Екипът на Travel Guide Ви пожелава едно приятно и пълноценно прекарване със специализираният портал за хора с приключенски дух и желание за пътешествия, онлайн от 1 януари 2005 година
The Fire – Place and Function in The Early Bronze Age Ritual Structures in Ancient Thrace
Kristina Kostova | Публикувана на Пон Май 01, 2006 12:43 pm
During the first two stages of the Early Bronze Age (EBA) in Bulgaria there are no data for the religious life of the inhabitants of this territory. The first differentiated ritual structures occurred in the third stage of the EBA. These innovative ritual structures – circular ditch enclosures – are located out of the settlement contexts and they have no predecessors (at least they have not been discovered until now) in Thrace from the previous epochs (Leshtakov 2002: 21). There are also some others types of ritual structures from the same period – stone walls, ritual/sacrificial pits and wells (Leshtakov 2002: 37-40).
In this work we will try to reveal just one of the aspects of the early Bronze Age religious life – the role and place of fire in the ditch enclosures ritual structures and in the additional elements of these complexes. We shall touch upon another problem – the influences of alien cultures on the religious practices in early Bronze Age Thrace.
The first discovered and almost fully excavated ditch enclosure on the territory of Bulgaria is located near v. Drama, Jambol district. It is situated on the northwestern slope of the tell “Drama-Merdzhumekya” and was almost fully investigated in 1984-1986. The uncovered ditch encloses an almost circular area with diameter: E-W – 41,50 m and N-S – 38,50 m. At the uppermost part of the enclosure there is a 3,60 m interruption, interpreted by the excavators as an entrance towards the inner space ( see Abb. 5 in Lichardus et al. 2000: 22).
The stratigraphy was identified by means of 56 sections. Six stages of the fill were registered – the most recent layer is “a” and the most ancient layers are “e”, “f” and “d”. The traces from the utilization of fire are mainly concentrated in the middle layer – bc – of the ditch fill. Big, secondary burnt pieces of daub, many charcoals and big carbonized wooden pieces were recovered in layer bc. During this stage of the filling of the structure, many intentional deposits of vessels loom weights and other objects gathered into groups or put down isolated were made. Heavily burnt vestiges are recorded between and above the deposited objects and this is a reason for the secondary burning of some of the vessels. However, there are no traces of fire on the ditch walls and these are the data which lead the excavators to the opinion that all burnt vestiges had been brought hot from somewhere outside of the enclosure and then thrown into the ditch. Some of the daub pieces have burnt to melting. Big pottery sherds, deformed by burning, were also discovered in this layer. The investigators suggested that this is not a sign of throwing the “normal” dwelling vestiges but of vestiges from ritual structures (Lichardus et al. 2000: 21-30, 36-37).
Charcoals were found in the other layers of the fill of the ritual structure too, but their concentration was much lower.
The detailed analysis of the artifacts and pottery and their parallels date the site to the EBA 3 (the most recent horizons of Ezero) and MBA –most of the materials have the same characteristics as those of Gulubovo site (Lichardus et al. 2000: 35).
The second site is situated in the land of v. Cherna gora, Chirpan district. It was investigated during rescue excavations in 1997-1999. The uncovered ditch enclosure has a circle plan with diameter on the north-southern axis of about 100 m. The complex includes two ditches – outer and inner. In the south-western part of the enclosure there is an oval basin where the two ditches cross each other. In depth the basin continues like a cylindrical well with approximately 5 m depth. Another well (named Pit-Center) has been excavated in the central point of the inner space of the enclosure (see.fig. 5.2. в Leshtakov 2002: 24). The functional period of the complex is during EBA 2/EBA 3 to MBA.
Traces of usage of fire within the frame of this complex are almost analogous to these of the enclosure from “Drama-Merdzhumekya”. High ash and charcoal concentrations are characteristic of the fill of the outer ditch. There are also rich deposit layers in the central part of the fill (both on the vertical and horizontal axis), which include pottery sherds, small findings, fragments of andirons, pieces of burnt clay and stones. The deposits are almost always found in the layers with high concentration of ash and charcoals. The deposit concentrations of burnt pieces of clay, fragments of andirons and other findings were registered also in the upper part of the well, the so called basin. The layer, in which they were found, consists of a gray-blackish soil mixed with high concentration of ashes and charcoals. Small charcoals were also noted by the excavators in the cylindrical well near the center of the basin.
A special place in the complex is occupied by a Pit-Center, determined as a main ritual structure in the sacred space. It reaches a depth of over 4 m and has a maximum diameter of 3 m. The walls of the pit have been plastered, while in some areas plaster was put on a thin clayish layer rich of charcoals. Three main structures, situated one above the other, were uncovered there. They have hemi-spherical (like a horse-shoe shape) plan and the space around and above them is filled with ash layers, charcoals, sand and clay. Many animal bones, pottery sherds and other small findings have been discovered in these layers. The function of the structures is interpreted by K. Leshtakov as similar to that of the andirons (Leshtakov 2002: 40).
An arc-shaped ritual structure was excavated at c. 50 m south of the ditch enclosure (see fig. 6.2. in: Leshtakov 2002: 25). The arc is open to southwest. There is a hearth in situ almost in the center of the structure and fragments of horse-shoe-shaped altar (andiron) in the northeast part. The structure, called “temple” by the excavators, functioned in synchronous period with the ditches (Лещаков и др. 2002: 19, 21, 23-27, 30).
On the territory of Bulgaria there is another circular ditch enclosure situated on a low tell in the region of the town of Nova Zagora. It also functioned in the period of EBA 3, but unfortunately the information about it is very restricted, and its functional interpretation remains uncleared (Nikolov 1995: 34). K. Leshtakov includes it in the group of ritual ditch enclosures, based on its general characteristics, which are very similar to those of the site from “Drama-Merdzhumekya” (Leshtakov 2002: 28, 32). Data connected with fire’s utilization on this site are missing but we cannot be sure whether this fact reflects the real archaeological situation at the time of the excavation works or it is due to the restricted volume of the preliminary report.
The data presented above for the sites on the territory of ancient Thrace permits us to differentiate two main types of evidences for the use of fire in the rituals:
1. Secondary/indirect evidences – the presence of differentiated layers with high concentrations of ash and charcoals; fragments of andirons, secondary burnt pottery sherds, clay pieces and pieces of plaster.
2. Direct evidences – the hearths uncovered in situ within the additional structures in the complex Cherna gora – Pit-Center and the “temple” south of the ditch enclosure.
The spatial analysis of these evidences shows that the charcoal and ash concentrations are located in the central parts of the fill of the ditches and it is of special importance that the concentrations are related with the deposits of different objects. The second important moment is connected with the data on the usage of fire in situ within the Pit-Center, i.e. in the focal point of the enclosed sacred space. The third is the burning of fire in situ in the structure south of the ditch enclosure, which probably took an important part in the preparation (?) of the rituals. On the bases of this analysis we can make the following suggestions:
1. The fire was an obligatory additional element in the ritual acts at a certain stage of the historical evolution of the two sanctuaries (within the zone of the ditches themselves).
2. It occupied a key, if not a central position in the ritual acts performed on the territory of the sanctuaries (the hearths in situ in the isolated zones of Pit-Center and the building south of the Cherna gora enclosure).
In the analysis of the function and the place of fire in the rituals performed on the territory of early Bronze Age ritual structures we will turn to some written sources to get at least a vague idea of what information on the performed acts can the uncovered artifacts and evidences bring. The chosen sources are dated 17th-15th c. BC (as an earliest possible date) and come from the territory of Vedic India and Hittite Anatolia. We have not to forget that the already existing written sources reflect the evolution of an earlier process of “birth”, evolution and usage of particular religious ideas and the rituals, which embody these ideas into action. On the other hand, we keep to M. Eliade’s opinion that the hierophants of the sacred (rituals, cults, divine symbols etc.) have been realized in a specific historical context but that does not mean “that every hierophant and religious experience is absolutely unique and unrepeatable moment in the spiritual universe, just on the contrary, the closest spiritual revelations are similar both in form and substance” (Елиаде 2002: 27) .
The inhabitants of Vedic India had no temples or definite cult places. The central place in the ritual, both spatially and ideologically, was occupied by the altar, which was erected onto an elevated open area and above it a sacrificial fire was lit (Елизаренкова, Топоров 1999: 505). Men constructed three hearths – two main, axial hearths and one additional. The first hearth/fire was called gārphapatya – “the fire of the master of the house” or of the man who offered the sacrifice. This hearth with a circular shape had a central role in the ceremony.
The other axial hearth/fire – āhavanīya – was the fire of the sacrifice. It had a quadrangular shape and was oriented to world’s four directions. Тhe third fire/hearth, dakṣināgni, was a half-circle and was erected at the border of the sacred space to protect it (Dumezil 1996: 312-314). Other names preserved for the sacrificial hearth/fire – dhisnia (a little fire altar erected on a natural promontory); vedi – “altar” (a pit into which fire was lit). The fire like a mediator between men and gods was named agní – “sacrificial hearth” (Елизаренкова, Топоров 1999: 507). Agní was also the divine personification of fire and one of the main Vedic deities. The most used epithets for him are:
vaicvānará (“belonging to all people”, a name which also designates Agni in all his reincarnations (Елизаренкова 1999: 759)); jātávedas (“the most eminent”, constant epithet for Agni as a god of the successful ritual (Elizarenkova 1999: 760). He has also been named hótar – “the high priest” (Елизаренкова 1999: 762). Many hymns in Rg Veda are devoted to Agni, but we have selected only some strophes which give clear idea for the function and place of fire in the ritual.
I, 1,4: “Oh, Agni, the victim and the rite,
Which you embrace,
Will go to the Gods.”
I, 59, 1: “Oh, Vaishvanara, you are the Navel of the men’s villages…”
III, 3, 6: “Living home (God) expelling curses…”
V, 1, 11: “Bring here the Gods to taste the sacrifices...”
V, 6, 5: “It’s for you, oh Agni, our sacrificial libation and hymns.”
V, 7, 2: “…Who is lit only by those who deserve it.”
In the other group of written sources – the Hittite – the fire was named in two ways: dpah̬h̬ur-“fire”, the word has been used in ritual invocation; the other word h̬ašša means “fire devoted to a deity, altar” (Иванов 1962: 266, 268). In the different sacrificial rituals the Hittites have used different kind of altars, including fiery and other for aromas. The second type is represented by portable altars – “Raucherpfanner” or portable hearths, which have been used in the cults of the Great Gods. The aroma itself together with the bread and fowl meat has been perceived like an offer for the god (Haas 1994: 515-516).
The evidences for the usage of fire in Hittite Anatolia could be divided in two groups –fire in rituals related with the official state fests and usage of fire in the magician rituals.
The ritual Yuzgat is devoted to the God of fertility Telepinu. During the fest, when the night was coming, the fire was lit in front of the god. Burning of ritual objects is noted in the description of the fest Purulia, which preserved earlier Hittite traditions (Иванов 1962: 266-267). During the great spring fest AN.TAH.SUM, in which also the king and the queen used to participate, men offered sacrifices for the fireplace (Ардзинба 1982: 15). An interesting document is preserved from the period of Hatusili I. The king, looking after the prosperity of the country, ordered the following:
“When fire in the fireplace
is not preserved, then a (dragon) will come
and the town of Hattussa will be interlaced in his rings.”
A special position within the royal court has been recorded in the text of the Late Kingdom – “a man of fire” (Иванов 1962: 267-268).
The hearth could be personified and used as a madiator bringing the prayers of the people to the deities (Попко 1983: 49).
It is known that salt, wax, sheep fat and different sacrificial animals were burnt during the magician practices. In other magician rituals different kind of objects, including hearths were broken up (Unal 2000: 264). For example, an Old woman burnt wool, fat, salt and wax in the sorcery against family quarrel (Unal 1988: 67). Similar are the magician practices, when newly initiated soldiers from the royal army gave oath (Beal 1995: 63).
The Hittites used the fire for purification of the house, sacred areas, etc. At the end of such a ritual the objects, which had been used, were put to fire (Haas 1993: 70-71).
Based on the information extracted from the two groups of written sources, we can try to outline the common features in the function and place of fire in the rituals of Vedic India and Hittite Anatolia:
1. Fire had a key, if not central, role in the spatial organization of the rituals and was highly appreciated.
2. The fire/hearth was personified and received its own sacrificial offerings.
3. It was the main mediator between the world of divinities and people – the sacrifices were accepted by the deities through the flames of the fire. The fire also could transmit prayers.
4. The fire was a guardian of the state prosperity and it could also be an embodiment of the house.
5. It protected against bad powers and participated in rituals for purification.
6. The lighting and keeping of the ritual fire was a privilege only to selected people (“Which is lighted only by those who deserve it”, Rg Veda V, 7, 2).
Now let us return to the Bulgarian ritual structures and, keeping in mind the above-mentioned characteristics of ritual fire, we shall try to give an answer to the following question: What kind of function did fire perform in the early Bronze Age ritual structures?
The evidences for the use of fire appeared (as we noted above) at a specific moment of the historical evolution of the two sanctuaries (concerning the zone of the ditches). The act of burning itself occurred outside the ditches, i.e. at least a part of the ritual was prepared and performed at some other place.
The remains of this part of the ritual (ash and charcoals in a big quantity) probably had a special importance to the succeeding acts, performed in the ditches and this was the reason for bringing them to the territory of the sanctuary. We could suggest several ideas for the function of fire in this area:
- Intermediary - if we accept that organic offerings – aromas or specially chosen kind of wood, fruits, cereals etc. were burnt in the fire and after that their remains (ash and charcoals) were deposited in the ditch.
- Purifying (protective) - if we suggest that the depositing of hot ash and charcoals was related to the preparation and the purification of the ditch space in the zones intended for offerings or to the protection of the deposited offerings.
The next moment is marked by the recovered secondary burnt (sometimes to melting) pottery sherds, clay and plaster pieces. If these objects had a role in the ritual performance – like offerings or just like elements of a complex ritual action, we can suggest, that it was obligatory for them to be burnt in the fire-mediator (if they were offerings) or in the purifying fire (if they were elements of the complex ritual, they had to be passed to the flames). Only after passing above procedures they could be deposited within the sacral area. The relations between the objects and fire in the real ritual performance perhaps used to be more complex, but they could be hardly revealed based only on the archaeological data.
Other objects, which provide us with information about fire functions, are the andirons deposited in the ditches. They could be used only once in a specific ritual and after that were deposited within the ditch space (Лещаков и др. 2002: 27). A suggestion for their usage says that they were intended for aroma burning (i.e. the mediator role of fire) and in this way, as objects already used in the ritual, they had to be taken out of the profane world and put into the sacred space. The other possibility is that the andiron had its own value as a sacrificial offering/object. What is common for all andirons uncovered in the zone of the ditches is that they are broken and whatever their function was, it was fulfilled out of the ditches, and inside it they were deposited without playing any role (if they were not offerings).
Both additional structures in the complex Cherna gora – Pit-Center and the building south of the ditch reveal other specifics of the role of fire. Inside these structures the fire burnt in situ. It was located in the focal point of the ritual spaces not only due to the reason that it was located in the two isolated structures but also because the hearths are uncovered in the central parts of the latter. Such locations of fire inside isolated and not very large structures suggest a limited number of participants in the rituals performed there. The presence of one hearth, two at most (or several successive hearths during the different periods of the Pit-Center) leads to the idea that the real ritual of fire was executed by a very narrow group of “chosen”. The function of the hearths/fire may have been related with the burning of different kinds of aromas and vegetable offerings (the evidence of such interpretation is the enormous quantity of ash around the hearths of Pit-Center) – i.e. fire as a mediator.
With some cautiousness we may suggest that a part of the secondary burnt objects, as well as the charcoals and the ash from the layers of the ditch were “produced” in the hearths inside these two structures and after that deposited, i.e. the preparation and a part of the rituals was performed exactly here (regrettably the information about this part of the ritual stays unrevealed for the sanctuary of “Drama-Merdzumekya”).
We have already noted in the spatial analysis that fire had a key position in the boundaries of the sacred space. The same conclusion can be made for the role of fire (intermediary and/or purifying) in the acts of the ritual, which is underlined by the fact that the real ritual fire (the hearths in situ) was accessible only to a limited group of people.
Some authors define the cult in this type of sanctuaries like fiery-chtonic (Фол, В. 1993: 144) which suggests that fire possessed a central role – i.e. its deification and personification (respectively, the presence of offerings devoted to fire-itself). In our view, the archaeological data at our disposal do not allow such a suggestion, because we know neither the ritual/s in their entirety, nor the cult that they represented. This conclusion does not deny, of course, the evidence that fire occupied one of the main positions in the ritual acts both spatially and functionally.
In the following paragraphs we will try to demonstrate the community of the religious ideas in the early Bronze age Thrace with other cultures, community, which is revealed both through the construction and use of similar type of ritual structures and the use of fire in the ritual performance.
The sites Cherna gora and those of “Drama-Merdzumekya” have no uncovered predecessors on the territory of Bulgaria until now. The tradition of the construction of ditch enclosures has its origins in Central Europe during the period of the culture of the linear-band pottery. During the first phase of the Lengyel culture the spreading of the enclosures called “roundel” began and it covered much larger territory (detailed review of this type see in: Petrasch 1990). This type of enclosures are limited in the period 4 800 to 4 700/600 BC (Petrasch 1990: 483-484, 489). In later periods enclosures, which included ditches, ditches and palisades are known from the territory of later cultures – Michelsberg (4300-3400 BC), Altheim (3800-3400 BC), Cham (c. 3100 BC) etc. (detailed review of the characteristics and the spreading of the enclosures from the European territory see in: Andersen 1997).
The continuation of the central European traditions is traced to the enclosures in the area of the Paris basin and in the central-western regions of France. The first structures are constructed in the second half of the 5th mill. and their use continues into the 4th and the beginning of 3d mill. BC (Cassen, Boujot 1990: 455-459).
On the British Isles the ditch enclosures have spread together with the first Neolithic culture Windmill Hill (c. 4000 BC) (Andersen 1997: 246). During the following millennia the patterns of the enclosures are defined by the monumental enclosures called in the archaeological literature “causewayed enclosures” – systems of ditches which include separately dug segments (review of this type of enclosures see in: Evans 1988). These systems of ditches are also used in Northern and Western Europe and they date to c. 5-4 mill. BC (Аndersen 1997: 283-284). Later, in the beginning of the 2nd mill. BC the henge monuments took place on the historical scene of the Britain. These monumental structures include in their construction: uninterrupted ditch enclosures with a diameter of several hundred meters, a bank and one or more rings of stone or wood ( for these enclosures see: Wainwright 1970).
The functional interpretation of the enclosures is ambiguous. During the century of investigation and analysis of their characteristics, the different opinions vary among corrals, defensive to ritual structures and funeral fields (a short review of the existent interpretations see in: Bertemes 1991: 441). Nevertheless, the prevailing opinion in recent literature is that the enclosures played the role of central places for some settlements and had religious, political and/or public function (Petrasch 1990: 518; Bertemes 1991: 443; Whittle 1988: 11-13).
For the purposes of the current article, we shall turn to the characteristics of the fill of the ditch enclosures on the territory of Europe in the period from 4th to the beginning of 2nd mill. BC.
On the territory of the Michelsberg culture in the fill of the ditches pieces of plaster burnt to melting were found at the bottom of the ditch (site Bergheim); fireplace at the bottom of the ditch (Urmitz); pottery sherds with traces of secondary burning (Hetzenberg) (Andersen 1997: 190-195). F. Bertemes recapitulates that findings are located in the lower and middle part of the fill and especially in the layers with high concentration of ash and charcoals (Bertemes 1991: 447, 453).
Charcoals, pieces of plaster, tools and other findings are concentrated in certain layers of the ditches from the period of the Altheim culture. The same characteristics we discover in the following centuries within the enclosures of the Cham culture – the fills contain big quantities of charcoals, burnt pieces of plaster and other secondary burnt findings (Andersen 1997:162-166).
In the ditch systems in Western France (3 800-2 900 BC) we register a layer just above the base of the ditch, containing charcoals, ash and findings (Andersen 1997: 233). The archaeological picture on the British Isles is similar – layers, rich in charcoals and findings, fireplaces in the ditches themselves, etc. (Аndersen 1997: 253-256).
The number of examples of use of fire coming from the European sites is enormous and we shall note hereby only the pit uncovered in the central part of the internal space of the enclosure near Fuzesabony. The pit is round, 4,8 m deep and the upper part (up to a depth of 3,0-3,5 m) of its fill contains pieces of secondary burnt plaster, ash, charcoals and burnt to melting pottery. Chronologically, the structure belongs to the Bodrogkerestur culture (Kallay 1990: 127-129).
An interesting moment in the fire rituals in the early Bronze Age sanctuaries is the use of andirons. These objects appeared together with the Kirbet-Kerak pottery (spread all around the Syro-Palestinian region) in the second third of 3d mill. BC. At present, it is known that the origin of this pottery has its roots in the local Anatolian tradition and in the lands of Transcaucasia. The diameter of the andirons varies between 0,20 m and 0,05 m. They are horse-shoe shaped and have three protuberances around the edge, which could be zoo- or anthropomorphic representations. Two main types are defined – Syro-palestinian and Anatolian, on the one hand and Caucasian, which is earlier and dates back to 4th mill. BC, on the other. The andirons are interpreted as usual pot-stands or as portable hearths. Their connection to fire is beyond any doubt, as the real hearths used in this period in Anatolia and Caucasus had the same shape. The miniature models could have expressed the religious ideas/beliefs of the Kirbet-Kerak pottery bearers (de Miroschedji 2000: 256-257, 261-262).
On the territory of Bulgaria the tradition of using shoe-horse shaped constructions can be followed back to the period of Early Bronze Age (the early Bronze Age settlement from tell Ezero) and continue during the middle bronze age (tell Gulubovo). At these sites shoe-horse shaped structures with utilitarian function are uncovered in situ. Similar andirons but with zoo- and anthropomorphic projections are known from the later periods of Early and Late Iron Age. These are considered typical for the Thracian tradition, but detailed analysis of the Bulgarian findings and their analogies show that, most probably, the evidences of the influence have to be looked for in the Anatolian prototypes (Лещаков 2003: 67-72).
Some of the features in Pit-Center (Cherna gora site) probably also reflect Anatolian influence. The stele unearthed behind the “umbo”-andiron with some cautiousness could be compared to the similar structures from the early Bronze Age sanctuaries in Anatolia (Leshtakov 2002: 28).
Based on the presented evidences, we could give some suggestions for the influences and the common ideas in the religious sphere, which reveal themselves through the construction and use of the ditch enclosures, their elements and the use of fire:
1. The idea for the construction and use of ditch enclosures as ritual structures is common to the territories of Bulgaria and Central and Western Europe.
2. The use of fire in the ritual acts is a characteristic feature of the enclosures in the territories of both Western and Central Europe, and the main evidences of that are almost identical for these territories and Bulgaria (definite layers with ash and charcoals, containing deposited findings, secondary burnt pieces of plaster; secondary burnt pottery sherds) and all findings related to use of fire have similar location in the fill of the ditches.
3. The fragments of andirons and the use of similar structures in situ in the central point of the complex Cherna gora represent the second line of influence on the use of fire – the Anatolian.
Instead of a conclusion, we shall point out that evidences of the use of fire are found in later similar ritual structures in the Bulgarian lands – sacrificial pits and ditches from Late Bronze Аge and Iron Age (Tonkova, Savatinov 2001: 98-102; Георгиева 1999: 171, 173, 176; Вълчева 2002: 105-107, 114; Янков, Саватинов 2002: 56-57 и др.). In general, these evidences are identical to those of the Early Bronze Аge – definite layers with charcoals and ash, secondary burnt finds, fragments of andirons etc.
Without speculating whether these data reflect the preservation of certain rituals (not like an action but like a meaning) in time which is difficult to prove based solely on archaeological data, we shall suggest that after all the major elements of the rituals are preserved and passed on down the centuries (as objects or their very existence in similar ritual structures) and these elements, as we demonstrated, have their analogues in the east, as well as in the earlier agricultural religion in the west.
References:
Ардзинба В. 1982. Ритуалы и мифы древней Анатолии. “Наука”. Москва.
Вълчева Д. 2002. Ямно светилище. – В: Божкова А., П. Делев (ред.), Копривлен т. 1. Nous. София, 102-123.
Георгиева Р. 1999. Обредни ями (края на II-I хил. пр. н. е.). – В: Етнология на траките. Университетско издателство “Св. Климент Охридски”. София, 165-183.
Елиаде М. 2002. Трактат по история на религиите. ИК “Лик”. София.
Елизаренкова Т., В. Топоров, 1999. Мир вещей по данным Ригведы. Ригведа. Мандалы V-VIII. “Наука”. Москва, 487-525.
Иванов В. 1962. Культ огня у хеттов. – В: Древний мир. Издательство восточной литературы. Москва, 266-272.
Лещаков и др. 2002=Лещаков К., П. Калчев, С. Саватинов, Н. Тодорова, К. Костова и В. Петрова 2002. Спасителни разкопки на светилището Черна гора 1. Предварителни резултати от разкопките 1997-1999 г. Известия на Старозагорския исторически музей, т. І, 19-44.
Лещаков К. 2003. За произхода на тракийските главнярници. Studia Archaeоlogica, Supplementum I. Сборник в чест на д-р Петър Горбанов. Университетско издателство “Св. Климент Охридски”. София, 67-86.
Николов В. 1995. Сондажни археологически разкопки на праисторическите селища Коньово, Новозагорско, Глуфишево и Камен, Сливенско. АОР през 1994, 34.
Попко M. 1983. Митология на хетска Анатолия. Български художник. София.
Ригведа. Мандалы I-IV. “Наука”. Москва.
Ригведа. Мандалы V-VIII. “Наука”. Москва.
Фол В. 1993. Скалата, конят, огънят. Ранна тракийска обредност. “Аргес”. София.
Янков Д., С. Саватинов 2002. Сондажни археологически проучвания на обект от късната желязна епоха в землището на с. Зетьово, общ. Чирпан (предварително съобщение). Известия на Старозагорския исторически музей, т. І, 55-66.
Andersen N. 1997. Sarup v. 1. The Sarup enclosures. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XXXIII 1. Distributed by Aarhus University Press. Jysk Arkaeologisk Selskab, Moesgaard.
Beal R. 1995. Hittite military rituals. – In: Meyer M.& P. Mivecki (eds.), Ancient Magic and Ritual Power. Religions in Graeco-Roman World, v. 129, 63-76.
Bertemes F. 1991. Untersuhungen zur Funktion der Erdwerke der Mchelsberger Kultur im Rahmen der kupferzeitlichen Zivilisation. – In: Lichardus J. (eds.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche 55, teil 1 , 441-464.
Cassen S., C. Boujot 1990. Grabenumfriedungen im Frankreich des 5. Bis 3. Jahrtausends v.u.Z. Jahreschrift für mitteldeutche Vorgeschicht 73, 455-468.
Dumezil G. 1996. Archaic Roman Religion, v. 1. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London.
Evans C. 1988. Monuments and analogy. The interpretation of causewayed enclosures. BAR, international series 403 (I), 47-73.
Haas V. 1993. Ein hurritischer Blutritus und die Deponierung der Ritualruckstande nach hethitischen Quellen. – In: Religiongeschihtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten testament. Internationales Symposion Hamburg 17-21 Marz 1990. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 129. Universitatsverlag Freiburg Schweiz Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht. Gottingen, 67-86.
Haas V. 1994. Geschichte der hethitischen Religion. Handbuch der Orientalistik, 15. Leiden-New York-Köln.
Kallay A. 1990. Die kupferzeitliche Ringanlage von Fuzesabony. Jahreschrift für mitteldeutche Vorgeschicht 73, 125-130.
Leshtakov К. 2002. Some suggestions regarding the formation of the “Thracian religion”. In the light of new archaeological data from South Bulgaria. RPRP 5 2001, 19-51.
Lichardus et al. 2000=Lichardus J., A. Fol, L. Getov, F. Bertemes, R. Echt, R. Katinčarov & I. Iliev 2000.Forschungen in der Mikroregion von Drama 1983-1999. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn.
de Miroschedji P. 2000. La céramique de Khirbet Kerak en Syro-Palestine: état de la question. – In: Marro C., H. Hauptmann (eds.), Chronologies des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millenaires. Varia Anatolica XI. Institut français d’études anatoliennes d’Istanbul, 255-278.
Petrasch J. 1990. Mittelneolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Mitteleuropa. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komission 71, 1, 407-564.
Tonkova M., S. Savatinov 2001. Thracian Culture of the Late Irone Age. “Maritsa-Iztok”. Archaeological research, vol. 5, 95-126.
Unal А. 1988. The role of Magic in the Ancient Anatolian religions according to the Cuneiform Texts from Bоğazkőy-Hattusa. BMECCJ 3, 52-85.
Unal А. 2000. The Hittites and Anatolian civilization. Etibank, 249-265.
Wainwright G. 1970. A review of henge monuments in the light of recent research. PPS, v. XXXV, 112-133.
Whittle A. 1988. Contexts, activities, events – aspects of Neolithic and Copper age enclosures in Central and Western Europe. BAR, international series 403 (I), 1-19.
Резюме
В статията се анализират данните за използването и пространсвената локализация на огъня в ритуланите структури от типа на рововите ограждания от територията на раннобронзова Тракия. В анализа е включена информацията от две светилища от този тип – обект 009 при селищна могила Драма-“Мерджумекя” и обект Черна гора 1, община Братя Даскалови, Чирпанско.
Данните от представените обекти позволяват да се разграничат два вида свидетелства за използването на огъня при ритуалните действия:
1. Косвени свидетелства – наличието на въглени и пепел с висока концентрация в обособени пластове от запълнителя на рововете; фрагментите от преносими огнища, вторично горелите керамични фрагменти, горелите парчета от мазилки и парчета глина.
2. Преки свидетелства – огнища открити in situ в съоръжения свързани с комплекса на светилището Черна гора 1 (сградата разположена на юг от ограждането и ямата разположена в централната част на вътрешното пространство на рововото ограждане).
Пространственият анализ на тези свидетелства показва, че и при двата разгледани обекта концентрациите от въглени и пепел се разполагат в централните части на запълнителя на рововете и особено важен факт е, че те са свързани с депозитите от различни предмети. Вторият важен момент е наличието на данни за използването на огъня (при това вероятно в самото съоръжение) в Яма-Център, т.е. във фокусната точка на ограденото свещено пространство. Третият момент е използването на огъня, доказано с огнища in situ в структурата разположена близо до рова на Черна гора. Пространственото разпределение на свидетелствата показва:
1. Огънят е бил задължителен допълнителен елемент при извършваните обряди в определен етап от историческото развитие на светилищата (в зоната на самите ровове).
2. Той има ако не централна, то поне ключова роля в ритуалните действия практикувани като цяло в тези комплекси (наличието на огнища в обособените зони на Яма-център-фокусен център и сградата южно от рова).
В анализа на функцията и мястото на огъня в ритуалите извършвани в раннобронзовите ритуални структури са използвани и две групи от писменни извори от хетска Анатолия и ведическа Индия. Информацията от двете групи извори позволява да се набележат някои общи черти за функцията и мястото на огъня в ритуалите от двете области:
1. Огънят има ако не централна, то поне ключова пространствена и ценностна позиция в ритуалите.
2. Огънят/огнището може да бъде персонифицирано и получава собствени жертвоприношения.
3. Той е главният посредник между световете на боговете и хората – чрез изгаряне в неговите пламъци жертвите и даровете се приемат от боговете. Огънят може да е носител и на молитви.
4. Огънят е пазител на държавното благополучие, но също може да олицетворява дома.
5. Той предпазва от лоши сили и участва в очистителни ритуали.
6. Запалването и поддържането на ритуалния огън са привилегия на ограничен кръг хора.
За българските ритуални структури са предложени няколко идеи за функцията на огъня – за зоната на рововете: посредническа (ако са приеме, че в огъня са били изгаряни органични дарове и благоухания) и очистваща/предпазваща (ако се приеме, че депозирането на въглени и пепел е свързано с подготвянето=пречистването на пространството на рововете в зоните за полагане на дарове или запечатването = предпазването на положените дарове); за вторично горелите предмети: ако са дарове преминават през огъня-посредник, ако са елементи от по-сложни ритуали преминават през огъня-очистител; за фрагментите от преносими огнища: предназначени са за изгаряне на благовония, т.е. посредническа роля на огъня или като предмети имат собствена стойност, която ги превръща в дарове; за допълнителните съоръжения от комплекса при Черна гора: тук са били извършвани реалните ритуали с огън, до които са имали достъп ограничен кръг участници, а самата функция на огъня вероятно е посредническа и може би (с голяма доза предпазливост) именно тук е протичала подготовката (изгарянето) на предметите и органичните дарове депонирани след това в рововете.
Проследяването на паралелите, както на рововите ограждания като структури, така и на данните за използването на огъня показват общност на идеите в областта на религиозната сфера с териториите на Западна и Централна Европа от една страна и от друга с територията на древна Анатолия
Ако видите от баирите над Горно Драгалище до Разлог да слиза стройна колона от бледи русоляви младежи под палещото слънце, не ги мислете за датски партизани, объркали пътя. Това е поредната група алтернативни туристи, които изпълват този сезон селото. Подобни гледки стават все по-чести в много райони от страната и са ясен знак, че алтернативният туризъм в България има своето развитие. Разбира се, съвсем не толкова осезателно, колкото е необхо ... ...
Общо на линия са 14 потребители :: 5 регистрирани, 0 скрити и 9 гости
Регистрирани потребители: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], Google Desktop, Google Feedfetcher, Yahoo [Bot]