Version classiqueVersion mobile

The Human Face of Radiocarbon

 | 
Zoï Tsirtsoni

Greek Eastern Macedonia

Chapter 17. The “Katarraktes” Cave at Sidirokastro, Serres District

Anastasios Siros et Miltiadis Miteletsis
Traduction de Athina Pediaditaki-Nalbant

Texte intégral

The geographical setting and the research2

  • 2 Text translated from Greek by Athina Pediaditaki-Nalbant.

1The Katarraktes locality is situated approximately 2 km northeast of the modern town of Sidirokastro, in the valley of the Kroussovitis river (also known by the name of Achladitis), which rises in the Rhodope Mountains and flows into the Struma river. The name of the locality comes from two artificial waterfalls (“Katarraktes” in Greek) created in this spot in recent years.

  • 3 Lazaridis 2004, p. 29.
  • 4 Papafilippou-Pennou 2004; Pennos et al., forthcoming.

2Because of rapid linear erosion, the riverbed, oriented northeast-southwest, is partly embedded in several spots. The numerous caves along the valley are considered to be marks of the ancient river level3. The extended surface of the catchment area, combined with the narrowness of the stream, results in heavy floods in the area4.

3The archaeological site is housed in an impressive cave formation comprising a large rock-shelter and two unequal chambers (fig. 1). It is located on the southern bank of the river, about 9 m above its present level and approximately 97 m above sea level. The rock-shelter is oriented southeast-northwest and has a vaulted shape; its opening is 34 m wide, its depth is 22 m, and it covers an overall surface of 620 m2. The two chambers (conventionally named A and B) are located on the southeast and southwest sides of the rock-shelter respectively: they are part of a karstic pipe network. Chamber A is rather small compared to chamber B, which comprises a large main hall.

  • 5 Poulaki-Pantermali et al. 2004, p. 63‑71.
  • 6 Reports by Koulidou et al. 2006; Siros et al. 2007; Miteletsis & Siros 2008; Miteletsis & Siros 201 (...)

4The first excavation campaign was conducted in autumn 20045; it was followed by further campaigns in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 20106. Work focused mainly in the rock-shelter area, but was extended to chamber B as well (fig. 2). The deposits excavated in the rock-shelter belong mainly to three prehistoric occupational phases, two dating from the Early Bronze Age and one from the Late Neolithic II period.

  • 7 Pennos et al., forthcoming. Evidence for this is found on the cave walls: eroded travertine deposit (...)

5Furthermore, the finds from the upper, surface layers, which were between 5 and 30 cm thick, denote a long use history of the cave from prehistoric times up to the present day. Most of the finds from the historical periods date to the 2nd century BC, whereas the majority of the prehistoric ones date from the advanced Early Bronze Age. The absence of respective stratified deposits is partly due to the practically continuous human presence, but principally to the erosion caused by the heavy floods of the nearby Kroussovitis7. The only in situ remains from the historical periods are six large and several smaller pits, most of which were dug to hold jars.

Fig. 1 – View of the rockshelter from the north.

Fig. 2 – General plan of the cave with the excavation grid.

The upper Bronze Age occupation layer (phase A)

  • 8 Tringham 1971.

6The architectural remains from the two upper prehistoric levels show the exclusive use of wooden posts and clay as building materials, according to the Balkan tradition8.

  • 9 Jar pits from historical periods, constructions made by shepherds or visitors in the past, looter’s (...)

7The first (upper) phase was located just below the surface. It extends over approximately 60 m2 (fig. 3). The soil was very disturbed9. The use surface was composed of compacted sediment over a layer of orange gravel. The largest part of it was sealed by an uneven, yet generally thin, layer of compact sediment, which contained small pieces of charred wood, mainly branches: these are debris from the fallen superstructure, which constitutes the main component of the destruction layer (fig. 4).

  • 10 This area is extremely disturbed. The northern limit of the building has been destroyed by a big ob (...)
  • 11 A thin layer of sparse charcoal, probably the remains of a burned straw mat, sealed this area. Conc (...)
  • 12 Grammenos 1981, p. 125.
  • 13 Sherratt 1986, p. 439, 468‑469; Séfériadès 2001, p. 143.
  • 14 Pentapolis II (Grammenos 1981, p. 95‑98), cave of the Angitis Sources (Maaras) [Trantalidou et al. (...)
  • 15 Sherratt 1986, p. 437‑438, 456, fig. 13.10.2, 8.

8Part of a large building (building A1) came to light on the south (fig. 3‑5). Its eastern limit follows a slightly curved line, oriented SE to NW and marked by a series of 8 postholes (6‑10 cm in diameter) lined up at some distance from one another. The building is estimated to have been at least 6 m long. Since the other walls were not located, it is impossible to calculate its exact dimensions10. The superstructure was apparently made of clay on a post frame. A small part of this clay fill (about 10 cm thick) was found in situ between two postholes (fig. 6). Inside the building, altogether 13 postholes or remains of charred wooden posts were found in situ, with dimensions varying from 3 to 10 cm; their arrangement is generally parallel to the eastern wall. Approximately in the middle of the excavated part of the building, over a roughly circular area of about 1.50 m in diameter, the floor is covered with a whitish fine-grained coating, which probably results from its exposure to high temperatures11. No remains of auxiliary structures such as benches, hearths or ovens, have been found. Several fairly shallow pits of circular or elliptical shape and of varying dimensions, with walls sloping downwards, belong to later periods. On the floor there were fragments of a jar decorated on the rim with a plastic band with finger impressions (fig. 7: 1). This is a common decoration during the EBA period, starting back in the Late Neolithic and lasting until the Late Bronze Age12. Many such examples have been found in Sitagroi Vb and Dikili Tash IIIb13, as well as in other sites of the advanced EBA14. Fragments of two vessels with impressed decoration were found right next to the eastern wall of building A1: a one-handled carinated cup, with parallels from Sitagroi Va (fig. 7: 2)15, and a closed vessel, maybe a jug (fig. 7: 3).

  • 16 For the moment it is not possible to identify it as the western limit of the building. The diameter (...)
  • 17 Sherratt 1986, p. 438, 459, fig. 13.13.9, pl. XXXII: 6.
  • 18 Alexandrov 1995, p. 261‑262, fig. 6.91.

9Part of a second building (building A2) was located further to the north, approximately in the middle of the entrance to the rock shelter (fig. 3; 8). Its western limit seems to be a post-framed wall, a very small part of which (ca 1 m long) came to light, with five post holes still containing parts of the charred posts16. These posts were very close to one another and followed a slightly curved line, oriented SE-NW. The destruction layer, composed almost exclusively of clay parts from the superstructure, sealed the floor. About 2 m eastward from the wall, a slightly elevated, oblong quadrilateral clay surface and a small posthole are what remains from an open hearth. The white-coated floor of the hearth, which was partly covered with a thin layer of charcoal, is extremely compact (probably as a result of high temperatures). It is less distinguishable moving away from the centre. Some later pits in this area contained fragments of the destroyed floor and sherds from historical periods. A fragment of a collared bowl found on the northern side of the hearth is decorated with a combination of impressed and incised motifs filled with a white paste (fig. 9: 1). This type of bowl is characteristic of the EBA in Eastern Macedonia and Southwest Bulgaria. Parallels have been found at Sitagroi Va17 and at Pernik-Krepostta18. Three stone tools, two ground and one polished, perhaps a polisher, were found in the same area (fig. 9: 2‑4).

Fig. 3 – Ground plan of the remains of the first (upper) prehistoric phase, with buildings A1 (to the south) and A2 (to the northeast).
Chart 1: floor; 2: floor exposed to high temperature; 3: disturbed floor; 4: elements from clay superstructure; 5: wall; 6, charred post/posthole; 7: clay structure; 8: destruction layer; 9: stones; 10: pottery; 11: pit/disturbance.

Fig. 4 – Destruction layer of the upper prehistoric phase (phase A).

Fig. 5 – Building A1.

Fig. 6 – Building A1, detail of the eastern wall.

Fig. 7 – Pottery from building A1.

Fig. 8 – Building A2.

Fig. 9 – Finds from building A2.

10Part of a largely deteriorated floor, which was found almost on the surface near the western wall of the rock shelter, should probably be dated to the same period (fig. 3).

  • 19 References to archaeobotanical material are principally based on macroscopic observation during the (...)

11The only archaeobotanical remains from the first phase are some sparse carbonised grains, mainly cereals19.

  • 20 The majority of prehistoric ceramics found on the surface should probably be attributed to the same (...)
  • 21 Sherratt 1986, p. 437‑440; Gardner 2003, p. 291‑293.
  • 22 Séfériadès 1983, p. 662‑668, 675‑676; Séfériadès 2001, p. 113‑115; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki & Romiopou (...)
  • 23 Grammenos 1981, p. 95‑98, 128.
  • 24 The first phase of Limenaria (Malamidou & Papadopoulos 1993, p. 566, 572) and the earliest horizon (...)
  • 25 Grammenos 1981, p. 127.
  • 26 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 72, 231‑232; Nikolova 1999, p. 199‑224, 252‑255; H. Todorova 2003, p. 295‑296 (...)
  • 27 Hotovo, Kovachevo III, Drenkovo (Grebska-Kulova & Kulov 2007, p. 291).
  • 28 Blegen et al. 1950, p. 40‑41, 51‑80, pl. 223‑267; Podzuweit 1979, p. 93‑101.
  • 29 Nikolova 1999, p. 252‑253.

12Pottery20 consists mostly of jars and bowls; cups and jugs are less common. The majority of the sherds are dark coloured and poorly burnished, but there are also some samples with extremely well burnished surfaces. Decoration is impressed, incised or a combination of the two, sometimes filled with white paste. A horizontal band with finger impressions is a common decoration for jars. Both the typology and the decoration date the pottery to the advanced EBA, corresponding in Eastern Macedonia to the phases Sitagroi V21, Dikili Tash IIIB22 and Pentapolis II23. This kind of pottery has been found in other areas as well, such as the island of Thasos24. There are similarities with the Kostolac and Vučedol cultures, the latest phases of Baden and the Coţofeni culture25, and the “vectors” of corded-ware in central Europe26, whose influence is equally obvious in sites along the middle Struma Valley in Southwest Bulgaria27. All this invites us to consider these phases as contemporary to the earlier phases of Troy28 and to the latest layers at Ezero and Yunatsite in Bulgarian Thrace29.

  • 30 Sample AN-72 has been measured twice, as there was doubt about the first measurement.
  • 31 Manning 1995; Maran 1998, p. 158‑159, table 81.
  • 32 Malamidou & Papadopoulos 1997, p. 593; Grammenos 1981, p. 123, 128.
  • 33 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1990, p. 535.

13Very few samples were collected for radiocarbon dating and even fewer were considered trustworthy, because the destruction layer was very thin and extremely disturbed. Two of these (AN-30 and AN-72) from buildings A1 and A2 respectively, were dated with the 14C method: they yielded calibrated dates between 2880‑2630 BC for the first and 2893‑2573 BC for the second30 (table 1). This agrees with the relative chronology and confirms that the upper prehistoric phase of the cave should be dated to the Early Bronze Age II. Within the advanced EBA (II‑III) in Eastern Macedonia, which is estimated to last altogether between 2900/2800 and 2300/2200 BC31, this phase appears contemporary with Sitagroi V, Dikili Tash IIIB and Pentapolis II32, as well as the earliest buildings of Skala Sotiros on Thasos33.

Table 1 – Radiocarbon dates from “Katarraktes Cave” Sidirokastro.

The lower Bronze Age occupation layer (phase B)

  • 34 Until lately this phase was characterized as “Phase C”, because part of the fallen clay superstruct (...)
  • 35 References to archaeobotanical material are principally based on macroscopic examination during the (...)
  • 36 The collapse of parts of the cave ceiling is described as “breakdown morphology”. Collapse of this (...)

14An earlier occupation phase was located at about 0.50 m under the surface. It extends over an area of about 36 m2 (fig. 10)34. The post-framed buildings had clay floors with wattle-and-daub superstructures. The wooden framework was constructed of posts and a branch lattice covered with a mixture of clay and straw. The impressive destruction layer was composed of a dense rubble layer, the thickness of which varied, and a large quantity of burned building material, cereal and fruits (fig. 11)35. It also contained some potsherds, bones and other finds. It is almost certain that there is a relationship between the destruction of this occupation layer, which bears strong traces of fire, and the rubble heap, which comes from the collapse of parts of the rock-shelter36.

  • 37 The southernmost building uses the wall of the northern one.

15Most of the architectural remains belong to three post-framed buildings with curved walls. The two southernmost, in a row from south to north (see fig. 10), are located in front of the entrance of chamber A37. Only their eastern part has come to light.

  • 38 At Promachonas-Topolnitsa (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 1996b, p. 751; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. (...)
  • 39 In this area it has not been possible to attribute the occupation level to one of the phases of the (...)
  • 40 Sitagroi Vb (Sherratt 1986, p. 439, 472, fig. 13.26: 13‑20, pl. XCIX), Dikili Tash IIIB, and alread (...)
  • 41 Phases IV‑V of Kritsana (Aslanis 1985, p. 228‑240, pl. 95‑106), Agios Mamas (Aslanis 1985, p. 240‑2 (...)
  • 42 Troy I (Blegen et al. 1950, pl. 223, 225, 258‑261); types E1-F1 in Podzuweit 1979, p. 20‑23, 112‑12 (...)
  • 43 Chohadzhiev 2001, p. 77, pl. 84: 4.

16Their walls are contiguous, forming at this point a 40 cm-high earthen “bench”. Perhaps the two buildings were slightly below ground, at least on the eastern side, a practice that is well attested in Macedonia since the Neolithic period38. A floor was located immediately to the east, at the level created by the “bench” and just below the surface: at least part of it was contemporary to the buildings. Upon this external floor, on a spot that cannot be attributed with certainty to the second phase39, were found parts of two carefully burnished bowls. The first has an inturned rim and a horizontal trumpet-like handle (fig. 12: 1) and belongs to a type which is fairly common during the advanced stages of the EBA in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace40, the Chalkidiki peninsula41 and the North-Eastern Aegean42. The second (fig. 12: 2) has a carinated body and a perforated lug, and bears a band of grooves above the carination; it finds a close parallel to a vessel from Studena Voda VII43.

  • 44 Nea Nikomedeia (Aslanis 1992, p. 74), Avgi (Stratouli 2005a, p. 600‑601), Servia (Wardle & Vlahodim (...)
  • 45 Renfrew 1986, p. 189‑190.
  • 46 Ridley et al. 2000, p. 71, 77‑79.
  • 47 Aslanis 1985, p. 32‑35.

17A 15‑35 cm wide and 35‑40 cm deep foundation trench had been dug, at least in some spots, for the posts. This technique is already known from some Neolithic sites in Macedonia44. It was still in use during the EBA, in Sitagroi Va and Vb (Burned House, Long House)45, Kritsana, Servia46 and Kastanas47. The trench, which was filled with rubble material during the installation of the posts, is not covered by the floor. Large stones were added at the base of some posts to provide additional support. The diameter of the posts varies between 4 and 10 cm, and that of the post-holes was up to 15 cm for an average depth of 50 cm. The large posts were used to form the wooden framework of the wall. The majority of the smaller posts are in the interior of the buildings and were probably designed to support some rudimentary roof or light structures. The marks of thin wooden structural elements (horizontal branches) are sometimes preserved on the inner side of the walls, as is some of the clay coating that covered them. A thin layer of slim pieces of charcoal, as if from a burned straw mat, covered the biggest part of the floor.

Fig. 10 – Ground plan of the remains of the second (lower) prehistoric phase, with buildings B1, B2 (to the south) and B3 (to the north).
Chart 1: floor; 2: raised floor; 3: elements from clay superstructure; 4: thin wooden structural elements; 5: charred post/posthole; 6: wall; 7: foundation trench; 8: destruction layer; 9: stones; 10: pottery; 11: pit/disturbance.

Fig. 11 – Destruction layer of the second (lower) prehistoric phase (phase B).

Fig. 12 – Pottery from the area east of buildings B1 and B2.

  • 48 Sherratt 1986, p. 435, 438, 453, 461, fig. 13.7: 1, 5; 13.15: 1, 2; pl. CII, CIV: 1‑4.
  • 49 Séfériadès 1983, p. 659‑661, fig. 46; Séfériadès 2001, p. 112, 137‑138, fig. 18.3, 19.1.
  • 50 Nikolova 1999, p. 128‑129, fig. 7.7.3.1.

18On the floor of the first building from the south (building B1) there were 4 pits with walls converging towards the bottom. The biggest pit is 20 cm deep, has an elliptical shape and an opening that measures 90 x 70 cm. Neither the unlined bottom dotted with vertical and diagonal holes nor its contents are of any help for the interpretation of its use. The use of the other pits, which are much smaller and almost circular, is also undetermined. Among the best-preserved vessel fragments are those of a jar, a bowl and an amphora-like vessel. The jar, of almost conical shape, is decorated around the rim with a row of incisions (fig. 13: 1). This is a very common shape during Sitagroi IV and survives till Sitagroi Va48. The almost hemispherical bowl (fig. 13: 3) is decorated with grooves, vertical on the belly and horizontal on the neck. This kind of decoration parallels a vessel from Dikili Tash IIIA49. Finally, the amphora-like vessel (fig. 13: 2) could be compared to amphora types 1 and 3 from the Cernavoda I culture50. Some bone tools (fig. 13: 6‑8), a grindstone and a possible grinder (fig. 13: 4, 5) were collected as well.

  • 51 For the first, see Sherratt 1986, p. 435, 450, fig. 13.4: 1; Séfériadès 1983, p. 659‑661, fig. 44; (...)
  • 52 Grammenos 1981, p. 141, pl. 19.321.
  • 53 Aslanis 1985, p. 155, 157, table 72, pl. 31.7, 43.14.
  • 54 Sherratt 1986, p. 435, 450, fig. 13.4: 6‑11, pl. XI: 1‑2; Séfériadès 1983, p. 659‑661, fig. 43.
  • 55 Ilcheva 2002, p. 72‑75, pl. 48‑50.
  • 56 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 232, pl. 15.6, 16. This kind of decoration is common in the Slatino culture ( (...)
  • 57 Roman 1976, p. 26‑30, fig. 2, pl. 39; Tasić 1995, pl. XXVI: 7, XXX: 1. A parallel from Bagatsina is (...)
  • 58 Grammenos 1981, p. 136, pl. 4.207, 210.

19There are no remains of permanent constructions or pits inside building B2, apart from a big flat cobble of unknown purpose. Bowls are the most common pottery form. Two bowls with a pronounced belly decorated with vertical grooves (fig. 14: 1, 3) parallel vessels from Sitagroi IV, Dikili Tash IIIA and Pentapolis I51. A third one (fig. 14: 2) has an open high spout and a vertical handle on the opposite side. It is a common type during Pentapolis II52 and Kastanas IA53. There are also parts of two small open vessels probably of the high-handled cup type (fig. 14: 4, 5), characteristic of Sitagroi IV and Dikili Tash IIIA54, as well as of some sites in Bulgaria55. Outstanding among the ceramic finds of building B2 is an almost complete askos (fig. 14: 9). The clay, the decoration and, most of all, the shape which is unique so far for this phase, single it out as an exceptional find. It is decorated with incised hatched bands (ladder motif), an echo of earlier styles56, also adopted on a large scale by the Coţofeni and Vučedol cultures of the EBA57. Two shallow miniature coarse bowls without decoration come from the destruction layer (fig. 14: 6, 8). Many stone tools, both polished and ground, were found in building B2, among which were several grinders, a pickaxe, and an object that is probably a polisher, together with a stone sling bullet, a clay bead and a bone spatula (fig. 14: 10‑15, 17, 18, 20). Cereals have been found, but also cornelian cherries in large quantities. Among the food remains there are quite a few animal bones, calcified due to high temperatures, and some Unio pictorum shells. A grinder, a stone bullet and an undecorated but carefully made miniature bowl (fig. 14: 16, 7) were found in the foundation trench. The bowl is almost hemispherical with a small tongue-like lug on the rim; it parallels vessels from Pentapolis II58.

Fig. 13 – Phase B, finds from building B1.

  • 59 It is hard to consider it as a grindstone for no obvious traces of grinding were noticed.

20A little further towards the north, part of the third building was uncovered (building B3). The postholes are very close to one another following a curved line that corresponds to the western limit of the building (fig. 10; 15). Part of the fallen clay superstructure was laying along the base of the wall, to the west. At some points the branch lattice of the charred wooden framework is preserved. Under the collapsed wall, the rest of the destruction layer is visible and also a small part of a floor, probably belonging to a building contiguous to B3. What distinguishes building B3 is a large flat stone with a slightly concave upper side59 and various drilling tools, which were found concentrated in the same area. There are two bone perforators (fig. 16: 6, 7), an antler tool with a relatively blunt end, decorated with incised zigzags (fig. 16: 8), and a tooth, possibly from a bear (fig. 16: 10). Small finds also include a second bone perforator, a cylindrical clay loom weight, two ground-stone tools and two small blades, one made of flint and the other of quartz (fig. 16: 1‑5, 9). The archaeobotanical remains are, in general, of the same kind as those in building B2. Around building B3 the destruction layer is mainly composed of voluminous fragments of brecciated limestone, which fell from the cave ceiling and thus account for the catastrophe in an impressive manner (supra).

Fig. 14 – Phase B, finds from building B2.

Fig. 15 – Building B3.

Fig. 16 – Phase B, finds from building B3.

Fig. 17 – Building B4, floor level.

  • 60 Ilcheva 2002, p. 72‑76, pl. 48‑49, 54.
  • 61 Late phases of the Dabene-Sarovka site: Nikolova 1995, p. 90, 103, pl. 7.1, 2.
  • 62 Sherratt 1986, p. 451, fig. 13.5: 1‑2, pl. XI: 3.
  • 63 Demoule 2004, p. 77, pl. 12.5.
  • 64 Grammenos 1981, p. 47, pl. 27.525.
  • 65 Pernicheva 1995, p. 131‑134, fig. 13.469‑470; Nikolova 1999, p. 83, fig. 6.5.5.
  • 66 Bubanj Hum I, Krivelj, Zlotska Pecina cave: Tasić 1995, p. 117‑118, 138‑139, 172‑173, fig. 8, 24.5, (...)
  • 67 Pernicheva 1995, p. 131; Tasić 1995, p. 32‑33, pl. 2; Georgieva 2007, p. 332, fig. 3.
  • 68 In the Dabene-Sarovka site in Bulgarian Thrace, bowls with inturned rims appear from the beginning (...)
  • 69 Sherratt 1986, p. 435, 439, 450, 472, fig. 13.4: 4, 13.26: 1‑3.
  • 70 Grammenos 1981, p. 139, 146, pl. 18.320, 26.488.
  • 71 Nikolova 1999, p. 196‑198, fig. 8.7.2.19‑23.
  • 72 Tasić 1995, p. 54‑55, pl. 6B.8, pl. XVII.5.
  • 73 Nikolova 1999, p. 174, fig. 7.30.
  • 74 Sherratt 1986, p. 439, 471, fig. 13.25: 11.
  • 75 Chohadzhiev 2001, p. 73, 78, pl. 75.1, 85.7.
  • 76 Avramova 1992, p. 244‑247.

21To the northeast, part of at least one more building (building B4) was found in a 2 m² trench (fig. 17). 16 postholes of various sizes, some of them still preserving fragments of posts, dotted the floor. The four bigger holes follow a N-S axis. Part of a structure with an impressive foundation of charred posts and a brown clay coating was uncovered on the floor, resembling a platform. On top of the structure and in the destruction layer covering it, there were fragments of five vessels, four of which are bowls. The two smaller ones, one with a deep hemispherical body and one with an S-shaped profile (fig. 18: 1, 2), are similar to vessels from Hotnitsa-Vodopada in Northern Bulgaria60. The hemispherical bowl (fig. 18: 1), parallels of which are also found in Bulgarian Thrace61, could be a variant of the small bowls from Sitagroi IV62 but also recalls the hemispherical “cooking pots” from Dikili Tash II63. The third one, decorated with grooves, vertical on the carination of the body and horizontal on the rim (fig. 18: 3), possesses similarities to a vessel from Pentapolis I64. The shape and decoration parallel vessels from Kolarovo in Southwest Bulgaria65 and also from some sites in Eastern Serbia66, belonging to the late phase of the Bubanj-Sălcuţa-Krivodol culture67. The fourth bowl has a conical body and an inside turning rim (fig. 18: 5). This shape is of Neolithic origin as well68 but also parallels examples from Sitagroi IV to Vb69, Pentapolis I and II70 and the Ezero A1 culture71. The fifth vessel, also open, has a rather high rim and a squeezed body decorated with vertical grooves (fig. 18: 4): it resembles cups from classical Baden72. A second structure, a sort of “case”, was found within the first one: it has a rectangular floor plan, with walls made of raw clay and rubble. On the bottom of the structure, in situ, there was an almost intact closed vessel, with an oval-shaped body and a high neck (fig. 18: 6). This shape existed since Cernavoda I73 through to Sitagroi Vb74. It is also found in Southwest Bulgaria, in Studena Voda VI and VII75. Further parallels are found in the Yagodina culture in the Bulgarian Rhodopes, usually with graphite decoration, until the early centuries of the 4th millennium BC76.

Fig. 18 – Phase B, pottery from building B4.

Fig. 19 – Building B4, floor level.

22In the trench adjacent to the previous one from the east, the removal of the destruction layer has not been completed yet, therefore it is still uncertain if this trench (or part of it) is within the limits of building 4. Surfaces made of compact clay that had been interpreted as floors in the past are probably remains of clay superstructures. For the moment, the only in situ constructions are a small oven of elliptical shape, which has been only partly revealed, and, nearby, a raised clay platform of 80 x 40 cm with a rim, built on a rubble substructure (fig. 19). In addition, a grindstone and a grinder found between the two structures point to the probable use of the area for the preparation of food.

  • 77 Sherratt 1986, p. 461, fig. 13.15: 1.

23Other vessel shapes from these two trenches include vessels of the jar type, strainers, plates and a small amphora (fig. 20: 1‑5). The jars are very similar to those from building B1. The best preserved (fig. 20: 1) has a large conical body and is almost identical to a Sitagroi Va vessel77. Some fragments of strainers (a shape common during the Late Neolithic) stand out: they are parts of small basins with tongue-like lugs (fig. 20: 4, 5). In the same area six stone tools (ground and polished), a stone sling bullet and two small quartz blades were also collected (fig. 21: 1‑7). Two spindle whorls and a loom weight made from a perforated circular potsherd, imply domestic activities (fig. 21: 8‑10).

24The second phase was also studied, albeit very briefly, within two small trenches (1 x 1 m) in the northern part of the rock shelter: in these were revealed respectively part of the floor, without any outstanding finds, and the destruction layer.

  • 78 Sherratt 1986, p. 434‑435; Gardner 2003, p. 290‑291.
  • 79 Séfériadès 1983, p. 657‑662, 675‑676.
  • 80 Grammenos 1981, p. 95‑98, 128.
  • 81 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 72, 231‑232; Grammenos 1981, p. 127.
  • 82 Kontaxi et al. 2004, p. 58.
  • 83 Papadopoulos et al. 2001, p. 58‑59.
  • 84 Chohadzhiev 2001.
  • 85 Roman 1976, p. 101‑102; Nikolova 1999, p. 175, 250; Todorova 2001, p. 246; H. Todorova 2003, p. 293 (...)
  • 86 Trantalidou et al. 2005a, p. 62.
  • 87 H. Todorova 2003, p. 288.

25Pottery from the second phase includes almost all varieties characteristic of the beginning of the EBA in Eastern Macedonia as well as in Bulgaria. Differences in the colour of the vessels’ surface attest to variations in the firing conditions. Dark shades and smoothed or hastily burnished surfaces are predominant. Often, large quartz or limestone particles are embedded in the clay, but organic inclusions are found as well. The most common shape are bowls of various types and capacities. Jars and amphorae of various types are less common, as are strainers, plates and cups. As far as decoration is concerned, channelled and grooved ware are the most common types. Impressions and incisions are rarer. Pottery in general parallels that of Sitagroi IV78, Dikili Tash IIIA79, and Pentapolis I80, with obvious influences from the earlier periods of the Baden cultural complex81. There are also similarities with the pottery from the Cave of Orpheas at Alistrati82, Agios Ioannis on Thasos83, and also further north, in the Struma valley, the horizons VI and VII of Studena Voda84. The pottery of the second phase is considered pre-Trojan, contemporaneous to the Ezero A culture in Bulgarian Thrace and, further north, to the Cernavoda III-Boleráz complex and the Coţofeni I culture85. Some isolated examples bring to mind earlier civilisations of the LN II, the most prominent expression of which is the Krivodol-Sălcuţa-Bubanj Hum cultural phenomenon, which has also been detected in other cave sites of the same area86. This culture influenced all of Eastern Macedonia and Southwest Bulgaria from the end of the 5th to the beginning of the 4th millennium BC87. Other pottery types, which could be considered innovative, appear throughout the EBA.

Fig. 20 – Phase B, pottery from the area of the platform (building B4?).

Fig. 21 – Phase B, stone and clay tools from the area of building B4.

  • 88 Part of sample AN-38 (burned bones found in a fragmented vessel) was dated between 3509‑3358 cal BC (...)
  • 89 Manning 1995; Maran 1998, p. 158, table 81.
  • 90 Nikolova 1999, p. 191.
  • 91 Grammenos 1981, p. 123, 128.
  • 92 Papadopoulos et al. 2001, p. 58‑59.
  • 93 Boyadzhiev 1995, p. 153‑155.

2611 samples from the second phase from almost the entire excavated area were dated by 14C. The result is a wide spectrum of calibrated dates between 3370 and 2900 cal BC88 (table 1). They place this phase of the Katarraktes Cave at the beginning of the EBA (EBA I), which in Eastern Macedonia is estimated to have lasted from about 3300/3200 to 2900/2800 BC89, thus allowing to it to be considered as contemporary to Sitagroi IV90 and possibly Pentapolis I91. It also seems to be contemporary to Agios Ioannis on Thasos92 and Ezero XIII‑VII in Bulgarian Thrace93.

The Neolithic remains

  • 94 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 229‑230.
  • 95 Séfériadès 1983, p. 653‑655, 675; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki & Romiopoulou 1992, p. 232; Papadopoulos 19 (...)
  • 96 Chohadzhiev 2006, p. 61, 65‑67, fig. 85, 92‑98.
  • 97 H. Todorova 2003, p. 289.
  • 98 Evans 1986, p. 397‑400; Gardner 2003, p. 288‑290.
  • 99 Bakalakis & Sakellariou 1981, p. 14, 27‑28.
  • 100 Hellström 1987, p. 135.
  • 101 Malamidou 1997a, p. 517.
  • 102 Malamidou & Papadopoulos 1993, p. 566.
  • 103 Peristeri & Halkiopoulou 2005, p. 130.
  • 104 Trantalidou et al. 2005a, p. 49.
  • 105 Panti & Bahlas 2007, p. 467.
  • 106 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 1992, p. 569‑570; Vajsov 2007, p. 85, 102, 118.
  • 107 Among others Strumsko, Balgarchevo, Kolarovo I (Pernicheva 1995, p. 126, 130‑131), horizon V of Stu (...)
  • 108 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 222; Georgieva 2007, p. 330.

27An earlier prehistoric phase was spotted in a 1 x 1 m trench (in the north-eastern part of trench ΙΣΤ 2) opened near the western wall of the rock-shelter, within the limits of a looter’s trench. Sherds from a big open vessel were found scattered in a gravel layer at approximately 2.30‑1.70 m under the surface. It is decorated on the interior with graphite curvilinear motifs (fig. 22). This graphite decoration dates the layer to the Late Neolithic II period, as it does not exist in the EBA pottery94. It is typical of Dikili Tash II95, as well as of the Slatino culture in the area of the upper course of the Struma river96. According to H. Todorova, the “Dikili Tash-Slatino culture” left strong marks in Eastern Macedonia and Southwest Bulgaria during the first half of the 5th millennium BC, and characterizes a few cave sites as well97. In Eastern Macedonia and Thrace it is found in Sitagroi III98, Paradimi IV99, Paradeisos100, Kryoneri Serres101, Limenaria on Thasos102, in the site of Mavros Vrachos at Sidirokastro, very close to Katarraktes cave103, and also in the caves of the Angitis Sources (Maaras) at Drama104 and “Polyfimos” in Maroneia105. It also constitutes one of the main groups of decorated pottery during the last phase (IV) of Promachonas-Topolnitsa106. In Western Bulgaria, graphite decoration is common in a group of sites in the Middle Struma valley107, which proves that the river played an important role in its propagation. The latest phases of this pottery group are Sitagroi IIIc in Eastern Macedonia and the Krivodol-Sălcuţa phase, the southernmost example of the Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI culture108.

Fig. 22 – Late Neolithic II graphite-painted vessel.

  • 109 Sample AN-12 has been measured twice, as there was doubt about the first measurement.
  • 110 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 1996a, p. 693‑694; Maniatis et al. 2014.
  • 111 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 65‑66.

28Two samples (AN-12, AN-13) from this prehistoric phase, the earliest so far, have been dated by the 14C method (table 1): they yield calibrated dates between 4343‑4052 and 4323‑4050 BC, which agree with the relative chronology109. Thus, the earliest phase of the cave should be dated to the end of the Late Neolithic II, which in Eastern Macedonia is represented by Sitagroi IIIb-c, and is probably contemporary to the end of Dikili Tash II110 and Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI period111.

29A trial trench of 1 x 2 m was opened in the eastern part of the rock shelter with the purpose of clarifying the stratigraphy, but the unexpected discovery of a boulder from the original rock stopped further work on this side. However, in the small area that could be excavated, was attested the presence of successive thin layers, an alternation of clay deposits with layers of organic intercalations. The mobile finds from these layers had no diagnostic value and were thus inadequate for the assessment of the absolute chronology given by a charcoal sample (6025‑5890 cal BC) [table 1].

30The complete absence of metal finds characterizes all prehistoric layers. Bone finds are scarce, as well as (and this is even more worth noting) chipped stone tools and ornaments.

  • 112 This shape is common during Sitagroi Vb (Sherratt 1986, p. 439, 466, fig. 13.20, pl. XCIX: 8‑10). I (...)

31Chamber B has been a popular area for looters’ activities. Several looters’ trenches in chamber B were cleaned and arranged. The superficial layer, which was preserved principally near the walls of the cave, yielded much pottery. The thick, undisturbed deposits present an interesting succession of fine-grain layers of ash-white and brown-red colour. Their relationship to the archaeological deposits inside the rock shelter has not been determined yet. The disturbed deposits yielded a large quantity of finds, mainly pottery, of historic and prehistoric times. It is worth mentioning a small intact one-handled cup with engraved decoration, from the late EBA112 (fig. 23).

Fig. 23 – Finds from chamber B.

  • 113 In Western Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Rhodopes, the use of caves has been attested as early as the (...)
  • 114 Such as the caves of the Angitis Sources (Maaras) and Livadopotamos (Trantalidou et al. 2005a, p. 5 (...)

32The Katarraktes Cave proved an environment hospitable and attractive to people through the ages. The archaeological finds denote its frequent use during prehistoric times, in accordance with the tendency for cave use, which characterizes this part of the Balkan Peninsula, both in Eastern Macedonia and in Bulgaria113. It seems unlikely that it was just a casual shelter used seasonally by farmers, although such an explanation has been proposed for other caves during prehistoric periods114. On the contrary, its location and morphology, along with its prolonged use by an organized community, underline the importance of this particular cave for the prehistory of the entire region.

Notes

2 Text translated from Greek by Athina Pediaditaki-Nalbant.

3 Lazaridis 2004, p. 29.

4 Papafilippou-Pennou 2004; Pennos et al., forthcoming.

5 Poulaki-Pantermali et al. 2004, p. 63‑71.

6 Reports by Koulidou et al. 2006; Siros et al. 2007; Miteletsis & Siros 2008; Miteletsis & Siros 2010. Works conducted while the authors were at the Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology of Northern Greece. With the contribution of the following scientific collaborators from the same Ephorate: Ch. Tsangouli, S. Koulidou, P. Karatasios, A.-M. Kovaiou, St. Michalopoulou (archaeologists), I. Vlastaridis and M. Vaxevanopoulos (geologists), and the technicians Chr. Fotiadou, P. Bilali, G. Gavanoudi, S. Barbouletou and V. Nosti (conservators), A. Efthymiadis, O. Aitatoglou and S. Bilali (drawing artists). We wish to thank all the persons that worked in the field, the Municipality of Sindiki and the School Club of Sidirokastro, especially Messrs D. Sophiadis and E. Eleftheriadis, for their substantial help.

7 Pennos et al., forthcoming. Evidence for this is found on the cave walls: eroded travertine deposits incorporating bits of fired clay are indeed the remains of earlier floors. Their deposition could be a result of climate change (Psomiadis et al. 2009, p. 233‑234, fig. 4).

8 Tringham 1971.

9 Jar pits from historical periods, constructions made by shepherds or visitors in the past, looter’s trenches, animal burrows.

10 This area is extremely disturbed. The northern limit of the building has been destroyed by a big oblong pit, probably the result of one or more heavy floods.

11 A thin layer of sparse charcoal, probably the remains of a burned straw mat, sealed this area. Concerning the use of straw mats in caves see Beloyianni 1998, p. 103‑104, pl. 1.

12 Grammenos 1981, p. 125.

13 Sherratt 1986, p. 439, 468‑469; Séfériadès 2001, p. 143.

14 Pentapolis II (Grammenos 1981, p. 95‑98), cave of the Angitis Sources (Maaras) [Trantalidou et al. 2005a, p. 62], Mandalo III (Merousis & Nikolaidou 1997, p. 158), latest phases of Dabene-Sarovka in Bulgarian Thrace (Nikolova 1995, p. 92).

15 Sherratt 1986, p. 437‑438, 456, fig. 13.10.2, 8.

16 For the moment it is not possible to identify it as the western limit of the building. The diameter of the posts is relatively small (3‑5 cm) and part of a floor lies immediately to the west of the wall: it seems more likely that this is an interior wall.

17 Sherratt 1986, p. 438, 459, fig. 13.13.9, pl. XXXII: 6.

18 Alexandrov 1995, p. 261‑262, fig. 6.91.

19 References to archaeobotanical material are principally based on macroscopic observation during the excavation.

20 The majority of prehistoric ceramics found on the surface should probably be attributed to the same phase.

21 Sherratt 1986, p. 437‑440; Gardner 2003, p. 291‑293.

22 Séfériadès 1983, p. 662‑668, 675‑676; Séfériadès 2001, p. 113‑115; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki & Romiopoulou 1992, p. 243‑247; Papadopoulos 1992, p. 252.

23 Grammenos 1981, p. 95‑98, 128.

24 The first phase of Limenaria (Malamidou & Papadopoulos 1993, p. 566, 572) and the earliest horizon of Skala Sotiros (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1987, p. 394, 405‑406). See also Koukouli-Chrysanthaki & Papadopoulos, chapter 18 in this volume.

25 Grammenos 1981, p. 127.

26 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 72, 231‑232; Nikolova 1999, p. 199‑224, 252‑255; H. Todorova 2003, p. 295‑296, 300.

27 Hotovo, Kovachevo III, Drenkovo (Grebska-Kulova & Kulov 2007, p. 291).

28 Blegen et al. 1950, p. 40‑41, 51‑80, pl. 223‑267; Podzuweit 1979, p. 93‑101.

29 Nikolova 1999, p. 252‑253.

30 Sample AN-72 has been measured twice, as there was doubt about the first measurement.

31 Manning 1995; Maran 1998, p. 158‑159, table 81.

32 Malamidou & Papadopoulos 1997, p. 593; Grammenos 1981, p. 123, 128.

33 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 1990, p. 535.

34 Until lately this phase was characterized as “Phase C”, because part of the fallen clay superstructure from a wall had been considered – as a result of the extremely fragmentary excavation data – the floor of a later “phase B” (Siros et al. 2007; Miteletsis & Siros 2008). The evolution of the excavation in 2010, however, upset this theory (Miteletsis & Siros 2010).

35 References to archaeobotanical material are principally based on macroscopic examination during the excavation. Many soil samples have been collected for further examination. This study is being conducted by Dr E. Margaritis (Wiener laboratory, Environmental Studies Fellow) and is still in progress. A small number of samples from the 2004 excavation contained barley, durum wheat and cornelian cherries, revealed through water-sieving and macroscopic examination.

36 The collapse of parts of the cave ceiling is described as “breakdown morphology”. Collapse of this kind is the result of karst erosion but can be enhanced because of some violent incident, such as an earthquake (Pennos et al., forthcoming).

37 The southernmost building uses the wall of the northern one.

38 At Promachonas-Topolnitsa (Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 1996b, p. 751; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 1997, p. 551‑552; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 2003, p. 92‑94; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 2007, p. 52), Makrygialos (Besios & Pappa 1994, p. 140; Besios & Pappa 1995, p. 175; Pappa 2008, p. 195‑196, 293‑294), Korinos (Besios & Adaktylou 2004, p. 358), Stavroupoli (Grammenos & Kotsos 2002, p. 323), Thermi (Pappa 2007, p. 265, Pappa 2008, p. 94‑95), Slatino (Chohadhziev 2006, p. 49). Probably also attested in the houses of sector 6 at Dikili Tash (chapter 15 in this volume, p. 271, n. 3).

39 In this area it has not been possible to attribute the occupation level to one of the phases of the cave because no upper layers other than the superficial one and no other remains have been found.

40 Sitagroi Vb (Sherratt 1986, p. 439, 472, fig. 13.26: 13‑20, pl. XCIX), Dikili Tash IIIB, and already since the end of the IIIA phase (Séfériadès 1983, p. 660‑664, fig. 49), Paradimi Vb (Bakalakis & Sakellariou 1981, p. 13‑14, 41‑42, fig. 15).

41 Phases IV‑V of Kritsana (Aslanis 1985, p. 228‑240, pl. 95‑106), Agios Mamas (Aslanis 1985, p. 240‑253, pl. 107‑118), Kriaritsi (Asouhidou et al. 1998, p. 277‑279, fig. 7‑8), Polychrono (Pappa 1990, p. 391), Siviri (Avgeros et al. 2003, p. 364).

42 Troy I (Blegen et al. 1950, pl. 223, 225, 258‑261); types E1-F1 in Podzuweit 1979, p. 20‑23, 112‑126, pl. 1: EIb, 1.2: EI1, 2.1: FIb4), Green Period at Poliochni (Bernabò-Brea 1964, p. 622, table CXXIV, pl. e).

43 Chohadzhiev 2001, p. 77, pl. 84: 4.

44 Nea Nikomedeia (Aslanis 1992, p. 74), Avgi (Stratouli 2005a, p. 600‑601), Servia (Wardle & Vlahodimitropoulou 1998, p. 545‑546), Makrygialos (Pappa 2008, p. 231, 288).

45 Renfrew 1986, p. 189‑190.

46 Ridley et al. 2000, p. 71, 77‑79.

47 Aslanis 1985, p. 32‑35.

48 Sherratt 1986, p. 435, 438, 453, 461, fig. 13.7: 1, 5; 13.15: 1, 2; pl. CII, CIV: 1‑4.

49 Séfériadès 1983, p. 659‑661, fig. 46; Séfériadès 2001, p. 112, 137‑138, fig. 18.3, 19.1.

50 Nikolova 1999, p. 128‑129, fig. 7.7.3.1.

51 For the first, see Sherratt 1986, p. 435, 450, fig. 13.4: 1; Séfériadès 1983, p. 659‑661, fig. 44; Grammenos 1981, p. 147, pl. 28.546. For the second one: Sherratt 1986, p. 435, 450, fig. 13.4: 2, pl. XII: 3; Séfériadès 1983, p. 659‑661, fig. 45.

52 Grammenos 1981, p. 141, pl. 19.321.

53 Aslanis 1985, p. 155, 157, table 72, pl. 31.7, 43.14.

54 Sherratt 1986, p. 435, 450, fig. 13.4: 6‑11, pl. XI: 1‑2; Séfériadès 1983, p. 659‑661, fig. 43.

55 Ilcheva 2002, p. 72‑75, pl. 48‑50.

56 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 232, pl. 15.6, 16. This kind of decoration is common in the Slatino culture (Chohadzhiev 2006, p. 67‑68, fig. 100‑102), as well as in Promachonas-Topolnitsa IV (Vajsov 2007, p. 102, 104, fig. 17).

57 Roman 1976, p. 26‑30, fig. 2, pl. 39; Tasić 1995, pl. XXVI: 7, XXX: 1. A parallel from Bagatsina is also given by Alexandrov 2007, p. 237, pl. III: 2.

58 Grammenos 1981, p. 136, pl. 4.207, 210.

59 It is hard to consider it as a grindstone for no obvious traces of grinding were noticed.

60 Ilcheva 2002, p. 72‑76, pl. 48‑49, 54.

61 Late phases of the Dabene-Sarovka site: Nikolova 1995, p. 90, 103, pl. 7.1, 2.

62 Sherratt 1986, p. 451, fig. 13.5: 1‑2, pl. XI: 3.

63 Demoule 2004, p. 77, pl. 12.5.

64 Grammenos 1981, p. 47, pl. 27.525.

65 Pernicheva 1995, p. 131‑134, fig. 13.469‑470; Nikolova 1999, p. 83, fig. 6.5.5.

66 Bubanj Hum I, Krivelj, Zlotska Pecina cave: Tasić 1995, p. 117‑118, 138‑139, 172‑173, fig. 8, 24.5, 50.1, 2.

67 Pernicheva 1995, p. 131; Tasić 1995, p. 32‑33, pl. 2; Georgieva 2007, p. 332, fig. 3.

68 In the Dabene-Sarovka site in Bulgarian Thrace, bowls with inturned rims appear from the beginning (Late Chalcolithic) till the end of the settlement (EBA II): Nikolova 1995, p. 91, pl. 3.5, 8.

69 Sherratt 1986, p. 435, 439, 450, 472, fig. 13.4: 4, 13.26: 1‑3.

70 Grammenos 1981, p. 139, 146, pl. 18.320, 26.488.

71 Nikolova 1999, p. 196‑198, fig. 8.7.2.19‑23.

72 Tasić 1995, p. 54‑55, pl. 6B.8, pl. XVII.5.

73 Nikolova 1999, p. 174, fig. 7.30.

74 Sherratt 1986, p. 439, 471, fig. 13.25: 11.

75 Chohadzhiev 2001, p. 73, 78, pl. 75.1, 85.7.

76 Avramova 1992, p. 244‑247.

77 Sherratt 1986, p. 461, fig. 13.15: 1.

78 Sherratt 1986, p. 434‑435; Gardner 2003, p. 290‑291.

79 Séfériadès 1983, p. 657‑662, 675‑676.

80 Grammenos 1981, p. 95‑98, 128.

81 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 72, 231‑232; Grammenos 1981, p. 127.

82 Kontaxi et al. 2004, p. 58.

83 Papadopoulos et al. 2001, p. 58‑59.

84 Chohadzhiev 2001.

85 Roman 1976, p. 101‑102; Nikolova 1999, p. 175, 250; Todorova 2001, p. 246; H. Todorova 2003, p. 293‑300.

86 Trantalidou et al. 2005a, p. 62.

87 H. Todorova 2003, p. 288.

88 Part of sample AN-38 (burned bones found in a fragmented vessel) was dated between 3509‑3358 cal BC (Lyon-6004/SacA-15573). It is probably the second measurement (AN-38a, Lyon7022/SacA-19573) that is closer to the true age.

89 Manning 1995; Maran 1998, p. 158, table 81.

90 Nikolova 1999, p. 191.

91 Grammenos 1981, p. 123, 128.

92 Papadopoulos et al. 2001, p. 58‑59.

93 Boyadzhiev 1995, p. 153‑155.

94 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 229‑230.

95 Séfériadès 1983, p. 653‑655, 675; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki & Romiopoulou 1992, p. 232; Papadopoulos 1992, p. 252; Demoule 2004, p. 70.

96 Chohadzhiev 2006, p. 61, 65‑67, fig. 85, 92‑98.

97 H. Todorova 2003, p. 289.

98 Evans 1986, p. 397‑400; Gardner 2003, p. 288‑290.

99 Bakalakis & Sakellariou 1981, p. 14, 27‑28.

100 Hellström 1987, p. 135.

101 Malamidou 1997a, p. 517.

102 Malamidou & Papadopoulos 1993, p. 566.

103 Peristeri & Halkiopoulou 2005, p. 130.

104 Trantalidou et al. 2005a, p. 49.

105 Panti & Bahlas 2007, p. 467.

106 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 1992, p. 569‑570; Vajsov 2007, p. 85, 102, 118.

107 Among others Strumsko, Balgarchevo, Kolarovo I (Pernicheva 1995, p. 126, 130‑131), horizon V of Studena Voda, Skaleto (Chohadzhiev 2001).

108 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 222; Georgieva 2007, p. 330.

109 Sample AN-12 has been measured twice, as there was doubt about the first measurement.

110 Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 1996a, p. 693‑694; Maniatis et al. 2014.

111 Papadopoulos 2002, p. 65‑66.

112 This shape is common during Sitagroi Vb (Sherratt 1986, p. 439, 466, fig. 13.20, pl. XCIX: 8‑10). It is also present during the earlier phase of Troy IIb (type HIII: Podzuweit 1979, p. 23‑27, 158‑162, pl. 7.2: HIIIa, b) and in Karanovo VII (H. Todorova 2003, p. 324, fig.17).

113 In Western Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Rhodopes, the use of caves has been attested as early as the beginning of the 5th millennium BC and culminates during the so-called Transitional period (between the Chalcolithic and EBA). Cave use continues during the EBA (H. Todorova 2003, p. 281‑282, 288‑290, 294, 299).

114 Such as the caves of the Angitis Sources (Maaras) and Livadopotamos (Trantalidou et al. 2005a, p. 59‑63; Trantalidou et al. 2005b, p. 589‑593).

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1 – View of the rockshelter from the north.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 104k
Légende Fig. 2 – General plan of the cave with the excavation grid.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 24k
Légende Fig. 3 – Ground plan of the remains of the first (upper) prehistoric phase, with buildings A1 (to the south) and A2 (to the northeast). Chart 1: floor; 2: floor exposed to high temperature; 3: disturbed floor; 4: elements from clay superstructure; 5: wall; 6, charred post/posthole; 7: clay structure; 8: destruction layer; 9: stones; 10: pottery; 11: pit/disturbance.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 92k
Légende Fig. 4 – Destruction layer of the upper prehistoric phase (phase A).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 68k
Légende Fig. 5 – Building A1.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 56k
Légende Fig. 6 – Building A1, detail of the eastern wall.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 80k
Légende Fig. 7 – Pottery from building A1.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 60k
Légende Fig. 8 – Building A2.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 72k
Légende Fig. 9 – Finds from building A2.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 40k
Légende Table 1 – Radiocarbon dates from “Katarraktes Cave” Sidirokastro.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 316k
Légende Fig. 10 – Ground plan of the remains of the second (lower) prehistoric phase, with buildings B1, B2 (to the south) and B3 (to the north). Chart 1: floor; 2: raised floor; 3: elements from clay superstructure; 4: thin wooden structural elements; 5: charred post/posthole; 6: wall; 7: foundation trench; 8: destruction layer; 9: stones; 10: pottery; 11: pit/disturbance.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 88k
Légende Fig. 11 – Destruction layer of the second (lower) prehistoric phase (phase B).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 52k
Légende Fig. 12 – Pottery from the area east of buildings B1 and B2.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 28k
Légende Fig. 13 – Phase B, finds from building B1.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 92k
Légende Fig. 14 – Phase B, finds from building B2.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 76k
Légende Fig. 15 – Building B3.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 76k
Légende Fig. 16 – Phase B, finds from building B3.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 56k
Légende Fig. 17 – Building B4, floor level.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 60k
Légende Fig. 18 – Phase B, pottery from building B4.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 88k
Légende Fig. 19 – Building B4, floor level.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 44k
Légende Fig. 20 – Phase B, pottery from the area of the platform (building B4?).
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 72k
Légende Fig. 21 – Phase B, stone and clay tools from the area of building B4.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k
Légende Fig. 22 – Late Neolithic II graphite-painted vessel.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 48k
Légende Fig. 23 – Finds from chamber B.
URL http://books.openedition.org/momeditions/docannexe/image/528/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 23k

Auteurs

Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology and Speleology.

Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Pieria.

Athina Pediaditaki-Nalbant (Traducteur)
Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search