prehistoric rock sanctuaries in the eastern rhodopes and some other ...

Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy (Eds. R. I. Kostov, B. Gaydarska, M. Gurova). 2008.Proceedings of the International Conference, 29-30 October 2008 Sofia, Publishing House “St. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, 180-184.PREHISTORIC ROCK SANCTUARIES IN THE EASTERN RHODOPES AND SOME OTHERMOUNTAIN REGIONS IN BULGARIAAna RadunchevaNational Institute of Archaeology and Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1000 SofiaABSTRACT. The aim of the present paper is the study of the period of the establishment and the period of the most intensive use of the rocksanctuaries in the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic in THE Eastern Rhodopes (Southern Bulgaria) and some other mountain regions inBulgaria. Attention is drawn on some elements of the sanctuary plan and interior as well as some aspects of the ritual practices.The prehistoric rock sanctuaries form a dense networkcovering the high parts of the mountains. In few cases, in theplanes, they are located on rocky hills. Until recently it wasbelieved that the network of rock sanctuaries has covered onlythe Eastern Rhodopes Mountain but we already know that theywere situated on the summits and the slopes of the entireRhodopes Mountain and almost on all mountains at the CentralBalkans – the Sredna Gora Mountains, the Stara PlaninaMountains, etc. Each site had a different plan of the temenosarea, which was closely related to the specific rituals and thereligious beliefs (Raduncheva, 2003, 79-138). The rocksanctuaries also met certain requirements for astronomicobservations, which were an extremely important part of therituals performed there. The sanctuaries were situated onplaces where magnetic anomalies have been found and therock thrones and basins were situated on the spots of theanomalies, a circumstance that had influence on the quality ofthe water in the basins. It probably had an influence over thereactions of the people who stood for a long period near thethrones or were seating on them (Stoev, Muglova, 1996).notwithstanding the fact that they consisted of identical orsimilar elements. The various components comprising the planof the temenos area have been chosen according to the cultpractices and the rituals performed there. As I have mentionedmany times, the religious beliefs defined the type of the rockeffigies and the way they have been made. In some cases thenatural curves of the rocks have been used, sometimes theyneeded additional modification and have been slightly cut inorder to be given a shape required by the ritual, andsometimes monumental sculptures have been made fromrocks and rock pieces. In the sanctuary on the Harmankayapeak near the Gassak neighbourhood in the village of DolnaChobanka, the anthropomorphic effigies were made of largeror smaller pieces of rocks, which were carefully arranged to fiteach other (Fig. 1). In most cases the cuts and the reliefs weremade on the horizontal as well as on vertical rocks. Both, thesculptures cut into the rocks and the carvings, find parallelsamong the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic finds discoveredduring excavations of prehistoric settlements.The elements forming the prehistoric rock sanctuariesconsisted of anthropomorphic images or substantial parts ofthem, human heads mainly; animal figures – lions, leopards,bears, horses, serpents, tortoises and hedgehogs; birds –eagles and swans; various thrones and altars, ritual pits carvedinto the rocks, natural caves or caves cut into the rocks,stairways leading to nowhere or should we say to heaven,water reservoirs (wells and basins cut into the rocks) and watersources (springs or small streams) flowing through the territoryof the sanctuary, niches cut into the rocks, etc. There areeffigies of suns and moons in various phases as well assyncretic effigies of creatures having both anthropomorphicand zoomorphic features – sphinxes, sirens-birds with humanfaces or sculptures of mythological creatures with human facesand serpent’s bodies. The combination of different elementsresulted in a great variety of rock sanctuaries. Today we areaware of the fact that all sacred places differ from each other180Fig. 1. Human’s head made of rock pieces cut to fit each other (right);parallel image from Israel (left)The time when the rock cult places and sanctuaries wereestablished has become a constant research issue in therecent years and by default they are dated to the Thracianperiod. The fact that the type of Neolithic and Chalcolithic findsfrom prehistoric settlements precisely correspond to the type of

structures cut into the rocks, provide a reason to date theestablishment of the entire sanctuary network to the Neolithicand the Chalcolithic. Here are some arguments supporting theproposed date.The following sequence has been observed in thesanctuaries under research: various effigies were cut into themain rocks and were covered after that by layers yieldingpottery and finds dated mainly to the second half of theChalcolithic and in a few cases – to the Neolithic. This factprovides ground to date the majority of the rock structures andsanctuaries to the final Late Chalcolithic. After the end of theChalcolithic, these cult places were abandoned for a period ofca. 2000 years. It was as late as the Late Bronze Age whenhuman activity is recorded again although the newcomers usedonly certain sectors from the old temene. Sectors from theprehistoric settlements continued to be used in the Early IronAge as well.This chronological pattern is recorded everywhere – in thesanctuaries of both the Eastern and the Western RhodopeMountains (Belantash near the village of Vrata, AssenovgradRegion, Perperek near the village of Gorna Krepost, KardzhaliRegion, Tatul near the village of Dolna Chobanka, Raven-Center, Raven-North, Raven-West, Adzhioluk, Kazan Beyug,Chukovo, Chomakovo, Momchilgrad Region, Fotinovo andBenkovski, Kirkovo Kale locality, “the Tower of Babylon” andUch Kale near the town of Dzhebel, Adata, KrumovgradRegion, Pchelarovo, Haskovo Region, at Dzhambaz Tepe inPlovdiv, the numerous cult places along the Borovitsa andDazhdovnitsa Rivers, at the village of Dzhanka, Zhenda nearthe villages of Nochevo and Angel Voyvoda, Kardjali Region,at the Bosilkovo neighbourhood in the village of Davidkovo,Smolyan Region, at the village of Dolno Dryanovo,Blagoevgrad Region and in the sanctuaries in the Sredna GoraMountains (at Buzovgrad, near the village of Karnara on theStryama River, in the Turchov Kamak locality (Kitov, 1979), adozen of sites near the town of Strelcha (Vasilev, 2007) as wellas in the Stara Planina Mountains (at the village of Gortalovo,Pleven Region (Mikov, 1982; etc.). To give the reader only aclue for the number of the rock sanctuaries one can mentionthat only in the Momchilgrad Region their number exceeds 100and each survey adds new sites to the map. Thearchaeological excavations at the Arkata locality at the villageof Oreshare made by S. Ivanova in 2008 supported thestratigraphic observations of the sanctuaries listed above.About 80% of the sherds collected during the surveys and theexcavations are dated to the Late Chalcolithic; certain ritualobjects such as ceramic and triangular bone figurines as wellas small ritual arrows made of flint and agate are also dated tothe same period. Large size stone tools (axes and adzes) usedprobably for cutting the soft rocks at the sanctuaries have alsobeen found. It is worth mentioning that 90% of the finds yieldedby the large pits cut into the rocks of the sanctuary near thevillage of Pchelarovo, Haskovo Region are dated to the end ofthe Late Chalcolithic. The finds comprise complete andfragmented ceramic vessels, marble (Shukerova, 1985) andclay figurines as well as stone tools. These finds were found inpits whose depth sometimes reached several metres. Thetradition of the ritual pits came from the Early Neolithic andsurvives through the entire Chalcolithic period.Fig. 2. Tatul sanctuary, view from the West.181

lamps) have been considered miniature models of the cultplaces in the mountains and some of them probably wereconsidered as altars for offerings which is the case of a findfrom the Tell near the village of Sedlare, Momchilgrad Region.There is a human head on the table strongly resembling therock head of a rock altar (badly damaged by the archaeologicalexcavations) at the Tatul sanctuary.to nowhere in the middle room of the large rock temple. Thethrones are situated in the same room, one of them havinglions on the back and a seated figure beside; it is a figure of a“man with cat ears” – a character known from the frescoes andreliefs on the walls of the Çatalhöyük temple, dated to the VIIImillennium BC. There are several altars in the next room,which beyond any doubt are prehistoric and at least two ofthem have eyes shaped according to the traditions of the LateChalcolithic. Following this line we can try to reconstruct theconcept of the prehistoric sanctuary builder – the largesttemple is in the lap of the supreme god who protects it.Another interpretation is also possible – the giant is offering thetemple to the deities, holding it in his left hand and raising hisright arm to salute them. The figure was related to otherstructures – the large basin, the temple situated to the East,the sacred road, the thrones and the various rock structures onthe plateau; a great part of which was destroyed by the recentexcavations. All mentioned above makes definitions such as“city of the rock people”, “city”, “capital city”, “Sitalk’s palace”,“site of an oracle of Dionysus”, “Perperikon”, “Pergamum”,“Pergan”, etc. sound absurd. In fact we are facing a brightexample of material expression of the supreme emanation ofbeliefs and the complex organization of spirituality in theprehistoric period. Many authors wrote about the lack ofcredibility of these definitions as well (Atanasov, 2002, 89-96;Iliev, 2007, 89-98; Tacheva, 2007, 251-259; Rabadjiev, 2008).Fig. 3. Tatul sanctuary, aerial photograph (above) and a human-likeimage (below)There are not many aerial photographs of the sanctuaries.However, such a photograph taken years ago is available forthe Perperek sanctuary. It is clearly visible on this photographthat the sanctuary has the shape of a lying human figure(Ovcharov et al., 19). The second aerial photograph taken ofthe site revealed the main concept of the sanctuary plan. Itresembles a gigantic seated male figure holding with his leftarm in his lap the great rock temple. The right arm of the figureis bent at the elbow and raised to the shoulder with the palmturned outwards and fingers tightly pressed to each other. Thepate of the giant’s head reaches the top of the hill and his legs– the foothill. The rocks shaping the left arm, from the elbow tothe palm are now destroyed. The only part preserved are thefive fingers, which in fact are “staircases” leading from nowhere183As we know the religious and the everyday life of theprehistoric people have been managed and controlled by civiland religious structures functioning on various levels – familylevel, tribal level and related to the tribe alliances in the finalLate Chalcolithic. The supreme power was exercised byrepresentatives of the supreme priesthood, who were in chargeof the ritual practices performed at the rock sanctuaries(Raduncheva, 2003, 75-138). Some of the rituals were closelyrelated to astronomical observations and calculations as wellas to different kinds of predictions. The rituals were divided intotwo parts – profane and sacred. The profane part includedvarious performances, a theatre for the worshippers andpilgrims, who came to hear the will of the deities. The sacred(hidden) one was related to the astronomical knowledge andrecords, observations of movement of stars and celestialphenomena – an activity providing ground for precisepredictions of the future. This sacred knowledge wasaccumulated, kept and transferred from generation togeneration (Raduncheva, 2002, 78-111). It was also mostprobably directly related to the fact that the pilgrims visiting thesanctuaries during various seasons or times of the day sawdifferent images as demanded by the sacred part of the ritual.ReferencesAtanasov, V. 2002. The ancient gold mine Perperikon near thevillage of Stremtsi, Kurdjali District. – Ann. Univ. Miningand Geology, 45, Part 1, 89-96 (in Bulgarian).Drossler, R. 1967. Die Venus der Eiszeit. Prisma, Leipzig,269 S.Iliev, J. 2007. The Rhodope Mountain according the view of theancient authors. – Rhodopica, 1, 89-98 (in Bulgarian).Kitov, G. 1979. The Thracian Mounds Near the Town ofStrelcha. Sofia, 32 p. (in Bulgarian).Mellaart, J. 1999. Under the volcano. – Cornocopia, 4, 77-97.

Mikov, V. 1929. Rock images from Bulgaria. – Notes Bulg.Hist. Soc., 7 (in Bulgarian).Nikolova, R., N. Genov. 2008. A Book about Bulgaria. Plovdiv.(in Bulgarian)Ovcharov, N. (A). In: Ovcharov, N., D. Kodjamanova. TheSacred Town Perperikon. Slavena, Varna, 48 p. (inBulgarian)Ovcharov, N. (B). The Sanctuary of Orpheus at the Village ofTatul, Momchilgrad Region. Slavena, Varna, 24 p. (inBulgarian)Ovcharov, N., D. Kodjamanova, M. Kamarev. The Sanctuary ofDyonisius at Perperikon. The Northern Delphi.Popgeorgievi, 36 p. (in Bulgarian)Rabadjiev, K. 2008. About the temple of Orpheus at Tatul… orfor the responsibility of the archaeologist. – Anamnesis, 3,6, 2-8 (in Bulgarian).Raduncheva, А. 2002. The religious structure during the LateChalcolithic. – Ann. Archaeol. Inst. and Museum, 78-111(in Bulgarian).Raduncheva, А. 2003. The Late Chalcolithic Society in theBulgarian Lands. Excavations and Investigations, 32, Sofia(in Bulgarian).Raduncheva, А. 2006. About the role of the cave in the religionof prehistoric societies. – Proc. Archaeol. Inst., 39, 57-72(in Bulgarian).Sandars, N. 1968. Prehistoric Art in Europe. Baltimore, 350 p.Shukerova, A. 1985. Semi-finished marble small statue fromthe village of Pchelarovo, Kurdjali District. – Proc.Museums of South East Bulgaria, Plovdiv, 9 (in Bulgarian).Stoev, A., P. Muglova. 1996. Classification and functionalelements of cult sites in the Rhodope region, used forastronomical purposes. – In: Symposium “Cult Sites andCult Practices in the Rhodopes”, Smolyan (in Bulgarian).Tacheva, M. 2007. Sources about the oracle of Dyonisius inThrace and the so called sacred town Perpericon. –Rhodopica, 1, 251-258 (in Bulgarian).Vasilev, G. 2007. A Short History of Strelcha. 167 p. (inBulgarian)184