P. Leshtakov. The Sources and Distribution of Graphite as a Means more

Centre International de Recherches de la Culture Cucuteni, Piatra-Neamt Institut d'Archeologie Iasi Cucuteni Culture International Research Centre, Piatra-Neamt Institute of Archaeology Iasi CUCUTENI 120 ANS DE RECHERCHES LE TEMPS DU BILAN 120 YEARS OF RESEARCH TIME TO SUM UP Edite par / Edited by GHEORGHE DUMITROAIA , JOHN CHAPMAN, OLIVIER WELLER, CONSTANTIN PREOTEASA, ROXANA MUNTEANU, DORIN NICOLA, DANMoNAH Piatra-Nearnt 2005 THE SOURCES AND DISTRIBUTION OF GRAPHITE AS A MEANS OF DECORATION IN THE BULGARIAN CHALCOLITHIC Petar LESHTAKOV Graphite decoration on ceramic vessels is a unique phenomenon that spreads over most of the Balkans and lasts for more than 1000 years. It is a dominant decorational technique for most of the Chalcolithic cultures in this region. The emergence of graphite decoration is still unclear, mainly due to lack of specialized investigations. Most Chalcolithic specialists believe that graphite is closely related to the emergence and development of metal production and gold and copper metallurgy (Bailey, 2000 : 227). H. Todorova claims that the metallic sheen of the graphite was meant to meet the aesthetical needs of prehistoric people in the dawn of metal production and consumption (Todorova et alii, 1983: 48). The earliest evidence for graphite use dates back in the Late Neolithic. Vessels with graphite surface were found during the study of the pottery assemblage from Sapareva banja (Georgiev et alii, 1986: 134). Laboratory analyses have confirmed that the shiny substance was really graphite (Vandova and Sultanov, 2002: 13, 14). In one of the upper building horizons of the site, a shapeless piece of graphite was also found (Georgiev & Nikolov, 1980: 20). Another graphite piece was reported from the Late Neolithic site of Topolnica'. The technology of this decorative technique is clear - the graphite was mixed or ground into the slip of the vessels. Therefore, this method cannot be treated as ornamentation but rather as decoration in its broad sense. Pottery with a graphitic surface was found at the sites of Bulgarcevo, Marcin, Petrovo, Elesnica and Sitagroi I, as well as in the area of Topolnitsa-Akropotamos culture tcf Vando va, 2004 : 122 with ref.). Similar vessels are found on tell Kapitan Dimitrievo, dated to the Late Neolithic periods Karanovo Ill-IV and Kapitan Dimitrievo. According to V. Nikolov, the surface of the vessels was rubbed with pieces of graphite before firing (Nikolov, 1999: 39-41). This evidence defines the areas with the earliest (Late Neolithic) use of graphite - the valleys of the Struma and Mesta and the western part of the Upper Thracian Plain (fig . 1). The well-known tradition of painted pottery in these regions (with minerals of different colors - brown, black and bitumen), the above mentioned earliest usage of graphite decoration, as well as the availability of graphite exposures suggest that this technique of vessel decoration originated here. An additional argument for such a hypothesis can be found in the thorough analyses of graphite decoration in the Struma basin (Chokhadziev, 2000: 135-173). 294 P.LESHTAKOV Fig. 1. Map of sites with Neolithic vessels with graphitized surface: 1. Sitagroi; 1. Topolnica; 3. Petrovo; 4. Marcin; 5. Bulgarcevo; 6. Sapareva banja; 7. Elesnica; 8. Kapitain Dimitrievo. Fig. 2. Map of the graphite deposit in Bulgaria: 1. Ignatica ; 2. Kal oferSamodivska cukara; 3. Sipka; 4. Selce; 5. Sveti Ilija Hillis; 6. Sismanovo; 7. Gramatikovo; 8. Golyamo Kamenyane; 9. Madan; 10. Cepelare; 11. Yago dina; 12. Kricim, 13. Bistrica; 14. Lebnica. Fig. 3. Map of prehistoric sites with graphite find s: 1. Telis-Laga; 2. Hotnica; 3. Ruse ; 4. Radingrad; 5. Kubrat ; 6. Sultan (Popovo); 7. Kodjadermen; 8. Vama; 9. Karanovo ; 10. Azmak; 11. Meckyur; 12. Yunacite; 13. Yagodina; 14. Topolnica; 15. Pemik-Krepostta; 16. Sapareva banja; 17. Kurilo; 18. Okol gIava. THE SOURCES AND DISTRIBUTION OF GRAPHITE IN THE BULGARIAN CHALCOLiTHIC 295 According to Chokhadziev, during the first phase of the Chalcolithic, the graphite decoration was in wide, uneven bands which was indicative of the abundance of raw material and an as yet not very skilful execution of this decorative technique. The routes of its subsequent wide diffusion are still unclear. What is certain is that in Thrace it happened over a fairly short period. The relatively scanty evidence for the Early Chalcolithic phases of the Marica, Gradesnica, Poljanica and Sava cultures does not allow any detailed analysis of the distribution of graphite decoration. However, it is clear that this type of decoration is missing or very poorly represented during the earliest phases of the Gradesnica, Poljanica and Sava cultures. This evidence supports the idea that graphite decoration diffused from south to north, which is also the route of supply of this kind of raw material. Such a hypothesis was claimed for the Boian Ill-IV culture by E. Comsa (1961: 62). During the next phases of the Early and the Late Chalcolithic, graphite decoration becomes dominant, replacing almost all painting techniques known heretofore. According to the distribution map of minerals, there are at least 15 sources / exposures of graphite in Bulgaria (Leshtakov, 2004: 488-490), mainly situated in the mountains of South Bulgaria (fig. 2). Their possible exploitation is not confirmed by secure archaeological evidence but initial graphite production at these sources during the Chalcolithic is highly feasible. According to J. Chapman, there is only one known graphite source in Southern Romania, near the town of Targoviste, This suggests the possibility of the exchange of graphite from Bulgaria to South-East Romania (p.c., J. Chapman). An interesting problem is the quantity of graphite needed by the Chalcolithic society for their aesthetical necessities in a certain period. I think that the amount needed was quite large. A majority of the excavated prehistoric sites in Bulgaria consists of hundreds, if not thousands of vessels, which are more or less covered with graphite decoration. Many of these vessels were soon out of use (breakage or other reasons) and were replaced by new vessels. So far in all excavated prehistoric sites in Bulgaria, not more than 30 pieces of graphite were found, which does not reflect the real use of this raw material. Most often they are of conical shape, rarely bi-conical or spherical (fig. 4, 5). The outlets of some of the perforations are widened, which suggests that the pieces were tied onto a string. The standard shape of the graphite pieces and their wide distribution (fig. 3) make me suggest that, near the sources / exposures, there were specialized centres for the production and distribution of graphite. They were probably transported in strings connecting several conical pieces. There are some rare finds of graphite of amorphous shape or as plaques (Ruse tell, Kodjadermen tell). One more aspect of graphite use may have an indirect link to its intensive application for decoration during the Chalcolithic. In the second half of the Chalcolithic, apart from decoration on the vessel surface and worked or un-worked pieces in settlements, graphite was found in some graves. The only certain evidence so far derives from two graves in the Vama I cemetery. It is important to underline that both graves are very rich symbolic burials - Nos. 3 and 41 (Ivanov and Avramova, 1997: 30, 41). This is not the place to discuss in detail the meaning of these burials but it is certain that the pieces of unworked graphite found in the graves have a specific ritual significance. 296 P.LESHTAKOV I 0 , 1 ~ 6 0 I .Q 2 0 0 , 0 I 7 8 o·0 B 0 8 8 .8 0 0 I - I 3 4 5 I 8 9 .B 0 -B 0 .B DlO 11 12 , 0 .B 13 Fig. 4. Finds of graphite - tell Karano vo. B o o 5 : e : . ~:. : 7 . o I 5 o ~ r, . ..:::. · · ·::: l~ 3 ; .!? : I 8 Fig. 5. Finds of graph ite: 1 - tell Kurat ; 2-4 - tell Meckyur, 5 - tell Sultan (Popovo) , 6 - tell Hotnica; 7, 8 - tell Ruse (after Georgiev and Ange1ov, 1957). THE SO URCES AND DISTRIBUTION OF GRAPHITE IN THE BULGARIAN CHALCOLlTHIC 297 Toward the end of the Chalcolithic, the distribution of graphite decoration drastically diminished and then vanished. It is not a serious argument that the sources were exhausted. It is more likely to relate the disappearance of graphite decoration with the ethno-cultural changes of the Chalcolithic society. The use of graphite as a decorative technique re-appears during the Iron Age when the same methods were applied - graphite rubbing into the slip and drawing with graphite. Note: (1) This information is provided by the excavator Prof. H . Todorova, for which I am grateful to her. Bibliography: BAILEY D., 2000 - Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, incorporation and identity, LondonNew York. CHOKHADZIEV S., 2000 - Development of the Graphite Ornamentation in the Copper Age (In the Light of Evidence from the Struma Cultures, in: L. Nikolova (Ed.), Technology, Style and Society. Contribution to the Innovations between the Alps and Black Sea in Prehistory, BAR International Series 854, Oxford: 135-173. COMSA E., 1961 - K eonpocy 0 npexoouou tjJa3e om xynnmypm EORH K xynsmype Tyuensuuua, in Dacia, Nouvelle Serie, V: 39-68. GEORGIEV G., NIKOLOV V., 1980 - Pasxonxu Ha npaucmopuuecxomo cenutqe «paii cp. Canapeea tiau«, KlOcmeHOWlCKu oxpue, in Apxeonoeuuecxu omKpumuR u pasxonxu npes 1979 z., Sofia: 18-21. GEORGIEV G., NIKOLOV V., NIKOLOVA L., COHADZIEV S., 1986 - D ie neolithische Siedlung Kremenik bei Sapareva Banja, in Studia Praehistorica, 8: 108-151. IVANOV 1., AVRAMOVA M., 1997 - Bapueucku HeKpOnOJl, Sofia. LESHTAKOV P., 2004 - Graphite Deposits and Some Aspects of Graphite Use and Distribution in Bulgarian Chalcolithic, in V. Nikolov, K. Bacvarov, P. Kalchev (Eds.). Prehistoric Thrace, Sofia-Stara Zagora: 488-496. NIKOLOV V., 1999 - KbCHOHeOJlUmHa KepClMUKa, in V. Nikolov et alii, Cenutuua MOcUJla Kanumau Iluuumpueeo. Pasxonxu 1998-1999, Sofia-Pestera: 39-53. TODOROVA H., VASILIEV V., JANUSEVIC Z., KOVACEVA M., VYLEV P., 1983 06lJap060 (PIT VIII), Sofia. VANDOVA V., 2004 - Late Neolithic Clay Vessels with Graphitized Surface from the Struma Valley, in V. Nikolov, K. Bac varov, P. Kalchev (Eds.). Prehistoric Thrace, Sofia-Stara Zagora: 122-132. VANDOVA V., SULTANOV A., 2002 - Otiotuueuue Ha pesynmamume om naiiop amop nu aHaJlU3U Ha dipazuenmu om «epastuuuu Cb006e om HeOJlUmHOmO cenuiue KpeMeHHUK xpau Canapeea 6aHJl, in Tpyooee Ha uayuuama zpyna, HCTOpWlecKH My3eii KIOcTeHD,HJI, II: 5-24. Petar Leshtakov "SL Cyril and St. Metodius" University ofVeliko Tiimovo Department of Archaeology Str. T. Tumovski, no. 2, 5003 - Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria junior_ 1_bg@yahoo.com