Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace

ARCHAEOLINGUA Edited by ERZSÉBET JEREM and WOLFGANG MEID Volume 46 THE YAMNAYA IMPACT ON PREHISTORIC EUROPE Volume 5 Series editor VOLKER HEYD From the Steppes to the Balkans Yamna Culture in Upper Thrace Edited by Stefan Alexandrov and Piotr Włodarczak BUDAPEST 2024 The publication of this volume was funded by the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, under the project of the National Science Centre (Kraków, Poland), grant OPUS 13 agreement no. 2017/25/B/HS3/02516 – ‘From the Steppes to the Balkans. Yamnaya culture in Thrace’ Front Cover Anthropomorphic stele from Grave 17 in Malomirovo. Photo by Michał Podsiadło Back Cover Excavations of Barrows 4 and 5 in Mogila. Photo by Magdalena Mazurkiewicz ISBN 978-615-5766-71-8 HU-ISSN 1215-9239 HU-ISSN 2786-2968 © The Authors and Archaeolingua Foundation All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any other information storage and retrieval system, without requesting prior permission in writing from the publisher. 2024 ARCHAEOLINGUA FOUNDATION H-1067 Budapest, Teréz krt. 13. Cover design: Móni Kaszta Copy editor: Katalin Sebők Desktop editing and layout by Rita Kovács Printed by AduPrint Kft. Contents PIOTR WŁODARCZAK From the steppes to the Balkans ...................................................................................................... 7 PIOTR WŁODARCZAK – STEFAN ALEXANDROV – STEFAN BAKARDZHIEV – TODOR VALCHEV Bulgarian-Polish project of research on barrows in the Middle Tundzha Region........................... 9 TODOR VALCHEV Geographic characteristics of the Lower and Middle courses of the Tundzha River .................... 35 PETRA TUŠLOVÁ – TODOR VALCHEV – PAVEL KUBÁLEK – VIKTORIA ČISŤAKOVA – STEFAN BAKARDZHIEV – NEVENKA ATANASOSKA VRHEL – JOSEF SOUČEK – DOROTHEA MILDOVÁ – IVO SVĚTLÍK Barrow No. 3 in Mogila ................................................................................................................. 41 STEFAN ALEXANDROV – TODOR VALCHEV – BIANCA PREDA-BĂLĂNICĂ – ILIA ILIEV – ELENA SANDOVAL – MARTIN TRAUTMANN – VOLKER HEYD A Bronze Age burial mound excavated near Mogila village, Tundzha Municipality, Yambol Region ......................................................................................... 65 STEFAN ALEXANDROV – ILIA ILIEV – TOMASZ OBERC – MICHAŁ PODSIADŁO – TODOR VALCHEV – PIOTR WŁODARCZAK Barrow at Pamukli Bair in Malomirovo, Elhovo Municipality ..................................................... 77 STEFAN ALEXANDROV – DANIELA AGRE Malomirovo, precious metal jewellery ........................................................................................ 167 ANITA SZCZEPANEK – TOMASZ OBERC – PIOTR WŁODARCZAK In search of lost bones: Anthropological analysis of redeposited bones from the centre of the barrow in Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair ...................................................... 175 ELENA SANDOVAL – PAUL MONAGHAN – FOTIS SGOURIDIS – VOLKER HEYD Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis of the individuals from the Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair barrow in Bulgaria ................................................................................................. 199 YOAN DIEKMANN – JENS BLÖCHER – VOLKER HEYD – JOACHIM BURGER The ancient DNA of the individuals buried in Malomirovo Graves 5, 14 and 19: A brief overview .......................................................................................................................... 207 ROSITSA MANOVA – STEFAN ALEXANDROV – BOGDAN RANGELOV – STELA ATANASOVA-VLADIMIROVA Red ochre from Early Bronze Age graves in Malomirovo ..........................................................211 MARIA LITYŃSKA-ZAJĄC – PIOTR WŁODARCZAK Wooden constructions of Yamna graves from the barrow in Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair........... 229 6 Contents STEFAN ALEXANDROV – PIOTR WŁODARCZAK Middle Bronze Age graves in Malomirovo and some problems of the 2nd millennium BC flexed barrow graves in the Middle Tundzha Region .................................................................. 243 BARTŁOMIEJ SZYMON SZMONIEWSKI – YAVOR RUSEV Grave 2, a secondary burial in the Pamukli Bair barrow near the village of Malomirovo, Elhovo Municipality ................................................................ 259 DIANA DIMITROVA – STEFAN ALEXANDROV – PIOTR WŁODARCZAK Chronology of Gabrova Mogila and Shekerdzha Mogila near Kamen, Sliven Province ............................................................................................................................ 265 STEFAN ALEXANDROV – PIOTR WŁODARCZAK Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace................................................................................ 299 List of authors ...................................................................................................................................... 329 Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace STEFAN ALEXANDROV – PIOTR WŁODARCZAK Abstract The excavation of the Pamukli Bair barrow in Malomirovo, Yambol Province, brought the discovery of a sequence of Early Bronze Age graves, the information value of which was improved by a long series of radiocarbon dates. The results of these investigations are the starting point for an attempt to summarise and organise the current knowledge about barrow communities in the area in the 4th–3rd millennia BC. In these studies, the leading role is played by analysing large, multi-layer barrows located in the Middle Tundzha Region and clustering on the left bank of the Sazliyka River (Maritsa-Iztok group). These mounds repeat the sequence of three phases: (1) Pre-Yamna, or east-oriented burials, (2) Early Yamna and (3) Late Yamna. The first phase is characterised by small barrows, often with various stone constructions. Apart from burials, they contain other features of ritual purpose (e.g., fireplaces and sacrificial pits). The burials of the second phase represent the Early Yamna supraregional trend and are clearly distinguished from the burials of the first phase. The analysis of the barrow burial rite in Upper Thrace indicates the presence of various cultural traditions, both allochthonous (of steppe and local origin). Chronological data suggest a relatively young dating for the earliest barrows (end of the 4th millennium BC), which corresponds to the oldest phases of settlements in Ezero and Dyadovo, i.e., the beginning of the EBA 1 phase in Upper Thrace. Keywords: Early Bronze Age, barrows, chronology, burial rite, Upper Thrace, Bulgaria 1. Introduction The research on the Pamukli Bair barrow in Malomirovo resulted in the discovery of a sequence of graves from the late 4th and first half of the 3rd millennium BC (Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2022; Alexandrov et al. 2024a). These results have already been used to characterise the Pre-Yamna horizon in the barrows of the Middle Tundzha Region and throughout Upper Thrace (Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023). The 21st century has seen a significant increase in data on Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace, resulting from new excavations and publications presenting many key materials. Moreover, the results of archaeogenetic analyses have sparked an increased interest in the role of expanding barrow communities of Eastern European origin in forming the European Early Bronze Age civilisation (groundbreaking publications: Allentoft et al. 2015; Haak et al. 2015). The key importance of the steppe population’s expansion towards the Eurasian steppe’s western border was pointed out as early as the interwar period (e.g., Childe 1925). These migrations were to proceed mainly via the convenient arteries of the Danubian and Tisza lowlands (e.g., Włodarczak 2010; Heyd 2011; Preda-Bălănică – Frînculeasa – Heyd 2020; Dani – Preda-Bălănică – Angi 2023). The southern branch of this main direction of migration are the Upper Thrace lowlands, connecting the northern Balkans with the Aegean world both in prehistory and in historical times. In particular, the Maritsa (Greek: Evros) and Tundzha (Greek: Tonzos) arteries were convenient for these contacts. The most numerous barrow clusters from the 4th and 3rd millennia BC are in the basins of these rivers (Figs. 1 and 2). In the case of barrow 300 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak Fig. 1. Early Bronze Arge barrows investigated in Upper Thrace (graphics by A. Sznajdrowska-Pondel and P. Włodarczak) 1 – Balgarska Polana; 2 – Beli Bryag, Chitashkite mogili, Barrow 5; 3–4 – Benkovski, Barrows 1 and 2; 5–6 – Boyanovo, Baylar Kayryak, Barrows 1 and 3; 7 – Boyanovo, Lozyanska Mogila; 8 – Bratya Daskalovi, Malkata Momina Mogila; 9 – Chargan, Trnova Mogila; 10 – Chernogorovo, Barrow 1; 11–12 – Dolno Sahrane, Barrows 3 and 4; 13 – Drazhevo, Sabev Bair; 14 – Golyama Detelina, Malkata Mogila; 15 – Golyama Detelina, Golyamata Mogila; 16 – Golyama Detelina, Barrow 4; 17 – Irechekovo, Barrow 1; 18 – Izvorovo; 19 – Kamen, Gabrova Mogila; 20 – Kamen, Sekerdzha Mogila; 21 – Kovachevo, Andinova Mogila; 22 – Malka Detelina, Manchova Mogila; 23 – Malka Detelina, Tanyo Koleva Mogila; 24 – Malka Detelina, Kurdova Mogila; 25 – Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair; 26–30 – Mednikarovo, Barrows 1–4 and 6; 31 – Merichleri, Kayryaka, Barrow 1; 32 – Mogila, Golemia Kayryak, Barrow 1; 33 – Mogila, Golemia Kayryak, Barrow 3; 34 – Mogila, Malkia Kayryak; 35 – Ovchartsi, Golyamata Mogila; 36 – Ovchartsi, Barrow 2; 37 – Ovchartsi, Barrow 3; 38 – Pet Mogili, Bodakovi Mogili, Barrow 2; 39 – Popovo, Golyamata Mogila; 40–41 – Primorsko, Barrows 3 and 4; 42 – Prohorovo; 43 – Sokol; 44 – Sinapovo, Sechenata Mogila; 45 – Stambolovo, Barrow 3; 46 – Stralddzha I; 47 – Straldzha II, Barrow 3; 48 – Svoboda, Barrow 1; 49 – Targovishte, Gonova Mogila; 50 – Troyanovo, Chernyova Mogila; 51 – Troyanovo, Kamennata Mogila; 52 – Troyanovo, Kangalova Mogila; 53 – Tvarditsa, Barrow 1; 54 – Trakia; 55 – Venets, Tonchova Mogila; 56 – Voden, Barrow 1; 57 – Zimitsa, Barrow 1 communities, these were also ecological zones, including the southern border of the Eurasian steppe and favouring mobile settlement associated with the great importance of livestock farming in subsistence. Based on the research results in Malomirovo, it is possible to summarise knowledge about the cultural and chronological characteristics of barrows in the Middle Tundzha Region and compare it with information from other regions of Upper Thrace. Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 301 Fig. 2. Upper Thracian barrow landscape in Pet Mogili, Radnevo Province (photo by P. Włodarczak) 2. History of research The area of Upper Thrace has long remained on the sidelines of studies on Early Bronze Age barrow communities. The oldest excavations to yield graves from this period took place in the 1960s at Dolno Sahrane, Barrows 3 and 4 (Getov 1965), Kovachevo (Batsova – Kanchev 1974), Sokol (Batsova – Kanchev 1974), and Troyanovo, Kamennata Mogila (Buyukliev 1964). In his comprehensive monograph, Ivan Panayotov (1989) could not devote much attention to the problem of barrows south of the Balkans due to the poor state of the source material. A new picture of this area was outlined by discoveries made at the end of the 20th century during rescue research on the Sazliyka River (the socalled Maritsa-Iztok Region). The find assemblages from the barrows examined at that time, primarily in Golyama Detelina (Golyamata Mogila and Barrow 4) and Mednikarovo-Iskritsa (Barrows 1–4), revealed the specific character of the burial rite in Upper Thrace, different from that in the northern regions of Bulgaria (Kanchev 1995; Leshtakov – Borisov 1995; Leshtakov – Popova 1995; Panayotov – Alexandrov 1995). Research in the Maritsa-Iztok Region continued at the beginning of the 21st century, providing new rich discoveries, including Kangalova Mogila and Chernyova Mogila in Troyanovo, Golyamata Mogila in Ovchartsi, and Barrow 5 in Beli Bryag. This area currently provides a large and original collection of sources; unfortunately, this record is not fully published, evaluated, and summarised. Only in the 21st century were numerous Early Bronze Age graves discovered in barrows from the Middle Tundzha Region (primarily Yambol Province; also Karnobat and Sliven Provinces). In 2004– 2010, three mounds were excavated near Yambol: Drazhevo, Irechekovo and Mogila (Iliev 2011; Iliev – Bakărdžiev 2020). About the same time, excavations were also carried out near Elhovo in Boyanovo Baylar Kayryak, Barrows 1 and 3 (Iliev – Bakărdžiev 2020), Lozyanska Mogila (Agre 2015), Popovo–Golyamata Mogila (Agre 2007), and Sinapovo–Sechenata Mogila (Agre – Dichev 2013). Also, research on the royal Thracian necropolis in Malomirovo indicated that it was built on Bronze Age barrows (Agre 2011). In the Sliven Valley in the northern part of the region, excavations were carried out in two large barrows in Kamen (Gabrova Mogila and Shekerdzha Mogila – Dimitrova 2014), as well as in smaller barrows in Straldzha (Cholakov et al. 2016) and Zimnitsa (Alexandrov – 302 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak Vasileva – Iliev 2024). Additionally, the barrows in Straldzha (Alexandrov – Iliev 2016) and Venets (Tonchova Mogila; see Georgieva – Nikov – Momchilov 2008) have been partially investigated. In recent years, international expeditions have excavated two barrows in the vicinity of Yambol in Mogila, Golemia Kayryak (Tušlová et al. 2024) and Mogila, Malkia Kayryak (Alexandrov et al. 2024b), as well as Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair in the vicinity of Elhovo (Alexandrov et al. 2024a). In the 21st century, Early Bronze Age barrows were also studied in other regions of Upper Thrace. Several mounds were excavated in the Middle Maritsa basin, including the multi-layered Barrow 1 in Merichleri, Kayryaka (Iliev 2018). Lonely mounds were discovered at the foothills of the Rhodopes (Stambolovo, Barrow 3; see Nehrizov – Tsvetkova 2010) and in the Sakar Hills (Balgarska Polana and Izvorovo). Also, on the Black Sea coast, Early Bronze Age barrows were discovered during the excavations of a Thracian cemetery in Primorsko, Silihlyar (Balabanov – Pantov 2019a; 2019b). In the 2010s, the modern bioarchaeological analysis of materials from Upper Thrace began with the first 13C/15N stable isotope analyses (Gerling 2015a; 2015b; Privat et al. 2018; Sandoval et al. 2024). Bone samples were also used in projects aimed at determining the genetic characteristics of prehistoric populations (Mathieson et al. 2018; Modi et al. 2019; Penske et al. 2023; Preda-Bălănică – Diekmann 2022; Diekmann et al. 2024). These results, although still insufficient in numbers, are beneficial for prehistoric studies. Projects of systematic barrow prospection in selected Upper Thrace regions were also significant (e.g., Weissová 2013; Sobotkova – Weissova 2019). They are an essential data source on the number and characteristics of barrows. However, their taxonomic and chronological assessment possibilities are still a complex and little-explored research topic. New analytical possibilities open up new perspectives for more detailed prehistoric studies and confrontation with previous findings. Field activity in recent years is associated with them. In 2021, as part of two large international research projects, the studies mentioned above of two large, stratified barrows were carried out (Figs. 3 and 4) in Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair (Alexandrov et al. 2024a) and Mogila, Malkia Kayryak (Alexandrov et al. 2024b). A bit by accident, during the search for a cemetery from the Roman Period, the smaller Barrow 3 in Mogila, Golemia Kayryak, was also examined (Tušlová et al. 2024). Currently, analyses Fig. 3. Barrow in Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair during excavation in 2021 (photo by P. Włodarczak) 303 Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace Fig. 4. Barrow in Mogila, Malka Kayryak, before excavation in 2021 (photo by P. Włodarczak) of materials obtained during these explorations are successively published. All three barrows mentioned here are located in the Middle Tundzha Region. Currently, this area has become the best-studied zone within Upper Thrace. 3. Middle Tundzha Region Early Bronze Age graves in the Middle Tundzha Region were discovered in 18 barrows (Table 1). The sites form two clusters, a northern one near Yambol and a southern one near Elhovo. All barrows of the northern cluster are located in the Sliven Valley, whereas those of the southern cluster are located in the Elhovo Valley and the southern edge of the Dervent Heights (Fig. 5). Research projects targeted mainly quite large barrows due to their multi-layered structure and the large number of burials from diverse periods to be discovered (Fig. 6). Table 1. Early Bronze Age barrows excavated in the Middle Tundzha Region No. 1 2 3 4 5 Site Barrow’s name Boyanovo Lozyanska Mogila Boyanovo, Barrow 1 Baylar Kayryak (Golyamata Mogila) Boyanovo, Barrow 3 Baylar Kayryak Chargan Trnova Mogila Drazhevo Sabev Bair 35 5.5 Number of EBA graves 10 41.5 4.8 12 27.5 1.6 3 - Iliev – Bakărdžiev 2020 45 2.9 3 2 30 2.7 5 - Unpublished excavation of S. Bakardzhiev and Y. Rusev Iliev – Bakărdžiev 2020 Diameter Height [m] [m] Number of MBA/LBA References graves 10 Agre 2015 Iliev – Bakărdžiev 2020 304 No. Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak Site Barrow’s name 6 Irechekovo 7 Kamen 8 Kamen 9 10 15 Malomirovo Mogila, Golemia Kayryak Mogila, Golemia Kayryak Mogila, Malkia Kayryak Popovo Golyamata Mogila Sinapovo Sechenata Mogila Straldzha I Barrow 1 16 17 Straldzha II Venets 18 Zimnitsa 11 12 13 14 Jankovi Grobove Gabrova Mogila Shekerdzha Mogila Pamukli Bair Barrow 1 (Golyamata Mogila) Barrow 3 Barrow 3 Tonchova Mogila Barrow 2 22 1.2 Number of EBA graves 1 32 2.5 10 45 5 7 2 Dimitrova 2014 40 45 3.5 4.8 11 10 3 Alexandrov et al. 2024a Iliev – Bakărdžiev 2020 23 1.6 6 5 Tušlová et al. 2024 28 2.5 4 8 Alexandrov et al. 2024b 48 6 12 24 Agre 2007 26 3.2 8 - Agre – Dichev 2013 50 4 2 - 45 44 1.5 6.5 1 2 1 Alexandrov – Iliev 2016 Cholakov et al. 2016 Georgieva et al. 2008 30 0.4 4 - Diameter Height [m] [m] Number of MBA/LBA References graves 2 Iliev – Bakărdžiev 2020 Dimitrova 2014; 2021 Alexandrov – Vasileva – Iliev 2024 In the Middle Tundzha Region, such mounds occur together with numerous smaller ones (Sobotkova – Weissova 2019), which were rarely the targets of excavations. Large mounds were selected for systematic research while searching for graves from the Thracian Period or to obtain valuable stratigraphic sequences with many graves. Such tumuli are better preserved than small mounds quickly destroyed by ploughing. Thus, the differences between the character of the mound cluster in the Tundzha, Sazliyka, and other regions may be somewhat exaggerated by the nature and intensity of archaeological research. Altogether, 108 Early Bronze Age graves were discovered in the barrows excavated in the Middle Tundzha Region (the chronological classification or grave function of several is uncertain). Thus, the average number of graves in a barrow is 5.9. It is high compared to barrows in northern Bulgaria, Romania, or the Pannonian Plain but similar to the Budzhak zone in the northwestern Black Sea region, where many graves are associated primarily with numerous features of the late Yamna culture and dug into already existing barrows. However, in Upper Thrace, a large number of graves is primarily associated with multiple phases of barrow construction, as illustrated perfectly by Malomirovo (Pamukli Bair), Kamen (Shekerdzha Mogila), or Mogila (Golemia Kayryak, Golyamata Mogila). No cemeteries in this zone comprise numerous graves of the Late Yamna culture. This also results in a specific distribution of graves within the barrow: most are near the centre, and only a few have been discovered on the outskirts. In the barrows of the Middle Tundzha Region, inhumations in anatomical order predominate. Nevertheless, the characteristic of this area is determined by other types of burials: secondary, partial, and cremation, both in the Pre-Yamna phase and later, in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC. In the Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace Fig. 5. Early Bronze Age barrows in the Middle Tundzha Region. For site numbers, see Table 1 (graphics by A. Sznajdrowska-Pondel and P. Włodarczak) 305 306 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak Fig. 6. Diameters of Early Bronze Age barrows excavated in Upper Thrace case of cremations, the feature is probably a sacrifice. Burnt remains are discovered above inhumations (Drazhevo, Sabev Bair and Gabrova Mogila near Kamen). Similar in nature are unburned, incomplete human remains scattered without any order near the tops of burial chambers at Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair: Graves 1 and 20 located above Graves 14 and 16; Boyanovo, Baylar Kayryak, Barrow 1: Grave 21 above Grave 19/20; Mogila, Golemia Kayryak, Barrow 1: Grave 26 probably above Grave 24. Such a rite indicates the sacrificial nature of the human remains and their connection with the ’main’ burial in the grave chamber. Other secondary or partial burials are connected with the oldest phase of the barrow from the Pre-Yamna stage. At that time, several features were present under the barrow, including secondary inhumations. This is the case at Gabrova Mogila near Kamen, where three features were discovered: a multiple burial (Grave 30), a sacrificial deposit (tryzna), and a feature with incomplete remains of seven people on two levels (Grave 24; Dimitrova 2014; 2021). Besides, the earliest phase of the Malomirovo barrow includes two inhumations (Nos. 18 and 19) and a grave with incomplete and mixed human remains (Grave 18; Alexandrov et al. 2024a). These discoveries show the complex nature of the funerary rite, with a ceremony stretched over time and incorporating various sacrifices, including that of humans. A grave without a burial (a kenotaph?) was the primary feature (No. 30) of Popovo, Golyamata Mogila, only briefly described in the preliminary excavation report (Agre 2007). Two features of this type come from the Maritsa-Iztok group: Beli Bryag, Barrow 5, Grave 1 and Mednikarovo, Barrow 3, Grave 2. Kenotaphs are associated with the older phases of barrows and are most likely another element of the complex burial rite outlined above. The case of Grave 18 of Malomirovo illustrates the custom of burial chamber reopening. A particular case of such procedure is the placement of another burial above the bottom of the burial pit. Two-storey graves are created in this way. Examples are Boyanovo, Baylar Kayryak, Graves 19 and 20 and Kamen, Shekerdzha, Grave 10. Similar burials were also discovered in the Maritsa-Iztok group (Beli Bryag, Barrow 5, Grave 2; Troyanovo, Kangalova Mogila, Graves 3 and 5; Mednikarovo, Barrow 3, Grave 1) and the Merichleri barrow in the Maritsa-West group (Graves 4 and 6). The practice of digging into an older burial seems to have also been followed by the Early Yamna people, as evidenced by the case of digging into Grave 19 in Malomirovo. The recurrence of such features suggests that the procedure was intentional. The burial structures were features of long-term use. A significant part of the barrows in the Middle Tundzha Region are dated to the Pre-Yamna phase (Fig. 7). From the emerging picture, one can even conclude that most of the barrow cemeteries in this zone had been established before the expansion of the Early Yamna community. The cemetery on Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 307 Fig. 7. Chronology of primary burials of barrows in Upper Thrace Golemia Kayryak in Mogila provides unique data on their spatial development. A small barrow was established there on the highest part of the hill (Barrow 1) and was significantly enlarged in the Early Yamna phase (Iliev – Bakărdžiev 2020). West of Barrow 1, a cemetery consisting of small barrows was established. One of them (Barrow 3) is dated to the Early Bronze Age, while two others (Nos. 4 and 5) only to the Roman Period. The timeless and multicultural character of ceremonial-funerary barrow complexes is characteristic of the Middle Tundzha and other regions of Upper Thrace. The barrows of the Pre-Yamna phase in the Middle Tundzha Region are associated with the eastern orientation of the deceased, placed on their sides or in a semi-supine position (Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023). Nevertheless, the general statistics of the entire region reveal a clear predominance of western orientation (Fig. 8) and that a significant proportion were buried in a supine position. This is associated with the relatively numerous Early Yamna graves and the applicable rules for arranging the dead in late chronological phases (EBA 2 = Late Yamna). The situation may result from the significant role of the Yamna impact. Changes in body position and orientation occurred in Upper Thrace around Fig. 8. Orientation of burials in the Middle Tundzha Region (A – all burials, B – only primary burials) 308 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak Fig. 9. Pottery from Grave 3 in Drazhevo, Sabev Bair (after Iliev–Bakardžiev 2020) Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 309 3000–2900 cal BC, when the period of clear dominance of the positioning of the deceased with the head to the west began. Compared to the neighbouring Maritsa-Iztok cluster, the region’s barrows are notable for their low proportion of furnished graves, especially with pottery. Rich grave find assemblages come from only two barrows dated to the Pre-Yamna phase: Drazhevo, Sabev Bair (Fig. 9) and Kamen, Gabrova Mogila. The ceramics from these graves generally correspond to the A2–B1 phases of Ezero (e.g., Iliev – Bakardžiev 2020; Dimitrova 2014; Semmoto 2023). However, the proportion of graves with metal hair rings is high (46 ornaments in 21 graves or 19.6%) compared to other regions. These items were often made of silver (39 pieces in 18 graves) and, less often, gold (six pieces in four graves). Only in one grave dated to the Pre-Yamna phase was a copper hair ring discovered (Kamen, Gabrova Mogila, Grave 30). All gold items are dated to different phases of the Yamna culture. Silver hair rings are characteristic ornaments of different phases of the Yamna culture, rarely also present in Pre-Yamna graves (Drazhevo, Grave 3 and Kamen, Gabrova Mogila, Grave 30). 4. Maritsa-Iztok group The name ‘Maritsa-Iztok’ refers to a compact cluster of barrows located on the left bank of the Sazliyka River (a left-bank tributary of Maritsa River). The name comes from the open lignite mine complex. Numerous and chronologically diverse graves from the Early Bronze Age were discovered there as part of the rescue research preceding the opening of the mines. The summarised data on the types of burials indicate differences compared to the Middle Tundzha Region (Fig. 10). In the Maritsa-Iztok area, the eastern or southeastern orientation was dominant. A more significant part of the deceased were placed flexed on a side (‘Hocker’ position in German) or in a semi-supine position. In the summaries from several years ago, the characteristics of graves from this zone had a decisive influence on determining the character of the burial rite in Upper Thrace (Kaiser – Winger 2015; Kaiser 2019). It should be noted, however, that statistically, the data of two barrows in which exceptionally numerous graves were discovered were decisive: Golyamata Mogila near Ovchartsi and Golyamata Mogila (Barrow 2) near Fig. 10. Orientation of burials in the Maritsa-Iztok Region 310 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak Fig. 11. Golyama Detelina, Barrow 2 (Golyamata Mogila). The plan for the barrow with the primary Grave 30 is marked in red (after Kanchev 1995, modified) Golyama Detelina. In these cases, orienting the dead’s head to the southeast was dominant. Nevertheless, in the entire Maritsa-Iztok zone, barrows with east-oriented primary burials were predominant. Their connection with the Pre-Yamna phase is confirmed by radiocarbon dating (Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023). Secondary burials, associated with the Early and Late Yamna phases, are less numerous than in the Middle Tundzha Region. The two barrows from Ovchartsi and Golyama Detelina mentioned above are distinguished not only by the number of graves but also by the principles of their location within the barrow. Most east-oriented burials were at a level approximately corresponding to the base of the barrow, both at its centre and at a considerable distance from it. The barrow in Ovchartsi has only been partially excavated, and it is not easy to interpret the stratigraphic data in this case. Most likely, the central burials associated with the construction of this barrow (including the primary burial) were located outside the excavated area. However, it is possible to interpret the situation in Barrow 2 (Golyamata Mogila) from Golyama Detelina. In that case, graves oriented to the east and southeast were discovered at a considerable depth (4–4.4 m; see Kanchev 1995, 49, figs. 4 and 5). It can be assumed that these features form a flat cemetery created before constructing a large, central barrow. The source publication presents small mounds built above some of the graves. This resembles the situation at Pamukli Bair in Malomirovo, where a ceremonialfunerary complex consisting of graves, low mounds and stone structures was created in the Pre-Yamna Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 311 phase (Alexandrov et al. 2024a). Regarding Golyamata Mogila in Golyama Detelina, Grave 30 stands out clearly and is considered the primary burial in source publications (Kanchev 1995; Leshtakov – Popova 1995). This was a typical Early Yamna grave, located at a similar level to the upper parts of many other graves (Fig. 11). Based on analogies from other sites, the succession of east-oriented burials (Pre-Yamna) → west-oriented burials (Early Yamna) seems likely. The large barrow was therefore built above Grave 30 but in a place previously occupied by the ceremonial-funerary zone of the Pre-Yamna phase. Smaller mounds and stone structures (such as stelae above Graves 25–26) could have been connected with this earliest stage. Based on the reinterpretation of the stratigraphic sequences, it can be stated that a similar chronological model of the formation of barrow cemeteries is visible in the Maritsa-Iztok and Middle Tundzha regions. The earliest graves in both areas are east-oriented. Under the barrows in Golyama Detelina and Ovchartsi, clusters of graves were discovered with features analogous to those in the flat cemetery in Stara Zagora, Bereketska Mogila (Kalchev 2002). In the Maritsa-Iztok group, a significant part consists of small barrows (diameter up to approx. 20 m) associated with a small number of discovered graves. Single secondary graves result in a lower frequency of burials of the Yamna type (mostly west-oriented burials) than in the Middle Tundzha Region. Considering these remarks, it can be summed up that both regions are similar regarding the rules of barrow burial rites in the Early Bronze Age. 5. Maritsa-West group The third, less compact group consists of barrows located west of the Maritsa-Iztok cluster. It includes the barrows of Bratya Daskalovi, Chernogorovo, Merichleri, Svoboda, Trakia, and Voden. They are part of the recently distinguished western barrow zone in Upper Thrace (Alexandrov 2020, 150). Their specific characteristics have been discussed, determining their distinctiveness from the Middle Tundzha and Maritsa-Iztok clusters (Alexandrov – Karailiev 2024). It should be emphasised, however, that the barrows in the Maritsa-West cluster differ significantly from each other, and their small number does not yet allow for the presentation of general rules. A characteristic of this group is the predominance of small barrows (including significantly eroded mounds, examined as part of rescue excavations). The only larger Barrow 1 of Merichleri, Kayryaka, is a multi-phase structure in which a sequence of graves was discovered, analogous to those at the Middle Tundzha or the Sazliyka River. 6. Other barrows Several isolated burial mounds are known besides the three clusters listed above. Their presence indicates the still incomplete exploration of the area of Upper Thrace. It is possible that only the present state of research can explain the lack of evidence of barrow burial rites in the western part of Upper Thrace – an area with evidence of intensive Early Bronze Age settlement. Located above the Upper Tundzha, Barrows 3 and 4 in Dolno Sahrane (Getov 1965) are the only evidence of barrow rites in the Early Bronze Age in the Kazanlak Valley. This area is famous for monumental barrow cemeteries from the Thracian Period (Kitov 1993). Many mounds have been found there (e.g., Sobotkova – Ross – Mallon 2018). The barrows of Dolno Sahrane indicate that in the Kazanlak area, similar to the areas around Elhovo and Sliven, Thracian barrows were inscribed in the older landscape of monumental tombs from the Early Bronze Age. Another aspect is the relation of the barrows from Dolno Sahrane to the zone located north of the Stara Planina mountains. 312 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak Barrows 3 and 4 from Primorsko, Silihlyar in Burgas province (Balabanov – Pantov 2019a; 2019b), in turn, draw attention to the presence of barrow communities in the coastal zone – analogous to the area around Varna Lake in northeastern Bulgaria. Individual barrows were discovered in the southern zone, in the region of the Sakar Heights (Balgarska Polyana and Izvorovo) and the Rhodope foothills (Stambolovo). These examples illustrate going beyond the ecological zone characteristic of the settlement of steppe communities. The data obtained so far are scarce and do not allow for characterising the barrows’ burial rite, cultural conditions, and chronology in this area. 7. The case of Pre-Yamna graves The name ‘Pre-Yamna’ refers to a terminology adapted from the North Pontic zone and covers a chronologically and taxonomically diverse set of finds dated to the period preceding the early phase of the Yamna culture. It does not conceal a desire to link two cultural phenomena genetically. It also does not indicate the genetic origin of the population. However, it emphasises the steppe origins of the burial rite. For some of the graves included here, in which ceramic vessels were discovered, one could also use local taxonomic terms (Cernavodă and, above all, Ezero A–B). In the early-dated graves, a large part consists of burials without equipment, interpreted according to their arrangement and orientation. Hence, the term ‘Pre-Yamna’ seems to be a better starting point for a comprehensive look at the burials discussed here. With the growth of the source base and progress in analytical studies, the barrow rite in Upper Thrace became a phenomenon interpreted as a long-term and culturally diverse. Such a concept was already imposed by the model proposed in the 1970s by Marija Gimbutas, assuming waves of expansion of the steppe population (Gimbutas 1979). Nevertheless, as a generalisation, for many years, all barrows from Bulgaria were identified with the Yamna culture (e.g., Panayotov 1989; Nikolova 1999; Anthony 2007, 362, 363). Only the arrangement of data on burials preceding the Yamna horizon in the North Pontic zone allowed attempts to clarify the taxonomic and chronological position of materials from Bulgaria (Alexandrov 2010; 2011; 2015). At the same time, attention was drawn to the similarity of the pottery in the graves in the barrows, the settlements, and the flat cemeteries. Chronological analyses established the age of the vessels from the barrows dated mostly to the Ezero A phase and the transition horizon to the Mihalich phase (e.g., Leshtakov – Popova 1995; Kalchev 2002). Although the barrow burial rite in Upper Thrace is complex and multi-current, most aspects have analogies in the customs described for the North Pontic zone. This is well illustrated by the grave type (grave construction and the way of positioning and orientation of the deceased). Analysing these is crucial for studies on steppe burials, which usually lack diagnostic finds. Therefore, grave typology becomes the essential tool for taxonomic and chronological analyses. In the case of the east-oriented burials from Upper Thrace, the similarity to the burials from the North Pontic zone dated to the Late Eneolithic is striking. The way of positioning (on the side or in a semi-supine position) and the orientation of the deceased (towards the E, NE or SE) are different from the burials of the Early Yamna culture (Fig. 12.1, 2). Typical examples are graves 19 and 21 of Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair. Their positioning corresponds to the Late Eneolithic Nizhna Mikhailivkatype burials in the North Pontic zone, representing the third burial tradition in the terminology of Yu. Ya. Rassamakin (2004, 168–170; 2013, 127). In the interpretation of I. Manzura, in the interfluve of the Dniester and the Danube, these burials are associated with the Cernavodă I culture (Manzura 1993, 26– 30). The researcher also assumes a late age for some of them – corresponding to the end of the C/II phase of the Trypillia culture (Manzura 2003–2004, 77; 2013, 139). Above the Middle Tundzha, in addition Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 313 Fig. 12. East-oriented primary burials from Upper Thrace. 1 – Beli Bryag, Chitashkite Mogili, Barrow 5, Grave 2/1; 2 – Boyanovo, Baylar Kayryak, Barrow 1, Grave 19; 3 – Troyanovo, Chernyova Mogila, Grave 4; 4 – Troyanovo, Kangalova Mogila, Grave 3 (after Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023; Iliev–Bakardžiev 2020) to Malomirovo, analogous primary burials were also discovered in Boyanovo (Lozyanska Mogila and Baylar Kayryak, Golyamata Mogila), Sinapovo (Sechenata Mogila), Drazhevo (Sabev Bair), Kamen (Gabrova Mogila) and Mogila (Golemia Kayryak, Golyamata Mogila). Most burials did not contain any grave goods, which made their taxonomic interpretation difficult. Only the graves from Drazhevo had rich and distinctive find assemblages. The vessels discovered there have good analogies at settlement sites. The most essential reference point is the material from Ezero (Iliev – Bakărdžiev 2020, 30–33). The east-oriented deceased were placed in a supine position in single graves with oval pits. This arrangement reminds the Post-Stog tradition from the Late Eneolithic of the North Pontic zone (Fig. 12.3, 4). Examples of such burials are Grave 4 from Troyanovo, Chernyova Mogila and Grave 1 from Troyanovo, Kangalova Mogila (Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023, 229, 231, figs. 10.1 and 11.1, 2). It is, therefore, possible that the trend of east-oriented burials was not culturally homogeneous. The western border of the occurrence of the barrows with Pre-Yamna-type burials is interesting. The site located farthest to the northwest is Dolno Sahrane (Getov 1965). In Barrows 3 and 4, mainly semisupine skeletons were discovered, oriented with the head to the E. Only Grave 5 of Barrow 3 showed a different arrangement and orientation, corresponding to the Early Yamna rite. Based on the ceramic finds, a dating to the EBA 2/Mihalich phase was proposed for the features of Dolno Sahrane (Leshtakov 1994). Therefore, it is possible to estimate their age to the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia BC. An interesting fact is the discovery of ceramics with features of the Coţofeni III culture in Dolno Sahrane, 314 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak distinguishing this assemblage from materials from other sites in Upper Thrace. This may indicate a cultural connection between the Kazanlak Valley and the areas of north-western Bulgaria. The Malkata Momina barrow in Bratya Daskalovi marks the southwestern border of the Pre-Yamna type barrows. The early dating of this barrow is evidenced by the features of multiple burial No. 7 (Ivanov 2011, 29, figs. 3 and 4) as well as the construction of the barrow with a stone krepida and pavements. No burials were discovered in the Upper Thrace barrows that connect with other essential funerary traditions of the Late Eneolithic Pontic zone (Late Trypillia C/II and Zhivotilovka-Volchansk). A connection with the Trypillia style is suggested only by a vessel from Barrow 4 of Golyama Detelina (Leshtakov – Borisov 1995, 13). This situation shows selection, consisting of adapting only some burial traditions from the Black Sea steppe zone. 8. Early Yamna impact in Upper Thrace Grave 17 of Malomirovo follows a rite characteristic of the Early Yamna culture (Włodarczak et al. 2023). It has all the features that distinguish this rite in the western expansion zone of the new community/ ideology at the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennia BC (e.g., Heyd 2011; Kaiser 2019; Preda-Bălănică – Frînculeasa – Heyd 2020). Excavations in the Middle Tundzha Region indicate that this grave type was present in most large barrows (Fig. 13). Their characteristic features were western orientation, the positioning of the body on the back with flexed legs and stretched upper limbs, the presence of a wooden roof structure, a mat on the bottom of the grave, and the use of ochre. The red colouring of the upper part of the skull, recorded in some cases, is exceptionally distinctive of this period. A characteristic element of the grave assemblage are hair rings in (most often) silver, gold or (rarely) copper. Such burials represent a truly supra-regional type in the vast territory between the Dnieper and the Pannonian Plain. The unification of the burial rite in so huge areas is surprisingly strong; it seems even stronger than in the case of A Horizon of the Corded Ware phenomenon or the maritime type of Bell Beaker graves. Therefore, the model of the western expansion of the Yamna culture population is most often accepted. It is supported by studies of the anthropological characteristics of this population and, in recent years, the results of ancient DNA studies. In the Middle Tundzha Region, early Yamna graves were often dug into older, Pre-Yamna mounds – as was the case at Boyanovo (Baylar Kyaryak, Golyamata Mogila and Lozyanska Mogila), Kamen (Gabrova Mogila), Malomirovo (Pamukli Bair), or Mogila (Golemia Kayryak, Golyamata Mogila). In the Maritsa-Iztok group, analogous examples of Early Yamna graves were provided by Kangalova Mogila and Chernyova Mogila from Troyanovo, Golyamata Mogila from Golyama Detelina and Manchova Mogila from Malka Detelina. In the Maritsa-West group, such a situation was well documented in Barrow 1 in Merichleri, Kayryaka. In summary, in all better-explored regions of Upper Thrace, a similar pattern of taking over earlier Pre-Yamna graves by the Early Yamna culture population has been documented. The relationship between older and new graves indicates the correspondence of the new rite to previous customs. Early Yamna burials are dug into the area of the central grave of the Pre-Yamna phase, sometimes significantly damaging it. Their digging was connected with a change in the use of the funeral space, with the establishment of a central place around which the mound mantle was built. This new order simplified the earlier rules of the burial rite. At the same time, it was distinguished by monumentality: in the Early Yamna phase, mounds of much larger dimensions were created than in the earlier period. The barrows at Boyanovo (Baylar Kayryak, Golyamata Mogila), Kamen (Shekerdzha Mogila), Malomirovo (Pamukli Bair) and Mogila (Golemia Kayryak, Golyamata Mogila) are distinguished by a sequence of several graves dated to the early phase of the Yamna culture. Multiple superstructures of Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 315 Fig. 13. Examples of Early Yamna burials from Upper Thrace. 1 – Mogila, Golemia Kayryak, Grave 24; 2 – Troyanovo, Kangalova Mogila, Grave 4; 3 – Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair, Grave 17; 4 – Kamen, Shekerdzha Mogila, Grave 9 (after Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023; Dimitrova 2014; Iliev–Bakardžiev 2020) barrows in the early phase of the Yamna culture are practised in various regions, including the northwestern Black Sea zone. However, analogous sequences in Bulgaria, north of the Balkan Mountains, have been documented only in Goran Slatina (Kitov – Panayotov – Pavlov 1991). Usually, grave sequences are few, or burials from later phases predominate. Numerous graves from the early phase of the Yamna culture seem to distinguish the lands above the Middle Tundzha from the areas of Upper Thrace located further west. However, typical Early Yamna burials are present in the Maritsa-Iztok region and further west areas. Three such graves were discovered in the partially excavated Barrow 2 in Pet Mogili, Bodakovi Mogili (Kancheva-Ruseva 1994). These features most probably formed a sequence of three phases of barrow construction. Yamna burials were discovered in Barrows 1, 2 and 4 in Golyama Detelina. Barrow 1 (Malkata Mogila) was a single-phase construction, and the primary grave (No. 6) has been described as a typical burial of the early Yamna culture (Kanchev 1991, 60). In the case of Barrows 2 (Golyamata Mogila) and 4, the stratigraphic situation is challenging to be interpreted unequivocally (see Chapter 7). Based on analogies from other sites, it can be assumed that the Yamna culture burials were dug into older funeral constructions of the PreYamna type (for a different interpretation, see Kanchev 1995; Leshtakov – Borisov 1995; Leshtakov – Popova 1995). Thus, the model known from the barrows in the Middle Tundzha Region was repeated here. The sequence, 1st stage Pre-Yamna → 2nd stage Early Yamna, was also documented in Kangalova Mogila and Chernyova Mogila in Troyanovo, in Barrow 5 in Beli Bryag, Chitashkite Mogili and in 316 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak Fig. 14. Boyanovo, Baylar Kayryak, Barrow 2 (Golyamata Mogila). Grave 13 and its equipment (after Iliev–Bakardžiev 2020) Fig. 15. Kamen, Gabrova Mogila. Silver hair rings from Grave 30 (courtesy of D. Dimitrova) Manchova Mogila in Malka Detelina (Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023, 226, Table 1). The Early Yamna features are also present in the central burial of Barrow 2 in Benkovski (Alexandrov – Karailiev 2024, 232, fig. 14). Thus, the situation at the Sazliyka River seems to replicate the picture presented for the barrows in the Middle Tundzha Region: the Early Yamna impact is strongly marked. In the mounds of the Maritsa-West group, located further west, only the graves of Barrow 1 in Merichleri bear the features of the Early Yamna culture (Iliev 2018). Nevertheless, this area has little diagnostic potential, as only a few structurally diverse barrows have been studied there. The radiocarbon dating discussed below indicates a contemporaneity of the Early Yamna graves and the features referred to as Pre-Yamna. In such a situation, it would be natural to find assemblages showing contacts between the two communities (locals and newcomers). A telling example is the burial from Grave 13 in Boyanovo, Baylar Kayryak, Golyamata Mogila (Iliev – Bakărdžiev 2020, 113, 114). It was a typical Early Yamna burial. Apart from the silver hair ring, the deceased’s equipment included an askos, a characteristic cup known from settlements and graves of the Ezero culture (Fig. 14.2). An analogous vessel was also discovered in Grave 6 of Merichleri, Kayryaka (Iliev 2018, 321; Minkov 2021, 107, fig. 3). This burial 317 Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace had features of the Early Yamna horizon (pit type and supine position), but the deceased was oriented with his head to the east. Also noteworthy are the silver hair rings from the Pre-Yamna phase graves in Kamen, Gabrova Mogila and Drazhevo, Sabev Bair, with their forms analogous to objects known from a large number of younger, Early Yamna graves (Fig. 15). These examples show contact between communities and indicate that the diverse rites were in use at the same time. Around and after about 2800 cal BC, as in other areas in Upper Thrace, changes in the burial rite are visible, manifesting in a different way of positioning the deceased. Graves are increasingly dug into older barrows without adding new layers to their mantles. Burials in the semi-supine position or on the side predominate, with the head of the deceased facing west. In the Malomirovo barrow, this new trend is well illustrated by Graves 3 and 5, discovered in the highest layer of the barrow. The change in funerary tradition also, in this case, follows a supra-regional rhythm. 9. Chronology A significant achievement in recent years in the study of the barrow communities of Upper Thrace has been the obtaining of many radiocarbon dates. The list includes 75 results for graves from the Early Bronze Age (Table 2). The dates have been presented in detail in several other recent publications (Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2022; 2023; Alexandrov et al. 2024a; 2024b; Dimitrova – Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2024). In these works, chronological sequences for individual barrows were discussed. These data seem to be sufficient for an attempt at generalisation. The primary issue is to determine the time frame for individual cultural phenomena. Simplifying more complicated taxonomic divisions, the dated sets will be divided here into three groups according to the narrative from the above chapters: PreYamna, Early Yamna, and Yamna (i.e., the middle and late phases of the Yamna culture). This division refers only to the barrow’s stratigraphic position and the burial rite’s general rules in a supra-regional approach. It does not take into account the issue of the autochthonous or allochthonous genesis of the dated cultural complexes. Table 2. Radiocarbon samples from Early Bronze Age graves in barrows in Upper Thrace Site Barrow Number of 14C dates 4 3 4 1 1 2 10 Beli Bryag Benkovski Boyanovo Boyanovo Boyanovo Chernogorovo Kamen Barrow 5 Barrow 2 Baylar Kayryak, Barrow 1 Baylar Kayryak, Barrow 3 Lozyanska Mogila Kamen Shekerdzha Mogila 4 Malomirovo Mednikarovo Mednikarovo Mednikarovo Ovchartsi Pamukli Bair Barrow 2 Barrow 3 Barrow 4 Barrow 1 (Golyamata Mogila) 15 1 1 1 3 Gabrova Mogila References Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023 Alexandrov – Karailiev 2024 Penske et al. 2023 Penske et al. 2023 Agre 2015 Alexandrov – Karailiev 2024 Modi et al. 2019; Dimitrova – Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2024 Dimitrova – Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2024 Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2022 Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023 Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023 Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023 Alexandrov 2015 318 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak Site Barrow Ovchartsi Barrow 2 Ovchartsi Barrow 3 (Barrow in the Vineyard) Kayryaka, Barrow 1 Golemia Kayryak, Barrow 3 Malkia Kayryak Harmandzhiyska Rechka, Barrow 3 Gorata Chernyova Mogila Kangalova Mogila Merichleri Mogila Mogila Stambolovo Trakia Troyanovo Troyanovo Number of 14C dates 3 References 1 Alexandrov 2020; Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023 Alexandrov 2015 1 6 7 1 Mathieson et al. 2018 Tušlová et al. 2024 Alexandrov et al. 2024b Alexandrov – Karailiev 2024 1 2 3 Alexandrov – Karailiev 2024 Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023 Alexandrov – Włodarczak 2023 The Pre-Yamna set included primarily the previously discussed east-oriented burials. These were predominantly primary burials or graves corresponding to older phases in multi-phase barrows. The Early Yamna group consists primarily of graves from older phases of barrow construction, including primary burials. The Yamna group, on the other hand, included burials dug into the upper layers of barrows, as well as primary burials presenting a specific type of positioning of the deceased (characteristic of the late phase of the Yamna culture). An interesting picture has been obtained by comparing the summed dating probabilities for the three distinguished groups (Fig. 16). The diagram shows the dating of the Pre-Yamna type graves to the turn of the 4th and 3rd millennium BC. This is relatively late, considering the much older dating of analogous burial traditions in the North Pontic zone (e.g., Cernavodă I, Nizhna Mikhailivka, or PostStog). The lasting persistence of individual traditions was assumed for the Late Eneolithic in the Black Sea steppe region (e.g., Rassamakin 2004). Nevertheless, there was a lack of sufficient chronometric data in the North Balkan zone, so it was impossible to determine the time frame of Pre-Yamna burials (e.g., Alexandrov – Kaiser 2015). A clue to the dating of such assemblages from Thrace was the pottery from the graves. Its rich inventories (e.g., in Golyamata Mogila in Golyama Detelina or the Mednikarovo-Iskritsa barrow group) indicate the predominance of features characteristic of the Ezero A phase, or possibly a transitional stage to the Mihalich phase (Leshtakov – Popova 1995; Panayotov – Alexandrov 1995). The absolute dating of the settlement phases can be compared with the results of Pre-Yamna-type barrow graves. The core of the Early Yamna phase consists of burials with the deceased in a supine position, with straightened upper limbs, ochre, and a typical grave construction (Włodarczak et al. 2023). They are characteristic of the entire western zone of the Yamna culture (Teslenko 2006). In the barrows from Upper Thrace, Early Yamna burials often occupy a special position, connecting with the first phase of the superstructure. The dates obtained for them refer to a short period, usually around 2900 BC. With little probability, the earliest can be assigned to around 3000 BC. This result generally differs from the slightly earlier dating for the Western Yamna culture. Graves 3 and 5 of Malomirovo are typical features of the Late Yamna culture. Their dating, around 2800–2600/2500 BC, is consistent with the chronological data of other regions, including the northwestern Black Sea zone. It corresponds to the results obtained for mounds in the Pannonian Plain (Włodarczak 2021, 240, fig. 12). So far, in the Middle Tundzha and Maritsa-Iztok groups, the graves of the late Yamna culture come from younger layers of barrows. Another case is a barrow in Trakia (Maritsa-West group), in which the primary burial had features typical of the Late Yamna culture Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 319 Fig. 16. Comparison of the sums of calibrated radiocarbon dates of Pre-Yamna, Early Yamna and Late Yamna graves (graphics by P. Włodarczak) (Ivanov 2020, 1066, figs. 2 and 3). Its dating to 2884–2633 cal BC (Alexandrov – Karailiev 2024, 240) indicates the construction of new barrows in the second quarter of the 3rd millennium BC, i.e., in the late phase of the Yamna culture. Such a late dating for a barrow, although well documented in the Pannonian Plain, is rarely recognised in Upper Thrace. It may be confirmed by barrows dating from Chernogorovo and Stambolovo (Alexandrov – Karailiev 2024, 240, 241). The burials from there do not allow for precise taxonomic classification. Radiocarbon dating indicates a partial overlap of the three cultural phenomena distinguished here. Notably, the age of the Pre-Yamna-type graves (ca. 3100–2900 cal BC) corresponds to the dating of the oldest graves of the western Yamna culture. Based on the analysis of diagrams, one can distinguish between the following stages of dominance of three cultural patterns in the barrow burial rite: ca. 3100– 2900 cal BC – Pre-Yamna type, ca. 2900–2800 cal BC – Early Yamna type, and ca. 2800–2600 cal BC – Late Yamna type. However, these are not caesuras limiting individual funerary traditions. There is still a lack of good chronological data of the latest grave horizon of Early Bronze Age barrows. Several burials, e.g., from the barrow in Irechekovo, show features of the EBA 3/early MBA horizon (Alexandrov 2020, 159, fig. 12). In the publication of barrows from the Maritsa-Iztok 320 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak group, some features characteristic of the Katakombna culture were emphasised, such as the so-called zharovnias (fragments of vessels for carrying embers) in graves from Barrows 2 and 4 in Golyama Detelina (Leshtakov – Borisov 1995, 11; Leshtakov – Popova 1995, 72). Therefore, it is possible to date the latest Early Bronze Age graves to around the mid-3rd millennium BC. 10. Final remarks Thanks to the significant increase in available data in recent years, the issue of burial rites in Upper Thrace is becoming essential in studying barrow communities in southeast Europe. This is due to the great cognitive value of stratified barrows with numerous burials representing various cultural traditions. They include (1) graves generally classified here as Pre-Yamna, (2) characteristic burials of the Early Yamna culture, and (3) burials with features of the Late Yamna culture. Such a division oversimplifies a much more complicated situation, consisting of different varieties of the specified rites and manifestations of the mixing of components of different cultural traditions. The basic model of the cultural-chronological sequence has been documented recently in the example of the barrow in Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair. Of course, such a general scheme is an insufficient simplification, and its significant detailing is necessary to understand the occurring prehistoric phenomena. This topic has been discussed for many years, and one of its main themes is the foreign or local origin of the Upper Thracian barrow traditions. More precisely, this discussion concerns not the adaptation of the barrow element itself (most theories assume its allochthonous, of steppe provenance) but specific manifestations of the adaptation of the new burial rite. Studies on the barrows in Upper Thrace have noted the higher diversity of funerary traditions and their greater complexity than in other parts of the western edge of the Eurasian steppe. This has been treated as an argument against the simple model envisaging the invasion of the North Pontic steppe communities into the territories of Bulgaria (e.g., Leshtakov – Popova 1995; Leshtakov 2011; Alexandrov – Kaiser 2015). It is worth presenting this topic taking into account the detailed analysis of the burial rite and the stratigraphic-chronological model presented above. The earliest and unique grave in the context of a barrow in Upper Thrace was discovered under the mantle of Gonova Mogila in Targovishte (Kanchev 1991, 45, 46). It belongs to the so-called first wave of Eurasian pastoralists and can be dated to the beginning of the 4th millennium BC at the latest. Its connection with the barrow is not certain (the barrow may be younger). Undoubtedly, the issues related to Grave 1 of Targovishte are distant from the barrows analysed here from the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. Nevertheless, the grave from Gonova Mogila indicates a longterm relationship between the northern Balkan areas and the northern Pontic zone. These relationships intensified only in the last quarter of the 4th millennium BC. From that time, traces of northeastern connections are recorded in Upper Thrace, both in settlements and at burial sites, evidenced by the appearance of characteristic vessels and corded decoration settlements in Ezero and Dyadovo and other contemporary sites (see, lately, Semmoto 2023). The barrow graves, referred to as Pre-Yamna-type, are synchronised based on ceramic analyses with the Ezero A2 and A2–B1 phases. The presence of characteristic pottery indicates the population of the local settlements as the builders of the barrows. Moreover, the barrow graves are identical to flat cemeteries regarding the deceased’s position and the grave goods, e.g., in Stara Zagora, Bereketska Mogila (Kalchev 2002). The interpretation of chronological data from settlements in Ezero and Dyadovo indicates that the EBA 1 phase (Ezero A) can be dated to ca. 3200–2900 cal BC (Semmoto 2023, Table 1), which fits perfectly the dating of the east-oriented burials (referred to here as the Pre-Yamna type). The Pre-Yamna-type graves listed here are not associated with the cultural complex known as Yamna culture (Pit-Grave culture). Their features include: Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 321 – a strong connection with the local Ezero-type settlement, – a burial rite with analogies in various traditions of the Late Eneolithic in the North Pontic region, – elements attesting to contacts with Early Yamna communities. It is not easy to assess how significant the expansion of the steppe populations was in the genesis of local communities in the EBA 1 phase. Archaeogenetic studies are expected to provide crucial arguments in this respect in the upcoming years. The first results obtained for three east-oriented burials are already interesting. In two of them (Mednikarovo, Barrow 2, Grave 1; Malomirovo, Grave 19), steppe ancestry is marked (Preda-Bălănică – Diekmann 2023, 115; Diekmann et al. 2024). Besides, the individual from Grave 6 in Merichleri has local ancestry (Mathieson et al. 2018). Assuming this small set is representative, it is possible to reconstruct the communities inhabiting the Upper Thrace settlements as a population of diverse origins, including ones with steppe ancestry. These results are consistent with the cultural and chronological models presented above. Radiocarbon dating of the earliest Pre-Yamna type graves indicates their age, similar to the earliest Early Yamna burials in southeastern Europe (e.g., Alexandrov 2021). However, in Upper Thrace, barrow stratigraphies always clearly indicate Pre-Yamna features being older than Early Yamna. However, the fact that the Early Yamna population appeared in Upper Thrace slightly later than in the areas located north of the Balkans is not yet convincingly documented. Elements of the burial rite in barrows dated to 3300/3100–2900 cal BC indicate the influence of a new cultural trend (Early Yamna), as evidenced by silver hair rings in graves or the increasing symbolic role of ochre in the burial rite. Accepting all radiocarbon dates are correct, one should assume that in the Balkan zone, many different funerary traditions were practised simultaneously from about 3300–3100 to about 2800 cal BC. One of them, associated with the Early Yamna culture, gained ground during this period, while the others gradually disappeared. There are many premises to connect the Pre-Yamna tradition with local communities of the Ezero culture. However, the key issue will remain the role of the steppe population’s migration in the genesis of this cultural formation, specific to the area of Upper Thrace. Let us hope that this issue will be clarified in the future after further and more detailed archaeological studies and genetic analyses of materials from Upper Thracian settlements and barrows. References AGRE, D. 2007 Arheologicheski razkopki na nadgrobna mogila v zemlishteto na s. Popovo, obshtina Bolyarovo, Yambolska oblast. In: Popov, H. (ed.): Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2006 g. Sofia 2007, 74–75. AGRE, D. 2011 The tumulus of Golyamata Mogila near the villages of Malomirovo and Zlatinitsa. Sofia 2011. AGRE, D. 2015 Archaeological investigation of the “Lozianska Mogila” barrow located near the village of Boyanovo, municipality of Elkhovo, in south-eastern Bulgaria. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 90/1–2 (2015) 141–171. AGRE, D. – DICHEV, D. 2013 Arheologicheski razkopki na mogila № 1 „Sechenata mogila“ v zemlishteto na s. Sinapovo, obshtina Topolovgrad. In: Gyurova, M. (ed.), Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2012. Sofia 2013, 122–125. 322 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak ALEXANDROV, S. 2010 Prehistoric barrow graves with extended inhumations between the Danube and the Balkan Range. Studia Praehistorica 13 (2010) 277–292. ALEXANDROV, S. 2011 Prehistoric barrow graves between Danube and Balkan range: stratigraphy and relative chronology. In: Borgna, E. – Müller Celka, S. (eds.): Ancestral Landscapes. Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.). Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 58. Lyon 2011, 307–320. ALEXANDROV, S. 2015 Mogili grobowe ot rannata bronzova epoha v Trakia (55 godiny po-kasno). Arheologia 56/1–2 (2015) 33–48. ALEXANDROV, S. 2020 Bronze Age barrow graves in Upper Thrace: Old and new questions. In: Hansen, S. (ed.): Repräsentationen der Macht. Beiträge des Festkolloquiums zu Ehren des 65. Geburtstags von Blagoje Govedarica. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 25. Wiesbaden 2020, 147–170. ALEXANDROV, S. 2021 Fourth/third millennium BC barrow graves in North-East Bulgaria (120 years of investigations). In: Heyd, V. – Kulcsár, G. – Preda-Bălănică (eds.): Yamnaya Interactions. Proceedings of the International Workshop held in Helsinki, 25–26 April 2019. Budapest 2021, 271–314. ALEXANDROV, S. – ILIEV, I. 2016 Spasitelni arheologicheski prouchvania na nadgrobna mogila (obekt No. 6 po traseto na tranziten gazoprovod za Turtsia), zemlishte na grad Straldzha. In: Aladzhov, A. (ed.): Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2015 g. Sofia 2016, 113–114. ALEXANDROV, S. – ILIEV, I. – OBERC, T. – PODSIADŁO, M. – VALCHEV, T. – WŁODARCZAK, P. 2024a Barrow at Pamukli Bair in Malomirovo, Elhovo municipality. In: Alexandrov, S. – Włodarczak, P. (eds.): From the Steppes to the Balkans: Yamna Culture in Upper Thrace. The Yamnaya Impact on Prehistoric Europe 5. Budapest 2024, 77–165. ALEXANDROV, S. – KARAILIEV, P. 2024 Arheologichesko prouchvane na mogilen nekropol ot rannata bronzova epoha do s. Benkovski, obshtina Stara Zagora (AM “Trakiya”, LOT 2, obekt № 11. In: Alexandrov, S. (ed.): Spasitelni arheologicheski prouchvania po traseto na AM „Trakia“, LOT 2–4. Part. 1 – Prehistory. Sofia 2024, 213–248. ALEXANDROV, S. – VALCHEV, T. – PREDA-BĂLĂNICĂ, P. – ILIEV, S. – SANDOVAL, E. – TRAUTMANN, M. et al. 2024b A Bronze Age barrow excavated near Mogila village, Tundzha Municipality, Yambol Region. In: Alexandrov, S. – Włodarczak, P. (eds.): From the Steppes to the Balkans: Yamna Culture in Upper Thrace. The Yamnaya Impact on Prehistoric Europe 5. Budapest 2024, 65–75. ALEXANDROV, S. – VASILEVA, E. – ILIEV, I. 2024 Spasitelni arheologicheski prouchvaniya na nadgrobna mogila v zemlischeto na s. Zimnitsa, oblast Yambol (AM „Trakiya” LOT 4, obekt № 14А –razkopki 2009 g.). In: Alexandrov, S. (ed.): Spasitelni arheologicheski prouchvania po traseto na AM „Trakia“, LOT 2-4. Part. 1 – Prehistory. Sofia 2024, 249–272. Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 323 ALEXANDROV, S. – WŁODARCZAK, P. 2022 Chronological sequence of the Early Bronze Age graves in the Pamukli Bair Barrow at Malomirovo and the Pit-Grave Culture expansion in the Middle Tundzha Valley. Studia Praehistorica 16 (2022) 207–240. ALEXANDROV, S. – WŁODARCZAK, P. 2023 Early Bronze Age Pamukli Bair barrow near Malomirovo and the problem of east-oriented barrow graves in Upper Thrace. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 75/1 (2023) 213–245. ALLENTOFT, M. E. – SIKORA, M. – SJÖGREN, K.-G. – RASMUSSEN, S. – RASMUSSEN, M. – STENDERUP, J. et al. 2015 Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature 522 (2015) 167–173. ANTHONY, D. W. 2007 The horse, the wheel and the language. How Bronze-Age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world. Princeton, Oxford 2007. BALABANOV, P. – PANTOV, D. 2019a Nadgrobna mogila Silihlyar 3. In: Popov, H. (ed.): Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2018 g. Sofia 2019, 103–106. BALABANOV, P. – PANTOV, D. 2019b Nadgrobna mogila Silihlyar 4. In: Popov, H. (ed.): Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2018 g. Sofia 2019, 106–109. BATSOVA, E. – KANCHEV, M. 1974 Novoodkriti trakiyski pogrebenia v Novozagorsko. Arheologia 15/1 (1974) 50–57. BUYUKLIEV, H. 1964 Dve rannotrakiyski mogilni pogrebenia ot Starozagorsko. Arheologia 4 (1964) 63–65. CHILDE, V. G. 1925 The Dawn of European civilisation. London 1925. CHOLAKOV, I. D. – ALEKSANDROVA, S. – RUSEVA, V. – PEEVA, N. 2016 Mogilen nekropol ot rimskata epoha kray grad Straldzha, Yambolsko. Balgarsko e-Spisaniye za Arheologiya, Supplementum 5. Sofia 2016. DANI, J. – PREDA-BĂLĂNICĂ, B. – ANGI, J. 2023 People and Ideas from the Steppe Region at the Turn of the Copper and Bronze Ages. In: Gyucha, A. – Parkinson, W. A. (eds.): First Kings of Europe. From farmers to Rulers in Prehistoric Southeastern Europe. Cotsen 2023, 60–77. DIEKMANN, Y. – BLÖCHER, J. – BURGER, J. – HEYD V. 2024 The ancient DNA of the individuals buried in Malomirovo Graves 5, 14 and 19: A brief overview. In: Alexandrov, S. – Włodarczak, P. (eds.): From the Steppes to the Balkans: Yamna culture in Upper Thrace. The Yamnaya Impact on Prehistoric Europe 5. Budapest 2024, 207–210. DIMITROVA, D. 2014 Grobove ot bronzovata epoha pri Kamen, Slivensko. Arheologia 55/1–2 (2014) 69–82. GEORGIEVA R. – NIKOV, K. – MOMCHILOV, D. 2008 Tonchova mogila kray s. Venets, Karnobatsko. In: Gergova, D. (ed.): Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2007 g. Sofia 2008, 231–232. 324 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak GERLING, C. 2015a A multi-isotopic pilot study of the burial mound of Boyanovo. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 90/1–2 (2015) 172–184. GERLING, C. 2015b Prehistoric Mobility and Diet in the West Eurasian Steppes 3500 to 300 BC: An Isotopic Approach. Topoi. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 25. Berlin, Boston 2015. GETOV, L. 1965 Mogilni pogrebenia pri s. Dolno Sahrane, Starozagorsko. Izvestia na Arheologicheskia Institut 28 (1965) 203–229. GIMBUTAS, M. 1979 The three waves of Kurgan people into Old Europe, 4500–2500 BC. Archives Suisses d’anthropologie genérale 43/2 (1979) 113–137. HAAK, W. – LAZARIDIS, I. – PATTERSON, N. – ROHLAND, N. – MALLICK, S. – LLAMAS, B. et al. 2015 Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522 (2015) 207–211. HEYD, V. 2011 Yamnaya groups and tumuli west of the Black Sea. In: Borgna, E. – Müller Celka, S. (eds.): Ancestral Landscapes. Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.). Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 58. Lyon 2011, 535–555. ILIEV, I. 2011 The Pit Grave culture in the lower Tundzha valley. Studia Praehistorica 14 (2011) 381–398. ILIEV, I. – BAKĂRDŽIEV, S. 2020 Kurgane der frühen bis späten Bronzezeit im Bezirk Jambol, Südostbulgarien. The Yamnaya Impact on Prehistoric Europe 1. Budapest 2020. ILIEV, S. 2018 Tumulus from the Early Bronze Age near the town of Merichleri, Southeast Bulgaria. In: Alexandrov, S. – Dimitrova, Y. – Popov, H. – Horejs B. – Chukalev, K. (eds.): Gold and bronze: Metals, technologies and interregional contacts in the Eastern Balkans during the Bronze Age. Sofia 2018, 318–322. IVANOV, S. 2020 No. 141. Spasitelno arheologichesko prouchvane na nadgrobna mogila ot rannata bronzova epoha w m. Gorata kray s. Trakia, obsht. Opan, obl. Stara Zagora. In: Popov, H. (ed.): Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2018 g. Kniga 2. Sofia 2020, 1065–1067. IVANOV, Ya. 2011 Pogrebalno-ritualen kompleks ot rannobronzovata epoha v Malkata momina mogila, obshtina Bratya Daskalovi, Starozagorska oblast. In: Tonkova, M. (ed.): Trako-rimski dinastichen tsentr v rayona na Chirpanskite vyzvishenia. Sofia 2011, 28–35. KAISER, E. 2019 Das dritte Jahrtausend im osteuropäischen Steppenraum. Kulturhistorische Studien zu prähistorischer Subsistenzwirtschaft und Interaktion mit benachbarten Räumen. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 37. Berlin 2019. Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 325 KAISER, E. – WINGER, K. 2015 Pit graves in Bulgaria and the Yamnaya Culture. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 90/1–2 (2015) 114–140. https://doi.org/10.1515/pz-2015-0001 KALCHEV, P. 2002 Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Stara Zagora-“Bereketska mogila” (Bulgarien). Saarbrücken Studien und Materialien zur Altertumskunde 8. Bonn 2002. KANCHEV, M. 1991 Nekropoli ot bronzovata epoha v rayona na Maritsa-iztok. In: Panayotov, I. – Leshtakov, K. – Georgieva, R. – Alexandrov, S. – Borisov B. (eds.): „Maritsa-Iztok” Arheologicheski prouchvania 1. Radnevo 1991, 41–70. KANCHEV, M. 1995 Nadgrobna mogila II (Golyamata mogila) do selo Golyama Detelina, obshtina Radnevo (chast I). In: Panayotov, I. – Georgieva, R. – Leshtakov, K. – Alexandrov, S. – Borisov, B. (eds.): „Maritsa-Iztok” Arheologicheski prouchvania 3. Radnevo 1995, 35–63. KITOV, G. 1993 Trakiyskite mogili. Thracia 10 (1993) 39–80. KITOV, G. – PANAYOTOV, I. – PAVLOV, P. 1991 Mogilni nekropoli v Loveshkia kray. Ranna bronzova epoha (nekropol Goran–Slatina). Razkopki i prouchvania 23. Sofia 1991. LESHTAKOV, K. 1994 Hronologia i kulturna prinadlezhnost na rannite grobove ot mogilnia nekropol pri s. Dolno Sahrane, Kazanlshko. Godishnik na Sofiyskia universitet. Istoricheski fakultet. Spetsialnost Arheologia 1 (1994) 51–58. LESHTAKOV, K. 2011 Bronze Age mortuary practices in Thrace; a prelude to studying long-term tradition. In: Borgna, E. – Müller Celka, S. (eds.): Ancestral Landscapes. Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.). Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 58. Lyon 2011, 561–570. LESHTAKOV, K. – BORISOV, B. 1995 Nadgrobna mogila IV ot rannata bronzova epoha v zemlishteto na selo Golyama Detelina, obshtina Radnevo. In: Panayotov, I. – Georgieva, R. – Leshchakov, K. – Alexandrov, S. – Borisov, B. (eds.): „Maritsa-iztok” Arheologicheski prouchvania 3. Radnevo 1995, 9–33. LESHTAKOV, K. – POPOVA, TS. 1995 Nadgrobna mogila II (Golyamata mogila) do selo Golyama Detelina, obshtina Radnevo (vtora chast). In: Panayotov, I. – Georgieva, R. – Leshchakov, K. – Alexandrov, S. – Borisov, B. (eds.): „Maritsa-iztok” Arheologicheski prouchvania 3. Radnevo 1995, 63–86. MANZURA I. 1993 The East-West interaction in the mirror of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age cultures in the Northwest Pontic. Revista Arheologică 1 (1993) 23–53. MANZURA I. 2003–2004 Severnoe Prichernomorie v eneolite i bronzovom veke: stepeni kolonizatsii. Stratum plus 2, 63–85. 326 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak MANZURA, I. 2013 Kultury stepnogo eneolita. In: Bruyako, I. V. – Samoylova, T. L. (eds.): Drevnie kultury severozapadnogo Prichernomoria. Odessa 2013, 115–153. MATHIESON, I. – ALPASLAN-ROODENBERG, S. – POSTH, C. – SZÉCSÉNYI-NAGY, A. – ROHLAND, N. – MALLICK, S. et al. 2018 The genomic history of southeastern Europe. Nature 555 (7695) (2018) 197–203. MINKOV, P. 2021 Askoi from the Early Bronze Age in the burial contexts from the present–day Bulgarian lands (observations on relative chronology, characteristics and volume data). Izvestia na Natsionalnia Istoricheski Muzey 33 (2021) 92–120. MODI, A. – NESHEVA, D. – SARNO, S. – VAI, S. – KARACHANAK-YANKOVA, S. – LUISELLI, D. et al. 2019 Ancient human mitochondrial genomes from Bronze Age Bulgaria: new insights into the genetic history of Thracians. Scientific Reports 9 (2019) 5412. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41945–0 NEHRIZOV, G. – TSVETKOVA, Yu. 2010 Spasitelni arheologicheski razkopki na mogilen nekropol pri s. Stambolovo, obshtina Haskovo. In: Gergova, D. (ed.): Arheologicheski otkritia i razkopki prez 2009 g. Sofia 2010, 221–224. NIKOLOVA, L. 1999 The Balkans in Later Prehistory: Periodization, Chronology and Cultural Development in the Final Copper and Early Bronze Age (Fourth and Third Millennia BC.). Oxford 1999. PANAYOTOV, I. 1989 Yamnata kultura v balgarskite zemi. Razkopki i prouchvania 21. Sofia 1989. PANAYOTOV, I – ALEXANDROV, S. 1995 Mogilen nekropol ot rannata bronzova epoha v zemlishtata na selata Mednikarovo i Iskritsa. In: Panayotov, I. – Georgieva, R. – Leshtakov, K. – Alexandrov, S. – Borisov, B. (eds.): „Maritsa-iztok” Arheologicheski prouchvania 3. Radnevo 199, 87–113. PENSKE, S. – ROHRLACH, A. B. – CHILDEBAYEVA, A. – GNECCHI-RUSCONE, G. – SCHMID, C. – SPYROU. M. A. et al. 2023 Early contact between late farming and pastoralist societies in southeastern Europe. Nature 620 (2023) 358–365. PREDA-BĂLĂNICĂ, B. E. – DIEKMANN, Y. 2022 Ancestry and identity in the Balkans and the Carpathian basin between the 5th and 3rd millennia cal BC. In: Whittle, A. – Pollard, J. – Geaney, S. (eds.): Ancient DNA and the European Neolithic: Relations and Descent. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 19. Oxford, Philadelphia 2022, 107–122. PREDA-BĂLĂNICĂ B. – FRÎNCULEASA, A. – HEYD, V. 2020. The Yamnaya Impact North of the Lower Danube: A Tale of Newcomers and Locals. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 117/1 (2020) 85–101. PRIVAT, K. – SOBOTKOVA, A. – BAKARDZIEV, S. – RUSSEVA, V. 2018 Excavation and palaeodietary analysis of Bronze Age human remains from Boyanovo, Yambol Province. In: Ross, S. – Sobotkova, A. – Tzvetkova, J. – Nekhrizov, G. – Conner, S. (eds.): The Tundzha regional archaeology project. Oxford, Philadelphia 2018, 181–189. Early Bronze Age barrows in Upper Thrace 327 RASSAMAKIN Ju. Ja. 2004 Die nordpontische Steppe in der Kupferzeit (Gräber aus der Mitte des 5. Jts. bis Ende des 4. Jts. v. Chr.). Archäologie in Eurasien 17. Mainz am Rhein 2004. RASSAMAKIN Yu. 2013 From the late Eneolithic Period to the Early Bronze Age in the Black Sea Steppe: What is the Pit Grave Culture (Late Fourth to Mid-Third Millenium BC)? In Heyd, V. – Kulcsár, G. – Szeverényi, V. (eds.): Transition to the Bronze Age. Interregional Interaction and Socio-Cultural Change in the Third Millenium BC. Carpathian Basin and Neighbouring Regions. Budapest 2013, 113–138. SANDOVAL, E. – MONAGHAN, P. – SGOURIDIS, F. – HEYD, V. 2024 Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis of the individuals from the Malomirovo, Pamukli Bair barrow in Bulgaria. In: Alexandrov, S. – Włodarczak, P. (eds.): From the Steppes to the Balkans: Yamna culture in Upper Thrace: The Yamnaya Impact on Prehistoric Europe 5. Budapest 2024, 199–205. SEMMOTO, M. 2023 Tracing the root of cord decoration on Early Bronze Age pottery in Upper Thrace. In: Preda-Bălănică – Ahola, M. (eds.): Steppe transmissions. The Yamnaya Impact in Prehistoric Europe 4. Budapest 2023, 163–189. SOBOTKOVA, A. – KRISTENSEN-MCLACHLAN, R. D. – MALLON, O. – ROSS, S. A.2024 Validating predictions of burial mounds with field data: the promise and reality of machine learning. Journal of Documentation, https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2022-0096 SOBOTKOVA, A. – WEISSOVA, B. 2019 Locational analysis of burial mounds in the Middle Tundzha river watershed. In: Valchev, T. (ed.): Studia in honorem Iliae Iliev. Vesti na Yambolski Muzey 6(9). Yambol 2019, 161–175. TESLENKO, D. L. 2006 Drevneyamnaya kulturno-istoricheskaya oblast (k voprosu o soderzhanii ponyatiya). Starozhytnosti stepovogo Prichornomoria i Krimu 13 (2006) 18–34. TUŠLOVÁ, P. –VALCHEV, T.– KUBÁLEK, P. – ČISŤAKOVA, V. –BAKARDZHIEV, S. –SVĚTLÍK, I. – ATANASOSKA VRHEL, N. –SOUČEK, J. –MILDOVÁ, D. 2024 Barrow no. 3 in Mogila. In: Alexandrov, S. – Włodarczak, P. (eds.): From the Steppes to the Balkans: Yamna Culture in Upper Thrace. The Yamnaya Impact on Prehistoric Europe 5. Budapest 2024, 41–63. WEISSOVÁ, B. 2013 Project for the Verification of Burial Mounds in Ancient Thrace. Methods and Preliminary Results from the Regions of Stara Zagora, Yambol and Pazardzhik. In: Bombardieri, L. – D’Agostino, A. – Guarducci, G. – Orsi, V. – Valentini, S. (eds.): SOMA 2012. Identity and Connectivity. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1–3 March 2012. Volume II. BAR International Series 2581 (II). Oxford 2013, 1047–1052. WŁODARCZAK, P. 2010 Dunajski szlak kultury grobów jamowych a problem genezy kultury ceramiki sznurowej. In: Czopek, S. Kadrow, S. (eds.): Mente et rutro. Studia archaeologica Johanni Machnik viro doctissimo octogesimo vitae anno ab amicis, collegis et discipulis oblata. Rzeszów 2010, 299–325. 328 Stefan Alexandrov – Piotr Włodarczak WŁODARCZAK, P. 2021 Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age barrows in Vojvodina. In: Jarosz, P. – Koledin, J. – Włodarczak, P. (eds.): Danubian Route of the Yamnaya Culture. The barrows of Vojvodina. The Yamnaya Impact on Prehistoric Europe 3. Budapest 2021, 215–256. WŁODARCZAK, P. – MANOVA, R. – PODSIADŁO, M. – TRAUTMANN, M. – ALEXANDROV, S. 2023 The old man and the three babi. An exceptional burial from the Pamukli Bair barrow near Malomirovo, Southeast Bulgaria. In: Lahelma, A. – Lavento, M. – Mannermaa, K. – Ahola, M. – Holmqvist, E. – Nordqvist, K. (eds.): Moving northward. Professor Volker Heyd’s Festschrift as he turns 60. Monographs of the Archaeological Society of Finland 11. Helsinki 2023, 34–49. List of authors Daniela Agre National Archaeological Institute with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2 Saborna St., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] Stefan Alexandrov National Archaeological Institute with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2 Saborna St., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] Nevenka Atanasoska Vrhel Institute of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts University of South Bohemia Branišovská 1645/31a, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected] Stela Atanasova-Vladimirova Institute of Physical Chemistry – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Аkad. G. Bonchev Str., bl. 11, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] Stefan Bakardzhiev Regional Historical Museum in Yambol 2, Byalo more St., 8600 Yambol, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] Jens Blöcher Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) Faculty of Biology, Institute of Organismic and Molecular Evolution (iomE) Anselm Franz von Bentzelweg 7, D-55128 Mainz, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Joachim Burger Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) Faculty of Biology, Institute of Organismic and Molecular Evolution (iomE) Anselm Franz von Bentzelweg 7, D-55128 Mainz, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Viktoria Čisťakova Department of Prehistory and Classical Antiquity National Museum Václavské náměstí 1700/68, 110 00 Prague 1, Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected] Yoan Diekmann Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) Faculty of Biology, Institute of Organismic and Molecular Evolution (iomE) Anselm Franz von Bentzelweg 7, D-55128 Mainz, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Diana Dimitrova National Archaeological Institute with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 2 Saborna St., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] Volker Heyd Department of Cultures, University of Helsinki Unioninkatu 38, 00014 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: [email protected] Ilia Iliev Regional Historical Museum Byalo more Str. 2, 8600 Yambol, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] 330 List of authors Pavel Kubálek Central Bohemian Archaeological Heritage Institute Nad Olšinami 448/3, 100 00 Praha 10, Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected] Maria Lityńska-Zając Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences ul. Sławkowska 17, 31-016 Kraków, Poland E-mail: [email protected] Bianca Preda-Bălănică Department of Cultures, University of Helsinki P.O. Box 4 (Fabianinkatu 24, 121C), 00014 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: [email protected] Bogdan Rangelov Institute of Physical Chemistry – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Аkad. G. Bonchev Str., bl. 11, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] Rositsa Manova Independent researcher Sofia, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] Yavor Rusev Regional Historical Museum 2, Byalo more St., 8600 Yambol, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] Dorothea Mildová Institute of Classical Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38 Prague 1 Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected] Elena Sandoval Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Bristol 43 Woodland Road, Bristol, BS6 1TH, United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] Paul S. Monaghan Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Bristol 43 Woodland Road, Bristol, BS6 1TH, United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] Fotis Sgouridis School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol University Rd, Bristol BS8 1SS, United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] Tomasz Oberc Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology – Polish Academy of Sciences ul. Sławkowska 17, 31-016 Kraków, Poland E-mail: [email protected] Josef Souček Department of Prehistory and Classical Antiquity National Museum Václavské náměstí 1700/68, 110 00 Prague 1, Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected] Michał Podsiadło Dolmen S.C. Pl. Emila Serkowskiego 8/3, 30–512 Kraków, Poland E-mail: [email protected] Ivo Světlík CRL, Nuclear Physics Institute, CAS Na Truhlářce 39/64, 180 00 Prague 8, Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected] List of authors Anita Szczepanek Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology – Polish Academy of Sciences ul. Sławkowska 17, 31-016 Kraków, Poland E-mail: [email protected] Petra Tušlová Institute of Classical Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38 Prague 1, Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected] Bartłomiej Sz. Szmoniewski Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology – Polish Academy of Sciences ul. Sławkowska 17, 31-016 Kraków, Poland E-mail: [email protected] Todor Valchev Regional Historical Museum - Yambol 2, Byalo more St., 8600 Yambol, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] Martin Trautmann A und O – Anthropologie und Osteoarchäologie Dall’Armistraße 16, D-80638 München, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Piotr Włodarczak Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology – Polish Academy of Sciences ul. Sławkowska 17, 31-016 Kraków, Poland E-mail: [email protected] 331