Chapter 11
“Ritual Pits”

Rumyana Georgieva

11.1 Introduction¹

In Bulgarian historical literature the term “ritual pits” denotes archaeological features, occurring singly or in clusters, dug into the earth and situated below or in the embankments of burial mounds, or within sanctuaries or settlements. More specifically, these include pits dug into burial mounds or the ancient terrain, with variable form and content, but no obvious utilitarian purpose. In keeping with their controversial character, such features are described in various ways: some pit complexes are dubbed “fields of ritual pits,” “negative features,” or “pit sanctuaries,” and the pits themselves are defined as “sacrificial,” “cult,” or “ritual” in character. The number of sites containing such features has risen of late, prompting polemics and encouraging novel approaches to their interpretation.

11.2 Location and Nature

Ritual pits below or in the embankment of burial mounds²

There are many examples of pits studied below or within burial mounds. Pits in these locations can be earlier than, contemporary with, or later than the sometimes extremely rich burials located within the tumuli. The pits dug into such tumuli are distinct from both ancient and modern looting trenches with respect to shape, size, and fill; they are secondary to the burial, simultaneous with the mounding, and precede tumulus completion. The most widely known pits of this type come from, for example, two tumuli within the Duvanlii necropolis, Plovdiv District,³ some of the Istria tumuli, Constanƫa County, Romania, and from the tumulus covering the Sveshtari tomb with Caryatids, Razgrad District (Georgieva 1991, 1–3). Pits with a narrow neck and broad bottom, in the shape of a beehive, are prevalent within this group, but there are also cylindrical and conical pits. Their fill consists normally of sterile soil, although some pits contain stones, pottery sherds, charcoal, and ash near the bottom. The interior of some is heavily plastered with clay (Agre 2001, 53), while others preserve traces of fire (Filov 1934, 16). The content and location of these pits suggests that they were a constituent element of Thracian commemorative rites (Georgieva 1991, 2–3; Agre 2001, 56).

In addition to pits dug into a tumulus, some were also situated at the base of tumuli (Filov 1934, 12; Agre 2001, 54–55). Other tumuli were built over one or more pits of different size, shape, and content, which had previously been dug into the ancient terrain (Georgieva 1991, 3). In such cases, pits are sometimes associated with hearths, clay platforms, and altars, and are often immediately adjacent to a grave.⁴ There are 137 pits below Kralevo mound, Targovishte District, some of which are associated with decorated altars (escharae)⁵ and hearths.⁶ More than 100 pits of Archaic date were discovered within a space enclosed by a deep ditch and buried under a tumulus overlying the western section of the Aşaği pinar prehistoric settlement near Kırklareli, Kırklareli Province, Turkey.⁷ Notably, some mounds constructed over pits contain no burials, while in the rest, the grave is later dug next to or within the tumulus.

Some scholars believe that pits found below tumuli are directly or indirectly associated with the burial, which implies their ritual nature and the intentionality of the mounding act (Georgieva 1991, 3–4; Ginev 2001, 13–16). Their fill is regarded as the material residue of ritual acts, performed on the spot or elsewhere, which may include: the construction of clay altars or use of portable hearths; animal sacrifice; pouring of libations; and sometimes the deposition of sherds from vessels that had been employed during the ritual and later shattered.

The possibility that pits below mounds might be associated with an earlier habitation or use of the area is almost never discussed.⁸ A key cause is the absence of extensive surveys of the areas surrounding tumuli, which eliminates the possibility of establishing whether the pits are restricted below the mound or if, as some rare instances illustrate, they are more widespread in the vicinity. Another reason is a product of the lack of a close chronological relationship between the finds included in the pits, the artifacts from the embankment, and the burial inserted in the mound. It is possible to consider chance coincidence of location as an explanation for those instances where several centuries separate the construction of the pits and the mounding of the tumulus or the insertion of a burial within the tumulus, as, for example, in the case of tumuli with Roman age burials erected over Iron Age pits. The date of the mounding of a tumulus, however, is not always clear, nor are the reasons why a particular place was deemed appropriate to receive a tumulus. On the other hand, in those cases where there is a close chronological relationship between pits and a tumulus mounded over them, as at Kralevo, one must ask why a mound would have been erected precisely atop a vacated or destroyed village, with the contemporary but subsequent insertion of a burial in the mound. For such an act would violate the otherwise common practice in Thrace of situating burial mounds on ritually clean places. A third reason for considering pits buried under tumuli as expressions of cult, and not related to settlement, stems from their similarity to a category of features documented in sanctuaries and settlement sites that are currently interpreted as having had a ritual function (see below).

Ritual pits in settlements

Pits found within settlement boundaries are normally associated with subsistence or everyday life. Many garbage, storage, or utility pits are documented on Thracian sites; hence criticism that Bulgarian scholars have misinterpreted precisely such features as ritual is unfounded (Baralis 2008, 140–142). At the same time, dozens of pits with likely non-utilitarian function have been studied at different first-millennium settlement sites, and their interpretation is complex and diverse. Many of these pits are found at Pistiros, Pazardzhik region, which offers the best opportunity to study intra-mural negative contexts, for the appearance, function, and development of all excavated pits can be thoroughly assessed within the framework of the site’s stratigraphy.⁹ Many of these pits have a clear utilitarian purpose and are associated with, for example, metal production, the disposal of construction waste, and food storage. Particularly interesting are the pits in the sectors along line B on the excavation grid of Pistiros, situated in the midst of fragments of floors, stone clusters, and escharae. Their fills consist of fragments of clay altars and of everyday objects, as well as large quantities of pottery sherds, many of which are decorated with stamps, graffiti, or other ornament. A comparable complex has been studied along the А5а–А14 line, where escharae with adjacent pits, as well as buried storage vessels (pithoi), are also found. The pits of this complex contain coins, altar fragments, and pottery sherds. The Pistiros excavators believe that the two groups of pits and the associated escharae from the site’s second and third occupation phases form a single complex and interpret them as evidence for ritual performance, in which the pits served as repositories for offerings (bothroi) (Archibald 1999, 427–268; Archibald 2002a, 112–118; Lazov 1996, 69–72). Support for this hypothesis is offered by analysis of the eschara surfaces and their immediate vicinity, which offer evidence for the pouring of libations of wine and scented plant oil, accompanied by the nearby offering or burning of grasses and seeds (Stout et al. 2003, 85–88). According to Z. Archibald, interpretation of the pits at Pistiros is further complicated by the presence of a third category of pits, which were in origin utilitarian, but later redefined as depositories for “burying” objects that had been removed from circulation (Archibald 2002a, 116; 2002b, 322–326).

A similar explanation is put forward for some of the Hellenistic pits from Kabyle. They are filled with grey-brown soil, decayed or burned mud brick, ash, charcoal, domestic and building ceramics, fragments of escharae, loom weights, spindle whorls, coins, and, sometimes, animal bones. It is presumed that some of these pits were originally associated with the town’s pottery production (one of the pits in sector ІХ contained almost 20 pottery wasters); some were likely dug to procure material for mud brick, while others, judging by the presence of scattered grains, were likely used for storage. It is established that the pits in the granary (horreum) area were filled simultaneously or within a very short period, ca. 200–175. Excavators assume that the deposition of garbage and construction refuse was not simply a practical necessity, but also symbolically charged, since traces of previous habitation were not simply removed from the site and discarded, but buried in proximity to the granary (Khandzhiyska forthcoming). A complex of pits also existed adjacent to the settlement site of Koprivlen, Blagoevgrad region (see below).

Pits with possible ritual function were unearthed in area 4 of the so-called “Artisans’ neighborhood” in the Thracian town near Sboryanovo, commonly identified as ancient Helis, Razgrad region. In an area where normal building remains, hearths, and other features are absent, there are several pits that differ in form and fill from those discovered in other parts of the settlement. They contain black soil, fragments of plaster, pottery sherds with seals and graffiti, and everyday objects. In one, the skeleton of a large dog in anatomical order lays upon a layer mixed with charcoal and animal bones. It is presumed that the digging and filling of the majority of the pits in area 4 was the result of a ritual act performed ca. 275–250 (Stoyanov n.d., 167–172).

Among the most recently discovered examples of non-utilitarian pits within settlement boundaries are those from the Thracian production, cult, and trade center at Halka Bunar near Gorno Belevo, Stara Zagora region, which was active from the seventh to the early third century. Use of the site from the seventh to fifth century is attested only by the pits. Those dating to the Classical period were often dug in the form of vessel shapes and sealed by a layer of clay altars in their upper portion, or contain a clay altar at the bottom. The early Hellenistic settlement is represented by the remains of several wattle-and-daub residential or utility structures, one with an eschara in the floor, as well as pottery kilns. Various types of pit have been discovered near the houses, some of which are interpreted as sacrificial in function. Their fills include: abundant pottery sherds, some with graffiti; coins; and many iron tools. At the bottom of one such pit, beneath a 70 cm layer of burned plaster, there was revealed a clay platform, covered with ash, charcoal, pottery sherds, charred animal bones, and coins (Tonkova 2002, 148–196; Tonkova and Sideris 2011, 85).

A combination of residences, hearths with unclear context, and many pits of diverse form and content are documented in many settlement sites from Thracian sites located in Romania. While it is presumed that at least a portion of the pits in these sites are ritual, excavators emphasize that distinguishing them from other types of pit can be problematic, since pits are multifunctional features (Sîrbu 1996, 13–15).

Similar pit complexes are also known from the lower reaches of the Vardar (anc. Axios) and Maritsa (anc. Hebros) rivers. Despite the lack of clear traces of residential architecture, they are interpreted variously, as remains, for example, of: subterranean dwellings, as at Karaburnaki, northeastern Greece; storage pits; and garbage pits associated with ceramic production or metalworking installations, as at Fagres, Rizia, and Rigio, also in northeastern Greece (analysis of the northern Greek sites: Ilieva forthcoming). The deposition of destruction debris in preexisting pits, attested at Pistiros and Kabyle, is also known at Fagres.¹⁰

Ritual pits in sanctuaries

Some of the so-called “ritual pits” are found in sites interpreted as rock sanctuaries or peak sanctuaries. In these locations the pits are situated in a separate place within the temenos, as at the sanctuary near Babyak (Tonkova 2007, 55) or are found associated with other negative features, like ditches, or clay altars (escharae), as in the sanctuary near Tsruntcha in the western Rhodope mountains (Domaradzki 1994, 82–83). It is thought that pits in sites of this category were in use at the same time, some functioning for storage, others for deposition of remnants from sacrifices performed in the sanctuary; their fills include vessel sherds, animal bones, charcoal, and fragments of ritual hearths.

The largest number of “ritual pits,” however, have been discovered in the so-called “pit sanctuaries” or “fields of ritual pits.” These are scattered over an extensive territory on both sides of the Balkan range (Stara Planina); the apparent concentration of sites of this type in the Thracian lowlands is a consequence of recent, intensive excavations in preparation for large infrastructure projects. More than one hundred sites of this type have been discovered, with the number of pits in each ranging from several dozen to several hundred. The pit complexes are most frequent in the “Maritsa-Iztok” energy complex in the region of Stara Zagora and along the route of new highways that are currently under construction. “Ritual” pits of this type have also been recognized at sites in Romania and elsewhere (Balabanov 2002, 544–545; Bozkova and Nikov 2010, 218; Sîrbu and Peneş 2011, 437–457; Matsumura 2007, 97–110).

Topography and Archaeological Context

“Fields of ritual pits” are found in diverse geomorphological contexts, most commonly on arable land in the vicinity of a water source. In rare instances they are found in a sterile context, devoid of evidence for any additional contemporary activity (Bozkova 2002, 88; Tonkova 1997, 593; Lichardus, Fol, and Getov 2001, 119). Usually their locations are indicated by broad surface scatters of artifacts, combined with an absence of traces of permanent or perishable building materials, hearths, or other household structures. Artifact concentration on the surface usually points to an underlying pit. Because of this, and also because the artifacts scattered through the humus-type soil are identical to finds in pit fills, such finds are thought to come from destroyed pits. After removal of topsoil, which does not contain cultural deposits, the pits appear as dark spots against the bedrock.¹¹ Often their arrangement seems deliberate, with a governing spatial organization sometimes characterized by the grouping of several pits around a central pit, distinguished by its size, wealth of inventory, or the character of its fill (Vulcheva 2002, 115–116; Tonkova 2003, 487–491; Tonkova and Savatinov 2001, 99; Tonkova 2010, 202); others appear irregularly set. The distances between the pits are random, with some immediately adjacent to one another; sometimes pits overlap one another, perhaps indicating long-term use of a particular sector of the site. Features made up of several pits with complex outline, interpreted as multicomponent structures with special status, are more rare (Bozkova and Nikov 2010, 217–218). In some pits the assemblage of artifacts seems so haphazard that they are interpreted as “depots” for ritual objects that one day would be used in rites, and so, by extension, would be deposited in other pits (Vulcheva 2002, 113–114; Tonkova 2002, 154–156).

Some sites feature ditches enclosing the space occupied by the pits or isolating the sector with the earliest pits (Vulcheva 2002, 114; Tonkova 2010, 200–202; Lichardus 2001, 136–137). The fill of these ditches resembles the contents of the pits that they enclose; a recent controlled experiment illustrates that, under the combined action of anthropogenic factors, erosion, and sedimentation, a ditch may fill in less than a generation (Lichardus et al. 2001, 31–33). There are also instances of sites where graves are found between pits or in their vicinity; in such cases, graves and pits are sometimes contemporary.¹²

Chronology and Stratigraphy

Initially considered a typical late second- and first-millennium phenomenon, “ritual pits” have recently been recognized on Neolithic, Eneolithic, Bronze Age, Roman, and even Medieval sites. Complexes dating to the second half of the first millennium are most numerous, a finding that may be a consequence of traditional research focus on this period, as well as presumed demographic growth at this time. There are examples of topographic and chronological continuity, including pit complexes in use from the Early through Late Iron Age. The horizontal stratigraphy of the first-millennium sites points to a progressive expansion: the pits of each chronological period are horizontally displaced from their predecessors and successors (Nekhrizov and Tzvetkova 2012, 181; Tonkova 2010, 199–200). Examples of pits of different age adjacent to one another are also known, however. Although the structure of most of these pits may resemble the result of long-term anthropogenic sedimentation, the majority were backfilled in the course of a single event and not over an extended period. Furthermore, it is established that not all negative features of this type were in fact sealed complexes, as there are many instances of intentional collection of asynchronous objects. As a result, the date of the pit backfill is provided by the most recent artifact (Nekhrizov 2006, 422).

Form, Construction, and Dimensions

The repertoire of pit shapes is quite rich. Often they are classified based on their resemblance to geometric figures (conical, biconical, cylindrical, hemispherical) or everyday objects (beehive, pear-shaped, bell-shaped, barrel-shaped, hour-glass). Although rare, there are also rectangular,¹³ as well as asymmetric pits. Frequently, pits have a narrow opening and a body that rapidly expands in width. Pits from multiple sites reproduce characteristic Iron Age vessel forms (Vulcheva 2002, 105; Tonkova 2010, 202) (Figure 11.1). In some complexes, there are marked preferences, which may change over time, for pits of a particular form, but in general there is no correlation between the form and size of pits and their contents.

Figure 11.1 Pit with the shape of a clay vessel from the archaeological site near the village of Ovchartsi, province of Stara Zagora.

Photo by Krasimir Nikov.

According to the specifics of the terrain, or to their original function, some pits are partially or entirely lined with clay (Bonev and Aleksandrov 1993, 1, 28; Vulcheva 2002, 105–106), or are walled up with mud brick (Filov 1934, 16). There are also pits with one or more clay lenses that seal the pit’s fill at a certain level, after which use of the pit may continue (Nekhrizov 2006, 400). Sometimes the seal consists of layers of sterile soil (Leshtakov et al. 2006, 141). There are instances of: hearths built on top of filled pits (Bozkova and Nikov 2010, 215); pits with modeled clay hearths or altars at the bottom (Figure 11.2);¹⁴ or deposited fragments of escharae and andirons (firedogs), as well as waste from kilns or domestic ovens (Tonkova and Sideris 2011, 85; Bozkova and Nikov 2010, 215). The most commonly attested practice is the “closing” of pit mouths with fragments of hearths and plaster from floors and walls. In certain cases, stone, either unworked, crushed, or in the form of pebbles and cobbles, is used in their construction: when not included in the fill, stone can be used to pave or line the bottom of a pit, or to frame or cover its mouth (Agre and Dichev 2006, 102). Pithoi with deposits identical to “ritual pits” have also been found occasionally; it is therefore presumed that they functioned identically to such pits, namely, that they were used as ritual structures and not in their typical capacity as storage vessels. Paleobotanical analysis has confirmed the absence of grains in such vessels. Consequently, and also due to the utilization of pithoi fragments in the construction of some pits, the term “pit-pithoi” has been introduced (Vulcheva 2002, 106, 113).

Figure 11.2 Pit with clay feature at the bottom (from the site near the town of Lyubimets, province of Haskovo).

Photo by Krasimir Nikov.

The size of the pits falls within broad ranges; erosion or long-term cultivation has often made it difficult to establish the original depth and diameter at the mouth. Usually the diameter at the level of the bedrock is 0.50–2 m, while that at the bottom is 1–2 m, with a depth of 0.15–1.5 m. There are also cases of shallow pits with much broader necks, as well as features up to 3 m in depth.

Contents

Pit fills from the various sites are similar. Sometimes they are homogeneous, consisting of soil that is uniform or varying in color and structure, devoid of artifacts, or nearly so, and in general reminiscent of fertile soil. Pits with fills of this category are considered “empty” and it is presumed that they received libations or other offerings that have left no distinguishable material trace. Common, too, are pit fills deep black in color and “greasy” in texture, characteristics which indicate the presence of the residue of decayed natural fats. Fills of this type almost invariably include irregular concentrations of charcoal; evidence of fire built within pits, however, is extremely rare and, when present, typically occurs at the bottom of the pit. The sedimentation of the rest of the pits displays features determined by both site topography and recurrent filling strategy: charcoal, intact vessels, intact or fragmented hearths, and osteological finds are found near the pit bottom and stones and plaster fragments by the mouth. The fill is dark brown to gray-black in color, markedly different from the nearby soils and mixed with a broad range of materials, including: fine pieces of burnt clay, ash, and charcoal; fragments of wall plaster with distinct rod or plank imprints; remains of domestic ovens or manufacturing kilns; fragments of decorated escharae; andirons; carefully arranged vessels; pottery sherds; household items, such as loom weights, spindle whorls, and grinding stones; tools, like stamps for decorating pottery, awls made from antler, knives, and chisels; coins; fragments of metal vessels; intact or fragmented trinkets; idols and miniature cult figurines; and stones. Vessel sherds deposited within these pits are purposefully selected, with a marked preference for those with ornament, graffiti, or a stamp. Fragments of the same vessel are frequently recovered within different pits at a considerable distance from one another. Paleobotanic analysis reveals that pit fills seldom contain charred wood, usually oak, or edible plants; among the latter, wheat, barley, millet, rye, peas, lentils, vetch grains, grape seeds, and wild fruit pits are all known (Vulcheva 2002, 113; Nekhrizov and Tzvetkova 2008, 334).

Many pits contain animal bones, mostly from domesticated animals, like sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs; isolated pits preserve the remains of one or more species and individuals. Finds of fish, mollusks, and game animals, as well as of inedible plants, are relatively rare. It is supposed that the bones of edible animal species represent the leftovers of ritual food. Whole animals were also deposited in the pits. Most commonly these include dogs, less often horses and other species; they are deposited in anatomical order or dismembered. Bones and skeletons are recovered at different levels, among vessel sherds, household items, ash, and charcoal.¹⁵ The presence of animal bone in these contexts is suggestive of ritual killing of animals in Thracian funerary practice. There are recorded instances of buried sucklings, including species commonly consumed by humans, like pigs and deer, as well as others, like dogs. Some scholars argue that this practice is analogous to some ritual elements attested for the Greek Thesmophoria or Attic Skirophoria.¹⁶

Pits with human bones comprise a special category. The fill of these pits is identical to the fills present in other categories of pit, including, for example, soil, ash, charcoal, and pottery sherds; such pits maintain their normal appearance even after being used for burial. The human remains belong to persons of different sex and age, with a greater frequency of Infans I and Infans II individuals in some regions (Nekhrizov and Tzvetkova 2012, 182–183). The number of individuals buried in a pit varies; occasionally they are accompanied by animal bones, fruits, and grains (Tonkova 2010, 208). Most common are individual human bones, usually skull components.¹⁷ There are also instances of the bones of one or more individuals arranged in anatomical order, as well as human bodies that have been dismembered, sometimes by slashing, and placed in the pit prior to flesh decomposition.¹⁸ Additionally, there are finds of one or more perfectly preserved skeletons, usually placed in an abnormal position, most commonly face down, as well as bodies with confirmed traces of violent death.¹⁹ Infrequently, there are discovered around some individuals: personal items, like clothing pins (fibulae); household items, such as spindle whorls and loom weights; cult figurines; and andiron sherds. Pits with human remains, however, constitute a negligible share of the total number of pits within a single site. On the basis of archaeological evidence and written sources on Thrace and the Thracians, many scholars have recently suggested that these pits preserve human sacrifices. It is assumed that these were rare incidents and only performed under exceptional circumstances.²⁰ Another opinion holds that the apparent taboo on burying young children within Thracian cemeteries is one of the possible reasons for the discovery of those individuals in the Early Iron Age pits (Nekhrizov and Tzvetkova 2008, 316). Additionally, it is assumed that individual human bones in some pits might have been removed from bodies that had decayed elsewhere.²¹

So far the human remains in the so-called “ritual pits” have not been considered remains of intramural burials, not only because these pits are regarded as ritual in function, but also because such a hypothesis fails to address many questions, such as: why are the examples so rare; why would these burials be placed within the possible boundaries of a settlement; what was the status of the people inserted in the pits; why are the human remains anatomically incomplete; why are there cut marks on the bones; what is the criminal or ritual reason for the violent death; why are the human remains buried in already established pits with household, manufacturing, garbage, or ritual function, and not in grave pits.

11.3 Interpretation and Discussion

The first scholar to mention “ritual pits” in Thrace was Bogdan Filov, in relation to the Duvanliy necropolis near Plovdiv, where one of the tumuli yielded over 100 “sacrificial” pits, in his interpretation (Filov 1934, 16). The Duvanliy pits, alongside those discovered in approximately 20 other locations, were systematically studied as a group in the 1990s (Georgieva 1991, 1–10). It is hypothesized that they have a ritual character and that the activities associated with their construction and fill represent an expression: of fertility cult, in the case of those features occurring outside of cemeteries; and of cult of the dead, in the case of pits below and in tumulus embankments. Pit complexes outside settlements and cemeteries are labeled open-air sanctuaries, in which the pit is a kind of primitive altar; different kinds of Thracian cult sites are included in this list (Domaradzki 1994, 81). Subsequent studies list the likely deities to which such pits were dedicated: Cybele, the Great Mother-Goddess, and Hecate (Fol 2007, 334–338; Balabanov 2002, 543). The presence in isolated pits of buried remains of human bodies in disturbed anatomical order or with proven traces of violent death can be interpreted as the remains of human sacrifices, which were carried out in exceptional circumstances (Tonkova 2009, 503–522). Comparison with ritual practices from territories neighboring Thrace has inspired suggestions that the form of cult demonstrated in the “pit sanctuaries” is related to worship of motherhood, fertility, and renewing nature that is traditional to the eastern Mediterranean (Kotova 1995, 82–86, 137–149).

The presence of “ritual pits” within the limits of rock sanctuaries, in the “sacred sectors” of certain settlement sites, as well as in the embankment of individual tumuli, is currently undisputed. The disparity, however, between the number of so-called “ritual sanctuaries” and that of excavated first-millennium settlements arouses skepticism and suggests that pits found in such complexes should be regarded as settlement remains or that they should not be uniformly interpreted.²² Nevertheless, despite the lack of adequate answers to many of the questions that pit complexes pose, their ritual function is generally agreed upon.

Pits almost always have a primary and a secondary function; establishing a distinction between the two is an important condition for defining the nature of each site (Lichardus et al. 2001, 216–217). Therefore, attempts to formulate categorical criteria for the assignment of pits into utilitarian and non-utilitarian categories are destined to fail, as the analysis of the form and fill of each pit rarely provides clear evidence about their original purpose, which may have been: to extract soil; for drainage, storage, or garbage disposal; in relation to some industry; or solely for the purpose of some ritual. To date, despite established horizontal and vertical stratigraphy on some sites, neither the relationship between these pits with respect to location and date, nor their hypothetical link to ground structures within sites exclusively made of pits can be comprehensively discerned. In the absence of traces of any kind of architecture above the pits, it is impossible to decide whether they were located outside or inside the limits of some buildings or settlement sites, and thus the question of whether the pits with remains of human and animal remains, assuming that these died of natural causes and not as the result of ritual killing, for example, were ever intra- or extra-mural is still open. The recurrent content of pits points to a uniform process of filling, but it is unclear whether this was a one-time event or happened over an extended period; there is similar uncertainty about whether the artifacts included in the fill were accidentally or intentionally selected. Nor is there any clear-cut answer to questions like: why some pits concentrated within small areas were enclosed by a deep ditch, with fill identical to that of the pits; why domestic life, represented by so many luxury items in the pit fills, lacks associated settlement and residential architecture; why some pits were built immediately next to escharae and contain large quantities of andirons and ritual hearths, which are otherwise found only in ritual settings within settlements and cemeteries; why at the bottoms of others ritual hearths have been modeled or deposited; why the pits received materials from different ages; why were high value and still circulating currencies cast in the pits; why are decorated or inscribed vessel sherds prevalent; why are pieces of the same ceramic vessel found in pits spaced far apart; why were some of the items deposited in the pits still good for use; why, if so many dogs were kept, meaty kitchen leftovers were deposited in the pits; why, against all basic rules of hygiene, were humans and animals buried close to possible residences; why are victims of natural or violent death, or human remains in general, found in archaeological contexts resembling trash disposal containers.

One of the few possible answers to the questions formulated above is based on the hypothetical existence of an invisible boundary between profane and sacred, rational and irrational, which, during the period of study, allowed apparently incompatible structures with utilitarian and non-utilitarian content to exist in immediate proximity to one another or led to a ritualization of everyday activities. The fact that non-utilitarian pits are found in a growing number of Thracian urban centers supports the idea that the complexes defined as “pit sanctuaries” might be remains of settlements, from which only the pits with different functions, some of which were obviously created or reused for non-utilitarian ends, are preserved. While such a formula would permit the definition of a considerable portion of the pits as ritual, as in the case of, for example, the pits with human remains, those with escharae or andirons built in them or built nearby, those containing cult figurines, precious deposits, and even those used for “burying” artifacts and features after the end of their use-life,²³ it cannot convincingly explain the purpose of the rest.

Translated by Valeria Bineva

References

1. Agre, Daniela. 2001. “Yami i oltari v trakiyski mogili ot Etropolsko (5th–4th century BCE).” Arheologiya (Sofia), 1–2: 52–60.
2. Agre, Daniela, and Deyan Dichev. 2006. “Sondazhni prouchvaniya v m. Gerena do gara Skobelevo, Dimitrovgradsko.” In Spasitelni arheologicheski razkopki po traseto na zhelezopatnata liniya Plovdiv-Svilengrad prez 2004 godina, edited by Vassil Nikolov, Georgi Nekhrizov, and Julia Tzvetkova, 102. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber.
3. Archibald, Zosia. 1999. “Thracian Cult – From Practice to Belief.” In Ancient Greek West and East, edited by Gosha R. Tsetskhladze, 427–468. Leiden: Brill.
4. Archibald, Zosia. 2002a. “Underground Deposits. Pit N 9 and the ‘Field of Pits.’” In Pistiros II. Excavation and Studies, edited by Jan Bouzek, Lidia Domaradzka, and Zosia Archibald, 112–118. Prague: Karolinum.
5. Archibald, Zosia. 2002b. “A River Port and Emporion in Central Bulgaria: An Interim Report on the British Project at Vetren.” Annual of the British School of Athens, 97: 309–351.
6. Balabanov, Petar. 1999. “Trakiyski ritualni yami krai s. Debelt, Burgaska oblast.” Arheologiya (Sofia), 3–4: 62–76.
7. Balabanov, Petar. 2002. “Ritualnie yami kak universalniy element obshteniya s bogami v Drevnei Frakii i Skifii.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Thracology, Thrace and the Aegean, edited by Alexander Fol, II: 541–547. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
8. Baralis, Alexandre. 2008. “Les champs de fosses rituelles en Thrace au Premier et Second Âge du Fer. État des lieux de la recherche.” In Omagiu lui Gavrilă Simion la a 80-a aniversare Tulcea, 140–153. Constanta : Editura Dobrogea.
9. Bonev, Alexander, and Georgi Aleksandrov. 1993. “Bagachina – trakiyski kultov tsentar (predvaritelno saobshtenie).” Arheologiya (Sofia), 1: 24–30.
10. Bozkova, Anelia. 2002. “Stratigraphic Observations on the 1st Millennium B.C. Settlement.” In Koprivlen, vol. 1. Rescue Archaeological Investigations along the Gotse Delchev–Drama Road 1998–1999, edited by Anelia Bozkova and Petar Delev, 83–89. Sofia: NOUS Publishers.
11. Bozkova, Anelia, and Krasimir Nikov. 2010. “Arheologichesko prouchvane na kompleks ot yami v zemlishteto na s. Malko Tranovo, obshtiba Chirpan – Yugozapaden sektor. Predvaritelni belezhki.” In Yugoiztochna Bulgaria prez II–I hilyadoletie pr.Chr., edited by Rumiana Georgieva, Totko Stoyanov, and D. Momchilov, 213–220. Varna: Zograf.
12. Domaradzki, Mieczyslaw. 1994. “Les lieux de culte thraces (deuxième moitié du IIe–Ier mill. av. J.-C.).” In Helis III, Part One, Culture and Religion in Northeastern Thrace, 69–108. Sofia: Archaeological Institute and Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Science.
13. Filov, Bogdan. 1934. Die Grabhügelnekropole bei Duvanlij in Südbulgarien, unter Mitwirkung von Ivan Welkow und Vassil Mikow. Sofia: Staatsdruckerei.
14. Fol, Valeria. 2007. Skalni toposi na vyarata v Yugoiztochna Evropa i Mala Asia prez drevnostta (Studia Thracica 10). Sofia.
15. Georgieva, Rumyana. 1991. “Obredni yami v Trakiya (kraya na II–I hilyadoletie pr.n.e.).” Arheologiya (Sofia), 1: 1–10.
16. Georgieva, Rumyana. 2003. “Sépultures insolites de Thrace (fin du IIe–Ier mill. av. J.-C.).” Thracia 15, In honorem annorum LXX Alexandri Fol, 313–322. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
17. Ginev, Georgi. 2001. Trakiyski mogili pri selo Kralevo, Targovishtko. Varna.
18. Ilieva, Petya, forthcoming. “Za yamite i tehniya kontekst (yamni kompleksi ot I hil.pr.Chr. na teritoriyata na dn. Severna Gartsiya mezhdu dolnite techeniya na Vardar i Maritsa.” In Yami i yamni kompleksi v Drevna Trakiya (I hil.pr.Chr.): vazmozhni interpretatsii.
19. Irimia, Mihai. 2003. “Den Grabritus und die Grabrituale der Babadag-Kultur-Gemeinschaften betreffend.” Thracia 15. In honorem annorum LXX Alexandri Fol, 251–268. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
20. Karadzhinov, Ivaylo, forthcoming: “Kam vaprosa za vkopanite strukturi ot emporion Pistiros.” In Yami i yamni kompleksi v Drevna Trakiya (I hil.pr.Chr.): vazmozhni interpretatsii.
21. Khandzhiyska, Veneta, forthcoming. “Yami ot elinisticheskata epoha v Kabyle.” In Yami i yamni kompleksi v Drevna Trakiya (I hil.pr.Chr.): vazmozhni interpretatsii.
22. Khristova, Rositsa. 2009. Kompleks ot yami po traseto na AM “Trakiya,” LOT 5, km 6+700–6+800.” In Spasitelni arheologicheski prouchvaniya po traseto na AM “Trakya,” LOT 5, obhoden pat na grad Karnobat, km 6+700–6+800, 50–78. Varna: Zograf.
23. Kotova, Dobriela. 1995. Tesmophoriite. Zhenski praznichen kompleks. Sofia: Bibliotheka DIOS.
24. Krasteva, Zornitsa. 2011. “Belezhki varhu ognishtata – oltari ‘escharae,’ otkrivani v selishta ot elinisticheskata epoha v Trakiya.” Collegium Historicum, 1: 271–294. Sofia.
25. Lazov, Gavril. 1996. “Decorated Clay Altars.” In Pistiros I. Excavation and Studies, edited by Jan Bouzek, Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, and Zosia Archibald, 69–72. Prague: Karolinum.
26. Leshtakov, Krasimir, Milena Tonkova, Rumen Mikov, and Katya Melamed. 2006. “Arheologicheski razkopki do s. Yabalkovo, Dimitrovgradsko, prez 2000–2003.” In Spasitelni arheologicheski razkopki po traseto na zhelezopatnata liniya Plovdiv–Svilengrad prez 2004, edited by Vassil Nikolov, Georgi Nekhrizov, and Julia Tzvetkova. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber.
27. Lichardus, Ian, Alexander Fol, and Lyudmil Getov. 2001. Izsledvaniya v mikroregiona na s. Drama, yugoiztochna Bulgaria: obobshtenie na osnovnite rezultati na bulgaro-germanskite razkopki ot 1983 do 1999 godina. Sofia: “Sv. Kliment Ohridski” University Press.
28. Matsumura, Kimiyoshi. 2007. “Animals and Human Skeleton from Late Stratum II Pits at Kaman–Kalehöyök.” Anatolian Archaeological Studies, 16: 97–110.
29. Nekhrizov, Georgi. 2006. “Yamno svetilishte ot zhelyaznata epoha i selishte ot rannata bronzova epoha pri Svilengrad.” In Spasitelni arheologicheski razkopki po traseto na zhelezopatnata liniya Plovdiv–Svilengrad prez 2004, edited by Vassil Nikolov, Georgi Nekhrizov, and Julia Tzvetkova, 397–501. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber.
30. Nekhrizov, Georgi, and Yulia Tzvetkova. 2008. “Ritualni yami ot zhelyaznata epoha pri Svilengrad.” In Spasitelni arheologicheski razkopki po traseto na zhelezopatnata liniya Plovdiv–Svilengrad prez 2005, edited by Vassil Nikolov, Georgi Nekhrizov, and Julia Tzvetkova, 331–493. Veliko Tarnovo: Faber.
31. Nekhrizov, Georgi, and Julia Tzvetkova. 2012. “Ritual Pit Complexes in Iron Age Thrace: The Case Study of Svilengrad.” In The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Edirne, 19–24 April 2010, edited by A. Çilingiroğlu and A. Sagona (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 39), 177–209. Leuven: Peeters.
32. Nikolaidou-Patera, M. 1996. “Phagris; ē arhaia polē kai to nekrotapheio.” AEMΘ, 10b: 835–844.
33. Özdoğan, Mehmet. 2001. “Kirklareli Excavations: Aşaği pinar and Kanligecit.” In Istanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932–2000), edited by Oktay Belli, 56–63. Istanbul.
34. Popov, Hristo. 2007. “Aspekte der thrakischen Archäologie der späten Bronze- und der Eisenzeit in Bulgarien.” In Die alten Zivilizationen Bulgariens. Das Gold der Thraker. Katalog einer Ausstellung vom 15. Marz bis 1. Juli 2007 in Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludvig, 33–37. Basel.
35. Sîrbu, Valeriu. 1996. Dava getică de la Grădistea. Judeţul Brăila, vol. I. Brăila: Muzeul Brăilei, Editura Istros.
36. Sîrbu, Valeriu. 1997. “Sacrifices humains et pratiques funéraires insolites dans l’aréal thrace du Hallstatt et du La Tène.” In Premier âge du fer aux bouches du Danube et dans les régions autour de la Mer Noire. Actes du Colloque International, Septembre 1993, 193–221. Tulcea.
37. Sîrbu, Valeriu, and Gelu Florea. 2000. Les Géto-Daces: iconographie et imaginaire. Cluj Napoca: Centre d’Études Transylvaines, Fondation Culturelle Roumaine.
38. Sîrbu, Valeriu, and Marinela Peneş. 2011. “Situl dacic de la Băneşţi, Judeţul Prahova – observaţii preliminare.” Peuce, n.s. 9: 437–457.
39. Stout, Edith, Curt Beck, Lauren Naliboff, and Anna Phillips. 2003. “Organic Residues in Pottery from the Greek Settlement of Pistiros, Bulgaria.” Studia Hercynia, 7: 8–114. Prague: Institute for Classical Archaeology, Charles University.
40. Stoyanov, Totko. n.d. The District of the Craftsmen (Central Excavation), Sboryanovo. Unpublished MS.
41. Tonkova, Milena. 1997. “Un lieu de culte thrace – champs de fosses rituelles près de Gledacevo, dans la Bulgarie de sud.” In The Thracian World at the Crossroads of Civilisations. I. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Thracology, Constanta–Mangalia–Tulcea, 1996, 592–611. Bucharest: Institutul Român de Tracologie.
42. Tonkova, Milena. 2002. “Novootkrit trakiyski tsentar ot rannoelinisticheskata epoha pri izvora Halka Bunar v zemlishteto na s. Gorno Belevo (prouchvaniya prez 2000 i 2001).” Godishnik na NAIM-BAS, 2: 148–196.
43. Tonkova, Milena. 2003. “Late Iron Age Pit-Sanctuaries in Thrace: The Contribution of the Studies at Gledachevo.” Thracia 15, In honorem annorum LXX Alexandri Fol, 487–504. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
44. Tonkova, Milena. 2007. “Depa za darove i darove ot kasnozhelyaznata epoha ot svetilishteto pri Babyak, Zapadni Rhodopi.” Godishnik na NAIM-BAS, 11: 51–85.
45. Tonkova, Milena. 2009. “On Human Sacrifice in Thrace (on Archaeological Evidence).” In The Thracians and their Neighbours in Antiquity. Studia in Honorem Valerii Sirbi, edited by Ionel Cândea, 503–514. Brặila: Muzeul Brặilei, Editura Istros.
46. Tonkova, Milena. 2010. “Rezultati ot prouchvaniyata na iztochniya sektor na trakiysko yamno svetiishte ot V – nachaloto na ІІІ v.pr.Chr. v m. Kozluka, s. Malko Tranovo, obshtina Chirpan (obekt 11, LOT 1 po ОВОС na avtomagistrala ‘Trakiya’).” In Yugoiztochna Bulgaria prez ІІ–І hilyadoletie pr.Chr., 198–220. Varna: Zograf.
47. Tonkova, Milena, and Sava Savatinov. 2001. “Thracian Culture of the Late Iron Age.” In Maritsa-Iztok. Archaeological Research, vol. 5, 95–125. Radnevo: Archaeological Museum “Maritsa-Iztok” Radnevo.
48. Tonkova, Milena, and Atanasios Sideris. 2011. “Arheologicheski prouchvaniya na mnogosloen obekt ot kasniya neolith i I hil.pr.Chr. pri izvora Halka Bunar, s. Gorno Belevo, obshtina Bratya Daskalovi, Starozagorska oblast.” In Trako-rimski dinastichen tsentar v rayona na Chirpanskite vazvisheniya. Sofia.
49. Triandaphyllos, Diamandis, and Domna Terzopoulou. 1995. “Anaskaphē taphikon tymvon sto Rēgio Didymoteihou.” AEMΘ, 9: 473–485.
50. Vulcheva, Darina. 2002. “The Pit Sanctuary.” In Koprivlen, vol. 1. Rescue Archaeological Investigations along the Gotse Delchev–Drama Road 1998–1999, edited by Anelia Bozkova and Petar Delev, 102–123. Sofia: NOUS Publishers.

Guide to Further Reading

Beginning in the 1990s, many articles appeared, consisting of publications of dozens to hundreds of “ritual pits” and syntheses on the monuments assigned to this category: Georgieva 1991; Paunov, Evgeni. 1998. “Zhertveni i ritualni yami v Drevna Trakiya: izvori, razprostranenie i opit za interpretatsiya,” in Stipendianti na Fondatsiya “Otvoreno obshtestvo” za 1997. Sofia, 4–12; Archibald 1999; Balabanov 2002; Tonkova 2003; Konova, Lyubava. 2007. “Sveshtenodeistviya ‘po obichaya na predtsite.’ Kam interpretatsiyata na yamnoto svetilishte v mestnostta Kostadin cheshma pri s. Debelt,” Annali, 1–3: 9–24; Hawthorne, K., V. Varbanov, and D. Dragoev. 2011. “Thracian Pit Sanctuaries: Continuity in Sacred Space,” in Early Roman Thrace. New Evidence from Bulgaria, edited by Ian P. Haynes, Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 82. Portsmouth, RI, 59–83. The number of publications on the subject is growing exponentially. Most studies present newly discovered complexes of “ritual pits,” promptly accompanied by the first critiques of the one-sided interpretation of these sites: Baralis 2008.

“Ritual pits” are now recognized in Neolithic (Nikolov, Vassil. 2011. “Neolithni yamni svetilishta,” Arheologiya (Sofia), 1: 7–25; Nikolov, Vassil. 2011. “A Reinterpretation of Neolithic Complexes with Dug-Out Features: Pit Sanctuaries,” Studia Praehistorica, 14: 91–119), Chalcolithic (Raduncheva, Anna. 2003. “Kasnoeneolithnoto obshtestvo v nashite zemi,” Razkopki i prouchvaniya, 32 (Sofia)), Bronze Age (Kostova, K. 2003. “Communication through and in the Religion in Ancient Thrace during the Early Bronze Age (According to Archaeological Data),” in Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe, vol. 2, edited by Lolita Nikolova, BAR International Series 1139. Oxford, 131–133), Roman Period (Torbatov, Sergei. 2007. “Trakiysko yamno svetilishte ot rimskata epoha krai Snyagovo,” Arheologiya (Sofia), 46–57), and even Medieval sites (Melamed, Katya. 1996. “Yamite krai s. Sedlare, Kardjaliysko,” in Godishnik na Departament Arheologiya, Nov Bulgarski Universitet, ІІ–ІІІ. Sofia, 252–269).

Notes

1 All dates referring to ancient monuments or events are BCE unless otherwise noted.

2 Recent classification of the pits according to their character and location: Nekhrizov and Tzvetkova 2012, 178.

3 The pits are detected in Kukova and Bashova tumuli. Those in Kukova mound are of the beehive type, with a diameter of 0.50–2.50 m and a depth of up to 2 m. Most of those are reportedly empty, with just some ash, charcoal, animal bones, pottery sherds, a coin, and, in two instances, pieces of human bone near the bottom (Filov 1934, 12–16, 59).

4 Certain clay plastered platforms are interpreted as altars; they have a diameter of 1.5–2 m, bordered by an edge 8 cm wide and 10–35 cm tall along the periphery (Agre 2001, 53).

5 An eschara is a low clay platform, nearly square, and decorated. Escharae are found at many Hellenistic sites throughout Thrace, typically in roofed spaces and in both rural and urban sites with special status, as well as in funerary contexts (Krasteva 2011, 271–294).

6 The Kralevo tumulus is 6.5 m high and 38–40 m in diameter. The pits in its base are dug into the sterile soil, with a diameter at the mouth of 0.60–3.20 m and a depth of 0.15–1.45 m. The subsequent layer is 0.70–0.75 m thick and contains anthropogenic materials, including eight escharae and 19 hearths scattered over different layers and locations. The site is interpreted as a cult complex, functioning from the second half of the fourth to the end of the first quarter of the third century, when it was covered by a tumulus. Sometime in the second quarter of the third century, a grave for a Thracian nobleman was dug near this mound and both the grave and the original mound were combined below a common embankment (Ginev 2001, 8, 41).

7 The ditch is 3 m deep and 7 m wide and traces a perimeter 100 m in length. The pits contain intact forms and sherds, animal skeletons and select animal bones, and small metal artifacts. The complex was created between the eighth and the sixth centuries. Materials for the mound, measuring 38 m in diameter, were extracted in part from the remains of a nearby Chalcolithic settlement; the mound was later flattened to the ground and destroyed. There is no evidence of a burial below the mound. The site is interpreted as a sacred place (Özdoğan 2001, 59–60).

8 One of the exceptions is a Roman age tumulus from the area of Didymoteicho, Evros regional unit, Greece, with four pits filled with wall plaster pieces preserving post imprints, animal bones, flint blades, bone tools, spindle whorls, and pottery sherds. The pits are considered garbage pits, suggestive of nearby Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlement, which may have provided the soil used in the first layer of the tumulus (Triandaphyllos and Terzopoulou 1995, 473–485).

9 For a synthetic treatment of the Pistiros pits, see Karadzhinov forthcoming.

10 At Fagres, excavations revealed many pits with likely utilitarian function. Those of the first half of the sixth century are filled with animal bones, fragments of building materials, and domestic pottery, with sherds from one vessel often scattered in pits at a considerable distance from one another. Destruction remains are deposited in preexisting pits and it is believed that the cause of the destruction is some natural cataclysm in the early fifth century: see Nikolaidou-Patera 1996, 835–844.

11 There are instances of pits recognized only after the humus layer is removed by means of heavy excavating machinery during development or other activities, which results in the loss of information about their archaeological context.

12 For an example of Early Iron Age graves found within a fifth to first half of the fourth century pit complex in the Malko Tranovo site, see Bozkova and Nikov 2010, 141–143.

13 Pits with walls lined with clay and set on fire (2.2 × 1.7 × 0.40 m) are found at Koprivlen: Vulcheva 2002, 105; cf. Balabanov 1999, 69.

14 Among the most intriguing examples in this category is the feature modeled at the bottom of a pit from the mid fifth century in the Dana Bunar 2 site (excavated by K. Nikov, unpublished), located on the left bank of the Maritsa River near Lyubimets; see also Khristova 2009, 58–61.

15 Dogs, a pig, and a horse are found at Koprivlen (Vulcheva 2002, 111–112); dogs and a hare in Svilengrad, Haskovo region (Nekhrizov and Tzvetkova 2012, 181–182); a dog and a deer in Malko Tarnovo, Burgas region (Tonkova 2010, 208).

16 In the Skirophoria, small animals were cast into pits or chasms and in the autumn their remains later were mixed with the sowing seeds; in the Thesmophoria, sacrificial animals were placed together with sacred objects and images rendered in dough; see, most recently, Nekhrizov and Tzvetkova 2012, 192.

17 Isolated skull bones are found at: Debelt, Burgas region; Bagachina, Montana region; and Yabalkovo, Haskovo region. From Koprivlen, mixed remains of three adult individuals were found in one pit and a child mandible in another. Mixed bones of at least five children were recovered from Malko Tarnovo; from Gledachevo, Stara Zagora region, bones from a man and a child were retrieved.

18 The skeleton of a two-year-old child, missing the pelvis and the lower extremities, was found at Malko Tranovo; adult male bone fragments and the lower extremities of a child are known from Gledachevo; the skeleton of a man with no legs was discovered at Debelt; severed arms were found at Yabalkovo.

19 At Gledachevo, there was found a skeleton of a girl buried alive face down, while a man with a blade in his chest is known from Durankulak, Dobrich region; see Tonkova 2009, 503–522, with the cited literature.

20 Tonkova 2009, 503–522; Nekhrizov and Tzvetkova 2012, 182–183. Similar examples come also from Romania, where, in Early Iron Age “household” pits (Babadag III phase), full and partial skeletons have been found. There is an ongoing discussion whether these pits represent normal funerary practice or human sacrifice; see Irimia 2003, 251–268.

21 It is assumed that some Thracian dead were buried by leaving corpses in the open (Sîrbu 1997, 199–200) or depositing them in a temporary grave until decay was complete, after which the human remains were discarded or transported to a permanent grave or elsewhere (Georgieva 2003, 316–317).

22 In recent years, pit complexes are among the most carefully studied archaeological sites in ancient Thrace. The large number of recent discoveries has prompted several discussions dedicated to their interpretation from new perspectives: see “Problems of Thracian Archaeology, the Record of the Round Table Discussion,” in Maritsa-Iztok. Archaeological Research, edited by Ivan Panayotov, Boris Borisov, and Rumyana Georgieva, vol. 5, 238–241. Radnevo: Archaeological Museum “Maritsa-Iztok” and Archaeological Expedition “Maritsa-Iztok”; Popov 2007, 35; Baralis 2008, 148.

23 According to V. Sîrbu, pits with remains of human and animal burials, cult figurines, deposits of tools, arms, trinkets, intact vessels, coins, and hearth remains should be considered as ritual in function (Sîrbu and Florea 2000, 89–90).