Julij Emilov
The Gauls, a vast horde of men, whether moved by shortage of land or hope of plunder, feeling assured that no people through which they would pass was their match in war, under the leadership of Brennus came into the country of the Dardanians. There strife broke out among them; about twenty thousand men, with Lonorius and Lutarius as their chiefs, seceded from Brennus and turned aside into Thrace. There, when they had penetrated as far as Byzantium, contending against those who resisted and imposing tribute upon those who sought peace, they occupied for a considerable time the coast of the Propontis, holding as tributaries the cities of the district.
(Livy 38.16.1–3; E. T. Sage translation)
Attempts to understand the mechanisms and extent of interactions between communities of Late Iron Age temperate Europe, labeled in the ancient sources as “Gauls,” “Celts,” or “Galatians,”2 in opposition to their “Thracian” contemporaries in the eastern Balkans, is largely influenced by available narratives of the “Celtic expansion” in southeastern Europe and the early third-century military campaigns. While references to these rather dramatic events by Classical Mediterranean authors, like the passage of Livy cited above, continue to be important sources about contacts between “Celts” and “Thracians,” efforts to incorporate available archaeological data into the discussion provide some insights into cultural phenomena, which remained outside the scope of the ancient literary sources. Finding a correlation between historical and archaeological evidence is confined to topics such as mobility, migration, tribute, and warfare, which are constituent components of contact between individuals or groups with different cultural backgrounds. Other issues, including the impact of these encounters on social transformations in the eastern Balkans during the last third of the first millennium, as well as changes in expressions of status and identity in the region, are reflected only in archaeological sources. By combining different types of evidence, the aim of the present overview is to examine interaction between the Late Iron Age communities of “Celts” and “Thracians” and to emphasize the factors that contributed to both the diffusion of cultural traits or La Tène3 cultural templates in Hellenistic Thrace and their modifications in the local milieu.
Ongoing debates about a supposed “Thracian” link in the transmission of “Oriental” or “Orientalizing” elements to early “Celtic” art (Frey 1984, 262–263; 2004; Bouzek 1997, 253–254; 2012; Megaw and Megaw 2002, 488–491; Pare 2012) not only provide a fruitful area for speculation about the nature of the earliest interactions, but also highlight the problems of the visibility of long-distance contacts between the Iron Age inhabitants of transalpine Europe and communities in southeastern Europe. Almost seven decades ago P. Jacobsthal (1944, 37) considered the bronze neck ring from Glauberg, a chance find from the vicinity of a hillfort (“Fürstensitz”) (Baitinger, Hansen, and Pare 2012) in the present-day German province of Hessen, as “possibly the work of an artisan from the East, employed by the Celts.” The search for the origin of various stylistic influences and “eastern connections” goes hand in hand with ideas about the “agency of the Thracian metalwork” (Powell 1971, 184–193; Fischer 1983; Luschey 1983), which envision the movement of craftsmen and diffusion of social practices among elite groups (Frey 2000, 54), as well as the transfer of symbols among different cultural entities, as early as the fifth century (Kossack 2000; Bouzek 2002; 2005, 94; Venclová 2002, 74–75 on art style as “import”). Identifying external “intellectual” impulses and tracing back the artistic idea or image to its original source, however, has proved to be a difficult task, due to the considerable degree of transformation of exogenous elements into a “new and original La Tène product” (Venclová 2002, 75; Megaw and Megaw 2011).
Leaving aside the misty field of symbolism, trait chasing, and the stylistic origins of the elusive “Celtic” art, it is still not possible to substantiate the concept of direct, long-range interrelations between Thrace and temperate Europe in the middle of the first millennium. “Exotic” finds of a Baltic amber loop in a grave under Mushovitsa tumulus near Duvanli and amber beads from tumulus N1 near Etropole are considered to be the latest indications of a complex system of contacts and exchange linking northern and southern Europe during the Early Iron Age (Ivanova and Kuleff 2009; Gergova 2009). Distribution of the highly praised, fossilized resin to Thrace along the “amber routes” and the relevant model of “down-the-line trade” (Bouzek 1997, 122–123), however, do not require extended traffic networks, caravan merchants, or large-scale commercial enterprises. There is no clear evidence for the constant and reciprocal flow of raw materials and commodities by overland or river transport across the Danubian regions at the beginning of the Late Iron Age. Rather, a relay system of exchange (Bouzek 2009) between a large number of small political and economic entities may have been predominant.
Recently C. Pare (2012) has suggested that trade of horses and horse-gear from the “Thraco-Scythian Lower Danube” to northeastern Adriatic regions and across the Alps brought the images of raptors, monsters, gryphons, and other fantastic beasts to the west. The idea merits attention, since horses as mounts or chariot teams were most likely valued not only by the Hellenes, Scythians, or Thracians. The scientific basis, however, for this “trade” mechanism among the elites and more conclusive evidence for the arrival of superior “eastern” breeds in the lands of the “Celts” are awaited.
In contrast to this rather dim picture of archaeologically “invisible” early long-range contacts, there is the short remark of Herodotus, often cited and frequently discussed, which describes the Danube river as the counterpart of the Nile in his Egyptian logos (2.33.3–4) (Pearson 1934; Frey 1985, 232; Archibald 2006, 122; Sonnabend 2007, 82–83; Dan 2011). “Conventional” geographic knowledge and sketchy description of the major European river, which “rises among the Celts … cutting Europe across in the middle … as far as the Black Sea” is followed by Herodotus’ statement that the Danube “flows through inhabited land, familiar to many” (2.34.1). Using the framework of a symmetrical geographic image, the note refers to remote regions of the oikoumene (Keyser 2011), although it remains unknown what kind of knowledge about the lands along the Danube and their inhabitants was actually available to the Hellenic public of Herodotus in the late fifth century (Tomaschitz 2002, 16–17; Randsborg 1993, 117 on the ethnocentric perspective of the ancient Greek authors and Herodotus as the sole early exception). The short remark, however, gives the impression that these regions were not terra incognita, as assumed in recent scholarship (Cunliffe 2010, 19). Without additional textual or archaeological evidence in hand on the matter of early relations between the “western” and the “northern barbarian” communities, it seems reasonable to summarize the present stage of research on the topic with the still valid “verdict” that “such links may indeed have existed, but remain unproven” (Megaw and Megaw 2002, 491).
The earliest meeting of “Celts” and “Thracians” attested in the ancient sources (Arr., Anab. 1.4.6–8; Str. 7.3.8) was occasioned by a Celtic delegation to Alexander the Great, while he was on campaign against the Triballoi in 335 (Tomaschitz 2002, 94–95; Theodossiev 2005, 85–86; Rustoiu 2012, 357–378). The event took place in northwestern Thrace during negotiations between the king of the Macedonians and the local Triballian ruler, Syrmos. The Celtic envoys “said that they had come to seek Alexander’s friendship” and Alexander “gave pledges of amity, and received pledges from them in return” (Arr., Anab. 1.4.6–7). In the context of diplomatic exchange, one can understand the popular anecdote about the “Celtic” fear “that the sky would some time or other fall down upon them” (Arr., Anab. 1.4.8) as a formula specific to oath, like that preserved in the legendary Irish tale of Táin Bó Cúailnge (Freeman 1996, 44). The emissaries presented themselves as coming from “the Celts, who dwelt near the Ionian gulf” (Adriatic Sea); this problematic phrase has generated a long academic debate about the question of which “Celts” (and from which side of the Adriatic) had sent this delegation to the lands of the Triballoi (Tomaschitz 2002, 94; Guštin 2005, 52). Analysis of the earliest La Tène artifacts in Transylvania (Rustoiu 2008, 67–80; 2011, 163) suggests the presence of Senones from Picenum in Italy among the groups of “Celtic colonists” who settled in the inner Carpathian zone during the second half of the fourth century; such evidence provides hints for understanding the “Adriatic” connection of these Celtic envoys. A solid gold neck ring from Gorni Tsibar (Montana region) in northwestern Bulgaria, the most easterly find of a gold object decorated in original La Tène design, has been dated by form and function to the third quarter of the fourth century and belongs to the same time, when Alexander met the Celtic envoys (Megaw 2004; Theodossiev 2005, 86–87; Emilov 2007, 58). Due to a lack of reliable information about the circumstances of its discovery, it is unclear if the precious neck ring came from a grave or “ritual” deposit in an area close to the southern bank of the Danube river. O.-H. Frey and M. Szabó (1991, 481) interpret this sole example of golden torque from ancient Thrace, decorated in fourth-century “Celtic” Waldalgesheim style, as booty taken after the “victory” of Cassander over Celtic warriors (for this battle, see below). N. Theodossiev (2005, 86) suggests a more peaceful explanation, considering the item as a “political gift of some Gaulish chieftain to [an] unnamed Triballian aristocrat” during early interactions between the newcomers and local communities. It is doubtful, however, if the gender attribution of this high-status marker should be limited only to males, especially bearing in mind the close parallels between the Gorni Tsibar neck ring and those adornments discovered in the last resting place of “the Celtic princess” in Waldalgesheim near Mainz in Germany (Joachim 1995, 60–73), as well as those of a noble female of the “Celtic” Senones, buried in grave N2 in Santa Paulina Filotrano near Ancona (Landolfi 2000, with regional overview). The precious neck ring is part of the personal ornament; when included in a set of jewelry, it became an element of a female costume, reserved for “Celtic” ladies. Despite the fact that we deal here with a single item and not a full set, it seems plausible that the precious neck ring reached the lower Danube region as a result of exogamy and most likely reflects a high-status woman moving from the communities of Transylvanian Celts to their southern neighbors (Emilov 2007, 58–59; Arnold 2005 and Rustoiu 2011 on individual mobility as social practice).
A decade after the first diplomatic exchanges, another Celtic embassy “from the Galatians, inhabiting the regions close to the tribes in Thrace” (Diod. 17.113.2) arrived in Babylon to meet the Macedonian king. The court of Alexander was impressed by their skeue (Arr., Anab. 7.15.4), a term which refers to the overall appearance, clothes, jewelry, and armament of the Celtic diplomats. Despite some doubts about the historicity of the event among modern scholars (Strobel 1996, 166; Tomaschitz 2002, 95), it is reasonable to suppose that these representatives came from the same “Celtic” group as the previous delegation (Alessandri 1997, 149). The envoys took a long journey to Mesopotamia to confirm the earlier agreement, but it may have been during this mission that the wealth of Anatolia and of the regions around the Straits was noted for future reference (Rankin 1996, 85–86; Cunliffe 1997, 79–80).
Two unusual sources of information for historic events, Seneca the Younger (QNat. 3.11.3) and Pliny the Elder (HN 31.53, citing Theophr. F.216, Fortenbaugh et al.), contain vague mention of conflict between “Celtic” warrior bands and the Macedonian king Cassander “somewhere in Haemus” (Werner 1996, 284; Tomaschitz 2002, 95; Emilov 2005b). These passages focus on the origin of terrestrial waters after deforestation, which was caused by “Gauls” who had retreated to the mountain and chopped down trees for the construction of a wooden palisade when “blockaded” by the Macedonian king. Additional evidence about a similar conflict is supplied by Pausanias (10.19.5), who observes that “the Celts conducted their first foreign expedition under the leadership of Cambaules” and advanced “as far as Thrace”; the raid was abandoned because the “barbarians” “lost heart,” “realizing that they were too few in number to be a match for the Greeks.” Establishing a chronology for these encounters presents considerable difficulties (Delev 2003, 107–108; Boteva 2010, 43). The mention of Hellenic adversaries against the “Celtic” raiders favors treating these texts from different sources as related to a single event in Thrace during the last decade of the fourth or the very beginning of the third century (Nankov 2009, 273–274).
In a broader historical context, the military expedition led by Cambaules and the episode with the Macedonian army in Haemo can presumably be linked to the “Celtic” settlement in the lands of the tribal groups (in present-day eastern Serbia), designated by the Mediterranean writers as Autariatae (Theodossiev 2000, 83; Džino 2007, 56 on “Illyrian” Autariatae as a description of “common regional cultural habitus”). The arrival of “Celtic” warrior groups at the borders of the Triballian territories not only changed the landscape of power in the Danubian regions to the west of the Iron Gates (Blečić-Kavur and Kavur 2010), but also triggered a chain of events leading to Cassander’s involvement in affairs at the northern fringes of the Hellenistic world (Nankov 2009, 273). Thus, the available information about the earliest “Celtic” military expedition into Thrace and the preceding embassies seems to describe the individual initiatives of different “Celtic” communities, rather than a long-term strategy for conquest with a corresponding shift from diplomacy to warfare.
Until the time of the Great expedition to Delphi in the early 270s, nothing more is heard of the “Celts” near Thrace; and so for the period before the battle at Corupedion, one may imagine an entire network of agreements among various polities in the central and eastern Balkans arranged by Cassander and Lysimachus, which managed to neutralize the danger of “Celtic” incursions (Lund 1992, 49–50). Other plausible explanations include the conclusion of agreements with neighboring “Celtic” groups that were not recorded in ancient authors (Rustoiu 2012, 362, on the duration of treaties for a period of one generation). Political turmoil after the end of Lysimachus’ kingdom left the communities on the “northern frontier” exposed to “barbarian” invasions and the “Celts” would soon exploit the situation (Nachtergael 1977, 129–137; Hannestad 1993, 15–16; Strobel 1996, 186–226).
Almost every attempt in modern scholarship to reconstruct in detail the number, sequence, and routes of the “Celtic” invasions in ancient Thrace starts with a point about the “sad state of the extant sources” (Delev 2003; Tomaschitz 2007; Dimitrov 2010; Boteva 2010). Allowing for the potential inaccuracies and biases of the ancient authors, as clearly demonstrated by Livy’s commentary on the motives of the “Gauls” and their “vast horde” (38.16.1, quoted at the outset of this chapter), the course of the main events and the several waves of “Celtic” incursions into Thrace linked to different stages of their Great expedition are tolerably clear. According to Pausanias (10.19.7), one Cerethrius was chosen “to be leader against the Thracians and the tribe of the Triballoi” as part of the initial triple action, while Brennus and Acichorius invaded Paeonia and “Celtic” forces under Bolgios headed against Macedonia (Nachtergael 1977, 129; Tomaschitz 2002, 112–114). Since Cerethrius is not mentioned again in the ancient written sources, it seems that the planned offensive on the eastern front during the “first wave” in 280 either failed or remained at preparation stage (Theodossiev 2005, 86; Boteva 2010, 44).
In the spring or early summer of 279, while Brennus led a “second wave” of raiders toward the wealth of the cities in Greece and “even greater treasures in sanctuaries, including votive offerings and coined silver and gold” (Paus. 10.19.8), two chiefs, Lonorius and Lutarius, broke away from Brennus’ force with 20,000 people and “turned aside into Thrace” (Liv. 38.16.1–3). The event took place in Dardania, a rally territory for the “Celtic” advance to Macedonia and Greece during the Delphi campaign. The initial aim of Lonorius and Lutarius’ march was the core of the former realm of Lysimachus located around the Straits, but, after a brief conflict with Byzantion, the group comprised by the tribes of the Tectosages, Tolostobogii, and Trocmi managed to cross into Asia Minor (Mitchell 1993, 14–16; Strobel 1996, 243–247; Darbyshire, Mitchell, and Vardar 2000; Tomaschitz 2002, 146–152; Mitchell 2003).
The “third wave” of invasion concerns the army of 15,000 infantry and 3000 horsemen, which, according to Justin (25.1.2–3), was left by Brennus “to defend the borders of their country.” Unlike the “second wave” of tribal migration (under Lonorius and Lutarius), the force of the “border guards” was a warrior contingent on a raiding campaign, defeating on its way to the Straits the tribes of “Getae and Triballoi.” Justin’s description (25.1–2) of a meeting and subsequent conflict between these “Gauls” and Antigonos Gonatas in 278 or 277 is a mixture of Hellenistic royal propaganda and Roman stereotypes about “barbarians,” but reveals in essence the unsuccessful attempt of a pretender to the Macedonian throne to hire the “Celtic” warrior group as mercenaries and his considerable difficulties in gaining victory over them (commentaries on the passages with different suggestions in Tomaschitz 2002, 124; Boteva 2010, 40–42).
In the aftermath of the Great expedition another group of “Celts” under the leadership of Komontorios arrived in the environs of Byzantion and established a royal residence (basileion) near Tylis (Polyb. 4.46.1–3). In the absence of Polybius’ references to “Celtic” relations with Byzantion (4.45.9–4.46.6), one could argue that these raids were just a series of military initiatives in search of booty with only limited and short-term impact on the communities in Thrace. The kingdom of the Thracian Galatians survived until the late third century, however, when Kavaros, the last ruler of the royal residence near Tylis, intervened in the Byzantine-Rhodian conflict (Werner 1996, 288–289). Even if their polity was not a dominant political factor in the region (Lazarov 2010), it still played a significant role in the highly fragmented political landscape of southern Thrace after the battle of Corupedion and the multiple “Celtic” raids in the eastern Balkans (Delev 2003; Dimitrov 2010; Emilov 2010).
In spite of the multiple efforts by modern scholars to search for the “capital” of the Thracian Galatians, the precise location of Tylis remains an enigma. Polybius’ descriptions of events around Byzantion imply that Tylis was not far away from the polis, but the available archaeological data neither provide support, nor refute such interpretation of the ancient text (see Vagalinski 2010 about the ongoing debate and suggested “solutions”).
A coin hoard, hidden during the time of the Great expedition in front of the gate of the settlement center (identified as emporion Pistiros on the upper Hebros river) near Vetren, Pazardzhik region, as well as objects of La Tène type discovered in the layers of destruction there, point to the “Celtic” warriors as responsible for considerable damage on the site (Bouzek 2005; 2007). Repairs of fortification walls on Krakra hill (nowadays part of Pernik in Sofia region) on the upper Strymon River and signs of looting and fire near Vetren mark the direction of the “Celtic expansion” toward the eastern Balkans and the Straits, but the majority of “urban” centers in southern Thrace, like Seuthopolis, Philippopolis, and Kabyle, as well as settlements in the lands of the Getai (in present-day northeastern Bulgaria and southern Romania), survived this turbulent period in the early 270s.
The term “Danegeld” usually refers to tax in Anglo-Norman times, raised to pay tribute to Viking raiders in order to save a land from being ravaged. As it describes a specific measure of Medieval royal policy in times of crisis (Mason 2003), it may seem anachronistic to use the word “Danegeld” to describe an aspect of the relationship between Thracian Galatians on the one hand and the various communities in inland Thrace or Hellenic poleis of the west Pontic or Propontic coastal zones during the Hellenistic period on the other; but the purpose of these communities’ regular payments of silver objects and coins to the Thracian Galatians, namely, to prevent plunder, was quite similar to the later practice, named after the Northern raiders. “Danegeld” deserves attention as a general model of relation between ports of trade and their “barbaric” neighbors, especially considering the testimony of Polybius (4.46.3–4) on the tax paid by Byzantion and the experience of this polis with the groups under the command of Komontorios and Kavaros (Walbank 1957, 497–500; Champion 2004, 248; Dimitrov 2010, 56).
The politics of threatening the plundering of the chora in order to receive tribute was certainly not a “Galatian” invention. An empty plot in the interior of the fortified area of Byzantion, called “to Thrakion” (“the Thracian [plot]”: Xen., Hell. 1.3.20), was probably intended to shelter the city’s extramural population in case of attack (Loukopoulou and Łaitar 2004, 918; Gabrielsen 2007, 319). Polybius notes on several occasions that the citizens suffered from pressure exerted by Thracian dynasts prior to the arrival of the Galatians, who “conquered the Thracians” and “placed the Byzantines in extreme danger” (4.45.10, 4.46.2). Bearing in mind Livy’s testimony about tribal groups with two chiefs “imposing tribute upon those who sought peace” (38.16.3), it is also questionable if the “Celts, being barbarians” understood the potential profit of taxation only after their Great expedition into the Balkans (Bouzek 2007, 250). In contrast to the agricultural aspects of the “Celtic colonization” in the middle Danubian and Carpathian regions (Rustoiu 2012), the aim of the Galatian communities, including both the warrior groups and tribal segments that penetrated into ancient Thrace or Anatolia, was not “to settle, but money and booty, which could be acquired in a variety of ways” (Mitchell 1993, 15).
Monetized economies in the Hellenistic world and its northern periphery provided particular, long-term opportunities for acquiring wealth by mercenary service or by demanding protection money from rulers or wealthy cities. M. Price (1991, 174, 176) has suggested that the numerous issues of Alexander-type tetradrachms minted in west Pontic poleis were paid as tribute to Thracian Galatians. Due to this practice of “Danegeld,” H. D. Rankin (1996, 189) has even defined the kingdom of Tylis as “a powerful establishment of bandits” with “its history of extortion coming to an end in 212 BCE when the Thracians revolted from its domination and destroyed it”; the pro-Byzantine narrative of Polybius in the fourth book of his Histories certainly leaves such an impression. A short fragment from the eighth book, however, presents a eulogy of the last ruler of Tylis, Kavaros, who is portrayed as a prominent leader who “took care that the merchants sailing to Pontos” enjoyed “greater security” and “at the same time rendered great services to the Byzantines” (Polyb. 8.22). His efforts to put an end to the war between the polis and Prusias, king of Bithynia, were probably followed by Kavaros’ formal recognition by Byzantion as its euergetes (“benefactor”) (Gabrielsen 2007, 317). These events mark a final point in the transformation of the politics of “Danegeld” from synonym of presumed “barbarian predatory economy” to a technique of political pressure for the pursuit of economic gain within a contemporary Hellenistic framework.
The city of Kabyle, Jambol region, situated at the great bend of the river Tonzos, provides some additional hints about relations between Kavaros and the polities in inland Thrace. Fragments of two inscriptions on marble slabs, containing the letter combination Gala, plausibly restored as Gala[tai] (“Galatians”), could indicate a treaty concerned in part about tribute that the polis owed to the Thracian Galatians (Emilov 2005a; Dimitrov 2010, 56; Handzhiyska and Lozanov 2010, 267). Payments are illustrated by an issue of Alexander-type tetradrachms with the legend basileos Kavarou (“of/belonging to King Kavaros”), struck in Kabyle during the third quarter of the third century (Draganov 1993). Taking into account the continuing uncertainty about the extent of the territory controlled by Tylis, as well as ongoing discussion about the simultaneous existence of a number of other political entities in the interior of southern Thrace (latest reviews in Delev 2003; Dimitrov 2010), it remains conjectural whether Kabyle was directly integrated into Kavaros’ realm (Lazarov 2010, 110–111) or managed to keep its relative independence. On analogy with the case of Byzantion, it is reasonable to argue that the last ruler of Tylis acted as a “benefactor” of Kabyle rather than conqueror, who “took advantage of the mint of the town to issue his tetradrachms” and “to legitimate [his] political status” (Manov 2010, 95).
Available archaeological data also does not support scenarios of immediate Celtic control in Kabyle (Handzhiyska and Lozanov 2010). A single find of a double-spring loop, belonging to a La Tène brooch, was discovered close to the left shoulder of the individual buried in tumulus no. 7 near the urban center. The item is exceptional in this local context and indicates the extraordinary use of dress accessories with La Tène design among the citizens or the elite of a polis in inland Thrace at a time when their selection of adornments followed contemporary Hellenistic fashion (Emilov 2005a).
This brief episode of Kabyle’s tributary relationship with Thracian Galatians deserves attention as an additional example of the adaptation of “Danegeld” politics to economic realities in Hellenistic Thrace. Evidence for payments, including high value silver coins with the name of the last ruler of Tylis, fits well into the scheme described by Polybius about Byzantion. The historiographer mentions that initially the Thracian Galatians received “Danegeld” in precious gifts (Polyb. 4.46.3), but later required annual payments in gold coins. During the time of Kavaros, the tribute from Byzantion reached a peak of 80 talents (Tomaschitz 2002, 139–141; Dimitrov 2010, 56). Silver tetradrachms with basileos Kauarou correspond to the economic potential of the polis at the great bend of ancient Tonzos and reflect a short period of Kavaros’ influence over the urban center. One may only speculate whether the fragmentation of the inscriptions with Gala[tai (?)] was due to damnatio memoriae after the end of the Tylis kingdom.
Our consideration of the subject of “Danegeld” within the context of relationships between newcomers and various communities in Thrace now leads us to one of the most controversial topics in modern scholarship about “Thracian Galatians,” namely, the nature of “Celtic” “penetration” or “settlement” in the region (Domaradzki 1980; Theodossiev 2005; 2011, 15; Anastassov 2011). Ancient written sources leave no room for doubt about “Celtic” presence and activity in ancient Thrace, but archaeological proof of compact “Celtic” enclaves among “Thracians” remains problematic. The integration of personal adornment or weaponry of La Tène type in a local cultural milieu (Latenization) during the third century, as well as significant changes in material expressions of status and identity in the eastern Balkans, make the matter even more peculiar. Seven decades after Jacobsthal’s (1940) paper, “Celts in Thrace” continues to be a favorite choice of a title for publication on the subject, but recently it is more often accompanied by a question mark, which paradoxically seems to confirm the difficulties inherent in the unilateral interpretation of La Tène finds in the region as indications of “Celtic” graves or settlements (Emilov and Megaw 2012). In this respect, some of the so-called “original Celtic” objects from ancient Thrace, the bronze fittings in “Plastic” style from the Mal-tepe tholos tomb near Mezek (Megaw 2005; 2012; Stoyanov 2005; 2010), were considered by Jacobsthal (1944) to be related to the chariot burial of a Galatian chieftain of Tylis; recent reevaluation of their context suggests that a selection of decorated items and chariot pieces was deposited in the building as trophies after the victory of Antigonos Gonatas over the “border guards” (Emilov and Megaw 2012).
Some scholars discuss the local manufacture and distribution of artifacts with La Tène form as direct evidence of “Celtic” settlement in the region (Lazarov 2010; Manov 2010; Anastassov 2011). A contextual approach to these finds, however, does not support any unequivocal interpretation of the artifacts in an “ethnic” framework and raises numerous questions about the mechanisms of contact and the interrelations between individuals and groups with different cultural and social backgrounds. La Tène fibulae and bracelets discovered in early Hellenistic settlement centers can signal the “peaceful establishment of small groups, mostly of women, coming from Central and Western Europe” (Anastassov 2011, 233), but numerous associations of La Tène jewelry with “Thracian type” fibulae and Hellenistic grave goods point to conclusions about local adaptation and integration of La Tène elements as an essential part of both male and female costume (Tonkova 2006; Emilov 2007; 2010). Matrimonial migration certainly played an important role in the diffusion of cultural templates (Rustoiu 2011), even if J. Anastassov’s (2011) vision about bands of “Celtic” brides searching for husbands in Thrace sounds rather extraordinary and is not a very credible theoretical explanation of “Celtic expansion” and “penetration.” Local manufacture of La Tène artifacts, however, involves technological transfer. Hence it is necessary to consider other “male” categories of individual or group mobility, like craftsmen and metalworkers (Arnold 2005, 19) operating along the “Danubian corridor” (Rustoiu 2012, 367, on mobility and affiliation of the artisans to elite).
A flat grave with a La Tène C1 sword and a Hellenistic type of helmet deposited in a deep pit in the environs of Seuthopolis (Domaradzki 1984, 133) represents a grave structure and context unusual for southern Thrace, although not uncommon for the burials of Transylvanian or Danubian “Celts.” At the current level of exploration, any attempt to define “dominant” archaeological features and to (re)construct ethnic identity on the basis of material remains seems relative and subjective. Nevertheless, the context of the grave inventory in this 1.4 m deep pit, which compares well with assemblages from the eastern parts of the La Tène zone, may hint that the deceased was not of local origin. The discovery of a deliberately deformed La Tène sword and scabbard among the remains of a funeral pyre in tumulus N1 of the Hellenistic necropolis of Philippopolis (Megaw 2004, 103; Bouzek 2005, 96; Emilov 2010, 79–82) and the association of these items with pottery sets of local and imported vessels pose additional questions about both warrior identity in relation to ethnicity and mercenary activities as a widespread category of individual and group mobility (Rustoiu 2012; Hauschild 2012).
The graves with La Tène C1 swords near Seuthopolis and Philippopolis in Thrace, as well as the equipment of a “Celtic” warrior from Lychnidos (modern Ohrid) in the central Balkans (Guštin, Malenko, and Kuzman 2011), stand out from the general pattern as the presumed “last resting places” of “Celtic” mercenaries in the service of major urban centers (Emilov and Megaw 2012, 23). It is logical to argue that the communities under Komontorios and Kavaros’ control, known from the ancient written sources, were not the only Galatian group in Thrace. A conspicuous lack of “truly Celtic” settlements in the eastern Balkans, however, suggests a process of integration of the “western newcomers” rather than their exclusion and the formation of compact “Celtic” enclaves. A. Rustoiu (2011, 164) observes, in the same vein, that the number of assemblages with La Tène finds in “Thracian lands,” dated to the time of the Great expedition and its aftermath, “remains small, compared with the territories inhabited by the Celtic groups in the Carpathian Basin.” The note refers to a concentration of La Tène B2–C1 fibulae, belts, and bracelets, as well as discoveries of typical “Celtic” knives (of the so-called Hiebmesser type), in the valley of the middle reaches of Golyama Kamchiya river in northeastern Bulgaria, which are frequently discussed as important proofs of a “Celtic” enclave there (Lazarov 2010; Anastassov 2011). With no reliable information about the archaeological context of these items, it remains difficult to support their interpretation as credible evidence of large-scale “Celtic” settlement in the region. Detailed typological analysis, however, confirms links between the inhabitants of the river valleys to the north of the eastern Balkan range and their contemporaries in central and western Europe after the Great expedition; and so various scenarios involving the migration or infiltration of individuals and small groups, like warrior contingents and tribal segments from Moravia, Bohemia, and the Carpathian basin cannot be ruled out. Bronze coins issued in Kavaros’ name have also been discovered in this region, which led L. Lazarov to conclude that, at the height of his power, Kavaros managed to include in his sphere of influence the communities situated near the chorai of the west Pontic poleis Odessos and Messambria (Domaradzki 1995; Lazarov 2010). Even the proponents of large-scale population movement, however, admit a “cultural syncretism” that is reflected not only in several types of Kavaros’ bronze coins, but also in the “material culture” of the “Celts in Thrace” (Lazarov 2010, 110). The mobility of these groups in the eastern Balkans, as well as the processes of interaction between “Hellenization” and “Latenization” affecting both “indigenous communities” (Džino 2007, 59) and the incoming migrant individuals and groups from temperate Europe (Emilov 2007, 2010), could better explain our current difficulties in the archaeological recognition of Thracian Galatians.
Tylis as political epicenter of the “Celtic presence in Thrace” “lasted only two generations” (Cunliffe 1997, 173). The Great expedition to the Balkans and concomitant contacts between “Celts” and “Thracians” during the period of raids were followed by almost three centuries of dynamic relations between the groups in the eastern Balkans and tribal unions along the Danubian corridor or beyond the Carpathians. A “warrior ethos and cultural aesthetics that symbolized the ethos of Temperate Europe, negotiated with the existing indigenous cultural habitus” (Džino 2007) and, with cultural templates of the Hellenistic koine in wine consumption and “southern civilized manners,” continued to influence expressions of status or identity as evidenced by the archaeological record in the region. Stylistic features of a La Tène C1 sword scabbard, decorated with dragon- or bird-pair design, from the tumular grave near Pavolche, Vratsa region, in northwestern Bulgaria suggest the western Balkans or central Europe as the probable place of manufacture (Megaw et al. 2000), while the construction of this grave and the evidence for an associated funeral rite are entirely “typical” of the Triballoi during the Hellenistic period. Different interpretations of this scabbard are possible: as booty; as evidence of gift exchange in the framework of peer–polity interaction; or even as a status marker of a Scordiscian warrior, who had settled under the shadows of Haemus and adopted local funerary customs (Theodossiev 2005, 89–90).
Grave inventories in southern and northeastern Thrace dated to the very end of the third and the first half of the second century raise similar questions about the extent of “Latenization” and “Hellenization” among the warrior elite. Various elements of La Tène C1 and C2/D1 weapons and armament, including sword, chain mail tunic, and shield umbo (Megaw 2004; Emilov 2007; Anastassov 2011), accompanied the bones of the high-status individuals buried in the tumular necropolis in the vicinity of Kalnovo (Atanasov 1992) or in Sashova mogila near Shipka (Kitov 1996). Below-ground chambers with shafts in the valley of the Kamchiya river (00391tanasov and Yorgov 2007, 43–44) or the “Macedonian” barrel-vaulted tomb in the Kazanlak plain clearly recall burial rites and constructions that had been popular during the late fourth and early third century, while depositions of imported amphorae in these funerary structures reveal active connections to Aegean and Pontic wine and oil producers, as well as the demand for these commodities among the elite in the manner of their early Hellenistic predecessors. In the case of the Kalnovo grave inventory, one could even try to imagine a biography of a warrior band leader, who spent some years of mercenary service in the armies of the Hellenistic kings, returned home in the valley of Kamchiya river, and died a decade or two after the collapse of Kavaros’ kingdom.
The best example of the middle La Tène and middle Hellenistic process of “amalgamation” is a gold double-spring fibula, discovered near the human skeleton in the chamber of Sashova mogila tomb, decorated in gold filigree and granules and inlaid with cloisonné enamel (Tonkova 2002, 106). This item, “executed in eclectic Graeco-Celtic style” (Treister 2004, 195), illustrates the adaptation of Hellenistic fashion to La Tène construction and presents an important reference point for understanding various foreign influences and local responses in ancient Thrace during the period after the “Celtic” raids and before the Roman conquest.
In contrast to conclusions about the archaeologically invisible early contacts between “Thracians” and “Celts,” their interactions during the second and first centuries are visible not only in imagery on late Hellenistic silverware. The emergence of a supra-tribal fashion among a social stratum of cavalrymen in the Balkans, equipped with La Tène D shields and swords (Woźniak 1976; Rustoiu 2005; Łuczkiewicz and Schönfelder 2008), as well as the trends expressed in the ornaments of their wives (Guštin 2011), suggest sophisticated networks of interrelations involving mobility and exchange in central and southeastern Europe along the Danubian corridor. One can see the “barbarian commonwealth” as part of the reaction (and offering an alternative) to Roman involvement. The arrival of Roman legions, the establishment of Roman rule in this wide geographical area, and the concomitant “Romanization” (whatever that might be) bring new challenges to communities, known as “Thracians” and “Celts,” but this is a topic for another chapter.