the ankles, and always form-
tightens it up under the breast, whereas the two ing slightly down-curved horizontal folds of the
vertical ones she described as “clavi”, leaving drapery (cf. figs. 4-10). These horizontal folds
their purpose otherwise unexplained (Îãíåíî- contrast sharply with the vertical folds of the
âà-Ìàðèíîâà 1984, 206). I cannot agree with chiton, with which they were meant to inter-
such interpretation of the garment on the ac- play visually. As observed earlier, however,
count of the following peculiarities and details: none of these features applies to our specimen.
a) Based on the marked differences be- The suggested girdle tightening the chiton un-
tween the rendering of the upper and the lower der the breast, at a closer look, is simply not
parts of the garment, one can not rule out the rendered (fig. 1). Considering the intricate level
5
Translations from Bulgarian throughout the text are mine.
6
These are rendered through a series of vertically incised parallel lines, which most probably indicate a retouching process
after the figurine was taken out of the mold (cf. fig. 1). I am grateful to Theodora Kopestonsky from the Department of
Classics at SUNY, Buffalo and Caitlin Barrett from the Department of Classics at Yale University who drew my attention
to this technical detail.

48
Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele ...

Fig. 2. Seuthopolis and the findspots of the figurines between Houses 1 and 4
(adapted by author after Dimitrov/Chichikova 1978, fig. 3)

49
 Emil Nankov
of detail with which the upper garment is
treated, it is unlikely that the artisan had in mind
anything other than the projecting squares and
intersecting grooves he conveyed, or that he
clumsily rendered the girt chiton, unmistakably
recognizable in other representations of the
goddess.
Therefore, the presence of himation is
doubtful and herein dismissed.
3. Iconography
By and large, the iconography of Greek Me-
ter (Kybele), with the exception of a few minor
variations, became fairly standard over the cen-
turies of development from the Classical to the
Roman periods (Simon 1997, 744-766; Vikela
2001, 91-99). She is usually enthroned, wearing
polos or a veiled mural crown, clad in chiton
and himation. Predominantly, she is holding a
phiale in her right hand and a tympanum in her
left. One seated or two squatting lions almost
always accompany her (Vermaseren 1977, 72).
In some cases, they are squatting on either side
of the throne (figs. 5, 6, 9), whereas in others
a small lion is lying on her lap (figs. 6, 8, 9) or
underneath her feet (fig. 4), his head facing the
viewer (Thompson 1963, 77-78). Thus, based
on the presence of some of the aforementioned
representational conventions in the Seuthopolis
statuette, her identification as Kybele is certain.
In the specimen under discussion, however,
there are some pronounced deviations from the
established canon. The lions, associated with
the goddess, are entirely missing (fig. 1). Still,
this is not unique to the Seuthopolis figurine,
for in several representations from Histria and
Callatis the lions are omitted as well (Tacheva-
Hitova 1983, 136). In light of the expressed
opinion that the lions were dispensed with pri-
marily in the regions outside Anatolia where
they did not constitute an important part of the
cult (Will 1960, 101; Burkert 1985, 177-178),
their exclusion actually gains certain signifi-
cance; it certainly speaks, as I discuss below,
of a deliberate adaptation to the needs of a lo-
cal cult, rather than of an outright import of a
foreign imagery.
Ognenova-Marinova (1984, 206) states that
the goddess is holding a tympanum in her left
hand, but I find the identification unsubstanti-
50
Fig. 3. Crescent pendant from a necklace from the
sanctuary of Astarte at Tamassos in Cyprus
(after Buchholz 1973, Abb. 41)
ated. The outstretched position of her hand cor-
responds better with that of the representation
of Kybele holding a key instead (fig. 6) (Nau-
mann 1983, 270, Kat. # 623). A tympanum
would have most certainly hidden the upper
forearm – something amply attested in many
other terracotta renditions of her image (figs.
4, 5, 7, 9, 11), but not in this one (fig. 1). The
poor quality of the published photograph, how-
ever, prevents us from taking a firm position on
which of the two attributes is actually present.
Yet, in the light of the evidence presented bel-
low, the depiction of an object other than a tym-
panum would not be surprising (see infra).
The crescent, so prominently displayed in the
Seuthopolis terracotta, is a common attribute
of the goddess, signifying her cosmocratic pow-
ers, by which she is identified as Anatolian
Artemis (cf. fig. 13) (Tacheva-Hitova 1983,
263). It appears on one example of a fragmen-
tary figurine of Kybele from Demetrias
(ÌðÜôæéïõ-Åõóôáèßïõ 1996, 28-30), where,
among other objects, a crescent is also dis-
played on what has been interpreted as a stele,
suspended from her neck and placed upon her
chest and abdomen (fig. 11). Bearing close re-
semblance to the latter is a terracotta figurine
of Kybele from Priene (Wiegand 1904, 331;
Rumscheid 2006, Kat. # 10, Taf. 4.1), in which
too a crescent-like object is rendered upon the
suspended stele (fig. 12). Parenthetically, the
gold crescent pendant from the tomb at
Koprivetz, Rousse district (Ñòàí÷åâ 1994,
 Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele ...

Fig. 4. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from Vergina; Fig. 5. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from Pella;
height 27.5 cm (after Äñïýãïõ 1993, åéê. 4) height 31.5 cm (after ËéëéìðÜêç-ÁêáìÜôç 2000, åéê.
59a)

Fig. 6. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from Priene (?), Fig. 7. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from Athens;
Pergamon Museum, Inv. 8260; height 21.5 cm (after height 18.1 cm; Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum,
Köster 1926, abb. 80) Inv. B 3051 (after Vermaseren 1982, pl. CVII)
51
 Emil Nankov
173-174, ôèã. 1á) and the crescent (fig. 3)
discovered in the sanctuary of Astarte at Ta-
massos in Cyprus (Buchholz 1973, 342) provide
good illustration for the popularity of this type
of pendant, and in cult contexts as well. Fur-
thermore, the association of Kybele with a
crescent is often interpreted as a sign of her
identification with Artemis-Hecate
(Ðáðáãåùñãßïõ 1997, 194; Vermaseren 1977,
30). The best example of the close link between
Artemis and Kybele furnishes a marble relief
from Kula in Lydia dated to the third century
AD (fig. 13). In it, the central figure is that of
Kybele, even though the inscription below her
image identifies her as Artemis (Vermaseren
1977, 30-31, # 125; Horsley 1992, 139).
As we saw earlier, the syncretism between
the two goddesses continued well into the Ro-
man period, when the crescent still accompa-
nies Kybele in votive reliefs from Thrace and
Macedonia (Vermaseren 1989, Cat. # 300, 377).
Among the comparable finds, notable is one of
seven bronze plaques discovered in Abritus
near Razgrad, initially published by Kazarow
(1922, 191-196), presenting a goddess wearing
two necklaces, each with a crescent pendant
suspended down from them (fig. 14) Even
though this goddess’s identification with Kybele
is still wanting (Tacheva-Hitova 1983, 261, VI
1; cf. Ãî÷åâà 1999, 140; Ãî÷åâà 2006, 484),
the close similarity with the Seuthopolis
terracotta, at least in view of this attribute, cer-
tainly tip the scales in her syncretism with
Anatolian Artemis (cf. Tacheva-Hitova 1983,
263).
In addition to being suspended down from a
necklace, the crescent often appears on the
goddess’ mural crown. On a statuette exca-
vated in the sanctuary of Kybele at Pella
(ËéëéìðÜêç-ÁêáìÜôç 2000, Cat. # 52), two
crescents are depicted between the towers of
the Kybele’s mural crown (fig. 5). A fragmen-
tary relief, representing a woman’s head with a
mural crown (Kybele?), from the archaeologi-
cal museum at Varna (fig. 15) is closely com-
parable, since a crescent may also have been
7
Youroukova (1992, 142) puts the minting of this type within 277-270 BC. Compare also the discussion of the doubts she
cast on the identification of the female turreted head as Tyche (Þðóêîâà 1992, 138-141, áåë. 104; Ðáðáãåùñãßïõ 1997,
114, # 95).
52
depicted on her crown (Ìèð÷åâ 1956, Êàò.
# 95).
Due to the popularity of the mural crown in
the Hellenistic representations of Kybele,
where it is the most frequently used attribute
(Ðáðáãåùñãßïõ 1997, 182), I suggest that the
Seuthopolis figurine be restored with a mural
crown as well. Still, with the head missing, such
a restoration has to appear as conjectural.
If the restoration of a mural crown is ac-
cepted, however, it puts the Seuthopolis terra-
cotta on a par with a growing number of exam-
ples representing Kybele as a protector of cit-
ies from elsewhere. It is important to note that
this capacity of the goddess was heavily em-
phasized in her iconography, and in fact became
extremely popular, especially among the cities
founded by the Successors during the early
Hellenistic period and later. Cases in point here
are the cities of Cardia (Lysimacheia) and
Ephesos, both of which had close encounters
with Lysimachus during the late fourth-early
third century BC. They adapted the crowned
imagery on several of their bronze issues
minted between 309-281 BC, with the turreted
7
head of Kybele (fig. 16) and of Artemis pro-
minently displayed (Ðáðáãåùñãßïõ 1997, 123,
no. 148), thus may be referring to the new for-
tifications at Lysimacheia and Ephesos built by
Lysimachus (McNicoll 1997, 94-105;
Ðáðáãåùñãßïõ 1997, 196-197). According to
Papageorgiou (1997, 174-178), the appearance
of the mural crown was the visual expression
of the importance attached to the security af-
forded by the newly built fortifications, as well
as of the economic power of the ruler that fi-
nanced their construction. Archaeological evi-
dence of the spatial association of the Kybele
cult practices with city gates and fortification
walls, such as those attested in Tamassos
(Buchholz 1973, 340-347), Priene (Naumann
1983, 262) and Amphipolis (Ëáæáñßäçò 1983,
22, figs. 32-33), illustrates the protective role of
the goddess further. Finally, the appearance of
the key in her left hand, replacing the traditional
tympanum, as seen on the terracotta in the
 Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele ...

Fig. 8. Terracotta mold from Callatis; height 24.5 cm;

Archaeological Museum of Varna, Inv. II, 2309 (after Fig. 9. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from House 17 at
Canarache 1969, 29) Priene; height 22 cm (after Raeder 1983, Abb. 4)

Fig. 11. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from a house at

Demetrias (after ÌðÜôæéïõ-Åõóôáèßïõ 1996, åéê. 15)

Fig. 10. Marble statue of Kybele from Pergamon;

pr. height 1.55 m; Antikensammlung, Staatliche
Museen zu Berlin (after Roller 1999, abb. 55)

53
 Emil Nankov
Pergamon museum at Berlin (fig. 6), certainly
amplifies the idea of Kybele as a guardian of
the gates (ÌÜíôçò 1990, 37), which, in accord-
ance with the observations made earlier (see
supra), makes one wonder if the Seuthopolis
figurine was in fact holding a key rather than a
tympanum (fig. 18).
Contemporary parallels from inland Thrace
illustrating the protective role of a female divin-
ity in her capacity as a guardian of the city can
be found in the rock reliefs of Kybele (?) and
Artemis from Kabyle (Âåëêîâ 1982, 13-14),
as well as in the dedication to Phosphoros from
Sboryanovo (×è÷èêîâà 1990). Of importance
is the fact that the Sboryanovo inscription was
found in a building abutting the city wall, near
the South gate (Ñòîÿíîâ et al. 2006, ôèã.
5á); similarly, the Kabyle reliefs frame the
rock-cut gate leading up from the lower city into
the acropolis, located at the western edge of
the Eastern Hill (Ortakya) of Zaichi vruh, and
thus they too are in immediate association with
the city fortifications (cf. Ñòîÿíîâ 1986, 98,
áåë. 37-38). Despite the ongoing debate on
their chronology, a date within the late fourth-
early third century BC, at least for the relief
representing Artemis, has been agreed upon
(Ñòîÿíîâ 1986, 98). It is to be admitted that
despite the compelling opinion that the name of
the city is derived from Kybele (Âåëêîâ 1991,
10-11), the identification, and even the exist-
ence of the relief with the seated female figure
(Kybele?) and the lion, is still disputed. Still,
those who do accept it, interpret the relief as
evidence for the continuation of the Thracian
cult to the sacred rock and assign it a date in
the second half of the first millennium BC
(Íàéäåíîâà 1982, 126). The expressed opin-
ion that the cult of Artemis supersedes the older
cult of Kybele in the Hellenistic period (Íàé-
äåíîâà 1982, 130) is interesting and deserves
more careful consideration, which falls outside
the scope of this inquiry. For our purposes, it is
the reliefs’ association with the fortifications
and the goddesses’ role as a protector of cities
that is important. In addition to the topography
of the rock reliefs, the iconography of a hith-
8
The excavator (Dimitrova 1982, 152, # 17) assigns the terracotta, which comes from the “unidentified layers of the disturbed
stratigraphy” (Dimitrova 1982, 115) to the Late Hellenistic period, a late date she leaves otherwise unexplained.
54
erto neglected terracotta figurine from under-
neath the foundations of Basilica 1 also supports
our interpretation of the importance of this as-
pect of the goddess within Thracian milieu.
The Kabyle fragment from a terracotta
figurine shows a female head with a mural
crown (fig. 17) that Dimitrova (1982, 152, #
17), on stylistic grounds, identified as Demeter
or Kore. The mural crown, however, is ex-
tremely rare attribute in the iconography of
Demeter. To the best of my knowledge, the only
known example can be seen on a coin minted in
Olbia during the late fourth-the early third cen-
tury BC (Ðáðáãåùñãßïõ 1997, 197), whereas
the Hellenistic examples of Artemis and Kybele
with mural crowns are much more numerous
(Ðáðáãåùñãßïõ 1997, 180-182, 195-197). Thus,
in view of the fact that Artemis/Phosphoros
was the main female divinity in Kabyle, espe-
cially during the early Hellenistic period, it
seems reasonable to suggest that this terracotta
was in fact a contemporary representation of
8
Artemis . As noted earlier, the turreted head of
Artemis appears also on the coins of Ephesos
after the city was re-fortified by Lysimachus
(Ðáðáãåùñãßïõ 1997, 197).
If the identification of the terracotta from
Kabyle with Artemis/Phosphoros is accepted,
it supports the restoration of a mural crown on
the Kybele figurine from Seuthopolis (fig. 18).
Another iconographic similarity between the
two divinities is the phiale in their right hand.
The latter appears in representation of Artemis/
Phosphoros on some of the autonomous coins
of Kabyle (òèï A after Äðàãàíîâ 1993, 47-
48). The presence of a mural crown speaks to
their role as main divinities, guardians and pro-
tectors of the newly fortified cities (cf. Íàé-
äåíîâà 1982, 128-129). Thus, their appear-
ance in Thracian urban centers should be re-
evaluated, and accepted not as an isolated phe-
nomenon but as a reflection of a widespread
trend rooted in the popularity of Kybele (Pella,
Vergina, Amphipolis, Lete, Priene, Troy) and
Artemis (Ephesos, Failaka/Ikaros) in other
Hellenistic cities, and especially among the sol-
diery (Connelly 1990, 217-218; Ñòîÿíîâ 1986,
 Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele ...

Fig. 13. Marble relief (fragment) representing Demeter, Artemis

Fig. 12. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from and Nike from Lydia. Third century AD (after Vermaseren 1977,
Priene (after Wiegand 1904, abb. 368) pl. 16)

Fig. 14. Bronze plaque of Kybele (?) from Abritus; Fig. 15. Head fragment from a terracotta figurine of
height 19 cm, width 16.9 cm, thickness 0.6 cm; Kybele; pr. height 9.8 cm; Archaeological Museum of
Museum of History at Razgrad (after Tacheva-Hitova Varna, Inv. II. 2292 (after Äðåìñèçîâà-Íåë÷èíîâà/
1983, frontispiece) Òîí÷åâà, 1971, ôèã. 93)

55
 Emil Nankov

97, áåë. 26; Jeppesen 1989, 72-79). In other cian urbanism, I return to the question of the
words, it was the message of security and pro- puzzling upper garment of the figurine (fig. 1).
tection represented by the mural crown that was The baffling projecting squares and the in-
the essential element, while the identity of the tersecting grooves of the figurine’s upper piece
female goddess associated with it depended on of clothing make one thing certain – they are
the religious beliefs of the community within not a representation of a girt chiton. In the ab-
which it was circulating. Thus, Kybele, in con- sence of exact parallels from elsewhere (cf.
junction with Anatolian Artemis, appeared in Vermaseren 1982; Vermaseren 1987; Verma-
Seuthopolis (see infra), while Artemis was re- seren 1989), I suggest that this is an idiosyn-
vered in the Macedonian colonies such as cratic image of an otherwise unattested piece
Philippopolis and Kabyle (Ñòîÿíîâ 1986, of sleeveless heavy garment, probably woolen,
99-100). which was deliberately decorated in a grid-like
As noted above, an autonomous coin of fashion. To a certain extent, however, the
Lysimacheia represents the turreted head of aforementioned figurines of Kybele from
9
Kybele (fig. 16) . Also, the turreted head of Demetrias (fig. 11) and Priene (fig. 12) may
Artemis, symbolizing the new fortification walls be instructive. In the specimen from Deme-
built by Lysimachus, appears on the coins of trias, beginning from underneath the breast and
Ephesos. In view of the fact that Seuthes III extending down to her lap, striking and unusual
and Lysimachus met twice on the battlefield in is the rendition of what seems to be a stele upon
Thrace (Diod. Sic. 18. 14. 2-4, 19. 73. 1-10), which a series of objects, probably associated
there is little doubt that this is the historical con- with her cult, are hung (cf. fig. 11). Similarly, in
text within which the presence of Kybele in the terracotta from Priene, underneath the girt
Seuthopolis should be set. Whether or not of the chiton there is a stele showing at the top
Lysimachus was in some way involved in this a row of three squares that Wiegand (1904,
at the present stage can only be speculated. 331) described as Metallscheiben. From these
Nevertheless, the opinion that he played a role are hanging a crescent-like object, a bell and an
11
in the introduction of the Great Gods of ivy leaf (cf. fig. 12) . Representations of
Samothrace at Seuthopolis (Ðàáàäæèåâ stelai in the manner observed in the two statu-
2002, 39-46; cf. Elvers 1994, 264; contra ettes are exceptional and doubtless infringe on
Goèeva 2002, 315) supports this line of the boundaries of the traditional iconography of
10
thought . Kybele. Similarly, the Seuthopolis figurine, I
So far I have established with a fair degree argue, demonstrates the same trend towards
of certainty that the restored figurine of transformation of the represeantational conven-
crowned Kybele holding a key from Seutho- tions, which is very much in keeping with the
polis should be linked to the widespread Hel- cultural dynamic characterizing the Hellenistic
lenistic trend for identifying the cities’ claim for period.
civic pride and autonomy with their fortifica- As noted above, the extreme care with
tions (Chaniotis 2005, 26-28). Now, in support which the features of the upper garment on the
of this argument, but also in an attempt to Seuthopolis figurine are rendered makes it
glimpse into the nature of the emerging Thra- even more implausible that they are flimsy and
9
Of the nineteen bronzes of Lysimacheia discovered at Seuthopolis (Dimitrov 1987, 4), seven belong to this type (Äèìèòðîâ
1984, Êàò. # 322-328).
10
Here the link between the Mother of the Gods and the Great Gods at Samothrace needs to be stressed. Her association with
the legend of the Samothracian cult is well known from the literary sources (Diod. Sic. 5. 48-49; Strabo 10. 3. 20-21). Another
example of her prominence on the island is furnished by the local coinage, the later issues of which feature the goddess on
the reverse – seated on a throne, wearing a mural crown, holding a phiale and resting on a scepter; a lion is squatting beneath
the throne. The date of this issue, however, is highly disputed and most certainly postdates the early Hellenistic period (cf.
Gadberg 1992, 332, # 4 and 5).
11
A recent discovery of a terracotta figurine of Kybele at Troy, in which a variety of cult objects are rendered upon her chest,
is somewhat similar (cf. Rumscheid 2006, # 1248).
56
Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele ...

Fig. 16. Bronze coin of Lysimacheia, 309-220

BC; obverse (Forrer 1924, # 2456, pl. 94)

Fig. 17. Head fragment from a terracotta

figurine of Artemis (?) from Kabyle;
height 4.5 cm; (after Äèìèòðîâà 1982,
Òàáëî V, 2)

Fig. 18. Reconstruction of the Seuthopolis

figurine of Kybele; line drawing (author)

57
 Emil Nankov

robust renderings of a girt chiton (cf. fig. 1). the alleged association of the Kybele figurine
The decorative pattern does not correspond to with the Tanagra style (×è÷èêîâà 1970, 24;
the decorative elements of body armor such as Dimitrov/Èièikova 1978, 32) on account of the
breastplates, corselets and cuirasses known not deviations (crescent pendant, lack of himation
only from Thrace (Ognenova-Marinova 2000), and lions) from the standard iconography of
but also from other regions of the Classical and Greek Meter (Kybele) (cf. figs. 4-10). The pe-
Hellenistic worlds (Connolly 1998, 54-59). It is culiarities in the rendering of the statuette,
also unlikely, as the terracottas from Demetrias along with the use of distinct clay, may point to
and Priene attest, that the squares represent the existence of a local workshop, regardless
metal plates from which cult objects were hung. of the fact that not a single clay mold has been
14
Thus, in view of the unconventional nature of discovered in the city, unlike Callatis (fig. 8),
the image, I propose that the squares and the for instance, where numerous specimens, two
grooves are alluding to actual features from the of which represent the image of Kybele
architectural layout of the newly built Seutho- (Canarache 1969, 29-31, Cat. # 1), have come
polis (fig. 2), i.e. insulae and streets. This is, to light. I would abstain from suggesting a pro-
12
of course, purely hypothetical . duction center other than Seuthopolis for the
To sum up: in the case of the Seuthopolis moment because of the much later prominence
figurine we are presented with an example of a of Asiatic coroplastic centers such as Myrina,
rather peculiar terracotta rendition of the ico- Smyrna and Pergamon, which came to the fore
nography of Greek Meter (Kybele). The cres- in the second half of the third century BC
cent symbol, however, points to a link with the (Uhlenbrock 1990b). It seems plausible to sug-
cosmocratic powers of Anatolian Artemis. The gest, however, that Seuthopolis belonged to a
figurine’s modest size (ca. 17-19 cm; cf. figs. large group of early Hellenistic urban centers
1, 18) almost certainly makes it a votive gift as where the demand for terracotta figurines was
opposed to a cult statue. Judging by its frag- met by sustaining a local production, as in the
mentation, it was probably made by double case with Eretria (Mekacher 2003, 20) and
13
molding – a manufacturing method that gained Halos (Van Boekel/Mulder 2003, 106-116).
popularity in the early Hellenistic period Against this, of course, argues the absence of
(Higgins 1986, 67, figs. 65a-b; Uhlenbrock molds and the lack of a sizable group of figu-
1990a, 17). As noted earlier, its fabric distin- rines, establishing the local type of clay
guishes it from the remainder of the terracottas (Thompson 1963, 13; Bald Romano 1995, 23),
found at Seuthopolis and its necropolis – items all of which prevent us from taking a firm posi-
made in the Tanagra style, and quite possibly tion on whether or not local coroplasts existed.
imported from Athens (Thompson 1987). This Interestingly, the crisp detail applied in the ren-
observation is also supported by their surface dition of elements, such as the folds of the dra-
treatment and subject matter, e.g. representa- pery and the projecting squares with the inter-
tions of the foreign Nike, Aphrodite, Eros, etc. secting grooves of the upper garment undispu-
(Äèìèòðîâ 1957â, 83; Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíî- tedly betrays the hand of skillful coroplasts at
âà 1984, Cat. nos. 368-371; Æóãëåâ 1952, work, strongly contrasting with the more sche-
245, ôèã. 42; Æóãëåâ 1956, 112). I doubt matic terracotta head of a man, traditionally
12
Theodora Kopestonsky from the Department of Classics at SUNY, Buffalo expressed the same opinion upon seeing the
photograph, without knowing that the figurine came from a Hellenistic city laid out on a grid-pattern. I take the opportunity
to thank her once again for sharing her observations with me.
13
For dating purposes, however, as D. Burr Thompson (1987, 195) points out, “it should always be kept in mind that a
figurine has, essentially, two dates: first is the time of the creation of the type and second the time when a particular figurine
is cast from a mold deriving from that creation.”
14
Similarly, in spite of the significant number of bricks (over 1,000) discovered at Seuthopolis and at the tombs in the tumuli
2 and 3 from the near-by necropolis, the archaeological excavations yielded no evidence for the local workshops that most
certainly manufactured them (×è÷èêîâà 1957, 141). Local workshops for the production of jewelry were confirmed, how-
ever, by two clay molds (cf. Tonkova 1994, 176, # 14, figs. 3-4).
58
Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele ...

Fig. 19. A) Terracotta snakes from the

sanctuary of Kybele at Vergina
(after Äñïýãïõ 1993, åéê. 17); B) A lead snake
B
from Seuthopolis (after Òà÷åâà 2000, ôèã. 3)

Fig. 20. A decorated clay altar (eschara)

from a house at Seuthopolis.
Note the three snakes radiating from the
center (after ×è÷èêîâà 1970, ôèã. 36)

A B
Figure 21. A) Bronze bell from Seuthopolis; height 5 cm (after Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíîâà 1984,
ôèã. 94); B) Bronze bell from the Kabeirion at Thebes; height 5.5 cm. Inscribed: Ðõñßáò
Êáâßñùé êáì ðáéäß. Fourth century BC (?) (after Wolters/Bruns 1940, # 49)
59
 Emil Nankov

pointed out as the sole evidence testifying to 8. Aphrodite figurine – square Õ 57, depth:
the output of the local crafts (Îãíåíîâà- 0.70 m
Ìàðèíîâà 1984, 167, Êàò. # 398; but see A particular clustering of the finds should be
Hoddinott 1981, fig. 126). recognized (cf. fig. 2). Thus, finds # 1, 2 and 3
4. Discussion are situated within 20 m from find # 4, while
But what purpose this peculiar terracotta of the same holds true for finds # 5 and 6 with
Kybele could have served? Is it possible that respect to finds # 7 and 8. The distance be-
there was a city sanctuary of Kybele of the sort tween finds # 1-4 and # 5-8 increases to 50-70
recently discovered at Pella (ËéëéìðÜêç- m. This, coupled with the lack of architectural
ÁêáìÜôç 2000), Vergina (Äñïýãïõ 1993) and remains (with the exception of Houses 1 and
15
Lete , for example? Or, is the terracotta 4), speaks against the existence of a built sanc-
16
merely an intrusive find? Focusing on its tuary and/or temple . The fragmentary and
stratigraphic context, as well as on its relation- weathered condition of the finds, as well as their
ship to other finds, may be helpful in the attempt grouping, seems to suggest secondary deposi-
to answer these questions. tion, away from their use-context. Thus, their
As noted at the outset, the figurine was deposition in the open area of squares Ô and Õ
found in square Ô 4 at a depth of 0.60-0.80 m. might have occurred after they have fallen out
Its immediate surroundings, within the bounda- of use. By way of comparison, at Troy the
ries of square Ô, and of the neighboring square terracotta figurines of Kybele are associated
Õ, lack architectural structures except for the with dumps of early Hellenistic pottery, taken
House 1 located in the SE corner of the square by some to indicate a worship predating the ar-
Ô (fig. 2). Among the small finds discovered in chitectural embellishment of the West sanctu-
this open space, and particularly in square Õ, ary during the late third century BC (cf. Lawall
the presence of the following items is especially 2003, 95-97). In a similar vain, the assemblage
intriguing: of terracottas from Seuthopolis can potentially
1. Nike figurine – square Ô 3, depth: 0.70 m testify to the worship of Kybele, Aphrodite and
2. Fragment of a figurine head (with details of Nike – an interpretation strengthened by the
the face preserved) – square Ô 3, depth: 1.00- incidence of almost identical types of material
1.20 m excavated in the securely identified sanctuaries
3. Kybele figurine – square Ô 4, depth: 0.60- at Pella and Vergina, where too snakes (fig.
0.80 m 19a) (Äñïýãïõ 1993, 10, # 14, åéê. 17), and
4. Nike figurine – square Ô 32, depth: 0.70 m terracottas of Nike and of Aphrodite
5. Lead coiled snake – square Õ 53, depth: (ËéëéìðÜêç-ÁêáìÜôç 2000, Cat. # 1-17; 77-89)
17
0.40 m were discovered . Unlike Pella and Vergina,
6. Lead coiled snake – square Õ 54, depth: though, where the cult received monumental
0.20-0.40 m (both found within 1 m from each expression, at Seuthopolis the evidence, as we
other) have it, amounts only to a certain level of do-
7. Eros figurine – square Õ 57, depth: 0.40- mestic worship. The minute dimensions of the
0.80 m figurines (Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíîâà 1984, Êàò.
15
Recent excavations at the city of Lete have yielded evidence for the cult of Kybele dated to the early Hellenistic period
(ÔæáíáâÜñç/Ößëçò 2005, 159). In addition, a terracotta figurine representing Kybele with a mural crown, closely compara-
ble with the specimens from Vergina and Pella (cf. figs. 4, 5), has also been found (ÔæáíáâÜñç/Ößëçò 2002, 158, åéê. 6).
16
Here, however, it is important to point out that the only example of a kernos from Seuthopolis was found near House 1, at
a depth of 0.80 m (×è÷èêîâà 1984, Cat. # I. 132, fig. 19). Although the mechanism of its use in Hellenistic Thrace is unclear
(×è÷èêîâà 1984, 49-51), the vessel is undisputedly associated with rituals of the Eleusinian mysteries (Athen.
Deipnosophistae, 10, 284d). In this context it is interesting to remind of Rabadjiev’s recent suggestion that House
1 should be interpreted as the royal residence of Seuthes III (2002, 21-22, áåë. 54).
17
Recent excavations in the House of the Snakes at Halos brought to light two snakes (one of iron and one of silver) that
belonged to a sacrificial deposit buried in a stone vessel near the hearth and underneath the floor of the house (Haagsma 2003,
58-60, 131).

60
 Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele ...
# 368-377) suggest that they were prob-
ably placed on altars or tables in the house-
hold shrines, as votive gifts to the deity
(Bald Romano 1995, 24). Such domestic use is
suggested by the findings from houses at
Priene (fig. 9), Pergamon, Gordion, Demet-
rias (fig. 11) and Eretria, where Kybele terra-
cottas too were not infrequent (Raeder 1983,
16-19; Töpperwein 1976, Cat. # 193; Bald
Romano 1995, 24, 67; ÌðÜôæéïõ-Åõóôáèßïõ
1995, 227; Mekacher 2003, Cat. # 130). An
observation, strengthening the argument for the
domestic cult to Kybele (and the associated
deities) in Seuthopolis, is the remark in the pre-
liminary reports according to which “many
terracotta figurines were found in the houses”
(Äèìèòðîâ 1957à, 216; Äèìèòðîâ 1957â,
18
83) .
Those examples reveal, among other things,
the difference between the unassuming nature
of a private worship and the monumental pub-
licity of an official cult, which was the case at
Pergamon for example (fig. 10), where the
Attalids saw to it in a grand way (Roller 1999,
206-209).
If the Kybele figurine was functioning within
a domestic environment, which the evidence
seems to suggest, I find it necessary to briefly
comment on a recurring feature in the houses
at Seuthopolis, including the “palace” –
namely the decorated clay altars, known as
19
escharas . These, however, are not limited
only to Seuthopolis, since identical artifacts
have come to light from Kabyle (Dimitrova-
Milcheva 1990), Philippopolis (Êèñüîâ
2004, 28-30), Pistiros (Lazov 1996),
Sboryanovo and few other centers from in-
land Thrace (Ñòîÿíîâ è êîë. 2006, 46-49).
Meanwhile, the number of escharas attested
in sepulchral complexes has also increased, with
the recent discoveries in Rousse district
(Ñòàí÷åâ 2005).
In Seuthopolis, the escharas are usually
found at the center of the main room of the
house, aligned with the entrance overlooking the
courtyard. Essential is the fact that the rooms
18
It is puzzling why those were never mentioned in volume 1 of the Seuthopolis series (cf. Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíîâà 1984, 166-
167).
19
For a detailed account on the meaning of the word eschara attested in the literary sources, see Ekroth 2002, 25-59.
with escharas communicate with no other
rooms in the house (×è÷èêîâà 1975, 181).
Thus, they can be perceived as distinct units
within the architectural space of the houses,
with clearly defined focal points represented by
the escharas. The occurrence of an eschara
in the room of the “palace” where the Great
Seuthopolis Inscription (Elvers 1994) was
found is crucial to the further development of
our argument, because of the accepted inter-
pretation of the latter room as the city sanctu-
ary of the Great Gods of Samothrace, men-
tioned twice in the inscription (lines 17-18, 31-
32). Èièikova (1975, 194, fig. 13) has noted the
significance of the three snakes decorating one
of the Seuthopolis’ escharas (fig. 20), which
she has connected with the domestic cult of the
goddess, keeper of the house (later personified
by the Greek Hestia). Domaradzki (1994, 83-
84), on the other hand, thought of the escharas
at Seuthopolis as a chthonic personification of
the Great Mother Goddess of Thrace, which to-
gether with the Great Gods of Samothrace,
were the major divinities of the city. The
terracotta figurine of Kybele, however, was
omitted from his discussion, even though
Kybele’s role in the Samothracian myth is
prominent (Cole 1984, 3).
In view of the widely accepted theory, ac-
cording to which the Thracian religion was
adopting foreign gods and imagery only in ac-
cordance with the well-established traditional
beliefs, an observation holding especially for the
early Hellenistic period (cf. Domaradzki 1994,
88; Goèeva 2002, 315), the following hypoth-
esis can be put forward.
The escharas from Seuthopolis, of which
30 have been unearthed during the excavations
(×è÷èêîâà 1975, 181), testify to the presence
of a domestic cult, also practiced in the royal
household (Dimitrov/Èièikova 1978, 52; Doma-
radzki 1994, 83-84; Goèeva 2002, 313), which
to a certain degree can be associated with
Kybele rather than the Great Goddess Mother
of Thrace (cf. Tacheva-Hitova 1983, 160-161)
or “the Thracian goddess” (cf. Roller 2002,
61
 Emil Nankov

684). Illustration of this is the semantic link, Seuthopolis (Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíîâà 1984,

which I suggest, between the figurine of Kybele Êàò. # 402). The object was discovered in
22
and some of the escharas. Her iconography square Ö , at a depth of 1.10 m, thus in
shows to the process of syncretism, whereby close proximity with the figurines of
assimilating other female divinities in her iden- squares Ô and X, discussed earlier (cf. fig.
tity. The crescent pendant of the figurine (fig. 2). The possible association of the bell with
1), the lead snakes (fig. 19b) and the snakes mystery cults has been hinted at by Ognenova-
depicted on one of the escharas (fig. 20) all Marinova (1984, 167) but was never given fur-
point to her being identified as Artemis/Hecate ther consideration. In the light of an inscribed
(cf. fig. 13) (Mladenova 1961, 37; Naidenova bronze bell of comparable type and identical di-
20 23
1982, 129-130) . Although the evidence for mensions , dedicated in the sanctuary of the
cultic activity from the surface of the escharas Kabeiroi at Thebes (fig. 21b), the Seuthopolis
at Seuthopolis is lacking, the recent discover- specimen can be tentatively related to the pub-
ies at Pistiros demonstrated beyond any doubt lic aspect of the ceremonies associated with the
that the escharas were used as a focal point Kabeiroi (Strabo 10. 3. 7) and Kybele (Diod.
for rituals, most probably within domestic envi- Sic. 5. 48), in the course of which the use of
ronment (cf. Lazov 1996, 67). Tentatively, burn- cymbals and tympana is customary. It should
ing of aromatic herbs and pouring of liquids be stressed here, that one of Kybele’s epithets
have been associated with the Seuthopolis is “÷áëêüêñïôïò” (Orph. Hymn 41). Especially
21
escharas (Dimitrov/Èièikova 1978, 52) . informative of this link are also the terracottas
Along these lines, it is interesting to point out of Kybele from Demetrias (fig. 11) and Priene
the correspondence between the group of (fig. 12), in which a single bell, as we saw ear-
escharas with a concave circle in the middle lier, is depicted in the middle of the stele. This
(fig. 20), compared to a phiale by Dimitrov and evidence supplements the literary accounts,
Èièikova (1978, 49) and the phiale, which which state that in her cult the bells were used
Kybele is holding in her right hand (fig. 1). in pairs (Nonnus, Dionysiaca, 3. 234-242) – a
Whether or not all the escharas from fact attested also in votive reliefs of Kybele
Seuthopolis can be thought of as an integral (fig. 14, cf. also Vermaseren 1987, # 287).
part of the cult to Kybele, in the way this has Despite the wide range of uses known for
been attested in her sanctuary at Priene (Yavis the bells in antiquity (cf. Villing 2002, 277-292),
1949, 219, # 16), for example, remains a moot the bell from Seuthopolis, as Ognenova-
point. Nevertheless, in interpreting the Marinova (1984, 167, n. 55) has already sug-
escharas from Pistiros her role is prominent gested, should be interpreted in a religious con-
again through association of those escharas text. And if I am correct in associating it with
24
with her sons, the Kabeiroi (Lazov 1996, 73). Kybele , her cult attains a public dimension by
In this context, it is necessary to draw atten- virtue of the accompanying ceremonies that re-
tion to the bronze bell (fig. 21a) found in quired the use of musical instruments.
20
Tacheva (2000, 17, ôèã. 3-4) connects the snake imagery from Seuthopolis with the cult of Sabazios. Haagsma (2003,
131) interprets the snakes from Halos as a sacrificial deposit deriving from a domestic cult to Zeus Ktesios. Others have
argued that the snakes are “epiphanies” of the guardian aspect of Zeus Ktesios within the household, as in the case of Sparta
(cf. Ault 2005, 76-77, with lit.).
21
Scientific analysis on samples taken from five fragments of clay altars (escharas) excavated at Pistiros determined the pres-
ence of traces of resinated wine and olive (?) oil mixed with rock rose (ladanum) and jasmine. These were poured on top of
the altars as a libation to the household deities (cf. Stout et al. 2003, 85-88).
22 rd
This is the 23 letter of the Cyrillic alphabet.
23
For the bell from Thebes, see Villing 2002, # 41; for the Seuthopolis specimen, see Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíîâà 1984, Êàò. ¹
402. Both have a dome-shaped body, high-arched handle and a small hole at the top for the attachment of the
clapper (cf. Figs. 21a, b).
24
In general, the dedications of bells are predominantly found in sanctuaries of female deities, e.g. Demeter, Artemis, Hera,
Athena and Aphrodite (Villing 2002, 275).
62
 Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele ...
5. Concluding remarks
To summarize, it appears that based on the
terracotta figurine alone a domestic cult to
Kybele/Artemis/Hecate at Seuthopolis may be
suggested. The peculiarity of her typical Greek
Meter iconography derives from the reference
to Anatolian Artemis, which is paralleled in rep-
resentations of Kybele from Thrace, Macedo-
nia and Asia Minor down to the Roman period.
The sheer size of the figurine, however, points
to the conclusion that we are dealing with a sin-
gular example of votive terracotta rather than
with a cult statue for a shrine, since the latter
tend to be larger, within 30-50 cm (Thompson
1963, 80; Bald Romano 1995, Cat. # 52;
Mekacher 2003, Cat. # 130). At the same time,
the proposed link with the escharas suggests
that her cult was practiced not only in the
houses, but also in the royal household, quite
possibly in conjunction with the cult to the Great
Gods of Samothrace. The architectural co-ex-
istence of Kybele and the Great Gods in the
“palace” is probably due to the central role of
Kybele in the Samothracian myth but it also
points to the conjecture that the king officially
sanctioned her cult. In support of this is also the
iconography, i.e. the proposed mural crown, the
key and the city’s layout-decorated upper gar-
ment of the goddess (cf. fig. 18), whereby she
appears not only as a guardian of the gates and
a protector of the city, but also as a sui generis
personification of the latter. Finally, it is con-
ceivable that the bronze bell may in fact belong
to the ritual paraphernalia, which are known to
have been used during the public ceremonies
accompanying her cult.
On a larger scale, the presence of what was
essentially a foreign divinity at Seuthopolis is
explained by a reference to the historical cir-
cumstances of cultural diversity, “religious re-
orientation” and military mobility following the
death of Alexander the Great (cf. Bilde 1990,
178-179; Connelly 1990, 217-218). In all prob-
ability, the local perception of Kybele was
rooted in the older beliefs related to the un-
named “Thracian goddess” (cf. Roller 2002,
684), but in fact Greek Meter and Anatolian
Artemis facilitated her arrival on iconographic
level. In accordance with a widespread Hellen-
istic trend it gave preference to the attributes
emphasizing the importance of the fortifications
and the newly found city, a part of which, I be-
lieve it came to personify. The fortuitous arrival
of Kybele in Seuthopolis can be also explained
with the return of the Thracian military men
serving under Alexander in Asia (Launey 1949,
370), where, among other things, they were ex-
posed to new and exotic religious experiences
(cf. Chaniotis 2005, 149-154). Thus, the soldiers
adopted new gods in their journey but they did
so in accordance with their own religious up-
bringing, thus facilitating the process of syncre-
tism.
Acknowledgments
I should like to thank Valeria Bineva from
the Department of Anthropology at Cornell
University for the helpful criticism and sugges-
tions from which I have benefited greatly.
Thanks are also due to Theodora Kopestonsky
from the Department of Classics at SUNY,
Buffalo and Caitlin Barrett from the Department
of Classics at Yale University, who both com-
mented on earlier drafts of the text. I am also
immensely grateful to the staff of the Blegen
library at the American School of Classical
Studies at Athens, which was of great help and
assistance in conducting the research leading
to the writing of this article.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Âåëêîâ, Â. 1982. Òðàêèéñêèÿò ãðàä Êàáèëå. –
Âåêîâå 1-2, 6-15.
Âåëêîâ, Â. 1991. Íàäïèñè îò Êàáèëå. In: Êàáè-
ëå. ò. 2. Ñîôèÿ. 7-53.
Ãî÷åâà, Çë. 1993. s. v. Êèáåëà. In: Êðàòêà åíöè-
êëîïåäèÿ òðàêèéñêà äðåâíîñò. Ñîôèÿ.
Ãî÷åâà, Çë. 1999. Îùå åäèí ïúò çà ò. íàð. Ðàç-
ãðàäñêà áîãèíÿ. – Thracia antiqua 10 (Studia in me-
moriam magistri prof. Georgi Mihailov), 138-148.
Ãî÷åâà, Çë. 2006. Êóëòúò íà Âåëèêàòà áîãèíÿ
ìàéêà â Òðàêèÿ. – Õåëèñ V, 476-490.
Äèìèòðîâ, Ä. Ï. 1957a. Ñåâòîïîëèñ – ôðàêèé-
ñêèé ãîðîä áëèç ñ. Êîïðèíêà, Êàçàíëúêñêîãî ðà-
éîíà (êoðîòêîå ïðåäâàðèòåëüíîå ñîîáùåíèå). –
Ñîâåòñêàÿ Àðõåîëîãèÿ 1, 199-216.
Äèìèòðîâ, Ä. Ï. 1957á. Êúì âúïðîñà çà ðåëè-
ãèÿòà íà òðàêèòå îò ðàííîåëèíèñòè÷åñêàòà åïîõà.
– Èñòîðè÷åñêè Ïðåãëåä 2, 65-81.
Äèìèòðîâ, Ä. Ï. 1957â. Ìàòåðèàëíàòà êóëòó-
63
 Emil Nankov
ðà è èçêóñòâîòî íà òðàêèòå ïðåç ðàííàòà åëèíèñ-
òè÷åñêà åïîõà (²V-²²² â. ïð. í. å.). In: Àðõåîëîãè-
÷åñêè îòêðèòèÿ â Áúëãàðèÿ. Ñîôèÿ, 63-92.
Äèìèòðîâ, K. 1984. Àíòè÷íè ìîíåòè îò Ñåâòî-
ïîëèñ. In: Ñåâòîïîëèñ. ò. 2. Ñîôèÿ. 9-107.
Äèìèòðîâà, À. 1982. Ðàçêîïêè íà áàçèëèêà ¹
1 â Êàáèëå. In: Êàáèëå. ò. 1. Ñîôèÿ. 115-157.
Äðàãàíîâ, Ä. 1993. Ìîíåòîñå÷åíåòî íà Êàáè-
ëå. Ñîôèÿ.
Äðåìñèçîâà-Íåë÷èíîâà, Ö. / Òîí÷åâà, Ã. 1971.
Àíòè÷íè òåðàêîòè îò Áúëãàðèÿ. Ñîôèÿ.
Æóãëåâ, Ê. 1952. Ðàçêîïêè è ïðîó÷âàíèÿ íà
ìîãèëà ¹1 – Êîïðèíêà, ÷. 1. – Ãîäèøíèê íà Ñî-
ôèéñêèÿ Óíèâåðñèòåò, Ôèëîñîôñêî-Èñòîðè÷åñêè
Ôàêóëòåò XLVII, 2, 217-239.
Æóãëåâ, Ê. 1956. Ðàçêîïêè è ïðîó÷âàíèÿ íà ìî-
ãèëà ¹1 – Êîïðèíêà, ÷. 2. – Ãîäèøíèê íà Ñîôèé-
ñêèÿ Óíèâåðñèòåò, Ôèëîñîôñêî-Èñòîðè÷åñêè Ôà-
êóëòåò XLIX, 1955, 2, 135-221.
Êèñüîâ, Ê. 2004. Òðàêèéñêàòà êóëòóðà â ðåãè-
îíà íà Ïëîâäèâ è òå÷åíèåòî íà ðåêà Ñòðÿìà ïðåç
âòîðàòà ïîëîâíà íà ² õèë. ïð. Õð. Ñîôèÿ.
Ìèð÷åâ, M. 1956. Ñáèðêàòà îò òåðàêîòè â ìóçåÿ
íà ãð. Ñòàëèí. – Èçâåñòèÿ íà Àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîòî
Äðóæåñòâî íà ãð. Âàðíà X, 1956, 1-50.
Ìëàäåíîâà, ß. 1961. Ïàìåòíèöè íà Õåêàòà îò
íàøèòå çåìè. – Àðõåîëîãèÿ 3, 36-46.
Íàéäåíîâà, Â. 1982. Êóëòîâå è áîæåñòâà â Êà-
áèëå. In: Ïîñåëèùåí æèâîò â Òðàêèÿ. Ïúðâè ñèì-
ïîçèóì, 14-17 ñåïòåìâðè 1982. ßìáîë. 126-140.
Îãíåíîâà-Ìàðèíîâà, Ë. 1984. Äðåáíè íàõîä-
êè, òåðàêîòà, ñêóëïòóðà. In: Ñåâòîïîëèñ. ò. 1. Ñî-
ôèÿ. 159-223.
Ðàáàäæèåâ, Ê. 2002. Åëèíñêè ìèñòåðèè â Òðà-
êèÿ. Îïèò çà àðõåîëîãè÷åñêè ïðî÷èò. Ñîôèÿ.
Ñòàí÷åâ, Ä. 1994. Ìîãèëíè ãðîáíèöè îò Ðó-
ñåíñêî. In: Ïúðâè ìåæäóíàðîäåí ñèìïîçèóì – Ñåâ-
òîïîëèñ – “Íàäãðîáíèòå ìîãèëè â Þãîèçòî÷íà
Åâðîïà.” Â. Òúðíîâî. 173-178.
Ñòàí÷åâ, Ä. 2005. Æåðòâåíèöè – îëòàðè îò
åëèíèñòè÷åñêàòà åïîõà â Ðóñåíñêî. In: Stephanos
Archaeologicos in honorem Professoris Ludmili Getov.
Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis Suppl.
IV. Sofia. 310-315.
Ñòîÿíîâ, Ò. 1986. Çà êóëòà íà Àðòåìèäà â Êà-
áèëå ïðåç ²V-² â. ïð. í. å. In: Ïîñåëèùåí æèâîò â
Òðàêèÿ. Âòîðè ñèìïîçèóì, 6-9 îêòîìâðè 1986.
ßìáîë. 90-103.
Ñòîÿíîâ, Ò. 1991. Çà èíòåðïðåòàöèÿòà íà êà-
íè÷êà ¹ 155 îò Ðîãîçåíñêîòî ñúêðîâèùå. – Àð-
õåîëîãèÿ 33, 21-34.
Ñòîÿíîâ, Ò./ Ìèõàéëîâà, Æ./ Íèêîâ, Êð./ Íè-
êîëàåâà, Ì./ Ñòîÿíîâà, Ä. 2006. Ãåòñêàòà ñòîëèöà
â Ñáîðÿíîâî. 20 ãîäèíè ïðîóâàíèÿ. Ñîôèÿ.
64
Òà÷åâà, M. 2000. Ñåâò ²²², Ñåâòîïîëèñ è Êàáè-
ëå (341-252 ã. ïð. Õð.) ñïîðåä åïèãðàôñêèòå è íó-
ìèçìàòè÷íèòå äàííè. Ñîôèÿ.
×è÷èêîâà, M. 1957. Ïîÿâà è óïîòðåáà íà òóõ-
ëàòà êàòî ñòðîèòåëåí ìàòåðèàë ó òðàêèòå â êðàÿ
íà IV è íà÷. íà III â. ïð. í. å. – Èçâåñòèÿ íà Àðõåî-
ëîãè÷åñêèÿ Èíñòèòóò XXXI, 129-150.
×è÷èêîâà, M. 1970. Ñåâòîïîëèñ. Ñîôèÿ.
×è÷èêîâà, M. 1975. Æåðòâåííèêè ýëëèíèñòè-
÷åñêîé ýïîõè â Ôðàêèè. – Studia Thracica I, 180-194.
×è÷èêîâà, M. 1984. Àíòè÷íà êåðàìèêà. In: Ñåâ-
òîïîëèñ. ò. 1. Ñîôèÿ. 18-114.
×è÷èêîâà, M. 1990. Íîâîîòêðèò åïèãðàôñêè ïà-
ìåòíèê çà êóëòà íà Ôîñôîðîñ â Ñåâåðîèçòî÷íà
Òðàêèÿ. – Terra Antiqua Balcanica V, 82-92.
Þðóêîâà, É. 1992. Ìîíåòèòå íà òðàêèéñêèòå
ïëåìåíà è âëàäåòåëè. Ñîôèÿ.
Äñïýãïõ, Ó. 1993. ÂÅÑÃÉÍÁ Éåñü ÌçôÝñáò ôùí
Èåþí. In: Ôï Áñ÷áéïëïãéêü 'Åñãï óôç Ìáêåäïíßá êáé
ÈñÜêç 4, 1990, 5-20.
Ëáæáñßäçò, Ä. 1983. ÁíáóêáöÝò êáé Ýñåõíåò óôçí
Áìößðïëç. ÐñáêôéêÜ ôçò Áñ÷áéïëïãéêÞò Åôáéñåßáò.
1981 Á. 18-25.
ËéëéìðÜêç-ÁêáìÜôç, Ì. 2000. Ôï éåñü ôçò ÌçôÝñáò
ôùí Èåþí êáé ôçò Áöñïäßôçò óôçí ÐÝëëá.
Èåóóáëïíßêç.
ÌÜíôçò, Á. 1990. ÐñïâëÞìáôá ôçò åéêïíïãñáößáò
ôùí éåñåéþí êáé ôùí éåñÝùí óôçí áñ÷áßá åëëçíéêÞ ôÝ÷íç.
ÌðÜôæéïõ-Åõóôáèßïõ, Á. 1995. Ïéêüðåäï ÆÝñâá. –
Áñ÷áéïëïãéêüí Äåëôßïí 44, 1989, ×ñïíéêÜ, 227-228.
ÌðÜôæéïõ-Åõóôáèßïõ, Á. 1996. ÄçìçôñéÜäá.
ÉóôïñéêÜ óôïé÷åßá – ºäñõóç ôçò ðüëçò. In: ÊïíôáîÞ, Å. É.
(åðéì.) Áñ÷áßá ÄçìçôñéÜäá. Ç äéáäñïìÞ ôçò óôïí
÷ñüíï. Âüëïò. 11-46.
Ðáðáãåùñãßïõ, Ð. 1997. Ôï ôåé÷üìïñöï óôÝììá óôçí
ôÝ÷íç ôçò ÌÝóçò ÁíáôïëÞò êáé ôçò áñ÷áßáò ÅëëÜäáò
Ýùò ôï ôÝëïò ôçò åëëçíéóôéêÞò åðï÷Þò. Èåóóáëïíßêç.
ÔæáíáâÜñç, Ê / Ößëçò, Ê. 2002. ÁãñïôéêÝò
åãêáôáóôÜóåéò óôç ÷þñá ôçò áñ÷áßáò ËçôÞò. – Ôï
Áñ÷áéïëïãéêü 'Åñãï óôç Ìáêåäïíßá êáé ÈñÜêç 14, 2000,
153-168.
ÔæáíáâÜñç, Ê / Ößëçò, Ê. 2005. 'Åñåõíåò óôïí ïéêéóìü
êáé ôá íåêñïôáöåßá ôçò áñ÷áßáò ËçôÞò. Ðñþôåò
åêôéìÞóåéò. – Ôï Áñ÷áéïëïãéêü 'Åñãï óôç Ìáêåäïíßá êáé
ÈñÜêç 17, 2003. 155-172.
Abrahams, E. B. 1908. Greek Dress: A Study of the
Costumes Worn In Ancient Greece, from Pre-Hellenis-
tic Times to the Hellenistic Age. London.
Ault, B. A. 2005. The Excavations at Ancient Halieis.
Vol. II. The Houses. The Organisation and Use of the
Domestic Space. Indiana University Press.
Bald Romano, É. 1995. The Terracotta Figurines and
Related Vessels. Gordion Special Studies II. The Uni-
versity Museum. Philadelphia.
 Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele ...
Bilde, P. 1990. Atartagis/Dea Syria: Hellenization of
her Cult in the Hellenistic-Roman Period? In: Bilde, P./
Engberg-Pedersen, T./ Hannestad, L./ Zahle, J. (eds.)
Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid King-
dom. Aarhus University Press. 151-187.
Buchholz, H.-G. 1973. Tamassos, Zypern, 1970-
1972. – Archäologischer Anzeiger 88, 295-388.
Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Trans. J. Raffan.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Canarache, V. 1969. Masks and Tanagra Figurines
Made in the Workshops of Callatis (Mangalia).
Constanþa: Muzeul de Arheologie Constanþa.
Chaniotis, A. 2005. War in the Hellenistic World.
Oxford Blackwell Publishing.
Cole, S. 1984. Theoi Megaloi: The Cult of the Great
Gods at Samothrace. Leiden.
Connelly, J. B. 1990. The Terracotta Figurines: Greek
Types and Cult. In: Calvet, Y. / J. Gachet, (eds.)
FAILAKA. Fouilles Françaises 1986-1988. 209-220.
Connolly, P. 1998. Greece and Rome at War. London
and Pennsylvania.
Dimitrov, D. P. / Èièikova, M. 1978. The Thracian
City of Seuthopolis. – British Archaeological Reports,
International Series 38. Oxford.
Dimitrov, K. 1987. Studies of the Numismatic Mate-
rial Found at Seuthopolis: Problems, Research Methods
and Basic Conclusions. – The American Numismatic
Society. Museum Notes 32, 1-10.
Dimitrova-Milèeva, A. 1990. Sacrificial Altars of the
Hellenistic Age in Kabyle. – Terra Antiqua Balcanica V,
119-125.
Domaradzki, M. 1994. Le lieux de culte thraces
(deuxième moitié du IIe-Ier mill. Av. J.-C.). – Õåëèñ III,
1, 69-108.
Ekroth, G. 2002. The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek
Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the early Hellenistic Peri-
ods. Kernos, Suppl. 12.
Elvers, K.-L. 1994. Der “Eid der Berenike und ihrer
Söhne”: eine Edition von IGBulg III 2. 1731. – Chiron 24,
241-266.
Forrer, L. 1924. The Weber Collection. II. Greek
Coins. Macedon, Thrace, Thessaly, North Western,
Central and Southern Greece. London.
Gadberg, L. M. 1992. The Minor Objects: The Coins.
In: McCredie, J. R. et al. Samothrace 7: The Rotunda of
Arsinoe, Princeton University Press. 331-339.
Goèeva, Zl. 2002. Le Culte des Grands Dieux de
Samothrace à la période hellénistique. – Kernos 15, 309-
315.
Haagsma, M. J. 2003. The Houses of New Halos. In:
Reinders, H. R / Prummel, W. (eds.) Housing in New
Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece. A. A.
Balkema Publishers. 37-59.
Higgins, R. A. 1986. Tanagra and the Figurines. Tre-
foil Books. London.
Hoddinott, R. F. 1981. The Thracians. Thames and
Hudson.
Horsley, G. H. R. 1992. The Mysteries of Artemis
Ephesia in Pisidia: A New Inscribed Relief. – Anatolian
Studies 42, 119-150.
Jeppesen, K. 1989. Ikaros – The Hellenistic Settle-
ments 3: The Sacred Enclosure in the Early Hellenistic
Period. Aarhus University Press.
Kazarow, G. 1922. Neue Denkmäler zur Religions-
geschichte Thrakiens. – Archäologischer Anzeiger 37,
183-201.
Köster, A. 1926. Die griechischen Terrakotten. Ber-
lin.
Launey, M. 1949. Recherches sur les armées
hellénistiques, vol. I. Paris.
Lawall, M. L. 2003. “In the Sanctuary of the
Samothracian Gods”: Myth, Politics, and Mystery Cult
at Ilion. In: Cosmopoulos, M. B. (ed.) Greek Mysteries:
The archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret
Cults. New York. 79-111.
Lazov, G. 1996. Decorated Clay Altars. In: Bouzek,
J., Domaradzki, M., Archibald, Z. H. (eds.), Pistiros I. Ex-
cavations and Studies. Charles University. Prague. 63-
73.
McNicoll, A. 1997. Hellenistic Fortifications from the
Aegean to the Euphrates. Oxford.
Mekacher, N. 2003. Matrizengeformte hellenistische
Terrakotten. In: ERETRIA. Ausgrabungen und
Forschungen. XII, Infolio editions. Gollion. 9-173.
Naumann, F. 1983. Die Ikonographie der Kybele in
der phrygischen und der griechischen Kunst. IstMitt
Beiheft 28. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth.
Ognenova-Marinova, L. 2000. L’armure des
Thraces. – Archaeologia Bulgarica IV, 3, 11-24.
Raeder, J. 1983. Priene. Funde aus einer griechi-
schen Stadt. Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin.
Roller, L. E. 1999. In Search of God the Mother.
University of California Press.
Roller, L. E. 2002. The Phrygian Mother Goddess
and her Thracian Connections. In: Proceedings of the
Eighth International Congress of Thracology. Thrace
and the Aegean, Sofia – Yambol, 25-29 September 2000.
Vol. II. Sofia. 683-694.
Rumscheid, F. 2006. Die figürlichen Terrakotten von
Priene. Reichert Verlag Weisbaden.
Simon, E. 1997. s. v. Kybele. In: Lexicon Iconogra-
phicum Mythologiae Classicae VIII. 744-766.
Stout, E. C./ Beck, C. W./ Naliboff, L. C./ Phillips, A.
J. 2003. Organic Residues in Pottery from the Greek Set-
tlement of Pistiros, Bulgaria. – Studia Hercynia VII, Part
I. Addenda to Pistiros. 81-114.
Stoyanov, T. 2003. On the Cultural Development of
Early Hellenistic Thrace. In: Nikolova, L. (ed.) Early Sym-
65
 Emil Nankov
bolic Systems of Communication in Southeast Europe,
Vol. 2, British Archaeological Reports, International
Series 1139. 563-571.
Tacheva-Hitova, M. 1983. Eastern Cults in Moesia
th th
Inferior and Thracia (5 century BC – 4 century AD).
Leiden.
Thompson, D. B. 1963. The Terracotta Figurines of
the Hellenistic Period. Troy Supplementary Mongraph
3. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thompson, D. B. 1987. Three Centuries of Hellenis-
tic Terracottas. In: Thompson, H. A. / D. B. Thompson
Hellenistic Pottery and Terracottas. Reprinted from
Hesperia with Prefaces by Susan I. Rotroff. Princeton.
New Jersey. 183-459.
Tonkova, M. 1994. Vestiges d’ateliers d’orfèvrerie
thraces des Ve-IIIe s. av. J.-C. (sur le territoire de la
Bulgarie). – Õåëèñ III, ÷àñò 1, 175-214.
Töpperwein, E. 1976. Terrakotten von Pergamon.
Pergamenische Forschungen, Bd. 3. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Uhlenbrock, J. P. 1990a. The Coroplast and His
Craft. In: Uhlenbrock, J. P. (ed.) The Coroplast’s Art.
Greek Terracottas of the Hellenistic World. New York.
15-21.
Uhlenbrock, J. P. 1990b. East Greek Coroplastic
Centers in the Hellenistic Period. In: Uhlenbrock, J. P.
(ed.) The Coroplast’s Art. Greek Terracottas of the Hel-
lenistic World. New York. 72-80.
Valeva, J. 2005. The Painted Coffers of the Ostrusha
Tomb. Sofia.
Van Boekel, G.M.E.C. / Mulder, B. 2003. Terracotta
Figurines. In: Reinders, H. R / W. Prummel (eds.) Hous-
ing in New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly,
Greece. A. A. Balkema Publishers. 106-118.
Vassileva, M. 2001. Further Considerations on the
Cult of Kybele. – Anatolian Studies 51, 51-63.
Vermaseren, M. J. 1977. Cybele and Attis. The Myth
and the Cult. London.
Vermaseren, M. J. 1982. Corpus Cultus Cybelae
Attidisque II. Graecia atque insulae. Leiden.
Vermaseren, M. J. 1987. Corpus Cultus Cybelae
Attidisque I. Asia Minor. Leiden.
Vermaseren, M. J. 1989. Corpus Cultus Cybelae
Attidisque VI. Germania, Raetia, Noricum, Pannonia,
Dalmatia, Macedonia, Thracia, Moesia, Dacia, Regnum
Bospori, Colchis, Scythia et Sarmatia. Leiden.
Vikela, E. 2001. Bemerkungen zu Ikonographie und
Bildtypologie der Meter-Kybelereliefs: Vom phrygi-
schen Vorbild zur griechischen Eigenstandigkeit. –
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Insti-
tuts. Athenische Abteilung 116, 67-123.
Villing, A. 2002. For Whom Did the Bell Toll in An-
cient Greece? – Annual of the British School at Athens
97, 223-295.
66
Wiegand, T./Schrader, H. 1904. Priene. Ergebnisse
der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren
1895-1898. Berlin.
Will, E. 1960. Aspects du culte et de la légende de la
grande Mère dans le monde grec. In: Élémentes orien-
taux dans la religion grecque ancienne. Colloque de
Strasbourg, 22-24 mai, 1958. Paris. 95-111.
Wolters, P/Bruns, G. 1940. Das Kabirenheiligtum bei
Theben. I. Berlin.
Yavis, K. 1949. Greek Altars. St. Louis.
ÊÚÌ ÒÐÀÊÈÉÑÊÀÒÀ ÐÅËÈÃÈß ÏÐÅÇ
ÐÀÍÍÎÅËÈÍÈÑÒÈ×ÅÑÊÀÒÀ ÅÏÎÕÀ:
ÅÄÍÀ ÏÐÅÐÀÇÃËÅÄÀÍÀ ÒÅÐÀÊÎÒÀ ÍÀ
ÊÈÁÅËÀ ÎÒ ÑÅÂÒÎÏÎËÈÑ
Åìèë Íàíêîâ
(Ðåçþìå)
Öåëòà íà íàñòîÿùîòî èçñëåäâàíå å äà ïðèâëå-
÷å âíèìàíèåòî íà ñïåöèàëèñòèòå êüì åäíà ìàëêî
èçâåñòíà òåðàêîòà íà áîãèíÿòà Êèáåëà, îòêðèòà
ïðè àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèòå ðàçêîïêè íà Ñåâòîïîëèñ.
Ïîðàäè çàêúñíÿëàòà ïúëíà ïóáëèêàöèÿ íà íàõîä-
êàòà ïîñëåäíàòà îñòàâà âñòðàíè îò ôóíäàìåíòàë-
íèòå èçñëåäâàíèÿ, çàíèìàâàùè ñå ñ ïðîáëåìèòå
êàêòî íà Ñåâòîïîëñêèòå ðåëèãèîçíè êóëòîâå, òàêà
è ñ òåçè íà ïðîíèêâàíåòî íà íåéíèÿ êóëò â Òðàêèÿ.
Òåðàêîòàòà (çàï. âèñ. 12.8 ñì, âúçñòàíîâåíà
ìåæäó 17-19 ñì.), îò êîÿòî ãëàâàòà, ðàìåíåòå è
çàäíàòà ÷àñò ëèïñâàò, ïðåäñòàâëÿâà Êèáåëà, ñåä-
íàëà íà òðîí, ñ ôèàëà â äÿñíàòà è äðóã, íåçàïàçåí
ïðåäìåò â ëÿâàòà ðúêà (ôèã. 1). Âíèìàòåëíèÿò
àíàëèç ïîêàçâà, ÷å îáè÷àéíèÿò õèìàòèîí å çàìå-
íåí ñ ïî-êúñà, âåðîÿòíî âúëíåíà äðåõà, êîÿòî â îá-
ëàñòòà íà ãúðäèòå è ñòîìàõà å óêðàñåíà ñ øåñò
êâàäðàòà, îáîñîáåíè ÷ðåç ïëèòêè æëåáîâå. Ëóíó-
ëàòà (âåðîÿòíî ÷àñò îò îãúðëèöà) âúðõó ãúðäèòå
íà ñòàòóåòêàòà íàñî÷âà êúì èçâîäà, ÷å áîãèíÿòà å
àñèìèëèðàëà â ñåáå ñè àòðèáóò, õàðàêòåðåí çà
àíàòîëèéñêàòà Àðòåìèäà (ôèã. 13) – èêîíîãðàô-
ñêà îñîáåíîñò, ñèãíàëèçèðàùà ïîÿâàòà íà Êèáåëà
êàêòî â Òðàêèÿ, òàêà è â Ìàêåäîíèÿ. Âúç îñíîâà
íà ðåäèöà ïàðàëåëè îò åëèíèñòè÷åñêè öåíòðîâå îò
Ìàêåäîíèÿ (ôèã. 4, 5), Åëàäà (ôèã. 11) è Ìàëà
Àçèÿ (ôèã. 6, 9, 12), ïîêàçâàùè Êèáåëà ñ êðå-
ïîñòíà êîðîíà íà ãëàâàòà, âúçñòàíîâêà íà ñúùàòà
å ïðåäëîæåíà è çà òåðàêîòàòà îò Ñåâòîïîëèñ (ôèã.
18).
Çà ïúðâè ïúò å îáúðíàòî ïî-ñïåöèàëíî âíèìà-
íèå íà íåéíèÿ ñòðàòèãðàôñêè êîíòåêñò è ñå íàáëÿ-
ãà íà îòáåëÿçàíîòî ïðîñòðàíñòâåíî ãðóïèðàíå íà
íàõîäêàòà ñ îñòàíàëèòå ïóáëèêóâàíè òåðàêîòè îò
 Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele ...
Ñåâòîïîëèñ. Âúïðåêè íàìèðàíåòî èì â ïðàçíîòî
ïðîñòðàíñòâî ìåæäó êúùè 1 è 4 (ôèã. 2) âðúçêàòà
èì ñ êóëòîâå, ïðàêòèêóâàíè â æèëèùàòà, èçãëåæ-
äà íåñúìíåíà. Êúì òàêúâ èçâîä íàñî÷âàò è ìàë-
êèòå èì ðàçìåðè, èäåíòèôèöèðàùè ãè êàòî âîòèâ-
íè äàðîâå. Ïðåäëîæåíàòà îò ìåí âðúçêà ìåæäó òå-
ðàêîòàòà íà Êèáåëà è åñõàðèòå, îòêðèòè â ÷àñòíè-
òå æèëèùà è äâîðåöà, ïîçâîëÿâà õèïîòåòè÷íî äà
ñå äîïóñíå, ÷å íåéíèÿò êóëò ìîæå äà å áèë ïðàêòè-
êóâàí è â öàðñêîòî ñåìåéñòâî, íàðåä ñ êóëòà íà Âå-
ëèêèòå Ñàìîòðàêèéñêè áîãîâå. Ïðèñúñòâèåòî íà
Êèáåëà â äâîðöîâîòî ñâåòèëèùå íà Ñàìîòðàêèé-
ñêèòå áîãîâå, ïåðñîíèôèöèðàíî â åñõàðàòà, å
îáóñëîâåíî âåðîÿòíî îò íåéíàòà ðîëÿ â Ñàìîòðà-
êèéñêèÿ ìèò. Òîâà âîäè äî ïðåäïîëîæåíèåòî çà
öàðñêà ñàíêöèÿ íà êóëòà é. Â ïîäêðåïà íà òàçè õè-
ïîòåçà ñà èçòúêíàòè íÿêîè àòðèáóòè è îñîáåíîñòè
îò èêîíîãðàôèÿòà íà òåðàêîòàòà, ïðåäñòàâÿùè áî-
ãèíÿòà â êà÷åñòâîòî é íà ïîêðîâèòåëêà íà ãðàäî-
âå, êàêòî è ïàçèòåëêà íà ïîðòèòå. Ïî îòíîøåíèå
íà ðîëÿòà ù íà æåíñêî áîæåñòâî-ïîêðîâèòåë òóê å
îòáåëÿçàíà íåéíàòà áëèçîñò êàêòî ñ Àðòåìèäà/
Ôîñôîðîñ îò Êàáèëå (ôèã. 17), òàêà è ñ áîãèíÿòà
Ôîñôîðîñ îò Ñáîðÿíîâî.
 èñòîðè÷åñêè àñïåêò ïðèñúñòâèåòî íà Êèáåëà
â Ñåâòîïîëèñ å ïîñòàâåíî â êîíòåêñòà íà êóëòóð-
íîòî ìíîãîîáðàçèå, ðåëèãèîçíàòà ïðåîðèåíòàöèÿ
è âîåííàòà ìîáèëíîñò, õàðàêòåðíè çà âðåìåòî
ñëåä ñìúðòòà íà Àëåêñàíäúð Âåëèêè. Ïî âñÿêà
âåðîÿòíîñò òðàêèéñêîòî âúçïðèÿòèå íà Êèáåëà ñå
êîðåíè â äðåâíèòå âÿðâàíèÿ, ñâúðçàíè ñ àíîíèì-
íàòà òðàêèéñêà áîãèíÿ, íî â äåéñòâèòåëíîñò åëèí-
ñêàòà ìàéêà íà áîãîâåòå è àíàòîëèéñêàòà Àðòå-
ìèäà ñëàãàò îòïå÷àòúê âúðõó íåéíàòà èêîíî-
ãðàôèÿ. Òîâà ÿâëåíèå áè òðÿáâàëî äà ñå ðàçãëåæäà
êàòî ðàçâèâàùî ñå â óíèñîí ñ øèðîêî ðàçïðîñòðà-
íåíàòà åëèíèñòè÷åñêà òåíäåíöèÿ, íàáëþäàâàíà è
â öåíòðîâå îò Ìàêåäîíèÿ, ñúãëàñíî êîÿòî íîâàòà
èêîíîãðàôèÿ íà Êèáåëà àêöåíòèðà âúðõó àòðèáó-
òèòå, ñèìâîëèçèðàùè âàæíîñòòà íà êðåïîñòíèòå
ñúîðúæåíèÿ íà ãðàäà. Â òîçè ñìèñúë âúçñòàíîâêà-
òà íà êðåïîñòíàòà êîðîíà, êëþ÷à â ëÿâàòà ðúêà,
êàêòî è èçîáðàçÿâàíåòî íà îðòàãîíàëíàòà ãðàäî-
óñòðîéñòâåíà ñõåìà íà Ñåâòîïîëèñ âúðõó ãúðäèòå
íà òåðàêîòàòà ïðèäîáèâàò îñîáåíà ñòîéíîñò.
Ïðè÷èíèòå çà ïîÿâàòà íà Êèáåëà â Ñåâòîïîëèñ
ïðåç ðàííèÿ åëèíèçúì áèõà ìîãëè äà ñå òúðñÿò â
çàâðúùàíåòî íà òðàêè, ñëóæèëè â àðìèèòå íà
Àëåêñàíäúð â Àçèÿ, êúäåòî, ñòàâàéêè ñâèäåòåëè
íà ðåäèöà íîâè ðåëèãèîçíè âÿðâàíèÿ è êóëòîâå, òå
ñúùåñòâåíî äîïðèíàñÿò çà ïðîöåñà íà ñèíêðåòè-
çúì.
Emil Nankov, Ph.D. Candidate
Department of History of Art and Archaeology
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
ehn2@cornell.edu
67