Why One Needs “The Odd Man Out”?

The Deer Hunter with Lagobolon

from the Frescoes in the Thracian
Tomb near Alexandrovo1
Archaeologia Bulgarica Emil NANKOV
XIV, 1 (2010), 35-55

Introduction
When describing the weapons of a foot hunter depicted on the upper frieze of
frescoes in the central burial chamber of the early Hellenistic tomb near the village
of Alexandrovo, Haskovo district (figs. 1-2), southeastern Bulgaria, the discoverer
of the tomb, Georgi Kitov (2001, 25) wrote:
“He holds an unusual weapon with long body and arc-curve at the
upper end passing into a band perpendicular to the base. There are
round enlargements at equal distances along the weapon. The item
may be a reaping hook or peculiar big knife (machaira)”2.
The unconvincing identifications proposed by Kitov were immediately called
into question by his editor, L. Vagalinski, (Kitov 2001, 25, #10) who, based on its
yellow-brown color and “round enlargements”, correctly noted that the object was
a curved wooden stick fashioned of trimmed wood (fig. 3). In a subsequent article
Kitov (2002, 63) identified the round enlargements on the object as “buds” and
“knots”, but did not clarify whether they should be seen as functional or decora-
tive elements of the reaping hook or the machaira, which he initially suggested.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to interpret the Alexandrovo hunting frieze from the
prism of the Thracian orphism, modifying Kitov's identification, Prof. Alexander
Fol (2002, 235, 237) has suggested that the reaping-hook was in fact a sickle –
“one of the typical maenadic instruments” used for the killing of Orpheus. His
idea, however, has gained no support. At the same time, the editor's alternative

1 This article presents a
slightly enlarged English ver-
sion of the text of the invited
lecture, which I delivered on
January 21, 2010, within the
seminar “Archaeology” or-
ganized by the Department
of Archaeology at New
Bulgarian University. I wish
to thank, among others,
Julia Tsvetkova, Aneta
Petrova, Maya Vassileva,
Valeria Bineva, Boyan
Dumanov, Petar Zidarov
and Bogdan Atanasov for
their comments, sugges-
tions and further bibli-
ography on the subject. I
would also like to thank
Annetta Alexandridis from
the Department of History
of Art and Archaeology
at Cornell University for
suggesting improvements
and for her comments on
an earlier draft of the text.
2 In ancient Greece, the
reaping-hook or sickle was
known as harpe, drepane,
or drepanon, designating
various agricultural imple-
ments: a pruning-hook,
a gardener's knife, as well
as a sickle-shaped, curved
sword or scimitar. The
sickle was used not only for
reaping of grain, but also
of legumes, grass, straw,
bushes, as well as for prun-
ing trees and vines. They
are normally made of iron,
less often bronze, with the
cutting edge always on the
concave side of the curved
blade, which was inserted
and nailed into a wooden
handle (cf. Kron 1998, 188-
190). Several iron blades,
for example, are known
from the early Hellenistic
city of Seuthopolis in inland
Thrace, where all have been
identified as hooks for
pruning vines, (Огненова-
Маринова 1984, 166, Кат.
##242-248, фиг. 41-42).
Cf. also the closely similar
specimens found in the early
Hellenistic city of Halos in
Thessaly, (Hijmans 2003,
126, fig. 3.33, 303, cat. nos.
M4-M13 with lit). In 1996,
Kitov (2005b, 27) reported
the discovery of a “pruning-
knife” – the only object
that escaped the looting of
the tomb in Shushmanetz
tumulus – “...close to the
door.” Curiously, he did
not use it as a comparan-
dum for the pruning hook
he initially saw in the
Alexandrovo hunting frieze.
36 emil nankov

Fig. 1. The upper frieze in the central chamber of the Alexandrovo tomb (after Китов 2005, фиг. 55).

3 In the text, written by

interpretation of the weapon has been completely disregarded by Kitov (2004;
2005; 2005a) in all of his subsequent studies, even though it was independently Nikola Theodossiev and
with photographs by
pointed out by Webber (2001a, 47-50; 2001b, 45, pl. D2), Theodossiev (Kitov / Georgi Kitov, the weapon is
Theodossiev 2003, 40) and Marazov (2005, 94, 98-99)3. described as “bastone”, the
Finally, all those interpretations of the hunter's weapon have been challenged Italian word for a stick or
by the appearance of yet another, rather fanciful hypothesis. Discussing a recent a staff. Although Webber
(2001a, 47-50; 2001b, 45)
find of an iron sword from a Hellenistic burial in the West Rhodope mountain,
and Marazov (2005, 94,
which he correctly identifies as the Thracian rhomphaia, Paunov (2005, 369), 98-99) have both opted
oblivious of the editor's critical footnote (cf. Kitov 2001, 25, #10), and of Webber's for a curved club used as
and Theodossiev's observations, argued that the foot hunter with the “unusual a throwing stick, neither
weapon” from Alexandrovo was in fact holding a rhomphaia (cf. Паунов 2005, of them has attempted to
identify it with the Greek
374, fig. 5). Even more unlikely is his suggestion that the “round enlargements” lagobolon nor explain why
(cf. fig. 3) should be understood as rendering of a sword deposited in a sheath the weapon was depicted
(Паунов 2005, 369, n. 6). Pushing even further, Paunov (2005, 369) concludes on the hunting frieze.
 why one needs “the odd man out”? the deer hunter with lagobolon … 37

Fig. 2. A Thracian youth

hunting deer on foot with
a lagobolon and a thonged
javelin. Note the index and
middle fingers of the right
hand pointing upwards
(after Китов 2005, фиг. 83).

Fig. 3. The lagobolon from

Alexandrovo; a detail. Note
the pruning marks and
the brown color indicating
the wood (adapted from
Китов 2005, фиг. 83).

4 Another recent study on

the Thracian rhomphaia,
however, compiling all avail-
able examples from Thrace,
makes no reference to the
Alexandrovo hunting frieze
(Димитров 2005, 285-294).
5 The same opinion was
expressed by Prof. H.-Helge
Nielswandt from Institut für
Klassische Archäologie und
Frühchristliche Archäologie/
Archäologisches Museum,
Westfälische Wilhelms-
Universität Münster during
a conference in 2001. Julia
Tsvetkova (pers. com.).
that the rhomphaia from Alexandrovo is the earliest pictorial representation of
this typical Thracian weapon4.
Against this background I am presenting here what I believe to be a more
precise identification of the weapon. I discuss in greater detail its range of uses,
with special emphasis on, but not limited to, the hunting of wild animals. In
brief, building upon the aforementioned editor's, Webber's, Theodossiev's and
Marazov's observation that the weapon was a curved wooden stick, I argue that it
was in fact what the Greeks called lagobolon5. Its depiction at Alexandrovo, how-
ever, is unique in many respects. If taken at face value, it would become the first
indication that the Thracians made use of what was essentially a non-returning
boomerang. Secondly, the curved wooden stick was almost exclusively associated
with hunting on foot, contrary to the rest of the weapons depicted on the tomb's
frescoes, which could be a part of the panoply of both infantry and cavalry. Thirdly,
it is exclusively a hunting weapon, while all the other weapons have military uses.
Fourthly, the foot hunter armed with it appears to be engaged in a deer-hunt, as an
38 emil nankov

assistant to a horse-mounted hunter. While this is not entirely unique application

for the lagobolon, it is notable that in all attested cases of deer-hunts with lagobola,
the weapon is used not as a throwing stick, but in close quarters.
Of course, the observations listed above beg the question of how one is
supposed to read these images of hunting. To put it succinctly, does the frieze
represent a real event that took place during the lifetime of the Thracian noble
buried in the tomb (Kitov 2001, 28; Marazov 2005, 94; cf. Фол 2002, 239), or can
it be maintained that the artist, commissioned to paint the tomb, was also granted
the freedom of creating a generic portrayal loosely based on the patron's hunting
exploits? In other words, how trustworthy can these frescoes be in terms of repre-
senting existing hunting practices and weapons of choice? As much as the present
article tries to identify a hunting weapon, it is also an attempt to address this more
general concern regarding the nature of the hunting frieze. Before proceeding any
further, however, let us focus on the lagobolon in greater detail.

RECOGNIZING THE LAGOBOLON

Since lagobola, being made of wood, tend not to survive in the archaeological
record, one must rely entirely on literary sources and artistic representations,
such as Greek painted pottery, funerary reliefs, mosaics and coins, in order to
demonstrate the significance of the weapon in the world of the ancients. But first
of all, what is a lagobolon?
According to one definition (Melville-Jones 1986), a lagobolon is “a stick for
throwing at hares in order to kill them”. The stick is made of a tree branch or root,
with the upper end curved at a 90 degree angle. It can be a rather heavy weapon
– as thick as a human wrist and reaching up to 0.90 m in length. The knobby
appearance of the shaft resulted from having to prune the multitude of branches
sticking out during its formation. The pruning was probably done with a spoke-
shave (xyele) mentioned by Xenophon (Cyr. 6. 2. 32) in the context of trimming
the shafts of javelins. The portrayal of pruning marks in artistic representations
(figs. 9-14), including that from Alexandrovo (fig. 3), in turn serves to easily iden-
tify the stick as being fashioned from wood (cf. Kitov 2001, 25, #10). In the Greek
world, the stick was actually a missile weapon, which meant that it was normally
thrown from a distance, with such force so as to cause considerable damage upon
impact. Fashioning a proper curve at the upper end, which was also slightly wider,
as well as heavier than the body, was absolutely essential – a steady flight path
depended on the presence of curvature. Ancient evidence (figs. 5, 6) and modern
experiments (Allen 2001, 47-48) indicate that they were thrown sidearm resulting
in a horizontal trajectory (fig. 4). A hunter would throw the stick by giving it a
rotatory motion, while the curved end maintained the initial momentum of spin-
ning. The ultimate goal was to break the legs of an escaping game or to otherwise
incapacitate it (Steer 1965, 48). Chiefly on account of their mode of operation,
lagobola are often referred to as one-directional or non-returning boomerangs.
6 Hellenistic epigrams from
To reiterate this point, a Greek lagobolon was not designed to kill hares from close
the Greek Anthology: Agis
quarters; rather, a hunter would always rely on throwing it from a distance. This
of Argos (AP 6. 152), ptena
may be gleaned from the prominent display of hare-hunts with lagobola on the lagobola, literally “feathered
coinage of the Sicilian city of Messana (fig. 5) and on a black-figure oinochoe from haresticks”, a hint at the
Etruria attributed to the Paris painter (fig. 6). fact that they were nor-
The word lagobolon is scarcely attested in the literary sources6. The Sicilian mally thrown as missiles;
Theocritus (AP 6. 177) and
poet Theocritus, writing in the third century BC, was among the first to use it in
Leonidas of Tarentum (AP
his poems, but despite the word's etymology, neither of the scenes he describes 6. 188), gyron lagobolon, cf.
pertains to flinging it at hares. In Idyll 4. 49, he talks of a herdsman who wishes to the commentaries in (Gow /
have a rhoikon lagobolon (crooked harestick) in his hand so that he could throw it Page 1965, 6, 313, 529).
 why one needs “the odd man out”? the deer hunter with lagobolon … 39

Fig. 4. Overhand (left) and sidearm throw (right). The figures

show how by using a sidearm throw, the hunter considerably
increases his chances of hitting a running hare. In this case,
with a lagobolon 0.90 m long and 0.05 m thick, the left/right
zone covered by a sidearm throw reaches up to 1.80 m as com-
pared with that of an overhand throw, which equals the thick-
ness of the stick, i.e. 5 cm (adapted from Allen 2001, figs. 1-2).

Fig. 5. The obverse of a bronze coin of

Messana, 433-422 BC, depicting a running
hare soon-to-be-hit by the lagobolon
flying above it (SNG ANS 382).

Fig. 6. A black-figure oinochoe by the Paris painter, Etruria, ca. 520 BC. Chasing a hare on foot with a
lagobolon (right) and driving it into a net (left). Note the lagobola (after Hull 1964, pl. IIIa-b).
40 emil nankov

at an ill-behaved heifer, whereas in Idyll 7. 128 a lagobolon is presented to another

herdsman as a gift (Gow 1952, 87-88). The first instance confirms that an essential
aspect of the lagobolon was that it was usually thrown from afar.
Unfortunately, the episode with Theocritus' shepherd, wishing to have a throw- 7 This is the definition of
ing stick at hand, has also led to the erroneous assumption that a lagobolon can Smith (1891, 361), who
be identified with a shepherd's staff or crook7. But while they all share a common writes that a lagobolon may
throwing capacity, size and nomenclature set them firmly apart. Theocritus (Idyll be equated with the Greek
koryne and the Latin pedum,
7. 19) and Homer (Il. 23. 845), for example, use the words koryne and kalaurops, i. e. a shepherd's crook.
respectively when writing of the shepherd's crook. Although shepherd's crooks A more recent example
were occasionally thrown to scare off misguided animals, the curved end was can be found in the glos-
more commonly used to catch the animals by the neck or the leg (Douglas 1928, sary of terms published
57). In addition, the lagobola were always made considerably shorter in order to by Mørkholm (1991,
maintain their rotatory motion, which, as noted above, was essential for deliver- 206), where a lagobolon
is also listed as synony-
ing a lethal blow on the prey, and there are no cases indicating their use as hooks
mous with a pedum.
to trap animals. Unlike the multi-purpose shepherd's crooks, the Greek lagobola
were purposely fashioned as missiles to be thrown from afar. 8 In his poem on hunting
If the lagobolon was the standard Greek weapon of choice in hare hunting, dedicated to the emperor
however, one would naturally expect to find it in the treatise on hunting attributed Caracalla, Oppian (Cyn.
to Xenophon (Lane Fox 1996, 135-136). Surprisingly, this is not so. When describ- 1. 153-154) speaks of a
ing the methods of hunting hares, he simply says that a pursuer and a net-watcher harpalagos kamax, which
may be describing a sort of
should carry wooden clubs or cudgels in their hands (Cyn. 6. 11; 6. 17)8. Although
lagobolon. He also mentions
he provides no details about how the hunters were supposed to use them, it is clear a three-pronged fork or
from his choice of words that they were hardly meant to be thrown from a dis- trident as another weapon
tance, for instead of lagobolon he uses the word rhopalon, which normally denotes for killing hares, which was
any straight wooden club or cudgel (Körte 1918, 320)9. The club of Heracles (fig. used to dispatch the animal,
22, cf. fig. 23), for example, is usually described as a rhopalon (Arist. Fr. 47; Soph. once entangled in the net.
Trach. 512, cf. Diod. Sic. 17. 100. 1-7), as is the club of the Cyclops (Hom. Od. 9.
9 This crucial detail has
139), while when used in battle as maces they were shod with metal spikes (Hom.
apparently eluded Duncan
Od. 11. 575; Xen. Hell. 7. 5. 20; Hdt. 7. 63). Still, Xenophon's recommendations for Head's attention, as quoted
straight wooden sticks and nets may simply be understood as being his preferred by Webber (2001a, 47-50;
method after all. To a certain extent, it is also possible that he was describing an 2001b, 45, pl. D2), who
existing method, as can be gleaned from a hare hunting scene on the white-ground argues that the curved club
lekythos by the Thanatos painter, dated to ca. 450 BC. In it, two youths are chasing from Alexandrovo and the
a hare which jumps around a funerary stele; each of the youths is holding what cudgels, ropala, of the hare
hunters recommended by
appears to be a straight, knobby cudgel, or rhopalon in their left hand (fig. 7). Xenophon (Cyn. 6. 11, 6.
A rhopalon is closely similar to yet another word designating cudgels, a skytalon. 17) may be identical.
Xenophon (Anab. 7. 4. 15) says that the Thynians managed to chop off the Greek
spears by using their skytala10, while the Persians suffered greatly in a fight with 10 Webber (2001a, 47-
the citizens of Croton who bludgeoned them with their skytala (Hdt. 3. 137. 2). 50; 2001b, 45, pl. D2) is
The main inference here is that both weapons were intended to be used as nothing therefore in error when
else but wooden clubs only suitable for beating in close combat. Another good suggesting that the curved
club from Alexandrovo is
illustration of how cudgels were used provides a scene depicted on a Corinthian
identical with the wooden
aryballos by the Nearchos painter, dated to ca. 600 BC (Richter 1932, 272-275), in clubs, skytala, mentioned by
which the pygmies armed with straight wooden clubs mercilessly bludgeon the Xenophon (Anab. 7. 4. 15).
attacking cranes (fig. 8).
Xenophon's recommendation for the use of cudgels, (rhopala), in hare-hunts, 11 Closely similar iconogra-

however, stands in contrast with the iconography of contemporary Attic grave re- phy can be seen in another
liefs, in which the deceased, when portrayed as a hare hunter, usually holds lagobo- Attic stele from ca. 430-420
BC, showing a bearded male,
lon in his hand. The best example is the funerary relief of Euthesion of Pallene,
wearing a chlamys and chiton
dated to 400-375 BC, who has been commemorated with a stele depicting him as a and holding a lagobolon
hare hunter, holding a live hare by his ears in his right hand and a lagobolon in his raised to his left shoulder
left resting at his feet (fig. 9)11. The same iconography remained popular well into (Barringer 2001, 177, fig. 94).
why one needs “the odd man out”? the deer hunter with lagobolon … 41

Fig. 7. A hare-hunt on a white-ground lekythos

by the Thanatos painter, ca. 450 BC. Note the
straight wooden sticks, rhopala (?), held by the
ephebes (after Schnapp 1997, fig. 303).

the Hellenistic period, as attested by a house-floor mosaic from Rhodes (fig. 10),
depicting a Centaur with lagobolon and hare (Salzmann 1982, cat. #113). What
is also interesting, however, comes from that fact that the Athenian youths were
apparently in the habit of using lagobola not only in the context of hare-hunts.
The front side of a statue base, for instance, known as the 'Hockey Players' base
dated to ca. 500-490 BC (cf. Keesling 1999, 528-532, #102), depicts six ephebes,
each holding curved wooden sticks, playing what is often referred to as a version
of modern 'hockey' (fig. 11). Based on a reference to a statue of Isocrates as a
boy keretizon (Plut. Dec. Orat. Vit. 165), some have argued (Oikonomos 1923,
56-59) that the scene should be keretizein meaning “playing with a curved stick”
(cf. Casson 1925, 171-172; Hett 1931, 29). Despite the similarity, which I think is
obvious enough, between lagobola and the sticks used by the boys in the scene (cf.
fig. 11 with figs. 9-10, 12-14, 19-21), no one has tried to equate one with the other.
Nevertheless the 'Hockey Players' base implies that lagobola may have been put to
use in a variety of activities and were in no way restricted only to hare hunting,
as the etymology of the word suggests. Our conclusion, as Anderson (1985, 40)
observes, can be that, when describing methods of hunting hares, Xenophon was
apparently unappreciative of curved wooden sticks.
42 emil nankov

Fig. 8. Pygmies and cranes on a Corinthian

aryballos by the Nearchos painter, ca. 600 BC.
Note the straight wooden sticks held by the
pygmies who use them in order to fight off the
cranes in close combat (after Richter 1932, pl. Xa).

Fig. 9. An Attic marble Fig. 10. The Centaur floor mosaic from house D
grave stele, ca. 400-375 at Rhodes, ca. 308-283 BC. Note the lagobolon and
BC. Note the hare and the hare (after Salzmann 1982, Taf. 46, 2).
the lagobolon (after
Barringer 2001, fig. 95).

Fig. 11.The 'Hockey Players'

base, ca. 500 BC, National
Archaeological Museum
Athens, #3477. Note the
curved knobby sticks,
probably lagobola (after
Philadelpheus 1922, pl. VII).
 why one needs “the odd man out”? the deer hunter with lagobolon … 43

Fig. 12. Reverse of a silver
tetrobol minted by the city of
Megalopolis, 80-50 BC. Pan
seated, with lagobolon in his
left hand (SNG Cop 255).
Fig. 13. Reverse of a tetradrachm
in the name of Alexander
III, 325-315 BC. Note the
lagobolon in the bottom left
corner (Price 1991, 241).
Fig. 14. Obverse of a tet-
radrachm minted by Antig-
onus Gonatas, 277-239 BC.
Note the lagobolon behind
Pan's head (SNG Cop 1200).

12 Hull (1964, 5), for in-
stance, claims that they were
“the same weapon under
a different name”. Some
scholars still hesitate to be
more precise and distinguish
between the two, even when
it is clear from the image
that the object is an ordinary
cudgel, (cf. Schnapp 1997,
428, fig. 501; Barringer
2001, 107, 135, figs. 48, 75).
Compare with the careful
treatment of a scene depicted
on a red-figure bell-krater
from Corinth, in which the
representation of what most
certainly is a cudgel has been
duly recognized, while the
identification as a lagobolon
justifiably rejected (Herbert
1977, cat. #31, pl. 8, #13).
13 A marble statuette dated
to the late fourth century
BC, with arms and legs miss-
ing, identified as Alexander-
Pan has been found near
a house at Pella. The head
is encircled by a diadem
from which two small goat's
horns sprout, with one arm
held high holding a spear
or a scepter. The possibil-
ity of a lagobolon, which
one would naturally expect
to find in Pan's iconog-
raphy (figs. 12-14), was
ruled out on account of its
presumed “small size” (cf.
Stewart 1993, 286, fig. 99).
In conclusion, the present review of the Greek applications for wooden sticks
revealed that a clear distinction between cudgels (rhopala, skytala) and curved
sticks (lagobola) remains imperative, since each was used in a different manner;
straight for beating (figs. 8, 22, 23), curved for throwing (figs. 5, 6)12.
The lagobolon in greek myth and religion
In addition to its function as a stick for flinging at hares, or as an implement for
playing a ball-game (fig. 11), lagobola were also recognized as one of the main
attributes of god Pan, whose worship originated in the mountainous region of
Arcadia in the Peloponnese whence it spread across other regions of Greece after
the fifth century BC (Borgeaud 1988). Pan's association with lagobola may be a
distant reference to one version of his genealogy, in which hare hunting is closely
intertwined with his birth. In the Homeric Hymn to Pan (19. 42-43), his father,
Hermes, presented him to the Olympian gods wrapped in the warm hides of moun-
tain hares (Crudden 2002, 82-84, #43). In Hellenistic epigrams, lagobola are often
mentioned as dedications made by hunters to Pan (AP 6. 177, AP 6. 188, cf. Gow /
Page 1965, 313, 529). The popularity of Pan in Arcadia is illustrated by a silver
coin of Megalopolis, where he is shown seated on a rock, with a lagobolon resting
on his left upper arm (fig. 12). The lagobolon can be seen on the famous Derveni
krater, as identified by Barr-Sharrar (2008, 154-155, #157, figs. 145-146). It also
appears as a monogram on a late series of Alexander's III silver (fig. 13), perhaps
drawing on his association with Pan, mentioned also by Pliny the Elder (HN 35.
36) who says that the Greek painter Protogenes did a painting of Alexander and
god Pan13. The Macedonian appropriation of Pan's imagery (Laubscher 1985, 340-
353) concludes with Antigonus Gonatas who put the god's head and a lagobolon
(fig. 14) on the obverse of his silver issues (Rakicic 1996, 6-12).
So far my goal has been to bring together the available evidence from Greek
sources, which supports my identification of the curved wooden stick held by the
foot hunter from Alexandrovo as a lagobolon. The shape, size, material and ap-
plications of this peculiar non-returning boomerang has been discussed in detail,
as well as its association with ephebes and god Pan. My attention now turns to a
closer examination of the scene in which he is involved.
44 emil nankov

Fig. 15. An unassisted

horseman chasing a
fallow deer; a scene from
Alexandrovo tomb (adapted
from Китов 2005, фиг. 56).

Fig. 16. A deer-hunt

scene from Alexandrovo
tomb. Note the extra
foot hunter behind the
horseman (adapted from
Китов 2005, фиг. 67).

THE DEER HUNTER WITH LAGOBOLON: AN “ODD MAN OUT”? 14 To the best of my knowl-
The painted upper frieze in the main chamber of the Alexandrovo tomb consists edge, no one has yet pointed
of four separate hunting scenes, depicting four wild animals (two boars, a red to the fact that all javelins
and a fallow deer), four horsemen, four foot hunters and nine dogs (fig. 1). The depicted on the frieze were
equipped with leather
prominent presence of horse-mounted hunters can be paralleled with the Persian thongs (cf. Kitov 2001, 26,
and Macedonian custom of hunting on horseback, of which Xenophon (Cyr. 8. #12; Webber 2003, 550, fig.
8. 12) says that it was an excellent training for cavalry warfare (cf. Lane Fox 1996, 5). This is illustrated by the
141; Carney 2002, 62; Marazov 2005, 98; Briant 2002, 231). The higher status way the hunters are holding
of the four horsemen, who no doubt belonged to the Thracian cavalry of noble them, with the index and
middle finger slid inside the
descent (cf. Marazov 2005, 99), is distinguishable from their clothing, pointed
loop of the thong and point-
shoes, richly-decorated horse-trappings and expensive weaponry. All are armed ing ostentatiously upwards
with thonged javelins, mesankyla (Polyb. 22. 3. 9; Plut. Philop. 6. 4)14, with the (cf. fig. 2; Kitov 2005a,
exception of the hunter on a white horse (fig. 15), who also had a cavalry sarissa, fig. 17). Leather thongs,
a xyston (Markle III 1977, 333-338, figs. 1-4; Markle 1978, 489-495; cf. Webber painted in light brown, cf.
2003, 540), while three horsemen carry a straight, two-edged sword, the Greek the color photograph in
Penkova (2004, 319, fig. 4),
xiphos, as a weapon of last resort (Nankov 2007 41-44). By contrast, all foot hunt- can clearly be seen dangling
ers are barefooted, of which two are clothed in exomis and one in tunic, except the down from the two javelins
hunter brandishing a double axe, who is completely naked (Kitov 2001, 21, #8, 25, that have pierced the boar
#10, 27, #13). A possible parallel for the pronounced division between mounted attacked by the naked foot-
riders and foot hunters may be found in Arrian (Anab. 4. 13. 1), who claimed that assistant who is about to
hit it with a double axe (cf.
the sons of the Macedonian aristocracy served the king as personal attendants,
fig. 1). For a parallel, see
guards, presenters of horses and assistants in mounting, and that they had to share the Hunting Frieze of Tomb
the rivalry of the hunt with him. Along similar lines, Kitov (2001, 28) is of the II at Vergina (Saatsoglou-
opinion that all foot hunters from Alexandrovo are in fact the deceased's close Paliadeli 2004, 69, fig. 27a).

15 Kitov (2001, 28) simply
states that, “The scene is very
interesting because of the
fact that no hunter meets
the animal”, without offer-
ing an explanation for it.
16 Kitov (2001, 29; 2005a,
15) has suggested that the
painter was “a Thracian
master”, whereas on the
basis of some noticeable
differences in the style of the
frescoes, his editor (Kitov
2001, 26, #12) pointed to the
possibility that they were a
work of “at least two paint-
ers.” See also Шалганова
2005, 167-168, who assumes
that the painter was Greek
based on the frieze’s icono-
graphic schemes. For the
interpretation of the graffito
ΚΟΖΙΜΑCΗC ΧΡΗCΤΟC
accompanied by a drawing
of a human head in profile
found in the circular cham-
ber right across the entrance
as “[I am] Kozimases, the
master”, see Kitov 2004,
45-46 and Герасимова 2005,
175-181. For compelling
criticisms of this opinion,
see Sharankov 2005, 34. For
the date, see Гетов 2008.
17 Plutarch (Cim. 16. 5),
relates how one day in
Sparta, while the boys and
the youths were exercising
in the stoa, a hare appeared,
and all of them, with bodies
still oil-covered, immedi-
ately ran out to chase it.
18 The excavator of the
mosaic, Breccia (1923, 162),
why one needs “the odd man out”? the deer hunter with lagobolon … 45
associates and companions, while Marazov (2005, 99) has suggested that they are
servants on the basis of their modest clothing, weaponry and short hair. To what
extent, however, Arrian's testimony was valid for the Thracian aristocracy as well
is of course a question but the notion that the foot hunters acted at least as assist-
ants to the noblemen hunting on horseback seems reasonable. For this reason, I
prefer the neutrality of “foot-assistant” at the expense of more specific terms such
as “associates”, “companions” or “servants”.
Three of the horse-mounted hunters are aided by foot-assistants, with the
exception of the one directly opposite the entrance, recognized by Kitov (2005,
42) as “the most important and leading scene” (fig. 15) (contra Шалганова 2005,
169-170). In it, the wild animal is chased only by a horseman, while the foot-
assistant, who, I believe, was supposed to face it on the opposite side, has been
transferred to another scene (fig. 16)15. Although this radical decision has no
doubt compromised the compositional integrity of the entire frieze, I would like
to focus on what necessitated it.
Precisely because his role in the hunt would have made more sense facing the
fallow deer chased by the horseman opposite the entrance (fig. 15), rather than
walking behind the horseman pursuing the red deer (fig. 16), the Thracian youth
armed with a javelin and a lagobolon was shrewdly dubbed by Kitov (2002, 63) as
the “odd man out” [translation mine]. Somewhat ironically perhaps, he emerges,
as I will try to demonstrate, as an extremely important figure, providing crucial
information for the interpretation of the entire frieze. Because the foot-assistant
was transferred to another scene, however, a couple of adjustments became neces-
sary. First, the painter16 had to deal with the fact that “the odd man out” would
become the only foot-assistant standing a distance away from the animal hunted.
All his counterparts had to attack their prey in close quarters, and, accordingly,
were all armed with suitable weapons; a lance, a curved knife and a double axe (cf.
fig. 1). Since “the odd man out” was removed from his prey, in fact fitted in behind
the horseman, missile weaponry is to be expected in his hands instead, such as a
thonged javelin, a mesankylon and a lagobolon (fig. 2).
Things, however, are not that simple.
From a Greek point of view, of course, the choice of the latter is perfectly legiti-
mate because its use was restricted to hunting on foot (fig. 6), from distance (fig.
5), and importantly, it was also the standard hunting weapon of young hunters or
ephebes (fig. 9), as already remarked by Marazov (2005, 99)17. Perceived, along
with the stone (cf. fig. 7), as a robust weapon, substituting for the sword carried by
an adult, it was quite appropriate for young hunters who normally assumed a sub-
sidiary role in the hunt (Schnapp 1997, 222). If the foot hunter from Alexandrovo
was chasing a hare, everything would have fallen into place; but he is not! For
deer-hunts, Xenophon (Cyn. 9. 7) recommends only the use of javelins. And
Greek representations of deer hunting with lagobolon are scarce indeed (Schnapp
1997, 220, fig. 95; cf. Barringer 2001, 97, #124).
One example comes from a scene on a black-figure amphora dated to 540-530
BC, depicting a foot hunter who seems to be attacking a walking stag from behind
(fig. 21). Such use of lagobolon, however, has been considered puzzling by schol-
ars who even doubt that the scene does in fact depict an actual hunting method
(Schnapp 1997, 207). Deers attacked by foot hunters in close quarters are indeed
known from many other Classical scenes, but those are presented armed with
straight wooden sticks instead of lagobola (fig. 17). Closer to the Alexandrovo
frieze are Macedonian hunting scenes of the early Hellenistic period, where deers
are killed either from afar by javelins, as depicted on the frieze of Tomb II at
46 emil nankov

Fig. 17. A stag-hunt from a

red-figure cup by the Codros
painter, ca. 440-430 BC.
Note the cudgel bran-
dished by the foot hunter
in front of the stag (after
Schnapp 1997, fig. 414).

Fig. 18. A stag-hunt on

a floor mosaic from a
house at Pella, ca. 300
BC (adapted from Salz-
mann 1982, Taf. 29).

Fig. 19. A stag-hunt on

a floor mosaic from a
house at Shatby, Alex-
andria, ca. 290-260 BC.
Note the lagobolon in
the hands of the Eros in
front of the stag (after
Daszewski 1985, pl. 5).

Fig. 20. Eros with lagobolon about to
deliver his mortal blow on the stag;
a detail from the Shatby Stag Hunt
mosaic: reconstruction drawing
(after Breccia 1923, pl. XXIII).
thought that the Eros was
brandishing a sword. There
are obvious problems with
this identification, however,
since the weapon is definitely
curved at the upper end, and
a sword can hardly be used
with two hands in the man-
ner shown on the mosaic
(cf. figs. 19-20). Salzmann
(1982, 116, Taf. 88, 2) was
of the opinion that it was
a “Doppelaxt” (cf. fig. 18),
while Daszewski (1985, 105)
came closest to the truth
by stating that the weapon
was “a club (?) or a stick, of
which only the hand is partly
visible” (cf. fig. 19). On his
color plate C, 1 facing p. 72,
however, one can clearly see
not only the handle but also
the shaft of the lagobolon
in its entirety rendered by
pebbles of light brown.
19 Of all wild animals depict-
ed on the frieze, only the red
deer appears to be standing
still, while at the same time
ferociously jumped over by
three dogs. It is also, as Kitov
(2001, 25) has observed, the
only animal yet to be pierced
by the hunters' weapons.
20 Cf. supra ##9-10.
why one needs “the odd man out”? the deer hunter with lagobolon … 47
Fig. 21. A black-figure amphora, Etruria, ca. 540-530 BC;
a detail. A foot hunter tries to attack a deer by using a
lagobolon as a cudgel (after Schnapp 1997, fig. 68).
Vergina (Palagia 2000, 193, fig. 12), or in close quarters by swords and axes, as
shown on the Alexander Sarcophagus (Palagia 2000, 187-188, fig. 10) and on a
house-floor mosaic from Pella (fig. 18). There is, however, another example of a
foot hunter attacking a stag with a lagobolon on a house-floor mosaic from the
Shatby district near Alexandria (Daszewski 1985, 103-110).
The central panel shows a dying stag surrounded by three Erotes armed with
a curved wooden stick, a sword and lances (fig. 19). Although, to my knowledge,
the lagobolon in this mosaic has not been yet recognized18, its morphological
features are rendered beyond doubt (cf. figs. 3, 9-10, 12-14, 21). The scene is of
particular significance because it decidedly demonstrates the multiple uses of
curved wooden sticks in deer-hunts, not only as missiles but as cudgels. Here
the lagobolon is shown in the hands of the Eros about to deliver his mortal blow,
with the curved end aimed to hit the stag's neck (fig. 20). More importantly, it
may suggest that we are entitled to imagine a similar scenario for the foot hunter
from Alexandrovo, despite his portrayal at an earlier stage of the hunt (fig. 16)19.
Before the foot-assistant, therefore, there were really two choices: to hurl it as a
missile in the hope of breaking the deer's leg, or to wield it as an ordinary cudgel
(cf. figs. 17, 19-21). In non-Greek milieu, however, the former could hardly have
been an option, while being of particular advantage to Greek ephebes who, as I
have shown, used the lagobolon exclusively as a missile to hunt hares (figs. 7, 9).
While the ephebes possessed the freedom of hunting alone with a hound, as a rite
of passage to manhood (Vidal-Naquet 1986, 118-122), the young hunters from
the northern regions of Macedonia and Thrace played a different role in the royal
and aristocratic hunts. Assuming a subordinate role in the hunt, they were most
certainly deprived of the opportunity to strike before those hunting on horseback.
The difference in practice is essential, which in our case to a lesser degree, I think,
was rooted in the limited or no damage a flying lagobolon would inflict on a deer
than it was determined by the rules of engagement imposed by the horse-mounted
hunters. As soon as the horseman riding in front of him has thrown his javelin,
however, “the odd man out” would be able to release his javelin, as indeed was the
case with the naked foot-assistant, who has managed to pierce the boar with his,
but at the moment portrayed by the painter, he is already brandishing a double axe
48 emil nankov

(fig. 1). Similarly, but only at a later stage, “the odd man out” could have gained
the opportunity to employ his lagobolon in close quarters, as a cudgel (cf. figs. 19-
20). He was therefore no different than the other foot-assistants, each armed with
weapons used for killing in close combat: a lance, a curved knife and a double
axe.

Lagobola, rHopala and skYtala in Thrace

A final issue deserves our further attention: what other evidence, aside from
Alexandrovo tomb, do we possess in supporting the use of lagobola in ancient
Thrace? Surprisingly, among the available archaeological monuments upon which
the imagery of the Thracian hunter of the Classical and Hellenistic periods has
been built over the years, nothing seems to suggest that lagobola – in either of
their possible applications, were ever employed by Thracians. For example, the
foot hunters depicted on the silver belt from the village of Lovets, Stara Zagora
district, are both armed with bows, while all hunters depicted on the plaques
from the Letnitsa treasure are mounted on horseback and armed with javelins
(Венедиков / Герасимов 1973, фиг. 250, 285-286). At the same time, the attempts
to equate the lagobolon from Alexandrovo with the skytala and rhopala mentioned
by Xenophon (Anab. 7. 14. 15; Cyn. 6. 11, 6. 17) were conclusively shown to be
incorrect above (cf. fig. 3 with figs. 7, 8, 17)20. Furthermore, whenever we have
depictions of rhopala in objects of Thracian toreutics, they always identify the per-
son carrying them as Heracles, as in the case of the bronze cheekpiece of a helmet Fig. 22. A bronze cheekpiece
from the village of Gurlo, Sofia district (fig. 22), the silver appliqué from the town from Gurlo, Sofia district,
of Panagjurishte (Венедиков/Герасимов 1973, fig. 245), the phiale with Auge and depicting Heracles with
Heracles, as well as the jug with Hippolyte and Heracles from the Rogozen treasure bow and rhopalon (after
Венедиков/Герасимов
(Fol et al. 1989, 141, 184) and a kylix with Diomedes and Heracles from the village 1973, фиг. 235).
of Kapinovo, Veliko Turnovo district (Marazov 1998, pl. 104), among others. The
straight knobby sticks, on the other hand, depicted on the gold amphora-rhyton
from the Panagjurishte treasure (fig. 23) may also be identified as a rhopalon (Агре
2004, 45-47). First, the sticks appear to be perfectly straight and second, the old
man and the young man holding them, identified as Heracles and his companion
Iolaos by Hoffmann (1957, 392), are in fact involved in a scene of military action
(Венедиков 1961, 15-16; cf. Стоянов 2004, 15-18). As it was made abundantly
clear, lagobola were by definition curved at one end (Theocritus' rhoikos, Idyll 4.
49) – a Greek missile weapon used in, and appropriate for, the hunting of small
game such as hares (figs. 5, 6, 9, 10), and only occasionally deers (figs. 16, 19-21).
Finally, they were never employed as a military weapon per se.

Conclusions
In conclusion, the lagobolon carried by one of the foot-assistants from Alexandrovo
has to remain self-referential because its use as a hunting weapon in ancient
Thrace has been hitherto unattested. It is nonetheless interesting that of all the
weapons depicted on the hunting frieze it surprisingly emerges as the weapon
that Greeks, ephebes in particular, used for flinging at hares. It is further curious
that what was perceived by the Greeks as one-directional missile would emerge
precisely in the hand of the foot-assistant, the panoply of whom, according to
my suggestion, needed readjustment in order to work out visually in accordance
with the patron’s desire to distinguish himself from his fellow hunters. In such a
scenario, it would not be inconceivable to imagine that the frescoes were the work
of a master who, while enjoying a “supervised” artistic freedom, had to paint in a
situation, in which the main scene was expected to bear out the reality of a heroic
hunting exploit.
 why one needs “the odd man out”? the deer hunter with lagobolon … 49

Fig. 24. The scene on north end of the

dromos (after Китов 2005, фиг. 23).

Fig. 23. The old man and the youth on the amphora-rhyton
from Panagjurishte treasure; a detail. Note the straight
knobby sticks, possibly ropala (after Marazov 1998, pl. 71).

Fig. 26. The scene above the

entrance to the circular chamber
(after Китов 2005, фиг. 32).

Fig. 25. The scene on south end of the

dromos (after Китов 2005, фиг. 24).

Fig. 27. The partially preserved

scene above the entrance to the
antechamber. Note the full hand grip
on the cavalry sarissa held by the
horseman (after Китов 2005, фиг. 31).
50 emil nankov

The validity of such an interpretation derives from the fact that here the
lagobolon is shown in association with deer hunting, representations of which
from elsewhere are surprisingly uncommon. On such occasions, the lagobolon
more often assumed secondary role because it was deployed in action only after
the animal had been already wounded by javelins. Moreover, in non-Greek milieu
this is in keeping with the custom according to which the primary role in Persian,
Macedonian, as well as Thracian hunts was played by those riding on horseback. 21 The importance of white
Clearly, all foot-assistants, including the youth armed with the lagobolon, were horses in Thrace may be
assigned strictly defined, subordinate roles by being expected to finish up the gleaned from the Greek
literary tradition. Rhesos’
animals after they had been pierced by the javelins of the horse-mounted hunt-
horses were whiter than
ers. In my view, the reason why “the odd man out” was removed from the main snow (Hom. Il. 10. 437; Eur.
scene opposite the entrance, possibly because he was present in the primary, Rhes. 304); when Xerxes
“uncensored” design created by the painter, may be seen as a way of amplifying reached the Strymon, the
the achievement – the hunting glory – of the rider on a white horse21, who has Persian magi sacrificed white
already taken the animal in one strike by his javelin, thereby emerging as the only horses that were probably
obtained from the local
solitary, unassisted hunter, who may thus be the deceased himself, a Thracian
Thracians (Hdt. 7. 113).
nobleman, interred in the tomb (fig. 15). Of all the horsemen, he will also be the Xenophon (Anab. 7. 3. 26)
only one delivering the final blow with his cavalry sarissa22. Moreover, one should reports that Seuthes II was
note that, in this way, his hunting experience becomes an one-to-one combat, i.e. presented a white horse
a heroic feat, thereby closely mimicking the four scenes in the antechamber, in by a Thracian servant.
which we see the deceased pictured, again, as a horseman fighting foot soldiers
22 Despite the conjecture
single-handedly with his cavalry sarissa (figs. 24-27), (see also Василева 2007,
that the hunting frieze
104, 109; Стоянов 2008, 61; Briant 2002, 230-232; Думанов 2002, 411).
was “inspired by memo-
Another peculiarity, at least from a Greek viewpoint, is that the lagobolon rable hunt events” during
appears as a weapon for bludgeoning, as it does in a scene of Macedonian deer the lifetime of a Thracian
hunting from early Hellenistic Alexandria. Despite the mythological nature of nobleman, it is nonetheless
the Shatby Stag Hunt mosaic, portraying, as Pollitt (1986, 130) put it, “children, questionable to what extent
it may also account for the
particularly in the form of Erotes, ‘cutely’ mimic adult situations,” there is little to
claim, as Kitov (2001, 28,
suggest that one is dealing with an intentional parody or a fictitious representa- #14; 2005a, 17) has sug-
tion of a method for hunting deers. In fact, the deer hunter with lagobolon from gested, that he was also “a
Alexandrovo may be taken as a further illustration of the fact that such a method Thracian ruler deified after
actually existed. Based on the Shatby Stag Hunt mosaic, therefore, one has to reject his death.” Drawing on the
the possibility that the Thracian youth from Alexandrovo was to eventually use significance of the different
colors of the four horses,
his lagobolon in the Greek manner, i.e. as a throwing stick. For the privilege of the Marazov (2005, 100-102) has
first blow no doubt belonged to the mounted hunter on the white horse of whom interpreted the hunter on
he was originally conceived of as an assistant, but eventually he became, as Kitov the red horse, which Kitov
put it “the odd man out”. Finally, the pictorial evidence compels us to imagine that (2005, 46) has described as
in either case the artists were trying to portray the peculiarities of the hunting gray-black, as the father,
customs followed by their patrons, which may also be taken to imply that in the who is also identified as the
ruler buried in the tomb,
world forged by Alexander's III Successors, some Thracians, as well as, evidently, accompanied in the hunt by
Macedonian settlers living in Alexandria, were apparently in the habit of hunting his three sons riding on gray,
deers on foot by mastering the Greek lagobolon in close combat. yellow and white horses.

BIBLIOGRAPHY международен симпозиум. Венедиков, И. 1961. Герасимова, В. 2005.

Агре, Д. 2004. Нов прочит
на сюжета върху амфора-
та-ритон от Панагюрското
съкровище. In: Китов,
Г. / Агре, Д. Панагюрското
съкровище и тракийската
култура. Доклади от втори
Панагюрище, 1999. 41-58.
Василева, М. 2007. За
изобразителните формули
в Тракия и Мала Азия. In:
МИФ 12. Обредът. София.
102-114.
Панагюрското златно
съкровище. София.
Венедиков, И. / Герасимов,
Т. 1973. Тракийското
изкуство. София.
Надписът от гробницата в
с. Александрово. – Ну-
мизматика, сфрагистика и
епиграфика 2, 175-181.
Гетов, Л. 2008. За графита
от Александровската гроб-
ница. In: PHOSPHORION.

Studia in honorem Mariae
Čičikova. София. 316-318.
Димитров, С. 2005. За
тракийската ромфея. In:
МИФ 9. Тракия и околният
свят. Научна конференция
Шумен, 2004. София.
285-294.
Думанов, Б. 2002.
Наблюдения към един тип
“ловуващ конник” върху
произведения на късноан-
тичното ювелирство. In:
Πιτύη. Изследвания в чест
на проф. д-р И. Маразов.
София. 407-413.
Китов, Г. 2005. Алек-
сандровската гробница.
Славена. Варна.
Китов, Г. 2004. Нови
наблюдения върху Алек-
сандровската гробница. –
Археология 45, 1-2, 42-51.
Китов, Г. 2002. Алек-
сандровската гробница.
– Анали 9, 50-81.
Огненова-Маринова, Л.
1984. Дребни находки,
теракота, скулптура.
In: Севтополис. Бит и
култура, т. 1. София.
159-223.
Паунов, Е. 2005. Ромфея –
новооткрит тракийски меч
от Западните Родопи. In:
Stephanos Archaeologicos in
honorem Professoris Ludmili
Getov. Studia Archaeologica
Universitatis Serdicensis
Suppl. IV. София. 368-375.
Стоянов, Т. 2008. За
изобразителната програма
на гробницата от Алексан-
дрово. – Археология 49,
58-67.
Стоянов, Т. 2004. Пана-
гюрското съкровище –
изобразителна програма и
принадлежност. In: Китов,
Г. / Агре, Д. Панагюрското
съкровище и тракийската
култура. Доклади от втори
why one needs “the odd man out”? the deer hunter with lagobolon …
международен симпозиум.
Панагюрище, 1999. 11-30.
Фол, A. 2002. Тракийският
Дионис. Книга трета.
Назоваване и вяра. София.
Шалганова, Т. 2005.
Гръцките ловни митове
и ловът на глиган от
Александровската
гробница, Хасковско. In:
МИФ 9. Тракия и околният
свят. Научна конференция
Шумен, 2004. София.
165-183.
Allen, J. 2001. Reflections on
the Rabbit Stick. In: Wescott,
D. Primitive Technology
II: Ancestral Skills. Gibbs
Smith. 47-50.
Anderson, J.K. 1985. Hunting
in the Ancient World.
Berkeley.
Barringer, J. 2001. The Hunt
in Ancient Greece. Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Barr-Sharrar, B. 2008. The
Derveni Krater. Masterpiece
of Classical Greek Metal-
work. Princeton.
Borgeaud, P. 1988. The Cult
of Pan in Ancient Greece.
Translated by K. Atlass and J.
Redfield. Chicago.
Breccia, E. 1923. La mosaïque
de Chatby. – Bulletin de
la Société Archéologique
d'Alexandrie 19, 158-165.
Briant, P. 2002. From
Cyrus to Alexander: A
History of the Persian
Empire. Translated by Peter
T. Daniels. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
Carney, E. 2002. Hunting
and the Macedonian Elite:
Sharing the Rivalry of the
Chase. In: Ogden D. (ed.),
The Hellenistic World.
New Perspectives. The
Classical Press of Wales and
Duckworth, 59-80.
Casson, S. 1925. The New
Athenian Statue Bases. –
Journal of Hellenic Studies
45, 164-179.
Crudden, M. 2002. The
Homeric Hymns. Oxford
University Press.
Daszewski, W.A. 1985.
Corpus of Mosaics from
Egypt I: Hellenistic and Early
Roman Period. Mainz am
Rhein.
Douglas, N. 1928. Birds
and Beasts of the Greek
Mythology. Chapman and
Hall Ltd. London.
Fol, A. / Nikolov, V. /
Mihailov, G. / Venedikov,
I. / Marazov, I. 1989. The
Rogozen Treasure. Sofia.
Gow, A.S.F. / Page, D.L.
1965. The Greek Anthology:
Hellenistic Epigrams. 2 vols.
Cambridge University Press.
Gow, A.S.F. 1952. Theocritus.
Edited with a Translation
and Commentary. 2 vols.
Cambridge University Press.
Herbert, S. 1977. The Red-
Figure Pottery. CORINTH.
Vol. VII, part IV. Princeton.
Hett, W.S. 1931. The Games
of the Greek Boy. – Greece &
Rome 1, 24-29.
Hijmans, S. 2003. The Metal
Finds. In: Reinders, H.R. and
Prummel, W. (eds.), Housing
in New Halos: A Hellenistic
Town in Thessaly, Greece.
A. A. Balkema Publishers.
123-138.
Hoffmann, H. 1957. Review
of Svoboda, B. and Cončev,
D. Neue Denkmäler
antiker Toreutik. Monu-
menta Archaeologica, 1956.
Prague. – American Journal
of Archaeology 61, 389-392.
51
Hull, D.B. 1964. Hounds and
Hunting in Ancient Greece.
University of Chicago Press.
Keesling, C.M. 1999.
Endoios' Painting from
the Themistoklean Wall: A
Reconstruction. – Hesperia
68, 508-549.
Kitov, G. 2005a. New
Discoveries in the Thracian
Tomb with Frescoes by
Alexandrovo. – Archaeologia
Bulgarica 9, 15-28.
Kitov, G. 2005b. The Valley of
the Thracian Rulers. Slavena.
Kitov, G. 2001. A Newly
Found Thracian Tomb with
Frescoes. – Archaeologia
Bulgarica 5, 15-29
Kitov, G. / Theodossiev, N.
2003. I colori dei traci. –
Archeologia XIX, 8 (222),
34-47.
Körte, G. 1918. Zu Xeno-
phons ΚΥΝΗΓΕΤΙΚΟΣ. Ein
Fragment. – Hermes 53, 3,
318-323.
Kron, U. 1998. Sickles in
Greek Sanctuaries: Votives
and Cultic Instruments.
In: Hägg, R. (ed.). Ancient
Greek Cult Practice from the
Archaeological Evidence.
Proceedings of the Fourth
International Seminar on
Ancient Greek Cult, Organ-
ized by the Swedish Institute
at Athens, 22-24 October
1993. Stockholm. 187-215.
Lane Fox, R. 1996. Ancient
Hunting: Homer to Polybius.
In: Shipley, G. / Salmon, J.B.
(eds.). Human Landscapes
in Classical Antiquity:
Environment and Culture.
Routledge. 119-153.
Laubscher, H.P. 1985.
Hellenistische Herrscher
und Pan. – Mitteilungen des
deutschen archäologischen
Instituts, athenische
Abteilung 100, 333-353.
52 emil nankov

Marazov. I. 2005. The
Tracian Warrior. IK Christo
Botev. Sofia.
Marazov, I. 1998. Ancient
Gold: The Wealth of the
Thracians. Treasures from
the Republic of Bulgaria.
New York.
Markle III, M. M. 1978. Use
of the Sarissa by Philip and
Alexander of Macedon.
– American Journal of
Archaeology 82, 483-497.
Markle III, M. M. 1977.
The Macedonian Sarissa,
Spear, and Related Armor.
– American Journal of
Archaeology 81, 323-339.
Melville-Jones, J.R. 1986. A
Dictionary of Ancient Greek
Coins. B.A. Seaby Ltd.
Morkholm, O. 1991.
Early Hellenistic Coinage.
Cambridge University Press.
Nankov, E. 2007. An
Ivory Scabbard Chape from
Seuthopolis Rediscovered:
Evidence for a xiphos from
Early Hellenistic Thrace? –
Archaeologia Bulgarica 11,
37-46.
Oikonomos, G.P. 1923.
KERITIZONTES. – Ar-
chaiologikon Deltion 6
(1920-1921), 55-59.
Palagia, O. 2000. Hephaes-
tion's Pyre and The
Royal Hunt of Alexander. In:
Bosworth, A.B. / Baynham,
E.J. (eds.), Alexander the
Great in Fact and Fiction.
Oxford University Press.
167-206.
Penkova, E. 2004. Der
thrakische Heros. In: Die
Thraker: Das goldene Reich
des Orpheus. 23 Juli bis
28 November 2004 Kunst
und Ausstellungshalle der
Bundesrepublik Deutsch-
land. Verlag Philipp von
Zabern. Mainz. 314-321.
Philadelphaeus, A. 1922.
Three Statue-Bases Recently
Discovered at Athens. –
Journal of Hellenic Studies
42, 104-106.
Pollitt, J.J. 1986. Art in the
Hellenistic Age. Cambridge
University Press.
Price, M.J. 1991. The
Coinage in the Name of
Alexander the Great and
Philip Arrhidaeus. British
Museum Press.
Rakicic, M. 1996. The
Lagobolon of Pan on the
Coinage of Antigonus Stewart, A. 1993. Faces of
Gonatas. – The Celator 10, Power: Alexander's Image
6-12. and Hellenistic Politics.
University of California
Richter, G.M.A. 1932. An Press.
Aryballos by Nearchos.
– American Journal of
Archaeology 36, 272-275.
Vidal-Naquet, P. 1986.
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, Ch.
The Black Hunter: Forms
2004. Vergina: O Taphos tou
of Thought and Forms of
Philippou. I Toichographia
Society in the Greek World.
me to Kynigi. Athens.
Translated by A. Szegedy-
Mazsak with a Foreword by
Salzmann, D. 1982.
B. Knox. JHU Press.
Untersuchungen zu den
antiken Kieselmosaiken.
Gebr. Mann Verlag. Berlin.
Schnapp, A. 1997. Le Webber, Ch. 2003. Odrysian
Chasseur et la cité: Chasse Cavalry Arms, Equipment,
et érotique dans la Grèce and Tactics. In: Nikolova,
ancienne. Paris. L. (ed.). Early Symbolic
Systems for Communication
Sharankov, N. 2005. A Greek in Southeast Europe. Oxford,
Graffito in the Thracian BAR Int. Ser. 1139. 529-554.
Tomb near Alexandrovo. –
Archaeologia Bulgarica 9,
29-35.
Webber, Ch. 2001a. The
Smith, W. 1891. A
Alexandrovo Tomb and
Dictionary of Greek and
Other Recent Discoveries. –
Roman Antiquities, vol. 2.
Slingshot 216, 47-50.
Third edition, revised and
enlarged. London.
Steer, F.W. 1965. Further
Notes on Shepherds' Staves. Webber, Ch. 2001b. The
– The Agricultural History Thracians. 700 BC-AD 46.
Review 13, 47-49. Osprey Publishing.

Защо е необходим „излишният мъж”? Ловецът на елен

с лагоболон от фриза на Александровската гробница
Емил Нанков
(резюме)
Описвайки оръжията на един от ловците, изобразен върху горния
фриз в централната камера на ранноелинистическата гробница край с.
Александрово, Хасковска област, откривателят на гробницата, Георги
Китов, идентифицира едно от тях като косер или крив боен нож, махайра
(фигури 1-2). Мнението му е веднага оспорено от неговия редактор, Людмил
Вагалински, който, въз основа на жълто-кафявия цвят и "кръглите разши-
рявания", правилно отбелязва, че оръжието представлява крива дървена
тояга, изработена от окастрено дърво (фиг. 3). В една следваща своя статия,
Китов определя "кръглите разширявания" върху оръжието като "пъпки" и
"възли", но не пояснява дали те трябва да се разглеждат като функционални
why one needs “the odd man out”? the deer hunter with lagobolon … 53

или декоративни елементи на косера или махайрата, предложени в първо-

началната му статия. Междувременно, в опит да интерпретира ловните сце-
ни от Александровската гробница през призмата на тракийския орфизъм,
проф. Александър Фол изрази мнението, че извитият предмет е всъщност
сърп – "един от типичните менадски инструменти", използвани при убий-
ството на Орфей. Неговата идея, обаче, поне доколкото ми е известно, не бе
възприета. Тезата на Вагалински бе напълно пренебрегната от Китов във
всичките му последвали изследвания, въпреки че подобно тълкуване беше
предложено и от Кристофър Уебър, Никола Теодосиев и Иван Маразов.
Една екстравагантна хипотеза, лансирана наскоро от Евгени Паунов,
обогати вече разгорещения спор, интерпретирайки "необичайното
оръжие" от Александровската гробница като най-ранното засвиде-
телствано изображение на тракийска ромфея. Неприемливо, осо-
бено при сравнението със скорошната находка от елинистическо
погребение в Западните Родопи на желязна ромфея, е предложението
му, че "кръглите разширявания" следва да се интерпретират като из-
образителен стандарт за предаване на меч, депозиран в ножница.
На фона на досегашната дискусия, целите, които си поставям в насто-
ящото изследване, са следните: на първо място, предлагам аргументи за
една по-точна идентификация на кривата дървена тояга, като обсъждам
в детайли вариациите на нейната употреба, акцентирайки върху прило-
жението ѝ в лова на диви животни. Накратко, надграждайки върху някои
от вече изказаните мнения, че оръжието е крива дървена тояга, аз твърдя,
че ловецът, наречен от Китов „излишен”, всъщност държи популярния
сред древните елини лагоболон (фигури 4-6, 9-11). Изобразяването му в
Александровската гробница, обаче, е уникално в много отношения, тъй
като стенописите биха били първия индикатор за присъствието и употре-
бата сред траките на този, по същество, еднопосочен бумеранг. На второ
място, за разлика от останалите оръжия, изобразени върху стенописите
в гробницата, за които имаме данни, че са използвани и от пехотата, и
от кавалерията, извитата дървена тояга е изцяло свързана с пешия лов.
На трето място, лагоболонът, отново в противовес на всички други
представени оръжия, които имат приложения във военното изкуство, е
изключително ловно оръжие. На четвърто място, ловецът, въоръжен с
лагоболон, изглежда ангажиран в преследването на благороден елен, като
пешак-придружител на предхождащия го конник (фиг. 16). Въпреки че
употребата на лагоболон в лов на елени не е съвсем непозната, трябва да се
отбележи, че във всички познати подобни сцени оръжието не се използва
като метателна тояга, а при непосредствена схватка, отблизо (фиг. 19-21).
Разбира се, горните наблюдения подчертават важността на въпроса, какъв е
правилният подход към разглеждането и декодирането на ловните сцени от
Александровската гробница. Дали трябва да възприемем изобразеното като
документален запис на реално събитие от живота на тракийския благород-
ник, положен в гробницата, както твърдят някои автори, или може да се
предположи предоставянето на артистична свобода на художника, в рамки-
те на композирането на сложен идеологически натоварен разказ, вдъхновен
от ловни подвизи на патрона-поръчител? С други думи, доколко имаме
основание да считаме тези стенописи за достоверни извори за изучаване
на ловните практики и оръжия у древните траки? Доколкото настоящата
статия прави опит за аргументирана идентификация на едно ловно оръжие,
тя е същевременно и опит да се постави въпросът за достоверността, ес-
теството и за интерпретацията на ловния фриз.
54 emil nankov

В първата част от анализа привеждам редица примери от древна Елада,

подкрепящи идентификацията на извитата дървена тояга, изобразена в
Александровската гробница, като лагоболон – оръжие тясно свързано с
ефебите (фигури 9, 11) и бог Пан (фигури 12-14). Във втората част изслед-
ването се концентрира върху анализа на ловната сцена, в която е включен
лaгоболонът.
Горният фриз в централната камера на Александровската гробница се
състои от четири отделни ловни сцени, изобразяващи четири диви жи-
вотни (два глигана, благороден елен и елен-лопатар), четирима конници,
четири пешака и девет кучета. Трима от конниците са подпомогнати от
придружаващ ги пешак, с изключение на сцената, разположена директно
срещу входа към централната камера, където дивото животно – елен-лопа-
тар – е преследвано само от един конник (фиг. 15). Пешакът-придружител,
който според мен е трябвало да пресрещне дивеча в помощ на конника, е
бил преместен в друга сцена (фиг. 16). Тъй като тази промяна несъмнено
е нарушила композиционната хармония на целия фриз, анализът ми
набляга върху естествено възникващия въпрос: какво я е наложило?
Именно защото мястото му в лова би било по-логично да е пред елена-
лопатар, преследван от конника в сцената срещу входа на централната
камера, а не зад конника, преследващ благородния елен в другата сцена,
пешакът-придружител, въоръжен с метателно копие и лагоболон, беше, не
без основание, наречен от Китов „излишният мъж” или „излишният воин”.
Донякъде иронично може би, той се превръща в една изключително важна
фигура, предоставяща ключова информация за осмислянето на целия
фриз.
Може да се обобщи, че понастоящем лагоболонът, носен от „излишния
мъж” в Александровската гробница, остава уникален, тъй като използва-
нето му като ловно оръжие в древна Тракия не е засвидетелствано в други
източници (фигури 22-23). За пръв път, наред с оръжията, изобразени на
ловния фриз, неочаквано се появяват ясните очертания на популярно сред
древните елини оръжие – лагоболон, използвано от ефебите по-специално
при лов на зайци. Особено интригуващ е фактът, че еднопосочният буме-
ранг се намира в ръцете именно на „излишния мъж”, преместен, за да може
поръчителят на ловния фриз да бъде визуално отличен сред останалите
участници в лова. При един такъв сценарий не би било немислимо да си
представим, че стенописите са дело на художник, който, наслаждавайки се
на една „контролирана” творческа свобода, е рисувал в ситуация, при която
главната сцена е трябвало да отговаря на облика на хероизиран подвиг.
Валидността на едно такова тълкуване се подчертава от факта, че тук
лагоболонът е в контекста на лов на елен, примерите за които от древния
свят са изключително редки. В подобен контекст на лагоболона е пре-
доставена второстепенна роля, участващ едва в довършването на вече
прободеното от метателни копия животно. Аргументът се подсилва от
наблюдението, че Александровският стенопис се подчинява на валидната
в негръцка (персийска, македонска и тракийска) среда норма, предписваща
на ездачите основна роля в лова. Пешаците-придружители, в това число и
„излишният мъж”, са имали подчинено, строго регламентирано участие; от
тях се очаквало единствено да довършат животните, след като те са били
поразени от метателните копия на конниците. Смятам, че "излишният
мъж" е бил премахнат от сцената директно срещу входа към централната
why one needs “the odd man out”? the deer hunter with lagobolon … 55

камера, където е бил поставен от художника в първоначалния, „нецензу-

риран” дизайн, за да се подчертае постижението или умението на ездача
на белия кон, поразил животното с един удар на метателното си копие. В
този отличен като единствен самодостатъчен ловец-конник би следвало да
разпознаем не само поръчителя на фриза, но и погребания в гробницата
знатен тракиец. В допълнение трябва да се отбележи, че този ловен епизод
(фиг. 15), в противовес на останалите сцени от фриза, се превръща в ге-
роичен двубой, подобен на четирите бойни сцени в предверието на гроб-
ницата, в които вместо в единоборство с животно коннникът нанася удар
– отново с кавалерийската си сариса – на воини-пешаци (фигури 24-27).
Друга нетипична особеност, от гледна точка на древногръцките представи,
е, че лагоболонът е изобразен като оръжие за водене на близък бой с едно
вече ранено животно, така както го виждаме в сцената на лов на елен от ран-
ноелинистическа Александрия. Въпреки че в мозайката от Шaтби ловците
са изобразени като Ероси, не смятам че методът на лов, показан в нея, е тре-
тиран въображаемо или пародийно (фигури 19-20). Според мен ловецът на
елен с лагоболон от Александровската гробница може да се разглежда като
илюстрация, че такъв ловен метод действително е практикуван през антич-
ността. Въз основа на ловната мозайка от Шатби отхвърлям възможността
ловецът на елен с лагоболон да го употреби по гръцкия начин, т.е. като едно-
посочен бумеранг, тъй като правото на първия удар принадлежи на яздещия
ловец. И накрая, иконографските свидетелства ни карат да предположим,
че и в двата случая – Шатби и Александрово – авторите на изображенията
се опитват да представят особеностите на ловните методи, упражнявани от
техните патрони-поръчители, което също така имплицитно означава, че в
света, изкован от диадохите на Александър Македонски, някои траки, както
и македонски заселници, живеещи в Александрия, очевидно са прилагали
гръцкия лагоболон и в близка схватка при лов на елени.

Dr. Emil Nankov

Archaeology Program Officer
American Research Center in Sofia
75, Vasil Petleshkov
BG-1510 Sofia
ehn2@cornell.edu