THE STRUMA/STRYMON STRUMA/STRYMON. Strymon Praehistoricus Kjustendil Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres Amphipolis (Greece)

In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul Volume 2 THE THE STRUMA/STRYMON STRUMA/STRYMON RIVER RIVER VALLEY VALLEY IN IN PREHISTORY PREHISTORY Pernik Kjustendil Blagoevgrad Kamenska Čuka ma Stru Topolnica Promachon Str y m on Serres Drama Sitagroi Dikili Tash Amphipolis Edited by Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, Georgi Ivanov Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus Kjustendil Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) and Serres Amphipolis (Greece) 27.09 01.10.2004 GERDA GERDAHENKEL HENKELSTIFTUNG STIFTUNG Sofia 2007

DIE GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG FUR FÖRDERUNG DER HISTORISCHEN GEISTESWISSENSCHAFTEN IST IM JUNI 1976 VON FRAU LISA MASKELL ZUM GEDENKEN AN IHRE MUTTER, FRAU GERDA HENKEL, ALS GEMEINNÜTZIGE STIFTUNG DES PRIVATEN RECHTS ERRICHTET WORDEN. DIE STIFTUNG HAT IHREN SITZ IN DÜSSELDORF. AUSSCHLIESSLICHER STIFTUNGSZWECK IST DIE FÖRDERUNG DER WISSENSCHAFT, VORNEMLICH DURCH BESTIMMTE FACHLICH UND ZEITLICH BEGRENZTE ARBEITEN AUF DEM GEBIET DER GEISTESWISSENSCHAFT AN UNIVERSITÄTEN UND FORSCHUNGSINSTITUTEN. DIE WEITERBILDUNG GRAGUIERTER STUDENTEN IST EIN BESONDERES ANLIEGEN DER STIFTUNG.

THE STRUMA/STRYMON RIVER VALLEY IN PREHISTORY

Gerda Henkel Stiftung In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul Volume 2 The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus, Kjustendil Blagoevgrad Serres Amphipolis, 27.09 01.10.2004 Editing: Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich and Georgi Ivanov 1. Prehistoric Europe; 2. Neolithic period Europe; 3 Europe Antiquities. 544 pp., 29 maps, 9 topograchical plans, 779 color photos, 81 b/w photos, 815 drawings, 58 tabl., 32 diagrams and simplified graphs, 10 reconstructions drawing of houses. Museum of History-Kyustendil ISBN: 978-954-8191-11-1 Sofia (2007) First published GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG MALKASTENSTRASSE 15, D-40211 DÜSSELDORF, GERMANY TELEFON +49 (0)211 35 98 53, TELEFAX +49 (0)211 35 71 37 INFO@GERDA-HENKEL-STIFTUNG.DE WWW.GERDA-HENKEL-STIFTUNG.DE English texts edited by: MARK STEFANOVICH Drawings and Maps by: IVAN VAJSOV, MICHAIL GEORGIEV AND AUTHORS Photographs: KRASIMIR GEORGIEV AND AUTORS Graphic desing, layout and artistic supervisions: GEORGI IVANOV (pages I X; 1 41; 121 534) AND IVAN VAJSOV (pages 42 120) Cover graphic desing by: GEORGI IVANOV AND IVAN VAJSOV Cover photographs by: KRASIMIR GEORGIEV, GEOGRI IVANOV AND CHAIDO KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI Copyright 2007 by GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG and THE AUTHORS ISBN: 978-954-8191-11-1 No part of this publication may by reproduced by any means, including photocopy, recording or other information storage retrieval system, without permission in writing from GERDA HENKEL STIFTUNG and THE AUTHORS. The copyright to the illustrations are hold by the authors. Printed in Bulgaria at Bulged. Digital print. The technology of Indigo.

Gerda Henkel Stiftung THE STRUMA/STRYMON RIVER VALLEY IN PREHISTORY Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus Kjustendil Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) 27.09 01.10.2004 Serres Amphipolis (Greece) Edited by Henrieta Todorova, Mark Stefanovich, Georgi Ivanov Sofia 2007

Table of Contents Vorwort... vii Die paleoklimatische Entwicklung in VII I Jt. vor Chr. H. Todorova... 1 Abrupt Climate Forcing Observed at Early Neolithic Sites in South-East Europe and the Near East B. Weninger, E. Alram-Stern, E. Bauer, L. Clare, U. Danzeglocke, O. Jöris, C. Kubatzki, G. Rollefson, H. Todorova, T. van Andel... 7 Social Network Analysis of Neolithic Societies E. Claßen... 28 Promachon-Topolnica. A greek-bulgarian archaeological project Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, I. Aslanis, I. Vajsov, M. Valla... 43 Promachon-Topolnica. A typology of painted decorations and its use as a chronological marker I. Vajsov... 79 Tierdarstellungen und Stierkult im Neolithikum Südosteuropas und Anatoliens F. Falkenstein...121 Where Do Children Belong? Neolithic burials in western Bulgaria K. Băčvarov...139 Нови сведения за ранния неолит в Северозападна България Г. Ганецовски...147 Die Entstehung und Gliederung der neolithischen Kulturen auf dem Zentralbalkan: Fallbeispiel Gălăbnik J. Pavúk... 165 Tell Gălăbnik. Architecture and Site Planning A. Bakamska...177 Крайници раннокерамично селище от басейна на река Струма С. Чохаджиев, А. Бакъмска Л. Нинов...181 The Early Neolithic Site at Piperkov Čiflik, Near Kjustendil (Season 2004) V. Vandova...191 Proto-Starčevo Culture and Early Neolithic in the Struma Valley M. Bogdanović...201 La périodisation des sites préhistoriques dans la vallée de la Strouma moyenne L. Perničeva... 209 Das Frühchalkolithikum des Strymonbereichs S. Čochadžiev... 223 Some Observations on Zoomorphic Images from Western Bulgaria S. Terzijska Ignatova... 227 Prehistoric Settlements in the Province of Kjustendil V. Genadieva... 239 Recent Researches at the Neolithic Settlement of Dikili Tash, Eastern Macedonia, Greece: an Overview P. Darcque, H. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, D. Malamidou, R. Treuil, Z. Tsirtsoni...247 Neolithic Societies: Recent Evidence from Northern Greece M. Pappa...257 In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Linguistische Angaben über die Namen der Flüsse Axios, Strymon, Nestos I. Duridanov... 273 Prehistorical Sites in the Middle Struma River Valley Between the End of the VII th mill. BC and the Beginning of the I st mill. BC M. Grębska-Kulowa, I. Kulow... 279 Kryoneri: a Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement in the Lower Strymon Valley D. Malamidou... 297 Absolute Chronology of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Cultures in the Valley of Struma J. Bojadžiev... 309 Decline of the Painted Pottery in Eastern Macedonia and North Aegean at the End of the Final Neolithic/Chalcolithic Period S. Papadopoulos...317 On the Late Stages of the Krivodol-Sălcuţa Culture P. Georgieva... 329 The Ethno-Cultural Affiliation of the North Anatolian Early Bronze Age J. Yakar... 339 Dating the Donja Brnjica Culture Based on Metal Finds K. Luci... 347 A Late Bronze Age Cemetery in Faia Petra, East of the Middle Strymon Valley M. Valla... 359 The Late Bronze Age Necropolis in the Тown of Sandanski, Southwest Bulgaria S. Alexandrov, V. Petkov, G. Ivanov...373 Krsto Pokrovnik Excavations at a Late Bronze Age Site in the Middle Struma River Valley, Southwest Bulgaria. Preliminary results 2004 season M. Stefanovich, I. Kulov... 389 Tradition and Innovation in the Bronze Age Pottery of the Thessaloniki Toumba. Food and drink consumption and tableware ceramics S. Andreou, K. Psaraki... 397 Bronzezeitliche Goldornate aus Süddeutschland und ihre donauländisch-balkanischen Beziehungen W. David... 421 The Beginning of the Iron Age in Macedonia D. Mitrevski... 443 Assiros Toumba. A brief history of the settlement K.A. Wardle, D. Wardle....451 Troy VIIB2 Revisited. The date of the transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Northern Aegean K.A. Wardle, M. Newton, P.I. Kuniholm...481 Palaeobotanical Data in South-Western Region of Bulgaria Tz. Popova, E. Marinova... 499 Промахон-Тополница. Компаративно изследване на дивите и домашни животни от сектор Тополница Н. Илиев, Н. Спасов... 509 Agriculture and Use of Space at Promachon/Topolnica. Preliminary observations on the archaeobotanical material S.M. Valamoti... 523 Palaeoecological Evidence of the Main Postglacial Vegetation and Climate Changes in Southwestern Bulgaria from the Neolithic to Modern Times E. Božilova, S. Tonkov...531 The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

vi Участниците в конференцията пред Археологическия музей на Серес, 1 октомври 2004 г. Οι συμμετέχοντες στο συνέδριο μπροστά από το Αρχαιολογικό μουσείο στις Σέρρες, 1 Οκτωβρίου 2004. The participants of the conference in front of the Archaeological Museum of Serres, 1 st of October 2004. Henrieta Todorova Bernhard Weninger Erich Claßen Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki Ioanis Aslanis Ivan Vajsov Frank Falkanstein Krum Bačvarov Georges Ganetzovski Juraj Pavuk Aneta Bakamska Stefan Čochadžiev Veselina Vandova Liljana Perničeva Stoilka Terzijska Ignatova Veneta Genadieva Pascal Darcque René Treuil Zoï Tsirtsoni Maria Papa Malgorzata Grębska-Kulowa Ilija Kulow Dimitra Malamidou Javor Bojadžiev henrietat@web.de b.weninger@uni-koeln.de erich.classen@uni-koeln.de ckoukouli@yahoo.gr aslanis@classic.diavlos.gr aim-bas@aclubcable.com falkenstein@urz.uni-heidelberg.de krum.bacvarov@gmail.com ganecovski_ar@abv.bg jpavuk@pobox.sk abakamska@gmail.com s_choha@abv.bg v.vandova@abv.bg pernicheva@abv.bg ignatovatoni@yahoo.com venge@abv.bg pascal.darcque@mae.u-paris10.fr rene.treuil@mae.u-paris10.fr zoi.tsirtsoni@mom.fr gatpap@otenet.gr grembskamal@hotmail.com iliakulov@yahoo.com d.malamidou@free.fr yavordb@abv.bg Stratis Papadopoulos Petya Georgieva Jak Yakar Kemjal Luci Magdalene Valla Stefan Alexandrov Georgi Ivanov Mark Stefanovich Stelios Andreou Wolfgang David Dragi Mitrevski Ken Wardle Diana Wardle Maryanne Newton P.I. Kuniholm Tzvetana Popova Nikolaj Spasov Elisaveta Božilova Spassimir Tonkov Sultana Maria Valamoti Irena Nasteva Petar Zidarov Biserka Gaydarska Valentin Debochichki strapapa@in.gr van@theworld.com yakar@post.tau.ac.il muzeu_kosoves@ipko.org vallamagda@in.gr stefanalexandrov@abv.bg ivanov.georgi@yahoo.com mark@aubg.bg andrest@hist.auth.gr wolfgang.david@vfpa.fak12.uni-muenchen.de dragimit@yahoo.com wardleken@aol.com d.e.wardle@bham.ac.uk mwn3@cornell.edu pik3@cornell.edu1 paleobotani_tz@abv.bg nspassov@nmnh.bas.bg bozilova@biofac.uni-sofia.bg tonkov@biofac.uni-sofia.bg sval@hist.auth.gr musmk@mt.net.mk petarzidarov@yahoo.com b_gaydarska@yahoo.co.uk rmuseum.kn@mail.bg In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica A greek-bulgarian archaeological project Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Промахон-Тополница. Гръко-Български археологически проект Хайдо Кукули-Хризантаки, Хенриета Тодорова, Яоанис Асланис, Иван Вайсов, Магдаленe Вала През VI V хил. пр. Хр. районът на Средна Струма е важното свързващо звено между юга и севера на Балканския полуостров. Това обуславя голямото значение на проучването на намиращото се там праисторическо селище Промахон-Тополница. Дългогодишните разкопки на обекта (1980 2003 год.), провеждани както от българската, така и от гръцката страна на границата, хвърлиха обилна светлина върху проблемите на праисторията на този район и донесоха много нови открития. Именно този обект дава и името на късно неолитната култура Тополница Акропотамос. Обектът лежи на 1 км западно от десния бряг на река Струма, на ръба на заливната й тераса. Той се намира на около 2 км южно от българското село Тополница, Петричко (Figure 3 4). Разположен е пред източните склонове на планината Беласица, върху обширен eрозионен конус. Находището е известно в България под името Кременица. То се простира от двете страни на българо-гръцката граница, при гранична пирамида 63 и заема площ от около 40 декара. Българо-гръцката граница го дели на два сектора български (наречен сектор Тополница) и гръцки (наречен сектор Промахон). Доминантното географско положение на селището е указание за това, че жителите му са контролирали по един или друг начин прохода Промахон, а с това и търговския път по река Струма. Промахон-Тополница е важно свързващо звено между неолитните култури на Северна Гърция и Югозападна България. В края на шестото и началото на петото хил. пр. Хр. селището е играло ключова роля в праисторията на Балканския полуостров. Животът там е продължил около 400 години, между 5100 и 4700 г. пр. Хр. Обектът е открит през 1979 год. по време на теренни обхождания, организирани от музея в гр. Петрич. През 1980 г. започва археологическото проучване на българския сектор под ръководството на проф., д-р, д- р.и.н. Хенриета Тодорова от Археологическия институт на Българската академия на науките в София. В сектор Тополница те продължават без прекъсване до 1991 год. Политическите промени след 1989 год. позволиха осъществяването на един голям гръцко-български проект за проучване и на гръцката част от селището. Той е ръководен от гръцка страна от д-р Хайдо Кукули-Хризантаки, а от българска от член кор. на БАН, проф. д-р, д-р.и.н Хенриета Тодорова. Разкопките на гръцка територия продължиха от 1993 до 2003 год. В тях участва гръцко-български колектив, съставен от специалисти от различни области на науката. В сектор Промахон бе открит уникален сутеренен храм, вкопан на 4 м дълбочина. Той е бил двуетажен, като долният му, вкопан в земята, етаж вероятно е служил за депониране на жертвоприношения. Там бе открит голям брой червено оцветени букраниони (челната част на бичи черепи). От храма произхожда и богата колекция от находки глинени и мраморни идоли, съдове, украсени с битум и червено и черно рисувани орнаментални композиции, аскоси, пинтадери, каменни и кремъчни артефакти, глинени модели на храма, олтари както и части от дървени, украсени с червена и черна боя, конструкции. Селището е било застроено с частично вкопани в земята сгради, които образуват голям архитектурен ансамбъл. Стените на сградите са били от колове, преплетени с плет, обмазан с глина. Вероятно покривните конструкции са били хоризонтални, като на места равният покрив вероятно е носил надстройка, покрита с двускатен покрив. Особен интерес представлява един наземен храм от финалната фаза (IIIB) на селището, проучен на българска територия, където бяха открити три големи идоли, които са били апликирани като полурелефи на западната му стена. От изток, в сектор Тополница, бе устанавена палисада от масивни дървени колове, от което съдим, че селището е било добре укрепено. Земеделието и животновъдството са лежали в основата на икономиката на селището. Отглеждани са били дребни кози и овце, както и говеда. Откритите тежести за стан и прешлените за вретено свидетелстват за развито тъкачество. Оръдията са били от камък, кремък, кост и рог. Открити са и останки от кошници и рогозки. През финалния етап от съществуването на къснонеолитното селище тук е била обработвана и самородна мед, за което говорят откритите многобройни най-ранни металургични топилни. Те маркират началото на металургията въобще. Къснонеолитната керамика е изключително висококачествена и богато украсена с рисувани орнаменти нанесени с черна и тъмнокафява боя (тип Акропотамос и тип Струмско), с битум (тип Тополница), с широки светлочервени ленти (тип Промахон), с полихромен орнамент (тип Димитра). Ранноенеолитната керамика е украсена с типичният за Струма позитивен линеен графитен и врязан орнамент, очертаващи спиралоидни мотиви. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

44 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Προμαχώνας -Topolnica. Ελληνοβουλγαρικές αρχαιολογικές έρευνες X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, H. Todorova, I. Ασλάνης, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα Κατά την 6 τη 5 τη χιλιετία πρ. Χρ. η περιοχή του μέσου και του κάτω Στρυμώνα έπαιξε σημαντικό ρόλο στην επικοινωνία ανάμεσα στο νότιο και το βόρειο τμήμα της Βαλκανικής χερσονήσου. Η γεωγραφική θέση του οικισμού Προμαχών-Topolnitsa καθορίζει και την σημασία της ανασκαφικής εξερεύνησής του. Οι μακρόχρονες ανασκαφές στην θέση (1983 2003) έφεραν στο φώς πολλά καινουργια ευρήματα και έγιναν αφορμή για καινούργιες ερμηνείες. Λόγω της σημασίας του, ο οίκισμος συμπεριλήφθηκε στην ονομασία του υστερονεολιθικού πολιτισμού Topolnitsa- Ακροπόταμος. Ο οικισμός βρίσκεται στο χαμηλό λόφο Κρεμενίτσα, σε απόσταση ένα χιλιόμετρο δυτικότερα του σημερινού ρού του Στρυμόνα και περίπου 2 χιλιόμετρα νοτιότερα του χοριού Τοπόλνιτσα (Εικ. 3 4) και τέμνεται σε δύο από τα ελληνοβουλγαρικά σύνορα. Η έκταση της προϊστορικής εγκατάστασης υπολογίζεται στα 40 στρέμματα. Η προεξέχουσα τοποθεσία του οικισμού υποδεικνύει, πως οι κάτοικοι του μάλλουν θα ελέγχαν το στενό του Προμαχόνα και επομένος τον δρόμο κατά μήκος του Στρυμόνα. Η ζωή στν εγκατάσταση διαρκούσε περίπου 500 χρόνια, από τα τέλη της 6 ης μέχρι και το τέλος του πρώτου ήμισυ της 5 ης χιλιετίας πρ. Χρ. (περίπου 5100 4600 πρ. Χρ.). Ο οικισμός βρέθηκε το 1979 κατά επιφανειακές έρευνες διοργανόμενες από το αρχαιολογικό μουσείου στο Petrich. Ο βουλγαρικός τομέας διερευνήθηκε από το 1980 εως το 1991 υπό τη διεύθυνση της Η. Todorova. Οι πολιτικές αλλαγές το 1989 επέτρεψαν μια ελληνοβουλγαρική συνεργασία, κατευθυνόμενη από τους αρχαιολόγους Χ. Κουκούλη- Χρυσανθάκη και Η. Todorova, στην οποία έλαβαν μέρος συνεργάτες από διάφορους κλάδους της επιστήμης. Οι ανασκαφές στο ελληνικό τομέα έλαβαν χώρα από το 1993 έως το 2003 και έφεραν στο φώς ένα μοναδικό κτίριο και σπάνια ευρήματα: πήλινα αγγεία με μαύρη και κόκκινη γραπτή διακόσμηση, ανθρωπόμορφα ειδώλια, πινταντέρες, εργαλεία από λίθο και πυριτόλιθο, πήλινα ομοιώματα κτιρίων όπως και μέρη ξύλινων κατασκευών. Τα κτίρια του οικισμού βρίσκονταν εν μέρει στο έδαφος, τοποθετημένα το ένα κοντά στον άλλο δημιουργόντας νησίδες. Οι τοίχοι κτιρίων ήθαν κατασκευασμένες από ξύλινους πασσάλους, πλεχτά κλαδιά και πηλό. Οι στέγες θα ήθαν οριζόντιες, ενώ μέρικά σημεία τα κτίρια θα κατείχαν και δεύτερο όροφο καλυμμένο με δίκλινη στέγη. Ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον κατέχει ένα κτίριο με υπόγειο, σκαμμένο 4 μ. μέσα στο φυσικό έδαφος μέσα στο οποίο βρέθηκαν βουκράνια, λιχνάρια, ανθρωπόμορφα ειδώλια, ασκοειδή και άλλα αγγεία, τα οποία παραπέμπουν σε τελετουργική αποθετική χρήση. Η ανατολική πλευρά του οικισμού ήθαν οχυρομένη με περίφραξη από μεγάλους πασσάλους. Οικονομική βάση του πληθυσμό αποτελούσε η γεωργία και η κτηνοτροφία. Εκτρέφονταν αιγοπρόβατα και βοοειδή. Αγνίθες και πήλινα σφοντύλια τεκμειριώνουν την ύπαρξη υφαντικής. Σόζωνται εργαλεία από πέτρα, πυριθόλιτο, οστόν και κέρατο. Για την τελευταία φάση του οικισμού αποδεικνύεται η επεξεργασία χαλκού, μια που βρέθηκαν τμήματα χωνευτηρίων. Η κεραμεική διακρίνεται για την καλή της ποιότητα και τον πλούσιο γραπτό διάκοσμο (των τύπων Ακροπόταμος, Στρούμσκο), την διακόσμηση με Bitumen (τύπος Τοπόλνιτσα), την διακόσμηση με φαρδιές κόκκινες ταινίες (τύπος Προμαχών), την διακόσμηση με περισσότερα χρώματα (τύπος Δήμητρα), ενώ για τις φάσεις της αρχαιότερης Χαλκολιθικής είναι χαρακτηριστικά αγγεία διακόσμημένα με γραφίτη. Στον οικισμό βρέθηκε μεγάλος αριθμός πήλινων ανθρωπόμορφων ειδωλίων. Στον τομέα «Topolnitsa» ήρθε στο φώς ένα σύμπλεγμα από τρία ανρθωπόμορφα ειδώλια, τα οποία λόγω αξιόλογου σοζώνου ύψους από περίπου 1 μ. μπορούν να χαρακτηριστούν ώς αγάλματα. Introduction Today Greek (Fig. 2) and Bulgarian (Fig. 1) archaeologists are investigating a Neolithic settlement that is situated on the Greek Bulgarian border and is bisected by the frontier of the two countries. Until 1994 this Neolithic settlement was known in the literature under the name of Topolnica or Topolniča Kre men i ca (PER- NICHEVA 1983; TODOROVA 1982; 1983; 1984; TO- DOROVA/BOJADZIEV 1985, 1986, 1987; BOJADZIEV/ VAJSOV 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991; TODOR O VA/VAJS- OV 1993, 1995; GÖRSDORF/BO JADZ IEV 1996; BAI- LEY 2000), and from 1995 under the name of Promachon, Promahonas or Pro ma chon-topolnica (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004; KOU- KOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI/BASSIAKOS 2002; ANDREOU et al 1996.). The discovery of this site has given researchers the possibility to define a new culture called Topolnica-Akropotamos (TODOR- OVA/VAJSOV 1993, 113 116). The results from the Greek-Bulgarian systematic ex ca va tions of Promachon-Topolnica are of ex cep tion al importance for the Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic on the Balkan Peninsula. History of Research The settlement of Topolnica (Kremenica) was discovered in 1978 by B. Băcharova, who was then director of the museum in Petrich (BĂČVAROVA 2002). The site was also registered by the Bulgarian-Polish survey expedition in 1980 1981 when they noted sites in the areas around the rivers Strumešnica and the Middle Struma (Strymon) (PERNICHEVA 1983, 1995; DO- MA R ADZ KI et coll. 2001, 70 72, Karta 1 3, Tablo 2:16, 18 22, 24 25; 3:1, 3 4). During 1980 H. Todorova from the Archaeological Institute of Sofia began test excavations on the site called Kre men i ca, that is located 2 kilometers to the south of the Bulgarian village Topolnica. Until 1983 these excavations were carried out alone In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 45 1a 2a 1b 2b Fig. 1. a The Bulgarian team in the Sector Topolnica in 1989*; b Working in the Sector Topolnica. by Todorova (TODOROVA 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984; GEORGIEV, E. 1982), and from 1984 1986 with J. Bojadziev (TODOROVA/BOJADZIEV 1985, 1986, 1987). From 1987 until 1991 archaeological re search on the Bulagrian sector was under J. Bojadziev with I. Vajsov from the Ar chae o log i cal Institute of Sofia (BOJADZIEV/VAJSOV 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991) (Fig. 1). During 1980 1981 the excavations were mainly test soundings extending up to the bor der markers (Fig. 5:1). The aim was to define the stratigraphy and chronology of the site. Because of the complexity of the horizontal stratig ra phy this was especially difficult. This caused future excavations (1981 1991) to ex tend the excavation to the east and encompass a large part of the settlement on the Bulgarian side of the border. During 1981 Ing. P. Vălev, an en gi neer-surveyor from the Archaeological In sti tute of Sofia set out a grid of 5 5 m squares. This grid was different from the Figure 2. a b Working in the Sector Promachon; b P. Tzanetakis (conservator). later Greek one laid out in 1992 as the grid in the Bul gar i an sector (sector Topolnica) was oriented to mag net ic north. In 1992, a joint Greek-Bulgarian ex ca va - tion-research program began on the sector of the site located on Greek territory (sector Pro - ma chon) that continued to 2003. It was carried out under the auspicious of the Greek 18 th Ephor ate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Eastern Macedonia under the direction of Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki in collaboration with I. Aslanis of the Greek National Center of Re search and the excavation team from Bulgaria (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1992; 1993; 1995; 1996; 1997a 1997b; 1998; 1999; 2000; 2001; 2004; Koukouli-CHRYSSANTHAKI/BASIAKOS 2002) (Fig. 2). The results after 23 years of excavation on the site of Promachon-Topolnica show with justification that this is one of the most important prehistoric sites in this part of South east ern Europe. * From left to right (Tsvetan Tsvetanski, Plamen Arsov, Ivan Vajsov, Stamen Stanev, Smaragda Arvanitidu, Petar Iliev, Ilian Hristakiev, Galja Stajkova, Petar Tsvetkov, Javor Bojadžiev, Milena Kalfova and Vladimir Panajotov) The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

46 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Ali Botuš (Slavjanka) mountain Kulata Promachon-Topolnica Struma (Strymon) River Fig. 3. Location of the Neolithic settlement Promachon-Topolnica (view from the West, Belasica moutain). The artifacts from the Promachon-To polni ca settlement excavations are located in the fol low ing museums, Archaeological Institute and Museum Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Sofia (Bulgaria), National Historical Museum Sofia, (Bulgaria), Historical Museum Blagoevgrad (Bul gar ia), Historical Museum Petrich (Bulgaria), Archaeological Museum Serres (Greece). The material (pottery, bones, daub etc.) from Sector Promachon is stored in the Loutra San a to ri um in Sidirokastro, Greece. Where is the site of Promachon-Topolnica located? The Neolithic site Promachon-Topolnica is located 1 km to the west of the right bank of the Styrmon (Struma) river and 2 km to the south of the Bulgarian village Topolnica (Mu nic i pal i ty Petrich) and 3,5 km north-west of the Greek border village of Promachon (Figs. 3 4; Geo graph ic Coordinates: Latitude 41 23.220`, Longitude 23 19.725`; h. 80.50 m). This lo cation was strategic and the site controlled the north-south traffic through the Promachon pass that also represents an important link between the Neolithic cultures of Northern Greece and Southern West Bulgaria. The site is also located on the border between the Middle and Lower Strymon (Struma) river that from ancient times was a crossroads for many cultures and peo ples. The valleys of the Middle and Lower Strymon (Struma) river, along with the river Strumešni ca was the area where the Topolnica-Ak ro pot a mos culture extended with its dense settlement system. Research on the site of Promachon-Topolnica The joint research program, which has com bined excavations and surface investigation with archaeometric ground probe data 1 has de ter mined the existence of an open prehistoric set tle ment (CHAPMAN 1989, 134) that covered two adjacent hilltops and encompassed a total area of 5 hectares with habitation occupation In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 47 Marikostinovo B U L G A R I A Čučoligovo Topolnica Marino Pole Promachon-Topolnica Kulata B e l a s i c a M o u n t a i n s G R E E C E Promachon Fig. 4. Geographical map of the lower course of the Middle (Strymon) Struma valley and location of the Neolithic settlement Promachon-Topolnica. Drawing M. Georgiev and I. Vajsov. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

48 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla be tween 0,5 to 1,70 meters in depth (Figs. 3 4). The excavations undertaken on the Greek and the Bulgarian areas of the prehistoric settlement have identified four habitation phases. Today the stratigraphic sequence of the oc cu pa tion levels according to excavation results is as follows: in the uppermost archaeological level, which has been disturbed by plowing, only a few pits and probably the compacted layers with pottery sherds and pebbles appear in places where the architectural remains of the last phase of habitation are present (Phase IV) (Figs. 5:2, 5:3). These strata, which also contain pot tery from an earlier phase, probably come from the leveling of the ruins of the buildings from the preceding settlement levels. The last phase of habitation on the site can be dated to a late phase of the Late Neolithic based on scattered pottery sherds. Typical examples of incised and graphite painted pottery (Fig. 33) link this phase to Dikili Tash II (SEFERIADIS 1983; TREUIL 1992) and Sitagroi III (EVANS 1986) in Eastern Macedonia, and to Slatino (CHOCHADZIEV 1986) in the Strymon valley, and Gradešnica (NIKOLOV 1976) in Northwestern Bulgaria, as well as the Marica I II culture in North Thrace. Clear architectural remains from the next level (Phase III) from both the Greek (Sector Promachon) (Fig. 5:5) and Bulgarian sectors (Sector Topolnica) (Fig. 5:4) indicate timberframed (wat tle and daub) houses with interior hearths. The best example of a timber-framed/ wattle and daub/house in this level was found in the Bulgarian sector. It was rectangular and measured 8 5 m and was aligned roughly east-west. A large post-hole pit in the center be longed to a post, which had supported the the roof (Fig. 5:4). Inside on the east side of the South wall, an oven was discovered with side chambers. On a bench, next to the West wall, were found frag ments of three relief protomes of female fig ures (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998b, Fig. 4:1; 1997b, Fig. 5:3), which probably come from the decoration of the West wall. The site mapping of the many clay idols that have been discovered around the build ing point to a votive deposit. There sug gests the interpretation of a sanctuary for this dwelling (TODOROVA/VAJSOV 1993). Vessels painted in the Akropotamos style decoration (Fig. 36) (MYLONAS/BAKALAKIS 1938; MYLONAS 1941), mostly locally made, are typical for this phase (CHOCHATZIEV 1986; PER NICHE VA 2002). Evidence for copper-smelting is of par tic u lar interest and is documented in the sector Promachon in the Phase III levels (KOUKOULI-CHRYS- SANTHAKI et al. 2000; KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI/ BASIAKOS 2002). According to the Archaeometry Laboratory Democritos in Athens a clay crucible found at the bottom of a small pit contained traces of copper smelting with distinct traces of heavy burning (Figs. 7:1 4). The extension of the excavation area towards neighboring Trench B also revealed traces of copper on the floor. Here we discovered a series of hollows in the floor with successive layers of burnt clay on the in te ri or (Fig. 7:3), that resemble a similar con struc tion in Phase I at the prehistoric set tle ment of Dikili Tash (SEFERIADES 1983; BLÉCON et al. 1992). As the excavations continued, further evidence increased for copper extraction in these hol lows. The only examples known to date of early copper metallurgy in the 5 th millennium BC, without slag production come from the Middle East. At this initial stage of copper production veins of pure malachite were exploited, which did not leave slag. Examples of slag-free ex trac - tion of copper in the Middle East are still few and isolated while the Çatal Hüyük slag sample from the 6 th millennium remains questionable 1 The settlement is situated at the area of the deserted Greek village Mesaia, Nea Petritsi and the Bulgarian village To polnit sa (Topolnica). The collaborative research pro gram has been designated by the conventional name Pro ma chon-topolnica which refers to this prehistoric set tle ment that is divided by the Greek and Bulgarian border using the names of the two modern-day neighbouring Greek and Bulgarian villages Promachon and Topolnica. The research results of this project are to be published in a publication under the title Promachon Topolnica. Till now there are two joint preliminary publications: Koukouli-Chryssanthaki et al. 1998a; 1997b. Main collaborators of the progamm: Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, I. Aslanis, I. Vajsov, M. Valla, D. Malamidou, V. Draganov, K. Dimitrov, Ph. Kostantopoulou, D. Amoiridou and J. Bojadžiev (excavation goup); G. Koutetsi-Philippaki (stone tools); R. Christidou (bone objects); Tz. Popova and T. Valamoti (paleobotanology); N. Spassov and K. Tran ta li d ou (palaeozoology); I. Kulev and I. Bassiakos (ar chae o met al lur gy); P. Yiouni (pottery techiques); M. Georgiev, K. Velkovski and D. Stoev (ground probe investigations) and P. Tzanetakis (conservation). In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 49 B U L G A R I A Sector Promachon Sector Topolnica G R E E C E 1 2 3 Fig. 5. 1 Promachon-Topolnica topographic plan of the prehistoric settlement (Drawing M. Georgiev and I. Vajsov); 2 Layer with pottery sherds and pebbles, Sector Topolnica, Phase IV; 2 Layer with pottery sherds and pebbles, Sector Promachon, Phase IV; 4 House nr. 1. Sector Topolnica, Phase IIIB; 5 Timber houses (wattle and daub construction), Sector Promachon, Phase IIIB. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory 4 5

50 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Lab. No Context Material 14 C BP ä 13 C cal. BC HD-20459 5, Square ÓÔ Bone 5999±47-19,30 4939 4805 (68,3%) Phase III 5017 4733 (95,4%) HD-20461 3, Square IA, depth 80,05 m Bone 5447±42-18,62 4341 4250 (68,3%) Phase III (IV) 4360 4145 (95,4%) HD-20462 4, Square IA, depth 80,01 m Bone 5530±48-19,00 4448 4337 (68,3%) Phase III (IV) 4459 4254 (95,4%) DEM-1173 10, Square ÉÓÔ, pasa 10 Charcoal 5996±25-25,00 4910 4810 (68,3%) depth 79,30 m, Phase II 4940 4870 (95,4%) DEM-1185 9, Square ÉÓÔ, pasa 10 Charcoal 5895±33-25,00 4800 4720 (68,3%) depth 79,31 m, Phase II 4850 4690 (95,4%) Bln-3348 Hor. 2b, Square M14, depth Charcoal 6000±80 4970 4780 a 0,90 m, Wohngrube, Phase II DEM-1250 8, Square ÉÓÔ, pasa 8 Charcoal 6068±40-25,00 5030 4860 (68,3%) depth 79,65 m, Phase II 5190 4810 (95,4%) DEM-1254 12, Square ÉÓÔ, pasa 11 Charcoal 6038±40-25,00 4990 4820 (68,3%) depth 78,99 m, Phase II 5040 4800 (95,4%) HD-20457 29, Square Ã, depth 78,17 Charcoal 6188±38-25,77 5227 5061 (68,3%) Phase I 5287 5002 (95,4%) Bln-3382 Hor. 2c, Square J14, Charcoal 6100±60 5200 5180 depth 1,10 m, Phase I 5080 4930 a Bln-3349 Hor. 2c, Square O12 Charcoal 6240±90 5270 5060 a depth 1,20 m, Grube, Phase I Bln-3381 Hor. 2b, Square J11, Charcoal 6270±60 5270 5200 depth 0,80 m, Phase I 5170 5080 a Fig. 6. 14 C dates (according to GÖRSDORF/BOJADŽIEV 1996; MANIATIS/FAKORELLIS 2000; MANIATIS et al. 2004). (CRADDOCK 1995). In Europe, there is no archaeological ev i - dence for copper smelting in the earliest phases of the Late Neolithic. The appearance of cruci bles with copper slag in Sitagroi Phase III prob a bly comes from a copper melting operation (RENFREW/SLATER 2003). The evidence for in ten sive copper ore extraction in the Balkans at the mines of Rudna Glava (JOVANOVIC 1980) and Aibunar (CERNYCH 1978) at the end of the later phase of the Late Neolithic, presupposes the existence of an earlier small scale stage of cop per extraction. This could have begun as early as the first half of the 5 th millennium. The ex am ples from the prehistoric settlement of Pro ma chon-topolnica and the isolated and an un con firmed example from the settlement at Dikili Tash dated to the early phase of the Late Neolithic (Dikili Tash I, Sitagroi II), constitutes the earliest evidence for the autonomous appear ance of copper metallurgy in the first half of the 5 th millennium BC. Below building Phase III with its timberframed-wattle and daub-houses was found the earliest building phase Phase II of the set tle - ment Promachon-Topolnica. In this phase, which is according to 14 C analyses is dated to the beginning of the early phase of the Late Neolithic, occurs in pits and semi-subterranean rooms cut into the natural sub soil. According to the 14 C dates these phases are dated as follow (Fig. 6): Phase II: End of the 6 th millennium, Phase III: First half of the 5 th millennium, Phase IV: End of the first half of the 5 th millennium. We do not as yet have a complete set of 14 C dates for the lower levels of Phase I in the Promahon sector. We also have not checked the 14 C dates against the thermoluminescence dates, and therefore it is still too early to discuss the 14 C dates for Phase IV of Promachon To polni ca compared to those in a similar phase of Dikili Tash II (MANIATIS/FAKORELIS 1996) where the thermoluminescence dates have been checked In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 51 1 2 3 4 Fig. 7. 1 North Profile Square G Crucible Pit; 2 Bottom of the crucible pit; 3 Cavities; 4 Crucible. Sector Promachon, Phase III. 1 2 3 4 Fig. 8. Malachite beads (2 4) and bone (1). Sector Promachon, Phase III. Fig. 9. Clay bead. Sector Topolnica, Phase III. Photo K. Georgiev. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

52 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla (GUIBERT/ROCQUE 2000, 23). However, these dates do appear to be later than the ones for con tem po rary cultures in the Balkans (BO- JADZIEV 1987). Similar semi-subterranean structures of dif fer ent dimensions are already known in the Aegean area (PANTELIDOU/GOFA 1991). They have also been discovered on northern Greek sites in the same chronological horizon, e.g., Makriyalos (PAPPA/BESSIOS 1995, 1998, 1999) Thermi (GRAMMENOS/PAPPA 1992; PAPPA et al. 2000) and Stavroupolis (GRAMMENOS/KOTSOS 2002), Gianitsa B (CHRYSOSTOMOU 1991), which date to the pre-dimini phase of the Late Neolithic (GALES/ DEMOULE 1988). However, the ear li est examples appear already in the Early Neolithic Period in the Southern Greece (Nea Makri, Attiki) (PAN- TELIDOU/GOFA 1991) and North ern Greece too (Gianitsa B, Macedonia) (CHRYSOSTOMOU 1991) Semi-subterranean structures are also known from other parts of South east ern Europe (Ch. LAZAROVICI/C-M.M. LAZAROVICI 2003). In the Bulgarian sector (sector Topolnica), the semi-subterranean structures appear at dif fer ent levels without any distinctive plan. Nine closed complexes have been excavated. The floor level is found at a depth of between 0,60 0,70 m. below the surface of the natural subsoil (from which they were cut) and they do not measure more than 8 10 square meters in area. The finds demonstrate that semi-subterranean structures were living areas and in some cases specialized workshops. Excavation of the floor areas revealed hearths and ovens, which show traces of repeated renewal (Fig. 13). Ev i - dence came to light on the eastern periphery of the settlement located in Bulgarian territory that the settlement had been fortified with rows of up right massive posts that had been interlaced. In the Greek sector (sector Promachon) four structures with semi-subterranean areas were identified. The semi-subterranean structure nr. 1 seems to have continued into the next Trench A and beyond the limit of our excavation area. Since it has not been completely excavated, its plan is still uncertain. In the interior, a series of shallow pits of unequal depth in the natural sub soil were distinguished (Figs. 10 11). In the semi-subterranean structure nr. 2 (Fig. 11) there was a large central cutting in the subsoil with apsidal extensions almost symmetrically arranged. A third semi-subterranean structure nr. 3 was discovered on the south side of the excavated area. The most important subterranean structure nr. 4 in the Promachon sector was found under the timber-framed wattle and daub structures of a later building in Phase III (Fig. 13). It differs from the other semi-subterranean struc tures excavated in the Greek and the Bulgarian sectors. This large, roughly circular sub ter ra nean structure, of which barely a third has been excavated, is much bigger than the already de scribed semi subterranean structures this one having a radius of more than 12 m and a depth of more than 7 m. To this large subterranean room belongs the hearth from level 17, which was found near the eastern wall where it had fallen at an angle towards the centre of the room. Excavation below the hearth floor revealed another lower floor level with pottery vessels in situ and the remains of structures. Whitish trac es on the floor probably came from a wooden structure, while the large hole can be related to a wooden post that supported a wooden floor platform or the roof of the subterranean build ing (KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2001). Fur ther excavation showed that below the level 23 floor there existed many earlier floor levels that are testimony to the continuous use of the room. These floor levels and the deposits on them were covered by thin layers of a white material with organic remains and thick layers of a fine sandy soil, which extends from the walls of the pit and sloped downwards towards the centre where they leveled out (KOUKOULI-CHRYS- SANTHAKI et al. 2003). Below the floor levels with shallow deposits, which were not particularly rich in finds and below a layer of fine sandy soil, there appeared a rather thick deposit rich in finds. Among the many pebbles and stones were large number of grinding stones that are scattered around and a substantial number of intact and fragmented vessels, as well as fragments from clay struc tures, animal bones and horns (Fig. 12:1). Of spe cial interest was the presence of bulls skulls usu al ly facing upwards (Fig. 12:2). The deposits were located on floors plastered with yellowish clay and contain a large number of small ob jects including figurines, tools and jewelry (KOUK OU LI- CHRYSNANTHAKI et al. 2003). In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 53 Fig. 9. Sector Topolnica, Phases II and III. Fig. 10. Sector Promachon, Phase I and II. structure nr. 1 structure nr. 2 structure nr. 3 structure nr. 4 structure nr. 5 The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory Fig. 11. Sector Promachon, Phases I, II and III.

54 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla 1 2 3 4 Fig. 12. Sector Promachon, Phase II: 1 Detail of the destruction level nr. 28; 2 Destruction level nr. 31 bull s skull in situ ; 3 Destruction level nr. 31; 4 Destruction level nr. 36. Fig. 33. Sector Promachon, Phases II and III. Subterranean structure nr. 4. Destruction layer nr. 28. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 55 1 2 Fig. 14. Sector Promachon, Phase II: 1 Subterranean structure nr. 4 View of the interior walls, hearth belonging to level nr. 17 and Floor levels platforms (?) sloping towards the center; 2 Section of a floor level. We also note a similar deposit with the same type of vases and bull skulls that was excavated outside the subterranean room, this indicates a coeval use of the space inside and outside the pit. Below the level 28 destruction and after a few levels without finds successive destruction levels were noted. In an analogous context, a great quantity of burnt clay fragments, grind ing stones, vases, figurines, tools, pieces of jew el ry animal bones and many bull skulls were found (Figs. 12:1 3). Large pieces of clay with molded surfaces are of particular interest. These were excavated very carefully but have not yet been conserved or studied. Some certainly, come from hearth floors. Others could come from the wall decorations or benches, e.g., a fragment of a bull s head, which resembles a similar find from a Phase II building at Dikili Tash (TREUIL/DARCQUE 1998). However, the one from Pro ma chon-topolnica is sculptured in clay rather than be ing a clay-covered bull s skull. The numerous floor levels with similar phas es (Fig. 12:4) show the successive use phases of the circular (?) subterranean structure. A hearth sloping towards the centre in the up per most level 17 in the interior of this sub ter ra nean room is noted (Fig. 14:1). Half of this hearth has been left unexcavated in the in te ri or of the pit to better understand the slope of the levels toward the centre of the sub ter ra nean room. The stratigraphy under the hearth cor re sponds completely to the stratigraphic pic ture of the succession of levels indicated in the north ern and western profiles of our excavated trench. The appearance of successive ar chae o log i cal levels with similar finds and the context of each under a similar level of sandy soil in di cates regular renewal. This could have resulted from the successive destructions of the subterranean structure and regularly planned re con struc - tions, or could represent erosion deposits cover ing an original subterranean room without a roof. On the other hand, the existence of suc ces - sive construction phases in an original natural pit cannot yet be excluded. The floor level of this pit could have been steadily raised from the debris of the earlier phases. As the excavations progressed, and after the removal of the deep est archaeological layers, the internal walls of the subterranean room were very obviously at floor level. The walls were plastered with layers of compacted clay reinforced with pebbles. In only two places in the SW and NW corners of the excavated part of the subterranean room did we reach the earliest stages of the con struc tion of the wall surfaces (Fig. 14:1) that rest ed on the natural subsoil. At the same time we discovered successive repairs on the interior wall facings. The successive layers of clay that cov ered the surface on the interior walls of the pit was indicative of a covered space. The regular slope of the floor levels towards the centre and the disorderly mass of objects in the middle of the pit where the floors level out, demonstrate the collapse of successive wooden floors towards the centre of this subterranean room. The existence of clay-covered wooden floors (Fig. 14:2) in the interior of the pit was also confirmed in the deeper levels, where because of the great depth and the very damp con di - The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

56 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla 1 2 Fig. 15. Sector Promachon, Phase II: 3 Fragment of a basket; 4 Detail of a wooden post. tions, large timbers were preserved below the clay floor surfaces (Fig. 15:2). Among these was a com plete, large branch (Fig. 15:2; See POPO- VA 1992). The timbers were covered with mud plaster and were often only recognizable from the red color of the floor and their arrangement which, in plac es, seemed to demonstrate the existence of a wooden sub struc ture below the clay covered floors. The appearance of a layer of stones deep in the SW part of the excavated semi-sub ter - ra nean room at level 33 could indicate a second build ing phase within it, which was preceded by a leveling fill of stones (Fig. 17). These heapedup stones could also come from the sidewalls of the pit or from some other stone structure, which had collapsed into the interior of the pit. A stonewall in the interior of the structure could have helped support the floor but stone walls have not been noted up to date in the Neolithic architecture of Macedonia. The great depth and the constant moisture helped the preservation of objects made from organic material: fragments of baskets, as well as a fragment from a wooden cist. Even more remarkable is a thin sliver of bark with painted decoration (Figs. 16; 19). A major challenge is to determine how the roof of such a large room was supported. The upper excavated levels give some evidence Fig. 16. Fragment of a piece of a bark with painted decoration. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Photo I. Vajsov. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 57 Fig. 17. Sector Promachon, Level nr. 33, Phase II. for the existence of timber posts, but since we still have not reached the original floor of the sub ter ra nean room, we are not able to understand the architectural construction of this particular building. The exceptionally difficult nature of this ex ca va tion at the lowest archaeological levels com pelled us to confine our investigation to partial testing of the levels in the semi-subterranean structure without completely removing the ar chae o log i cal deposits, which continued below the start of the plastered outer walls. We think it likely that the remaining archaeological de pos its are relatively thin and possibly derive from the oldest platform within the semi-sub ter - ra nean structure, which had been con struct ed before the inner walls were built around the pit, or belong to an earlier habitation phase. In addition to the problems of the original form and the internal arrangement of the subter ra nean structure, the principal focus of inter est of this circular building remains the clear difference in size and depth between it and the other semi-subterranean structures found in both Promachon and Topolnica sectors, which have been interpreted as dwelling places. As well as the size of the semi-subterranean structure, the great number of finds and quan ti ty of animals bones concentrated in the suc ces sive layers of the deeper floor levels should be emphasized (Fig. 20). A great quantity of pottery vessels has also been noted. Storage ves sels are present, but most of the vases are ta ble ware of very fine quality. The predominant shapes are askoi, amphorae, cups, pedestal or flat-based bowls, as well as the so-called lamps Fig. 18. A branch from level nr. 33. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Fig. 19. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Reconstruction of a decorated fragment from a piece of a bark with painted decoration. with incised decoration (Figs. 20; 72). The central representation of askoi and their zoo mor - phic forms are of special interest. The as kos is frequently found next to a bull s skull and is accompanied by shallow bowls, and some times by pedestal bowls (Fig. 12:2). The number of miniature vases is also particularly well rep re - sent ed. The high quality of the pottery and vessel decoration is particularly remarkable. There are different kinds of incised, rippled or painted decorations, which represent characteristic cat e - go ries of the decorated pottery from the early phase of Late Neolithic period in the northern Aegean area and especially in Eastern Macedonia at the prehistoric settlements of Akropotamos (MYLONAS/BAKALAKIS 1938; MYLONAS 1941), of Dikili Tash (Phase I) (SEFERIADES 1983, TSIRT- SONI 2000) and of Sitagroi (Phase II) (KEIGLEY 1986), in Aegean Thrace and at the settlement of Paradimi (Phas es II III) (BAKALAKIS/SAKEL- LARIOU 1981, 15 20, Beil. 4 9, 13II 14) as well as in the Struma val ley (PER NICE VA 1995) and in The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

58 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Askoi Anthropo-zoomorphic askoi CERAMIC LAMP ASKOI Drum-shaped stands Anthropo-zoomorphic askoi Fig. 20. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Subterranean structure nr. 4 Finds from the successive layers. Destruction level nr. 28. Drawing I. Vajsov. the interior of the Bal kans (D. GARASANIN/M. GARASANIN 1979; GIM B U TAS 1976, 119 150). Among the painted vessels, those with bi tu - mi nous paint deserve special mention (GIOUNI et al. 1994) (Figs. 23 24, 37 38). Tools and jewelry were found scattered through out all three strata. These included flint axes and blades (Fig. 49), clay spindle whorls, clay loom weights, and bone points. There were also spondylus shell bracelets (Fig. 46) mar ble beads (Figs. 53:3 5), and a small number of malachite beads (Figs. 8:2 4). Schematic marble figurines are also present, as well as min ia ture marble bowls with traces of red color (Fig. 54). The number and variety of clay figurines whose size and shape varies is also significant (Figs. 56 68; 70). Very roughly fashioned fig u - rines (Figs. 56 57), are often found in the deeper levels, while many figurines of high qual i ty, finishing and firing are also found. A num ber of different types of figurines can also be identified. Women are represented with em pha - sized female characteristics, which are es sen - tial ly linked to the creation of new life and their ma ter nal role (Fig. 61). The female form is usually represented with bird-like face, which is probably related to a bird face goddess (GIMBUTAS 1986, 247 249 Figs. 9, 46, 48). A child held by a kourotrophos female also has a bird-like face (Figs. 56 57). The appearance of a type of a figurine with two fig ures united into a single body is also of par tic u lar interest. This type is also known from Ana to lia (Hacilar) and from the Vinča culture (VASIĆ 1936; KOROŠEC 1959; 1960; 1962). Other figurines from the lower floor lev els of the circular semi-subterranean structure resemble those from Vinča B2 (VASIĆ 1936; SREJOVIĆ 1984) (Figs. 64; 66). Although female types pre dom i nate, many male figurines have also been found in the different levels of the subterranean room (Figs. 61:1 2). The discovery outside of the subterranean room of a stone phallo-morphic sculpture, of exceptional scale for the period, shows the clear recognition In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 59 Fig. 21. Sector Promachon, level nr. 31. Phase II. Bowl nr. A311 in situ. Fig. 22. Sector Promachon. Phase II. Bowl nr. A311 after restoration. Fig. 23. Sherds with bituminous decoration Topolnica type. Phase II. (Scale 1:2). of the male and fe male reproductive forces. The phallo-morphic sculpture was found outside the pit in layers contemporary with the floor of this circular semi-subterranean structure. (KOUKOU- LI-CHRYS SAN TAH KI et al. 1998) (Figs. 65; 67). A two-roomed house-model found in the low er floor levels of the circular semi-sub ter - ra nean structure is particularly remarkable. It was restored from the many scattered fragments found in these floors. A small verandah Fig. 24. Sherds with bituminous decoration Topolnica type. Phase II. (Scale 2:3). leads into the interior of this model, which has one rectangular and one apsidal room. The roof is pitched and the doors are arched. The win dows are round or elliptical. Relief bucrania dec o rate the facade and the interior wall and the par a pets of the verandah. Externally, the walls are decorated with incised and painted motifs. The motifs and styles of decoration are similar to those found on the pottery vessels 2. A second model, from which only a portion 2 The dimensions of house-model nr. 1: Length 0,385 m., maximum width 0,38 m., minimum width 0,325 m., maxi mum height (without the base) 0,15 m., minimum height (without the base) 0,12 m. The conservation and the res to - ra tion work have not been completed. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

60 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla of the front part remains, is of the same type with a verandah and interior wall decorated with bucrania. This model was found outside the cir cu lar semi-subterranean structure in a level above the natural surface, which corresponds to the lower floor level within the structure (Figs. 25a 25b) 3. After the discovery of these two clay housemodels in the Promachon sector (Figs. 25a 25b; 27), we can attempt the first representation of the houses themselves, which, based on the ev i dence from the excavation, probably had a raised upper structure with pitched roof (Fig. 27). Are we justified in comparing the ap pear - ance of the house-models with the large, semisub ter ra nean structure completing it as apsidal or elliptical in plan and adding in, or above this, an apsidal building with a pitched roof? Such an interpretation cannot be excluded, nor can the possibility that the house-models represent the contemporary form of the typical houses in the settlement, which, of course, were very differ ent from the large semi-subterranean structure, possibly circular or elliptical in plan. Already in the Preceramic phase of the Ear ly Neolithic period in the Near East at Jerf el Ahr am (STOREDEUR et al. 2000) and Murreybet (AU RENCHE 1980) in the upper Euphrates valley in Syria, simple houses in the settlements differ from the so-called public buildings. The former are built above-ground and rectangular or apsidal in form, frequently with rounded cor ners. The latter are semi-subterranean, and very much larg er. Public buildings in Anatolia, re tain the cir cu lar and semi-subterranean tra di tion while the typical house form changes (Fig. 29). The presence in the Near East of buildings dedicated to public use in the Preceramic phase of the Neolithic period, i.e. the 10 th and 9 th millennia BC, has demonstrated that, al ready from their first beginnings, Neolithic set tle ments were not simply undifferentiated collections of individual dwellings but rather a single com plex of buildings which reflected the social or ga niza tion of the community. The intangible nature of this social organization can, of course, only be approached with difficultly through the mate ri al remains. Recent finds from the Near East thus provide evidence from the Preceramic phase of the Neolithic period for the existence of public buildings with a symbolic character. These include the multifunctional buildings at Murreybet and Jerf el Ahram and others with specific functions such as the assembly rooms as Jerf el Ahram, the shrines at Gobekli Tepe (SCHMIDT 2000) in upper Mesopotamia and at Nevali Cori (HAUPTMANN 1999) in Turkey and the houses of the dead in the Neolithic settlement of Dja de el Mughara. (COQUEUGNIOT 1998). The fortification walls, tombs, public areas, streets between houses and megalithic the graves in Europe constitute clear evidence for design collaboration in the construction of public works during the Neolithic period. Maybe the large semi-subterranean structure of the Neolith ic settlement on the Greek-Bulgarian border can be defined as one such distinctive building, which was used by the community for activities of a symbolic nature? Based on the stratigraphy and the finds, we can begin to approach these issues, albeit with considerable caution and frequent areas of uncer tain ty. The presence of a large number of luxury vessels as well as tools, jewelry and figurines in association with large numbers of grinding stones and quantities of animal bones and horn cores presupposes the presence of a large num ber of participants at the celebrations which took place here. The evidence for this lies in the material remains of the successive ar chae o log i cal levels that demonstrate the con sump tion, or offering, of meat or other foods. The fre quent presence of bulls skulls (bucrania) in the suc ces sive floors maybe constitutes a kind of sym bol ism, which is not fully understood as yet. Do they form part of the decoration of the building or part of the offerings, together with the skulls of smaller horned animals which were found in the same levels? The bull is a particularly powerful symbol in the Near East and is found in the public buildings at Jerf el Ahram, and at Murreybet and in the house shrines at Çatal Hüyük (MEL- 3 The Dimensions of the house-model nr. 2: Preserved Length 0,080 m, maximum width 0,23 m, maximum height (without the base) 0,16 m, minimum height 0,08 m., height of the base 0,043 m. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 61 Fig. 25 a. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Clay house-model Fasade (nr. 2). Fig. 25 b. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Clay house-model (nr. 2). (Scale 1:4). Drawing I. Vajsov. Fig. 26. Sector Promachon, Level 33, Phase II. Clay house-model (nr. 1) (Scale 1:4). LAART 1967) and Hacilar (MELLAART 1970) and of course it is also present in Europe. Bucrania whether natural or covered in clay, in relief or sculpted in the round, frequently appear in the settlements of the Tisza and Vinča cultures (VASIć 1936; CHAPMAN 1981) and are also found in Macedonia. However, the symbolism in the build ings where they are found is not clear and archaeologists hold conflicting opinions. In the building in Phase I at Dikili Tash, which was decorated with bucrania plastered with clay, the excavators (DARCQUE/TREUIL 1997; TREUIL/ The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

62 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Fig. 27. Sector Topolnica. New proposal for the re con struc tion of house nr. 2. (Reconstruction by Ch. Koukouli-Chrisantaki). This reconstruction supports the idea that the structure had a pitched roof similar to the ones on the discovered house-models (Figures 25 and 26). Fig. 28. Sector Topolnica, Phase II. Re con struc tion of house nr. 2 (Reconstruction I. Vajsov in Todor o va/vajsov 1993, 160, Fig. 131). Drawing I. Vajsov. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 63 Fig. 29. Tell Jerf el Ahmar. Houses around the subterranean circular community building (according to STOREDEUR et al. 2000). DARCQUE 2000) did not of fer any particular interpretation. The building at Parţa in Roumania, (LAZAROVICI 1989; Ch. LAZAROVICI at al. 1994, 2001; Ch. LAZAROVICI/C-M.M. LAZAROVICI 2003; C-M.M. LAZAROVICI 2004) however, which dates to the end of the Late Neolithic period, was identified by the ex ca va tor as a shrine. However, in the case of the semi-sub ter - ra nean structure in the Promachon-Topolnica set tle ment, the frequent and repeated presence of bucrania in a specific location in successive layers of unusual character can, in our view, be seen as a principal characteristic, which dif fer - en ti ates the semi-subterranean structure from the other houses of the settlement. On the other hand, the collaborative activity in a large subterranean structure is not unique: At the Neolithic settlement of Makriyalos. a large pit has been excavated with large quan ti ties of animal bones and pottery sherds. It is dated to the earliest settlement phase and the palae o log i cal and taphonomic study of the finds detected clear evidence for communal activity (PAPPA et al. 2003). The significance of the results from a de tailed study of the palaeozoological material from the Promachon-Topolnica subterranean room and their potential to surprise is indicated by the recognition of a fragment of human skull among the bones (Figs. 30 31). It is the second fragment of human bone: the first was a piece from a jawbone from the earlier excavations. New information is also expected from the palaeogeomorphology study of the region which may perhaps show whether such pits occur nat u ral ly. The study of the micromorphology is ex - pect ed to provide specific answers to questions about the composition and nature of the deposits with in the semi-subterranean structure. Carbon 14 datings, which are in progress in the Archaeometry laboratory at Democritos, will date the succession of the strata with greater precision. Fig. 30. Fragment of a human ramus mandibulae. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Fig. 31. Fragment of human skull. Sector Promachon, Phase II. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

64 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla References AURENCHE 1980 O. Aurenche, Un exemple de l architecture domestique au VIII millénair. In: J. Margueron (ed.), La maison XLVII de Mureybet. Le moyen Eu phrate, zone de contact et d échanges (1980), 35 54. ANDREOU et al 1996 S. Andreou, M. Fotiadis and K. Kotsakis, Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 100 (1996), 537 597. BĂČVAROVA 2002 Д. Бъчварова, Петрич през вековете (Sofia 1999). BAILEY 2000 D.W. Bailey, Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, incorporation and identity (London New York 2000). BAKALAKIS/SAKELLARIOU 1981 G. Bakalakis and A. Sakellariou, Paradimi. Internationale Interakademische Kommission für die Erforschung der Vorgeschichte des Bal kans. Monоgraphien Bd. II (Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mainz am Rhein 1981), 15 20, Beil. 4 9, 13II 14. BLÉCON et al. 1992 J. Blécon, M. Séfériadés and R. Treuil, La stratigraphie et la chronologie. In: R. Treuil (ed.). Dikili Tash. Village préhistorique de Macédoine orientale. I. Fouilles de Jean De shayes (1961 1975), volume 1. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellé nique (Supplément) XXIV (Paris 1992), 19 37. BOJADŽIEV 1987 J. Bojadziev, Probleme der absoluten Datierung der prähistorischen Kulturen für die Zeitspanne 5000 3500 v.u.z. Acta Interdisciplinaria 14, 1987, 11 22. BOJADŽIEV/VAJSOV 1988 Я. Бояджиев, И. Вайсов, Разкопки на неолитното селище Кременица при с. Тополница Петричко. АОР през 1987, XXXIII Национална конференция по археология. 1988, 26 27. BOJADŽIEV/VAJSOV 1989 Я. Бояджиев, И. Вайсов, Разкопки на неолитното селище Кременица при с. Тополница, Петричко. АОР през 1988, XXXIV Национална конференция по археология, 1989, 8 9. BOJADŽIEV/VAJSOV 1990 Я. Бояджиев, И. Вайсов, Разкопки на обект Кременица при с. Тополница през 1989. АОР през 1989, XXXV Национална конференция по археология, 1990, 14 15. BOJADŽIEV/VAJSOV 1991 Я. Бояджиев, И. Вайсов, Разкопки на обект Кременица при с. Тополница, Петричко. АОР през 1990, XXXVI Национална конференция по археология, 1991, 14 15. CHAPMAN 1981 J.C. Chapman, The Vinča Culture of South-East Europe, Parts 1 and 2. BAR International Series 117, 1981. CHAPMAN 1989 J.C. Chapman, The Early Balkan Village. In: P. Paczky (ed.). In: Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. International Conference 1987 Szolnok-Szeged. Varia Archealogica Hungarica II (Budapest 1989), 33 35. CHOHADZIEV 1986 St. Chohadziev, Frühäneolitische Keramik aus der prähistorischen Siedlung bei Slatino. Studia Praehistorica 8, 1986, 185 202. CERNYCH 1988 E. Cernych, Aibunar, A Balkan Copper Mine of the 4 rth Millenium B.C. PPS 44, 1978, 203 217. CHRYSOSTOMOU 1991 P. Chrysostomou, Οι νεολιθικές έρευνες στην πόλη και την επαρχία Γιαννιτσών κατά το 1991. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 5, 1991, 111 125. COQUEUGNIOT 1998 E. Coqueugniot, De el Moughra (Moyen Euphrate) un village néolithique dans son environ-nement naturel a la veille de la domestication. In: M. Fortin, O. Aurenche (eds.). Espace naturel espace habité en Syrie du nord (10 e 2 e millénaires av. J.C.), 1998, 109 114. CRADDOCK 1995 T. Craddock, Early Metal mining and production, 1995, 122 126. DOMARADZKI et аl. 2001 M. Domaradzki, Materiaux concernant l archeologie de la Struma moyenne (М. Домарадски и колектив. Материали за археологията на Средна Струма.) Разкопки и проучвания XXVII (Sofia 2001). DARCQUE/TREUIL 1997 P. Darcque, R. Treuil. Un bucrane néolithique. Dossier d Archéologie 222, 1991, 26 27. DEMOULE et al. 1988 J.-P. Demoule, K. Gallis, L. Manolakakis. Tradition entre les cultures néolithiques de Ses c lo et de Dimini. Les catégories céramiques. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 112/1, 1988, 1 58. GARAŠANIN D./M. GARAŠANIN 1979 D. Garašanin, M. Garašanin, Supska Stublina, praistorijsco naselje Vinčanska gruppa, 1979. GEORGIEV 1982 E. Georgiev, Dismantling a Neolithic Kiln from the Prehistoric Settlement of Kremenitsa near the Vilage of Topolnitsa Blagoevgrad District (Е. Георгиев. Демонтиране на неолитна пещ от праисторичес-кото селище Кременица край с. Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. Интердисциплинарни изследвания IX, 1982, 119 124. GIMBUTAS 1976 M. Gimbutas, Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by excavation at Anza Southeast Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica I (Los Angeles 1976). In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 65 GIMBUTAS 1986 M. Gimbutas, Mythical Imagery of Sitagroi Society. In: C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas, E.S. Elster (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Vil lage in Northeast Greece, vol. I. Monumenta Ar chae o log i ca 13 (Los Angeles 1986), 225 301. GÖRSDORF/BOJADŽIEV 1996 J. Görsdorf and J Bojadžiev, Zur absoluten Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. Berliner 14 C-Datierungen von bulgarischen archäologischen Fundplätzen. Euroasia Antiqua 2 (Mainz am Rhein 1996), 105 173. GRAMMENOS et al. 1992 D. Grammenos, М.Pappa, D.Ourem-Kotsou, K. Skourtopoulou, E. Giannoylh, X. Maragou, S.M. Balamoti, G. Siridis, E. Marki and R. Christidou, Ανασκαφή νεολιθικού οικισμού Θέρμης Β και βυζαντινής εγκατάστασης παρά τον προϊστορικό οικισμό Θέρμη Α. Ανασκαφική περίοδος 1989. Μακεδονικά ΚΗ (Thessaloniki 1992), 381 501. GRAMMENOS/KOTSOS 2002 D. Grammenos, S. Kotsos, Σωστικές ανασκαφές στο νεολιθικό οικισμό Σταυρούπολης Θεσσαλονίκης, (Thessaloniki 2002). GUIBERT/ROCQUE 2000 F. Guibert, C. Rocque, La datation par thermoluminescence. Dossier d Archéologie 253, 2000, 23. EVANS 1986 R.K. Evans, The Pottery of Phase III. In: C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas, E.S. Elster (eds.), Ex ca va tions at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece, vol. I. Monumenta Archaeologica 13 (Los An ge les 1986), 393 428. HAUPTMANN 1999 H. Hauptmann, The Urfa region. In: M. Özdogan, N. Basgelen (eds.). Neolithic Turkey. The cradle of civilization. New discoveries vol. 2, 1999, 65 86. HILLER 1989 S. Hiller, Das Neolithicum in Karanovo und seine chronologische Stellung zu den gleichzeitigen Kul-turen in Nordgriechenland und Serbien. In: S. Hiller (ed.). Tell Karanovo und das Balkan Neolthicum, 1989, 165 179. JOVANOVIĆ 1980 B. Jovanović. Primary Copper mining and production of Copper. Scientific Studies in Early Mining and Extractive Metallurgy, British Museum Occasional Papers 20, 1980, 81 40. JOVANOVIĆ/GLIŠIĆ 1960. B. Jovanović, J. Glišić, Station néolithique dans la localité de Kormadin près de Ja k o vo. Starinar 11, 1960, 128 132. KEIGHLEY 1986 J.M. Keighley, The Pottery of Phases I and II. In: C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas, E.S. Elster (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi. A Prehistoric Village in North-east Greece. vol. I. Monumenta Archaeologica 13 (Los Angeles 1986), 345 392. KOROŠEC 1959 J. Korošec, Prehistorijska glinena plastika u Jugoslavij I. Neolitiske plastiène izrapevine u Vinči. Arheoloski radovi i rasprave Jugoslavenske I, 1959, 61 117. KOROŠEC 1960. J. Корошец. Око питања значења статуета са двема главама. Научни зборник Матице српске (Нови Сад) 26, 1960, 5 18. KOROŠEC 1962. J. Korošec, Prehistorijska glinena plastika u Jugoslavij II. Arheoloski radovi i rasprave Jugoslavenske II, 1962, 103 174. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI 2000 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, Προϊστορικός οικισμός Πρoμαχώνoς-Τopolnica. Aρχαιολογικον δελτίον 50, 1995, 627 629. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI/BASSIAKOS 2002 Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, I. Bassiakos, Nonslagging copper pro duc tion of 5 th millennium: The evidence from the neolithic settlement of Promachon-Topolnica (Estern Macedonia, Greece). In: 8 th EAA Annual Meeting 24 29 September 2002, Thessaloniki, Hellas. Abstracts book (Thessaloniki 2002), 193 194. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1995a X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, Πρoμαχώνaς-Topolnica. Ενα πρόγραμμα ελληνo-βoυλγαρικής συνεργασίας. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 6, 1992 (1995), 561 575. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1995b X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, M. Βάλλα, Ανασκαφή στον προϊστορικό οικισμό Προμαχώνας-Topolnica κατά το 1995. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 9, 1998, 435 440. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1996 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, Πρoμαχώνaς-Topolnica: Ελληνoβoυλγαρικές έρευνες στoν προϊστoρικό oικισμό. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 7, 1993 (1996), 505 512. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997a Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, I. Aslanis, J. Bojadziev, F. Konstantopoulou, I. Vajsov, M. Valla, V. Draganov, The Promachonas/Topolnica a Settlement: Programe for Greek-Bulgarian Cooperation. (X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, H. Todorova, I. Ασλάνης, J. Bojadziev, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα, V. Draganov. Nεoλιθικός οικισμός Πρoμαχώνoς-Τopolnica. Πρόγραμμα ελληνoβoυλγαρικής συνεργασίας.). Δέκα Xρόυια Aρχαιολογικό έργο στη Mακεδoυία και Θράκη (ΔXΑEMΘ) (Thessaloniki 1997), 123 127. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997b Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, H. Todorova, J. Aslanis, J. Bojadziev, I. Vajsov, M. Valla, Promachonas-Topolnica. (X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, H. Todorova, I. Ασλάνης, J. Bojadziev, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα. Πρoμαχώνoς-Topolnica. Νεολιθικός οικισμός ελληνοβoυλγαρικών συνόρων). Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 10b, 1997, 745 767. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1997c X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, M. Βάλλα, Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 1997: Ανασκαφή ενός προϊστορικού οικισμού στα ελληνοβουλγαρικά σύνορα. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 11, 1997, 549 555. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

66 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998a X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, H. Todorova, I. Ασλάνης, J. Bojadziev, Πρoμαχώνας-Topolnica: Πρόγραμμα ελληνοβoυλγαρικής συνεργασίας. In: Δ. Σερρω, Οι Σέρρες και η Περιοχή τους από την Αρχαία στη Μεταβυζαντινή Κοινωνία, Πρακτικα συνεδρίου, A Tόμος (Thessaloniki 1998), 7 24. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1998b X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ, M. Βάλλα, Ανασκαφή νεολιθικού οικισμού Προμαχώνα-Topolnica 1998. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 12, 2000, 67 76. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 1999 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, Φ. Kωνσταντoπoύλoυ and M. Βάλλα, Ανασκαφή στον προϊστορικό οικισμό Προμαχώνα-Topolnica κατά το 1999. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 13 (Thessaloniki 1999), 111 116. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2000 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, M. Βάλλα, Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2000. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 14, 2000, 87 98. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2001 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, M. Βάλλα, Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2001. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 15, 2001, 75 82. KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI et al. 2004 X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα, Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2002 2003. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 17, 2004, 91 110. LAZAROVICI 1989 Ch. Lazarovici, Das neolithische Heiligtum von Parta. Varia Archaologica Hungarica II (Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Eastern Con nec - tions International Conference 1987, Szolnok Szeged), 1989, 149 174. LAZAROVICI et al. 1994 Ch. Lazarovici, Fl. Draşovean, Z. Maxim, Complexul neolitic de la Parţa. Analele Banatului, Arheologie-Istorie III, 1994, 106 134. LAZAROVICI et al. 2001 Ch. Lazarovici, Fl. Draşovean, Z. Maxim, Parţa. Monografie arheologică vol. I.1 and vol. I.2, (Timişoara 2001). LAZAROVICI, Ch./C-M.M. LAZAROVICI 2003 Ch. Lazarovici, C-M.M. Lazarovici, The Neo- Eneolithic Ar chi tec ture in Banat,Transylvania and Moldavia. In: D. Gram menos (ed.), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans. Publications of the Archeological Institute of Northern Greece Nr.3, (Tessaloniki 2003), 391 394. LAZAROVICI C-M.M. 2004 Sanctuaries of the Precuteni-Cucuteni Cultures (C-M. M. Lazarovici. Sanctuarele Precucuteni- Cucuteni). Arheologia Moldovej XXV (Bucareşti 2004), 47 67. MANIATIS/FAKORELLIS 2000 I. Maniatis and G. Fakorellis, Αποτελέσματα ραδιοχρονολόγησης δειγμάτων από τον Προμαχώνα-Topolnica. In: X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, M. Βάλλα. Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2000. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 14, 2000, 93. MANIATIS et al. 2004 I. Maniatis, K. Gogidou, M. Kyriazi, Αποτελέσματα ραδιοχρονολόγησης δειγ-μάτων από τον Προμαχώνα-Topolnica. In: X. Koυκoύλη- Xρυσανθάκη, I. Ασλάνης, I. Vajsov, M. Βάλλα. Προμαχώνας-Topolnica 2002 2003. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 17, (Thessaloniki 2004), 101. MELLAART 1967 J. Mellaart, Catal Huyuk, A Neolithic town in Anatolia (London 1967). MELLAART 1970 J. Mellaart, Excavations at Hacilar (Edinburg 1970). MYLONAS/BAKALAKIS 1938 Г.Е. Мυλονας, Г. Мπακαλκμς, Ανασκαφα νεολιθικν συνοικισμν Ακροποτάμου καί Πολυστύλου. Praktika, 1938, 103 106. MYLONAS 1941 G.E. Mylonas, The Site of Akropotamos and the Neolithic Period of Macedonia. American Journal of Archaeology 45, 1941, 557 576. NIKOLOV 1976 Б. Николов, Градешница. Праисторически селища (Sofia 1976). PANTELIDOU-GAFA 1991 M. Pantelidou-Gofa, H νεολιθική Νέα Μάκρη, (Athen 1991). PAPPA/BESSIOS 1995 M. Pappa, M. Bessios, Νεολιθικός οικισμός Μακρύγιαλου, 1995. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑΕΜΘ) 9, 1995, 175 176. PAPPA et al. 1998 M. Pappa et al, Nεολιθικός οικισμός Μακρύγιαλου. Συμπληρωματικές Έρευνες 1997 1998. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑΕΜΘ) 12, 1998, 283 289. PAPPA/BESSIOS 1999 M. Pappa, M. Bessios, The Neolith ic Settlement at Makrayalos, Northern Greece: Pre lim i nary Report on the 1993 1995 Excavations. Journal of Field Archaeology 26, 1999, 177 195. PAPPA et al. 2000 M. Pappa, M. Nanoglou, S. Nitsou. Ανασκαφή νεολιθικού οικισμού Θέρμης. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑΕΜΘ) 14, 2000, 179 186. PAPPA et al. 2003 M. Pappa, P. Halstead, K. Kotsakis, S. Kotsou, U. Duska, Evidence for landscape feasting at Late Neolithic, Makriyalos, Northern Greece. In: G. Barret, P. Halstead (eds.). Food cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology (2003). PERNICHEVA 1983 L. Pernièeva, Prehistory of the Strumešnica. In: J. Sliwa, M. Domaradski (eds.), The Low er Strumešnica Valley in Prehistoric, Ancient and Early Medieval Times (Krakow 1983), 11 31. PERNICHEVA 1995 L. Pernicheva, Prehistoric cultures in the Middle Struma Valley: Neolithic and Eneolithic. In: D. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 67 Bailey, I. Panajotov (eds.), Prehistoric Bul gar ia. Monogr. World Arch. 22, 1995, 99 140. PERNICHEVA 2002 L. Pernicheva, Die prähistorische Siedlung Balgarcevo. In: M. Lichardus-Itten, J. Lichardus, V. Nikolov (eds.). Beitrage zu jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien (Saarbruken 2002), 271 324. POPOVA 1992 Tz. Popova, Etude anthracologique et carpologique de cing sites archéologiques de Bulgarie. Premiers résultats. Bulletin Soc. bot. Fr., 139, Actual. bot. (2/3/4) ( Société botanique de France Paris 1992), 395 405. RENFREW/SLATER 2003 C. Renfrew, E.A. Slater. Metal Artifacts and Metallurgy. In: E.S. Elster and C. Ren frew (eds.). Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in North east Greece 1968 1970, vol. 2: The Final Report, Mon u men ta Archaeologica 20 (Los Angeles 2003), 301 324. SEFERIADES 1983 M. Séfériadés, Dikili Tash: Introduction à la préhistoire de la Macédoine orientale. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 107, 1983, 653 657. SREJOVIć 1984. Д. Среjовић, Уметности и религиjа. In: Винча у праисториjи и средњем веку (Beograd 1984), 42 56. STOJANOVA-SERAFIMOVA 1970 Д. Стоянова-Серафимова, Праисторически селища край Благоевград. Археология 1970/2 (Sofia 1970), 69 81. SCHMIDT 2000 K. Schmidt, Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey. A Preliminary report on the 1995 1999 Ex ca va - tions. Paleorient 26, 1, 2000, 48 54. STORDEUR et al. 2000 B. Stordeur, M. Brenet, G. Der Aprahamian and L. Poux, Les bâtiments communautaires de Jerf El Ahmar et Murreybet horizon PPNA (Syrie). Paleorient 26/1, 2000, 29 43. TODOROVA 1982 Х. Тодорова, Проучвания на къснонеолитното и ранноенеолитното селище при с. Тополница. АОР през 1981, 13. TODOROVA 1983 Х. Тодорова, Разкопки на обект Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. АОР през 1982 XXVIII Национална конференция по археология, 1983, 11 13. TODOROVA 1984 Х. Тодорова, Разкопки на обект Кременица при с. Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. АОР през 1983 XXIX Национална конференция по археология, 1984, 18 19. TODOROVA/BOJADŽIEV 1985 Х. Тодорова, Я. Бояджиев, Разкопки на обект Кременица при с. Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. АОР през 1984 XXX Национална конференция по археология, 1985, 18 19. TODOROVA/BOJADŽIEV 1986 Х. Тодорова, Я. Бояджиев, Разкопки на неолитното селище Кременика край с. Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. АОР през 1985, XXXI Национална конференция по археология, 1986, 19 20. TODOROVA/BOJADŽIEV 1987 Х. Тодорова, Я. Бояджиев, Разкопки на неолитното селище Кременица край с. Тополница, Благоевградски окръг. АОР през 1986, XXXII Национална конференция по археология, 1987, 35 36. TODOROVA/VAJSOV 1993 H. Todorova, I. Vajsov, The Neolithic in Bulgaria (Х. Тодоров, И. Вайсов. (Новокаменната епоха в България. Краят на седмото шестото хилядолетие преди новата ера) (Sofia 1993). TODOROVA 1993 Х. Тодорова, Селища и архитектура. In: H. Todorova, I. Vajsov 1993. The Neolithic in Bulgaria (Х. Тодорова, И. Вайсов. (Новокаменната епоха в България. Краят на седмото шестото хиля-долетие преди новата ера) (Sofia 1993), 148 167. TREUIL/DARCQUE, 1998. R. Treuil, P. Darcque, Un «bucrane» néolithique à Dikili Tash (Macédonine orientale): parallèles et perspectives d interprétation. Bulletin de Co-rrespondance Hellénique 122, 1998, 1 25. TSIRTSONI 1991 Z. Tsirtsoni. Morpholodie et fonctions de la poterie. Dossier d Archéologie 222, 1991, 28 35. TSIRTSONI 2000 Z. Tsirtsoni. Les poteries du début du Néolitihique Récent en Macédoine I. Bulletin de Cor re spon dance Hellénique 124, 2000, 1 55. TSIRTSONI 2001 Z. Tsirtsoni. Les poteries du début du Néoltihique Récent en Macédoine II. Les fonctions des récipients. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 125.I, 2001, 1 39. VAJSOV 1993 И. Вайсов. Духовен живот на неолитното население в България. In: H. Todorova, I. Vajsov, The Neolithic in Bulgaria (Х. Тодорова и И. Вайсов. (Новокаменната епоха в България. Краят на седмото шестото хилядолетие преди новата ера) (Sofia 1993), 187 235. VASIć 1936 M.M. Васић, Преисториска Винча III. Пластика (Теракоте) (Beograd 1936). YIOUNI et al. 1994 Π. Γιούνη, X. Koυκoύλη-Xρυσανθάκη, Π. Πλουμή, Τεχνολοικ ανάλυση τη νεολιθικ κεραμικ από τον Προμαχώνα-Topolnica. Tο Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη (ΑEMΘ) 18, 1994 (1998), 343 348. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

68 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla 1 3 2 1 2 4 5 6 3 4 7 8 5 Fig. 32. Sherds with incised decoration. Phase IV (Scale 1:2). Fig. 33. Graphite-painted ware, Phase IV (Scale 1:2). 1 2 3 Fig. 34. Sherds of a painted vase of Strumsko types. Phase IIIA. Fig. 35. Bichrome painted pottery Dimitra types. Phase III (various scales). In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 69 1 2 3 4 7 5 6 8 9 10 Fig. 36. Painted sherds Akropotamos type (Brown-on-Orange/Red), Phase III (Scale 1:2). Fig. 37. Sherds with bituminous decoration Topolnica type. Phase II. Fig. 38. Sherds with bituminous decoration Topolnica type. Phase II. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

70 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Phase IIIB Phase IIIA 1 Phase II 2 Fig. 39. Sector Promachon, West Profile Square IET (Phases II, III, and IV, cultural vertical accumulation 8,35 m. Fig. 40. Sector Promachon. 1 sherd decorated with bitumen Phase I; 2 clay lamp and bucranium in situ Phase II. Fig. 41. Painted decoration. Sector Promachon, square I, level 6, phase III. Fig. 42. Askoi. Square IET Level 28 Sector Promachon, Phase II. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 71 1 2 3 4 5 Fig. 43. Miniature clay bowls toy. Sector Promachon, Phase III. 1 2 1 2 Fig. 44. Small bowls. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Fig. 45. Clay bowls. Sector Promachon, Phase II. 1 2 Fig. 46. Spondylus bracelet. Sector Promachon, Phase III. Fig. 47. Flint artifacts. Rock crystal. Sector Promachon. Phase III. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

72 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla 1 2 3 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 3 Fig. 48. Flint artifacts in prehistoric assemblages from Phases I, II and III Promachon-Topolnica. (Scale 1:1) Fig. 49. Stone tools from Phase II and III Promachon-Topolnica: 1 small hammer, 2 saw, 3 fishnet weight (Scale 1:2). 1 a 2 b Fig. 50. Clay spindle whorls. Sector Pronahon: 1 Phase II, 2 Phase IV. Fig. 51. Clay bowl. Sector Topolnica, House nr. 2, Phase II. Photo K. Georgiev. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 73 1 3 4 5 2 1 2 3 6a 6b 7 4 5 Fig. 52. Bone tools from Phases II and III. 3 fragment of a bone needle; 2, 4 awl; 5 spoon; 6 7 chisel (Scale: 1, 3 71:2; 2 1:1). Fig. 53. Marble artifacts, Phases II and III. 1 ladle; 3 5 bracelet fragments; 2 amulet. (Scale: 1:2). Fig. 54. Anthropomorphic marble figurine. Sector Promachon, Phase II (Scale 1:1). Fig. 55. Marble head from an anthropomorphic figurine. Level 10, Phase III (Scale 1:1). The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

74 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla Fig. 56. Seated female figurine holding a small child. Sector Promachon, Level 31, Phase II. Fig. 57. Standing anthropomorphic twin-headed figurine. Sector Promachon, Level 31, Phase II. Fig. 58. Female figurine with child. Sector Topolnica (Scale 1:2). Photo K. Georgiev. Fig. 59. Hollow anthropomorphic seated figurine. Sector Promachon, Level 10, Phase III. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 75 Fig. 60. Massive male figurine. Sector Promachon, Level 10, Phase III (Scale 1:2). Fig. 61. Standing female figurine. Sector Promachon, Phase III (Scale 2:3). Fig. 62. Head of a male (?) figurine. Sector Promachon, Level 4, Phase III (Scale 1:2). Fig. 63. Anthropomorphic vessel appliqué. Sector Promachon, Phase III (Scale 1:2). The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

76 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla 1 2 3 4 Fig. 64. Sector Promahom, Level 37 b, Phase I. in situ clay anthropomorphic bust Vinča B2 type. Fig. 65. 1 2 Fragments of male clay figurines, Phase III; 3 4 figurine-busts, Phase II. Sector Promachon (Scale 1:2). Fig. 66. Clay anthropomorphic plastic Vinča B2 type. Level 37 b, Phase I. (Scale 2:3). Fig. 67. Sector Promachon, Level 31, Phase II. Anthropomorphic head. (Scale 1:2). In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2

Promachon-Topolnica. A Greek-Bulgarian Archaeological Project 77 1 2 Fig. 68. Sector Promachon, Phase II. Standing female figurine. Fig. 69. 1 2 in situ phallomorphic sculpture found near hearth. Sector Promachon, Level 8, Phase II. Fig. 70. Sector Promachon, Level 32, Phase II. Massive head of a male (?) figurine (Scale 2:3). Fig. 71. Sector Promachon, Level 8, Phase II. Phallomorphic sculpture found near hearth. The Struma/Strymon River Valley in Prehistory

78 Chaido Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, Henrieta Todorova, Ioanis Aslanis, Ivan Vajsov, Magdalene Valla a b c d Fig. 72. Sector Topolnica, Phase II. Miniature clay lamp (Scale 1:1). Photos K. Georgiev. Fig. 73. Sector Topolnica, Phase II. Deep three-legged clay bowl. House nr. 2. Photo K. Georgiev. Fig. 74. Sector Topolnica, Phase II. Clay bowl with a hollow foot from. House nr. 2. Photo K. Georgiev. a b 0 5 cm Fig. 75. Fragment of vases with red colar decoration, Ptomachon Type. Sector Topolnica, Phase III. Photo K. Georgiev. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, volume 2