The Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in Thrace.

ISBN 978–80–7671–068–9 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in Thrace Petra Tušlová – Barbora Weissová – Stefan Bakardzhiev (eds.) Petra Tušlová – Barbora Weissová – Stefan Bakardzhiev (eds.) THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in Thrace The Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project investigated a Roman rural settlement located along the middle stream of the Tundzha River, in south-east - ern Bulgaria (Roman province of Thrace). The main objectives of the project were the determination of the habitation dynamics of the settlement, the investigation of its architectural appearance and general function, as well as its possible relation to the Roman military camp in Kabyle. This volume brings together studies on the settlement’s investigation, including the excavation and surface survey, as well as individual articles dealing with different aspects of the settlement existence and material culture. Petra Tušlová An assistant professor at the Institute of Classical Archaeology at Charles University in Prague. She has been working on different archaeological projects in the Balkan peninsula since 2008 including Bulgaria, North Macedonia, and Romania. Her main interests lie in the Roman and Late Antique Thrace, with special focus on the pottery; as well as in the technology of pottery making and ceramic petrography. Barbora Weissová An assistant professor at the Institute of Archaeological Studies at the Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany. She has been working on excavations and surveys since 2006, taking part in projects in Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Turkey and Italy. Her main interests include digital archaeology with afocus on the applications of geographic information systems (GIS), methods of spatial analyses and quantifications as well as designs of archaeological surveys. Stefan Bakardzhiev The director of the Regional Historical Museum in Yambol, and chief assistant professor at the University of Library Studies and Information Technologies in Sofia. His main interest is the regional archaeology of south -eastern Bulgaria with aspecial focus on the Roman to Middle Age periods. He is adirector of long -term archaeological excavations in Kabyle (Roman period) and Voden (Middle Ages). ISBN 978–80–7671–068–9 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in Thrace Petra Tušlová – Barbora Weissová – Stefan Bakardzhiev (eds.) Petra Tušlová – Barbora Weissová – Stefan Bakardzhiev (eds.) THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in Thrace The Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project investigated a Roman rural settlement located along the middle stream of the Tundzha River, in south-east - ern Bulgaria (Roman province of Thrace). The main objectives of the project were the determination of the habitation dynamics of the settlement, the investigation of its architectural appearance and general function, as well as its possible relation to the Roman military camp in Kabyle. This volume brings together studies on the settlement’s investigation, including the excavation and surface survey, as well as individual articles dealing with different aspects of the settlement existence and material culture. Petra Tušlová An assistant professor at the Institute of Classical Archaeology at Charles University in Prague. She has been working on different archaeological projects in the Balkan peninsula since 2008 including Bulgaria, North Macedonia, and Romania. Her main interests lie in the Roman and Late Antique Thrace, with special focus on the pottery; as well as in the technology of pottery making and ceramic petrography. Barbora Weissová An assistant professor at the Institute of Archaeological Studies at the Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany. She has been working on excavations and surveys since 2006, taking part in projects in Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Turkey and Italy. Her main interests include digital archaeology with afocus on the applications of geographic information systems (GIS), methods of spatial analyses and quantifications as well as designs of archaeological surveys. Stefan Bakardzhiev The director of the Regional Historical Museum in Yambol, and chief assistant professor at the University of Library Studies and Information Technologies in Sofia. His main interest is the regional archaeology of south -eastern Bulgaria with aspecial focus on the Roman to Middle Age periods. He is adirector of long -term archaeological excavations in Kabyle (Roman period) and Voden (Middle Ages). Studia Hercynia, monographs 2 Petra Tušlová – Barbora Weissová – Stefan Bakardzhiev (eds.) THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in Thrace Studia Hercynia, monographs 2 Petra Tušlová – Barbora Weissová – Stefan Bakardzhiev (eds.): The Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in Thrace. Proofreading Peter Bowdery Judd Burden Front cover: Marble head of a bearded man (Asclepius?), 2nd–4th c. AD; drawing by Martin Černý. This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund project “Creativity and Adaptability as Conditions of the Success of Europe in an Interrelated World” (reg. no.: CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000734) implemented at Charles University, Faculty of Arts. The project is carried out under the ERDF Call “Excellent Research” and its output is aimed at employees of research organizations and Ph.D. students. Exchange: Institute of Classical Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Celetná 20, 110 00, Praha 1, Czech Republic Subscription: Charles University, Faculty of Arts, Publishing House, nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38, Praha 1, Czech Republic ([email protected]) Publisher: Charles University, Faculty of Arts, nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38 Praha 1, Czech Republic Printed by Togga Prague ©Charles University, Faculty of Arts, 2022 ISBN 978-80-7671-068-9 (print) ISBN 978-80-7671-069-6 (online : pdf) Contents Preface to the book The editors — 7 e Historical and Topographical Seing of Yurta-Stroyno Petra Tušlová — 9 e Final Excavation Report Petra Tušlová – Barbora Weissová – Stefan Bakardzhiev — 24 Systematic Selective Survey of Yurta-Stroyno. A Methodological Approach to Sites Heavily Disturbed by Looters Barbora Weissová – Petra Tušlová – Stefan Bakardzhiev — 53 Shedding Light on Architecture of Roman Rural Selements in race. Ceramic and Stone Building Materials from Yurta-Stroyno Barbora Weissová — 70 e Milling Equipment Barbora Weissová – Clarissa Haubenthal – Věra Doležálková — 90 in-Section Analysis of Selected Stone Objects from Yurta-Stroyno Clarissa Haubenthal — 106 e Epigraphic Finds from Yurta-Stroyno in a Regional Context Petra Heřmánková — 118 e Numismatic Finds Petra Heřmánková — 133 e Terracoa Lamps Robert Frecer — 145 Metal Finds and Traces of Metallurgical Activities at Yurta-Stroyno Viktoria Čisťakova – Jiří Kmošek — 155 Archaeological and Archaeometric Study of the Roman and Late Antique Glass Viktoria Čisťakova – Zuzana Zlámalová Cílová — 184 Selected Small Finds Adéla Minaříková — 245 Analysis of the Osteological Material from Yurta-Stroyno Miriam Nývltová Fišáková — 259 Concluding Remarks on the Results of the Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project The editors — 271 Plates — 275 7 Preface to the book e Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project (SAP)1 was initiated as afollow up to the Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project (TRAP)2 which focused on asystematic surface survey in the defined area of the Yambol District, in South East Bulgaria. SAP started in cooperation of the Regional Historical Museum of Yambol3 and the Institute of Classical Archaeology, Charles University, Prague 4 in 2014, and focused on the excavation of one of the surface scaers detected by TRAP in 2010 near the village of Stroyno (TRAP no. 6018) aributed to aRoman rural selement locally known as Yurta. e field project was designed for three years and included the selement excavation and systematic surface survey in the form of total pickups regularly distributed over the site, followed by several years of data processing and material post - documentation. Additionally, in 2019, in order to gain comparative samples for Yurta- -Stroyno and to shed some light on the selements’ hinterland, total pickups were carried out on two other surface scaers detected by TRAP and dated to the Roman period. One of these is located 2.5 km south - east of Karavelovo village (TRAP no. 6021), another one 1 km south of Robovo village (TRAP no. 7023). Further, in 2016 and 2021, geological prospections were carried out up to a15 km radius around the selement. ey were focused on rock sampling for comparison with some of the architectural components found within the selement as well as on the identification of clays suitable for poery/architectural ceramic making, to identify possible sources for local poery production. In 2021, ageophysical prospection was conducted on several areas of higher surface material concentrations in the Yambol District, including the Roman poery scaer south of Robovo village (TRAP no. 7023); asimilar but bigger one near the village of Kozarevo; and asmall area next to the Roman military camp in Kabyle. is publication provides the data gained by SAP within the first years of the project, including the excavations and the surface survey of the Yurta-Stroyno selement. Despite the field works taking place from 2014 to 2016, several more years were necessary to process the data to this final stage. Within these years, many researchers and students were taking part in the process, including the field works itself, material processing, digitalization, publication, and consultation. All of them took an important place in the complex archaeological process and without them, the successful finalization of the field work, as well as of this publication, would not be possible. Our deep gratitude belongs to the following colleagues (in alphabetical order): Viktoria Čisťakova, Tomáš Chlup, Věra Doležálková, Robert Frecer, Clarissa Haubenthal, Jakub Havlík, Hana ŠoÐová/Havlíková, Petra Janouchová/Heřmánková, Barbora Janů, Michaela Śmiejová/Kellová, Jiří Kmošek, Markéta Kobierská, Tibor Lieskovský, Josef Mareš, Dorothea Mildová, Adéla Dorňák - ová/Minaříková, Martin Minařík, Miriam Nývltová Fišáková, Anna Peterková, Alexandra Rášová, Martin Straka, Johana Tlustá, Ondrej Trhan, Zuzana Zlámalová Cílová and Veronika Ženíšková/ Ford. Several specialists consulted and improved individual articles; these will be mentioned in the relevant contexts. Additionally, palaeobotanical samples were discussed with Catherine Longford 1 hps://ukar.ff.cuni.cz/en/research/projects/balkans/yurta-stroyno-archaeological-project/. 2e project took place in Yambol District in the years 2009–2010 and 2017–2018 in cooperation with Shawn Ross, Adéla Sobotková, Ilija Iliev / Stefan Bakardzhiev and their teams, see hp://www. tundzha.org/. 3 Represented by Stefan Bakardzhiev, Director of the Regional Historical Museum, and by his representative, Todor Vulchev, with occasional support of other colleagues from the museum, Miroslav Kozarev and Yavor Rusev. Finds were restored by Georgi Iliev, the main restorer of the RIM Yambol. 4 Represented back then by PhD students at the Institute, Petra Tušlová and Barbora Weissová. 14 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT of all these three selements. Additionally, Orudisza ad Burgum, aroad - station placed in the section running from Kabyle to Hadrianopolis (TIR 2012, 274), is supposed to be located near the village of Karavelovo. Another Roman period scaer was detected ca. 2 km south - west from the same village, north of the Gerenska River (i.e. in the area not investigated by TRAP). e collected material has, however, not been further evaluated yet. An already well - known Roman selement is situated 1.5 km south of Yurta - Stroyno, at the south - eastern edge of the Stroyno village, in the area called St. Iliya. e site was excavated in 2014, 2020 and 2021 (Agre– Dichev– Hristov 2015, 208–211; Agre – Dichev – Hristov 2021) and in 2018 it was investigated by the means of ageophysical prospection (Dichev 2018, 724–726). Arectangular villa - like structure with rooms along the perimeter walls was detected there with acircular building with an outer diameter of 30 m placed in the middle of acentral open square. According to investigators, two construction phases might be detected: 1st dated to 13/12 BC– AD 12; 2nd dated to the end of the 1st c. and to the 2nd c. AD.6 Ihad achance to observe some of the material from the site prior to its excavation.7 Based on this observation it is possible to conclude that, at least in some period(s), it was contemporary with Yurta - Stroyno as well as with the previously mentioned sites near Karavelovo and Robovo. 6 During the pre-print corrections of this paper, the 2020 excavation report of the site near St. Iliya was published. e foundation of the selement is approximated there to the 1st c. AD, while its decline to the mid-3rd c. AD (Agre – Dichev – Hristov 2021, 879). 7e site at St. Iliya was, as well as Yurta - Stroyno, disturbed by looters leaving piles of material (mainly poery and glass) on the field surface. Comparing these objects to the ones from the other sites in the area (Yurta, Karavelovo and Robovo), there is aclear overlap based on which we may suppose these four selements were active during the same period, likely in the 2nd and 3rd c. AD. Map 2: Selement of Yurta near the village of Stroyno with marked Roman period sites in its hinterland, including rural selements and excavated burial mounds. 15THE HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SETTING OF YURTA-STROYNO Late Antiquity (5th–6th c. AD) was aturbulent period during which the selements in race moved from the flat lowlands to elevated positions, their dimensions decreased, and they were heavily fortified. Since the area along the middle stream of the Tundzha River is mostly flat, the concentration of Late Antique selements in the area is scarce.8 Agreat example is, however, the Dodoparon hillfort located about 21 km west from the Tundzha River, about 30 km south-west from Yurta-Stroyno, which is dated to the 6th c. AD, the only elevated Late Antique selement (or refuge) from the district which was comprehensively published. Dodoparon was well fortified selement, with its inhabitants engaged in agriculture, metal production (iron smelting) and regional trade. An important sanctuary of Apollo was likely located nearby (Sobotkova– Longford– Bakardzhiev 2018). Around the mid-5 th c. AD Kabyle lost its role as amajor urban selement in the area. Despite being inhabited till the 6th c. AD (and later again during the Medieval period), it became acity of low importance, and the main administrative and religious centre moved to Tuyda, afortress located in elevated position under the Stara Planina Mountains in Sliven District, overlooking the Tundzha River and the flat lowlands of the Tundzha River catchment (TIR 2012, 72–73). Regarding the rural areas located along the middle stream of the Tundzha River, they are not that densely populated as they were before, and the previously mentioned selements near Yurta - Stroyno do not seem to be permanently inhabited in the Late Antiquity. THE PHYSICAL SETTING OF YURTA-STROYNO e selement of Yurta - Stroyno itself is located on the northern part of the Elhovo municipality, about 12 km east from the Tundzha River and ca. 1.5 km north - east from the village of Stroyno. Since there are several other Roman period archaeological sites near the village (e.g. St. Iliya), the connection Yurta - Stroyno is used for its designation as the expression ‘Yurta’ was used for the selement identification already in the gazeeer of archaeological sites at the Yambol District created in the 70s of the 20 th century (Dimitrova– Popov 1978, 26, no. 162). e gazeeer mentions that several stone wall foundations were uncovered in the location during ploughing, together with architectural ceramics, poery and several coins dated up to the mid-3rd c. AD. Currently, the exact location of the archaeological site might be recognized only by the surface poery scaer covering about 30 ha and spreading along the right bank of the Dereorman River which delimits the southern border of the selement. e Dereorman River is about one to three meters wide and up to one meter deep; it empties into the Tundzha River and its course is nowadays controlled by three dams. Further south, right next to the river, the rocky Bakadzhik Hill (282.7 m.a.s.l.) is located, creating anatural barrier for the river flow, and pushing its waters towards the selement when the river is flooded. is natural phenomenon causes damage to the selement and many stones from architectural structures, roof - tiles and poery fragments have been found fallen in the river or washed by the river flow along its banks. At the north - western side of Bakadzhik Hill– facing to the selement– avisible notch is cut in arock, placed in aslightly elevated position, stretching about 200 m from east to west. It is locally believed this is arest of aroad which was running along the 8ere are, in total, ten known Late Antique selements (poery scaers dated to that period) in the Yambol District listed in the catalogue of Dimitrova– Popov 1978 under the following numbers: 5, 12, 23, 41, 59, 65, 82, 83, 114 and 166. 16 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT river. No precise chronology of this road was determined9 and although it is tempting to date it to the Roman period, it might date as well to the Ooman times. e majority of the selement spreads along the right bank of the river. e first 100–180 metres from the river are overgrown with vegetation represented by grass, scrubs, and smallto middle - size trees. e area featuring surface material continues further north - west and reaches into agrarian fields which are ploughed on ayearly basis. e location of the northern part of the selement in agriculturally cultivated areas causes the spread of the surface material over vast fields for another 400 m further inland, however, the original selement seems to be much smaller, located towards the river. Based on higher concentration of the surface finds as well as of construction material (both stones and roof - tiles) detected by surface survey of the TRAP, the original selement size was approximated to be up to 3.5 ha (Map 3). 9 e original plan of cuing the road in half was abandoned due to the time restrictions. ere was no surface material found on the road or around, nor any previous investigations taking place. Map 3: Based on TRAP data: polygons marking the surface scaer spreading into the cultivated fields from the Yurta-Stroyno selement; the nucleus of the site remained unsurveyed. On the south, over the Dereorman River, we may note the road cut in the slope of Bakadzhik Hill. 17THE HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SETTING OF YURTA-STROYNO e current land use of Yurta - Stroyno surroundings is surprisingly reminiscent of the ancient one. e whole middle stream of the Tundzha River catchment underwent extensive deforestation during the middle to late Bronze Age periods when forests seem to have been replaced by grazing areas, mainly for stock breeding, less for agricultural purposes. During the Iron Age, both pastoral and agricultural aspects developed into the landscape devoted to grain cultivation and stock breeding, with limited areas of woodlands on hills and nearby rivers as we may still see today (Connor– Herries– Mooney 2018, 138–143). Dedication of the surrounding land of Yurta - Stroyno to agriculture and stock breeding might be confirmed by finds from the selement itself– see, especially, the milling equipment (Weissová– Haubenthal– Doležálková 2022) and the osteological finds (Nývltová Fišáková 2022), both in this volume. CREATION MYTH OF YURTA-STROYNO AND OTHER ROMAN SETTLEMENTS IN ITS HINTERLAND e beginning of the permanent Roman presence in the middle stream of the Tundzha River is still unclear. e first objects clearly classifiable to the Roman material culture appear in the burial graves, tentatively dated to the end of the 1st– beginning of the 2nd c. AD. In aline of villages Boyanovo– Stroyno– Borisovo (Elhovo municipality), several such burial mounds were excavated, and individual graves uncovered, by Daniela Agre. Specifically, one burial mound was excavated in the location Koz Bunar near Boyanovo, about 4 km south-west from Stroyno village (Agre 2010, Agre 2013); a Roman grave was uncovered in so-called Raykova mogila 1 km south from the same village (Agre 2007); and several other mounds were excavated in the western suburbs of Borisovo, about 2.5 km east from Stroyno village (Agre 2009; 2013) (see Map 1). e uncovered finds were published in the form of preliminary or short reports with some elemental description without focusing on specific parallels and detailed chronology of the individual findings. Items from the rich burial mound of Borisovo, where achariot with yoked horses in situ was found, are to be seen in the Ethnographic - archaeological Museum in Elhovo. e chronology of the exhibited finds can stretch, indeed, from the end of the 1st c. AD, however, the items can also be dated to the 2nd or even 3rd c. AD. Further detailed studies of the material and architecture structures found in these graves are necessary to establish their precise chronology and consequent classification to the end of the 1st c. AD / beginning of the 2nd c. AD.10 Puing these data into the context, burial mounds with such early chronology would predate the foundation of the military camp in Kabyle (founded in AD 135/136). If we accept such chronology, an important question is raised. Who are the 10 Rare cases of burial mounds well dated to the 1st c. AD are indeed known from Ancient race. In Karanovo village in the Stara Zagora municipality (126 km as the crow flies from Stroyno village), the so - called Eastern Mound was excavated in 2008. e exceptionally rich grave goods yield variable materials and items imported from the Roman Empire including iron armour, long and short swords, curved knives, iron spearheads, silver buckle and silver fibulae, glass, bronze, and clay vessels, candelabrum, bronze lamp, silver plate with embossed decoration, three gold rings with gems and several coins, with the three latest once minted during the reign of Emperor Tiberius (AD 14–37). e grave goods also included two silver gilded cups with embossed decoration identified as Boscoreale type, produced in Roman ateliers at the beginning of the 1st c. AD. Based on the rich variability of different materials and types of items, the grave was dated to the mid-1st c. AD, representing one of the earliest well - datable finding context of Roman imports in Ancient race (see Ignatov– Gospodinov– Borisova 2010, 247–249). 18 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT people buried in these graves? Are these local racian aristocrats with connections to the Roman Empire and the found items are pure imports from Italy or/and other Roman provinces; or are they newcomers, already seled in the area, familiar with the Roman material culture, possessing and utilizing items produced locally? To try to answer this question, it is necessary to combine typological, stylistic, and archaeometric studies of individual items, and to focus on sampling of raw materials and production wastes found on the selements for comparison. e first such studies start to appear, with one good example of the detailed stylistic description as well as elemental analysis of abalsamarium found in the burial mound Kral Mezar near Boyanovo (Agre– Dichev– Agre 2019). e balsamarium, as well as the burial mound, is dated to the very end of the 2nd c.– 1st half of the 3rd c. AD. Although it does not contribute to the studies of the early years of the Roman presence in race, the detailed and interdisciplinary approach to the object found in agrave represents aturning point in the approach to material studies. e date of the foundation of Yurta - Stroyno is one of the main research questions of the SAP. As outlined above, the Roman material culture in the area seems to appear towards the end of the 1st– beginning of the 2nd c. AD. However, the existence of aselement with astrong Roman character at the place of Yurta - Stroyno or in its immediate vicinity during this period remains an open question. It is not an impossible thought as during the reign of Emperor Vespasian, around AD 70, veterans of Legio VIII Augusta founded the colonia Flavia Pacis Deultensium (Deultum) on the Black Sea coast, about 70 km east of Yurta - Stroyno as the crow flies (TIR 2012, 93). Deultum quickly become an important city and gave rise to many villas, vici and necropolises in its hinterland (Balabanov 2011, 107). In our case, not having acentral selement nearby during this early period, we would have to expect that the rural selements were founded there prior to the construction of amajor administrative or military centre. Another possibility, in the Roman world rather typical, is aboom of rural habitations caused by construction of amajor city or military camp nearby. Applying this paern to the area under discussion, the central selement would be represented by the military camp in Kabyle, founded in AD 135/136 and located about 34 km north from Yurta - Stroyno as the crow flies. During the first half of the 2nd c. AD Roman race witnessed major investment in accordance with the administrative and political changes. New urban and rural selements were founded; the inner infrastructure of the province was either maintained or newly built. Here, we should remember the north - south running road passing by Kabyle following the stream of the Tundzha River to Hadrianopolis and Ainos/Aenos. Even if we consider the possible existence of aprevious connection in this direction (as Kabyle was previously also awell - connected racian city and sanctuary), the road seems to be maintained, if not newly - built, during the Trajan - Hadrian reign (Madzharov 2009, 32, 223, 237), facilitating the movement along the middle stream of the Tundzha River. Consequently, it is tempting to group these mentioned building activities altogether: the construction of the military camp in Kabyle, the maintenance/construction of the road connecting the camp with the Aegean area and the foundation of rural selements along the road likely supporting Kabyle with its products, as apart of bigger changes happening from the Trajan - Hadrian period towards the 2nd half of the 2nd c. AD. If we fall for this interpretation, the 30s of the 2nd c. AD seem to represent an appropriate starting point for extended building activities taking place along the middle stream of the Tundzha River. 19THE HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SETTING OF YURTA-STROYNO THE MODERN HISTORY OF YURTA-STROYNO AND ITS HINTERLAND e selement in Yurta - Stroyno is scientifically known at least from the 70s of the 20th century when it was put on the gazeeer of archaeological sites from the Yambol District (Dimitrova– Popov 1978), but very likely even for alonger period. e first discoveries from the selement are random finds ‘accidentally’ uncovered at its territory, nowadays stored in the archives of the Regional Historical Museum of Yambol. ere are over 50 known items, but three of them offer greater informative value concerning the interpretation, classification, and chronology of the selement. e first is aRoman - Doric capital of type Iaccording to Dimitrov (2004, 221), dated to the end of the 1st– beginning of the 2nd c. AD with adirect parallel from the villa rustica in Chatalka, dated to the 2nd half of the 1st century AD (Dimitrov 2004, 222, fig. 42). is capital is made of marble and its quality of execution is exceptional compared to other capitals and column bases discovered at the selement (Weissová 2022, fig. 5:27). Based on its chronological classification, it represents the oldest datable item uncovered on the site, which opened adiscussion about the early foundation of Yurta - Stroyno (approximated to the second half– turn of the 1 st /2 nd c. AD). e second item is the bronze military diploma of aClassis Misenensis veteran, dated by Boyanov to AD 152–158 (Boyanov 2006, 239; 2007, 69–74). is find put abasis on identification of the selement as Roman vicus, avillage of the Roman army veterans. e third item is alower part of amarble slab likely depicting aracian horseman (or at least his feet) with an inscription mentioning aRoman family name wrien in Greek: Avilius (Bakardzhiev 2008, 472; Boyanov 2008, 214; Heřmánková 2022, pl. 4/1:2). In Kabyle, an inscription with the same family name was found, which initiated atheory of adirect connection between Kabyle with Yurta - Stroyno (Boyanov 2008, 214). Regarding the relatively short distance between these two installations, we may even consider Yurta - Stroyno being located within the administrative territory of Kabyle. Besides the chance finds, extensive looting activities affected the selement in 2004 causing it severe damage. As areaction to the disruption, the Regional Historical Museum of Yambol conducted arescue excavation in the years 2006 and 2007 to assess the damage and to provide the first - hand observation of the selement, its chronology and material culture (Bakardzhiev 2007, 238–241; 2008, 471–473). Several wall foundations of houses were uncovered and the general stratigraphy described. Besides the more common finds, silver antoninianus of emperor Gallienus (AD 253–260) was retrieved, as well as the iron head of aspear (Bakardzhiev 2008, 472, обр. 2) and abronze human mask aachment on abronze perforated rod (Bakardzhiev 2007, 240, обр. 3). e chronology of the selement was approximated to be the 1st–4th c. AD (Bakardzhiev 2007, 240). In the years 2009–2010, the Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project (TRAP) surveyed the area between Gerenska and Dereorman rivers bringing the aention back to Yurta - Stroyno. e site was surveyed and newly documented under TRAP no. 6018 (Sobotkova– Ross– Iliev 2018; Ilievetal. 2012, 21–22). It was noted during the survey that the looting activities are still in progress, further damaging the selement. Ateam from the Institute of Classical Archaeology, Charles University in Prague regularly participated in the TRAP activities, learning about the archaeology, history, and landscape of the Yambol District. Consequently, the next project concerning the investigation of the Yurta - Stroyno selement was initiated in cooperation of the Regional Historical Museum of Yambol and the Institute of Classical Archaeology in Prague. 20 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND AIMS OF THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT e Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project was designed for three years of field works and included three years of excavation (2014–2016) and one year of surface survey (2016).11 e decision was made to focus on the presumed nucleus of the selement, previously identified by TRAP and located near the Dereorman River. By the initiation of the project in 2014, no other Roman rural selements had been systematically investigated along the middle stream of the Tundzha River / in the Yambol District. Consequently, the main objectives of SAP investigation started with rather general questions focused on description of the chronological development of this specific selement, identification of its architectural characteristics and possible layout, and description of its material culture, its specifics and variability. Additionally, more concrete questions were asked, especially concerning the foundation date of the selement and its possible relation to the nearby burial mounds presumably dated to the end of the 1 st – early 2 nd c. AD, and to the military camp in Kabyle. Answering the foundation question would facilitate our understanding about the selements’ development along the middle stream of the Tundzha River in the early years of the Roman period and it might hint at the strength of the influence as well as availability of the Roman material culture to the local racian elite by that time. Besides the foundation date, through the variable material culture and language (inscriptions), we aimed to understand the origin and character of the inhabitants. Several obstacles stood in the way of proper examination of the selement. ey were location specific and should be mentioned here for an explanation of the factors limiting the usage of particular archaeological approaches and methodologies during the research. One of the main problems was the dense vegetation covering the site, persisting even into the late autumn, and the trees covering the area close to the river. Major problems were also caused by the extensive trenches made by looters who excavated all around the selement into considered depth (ca. 1 m) and dimensions (up to 2.5×2.5 m), as well as the excavated soil full of stones and architecture ceramics pilling up next to them, overgrown by vegetation. e resulting moon - like surface combined with dense vegetation cover proved unsuitable for geophysical prospection or other non - destructive under - ground penetrating measurements which in general limited our understanding about the selement disposition and architecture. e mentioned conditions also complicated the surface survey since every examined polygon had to be extensively cleaned from vegetation using the scythe. With this point, we also touched the last major problem we faced, the lack of workers. e nearby villages are not very populated and despite offering reasonable financial conditions to the remaining inhabitants in the villages, we were very oÞen unsuccessful in hiring them on aday - to - day basis, and consequently leÞ to work in lower numbers than planed and expected. For any further field work in the area, it is necessary to bring workers from more populated areas, either from Elhovo or even from Yambol. e illegal excavations and damage caused to the selement was very severe already when SAP started in 2014. e destruction of the whole site is hard to assess, but based on the excavated area, the disturbance exceeds 50%. e selement is hidden under the Bakadzhik Hill far from sight of any village and as such suitable for such kind of activity. Consequently, 11 Excavation reports were regularly published in journal SH: Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2014; Tušlováetal. 2015; Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2017; Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2018; and in AOR: Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2015, 2016, 2017. 21THE HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SETTING OF YURTA-STROYNO the excavations conducted by SAP were rather understood by us as rescue excavation than along - term project. AÞer all, besides all the above - mentioned reasons, another aim of SAP was to investigate as much as possible about the selement before the looters entirely hinder its’ further scientific explorations. Not to conclude on an entirely pessimistic note, the robbers’ trenches represented small test pits bringing interesting information above the ground from areas we did not manage to excavate in aproper manner. Consequently, among small finds and variable items originating from their trenches, the excavated soil revealed concentrations of iron slags, pieces of raw glass and glass - making waste and parts of architectural components. Due to this specific surface condition, the systematic total pickups could be applied over the nucleus of the selement with agreat success, not only recovering wide range of specific items but also assigning them into their approximate spatial context (see Weissová– Tušlová– Bakardzhiev 2022). ABBREVIATIONS AB = Archaeologia Bulgarica AOR = Археологически открития иразкопки JRA = Journal of Roman Archaeology SH = Studia Hercynia TIR = Tabula Imperii Romani (Ivanov ed. 2012) BIBLIOGRAPHY Agre 2007 = Агре, Д. 2007: Археологически проучвания на могила вземлището на с. Стройно, община Елхово, Ямболска област. AOR през 2006 г., 76–77. Agre 2009 = Агре, Д. 2009: Археологически разкопки на могила вземлището на с. Борисово, Елховска община. AOR през 2008 г., 279–282. Agre 2010 = Агре, Д. 2010: Археологическо проучване на две могили вземлището на с. Бояново, Елховско. AOR през 2009 г., 251–253. Agre 2013 = Агре, Д. 2013: Археологически разкопки на могили нр. 3 инр. 4 вземлището на с. Борисово, община Елхово. AOR през 2012 г., 164–166. Agre, D.– Dichev, D.– Agre, G. 2019: Roman balsamarium shaped as amale head in feline - skin cap from the territory of southeast Bulgaria. AJA 123:4, 687–698. Agre– Dichev– Hristov 2015 = Агре, Д.– Дичев, Д.– Христов, Х. 2015: Археологически разкопки на селищен обект вм. Манастирчето– Св. Илия, край с. Стройно, община Елхово. AOR през 2014 г., 208–211. Agre – Dichev – Hristov 2021 = Агре, Д. – Дичев, Д. – Христов, Х. 2021: Трако-римски селищен обект в м. Св. Илия в землището на с. Стройно, обш. Елхово. AOR през 2020 г., 875–880. Archibald, Z. 1998: e Odrysian Kingdom of race: Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford. Bakardzhiev 2007 = Бакърджиев, С. 2007: Сондажни археологически проучвания вм. Юрта при с. Стройно, община Елхово, област Ямбол. AOR през 2006 г., 238–241. Bakardzhiev 2008 = Бакърджиев, С. 2008: Сондажни археологически проучвания вм. Юрта при с. Стройно, община Елхово. AOR през 2007 г., 471–473. Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2015 = Бакърджиев, С.– Козарев, М. 2015: Спасителни археологически проучвания на антично Селище вм. Юрта, с. Стройно, Община Елхово. AOR през 2014 г., 570–572. 22 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2016 = Бакърджиев, С.– Козарев, М. 2016: Едовни археологически проучвания на антично селище вм. Юрта, с. Стройно, общ. Елхово. AOR през 2015 г., 633–635. Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2017 = Бакърджиев, С.– Козарев, М. 2017: Редовни археологически проучвания на антично селище вм. Юрта, с. Стройно, Общ. Елхово. AOR през 2016 г., 450–453. Balabanov, P.2011: Mortuary Archaeology in Roman race: e Helikon funerary complex (Debelt Archaeological Reserve). In: I.P.Haynes (ed.): Early Roman race. New evidence from Bulgaria. JRA Suppl. 82. Portsmouth, 106–114. Bouzek, J.– Graninger, D. 2015: Geography. In: Valeva– Nankov– Graninger (eds.) 2015, 12–21. Boyanov 2006 = Боянов, И. 2006: Римските ветерани от района на Кабиле. In: И. Илиев (ed.): Поселищен живот вТракия 4, 235–242. Boyanov, I. 2007: Two fragments from amilitary diploma in Yambol Museum. AB XI/3, 69–74. Boyanov 2008 = Боянов, И. 2008: Римските ветерани вДолна Мизия иТракия (I–III в.). София. Connor, S.– Herries, A.– Mooney, S. 2018: Paleoecology of the Middle Tundzha Plain. In: Ross– Sobotkova– Nekhrizov– Tzvetkova– Connor (eds.) 2018, 134–145. Delev, P.2015a: race from the Assassination of Kotys Ito Koroupedion (360–281 BCE). In: Valeva– Nankov– Graninger (eds.) 2015, 48–58. Delev, P.2015b: From Koroupedion to the Beginning of the ird Mithridatic Ware (281–73 BCE). In: Valeva– Nankov– Graninger (eds.) 2015, 60–74. Dimitrova– Popov 1978 = Димитрова, Д.– Попов, Ж. 1978: Археологически паметници вЯмболски окръг. София. Dimitrov2004 = Димитров, З. 2004: Типология на архитектурните детайли вДолна Мизия иТракия през римската епоха (I - II всл. хр.). Археология на Българските земи 1, 203–256. Dichev 2018 = Дичев, Д. 2018: Геофизични проучвания на обект вм. Манастирчето св. Илия вземлището на с. Стройно, Общ. Елхово. AOR през 2019 г., 724–726. Dumanov, B. 2015: race in Late Antiquity. In: Valeva– Nankov– Graninger (eds.) 2015, 91–105. Graninger, D. 2015: Ethnicity and Ethne. In: Valeva– Nankov– Graninger (eds.) 2015, 22–32. Haynes, I.P.2011: Early Roman race. In: I.P.Haynes 2011 (ed.): Early Roman race. New Evidence from Bulgaria. JRA Suppl. 82. Portsmouth, 7–14. Heřmánková, P.2022: e Epigraphic Finds from Yurta - Stroyno in aRegional Context. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 118–132. Ignatov– Gospodinov– Borisova 2010 = Игнатов, В.– Господинов, К.– Борисова, С. 2010: Спасителни археологически разкопки на надгробна Източната Могила, с. Караново, община Нова Загора. AOR през 2009 г., 247–249. Ilievetal. eds. 2012 = Iliev, I.– Ross, S.– Sobotková, A.– Bakardzhiev, S.– Connor, S. (eds.) 2012: e Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project. Elhovo Survey [Регионален aрхеологически проект Тунджа. Проучване вЕлхово]. Yambol. Ivanov, R. ed. 2012: Tabula Imperii Romani. K-35/2-Philippopolis. Sofia. Lozanov, I. 2015: Roman race. In: Valeva– Nankov– Graninger (eds.) 2015, 75–90. Madzharov, M. 2009: Roman Roads in Bulgaria. Contribution to the Development of Roman Road System in the Provinces of Moesia and race. Veliko Turnovo. Nývltová Fišáková, M. 2022: Analysis of the Osteological Material from Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 259–269. Ross etal. eds. 2018 = Ross, S.– Sobotkova, A.– Nehrizov, G.– Tzvetkova, J.– Connor, S.E. (eds.): Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project, Surface Survey, Palaeoecology, and related Studies (2009–2011) Final Report. Oxbow. Sears,M.A. 2013: Athens, race, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership. Cambridge. 23THE HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SETTING OF YURTA-STROYNO Sobotkova, A.– Ross. S.– Iliev, I. 2018: Yambol survey results. In: Ross– Sobotkova– Nekhrizov– Tzvetkova– Connor (eds.) 2018, 146–156. Sobotkova, A.– Longford, C.– Bakardzhiev, S. 2018: Excavations at Dodoparon, Yambol province. In: Ross– Sobotkova– Nekhrizov– Tzvetkova– Connor (eds.) 2018, 200–210. Theodossiev, N. 2011: Ancient race during the First Millenium BC.In: G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.): e Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millenium BC.Leuven, 1–60. Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S. 2014: Stroyno Excavation Project, Introduction to the Site of Yurta–Stroyno and Report on the 2014 Season. SH XVIII/1–2, 16–24. Tušlováetal. 2015 = Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S.– Čisťakova, V.– Frecer, R.– Janouchová, P.2015: e Stroyno Archaeological Project, Report on the Season 2015. SH XIX/1–2, 243–261. Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S. 2017: Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project. Preliminary Report to the Final Season of 2016. SH XXI/2, 99–112. Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S. 2018: Excavations at the Roman site of Stroyno -Yurta (2014– 2015): An interim report. In: Ross– Sobotkova– Nekhrizov– Tzvetkova– Connor (eds.) 2018, 191–199. Valeva, J.– Nankov, E.– Graninger, D. 2015 (eds.): ACompanion to Ancient race. Malden– Oxford– Chichester. Velkov, V. 1977: Cities in race and Dacia in Late Antiquity (Studies and Materials). Amsterdam. Weissová, B. 2022: Shedding Light on Architecture of Roman Rural Selements in race. Ceramic and Stone Building Materials from Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 70–89. Weissová, B.– Haubenthal, C.– Doležálková, V. 2022: e Milling Equipment. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 90–105. Weissová, B.– Tušlová, P.– Bakardzhiev, S. 2022: Systematic Selective Survey of Yurta - Stroyno. AMethodological Approach to Sites Heavily Disturbed by Looters. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 53–69. Zahrnt, M. 2015: Early History of race to the Murder of Kotys I(360 BCE). In: Valeva– Nankov– Graninger (eds.) 2015, 35–47. Petra Tušlová Institute of Classical Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University Celetná 20, CZ-11000, Prague 1 [email protected] 30 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT RESULTS OF THE EXCAVATIONS THE FIVE-ROOM HOUSE Prior to our investigation, asmall part of an uncovered stone wall (about 30 cm long) was spoed at the south - western part of the selement. is area was chosen as the starting point for the excavation, and the central square = the central trench, 100E_100N, was placed here. Within the three years of excavation, the initial investigated area was extended revealing wall foundations of afive - room structure (Rooms A–E) with aached courtyard on the north. e uncovered structure is oriented almost in an east - west– north - south direction with about 10° inclination of the walls (Figs. 1–2). e western room of the structure is not fully complete as it was disturbed by the Dereorman River (Room A) and the east - west length of the preserved foundation wall in this area is only up to 3.55 m. Regarding the other rooms, their dimensions in the east - west axis differ considerably: Room B: 4.40 m, C: 4.15 m, D: 3.10 m, E: 4.77 m. Vice versa, the dimensions of the north - south running perimeter walls and walls which separate the individual rooms, are almost the same everywhere, measuring 4.75–4.85 m in each room. e maximal preserved dimension of the whole structure from west to east is ca. 23 m. e eastern wall of Room E continues another 7.5 m north over the structure, measuring, together with the length of the room, about 13.5 m. e north running wall ends abruptly as it was excavated by the looters, and its possible continuation could not be confirmed. e foundation walls of the structure are preserved up to 80 cm below the ground (see Fig.4 wall [SU003]). ey are made of fine - grained low - grade marble which was locally quarried (see Haubenthal 2022, sample no. 4). e outer facing stones of the wall foundations are bigger than the stones in the middle; however, all are quarry stones and none of them is worked. e width of the wall measured on the upper line of stones stretches from 50 to 70 cm. e perimeter walls of the whole house structure and the walls dividing the individual rooms do not significantly differ in width. Since the structure is placed on agentle hill, sloping from north to south, the depth of the foundation varies, with deeper ones on the south, shallower ones on the north. We may notice the intention of keeping the upper line of the foundation wall of the whole house in one elevation. e eastern part of the house, including the northern tip of the wall [SU083] and the northern and southern walls of Room E ([SU004] + [SU002]) is in one line, with aconstant height of the upper part of the foundation wall around 214.84 m.a.s.l. e northern, east -western wall ([SU018] + [SU074]) also maintains asimilar elevation, however, the southern, east - western wall [SU002] drops about 50 cm down from the turn of Room E/D towards the west, to the beginning of Room B.4 Adrop about 20 cm in height from north to south might be also noticed on the inner north - south placed walls, especially on [SU003] and [SU004]. is movement of the whole structure is likely caused by the vicinity of the Dereorman River, which seems to disturb the western part of the house causing its slight sinking. ere is no mortar or any other solid binding material holding the individual stones together. Nevertheless, there might be soil with afew poery fragments, or some small finds, spread among the individual stones. In several cases, broken quern stones were incorporated into the upper layers of the foundation walls (see Weissová– Haubenthal– Doležálková 2022), in one case, also fragment of ahorse rider relief was found (see Heřmánková 2022a, 4We are counting here the height of the eastern corner of Room B– the cross section of wall [SU002] and [SU003], from here further west the stone wall still drops for another 20 cm, but we can clearly see this area is secondarily damaged. 31THE FINAL EXCAVATION REPORT pl. 4/1:3). Regarding the quern stones, their chronological classification is difficult as similar forms and types were used during the Hellenistic period. However, the fragment of the horse rider relief can be clearly dated to the Roman period. e same chronology applies to the finds from the soil spread among the stones of the foundation walls. Consequently, we may assume, spolia and soil related to previous Roman period habitation were used for building the foundation walls. We can say lile about the original inner surface of the individual rooms since they proved to be almost fully excavated by the looters below the floor level. However, there is one exception, RoomD. is room was (only) slightly disrupted by the looters and trees, and gravel and pebbles were found spread over its inner space in aheight several centimetres below the top stone layer of the foundation walls (see below). If we consider the same set up for the whole structure, the biggest part of the foundation walls would be buried underground with only several centimetres visible above the ground. ere were very few fired bricks found on the site. Consequently, we may expect the upper part of the walls was of ahalf - timbered adobe construction. No wood beams were found; however, fragments of mudbrick were identified in several of the ditches located inside the rooms, and on several places over the investigated area were aested fired fragments of clay with imprinted wood beams. Additionally, several pieces of plaster painted white and one decorated by ared colour were uncovered, giving us an idea how the above - ground construction could have been treated. In the levelling layer several fragments of flat marble plates of different thickness were also found, likely an interior decoration (Weissová 2022, tab.5:31–33, pl. 1/3:31–33). Within the excavations, only roof tiles (tegulae) of Laconian type were found. e most common imbrices were semi - oval in shape. Despite none of these being fully complete, many were preserved into considerable dimensions, with the best examples of tegulae measuring 593+ mm in length and 406–420 mm in width and of imbrices with 244+ mm in length (see Weissová 2020, 71). INDIVIDUAL ROOMS OF THE HOUSE As mentioned above, the inner space of the house was almost fully excavated by the looters. eir work was surprisingly professional, as they first found perimeter walls of the whole structure, identified outside/inside, and excavated only the inner space– the individual rooms. e depth of their excavations varied room to room, and except Room D, it reached well below the floor level, wall to wall. In this manner, Rooms A, B, C and E were excavated by the looters, leaving the remains of some (original?) contexts either in greater depth, or just along the foundation walls (Fig. 3). Room Ais the westernmost room of the structure. Only parts of its foundation walls were preserved, as the Dereorman River, and agrown tree on its bank, create its western border and either limited its further excavation (as for the northern wall [SU018]) or damaged part of it (as for the southern wall [SU002] which seems to be taken down by the river). Only the eastern part of the inner space of the room was excavated. Here, the yellow virgin soil [SU007] was reached; no ditches were found. Room B is the second westernmost room, which is divided from Room Aby the inner wall [SU028], from Room C by the inner wall [SU003] and delimited by the perimeter wall [SU018] on the north, and [SU002] on the south. e inner space of the room was fully excavated by 32 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Fig. 1: Final ground plan of the excavated house at Yurta-Stroyno, in scale 1:20. Drawn by SAP team, digitized by M. Kobierská. 33THE FINAL EXCAVATION REPORT 34 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Fig. 2: Photo mosaic combining adrone photo a¨er the excavation season in 2015 and orthophotos of 2014 and 2016. By O. Trhan and P.Tušlová. the looters to the virgin soil [SU007]. Abig fallen tree was lying on the south - eastern corner of the room, preventing asmall part of the area from the illegal excavation (see Fig. 3). Here, under the topsoil, aditch of dimension 70×45 cm, about 20 cm deep was found, which was dug directly into the virgin soil. e fill [SU021] of this ditch was rich on finds, featuring amixture of different poery classes, including amphorae fragments of Dressel 24 Family. Several of the poery fragments had ancient breaks which joined together. Further, several terracoa lamps were retrieved (Frecer 2022, tab.1:1, 6–8, 20); one blue hexagonal glass bead (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:1); one spacer bobbin (Weissová 2022, fig. 4:26); and several iron nails from roof construction and door decoration. ere was very small amount of animal bones (Nývltová Fišáková 2022, tab.2). All the material from the fill [SU021] was comparably less fragmented than the one normally retrieved from RT soil [SU001]. Because it also preserved several complete finds, we may quite confidently state, it escaped the modern looters aention. Its mixed character and placement (under the original floor) however suggest it might have been connected to some older ditch, which could have been made any time aÞer the house destruction. Regarding the character of the finds found in the ditch, this does not seem to be alooting trench, unless it would be done in antiquity, when terracoa lamp and glass bead would not have had avalue for the finder, who was looking for more precious items such as non - ferrous metals, gold/ silver coins, jewellery, etc. 35THE FINAL EXCAVATION REPORT Fig. 3: Division of Room B and C with the RT soil [SU001] covering the remaining contexts dug under the inner floor of the house. On the le¨ of the wall [SU003], in Room B, we may see the surface of [SU021] originally covered by a branch of a tree. In the same room, the reverse stratigraphy may be noticed, with roof tiles and other heavy objects placed on the boom of the RT soil [SU001]. Room C is the central room of the structure, which is divided from Room D by the inner wall [SU004], with aperimeter wall [SU018] on the north and [SU002] on the south. is room preserved the most complex archaeological situations with several ditches uncovered under the RT soil [SU001] dug into the virgin soil [SU007], specifically [SU008], [SU029], [SU036] and [SU057] (Fig. 4). [SU008] is afill of aditch, which seems to have similar character as [SU021] in Room B, but it is much bigger (145×105 cm) and deeper (65 cm). Among the diverse poery classes, several fragments of Dressel 24 Family and Kapitän II amphorae were uncovered (Tušlová 2022, SY14_070, SY14_071); also quite high diversity of animal bones was identified (Nývltová Fišáková 2022, tab.2). From the small finds is especially notable the marble head of bearded man broken off asmall statuee (Minaříková 2022, tab.1:1); further three blue glass beads, two hexagonal, of the same type as found in [SU021] (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:2–3), and one of rounded form (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:8); complete bone pin (Minaříková 2022, tab.1:8) and many iron nails from roof construction as well as from door decoration. [SU029] is afill of aditch located on the north - western corner of RoomC. It was partly excavated the first year (2014) when, over it, the mass of anorthern profile of square 100E_100N was laid. Only atriangular - shaped corner was visible under the profile. e corner was excavated to the boom– to adepth of 54 cm. ere were very few finds, including one body fragment of aglass vessel and afew undiagnostic pieces of poery and AC. e soil was grey, 36 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Fig. 4: Room C with photos of individual situations in various states of excavation– [SU008], [SU029], [SU036], [SU057]. Up: a¨er removing the RT soil [SU001]– northern profile; [SU029] with an excavated corner, [SU057] before excavation. Middle: before removing the RT soil [SU001]– northern profile, with [SU008] excavated to virgin soil [SU007]. Down: an example of the foundation wall [SU003] running in aslight inclination in north-south direction dividing Room B and C. Photos by P.Tušlová. 37THE FINAL EXCAVATION REPORT loose with gravel and pebbles. In 2015, aÞer the northern profile of the square 100E_100N was removed, the feature was cleaned on the surface to define its borders (ca. 173×100 cm) and leÞ unexcavated. [SU036] represents atiny strip of brownish layer preserved close to the stone wall, the foundation trench. is is the only place from the whole Room C where the foundation trench was identified. It seems it was preserved due to the movement of the upper stone layer of the foundation wall towards south, slightly overhanging the lower stone layers, and protecting their vicinity from the looter’spickaxes and shawls. is tiny strip of brownish colour proved to be quite significant for the whole excavations. Besides several tiny poery sherds and glass fragments, it also revealed one bronze coin, which was literally stuck to the foundation wall. e coin is dated to Severan Dynasty, and it is arare issue of Diadoumenian minted in Cyzicus in AD 217–218 (Heřmánková 2022b, pl. 5/1:8) which gives us terminus post quem for construction of the foundation walls. [SU057] is an up to 1.22 m deep fill of aditch ca. 1.45×1.12 m located in north - eastern corner of RoomC. e soil here was of dark - grey colour, characteristic for high amount of charcoal including tiny to several centimetres big pieces which were spread in all levels of the fill. Several bigger stones were found on its upper half together with fragments of roof - tiles and two big chunks of mudbricks (Fig. 4). ere was quite asmall amount of fragmented poery and glass, some bones (Nývltová Fišáková 2022, tab.2), pieces of mortar and iron items– especially nails from aroof and door decoration. Among the poery are tiny fragments of fine ware and cooking ware, oÞen very fragmented with ancient breaks joining together, such as the case of afrying pan reconstructed out of 11 small pieces or of aclay unguentarium base, put together out of five fragments (Tušlová 2022, SY15_340, SY15_338). Among the small finds we may find one clay token made from Dressel 24 Family amphora; one hexagonal glass bead (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:4); two worked bones (Minaříková 2022, tab.1:11, 13); and again, as in all ditches so far, several iron nails from aroof and door decoration. Also of interest is the amber coloured glass fragment of amould blown vessel, dated to the 4th–6th c. AD (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, pl. 7/6:144),5 and another coin of the Severan Dynasty, this time of Ioulia Domna minted in Anchialos in AD 193–217 (Heřmánková 2022b, pl. 5/1:6). e high amount of charcoal, many tiny fragments of mortar, several pieces of mud bricks and very fragmented poery give adifferent character to this fill comparing to [SU008] and [SU021]. It seems to be rather connected to some remains of destruction. For its interpretation, the fragment of the amber coloured glass, likely dated to the Late Antiquity, which is mixed with other material dated to the 2nd–4th c. AD, such as the token made of Dressel 24 Family amphora, the hexagonal bead, or the coin of Ioulia Domna, might also be of importance. is mixture could have been created by aditch dug through the cultural layer above the floor level of Room C during the Late Antiquity (or later), subsequently filled with the excavated material mixed with some destruction layer and occasional objects of later chronology. Room D is the second easternmost room of the structure. e room perimeter walls are [SU074] on the north and [SU002] on the south. e division from Room C is provided by the inner wall [SU004], and from Room E by [SU062]. Being 3.10 m in width, it is the narrowest room in the structure. Besides that, there are several other specific phenomena of this room. e northern foundation wall [SU074] seems to be considerably shallower than the other 5 ere were in total four fragments of the amber coloured glass identified in Yurta - Stroyno, the other three were found during the surface survey (see Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, pl. 7/6:141–143). 38 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT walls of the structure,6 featuring (only) 2–3 layers of stone (around 30 cm) (Fig. 5). Another interesting phenomenon of this room is the lack of interest of the looters in its excavation, as they have dug only several small trenches up to/or just slightly below the floor level. ere does not seem to be an obvious reason for this behaviour, there were no main obstacles limiting the access or covering the surface (besides three small - size trees on the northern part of the room). Additionally, on each of its sides, afully excavated room is located. We may try to 6 Not all the foundation walls had been excavated below the lowest stone layer, consequently, we cannot state that this is the only place of the whole house, where the wall is shallow. However, we can compare it with Room C, where parts of the foundation walls ware partly uncovered in all cardinal directions including the northern wall [SU018], to which the wall [SU074] is acontinuation. e walls for comparison are the western wall [SU003], the southern wall [SU002], and the eastern wall [SU004] of RoomC. e height of all these walls is in arange of 70–85 cm. Fig. 5: Photos of RoomD. Up, le¨: the inner pebble floor partly damaged by roots of trees with the terracoa tube in situ; up, right: the outer area south of the wall [SU002]. Middle: afragment of the horse rider relief incorporated into the wall [SU002] (le¨). Down: the comparatively shallow northern wall [SU074] of RoomD. Photos by P.Tušlová and J. Tlustá. 39THE FINAL EXCAVATION REPORT look for the reason in the character of the room itself. Perhaps the looters found out through several small sondages that the room is not as rich in finds as the other ones and leÞ it further unexcavated. e truth is, that we have indeed retrieved avery small number of finds from the room. Regarding its stratigraphy, below the topsoil, scaered fragments of roof tiles were hit, placed on acompact grey soil compound of gravel and pebbles, the floor level [SU013].7 Additionally, one big stone of roughly square shape was set in the floor close to the centre of the room and aterracoa tube was found sunk in situ running almost in parallel with the western wall [SU004]. Under the floor level, the yellow virgin soil was hit [SU060]. Within the gravel and pebbles, very fragmented poery was spread, including pieces of Dressel 24 Family amphorae, red - slipped poery dated to the 2nd–4th c. AD, several glass fragments including one with relief snake - thread decoration dated to the 3rd c. AD (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.5:100), one round glass bead with doed decoration (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:13) and one terracoa figurine (Minaříková 2022, tab.1:4). While cleaning the southern foundation wall [SU002] of Room D, part of amarble relief of ahorse rider was found incorporated into the upper stone layer, placed by the worked side up (Heřmánková 2022a, tab.1, pl. 4/1:3) (Fig. 5). In the same section of the wall [SU002] abig, worked stone (ca. 56×28 cm, 25 cm in height) was laid on the upper layer of the foundation wall, placed in north - south direction covering all its width. It is interesting that this stone has the same elevation of 214.84 m.a.s.l. as the eastern (not sunken) part of the house, while the wall [SU002], on which it is siing, is already 35 cm below this number. Perhaps the stone was compensating for the height of the wall at the time the house was already sinking into the ground. Since the ground conditions in this area were favourable (i.e. no trees nor trenches), we have extended the excavated area south from Room D outside of the structure (105E_100N SE). Here, under the topsoil [SU020], layer8 with the similar characteristic as the floor level [SU013] inside of Room D was uncovered. e outer area was compound of compact grey soil covered by gravel, pebbles, and tiny fragments of AC; it was also located in the same height (elevation) as the floor level inside RoomD. We can quite confidently assume this is awalking surface. No finds, besides the AC fragments, were uncovered on the surface. Room E is the easternmost room of the structure, separated from Room D by the inner wall [SU062], with the perimeter wall [SU074] on the north, [SU002] on the south and [SU076] on the east. Before any investigation, we could see an unnaturally looking heap of soil on this place. AÞer cleaning the surface from vegetation, it was quite clear, this area had also been excavated by the looters (Fig. 6). To confirm our assumption, a2×2 m sondage was placed in the NW section of square 110E_100N. e sondage was led to the yellow virgin soil [SU058]. Aditch of dimensions 56×50+ cm, 84 cm deep, was found within the sondage, under the RT soil [SU001], dug directly into the virgin yellow soil. Its fill [SU061] was rich in AC, especially in rooÞiles, and in big - size stones. Besides that, it contained several fragments from three different vessels, including ten fragments of one casserole (creating about 60% of the whole vessel); three body fragments of Dressel 24 Family amphora (Tušlová 2022, SY15_349, SY15_348); and five body fragments of asmall jug. Many fragments had old breaks which joined together. e character of this fill is similar to the material accumulation of [SU021] in Room B and [SU008] in RoomC. No other features were found in the sondage, and it was indeed 7 See Tab.2: [SU013] = [SU014] = [SU045] = [SU046] = [SU053] = [SU054] = [SU063] = [SU066]. 8 Composed of [SU044] + [SU049] + [SU050]. 46 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Fig. 11: Drawing reconstruction of the excavated house built directly on its ground plan. is reconstruction works with ahypothesis of an elevated wooden floor placed on the stone foundations (however, with necessary support); another possibility would be placing the wooden beams of the floor directly on the ground lined with pebbles which would require no additional support. Notice the terracoa water tube running in parallel to the western wall of RoomD. Reconstruction by B. Janů. e foundation walls do not bear any signs of interruption for entering the individual rooms (neither from outside, nor from room to room). e one room with apreserved inner floor (Room D) shows, that the foundation wall was slightly elevated in comparison to the floor level. is combination seems to suggest the application of an elevated wooden floor resting on the foundation walls, as well as using wooden threshold beams over the foundation walls for entering and passing from room to room. Since the area which is necessary to bridge with the wooden floor in each room is quite large (min. 3.1×4.7 m, max. 4.77×4.85 m), it had to be either laid on some type of support (such as bigger stones or small columns)16 as known, e.g., from Dichin (Poulter 2019, 69–77) or the beams supporting the floor would have been directly placed on the inner floor. e second possibility seems to be plausible in our case, as the beams supporting the floor could be resting directly on the inner gravel and pebble floor which, by its character, avoids moisture absorption.17 Additionally, the wood beams could be smeared with clay for protection. Structurally, the support beams would be laid from north to south while individual beams of the floor would be laid from east to west (Fig. 11). is hypothesis of an elevated floor (and its layout) is supported by the position of the terracoa tube running in parallel to the wall [SU004] which would be hidden under the floor next to one of the supporting beams. In the uncovered floor scenario, the terracoa tube would be half protruding from the inner floor which would make it more vulnerable for breakage and unpleasant for walking. e terracoa tube seems to be part of adrainage system, diverting the water from the room, as its location near the Dereorman River and on agentle slope might cause flooding. Unfortunately, we cannot compare the situation with the other rooms of the house, whose floor levels are not preserved. Additionally, there might even be apossibility that Room D, on which we build our hypothesis, might have served adifferent function. Room D is the only room with bigger worked stones placed on, or nearby, its long walls. Combining this 16 Room D, on which we build our interpretation, features one bigger unworked stone placed close to the centre of the room. is stone could have played the role of the floor support; however, more frequent distribution of support features would be necessary to hold the entire floor. 17 If the floor would be only from abeaten soil, placing the beams directly on the ground would enable the moisture to soak easily into the wood. 47THE FINAL EXCAVATION REPORT observation with other characteristics of the room, such as its smaller dimensions and very small number of finds uncovered above the floor level, we may think of its specific function. e well worked rectangular stone outside of its northern wall [SU074] might have served as astep, placed in front of the entrance to the room. e other stone on the south of the room, directly siing on the wall [SU002], might have several explanations. Regarding the drop of the height of the house, it might have been an aempt to raise the foundations, or to elevate the entrance. It could have been also originally placed on the wooden threshold beams, somehow reinforcing the entrance to the room. ese are, of course, just hypotheses, which would allow us to interpret Room D not only as the entrance room to the whole structure, but also as interconnecting room from which it could be possible to entry Room C (and thus also Aand B) and Room E.18 Consequently, it would be possible to enter/exit the room on the north, from the courtyard, and likely also on the south, in the possible direction to another house, or aside street. e western end of the house was heavily disturbed. Abig part of the foundation walls of Room Ais completely missing; however, the stones are not concentrated around, as in the case of the northern wall [SU083], nor is there ahole dug in the foundations by the looters. e whole situation looks old and clean. We may speculate, that the walls were flooded, and the stones taken by the river in the past. is action could have also caused waterlogging of the area and sinking of the south - western corner of the house. Whether this event might have happened during the Roman period or later is impossible to judge. e resulting disposition of the excavated house looks similar to the so - called long-/striphouses, which are known from civilian selements, as well as from vici located nearby military camps. ese are elongated houses with separated living quarters of the family members at the back of the house with ayard, and with aroom facing the street, which was used as acraÞ workshop, tabernae, or for storing and selling diverse goods. ese houses had solid perimeter walls, while the interior walls were light, easy to move and remodel (Wilson 2019; Sommer 2012, 82, 84). 19 e inner width of the biggest room of our house is 4.85 m, adding the thickness of the foundation walls (52–68 cm), we get almost 6 m house width. e current length of the house is ca. 23 m, however, it is not fully preserved and we may expect it to be originally up to 24–25 m. ese dimensions fit well into the range of the strip - houses of Continental Europe20 described by Sommer, which are dated from the Flavian period or later, and whose width is in the range of 6–9 m and the length of 22–40 m (Sommer 2006, 125). If we accept such an interpretation, it would be Room E which would be facing the street/ road. We could also expect another entrance to the room from outside as it would act as independent subject. Room E is the biggest room of the house, which is separated from the other three rooms of similar dimensions by the smallest room of all– RoomD. is separation could suggest its different use. Even though this interpretation seems plausible, we do not have any proof of the street located on the east, as this area was not excavated. 18 Since there are no preserved thresholds, this is just aspeculation which is, however, based on adisposition of the strip-/long - houses, where it is common to have one entrance from the long side and one from the room facing the street (c.f. Sommer 1997, Abb. 10). 19 For the strip - house visualisation see the military vicus in Ruffenhofen: hps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Datei:Limeseum_-_Modell_Ruffenhofen_5.jpg; hps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Limeseum_-_ Modell_Ruffenhofen_3.jpg and a reconstruction in Housesteads: hps://www.english-heritage.org. uk/visit/places/housesteads-roman-fort-hadrians-wall/history/research/ (visited 8/2/2022). 20 e strip - houses in Great Britain are smaller (4.5–6 m × 15–20 m), so are the Europe Continental ones during the earlier periods (see Sommer 2006, 124). 48 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT e courtyard on the north is not acharacteristic feature of the strip - houses, which commonly have ayard at the rear of the house. Perhaps in this part of the selement, near the Dereorman River, it was not possible, or feasible, to have adedicated backyard at the end of the structure and the area on the side of the house could have been used for diverse activities instead. THE LEVELLING LAYER e northern courtyard of the house was covered by the so - called levelling layer, which is about 40 cm thick, composed of anthropogenic material mixed with stones and soil. It was spread intentionally, at once, although in several layers, mixing different ratios of soil, stones, and the material. e anthropogenic material for these sub - layers was originally taken from one source, as many fragments, found in different trenches excavated over the courtyard and in different sub - layers, joined together. Based on the character of the finds, we may suppose the source was selement waste/dump. Even the method of layering seems to be intentional, placing heavy and bulky items into the lowest layers. Considering again the nearby presence of the Dereorman River, asuitable interpretation of the layer seems to be an intentional elevation of the area and drainage, which would help the fast absorption of excess water– as in the case of flooding, but as well as in acase of rain, since the gentle hill on which the house is built slopes from north to south– towards the five - room house. is interpretation would also support the suggestion that the worked rectangular stone found north of Room D functioned as astep to the door of the house, elevating the entrance and separating it from the area of the courtyard prone to floods. THE CHRONOLOGY e material uncovered in relation to the house is not very chronologically sensitive. Combining this fact with disturbed and mixed contexts, either recently by the looters (the RT soil [SU001]), or in antiquity (the levelling layer), the chronological classification of the finds had to be based mainly on other material published from Bulgaria and elsewhere. Evaluating the material from the excavation, objects dated into the time span of the 1st–6th c. AD have been found. e majority of them, however, seem to be related with the period of the 2nd–4th c. AD with some overlaps into the earlier and later periods (see Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022; Heřmánková 2022a, 2022b; Frecer 2022; Tušlová 2022). Nevertheless, there are several fragments of vessels among the poery and glass which seem to be even later, dated from the 4th/5th to 6th/7th c. AD (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.5:35, 50–51, 93–94; Čisťakova– Kmošek 2022, tab.4:7; Tušlová 202221). Regarding the excavated house, ahint to its construction period seems to be the coin of Diadoumenian, minted in Cyzicus in AD 217–218 (see Heřmánková 2022b, pl. 5/1:8), discovered in the foundation trench of the northern wall [SU074] of the house. In general, coins might have stayed in circulation for very long time and despite Diadoumenian issues being replaced shortly aÞer his death in AD 218 by mintage of Elagabalus, some of his coins could 21 e latest well aested chronology is of the transport amphora SY15_237 classified as type Keay LXIIQ / Albenga 11–12 from Northern Africa, which can be dated from the mid-5 th c. AD till the mid-6th c. AD (see Tušlová 2022 and other later amphorae: SY14_126, SY15_216, SY15_427, SY15_547, SY16_H13_NW_03). 49THE FINAL EXCAVATION REPORT have been still around. In all cases, the foundations of the house were built either at the time of the coin deposition, i.e. at the end of 20s of the 3rd c. AD, or later. e area had to be already inhabited at the time of the house construction, as parts of broken quern stones (Weissová– Haubenthal– Doležálková 2022), fragment of the horse rider relief (Heřmánková 2022a) and pieces of Roman poery were incorporated into the foundation walls of the house. Puing this information together, we may conclude that the excavated house was built at or nearby the already established Roman selement at the end of the 20s of the 3rd c. AD or later. e levelling layer, spread up over the house’snorthern courtyard, featured agreat mixture of material of wide chronology, mostly substituted by the fragments of objects dated to the 2nd–3rd c. AD (see Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022; Heřmánková 2022a; Heřmánková 2022b; Frecer 2022; Tušlová 2022). ere were however several other fragments, which seems to suggest the terminus post quem of the layer placement. ese are fragments of fine red - slipped vessels and cooking vessels of types dated from the 4th or 5th c. AD to 6th/7th c. AD (Tušlová 2022), 22 the terracoa lamp depicting Athena dated to AD 300–325 (Frecer 2022, tab.1:4, pl. 6/1:4), and the rim of an African transport amphora dated from the mid-5th c. AD to mid-6th c. AD (Tušlová 2022, SY15_237). ese objects suggest the layer was spread during the 4th or even 5th c. AD.23 If we assume the house construction took place not long aÞer the death of Diadoumenian, it would be adifference of one or two centuries between these two actions. Of course, if the construction of the house took place later in time, it would shorten the gap between these two events or make them even simultaneous. e need for araised floor at the courtyard might be aconsequence of floods, change of flow of the Dereorman River, or just adjustment of the house layout which might have happened any time during its lifespan. e 4 th and 5 th c. AD were unstable times in race, connected with persisting raids of gothic tribes and Huns, leading to several major events happening in race, including the Bale of Hadrianopolis at AD 378 and to major devastation of selements around the mid-5th c. AD (Velkov 1977, 38–42). In light of these historical data, the levelling layer, interpreted as acompound of selement waste, might have been also created by destruction debris, reflecting these events and the house/selement clean up. We should, however, also point out, there is no direct evidence of violent conflict uncovered on the area of the house or among the processed material from the selement. When did the existence of the house come to an end remains an open question. We may expect the courtyard adjustment in the 4th–5th c. AD had to be beneficial for someone, so the act of laying down the levelling layer itself seems to suggest continuation of the house, and perhaps as well of the selement, aÞer these proposed dates. However, since just alow amount of material retrieved from the selement dates from the 5th c. AD on, the house / selement existence does not seem to continue for that long to accumulate asignificant cultural layer. e ditches [SU008], [SU021], [SU057] had to be made aÞer the house abandonment, as they reach under the floor level of the inner rooms, and they combine asimilar mixture of material as the levelling layer– the majority of earlier fragments with single later - dated pieces– and as such include the complete chronology of the house and the levelling layer. ese ditches could have been made any time aÞer the house abandonment and before the modern looting activities. 22 Poery fragments nos.: SY15_263, SYP16_108, SY15_485, SYP16_127, SYP16_117, SY15_356, SYP16_114, SY15_254, SYP16_128. 23 ere is enough material aested for the 4th c. AD. ere are less, but still some, finds dated to the 5th c. AD or later. 50 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT CONCLUSION e three - year excavation uncovered afive - room house with acourtyard on the north protected by awall on the east. e house was built on foundations of locally available quarry stone without asolid binder, which were holding an upper structure of half - timbered adobe construction, covered by agabled roof made of Laconian type rooÞiles. Based on the house’souter dimensions (ca. 6×24–25 m), it probably had only one floor, which, however, does not exclude the possibility of an aic. e upper walls were very likely covered by white - red plaster, protecting the construction made of the organic material from destructive weather conditions. e excavated house does not seem to be much different from the provincial architecture. e closest parallel to its disposition are the so - called long-/strip - houses which are extremely common for vici type of selements. ey combine living quarters at the rear part of the house and industrial/commercial areas facing the street. If this parallel is correct, we may expect the biggest room of all, Room E, to be facing the street running on the east of the house in the north - south direction. At the time of the house construction there was already aRoman selement existing in the area as pieces of quern stones, ahorse rider relief, and fragments of Roman poery were incorporated into the foundation walls. e coin of Diadoumenian minted in Cyzicus in AD 217–218 was found in the wall foundation trench, dating the construction of the house to the late 20s of the 3rd c. AD or later. e northern courtyard of the house was covered by a35–40 cm deep levelling layer, very rich in material, likely referring to selement waste or destruction debris. e levelling layer was intentionally spread in several sub - layers containing material from the same source as many fragments over the sub - layers and from many metres apart joined together. e material was mainly dated to the 2nd–4th c. AD with several fragments extending the chronology into the 5th/6th c. AD. e layer seems to function as elevation/drainage, likely connected with the proximity of the Dereorman River as well as with the fact, the house was located on agentle hill sloping from north to south. Consequently, the courtyard on the north of the house might have absorbed the rainwater before reaching the house. e construction of the house in relation to the levelling layer is inconclusive. What we can clearly state is, that the house was constructed aÞer the year AD 217–218, and the layer was spread in an unspecific time during the 4 th or 5 th c. AD. Two scenarios might appear in relation to how much weight we give to the find of the Diadoumenian coin in the house foundations and its suggested short circulation. First, the house was built around the time of the coin deposition, and the levelling layer was spread about one or two hundred years later; second, the house was built together with the levelling layer in acourse of the 4th or 5th c. AD. Elaborating on the second possibility and considering the number of datable finds, the 4th c. AD seems to be much likely than the 5th c. AD which is represented by single finds only. In all probability, we will never be able to say which of these scenarios is correct, however, what we can say, is the approximate chronology of the area of the excavated house at Yurta - Stroyno based on the density of finds and their chronological classification. e majority of all objects from variable materials might be dated to the 2nd–4th c. AD, when the selement was at its peak. Much less of the finds might be dated into the time range of the 5th–6th c. AD, suggesting some activity was taking part on the selement, or its hinterland, also during the later period, however to alimited extend. 51THE FINAL EXCAVATION REPORT ABBREVIATIONS AOR = Археологически открития иразкопки SH = Studia Hercynia BIBLIOGRAPHY Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2015: Бакърджиев, С.– Козарев, М. 2015: Спасителни археологически проучвания на антично Селище вм. Юрта, с. Стройно, Община Елхово. AOR през 2014 г., 570–572. Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2016 = Бакърджиев, С.– Козарев, М. 2016: Едовни археологически проучвания на антично селище вм. Юрта, с. Стройно, общ. Елхово. AOR през 2015 г., 633–635. Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2017 = Бакърджиев, С.– Козарев, М. 2017: Редовни археологически проучвания на антично селище вм. Юрта, с. Стройно, Общ. Елхово. AOR през 2016 г., 450–453. Čisťakova, V.– Kmošek, J. 2022: Metal Finds and Traces of Metallurgical Activities at Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 155–183. Čisťakova, V.– Zlámalová Cílová, Z. 2022: Archaeological and Archaeometric Study of the Roman and Late Antique Glass. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 184–244. Frecer, R.2022: e Terracoa Lamps. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.):e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 145–154. Haubenthal, C. 2022: in - Section Analysis of Selected Stone Objects from Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 106–117. Heřmánková, P.2022a: e Epigraphic Finds from Yurta - Stroyno in aRegional Context. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 118–132. Heřmánková, P.2022b: e Numismatic Finds. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.):e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 133–144. Minaříková, A. 2022: Selected Small Finds. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta- -Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 245–258. Nývltová Fišáková, M. 2022: Analysis of the Osteological Material from Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 259–269. Poulter, A. 2019: Area E, the granaries, store rooms and the western defences. In: A. Poulter (ed.): e transition to Late Antiquity on the Lower Danube. Excavations and survey at Dichin, alate Roman to early Byzantine fort and aRoman aqueduct. Oxford, 63–135. Sommer, C.S. 1997: Kastellvicus und Kastell– Modell für die Canabae legionis? GesellschaÈ Pro Vindonissa, Jahresbericht 1997, 41–52. Sommer, C.S. 2006: Military vici in Roman Britain revisited. In: R.J.A. Wilson (ed.): ROMANITAS, essays on Roman archaeology in honour of Sheppard Frere on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday. Oxford, 95–145. Sommer, C.S. 2012: Newstead: the occupation around the forts. In: F. Hunter– L. Keppie (eds.): ARoman Frontier Post and its People newstead 1911–2011. Edinburgh. Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S. 2014. Stroyno Excavation Project, Introduction to the Site of Yurta–Stroyno and Report on the 2014 Season. SH XVIII:1–2, 16–24. 52 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Tušlováetal. 2015 = Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S.– Čisťakova, V.– Frecer, R.– Janouchová, P.2015: e Stroyno Archaeological Project, Report on the Season 2015. SH XIX:1–2, 243–261. Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S. 2017: Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project. Preliminary Report to the Final Season of 2016. SH XXI:2, 99–112. Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S. 2018: Excavations at the Roman site of Stroyno -Yurta (2014– 2015): An interim report. In: S. Ross– A. Sobotkova– G. Nehrizov– J. Tzvetkova– S.E. Connor (eds.): Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project, Surface Survey, Palaeoecology, and related Studies (2009–2011) Final Report. Oxbow, 191–199. Tušlová, P.2022: e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. PoÄery Studies. SH Monographs 3. Praha. Velkov, V. 1977: Cities in race and Dacia in Late Antiquity (Studies and Materials). Amsterdam. Weissová, B. 2022: Shedding Light on Architecture of Roman Rural Selements in race. Ceramic and Stone Building Materials from Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 70–89. Weissová, B.– Haubenthal, C.– Doležálková, V. 2022: e Milling Equipment. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 90–105. Wilson, K. 2019: AWorld Full of ings: ANarrative on aRoman Vicus in e Hague. In: R.J. van Zoolingen (ed.): AB HARENIS INCVLTIS, Artikelen voor Ab Waasdorp. Den Haag. Petra Tušlová Institute of Classical Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University Celetná 20, CZ-11000, Prague 1 [email protected] Stefan Bakardzhiev Regional Historical Museum of Yambol Byalo more 2, BG-8600, Yambol & University of Library Studies and Information Technologies Tsarigradsko Shose Blvd. 119, BG-1784, Sofia [email protected] Barbora Weissová Ruhr - Universität Bochum Institut für Archäologische WissenschaÞen Am Bergbaumuseum 31, D-44791 Bochum [email protected] 53SYSTEMATIC SELECTIVE SURVEY OF YURTA-STROYNO Systematic Selective Survey of Yurta-Stroyno. AMethodological Approach to Sites Heavily Disturbed by Looters Barbora Weissová– Petra Tušlová– Stefan Bakardzhiev ABSTRACT e last season of the Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project focused on asystematic surface survey of the selement. e survey was conducted on two levels, the first one including athorough exploration of all the finds in selected areas using total pick - ups, and the second one, surveying the remaining overgrown areas aiming to detect architectural and material remains visible among the thick vegetation. e survey explored 1.64 ha within 41 polygons of 20×20 metres, the total pick - ups covered 0.32 ha within 32 squares of 10×10 metres. e explorations brought to light considerable amounts of material, which was quantified and evaluated in its spatial context and further processed within the individual material studies. e survey design applied at Yurta - Stroyno helped us to develop and adjust the methodology suitable for sites with surfaces heavily disturbed by treasure hunters. KEYWORDS Systematic survey; total pick - ups; quantification; functional analysis; survey methodology. INTRODUCTION e Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project (henceforth SAP) was originally designed as an excavation project only.1 e first two seasons were conducted in 2014 and 2015 and focused on the excavation of ahouse located in the south - western part of the selement (Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2022). However, besides the excavated area, surprisingly large amounts of archaeological finds were detected haphazardly all around the expected selement. Among the more interesting discoveries made within these two years belong the finding of melted glass fragments together with afew pieces of raw glass, several concentrations of slag, and asingle find of asimple shaÞ of acolumn without fluting (Tušlováetal. 2015, 249, pl. 10/6). e reason for the richness of the surface finds at Yurta - Stroyno is the poor preservation of the selement as it had been extensively explored by looters searching for precious objects using metal detectors and excavating vast trenches, leaving behind many open digs of different sizes and depths. e disruption of Yurta - Stroyno can even be seen on the satellite images such as on the one captured in 2015 (Map 1). Although the imagery enables the quantification of the looting based on the number of visible robbers’ trenches at that time, this number offers only aminimal disruption of the selement. As the excavations proved, the areas with no disruptions detectable on the surface oÞen revealed reverse stratigraphy caused by illicit 1 e selement of Yurta - Stroyno had already been explored by a systematic pedestrian survey in the framework of the Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project in 2009–2010 (Rossetal. eds. 2018). 54 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT excavations. is phenomenon comes about due to the longevity of the looting process, with older trenches being filled with soil excavated from the newer ones. Despite the alarming state of the selement’spreservation which might be without exaggeration described as catastrophic, our observations suggested that the surface finds were not moved far from their original locations. Firstly, the excavated material was either used to fill the nearby trenches or piled right next to the illegal digs and, secondly, the gradient of the surface is minimal and induces only negligible erosion processes. ese conditions make the selement suitable for asystematic surface survey, aiming for the detection of diverse material concentrations over the area, seing up the chronology of the selement and discerning different phenomena including the character and function of the finds. Without such aheavily disturbed surface, with trenches oÞen reaching adepth of 100 cm, i.e., well below the topsoil, analogical aims would only be possible with proper excavations. METHODOLOGY e survey design was based on the previous works conducted in the area, careful observations of the distribution of the finds identified in 2014 and 2015, thick vegetation cover and, last but not least, the manpower offered by our team. Map 1: Satellite imagery captured in 2015 with marked looting trenches showing the alarming yet only minimal degree of disruption of Yurta-Stroyno. 55SYSTEMATIC SELECTIVE SURVEY OF YURTA-STROYNO Yurta is situated some 1.5 km north - east of the modern village Stroyno and it lies between avast ploughed area to the north and the densely overgrown Bakadzhik Hill to the south. e selement is situated just at the foot of the hill, on asurface gently sloping towards the Dereorman River, with agradient not exceeding 4.5 percent. According to the gazeeer of archaeological sites in the Yambol District (Dimitrova– Popov 1978, 26), the selement of Yurta was already known in the late 1970s when its surface was disrupted by ploughing and revealed the foundations of walls, architectural ceramics and Roman poery. e satellite image from 1975 (Map 2) confirms the surface of the selement was indeed ploughed at that time. e extent of the selement was archaeologically documented not earlier than during the systematic pedestrian survey conducted by the Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project (TRAP) in 2009 (Ilievetal. 2012, 21–22, site no. 6018; Sobotková– Ross– Iliev 2018, 146–156). e debris of material connected with the selement was detected distributed over avast area covering 30 ha. Unlike in the 1970s, only the northern part of the associated surface concentration was reported as located in the harrowed field with good surface visibility. e southern part was described as overgrown with vegetation and studded with robbers’ trenches to the point that it proved very difficult to walk. As follows from these reports, the agricultural activities were at some point limited, most likely because the nucleus of the site revealed far too many stones from the building foundations as well as large loose architectural stones which efficiently prevented the surface from being further ploughed. Map 2: Satellite imagery captured in 1975, the extent of Yurta-Stroyno is entirely ploughed over. 62 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT imbrices, bricks are only rare articles. Coarse wares include different forms of cooking wares (pots, frying pans, casseroles and their lids); transport amphorae are mainly represented by body fragments, from the diagnostic finds, amphorae of the Dressel 24 family and Kapitän II are the most frequent ones. Storage vessels encompass dolia, for the most part body fragments and their thick rims, however, some bases and lids made of worked tiles were also found. e quantified spatial analysis of the poery groups visualised on Map 4 shows arepeating paern of several clusters, especially visible in the sectors D13 SW, F13 SE and G12 NE. Although the amounts of the finds per 100 sq. metres feature striking differences between the lowest and highest densities, adetailed examination shows that they can be directly associated with the presence, numbers, sizes and depths of the robbers’ trenches and piles of materials. For instance, the highest amounts of almost all the materials were identified in G12 NE, with its surface entirely destroyed by illicit looting, revealing three robbers’ trenches extending over 20 sq. metres with adepth reaching one metre and with piles of stones and soil covering more than 25 sq. metres. Contrariwise, the lowest amounts of all the materials were detected in the sector I09 NE which was not destroyed by any trenches and did not reveal any piles. Despite the fluctuating densities depending on the disruption of the terrain, the survey also revealed several outliers, such as the second largest concentration of storage vessels in J13 NE, asector of minimal disruption, revealing rather insignificant amounts of other kinds of poery. Although it is tempting to interpret it as acluster of storage facilities, leaving avisible imprint on the surface, the high weight is caused by the generally great weight of dolia. When considering their quantification, the outlier in J13 NE is represented by asingle rim and afiing body fragment and as such points to the existence of asingle dolium within the sector. Diagnostic poery sherds including rims, bases and decorated body fragments were documented separately. e whole poery assemblage from the surface survey was compared with the material found during the house excavation. e same functional classes as well as the majority of wares were identified among them. Regarding the table vessels, the majority of the whole material included red - slipped ware and also grey ware, both possibly of local (eastern Balkan peninsula) production, but also Çandarlı ware / Eastern sigillata C (F13 SW, F13 NE), the so - called Colour coated ware (D13 SE, F13 SE) and in - walled red - slipped ware (E12 SE, G12 NE, G12 NW, D13 SE) was identified. Wheel made and handmade cooking vessels were present in the same wares and forms as in the excavated area. Regarding the transport amphorae, the most abundant diagnostic fragments are of the Dressel 24 Family (G12 NE, H13 SE/NE, I09 SE, I12 SW, I12 SW), Kapitän II (G12 SE, F13 SW) and Rhodian amphorae (G12 NW, J13 SE), with individual fragments of the type Ephesus 56 (H13 NW), other eastern Mediterranean amphora (D13 NW) and one fragment of an amphora with apossible African origin (H13 SE).4 e majority of the poery might be dated to the 2nd–4th c. AD with several fragments with apossible aribution to the 5th–6th c. AD. Among the finds from the surface survey there were also some prehistoric fragments including atriangular horizontal handle of the “Assenovets” type dated to the Late Bronze Age (c.f. Hristova 2019, fig. 12:80). e survey finds enriched not only the poery assemblage but also the other material studies (Map 5). e architectural ceramics confirmed the utilisation of Laconian tiles and imbrices for the roofing systems, bricks appeared to be arare find all around the nucleus. One interesting brick was however found in G09 SW, bearing agraffiti made before firing. e brick was analysed in the study of the epigraphic evidence (Heřmánková 2022a, pl. 4/2). 4 For the poery studies from Yurta - Stroyno see Tušlová 2022. 63SYSTEMATIC SELECTIVE SURVEY OF YURTA-STROYNO Several robbers’ trenches revealed the foundations of houses in situ, although most of them were already destroyed and leÞ on the surface in the form of piles of stones. is state of preservation however helped us to notice that the uncovered foundations were made in the same way as the excavated house– by unworked quarry stones put together without any bonding which facilitates their dismantling; further, in the few cases of the preserved foundations in situ, we may confirm their walls follow the orientation of the excavated house. Regarding individual architectural components, besides the random find from 2015 represented by the cylindrical stone (Weissová 2022, no. 30), the survey detected two more fragments of columns (capitals/bases see Weissová 2022, nos. 28–29) and four large worked stones, further examined and interpreted within the study of the ceramic and stone building materials (Weissová 2022) and thin - section analyses (Haubenthal 2022, nos. 1–5). e collection of milling equipment was enriched by four fragments of rotary querns, of which three were further analysed and identified as two conical and one hemispherical catillus (Weissová– Haubenthal– Doležálková 2022, nos. 2, 5, 7, 9). Besides numerous glass fragments detected all around the surveyed nucleus, the total pick- -up in D13 SW confirmed the existence of aglass workshop suggested already in 2015 by several incidental finds. e sector revealed avast collection of glass production waste represented by threads, drops, melted fragments and moils, fragments of raw glass and acullet for secondary melting (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, pl. 7/7). Among rare but interesting glass finds belong the amber coloured fragments dated to the 4th–6th c. AD and the rim of aplate/bowl of the same chronology found in F13 SW, H13 NE and D13 SE (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.5:93–94, 35) and the two dark blue glass bracelets dated to the Early Medieval period from E12 NW, F13 SW (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:16–17). Metallurgical activities taking place at Yurta - Stroyno were confirmed by finds in G13 NW which revealed an accumulation of asmelting furnace lining. Furthermore, sectors I12 SW and F14 NE disclosed smelting slags, and K12 NE and G13 NW forging slags. e most abundant metal finds are of nails of diverse sizes (146 pcs.), the largest concentrations being found in polygons E09 (28 pcs.), G12 (26 pcs.), D13 (26 pcs.) and E12 (17 pcs.) (Čisťakova– Kmošek 2022, nos. 25–47). Besides these, the metal finds from the survey revealed several knives, punches, awls, fragments of chains and two keys (Čisťakova– Kmošek 2022, nos. 11–13, 18–21, 61, 63). Among the most interesting small metal finds is one Roman period ring found in sector D13 NW and one cross - shaped pendant from F13 SE, dated to the Middle Ages (Čisťakova– Kmošek 2022, nos. 8–9). Regarding the small finds, we should also mention abronze coin probably of Tranquillina issued in Anchialos (F13 SE; Heřmánková 2022b, tab.1:9, pl. 5/1:9); aterracoa wheel from ahorse rider toy known from apoery workshop in Butovo (J09 NW), abone pin (G12 NE) and abone distaff decorated with the depiction of adog (D13 SW) (Minaříková 2022, nos. 5, 17 and 19). e terracoa lamps were very fragmented, out of 46 fragments of lamps identified during the survey only two could be classified into aspecific type, both belonging to the group of Bildlampen, Loeschcke types I–V(Frecer 2022, nos. 31–32). e material studies revealed several chronological outliers not falling within the 2nd–4th c. AD, which is the period represented by the majority of all the finds. Map 6 depicts the spatial distribution of finds dated to the (possibly) Late Antique and Medieval periods. e Late Antique period is represented by fragments of glass and poery, which, distributed rather haphazardly in eleven sectors, revealed one detectable small cluster of six pieces within two neighbouring sectors H13 NW and NE. Glass fragments were detected in seven pick - ups and encompass fragments of plates / bowls and the remains of body decorations. Atessera, dated very broadly between the Roman and Early Medieval period, constitutes aunique single find. 64 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Map 5: Finds (besides poery) detected during the total pick-ups as well as whilst surveying the overgrown polygons. 65SYSTEMATIC SELECTIVE SURVEY OF YURTA-STROYNO Despite its chronological classification might be wide, it was on the Map 6 included into the Late Antiquity. Poery was determined in seven sectors, following aslightly differing distributional paern than the glass and encompassing several fragments of grey ware dishes, coarse ware pots and transport amphorae. e dispersion of the finds points to some utilisation of the selement, although at arather negligible scale when compared with the Roman period. e Medieval period is represented by four single finds including an iron key, apendant in the shape of across made of bronze and two fragments of glass bracelets. ey are all clustered in three sectors or two polygons respectively within the northern part of the nucleus. As they all represent personal items which could have been simply lost whilst travelling, they do not confirm any kind of selement in the territory of Yurta - Stroyno during the Medieval period but may suggest an existence of aroute or road crossing the area during this period. DISCUSSION e examination of the distributional maps of the poery did not reveal any clearly identifiable clusters pointing to different uses of the surveyed areas. e fluctuating numbers rather seem to result from the degree of the destruction of the surface but they do not allow us to identify areas with different functions within the selement, as the numbers of the types Map 6: Distribution of finds dated to Late Antique and Medieval periods. 66 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT keep rising and declining within each sector nearly analogically, revealing only insignificant variances. Compared with the finds from the excavation, the survey poery revealed analogical functional classes as well as ware types. An interesting phenomenon is represented by dolia, as the excavation revealed only one single diagnostic fragment (arim) with certainty identified as apart of adolium. e survey, however, brought to light 33 diagnostic fragments represented by rims/bases/lids and many more body fragments. e picture given solely by the finds from the house would hinder any information regarding the storage facilities, however, the survey confirmed the common presence of dolia within the inhabited area. e field survey confirmed the characteristics and orientation of the stone foundations observed during the rescue excavations conducted in 2006 and 2007 by the RIM (Bakardzhiev 2007, 238–241; 2008, 471–473) and during the excavations of the house by SAP (Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2022, fig. 2). e survey revealed parts of foundation walls scaered all around the surface, in rare cases in the form of complete wall sections uncovered during illicit excavations and still leÞ in situ, or, for the most part, in the form of piles of stones dug out by the treasure hunters and situated right next to the illegal digs. e analysis of the architectural remains shows that the foundations of the houses were without exception made from local unworked stones with simple earth bonding. e foundations leÞ in situ roughly follow the orientation of the walls documented during the excavation and point to acommon architectural plan of the whole selement, oriented almost in an east - west– north - south direction with about 10° inclination of the walls. e distribution and density of the architectural ceramics drew apicture comporting with the poery distribution, fluctuating based on the disturbance of the surface. e basic materials used for the architecture of the selement were invariable, creating the image of the whole selement with houses built in opus craticium and with roofs covered with Laconian tiles in the tegula-imbrex system (Weissová 2022, fig. 2). Besides these uniform architectural components, the selement revealed three outliers represented by the cylindrical stone situated in E11 NW and the two fragments of columns’ heads/base discovered in D13 SE (Weissová 2022, nos. 28, 29, 30). Furthermore, the surveyed nucleus enclosed two workshops. e finds in D13 SW, situated in the north of the area, include accumulations of glass production waste, raw glass and acullet for secondary melting. ese finds unambiguously point to the existence of aglass workshop in the surveyed sector. Although the relation is not clear, the glass workshop was discovered in the immediate vicinity of the column’shead and the head/base. e sector G13 NW, situated in the eastern part of the area, revealed an accumulation of remnants from asmelting furnace lining, aesting to metallurgical activities. e glass and the metallurgical workshops lie on the north– south axis, some 40–50 metres from each other, and they were both likely integrated into the common architecture of the selement as inherent parts of the housing. e study of the finds detected during the survey confirms the main chronology of the selement, also revealed during the excavations, spanning between the 2nd and 4th century AD. Only sparse finds date to the Late Antiquity and their even distribution over the surveyed area does not show any limited borders of the site in comparison with the previous period. e selement was rather slowly decaying, with finds roughly spread all around its former territory. Several finds from the Medieval period, characterised by personal items most likely lost when crossing the area, point to the abandonment of the selement and to the possible existence of aroad or route crossing the area. 67SYSTEMATIC SELECTIVE SURVEY OF YURTA-STROYNO In light of the results we were able to draw from the collected finds, the applied methodology needs to be deliberated. e collecting strategy we developed assumed alarger functional variability throughout the surface. Our main aim was to cover units of comparable sizes, and 10×10 metres seemed perfectly fiing as they create well comparable surfaces of 100 sq. m. is approach, however, did not allow us to consider the robbers’ trenches and piles of materials as closely connected units, since they were naturally dispersed all around the site regardless of the outlined grid. As such, it was acommon phenomenon that arobbers’ trench was situated in one sector and apile of material coming from the trench in the neighbouring one. On the one hand, for an overview of materials dispersed on the surface, its assignation to aparticular robbers’ trench does not play aprincipal role. On the other hand, for amore detailed functional analysis in the spatial context, it would be crucial to concentrate on the recording of the precise sizes and positions of each trench and pile and collect the materials separately. In this case, the goal would be to calculate the volumes of the piles and trenches, so that they can ideally be assigned to each other. Considering the sizes of the rooms of the house excavated by SAP, spanning between 3.10 × 4.75 metres and 4.77 × 4.85 metres each (Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2022, 30), amore precise recording could have allowed us to identify the characters and functionalities of particular rooms disturbed by looters. At the same time, however, the division of the surface into aregular grid should not be altered, as it still allows for auniform recording, quantification and comparison of the data. e resolution of the grid plays acrucial role and there is not auniversal one to be recommended as it always needs to be adjusted to local conditions. CONCLUSION e systematic survey of Yurta - Stroyno brought to light asubstantial body of information, allowing us to see the selement as adynamic unit spreading around its whole surface and not only through the considerably limited keyholes produced by the excavations. Especially valuable were the comparisons of the material detected on the surface and the finds from the excavations, as they confirmed the high degree of the site’suniformity and helped us to understand its character. e homogenous distribution of architectural ceramics and poery implies that at least the examined part of the site was built up and used in an integrated way. e houses were built in opus craticium, with saddle roofs covered in the tegula-imbrex system using Laconian tiles. e survey enclosed two workshops situated in the eastern and north - eastern part of its nucleus, pointing to the metallurgical activities and glass production taking place directly at the site, most likely in the form of small workshops integrated into the common houses. e chronology and character of the finds point to aslow decay of the selement during the Late Antiquity and its successive abandonment later on, revealing only accidental finds during the Medieval period, possibly due to acommunication crossing nearby its former territory. From the methodological point of view, the study showed that total pick - ups applied on sites with ahigh degree of disturbed surface bear a high potential to disclose aconsiderable amount of information, allowing for functional analyses. However, amore precise recording, reckoning the robbers’ trenches and respective piles of materials as interconnected units, could reveal insights into the functionalities of the disturbed rooms, not allowed by the recording considering the sectors of 10×10 metres as the smallest units, used in the present study. 68 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank our colleagues from the Slovak University of Technology, Tibor Lieskovský, Alexandra Rášová and Ondrej Trhan, for helping us set up the survey grid. Our deepest acknowledgements belong to the students who surveyed the sectors and despite very unfavourable weather conditions such as afrozen surface in the morning remained in high spirits. In alphabetical order, they are Clarissa Haubenthal, Jakub Havlík, Hana Havlíková and Adéla Minaříková. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bakardzhiev 2007 = Бакърджиев, С. 2007: Сондажни археологически проучвания вм. Юрта при с. Стройно, община Елхово, област Ямбол. AOR през 2006 г., 238–241. Bakardzhiev 2008 = Бакърджиев, С. 2008: Сондажни археологически проучвания вм. Юрта при с. Стройно, община Елхово. AOR през 2007 г., 471–473. Čisťakova, V.– Zlámalová Cílová, Z. 2022: Archaeological and Archaeometric Study of the Roman and Late Antique Glass. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 184–244. Čisťakova, V.– Kmošek, J. 2022: Metal Finds and Traces of Metallurgical Activities at Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 155–183. Dimitrova– Popov 1978 = Димитрова, Д.– Попов, Ж. 1978: Археологически паметници вЯмболски окръг. София. Frecer, R.2022: e Terracoa Lamps. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.):e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 145–154. Heřmánková, P.2022a: e Epigraphic Finds from Yurta - Stroyno in aRegional Context. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 118–132. Heřmánková, P.2022b: e Numismatic Finds. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.):e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 133–144. Hristova, R.2019: Late Bronze Age Poery from the Site of Vratitsa, Eastern Bulgaria. Definition, Chronology and its Aegean affinities. In: Horejs, B.– Pavúk, P.(eds.): Aegean and Balkan Prehistory. hp://www. aegeobalkanprehistory.net/index.php?p=article & id_art=19 (visited 07/02/2022). Ilievetal. eds. 2012 = Iliev, I.– Ross, S.– Sobotková, A.– Bakardzhiev, S.– Connor, S. (eds.) 2012: e Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project. Elhovo Survey [Регионален aрхеологически проект Тунджа. Проучване вЕлхово]. Yambol. Minaříková, A. 2022: Selected Small Finds. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta- -Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 245–258. Ross etal. eds. 2018 = Ross, S.– Sobotkova, A.– Nehrizov, G.– Tzvetkova, J.– Connor, S.E. (eds.): Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project, Surface Survey, Palaeoecology, and related Studies (2009–2011) Final Report. Oxbow. Sobotková, A.– Ross, S.– Iliev, I. 2018: Yambol Survey Results. In: Ross– Sobotkova– Nekhrizov– Tzvetkova– Connor (eds.) 2018, 146–156. 69SYSTEMATIC SELECTIVE SURVEY OF YURTA-STROYNO Tušlováetal. 2015 = Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S.– Čisťakova, V.– Frecer, R.– Janouchová, P.2015: e Stroyno Archaeological Project, Report on the Season 2015. SH XIX:1–2, 243–261. Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S. 2022: e Final Excavation Report. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 24–52. Tušlová, P.2022: e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. PoÄery Studies. SH Monographs 3. Praha. Weissová, B. 2022: Shedding Light on Architecture of Roman Rural Selements in race. Ceramic and Stone Building Materials from Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 70–89. Weissová, B.– Haubenthal, C.– Doležálková, V. 2022: e Milling Equipment. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 90–105. Barbora Weissová Ruhr - Universität Bochum Institut für Archäologische WissenschaÞen Am Bergbaumuseum 31 D-44791 Bochum [email protected] Stefan Bakardzhiev Regional Historical Museum of Yambol Byalo more 2, BG-8600, Yambol & University of Library Studies and Information Technologies Tsarigradsko Shose Blvd. 119, BG-1784, Sofia [email protected] Petra Tušlová Charles University in Prague Institute for Classical Archaeology Nám. Jana Palacha 2 CZ-11638 Prague [email protected] 70 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Shedding Light on Architecture of Roman Rural Settlements in Thrace. Ceramic and Stone Building Materials from Yurta-Stroyno Barbora Weissová ABSTRACT e assemblage discussed in this article represents aheterogenous group of architectural ceramic and stone building materials found at the Roman rural selement of Yurta - Stroyno. All the finds but one were detected during the Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project. e one extra find, amarble capital, was discovered prior to the joint project and brought to the Regional Historical Museum of Yambol as an accidental find. e architectural ceramics include roof tiles, bricks, drainage pipes, and aspacer. e architectural stones encompass three different capitals/bases, acylindrical stone– possibly acolumn– and three fragments of stone tiles possibly used as facing for walls. Most of the examined materials are not chronologically sensitive and their analyses are focused on morphological features, possible functions and reconstructions. Exceptions represent two of the capitals; the one mentioned above, identified as aRoman - Doric capital Type 1 with fluted shaÞ, possibly dated as early as to the 2nd half of the 1st century AD; and the other one, found during the surface survey, which was determined as a‘simplified version of the Roman - Doric Type 1’, dated from the 2nd to 1st half of the 3rd century AD. KEYWORDS race; Roman rural selement; architectural ceramics; architectural stones; capital; base; animal imprints. INTRODUCTION Based on acareful examination of all the ceramic and stone building materials, the present study offers an outline of architectural forms appearing in Yurta - Stroyno. e vast majority of the collection originates from the Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project (SAP) conducted in cooperation with the Regional Historical Museum of Yambol (RIM) and the Institute of Classical Archaeology of the Charles University in Prague. e excavation was carried out between 2014–2016 (Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2015, 2016, 2017; Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2014, 16–24; Tušlová etal. 2015, 243–261; Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2017, 99–108; Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2018, 191–199) and the collection was further enriched with finds located during the systematic surface survey in 2016 (Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2017, 108–110). e most spectacular of the presented finds, acolumn head with afluted necking, was brought to the RIM by locals already prior to the SAP. Savage looting of the selement caused displacements of most of the studied materials, resulting either in areverse stratigraphy, or simply in piles of stones and architectural ceramics placed right next to the illegal digs. As aresult, the contexts are pointed out only when relevant / they can be specified. When not stated otherwise, the finds come from unstratified contexts or layers disrupted by looters. While all the survey finds belong to this group, in case of excavations this concerns mainly the RT soil [SU001]. Despite this obvious deficiency of the material, the presented collection still allows for adefinition of architectural types rep- 71SHEDDING LIGHT ON ARCHITECTURE OF ROMAN RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN THRACE resented within Yurta - Stroyno, and, broadly considered, for an outline of architectural types represented within Roman rural selements situated in South - Eastern race. CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL e group of architectural ceramics includes roof tiles, bricks, drainage pipes and one solitary spacer. All the architectural ceramics found during the archaeological works were individually examined and the following text describes the characteristic finds as well as the outliers. e finds from the territory of the excavated house and from the survey all around the selement do not feature any traceable differences in types, sizes or cumulations. ROOF TILES (TEGULAE AND IMBRICES) All the studied tiles are fragmentary; some of them were destroyed already during antiquity, some later in the frame of the looting activities, as witnessed by considerably recent breaks. e identified roof tiles, hereinaÞer tegulae, are of the Laconian type, which is characterised by aconcave body without obvious flanges or rims (Ginouvès 1992, 182–187, pl. 82). e width of the tiles varies between 406 and 420 mm, the thickness between 22 and 32 mm. e height of the concave body spans between 70 and 80 mm. e longest preserved fragment reaches 593 mm, but none of the tegulae revealed fully apreserved length. Since the tegulae were not standardized and each region produced its own types (Adam 2001, 213),1 the reconstructed length has to be based on local parallels.2 In the territory of Bulgaria, most of the published Laconian tegulae found were only fragmentary.3 An exception are tegulae identified in the context of the villa rustica at Preslovo, as they revealed complete measurements of 690×390×25 mm (Sultov 1964, 57). As the width of the tegulae from Preslovo (390 mm) is slightly smaller than the average width of the tegulae found in Yurta - Stroyno (between 406 and 420 mm), their length rather represents the minimum possible dimensions. It follows that the tegulae used in Yurta - Stroyno should have reached about 700 mm in length in the case that they had similar proportions. e surfaces are in general even and smoothed. Only several fragments show markings of finger grooves on the convex sides, each varying between 12 and 14 mm in average width. e detected shapes of finger grooves are depicted in Fig. 1.4 e convex sides of several tegulae preserved traces of mortar. One of the tegulae revealed remains of mortar with imprints of wooden beams, witnessing its aachment to the wooden roof construction. e joints between the tegulae were covered with semi - cylindrical roofing tiles called imbrices in order to create awaterproof roofing system. Identified imbrices show varying shapes and measurements when considering their heights and widths. e outer surfaces are decorated with shallow parallel grooves with an average width of about 12–13 mm. e grooves run over the whole length of the imbrices, covering their surfaces. e inner surfaces 1As example, Adam (2001, 213) lists highly differing measurements of tegulae recorded in Ostia (480×720 mm, 450×600 mm, 410×570 mm, 405×530 mm), Rome (490×660 mm, 390×460 mm) and Pompeii (690×475 mm, 525×660 mm, 475×640 mm, 500×590 mm, 480×590 mm). 2 Compare with finds from Roman Britain where tegulae only exceptionally overreach 500 mm in length (Brodribb 1987, 12). 3 As, for instance, at the Late Antique fortress at the hill Hisarlik in Kyustendil (Ruseva - Slokoska 2016, 94), or in Oescus (Ivanov 2006, 151). 4For comparative examples of grooves detected on bricks and tiles along the Lower Danube, see Ivanov 2006, 156, figs. 46 and 47, 166, figs. 57 and 58. 78 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Assemblage from Yurta - Stroyno revealed one spacer bobbin (Fig. 4:26) found in afill [SU021] inside Room B. e spacer is 75 mm long, its ends widen to 52 and 63 mm respectively, the diameter of the hollow is 15 mm. Spacers belong to relatively common finds in the context of the Roman architecture in race (Ivanov 1971, 40); for the territory of Bulgaria, similar spacers are known from the context of the Roman house in Nicopolis ad Istrum (Poulter 1995, 190), baths in Novae (Biernacki 2003, 10, fig. 3) and Oescus (Ivanov 1971, 38–41), from the villa rustica near Prisovo (Sultov 1964, 57, fig. 12) or from Kabyle.5 Fig. 4: Aterracoa spacer bobbin. Drawings by V. Doležálková. ARCHITECTURAL STONES e architectural stones discussed in the text include two capitals and one worked stone– possibly abase or acapital, one cylindrical stone, three stone plates and four massive rectangular stones (nos.27–33). e spatial distribution of the architectural stones is depicted on the Map 1. CAPITALS/BASES e most representative, as well as in the context of the detected architecture representing an outlier, is the capital no. 27 made of marble (Fig. 5:27; Pl. 1/3:27). It was brought as arandom find to the museum by locals and besides its approximate allocation to Yurta - Stroyno, we lack any other information about its finding context. e whole capital is 160 mm high; it has asquare lower abacus of 50 mm height and 450 mm aside, echinus of 45 mm height, two annuli and afluted necking. e necking features 20 channels, the endings of arrises are about 5 mm wide. e lower part of the necking revealed an oval dowel hole of 60–65 mm in diameter. e dowel hole is placed symmetrically in the middle of the lower part of the capital. e upper part of the abacus features arectangular dowel hole of 50×30×20 mm, placed asymmetrically in one of the corners of the abacus, only 60 mm far of the nearest edges. On top of that, the abacus has arounded imprint on its top, leÞ symmetrically in its middle by acolumn of 390 mm in diameter. 5 Personal observation of unpublished materials deposited in the archive of the archaeological base in Kabile. 79SHEDDING LIGHT ON ARCHITECTURE OF ROMAN RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN THRACE e symmetrically placed dowel hole on the lower part of the necking points to its utilization as acapital. e asymmetric dowel hole and the imprint of the column on the top of the capital are rather puzzling and point to its secondary or tertiary utilization. e imprint suggests the capital was used as abase supporting acolumn. e rectangular dowel hole asymmetrically placed in its corner, however, does not comport this way of utilisation. It is likely the stone had adifferent function and even ashape in the first place, and it was later worked to the capital and at some point reused as abase. e surface of the capital is even and smoothed, with no visible traces of picking. e channels on the necking as well as the arises are regularly placed and well worked. e fine execution of the capital is an outlier within the architecture components hitherto detected in Yurta - Stroyno. Based on the typology outlined by Dimitrov, it is aRoman - Doric capital Type 1 with fluted shaÞ (Dimitrov 2004, 221–222), one of the earliest details connected with Roman architecture and appearing in race by the end of the 1st and beginning of the 2nd c. AD. Its utilization is typical in the context of domestic architecture. Adirect parallel was found at the villa situated amere 1.5 km south of Yurta-Stroyno, in the territory of St. Iliya (Agre – Dichev – Christov 2022),6 at the villa rustica near Chatalka (Dimitrov 2004, 222, fig. 42) or in the early phases of the Roman forum in the city of Philippopolis (Dzhambov– Mateev 1978, fig. 8; 1979, 52, 6 Photo of the capital was presented at the yearly archaeological reports (otcheti) on March 3rd 2022 by D. Agre. Map 1: Spatial distribution of architectural stones. 80 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT fig. 10), the laer two dated to the 2nd half of the 1st century AD. Diocletianopolis revealed the latest examples, dated to the 2nd–3rd century AD and found as spolia in the Late Antique basilica (Tsonchev, 1956, 144–145, nos. 2–7). More parallels can be seen in Moesia Inferior, including villa Madara (Dremsizova 1984, 83–85, 113), military camps situated along the Danube River in Oescus, Durostorum and inland cities Abritus and Marcianopolis(Dimitrov 2004, 221–222). e other two pieces of architecture nos. 28 and 29 were found during the systematic surface survey in the north - eastern part of the examined territory, in the south - eastern sector of the square D13, lying next to each other within the robbers’ soil (Weissová – Tušlová– Bakardzhiev 2022, map 5). No. 28 might be clearly identified as acapital, but the fragmentation of no. 29 does not allow for aclear identification of its function, leaving us with two possible interpretations, either as acapital, or as abase. e capital no. 28 (Fig. 5:28; Pl. 1/3:28) is made of micrite (Haubenthal 2022, no. 2,tab.1:2). It is 137 mm high; the square lower abacus measures 58 mm, with ca. 280 mm aside, 7 the echinus is 38 mm high, with no annuli between the echinus and the necking. e necking is 40 mm high and smooth, i.e. without any channels. e diameter of the necking is 230 mm. No dowel holes were detected. e echinus is largely destroyed but the abacus preserved its original surface. It is worked by picking and does not feature any traces of smoothing. e uneven surface might have been covered with alayer of stucco in order to upliÞ the appearance of the capital. However, the rough working could be also ascribed to the common trend appearing during the 2nd and the 3rd century AD in Moesia and race described by Petrova (1990, 10) as degeneration of the capitals. e trend includes very schematic and unfinished working as well as subsequent reduction of the numbers of annuli, scaled down to aslightly concave line dividing echinus and abacus, as it also appears in case of the capital no. 28. Petrova’stypology (1999, 8–16) of Roman - Doric capitals from Moesia and race allows classification of no. 28 as Type 1– aRoman - Doric capital with smooth echinus. Based on Dimitrov’stypology (2004, 221), it is a‘simplified version of the Roman - Doric Type 1’, also called the classic Doric capital. is type of capital is used in the domestic architecture. Whilst featuring analogical shapes, the available parallels are considerably larger in their sizes, especially in the width. For instance, the capital found in Philippopolis (Botusharova 1960, 88), although at first sight identical in shape, has the abacus of 400 mm aside, i.e. 120 mm (30%) more than in the case of the capital from Yurta - Stroyno. Asimilar piece of architecture was found in Kabile, situated some 34 km north of Yurta - Stroyno and, albeit exhibited as abase in the exhibit of the Museum of Archaeological Park of racian and Ancient City of Kabile, it represents asuitable parallel to no. 28. e height of the fragment is 200 mm, its abacus measures 360 mm aside and the diameter of the ‘necking’ is 310 mm. Even though the difference is not as large as in case of the capital from Philippopolis, it is still quite pronounced. Considering the small size, the lack of dowel holes and the inelegant execution, the function of the capital as one of the main carrying and representative elements is unlikely. It was most likely either partially built in awall or used as asmall capital in some kind of abalustrade (Petrova 1990, 10). Leaving aside the size of the capital no. 28, parallels to its form from the Lower Danube are dated to the Antonine and Severan dynasties, i.e. to the 2nd century and the 1st half of the 3rd century AD (Dimitrov 2004, 131). e third discussed piece of architecture no. 29 (Fig. 5:29; Pl. 1/3:29) found in Yurta- -Stroyno is represented by arelatively small fragment, which makes its identification rather 7 e measurement is reconstructed based on the preserved fragment of the abacus (135×150 mm) and remaining parts of the capital (by Věra Doležálková). 81SHEDDING LIGHT ON ARCHITECTURE OF ROMAN RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN THRACE difficult. e worked piece of marble (Haubenthal 2022, no. 1, tab.1:1) might be interpreted as apart of an echinus, although some kind of base is not excluded. e ‘upper part’ of the stone has apreserved roughly worked surface, which points to the fact that the expected abacus was not part of the piece. e lower part is broken off. e only measurement is the preserved height and the maximum diameter, which is possible to reconstruct. e height equals 145 mm and the diameter is 360 mm, the lower part narrows down to about 205–210 mm. Although it is broken, it seems logical the necking was not much smaller in diameter than the preserved piece; expectedly narrowing down to about 200 mm. Despite lacking direct parallels, the size of the capital is also smaller than usual proportions and might fulfil similar functions as the capital no. 28 discussed above. e petrographic analysis confirmed local origin of the stones nos. 28 and 29, possible to be ascribed to the Kamenets Quarry situated about 8 km north - east of Yurta - Stroyo or to any other quarry exploiting the local massive of Triassic marbles and (metamorphic) limestones in the vicinity of the site (Haubenthal 2022, map 1). CYLINDRICAL STONE e cylindrical piece of marble no. 30 (Haubenthal 2022, no. 3, tab.1:3) is 370 mm in diameter, and it is 400 mm high (Pl. 1/3:30). As it is relatively short, the piece represents asingle drum of column or some kind of supporting element within the architecture. e surface is only very roughly worked which suggests it was either covered with stucco, used as abarely visible self - standing plinth, or it is an unfinished product, aprefabricate coming directly from the quarry. e column does not feature handling bosses, but traces of possible grips in the midst of the drum. e lack of dowel holes might be ascribed to its unfinished state, or to afact it was meant to be partially built in the wall8 or self - standing and not securely connected with other stones as expected in case of adrum. STONE PLATES e assemblage revealed three fragments of well worked stone plates, most likely used as stone cladding for an embellishment of the interior (Tab.5:31–33; Pl. 1/3:31–33). eir original measurements are not preserved; the largest piece has mere 102×68 mm (no. 32). e only informative size is their thickness, varying between 7 (no. 31), 15 (no. 32) and 21 (no. 33) mm. Especially the no. 31 is to be pointed out, as it is very well worked and due to its small thickness alile translucent. Given its translucency, it could be also connected with an illuminating function. No. 33 is thick enough to be used as aflooring. e materials were analysed by the naked eye only and can be generally determined as marblelike stones. 8 Similar as in the case of the syenite columns identified in the residential complex in Philippopolis (Kesyakova 1998, 164; 1999, 89). No. Yurta-Stroyno # SU Sect. Height of frg. Abacus h. / side l. Echinus h. / max d. Necking h. / d. 27 × × × 160 50 / 450 45 / 450 50 / 340 28 SY16_AS_002 D13 SE 137 58 / 280 38 / 280 40 / 230 29 SY16_AS_001 D13 SE 145 × 145 / 360 × Tab.4: Capitals/bases. All measurements in millimetres; h. = height, l. = length, d. = diameter. 82 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Fig. 5: Capitals/base; no. 27: Roman-Doric capital Type 1; no. 28: simplified version of Roman-Doric capital Type 1; no. 29: capital or base. Drawings by V. Doležálková. 83SHEDDING LIGHT ON ARCHITECTURE OF ROMAN RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN THRACE MASSIVE RECTANGULAR STONES e architectural elements detected on the selement also include four massive rectangular stones with measurements spanning from 60×45×32 cm to 90×70×33 cm. ese were found on the surface both in the northern and southern limits of the investigated area. e stones with rough dressing are unevenly worked by picking; none of them revealed traces of handling bosses, grips or lewis holes, common in the case of larger stones to enable their moving (Adam 2001, 48–50). e micritic matrix, microscopically analysed for one of the blocks, points to their local origin (Haubenthal 2022, no. 5, tab.1:5). Although the stones are apparently missing their original contexts, their size, lack of splendour and especially great weight prompts one to assume they were not moved far away from their original finding places. ey seem to be inherent parts of the common architecture, most likely used in foundations or for outlining the corners of the buildings in order to increase their stability. DISCUSSION e detected ceramic and stone building materials allowed us to understand the basic techniques and forms used for the construction of the houses in Yurta - Stroyno. e materials revealed from the excavation (Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2022), as well as from the surface survey (Weissová– Tušlová –Bakardzhiev 2022), confirmed the utilization of opus craticium as the main building technique, i.e. the stone foundations with upper walls made of half - timbered adobe construction. is technique leaves us with some questions concerning the utilization of the detected bricks, as they are not an inherent part of the walls and must have been connected with other functions. e bricks, and especially the pedales, can be interpreted as parts of flooring. However, some of them revealed clear traces of mortar on their upper surfaces, which points to their utilisation in some construction, possibly as bases or caps for pilae in hypocaustum. e existence of the spacer bobbin and the sesquipedalis comports this theory. is implies that some of the houses were equipped with afloor and wall heating or, even, that the selement had abath. e hypothesis is also supported by fragments of windowpanes identified at the selement (Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022, tab.6:22–27). Although the amount of the finds suggesting the existence of aheated floor is rather minimal, the spacer bobbin clearly points to an existence of the wall heating, as it had no other functions within the Roman architecture. e marblelike plates might also be connected with the heated rooms, serving as flooring and coatings of the walls. e dispersion and scarcity of the finds connected with the hypocaustum can be explained by acollapse of the heating system / bath already during antiquity and by the utilization of the debris when levelling the surface in the area of the house or even of some parts of the selement. Such No. Yurta-Stroyno # SU Trench Sect. w. × l. th. 31 SF15_167 SU001 95E_100N × 46×62 7 32 SY14_AS_001 SU001 × × 102×68 15 33 SY15_AS_001 SU059 100E_105N NE 91×88 21 Tab.5: Marblelike stone plates. All measurements in millimetres; w. = width, l. = length, th. = thickness. 84 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT alevelling layer was confirmed during the excavations of the house courtyard (Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2018, 197; Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2022). In order to completely reconstruct the hypocaustum, the detected assemblage is missing bessales, bricks usually used to build the pilae. e absence of bessales might be simply explained by the deficiency of the collected material, but it is highly improbable, since the systematic survey covered most of the site, and its focus was the identification of different types of architectural ceramics. More likely, the pilae were built from alternative materials. Out of the occurrences listed by Brodribb (1987, 93–95), the utilisation of two imbrices joined together and filled with mortar, such as in Rockbourne, might be considered. e large semi - oval imbrices (Type 1c) would serve the purpose. Further, searching in the regional parallels, villa Armira (Kabakchieva 2009), Hisar and Oescus (Ivanov 1971, 29–31) revealed ahypocaust support system built from pipes. is identification would explain the particular occurrence of the pipe no. 25, which, with its straight top, uniform thickness and tempered clay, would offer astable support for the heated floor. Such supports had small openings which cannot be proved or disproved in the case of the pipe no. 25, as the fragment is too small.9Pilae made from pipes or imbrices were less stable than the ones made from bricks, which supports the theory of the early collapse of the heating. Some of the bricks in the assemblage were entirely burnt, almost vitrified. is might have happened either during the initial firing, destruction, or utilization in high temperatures. In the case of the laer, it is possible the bricks were parts of hearths or kilns. Among puzzling finds are the capitals/bases nos. 28 and 29 and the shaÞ of the column no. 30 detected on the site during the SAP. Although Dimitrov (2012, 128) connects the utilisation of the ‘simplified version of the Roman - Doric Type 1’ (no. 28) with Roman selers who use it for simple and much easier decoration of the main buildings in the legionary camps and military sites, the pieces nos. 28 and 29 can be rather interpreted as parts of the common dwellings such as the excavated house (c.f. Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2022). e reason is their small size, roughly worked surface and their singularity. However, without further excavations revealing more types of structures and architectural components at the site, the interpretation remains amere theory, lacking more solid evidence. Although only the capital no. 28 can be based on its stylistic analysis assigned to the ‘simplified version of the Roman - Doric Type 1’, and as such dated to the 2nd century and the 1st half of the 3rd century AD, Isuggest dating the remaining capital/base no. 29 to the time span between the 2nd and 3rd century AD based on its rough execution, comporting with the trend of the degeneration of capitals in this period (Petrova 1990, 10). Areal outlier in the whole group of the discussed finds represents the Roman Doric capital Type 1 (no. 27) with afluted shaÞ with parallels from the villa rustica in Chatalka dated to the 2nd half of the 1st century AD. Considering its fine execution, especially when compared with the other two capitals/bases nos. 28 and 29, and its early dating, the direct connection with the site is rather improbable. Since it was brought by the locals to the museum, the false ascription to Yurta - Stroyno is possible. Adirect parallel to the capital had been recently (in 2021) found at the villa at St. Iliya located 1.5 km south from Yurta-Stroyno. We may consequently presume it is rather related to that selement than to Yurta-Stroyno (Agre– Dichev– Hristov 2015, 208–211; Dichev 2018, 724–726; Agre – Dichev – Hristov 2022). According to the investigators, the villa has two dated construction phases: 13/12 BC– AD 12 and the end of the 1st and the 2nd c. 9ere is, however, one ceramic fragment with acut rectangular hole which was processed together with the poery, and which is interpreted as afenestrated window (Tušlová 2022). In theory, this piece could be identified as well as part of the terracoa pipe used for hypocaustum. 85SHEDDING LIGHT ON ARCHITECTURE OF ROMAN RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN THRACE AD, and– in the case that we follow this scenario– the capital could be part of its 2nd construction phase. Last but not least, the capital might be also connected with aburial mound. An analogy to this interpretation represent the findings from the Kral Mezar tumulus, situated some 3.5 km north - west of Stroyno village. Apart from three grave constructions, the mound revealed abase, acolumn, and aDoric capital, interpreted as remains of acommemorative monument (Agre– Christov 2016, 303; Agre– Dichev– Agre 2019, 687). In any case, the capital could have been brought from asite in the vicinity and used as aspolium in Yurta - Stroyno already during antiquity. e combination of the symmetrical dowel hole in the shaÞ, the asymmetrical rectangular dowel hole, as well as the imprint of acolumn on the top of the abacus point to the secondary or even tertiary utilisation of the capital, opening possibilities for many other theories connected with its utilisation. Particular finds, occurring independent of the outlined typologies of the architectural ceramics, are bricks and tiles with impressions and imprints. ey do not only represent entertaining discoveries and enjoy great popularity among excavators, but they also provide knowledge about animals and their activities around human habitations and production centres (Bar - Oz– Tepper 2010, 244). Based on the animal impressions, several domestic as well as wild animals could be identified at the production site, including dogs and/or foxes (nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12), sheep or goats (nos. 13, 14, 15 and possibly 17 and 18), and pigs (no.16 and possibly nos. 17 and 18). e presence of these animals at Yurta - Stroyno, except the fox, was aested by the analysis of animal bones (Nývltová Fišáková 2022, tab.3). However, we do not have any basis on which we could prove the production of architectural ceramics at the selement. An appealing find is represented by seven imprints of an artificial stamp, imitating feet of some waterfowl (no. 21). ere does not seem to be any meaningful reason for using this stamp intentionally regarding the manufacture purposes. Its creation might be rather interpreted as aconsequence of agame and playing at the place of the ceramic production, as the human (leisure) presence around the workshop is also well aested by other imprints– the feet (no. 19) and the hand (no. 20). CONCLUSION Notwithstanding the large amounts of analysed materials of architectural ceramics and stones detected at Yurta - Stroyno, they appeared to be considerably uniform. Consequently, the study offers arelatively limited number of architectural types, possible to be defined at the selement. e typical type of architecture detected during the excavation and based on the survey also all around the selement are dwellings built in the technique of opus craticium, i.e. using unworked stones for the foundations and half - timbered adobe constructions for the walls. is type of architecture is confirmed by considerably small amounts of bricks detected between the architectural ceramics. Constructions for gable roofs were made of wooden beams and covered with Laconian tiles, using the tegula and imbrex system. e houses were equipped with drainage systems, as witnessed by the pipes found in situ in Room D of the excavated house as well as by the dispersion of pipe fragments within the illicit heaps all around the surface of the site. Some of the examined bricks were entirely burnt, either during initial firing, destruction, or due to their utilization in high temperatures. e laer points to the anyway inevitable existence of hearths or kilns on the site. Besides the relatively uniform architecture, the assemblage revealed an appealing group of finds which point to the existence of aheated floor and wall situated somewhere within 86 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT the selement, with the precise location remaining unknown. As the finds are randomly distributed all around the site, it is probable the building was destroyed already during antiquity and the debris became part of the levelling layer. e evidence includes pedales, one sesquipedalis, one spacer bobbin, three fragments of marblelike plates representing flooring and wall coatings as well as one pipe suitable for the hypocaust column. Despite its scarcity, the finds represent aconvincing collection pointing to abathing facility in Yurta - Stroyno. e survey in the north and north-east part of the site revealed three worked stones represented by two capitals or possibly one capital and one base (nos. 28–29), and one cylindrical stone, feasibly some kind of acolumn or aplinth (no. 30). Especially conspicuous is the rough working of all the pieces, pointing to the possibility they were covered with alayer of stucco in order to upliÞ their outward appearance. As they have only very lile representative character, they were most likely parts of the common dwellings, used for instance in some kind of abalustrade. Due to the bad preservation of the capital/base no. 29, only the capital no. 28 is possible to be determined to the Dimitrov’stype of the ‘simplified version of the Roman - Doric Type 1’. e last piece of architecture assigned to the site is the marble capital no. 27 determined as Dimitrov’sRoman - Doric Type 1, an outlier in the whole collection due to its fine execution. e surface of the capital is even and smoothed, with no visible traces of picking. e channels on the necking as well as the arises are regularly placed and well worked. e capital revealed two dowel holes and one imprint of acolumn, pointing to its utilization in diverse contexts and fulfilling different functions. e aribution of the capital to the site of Yurta - Stroyno is based on the information of locals who brought the capital to the museum. As we were not able to detect any architectural piece of such afine execution during our extensive works in Yurta - Stroyno, the direct connection with the site seems rather improbable. We outlined several possible scenarios explaining the appearance of the capital. It could be assigned to a) the Roman villa situated in the territory of St. Iliya, only 1.5 km south of Yurta - Stroyno, or b) to acommemorative monument situated in the vicinity and entirely destroyed by looters. e utilisation of the capital within the architecture of Yurta - Stroyno is herewith not out of the question, but if so, it seems it was rather brought to the selement and used as aspolium. As for the chronology of the site, the architectural ceramics do not allow for any precise data. e only sensitive material are the two capitals no. 27 and no. 28. e Roman - Doric Type 1 (no. 27) represents one of the earliest details connected with the Roman architecture and based on direct parallels from race (the villa at St. Iliya, villa rustica near Chatalka and early phase of the Roman forum of Philippopolis), it dates from the 2nd half of the 1st century to the 2nd century AD. e ‘simplified version of the Roman - Doric Type 1’ (no. 28) is characteristic for its rough working possibly connected with the degeneration of the capitals appearing as common trend in race during the 2nd and 3rd century AD. Based on the parallels from the territory of Lower Danube, the capital dates to the 2nd century or the 1st half of the 3rd century AD. Taking into account the rough execution of the capital no. 29, it can be approximately dated to the 2nd or 3rd century AD. Considering the fact the chronology of the other dated finds from Yurta - Stroyno (see studies in this volume) spans between the 2nd and 4th century AD, with single finds dated to the 5th–6th century AD, the representative capital of the Roman - Doric Type 1 either belongs to for us an unknown phase of the selement or it was brought to the site from the vicinity of Yurta - Stroyno and used as aspolium. In order to allow for abeer understanding and interpretation of the single finds, similar regional studies of rural selements in race would offer abeer stepping stone for comparative analyses. Ihope to help with this study to arouse more interest in these so far 87SHEDDING LIGHT ON ARCHITECTURE OF ROMAN RURAL SETTLEMENTS IN THRACE rather neglected types of sites, opening new possibilities for our understanding of the Roman architecture within the racian rural landscape. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Iwould like to express my sincere gratitude to Jon Albers (Ruhr University Bochum) for his consultations about puzzling architectural fragments appearing in the assemblage. Iam most grateful to Martin Minařík (Clare Baker’sLab, Cambridge) for his readiness to identify the animal impressions appearing on the bricks and tiles and for giving me afree hand when using his illustrations. Last but not least, Iwould like to thank Věra Doležálková (Institute of Archaeological Conservation, Central Bohemia) and Clarissa Haubenthal (Ruhr University in Bochum) for their help with the drawings. ABBREVIATIONS AB = Archaeologia Bulgarica AJA = American Journal of Archaeology AOR = Археологически открития иразкопки JRS = Journal of Roman Studies SH = Studia Hercynia BIBLIOGRAPHY Adam, J.-P.2001: Roman Building. Materials and techniques. London. Agre– Christov 2016 =Агре, Д.– Христов, Х. 2016: Спасителни археологически проучвания на могила Крал Мезар вземлището на с. Бояново, общ. Елхово. AOR през 2015 г., 301–303. Agre– Dichev– Hristov 2015 = Агре, Д.– Дичев, Д.– Христов, Х. 2015: Археологически разкопки на селищен обект вм. Манастирчето– Св. Илия, край с. Стройно, община Елхово. AOR през 2014 г., 208–211. Agre, D.– Dichev, D.– Agre, G. 2019: Roman Balsamarium Shaped as aMale Head in Feline - Skin Cap from the Territory of Southeast Bulgaria. AJA 123, 687–698. Agre – Dichev – Hristov 2021 = Агре, Д. – Дичев, Д. – Христов, Х. 2021: Трако-римски селищен обект в м. Св. Илия в землището на с. Стройно, обш. Елхово. AOR през 2020 г., 875–880. Bakardzhiev 2007 = Бакарджиев, С. 2007: Сондажни археологически проучваня вм. ‘Юрта‘ при с. Стройно, община Елхово, област Ямбол. AOR през 2006 г., 238–241. Bakardzhiev 2008 = Бакарджиев, С. 2007: Сондажни археологически проучваня вм. ‘Юрта‘ при с. Стройно, община Елхово. AOR през 2006 г., 471–473. Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2015: Бакърджиев, С.– Козарев, М. 2015: Спасителни археологически проучвания на антично Селище вм. Юрта, с. Стройно, Община Елхово. AOR през 2014 г., 570–572. Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2016 = Бакърджиев, С.– Козарев, М. 2016: Едовни археологически проучвания на антично селище вм. Юрта, с. Стройно, общ. Елхово. AOR през 2015 г., 633–635. Bakardzhiev– Kozarev 2017 = Бакърджиев, С.– Козарев, М. 2017: Редовни археологически проучвания на антично селище вм. Юрта, с. Стройно, Общ. Елхово. AOR през 2016 г., 450–453. 94 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT ROTARY QUERNS Rotary querns consist of two circular stones. e upper stone, or catillus, and the lower stone, or meta. e catillus has acentral perforation (eye) through which it is assembled with the lower stone by means of aspindle, sometimes fixed with arynd (Moritz 1958, 103–121; Anderson– Scarrow– Cambeses 2014, 111; Haukenetal. 2015, 35). e rotary querns / hand - mills appear in Europe during the 5 th century BC (Alonso Martínez 1997, 15–19; Jaccottey etal. 2013, 407–408, fig. 2). Unlike most other artefacts found during archaeological excavations, the rotary querns had not been subjected to rigorous typological classification until the beginning of the 21st century. Only with the establishment of the ‘Groupe Meule’5 in France in 2005, this gap started to be slowly filled in, although the geographical focus of the team are the regions of France. Based on acomprehensive study of numerous assemblages from all over Europe, Peacock (2013a, 54–71) determined four distinctive and geographically limited groups of rotary querns appearing during the Late Iron Age. e groups are defined by the shape of the upper stone and include Cylindrical, Hemispherical, Iberian and Conical types. e Conical type should be characteristic for the examined territory, as it is determined as the representative for the area of Eastern Europe, including the Aegean area and the Black Sea region. At this point, it is necessary to stress one issue; none of the examples D. Peacock bases the geographic division on come from the territory of Bulgaria. However, we rather ascribe the deficiency to the lack of the published material, as demonstrated above, than to the lack of Conical catilli in Bulgaria. e morphology of Roman rotary querns has hitherto not been analysed in asimilar way. D. Peacock (2013a, 72–76), however, noted that the appearance of rotary querns during the Roman period was in adirect dependency on their antecedents, following the regional differences emerging during the Late Iron Age. is implies the Conical type should be representative for the examined territory also during the Roman period. At the same time, several distinctive changes characteristic for the Roman production appear throughout all the regional groups. In particular, the querns are significantly flaer and larger in diameter,6 with the rynd placed on the top of the catillus. With regard to the changes outlined for the Roman period, we use Peacock’sgeneral grouping of the shapes of catilli, as his work represents the only comprehensive typology including Eastern Europe. For amore detailed subdivision, we further apply the typology developed by Staubitz (2007) who uses as adistinctive characteristic the profiling of the upper surfaces of catilli. Although Staubitz’swork is based solely on finds from the Late Celtic oppidum Heidetränk in the Taunus hills (Western Germany),7 the results comport with classifiable features in our assemblage. e types introduced by 5 ‘Groupe Meule’ project focuses on the establishment of the methodological approaches (glossary, drawing standards, etc.) when processing grinding tools dated to the broad time - span from the Neolithic period to the Medieval period. For rotary querns in particular, see Groupe Meule 2014, 178–180. 6 In general, see Peacock (2013a). Particular numbers are in direct dependency on the regional development. For instance, see astudy examining rotary querns from France which clearly demonstrates the growth of the diameters between the end of the Gallic period (La Tène D1) and the Medieval period (the assemblage dates latest to the 7th century AD). e edge measurements of the rotary querns are 300 and 500 mm in diameter (Jaccottey etal. 2011, 291–298). 7 e presented querns are divided using the same descriptive criteria, however, we do not use the types A–D as introduced by Staubitz, as they were developed and fully apply for Celtic querns of rather cylindrical shapes. 95THE MILLING EQUIPMENT Staubitz include catilli without arim (A), with asloping rim (B), with aflat rim (C) and with aflat upper surface and no rim (D). In general, two kinds of stones were used for the production of the rotary querns in the assemblage from Yurta - Stroyno: andesite8 (Pl. 2/2:2, 3, 7, and 10), avolcanic material; and sandstone (Pl. 2/2:4–6 and 2:8), asedimentary material. e only outlier represents the catillus no. 9 (Pl. 2/2:9), of a(quartz) schist and, thus, ametamorphic derivative of sedimentary rocks (Vinx 2015, 387–390).9 All the fragments of rotary querns are parts of catilli; the collection revealed six Conical, two Hemispherical and one Cylindrical upper stone. e Conical querns are represented by two fragments without arim (Fig. 2:2–3) and four with asloping rim (Fig. 2:4–7). e Hemispherical catilli encompass one without arim (Fig. 2:8) and one with aflat rim (Fig. 2:9). Finally, the single representant of Cylindrical upper stones has aflat rim10 (Fig. 2:10). Diameters of the querns from Yurta - Stroyno vary between 350 and 470 mm, heights between 67 and 109 mm; both dimensions were measured at their maximal extent. Five of the catilli, four Conical and one Cylindrical (Tabs. 1/2:4–7, 10), have rims with the width varying between 24 and 28 mm, one Hemispherical fragment (Tabs. 1/2:9) revealed aflat rim of 66 mm. Two Conical (Tabs. 1/2:2, 4) and one Cylindrical upper stone (Tabs. 1/2:10) have preserved rynd holes on the top. One of the rynd holes (Pl. 2/2:4) is perforated through the entire upper stone. Four of the querns feature asocket for the handle; three Conical (Fig. 2:3–5) have the socket varying between 16 and 24 mm in diameter and situated on the side, one Hemispherical catillus (Fig. 2:8) revealed the socket on its top. Finally, diameters of two of the fragments (Fig. 2:2, 3) are fully preserved as the fragments include the eye of the catillus. In regard to their diameters, the upper stones worked of andesite (Tabs. 1/2:2, 3, 7, and 10) range between 370–450 mm, while those worked of sandstone (Tabs. 1/2:4, 5, 6 and 8) show alarger range between 350–470 mm. As for the shapes, none of the basic types with more than one representative is restricted to one raw material. e Conical catilli are worked either of the volcanic (Tabs. 1/2:2, 3 and 7) or of the sedimentary material (Tabs. 1/2:4–6) and the Hemispherical catilli are represented by one fragment of sandstone(Tabs. 1/2:8)and one made of (quartz) schist (Tabs. 1/2:9). All the rotary querns are very worn and their working surfaces do not feature any remains of dressing (see Pl. 2/2, esp. nos. 6 and 9 with lower surfaces represented). Relatively large diameters and small heights of the querns in the assemblage indicate their dating to the Roman period.11 Two of the analysed rotary querns (nos. 3 and 6) were detected as spolia in the walls of the excavated house which gives them deposition date around AD 218 or later, as the terminus ante quem. e reutilisation of rotary querns as building material in Yurta - Stroyno was for the first time observed already during the rescue excavations in 2006 (Bakardzhiev 2007, 239, fig. 2). 8 e fragments were defined as andesite due to both their light - coloured matrix (compared to fragment no. 11, avesicular basalt), and their porphyritic appearance. However, due to the weathered state of the fragments, some interferences on the observations cannot be excluded. 9 For adetailed study on the types of the identified stones, see Haubenthal 2022. 10 e same type of quern stone was found in Slomer, Veliko Tarnovo District, now part of the exposition of the Archaeological Museum in Sofia. For photo, see Ivanov– von Bülow 2008, 80. 11 For comparison, see Conical rotary querns dated from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD found in Romania and referred to as Dacian mill (Peacock 2013a, 70–71), the direct predecessor of the rotary querns in the examined area. eir measurements vary between 320–332 mm in diameter and 112–156 mm in height (Stanciu 1992). 96 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Fig. 2: Rotary querns; nos. 2–3: Conical catilli without rim; nos. 4–7: Conical catilli with sloping rim; no. 8: Hemispherical catillus without rim; no. 9: Hemispherical catillus with flat rim; no. 10: Cylindrical catillus with rim. Drawings by V. Doležálková. SEGMENTED MILL Segmented or composite mills are characterised by volcanic material and, based on shapes and numbers of the segments, they can be divided into three distinctive groups (Peacock 2013b, 154–157). e way how these mills functioned is not entirely clear and provokes an ongoing discussion among researchers, offering anumber of possible reconstructions (Storck– Teague 1952, fig. 40; Brunet 1997, 30–31, figs. 2, 3; Peacock 2013, 158–160; Chaigneau 2017, 443, fig. 6). e reasons for the segmentation of the stones have not been unambiguously determined yet. M. Brunet (1997, 33–35) compellingly argues for the partition to be aributed to the simplification of the manufacturing process and refutes Deonna’stheory (1938, 135), who saw in the segmentation atool for facilitating the transport. e maintenance is also astrong argument, as the segmentation allowed for the replacement of aparticular piece when broken, without the necessity to replace the whole mill (Chaigneau 2017, 446). e chronology is broad, as the mills appear in the contexts dated from the 3rd century BC (Runnels 1981, 134) to the 5th century AD (Maxfield– Peacock 2001). When compared with other milling tools, the segmented mills are relatively rare. ey were so far encountered only in Greece, Central Mediterranean and Egypt (Chaigneau 2017, 439–440, fig. 1). eir rareness, rather than an outcome of their limited use, can be ascribed to the 97THE MILLING EQUIPMENT difficulty to recognise these mills when disaggregated (Peacock 2013b, 162).12 Based on the finds from Delos, this mill was not used in domestic seings but in bakeries (Deonna 1938, 135; Brunet 1997, 36). e fragment no. 11 (Fig. 3:11; Pl. 2/1:11), adistinctive tapered slab of basalt, avesicular volcanic rock, represents aunique find in the assemblage. Based on its careful study and comparative analysis, it is an inner stone of asegmented mill Type 1 (aÞer Peacock 2013a, 97; 2013b, 154–155, fig. 1.c). e slab is 220 mm wide at its broadest end and the preserved length is 275 mm. e broken end narrows down to 200 mm. e broad end has around fixing hole of about 27 mm in diameter and 70 mm in depth.13 Fig. 3: Segmented mill; no. 11: inner stone represented by atapered slab. Drawings by V. Doležálková. MORTARIA Mortaria consist of an open vessel and apestle which is used for crushing or pounding diverse foodstuffs as well as processing and mixing other maers,14 depending on the shape, material and size of both of the parts (Moritz 1958, 22–28). 12 In the first place, we interpreted the fragment as arubber characterised by aback - and - forth motion, with one side handle socket preserved. Our interpretation anticipated one more handle on the opposite side to enable its operation. is reconstruction, however, encountered several problems including the impractical trapezoid shape and the immense weight of the fragment. ese peculiarities, as they introduce aperfect fit with trapezoidal slabs used as inner stones of segmented mills, made us change the interpretation of the fragment. 13 Compare with measurements of tapered slabs belonging to Delian segmented mills Type 1 found in Delos: the length equals 300 mm, the width 200 mm, the tapering end narrows down to 150 mm, round holes on both ends are 25 mm in diameter and 40 mm in depth (Peacock 2013b, 154). 14 Besides grain (see Plin. NH. 35.25 or Ath. 3.100), the ancient literary sources mention foodstuffs such as dried fish (Hdt. 1.200.1) and meals made from diverse ingredients, all pounded together in amortar (Ath. 9.70; Ath. 14.57). Other materials include drugs and pigments (Plin. NH. 36.43), me- 98 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT e assemblage revealed three fragments of stone mortaria. Two (nos. 12 and 13) are represented by apart of arim with an aached body. As the booms are missing, the preserved lengths of the fragments allow for establishing the minimal depth of each of the vessels. Unlike the somewhat massive and roughly worked fragments nos. 12 and 13, the third piece of mortar no. 14 is represented by avery fine worked handle. e handle revealed no remains of the body but arim which allows for establishing the thickness of the mortar wall and its approximate diameter. e mortar fragment no. 12 (Fig. 4:12; Pl. 2/3:12) was made of amicritic carbonate mudstone (Haubenthal 2022, no. 6, tab.1:6). It has aconical shape with the maximal inner diameter of 117 mm and the minimal depth of 107 mm. e relatively small diameter and tapering shape point to its primary function represented by pounding rather than rubbing, with an up and down motion prevailing (Storck– Teague 1952, 43–44). e inner wall revealed very worn traces of possible furrows. e mortar fragment no. 13 (Fig. 4:13; Pl. 2/3:13), created from apyroclast, represents an open mortar with 360–365 mm of an inner diameter and minimal depth of 141 mm. e inner side revealed clear traces of parallel furrows (see the detail in Pl. 2/3:13). e shape, size and dicaments (Plin. NH. 33.34; 34.23; 34.50; 34.51), poisons (Plut. De Iside 46), colours (Plin. NH. 33.26; 35.25) and metals (Plin. NH. 33.35; 34.26; 34.50; 34.51). Fig. 4: Mortaria; no. 12: conical mortarium; 13: open form of mortarium; 14: horizontal handle aached to mortarium of an open form. Drawings by M. Kellová & V. Doležálková. 99THE MILLING EQUIPMENT dressing of the mortar point to its utilization for rubbing rather than pounding, allowing for an indiscriminate motion within the considerably large vessel (Storck– Teague 1952, 43–44). e mortar handle no. 14 (Fig. 4:14; Pl. 2/3:14) is made of awhite marble and it repre - sents afragment of very fine production, an outlier in the whole collection of the milling equipment. It looks like asmall acroterion and as such it was also published in the excavation report from the season in 2015 (Tušlová etal. 2015, 246, pl. 10/2:3). However, based on the regional parallels from Kabyle (unpublished mortar at the archaeological base in Kabile), 15 Kirilovo (Stara Zagora District)16 and Nicopolis ad Istrum (Poulter 1995, 198), it represents one of three horizontal handles, which together with aspout, symmetrically placed on the rim, lined the mortaria edges. e mortarium had the shape of an open bowl with diameter approximately established between 470 and 480 mm. Due to its outstanding treatment and material, it is highly probable this mortarium was not connected with the reduction of grain. References to its possible functions can be traced in ancient literary sources, mentioning the utilisation of mortaria when preparing medicaments (Paus. 5.18.2.; Cels. 5.24), poisons or herbal potions (Plut. De Iside 46). DISCUSSION e milling equipment found in Yurta - Stroyno, although heterogeneous in represented shapes and ways of utilization, features several common characteristics. None of the analysed querns is chronologically sensitive 17 and it implies that all of them might have been in use during any time of the existence of the selement. Only two fragments of the rotary querns (nos. 3 and6), as they were found as spolia in the walls of the house, were clearly used and destroyed before the house was built. In general, the state of preservation of all the finds suggests that they had been destroyed during their utilization and thrown away or reused already in antiquity. For instance, all the rotary querns are fragments of considerably worn catilli: as upper stones were much more frequently subjects of destruction during milling than the lower stones, it was common to replace the catillus whilst the meta remained in use. Accordingly, the mortaria nos. 12 and 13 have their booms missing, the most common place of wear and final break off in the case of this milling tool. e narrow end of the slab from the segmented mill no. 11 is also missing. e classification of rotary querns comports with the typology suggested by D. Peacock (2013a, 70–71) who identified the Conical group as typical for the Eastern Mediterranean. Nearly 70% of the rotary querns in the assemblage are indeed Conical and follow the characteristics ascribed to the Roman period. In particular, the catilli identified in the assemblage from Yurta - Stroyno reach the maximal height between 67 and 109 mm and their diameter varies between 350 and 470 mm. 15 Based on personal observations of P.Tušlová at the depository at the Archaeological base in Kabile in 2017. 16 Published online as part of the collection of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences at the time of writing this article, but during revisions, unfortunately, the link as well as the whole server with the collection was not responding. Html: hp://collections.cl.bas.bg/EU/Athena/W0065.html (visited 09/05/2019). 17 Saddle querns and mortaria were the first tools used by humans for grinding, dating back to the Upper Palaeolithic period (Piperino etal. 2004; Alonso– Frankel 2017, 463), rotary querns appeared in the 5th century BC (Peacock 2013a, 37) and segmented mills were first documented during the Hellenistic period (Peacock 2013b, 160–161). All of them were in use during the Roman period. 100 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Considering the find of afragment of abronze military diploma (Boyanov 2006, 235–242; 2008, 208–216) which points to the presence of veterans in Yurta - Stroyno and the fact that arotary quern was an inherent part of the equipment of each single contubernium (Webster 1969, 131–132; Jodry 2011, 87), we may suppose that some of the rotary querns were brought to the site by soldiers. Detailed examination of the assemblage, however, does not confirm this assumption. One of the main characteristics of the rotary querns produced for the army is their standardization. Firstly, the maximum weight of the whole quern should not overreach 30 kg, as it was carried together with 40 kg heavy tent by one mule (Jodry 2011, 87). And, secondly, taking as an example the rotary querns manufactured in the Eifel Mountains (Western Germany), their common characteristic was not only the volcanic material; they all had an average diameter of 400 mm and their height equalled 100 mm (Hörter 1994, 26). is implies that the querns produced for the Roman army should be identifiable based on the correlation between the material and size. Looking at the variety of measurements, morphology and materials detected in the assemblage from Yurta - Stroyno, they do not seem to comport with the Roman standardized production. eir local origin supports the vicinity of all the defined raw materials, including (basaltic) andesite, basalt, marble, micrite, sandstone and (quartz) schist, all in aradius of 10 km around the selement. As the raw materials of the milling stones, except two fragments, were identified by naked eye observation in the field only, the actual sources of the stone are not possible to be defined.18 Although we cannot exclude that the fragments come from different manufacturing places or that only one of them was part of the equipment of the contubernium, we tend to interpret them all as local products since also the materials are locally available. e slab of the segmented mill no. 11 represents an outstanding discovery in the context of Yurta - Stroyno. Not only that it is the first mill of this kind known from the territory, but its presence also indicates links with the Greek world. Last but not least, the segmented mill might also suggest an existence of abakery at the site. CONCLUSION e milling equipment from Yurta - Stroyno revealed aheterogeneous collection including one fragment of asaddle quern (no. 1), nine upper stones of rotary querns (nos. 2–10), one slab of asegmented mill (no. 11) and three mortaria (nos. 12–14). e saddle quern represented in the assemblage is avery worn fragment of metate. e fragment of the originally flat slab made of (basaltic) andesite features certain concavity, most likely developed with its utilisation. is type of milling tool is commonly of alocal production. 18 Aprovenance analysis requires comparative samples from potential sources, as well as scientific analytical methods such as petrographic analysis and diverse (instrumental) geochemical analyses of both the comparative samples and the artefacts (Herz 2001, 449–451). However, amortar no. 12 and the fragment of asegmented mill no. 11 have been analysed using thin - section - analysis (Haubenthal 2022, nos. 6–7, tab.1:6–7). Basalt, the raw material of the fragment no. 11, belongs to the most abundant volcanic rocks with arelatively uniform appearance and the aribution to asource, thus, requires chemical analyses, i.e. wavelength - dispersive X - ray fluorescence analysis (WD XRF) (Williams -Thorpe 1988). e same applies to the micritic fragment no. 12, acarbonate rock; other carbonates, i.e. limestones, have been successfully allocated to their sources using stable isotope analysis (Wenner– Herz 1992) and neutron activation analysis (NAA) (Holmes– Harbottle– Blanc 1994). 101THE MILLING EQUIPMENT Based on the typology of Peacock (2013a), the rotary querns include six Conical, two Hemispherical and one Cylindrical catillus, further diversified using the profiling of their upper faces (Staubitz 2007) to catilli without rim, with sloping rim and with flat rim (see Tab.1). e appearance of the basic shapes comports with the geographic division suggested by Peacock, as the Conical shape is typical for the territory of Eastern Europe. As maximal diameters of the catilli vary between 350 and 470 mm, and heights between 67 and 109 mm, they can with ahigh probability all be dated to the Roman period. Two of them, both of Conical type, were used as spolia in the foundations of the excavated house and thereby their deposition corresponds with the house construction which happened in or aÞer the 20s of the 3rd c. AD. e variety of measurements, morphology and materials detected in the assemblage suggests rather local origin of the milling equipment than the Roman standardized production which could have been brought to Yurta - Stroyno by soldiers as part of their equipment. e material used for the production of catilli includes (basaltic) andesite, sandstone and (quartz) schist. All the stones are available in the vicinity of the selement which allows for their local origin. However, this suggestion was hitherto not examined by further analyses. e basaltic tapered slab represents afragment of one of the inner stones of asegmented mill Type 1 of Peacock and points to the possible existence of abakery at the site. e parallels are known only from Greece, Sicily and Egypt and the existence of asegmented mill in Yurta - Stroyno thus might demonstrate contacts with the Greek world. As the chronology is broad and spans between the 3rd century BC and the 5th century AD, it could have been used during any phase of the selement. e find represents the first detected segmented mill in the territory of Bulgaria. However, this type of mill is easily to be misinterpreted when disaggregated and, as such, Yurta - Stroyno certainly does not represent asingle place in Bulgaria where asegmented mill was used. We hope that the awareness of its possible occurrence in the territory of Bulgaria prompts new studies on segmented mills in the region, enlarging its spatial distribution. e mortaria include one conical and two open vessels. e conical mortarium made of micrite has the maximal inner diameter of 117 mm and the minimal depth of 107 mm. Based on the measurements, the mortarium was used for pounding. e open mortarium made out of pyroclast revealed adiameter between 360 and 365 mm and minimal depth of 141 mm. e inner wall of the fragment shows clear traces of parallel furrows. e measurements of the vessel suggest its utilisation for rubbing. e last mortarium was made of white marble, with supposedly one spout and three rounded handles regularly placed along its rim. e mortarium represents an outlier in the entire collection not only due to the used material, but also due to its fine treatment. Accordingly, the open mortarium with diameter between 470 and 480 mm is suitable for utilisation in arepresentative context and rather than for the reduction of grain, it might have been used for mixing of herbs or medicaments. Although the collection introduced in this article depicts only afraction of the equipment connected with milling activities once used in Yurta - Stroyno, the diversity of the represented types, materials and their morphological variability should serve as ademonstration of the variety of milling tools possible to be found within similar contexts in the territory of the Roman race. 102 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT ABBREVIATIONS AB = Archaeologica Bulgarica AOR = Археологически открития иразкопки BAR = British Archaeological Reports JASc = Journal of Archaeological Science JRS = Journal of Roman Studies JRomPotSt = Journal of Roman Poery Studies SH = Studia Hercynia BIBLIOGRAPHY Ath. = Athenaeus: Deipnosophistae. Transl. C.D. Yonge. e Deipnosophists or Banquet of the Learned I–III (book I.–XV.). Bohn’sClassical Library. London 1854. Cels. = Celsus: De Medicina. Transl. W.G. Spencer. CelsusI. Loeb Classical Library 292. Cambridge Mass. 1935. Hdt. = Herodotus: Historiae. Transl. A.D. Godley. e Persian Wars I(book I.–II.). Loeb Classical Library 117. Cambridge 1920. Plin. NH = Gaius Plinius Secundus: Naturalis Historia. Transl. J. Bostock– H.T. Riley. Pliny the Elder VI (book XXXII.–XXXVII.). Bohn’sClassical Library. London 1855. Paus. = Pausanias: Description of Greece. Books Iand II. Transl. W.H.S. Jones. Loeb Classical Library 93. Cambridge 1918. Plut. De Iside = Plutarch: De Iside. Transl. F.C. Babbi. MoraliaV. Loeb Classical Library 306. Cambridge 1936. Alonso Martínez, N. 1997: Origen y expansión del molino rotavo bajo en el Mediterráneo occidental. In: Garcia– Meeks eds. 1997, 15–28. Alonso, N.– Frankel, R.2017: ASurvey of Ancient Grain Milling Systems in the Mediterranean. In: Fronteau –Lepareux - Couturier– Buchsenschutz eds. 2017, 461–478. Anderson, T.J.– Scarrow, J.H.– Cambeses, A. 2014: Continued Characterisation of Querns and Quern Quarries in Southern Spain. In: Selsing ed. 2014, 111–131. Alonso etal. 2011 = Alonso, N.– Aulinas, M.– Garcia, M.T.– Martin, F.– Prats, G.– Vila, S. 2011: Manufacturing Rotary Querns in the 4th Century BC Fortified Selement of Els Vilars (Arbeca, Catalonia, Spain). In: Peacock– Williams eds. 2011, 55–66. Bakardzhiev 2007 = Бакърджиев, С. 2007: Сондажни археологически проучвания вм. Юрта при с. Стройно, община Елхово, област Ямбол. AOR през 2006 г., 238–241. Boyanov 2006 = Боянов, И. 2006: Римски ветерани от региона Кабиле. In: И. Илиев (ed.): IV Международен симпозиум Поселищен живот вТракия, 9–11 Ноември 2005 г., Ямбол, Кабиле. Ямбол, 235–242. Boyanov, I. 2007: Two Fragments from Military Diplomas in Yambol Museum. AB 11:3, 69–74. Borisov– Gyuleva– Doychev 2016 = Борисов, Б.– Гюлева, Ж.– Дойчев, П. 2016: № 101. Разкопки на ранновизантийското исредновековното селище, северно от с. Караново. АОR през 2015, 621–624. Brunet, M. 1997: Les meules rotatives en Grèce, l’exemple délien. In: Garcia– Meeks eds. 1997, 29–38. Buchsenschutzetal. 2011 = Buchsenschutz, O.– Jaccottey, L.– Jodry, F.– Blanchard, J.L. eds. 2011: Évolution typologique et technique des meules du Néolithique à l’an mille. Actes des IIIe Rencontres Archéologiques de l’Archéosite gaulois. Table ronde de Saint - Julien - sur - Garonne du 2 au 4 octobre 2009, Aquitania supplément 23. Bordeaux. Chaigneau, C. 2017: Le moulin « délien » : apport du corpus de Mégara Hyblaea (Sicile). In: Fronteau –Lepareux - Couturier –Buchsenschutz eds. 2017, 439–447. Cool, N.E.M. 2005: Roman Stone Mortaria– aPreliminary Survey. JRomPotSt 12, 54–58. 103THE MILLING EQUIPMENT Deonna, W. 1938: Le mobilier Délien. Exploration archéologique de Délos 18. Paris. Dimitrov, D.P.– Chichikova, M. 1978: e racian City of Seuthopolis. BAR Supplementary Series 38. Oxford. Dyczek 2016 = Дичек, П. 2016: № 41. Нове. Сектор XII– бараки на Iкохорта на VIII Aвгустов ина iиталийски легион. АОР през 2015, 438–440. Fronteau, G. –Lepareux - Couturier, S.– Buchsenschutz, O. eds. 2017: Les meules du Néolithique à l’époque médiévale: technique, culture, diffusion. Actes 2e colloque du Groupe Meule, Reims, du 15 au 17 mai 2014. Revue archéologique de l’Est Supplément 43. Dijon. Garcia, D.– Meeks, D. eds. 1997: Techniques et économie antiques et médiévales. Le temps de l’innovation. Colloque d’Aix - en - Provence (mai 1996). Paris. Gomolka - Fuchs, G. 1982: Die Kleinfunde vom 4. bis 6. Jh. aus Iatrus. In: B. Bögeretal. (ed.): Iatrus-Krivina. Spätantike Befestigung und frühmiÄelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren DonauII. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1966–1973. Berlin, 149–206. Graefe, J. 2009: Neolithische Mahlsteine zwischen Weserbergland und dem Niederrhein. Bonn. Groupe Meule 2014: Evolution typologique et technique des meules du Néolithique au Moyen Âge en France : le projet « Groupe Meule ». In: N. Alonso (ed.): Reunió Molins imòlta al Mediterrani occidental durant l’edat del ferro. Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent 24, 175–188. Online: hps://raco.cat/index.php/RAP/article/ view/288714 (visited 19/10/2021). Hamon etal. 2011 = Hamon, C.– Farget, V.– Jaccottey, L.– Milleville, A.– Monchablon, C. 2011: Propositions de normes de dessin et d’une grille d’analyse pour l’étude des meules va - et - vient du Néolithique à l’âge du Fer. In: Buchsenschutz etal. 2011, 39–50. Haubenthal, C. 2022: in - Section Analysis of Selected Stone Objects from Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 106–117. Haukenetal. 2015= Hauken, Å.D.– Anderson, T.J.– Meyer, G.B.– Jansen, Ø.– Heldal, T. 2015: Collection Report: Rotary Querns in the Museum of Archaeology, University of Stavanger. NGU - rapport 2014.002. Online: hps://www.ngu.no/upload/Publikasjoner/Rapporter/2014/2014_002.pdf (visited 02/11/2021). Herz, N. 2001: Sourcing Lithic Artifacts by Instrumental Analysis. In: P.Goldberg– V.T. Holliday– C.R. Ferring (eds.): Earth Sciences and Archaeology. New York, 449–469. Heřmánková, P. 2022: e Epigraphic Finds from Yurta-Stroyno in a Regional Context. In: P. Tušlová – B. Weissová – S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 118–132. Hörter, F. 1994: Getreidereiben und Mühlsteine aus der Eifel. Ein Beitrag zur Steinbruchund Mühlengeschichte. Mayen. Holmes, L.L.– Harbottle, G.– Blanc, A. 1994: Compositional Characterization of French Limestone: ANew Tool for Art Historians. Archaeometry 36, 25–38. Ivanov, R.– von Bülow, G. 2008: racia. Eine Röhmische Provinz auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Mainz am Rhein. Ivanovetal. 2016 = Иванов, Р.– Борисова, Т.– Занева, М.– Стайков, В. 2016: № 52. Крепостта Боровец при Правец. АОR през 2015, 473–476. Ivanova, N. 2019: Socioeconomic Implications of Cereal Crop Production in Inland race during the Late Iron Age. Disertacii 13. Sofia. Jaccotteyetal. 2011 = Jaccottey, L.– Jodry, F.– Longepierre, S.– Robin, B. 2011: Chronologie et diamètres des meules à bras à la fin de La Tène et à l’époque antique. In: Buchsenschutz etal. 2011, 291–298. Jaccottey, L.– Farget, V. 2011: Les normes de dessin des meules rotatives. In: Buchsenschutz etal. 2011, 51–68. Jaccottey etal. 2013 = Jaccottey, L.– Alonso, N.– Defressigne, S.– Hamon, C.– Lepareux - Couturier, S.– Brisotto, V.– Galland - Crety, S.– Jodry, F.– Lagadec, J.-P.– Lepaumier, H.– Longepierre, S.– Milleville, A.– Robin, B.– Zaour, N. 2013: Le passage des meules va - et - vient aux meules rotatives en 110 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT sample in PPL and XPL respectively. Numerous roundish vesicles clearly visible as bright white spots in PPL characterize its distinctly fragmental texture (Pl. 3/5:1 and 3). Other components are pyroxene and numerous opaque phases. While the pyroxene crystals appear colourless in PPL (Pl. 3/5:1 and 3) and in bright interference colours (Pl. 3/5:2 and 4), the opaque phases are not translucent and appear black regardless of the microscope’sseings. Subsequently, the laer cannot be determined more specifically without the application of different analysis methods. In the examined sample, they oÞen show an intergrowth with fibrous greenish chlorite (Pl. 3/5:2 and 4). e fragment no. 7, on the other hand, represents avesicular basaltic rock, i.e. porous lava stone (Pl.3/5:5). Its matrix of volcanic glass demonstrates the rapid cooling process of an erupted magma (Vinx 2015, 221). Both the predominantly elongated vesicles and the numerous lath - shaped plagioclase feldspars with amean grain - size of ca.100 μm show apreferential orientation and, thus, emphasize the fluidal structure of the sampled rock (Pl.3/5:6). is is particularly visible where the plagioclase laths follow the outlines of pores or phenocrysts. e second are larger crystals embedded in the glassy groundmass. Pl.3/5:7 and 8 depict an aggregate of such phenocrysts containing twinned plagioclase feldspars (grain - sizes ca. 500 μm to 1.1 mm) that show grey to white interference colours and pyroxene crystals (grain- -sizes ca. 250–700 μm) that are colourless in PPL and appear with bright interference colours. ough less numerous as in the pyroclastic sample above, the lava stone contains opaque phases as well (Pl. 3/5:5–7). THE KAMENETS QUARRY Apart from the excavation and the survey, in 2016 the SAP team also explored and sampled anearby ancient quarrying area in the frame of aone - day pilot study. e area is situated just 8km north - east of the site, south - east of the modern Kamenets village.1 Besides adescription of the geology of the surrounding environment and field observations in the quarrying area this second part of the article includes also abrief petrographic study of its specimens. In Map 1 the distribution of the sampling points and the spatial relations of Yurta - Stroyno and the quarry are illustrated. THE ANCIENT QUARRYING AREA During the prospection of the area the SAP team documented several extraction points characterized by separation trenches and traces of tools such as quarry picks and iron wedges (Fig.1; see also Map 1 for the geographical position of these extraction points). However, since the area is so densely overgrown that the prospection has not revealed any datable finds (Fant 2008, 122) it was impossible to aribute acertain chronology to the quarry. Due to the same reason, the outlined extent of the quarrying area bases solely on the explored surface, i.e. it is possible that the area encompasses further extraction points outside the indicated limits. 1Iwould like to thank Georgi Iliev, the restaurateur from the Regional Historical Museum of Yambol, who kindly showed us the location of the quarry, otherwise very hard to be identified as the whole area is densely overgrown. 111THIN-SECTION ANALYSIS OF SELECTED STONE OBJECTS FROM YURTA-STROYNO Map 1: Map depicting the prospected extent of the Kamenets Quarry and the distribution of the sampling points within this area, as well as the geographical position in relation to Yurta-Stroyno and similar geological structures within a10 km radius around the site (author: B. Weissová; source of geological data: Petrova– Savov– Filipov 1988; Dabowski etal. 1989). 112 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Fig. 1: Working traces within the quarrying area; 1: extraction site showing traces of quarry pick and wedges (photo by C. Haubenthal); 2: separation trench of about 40 cm width (photo by P.Tušlová). 113THIN-SECTION ANALYSIS OF SELECTED STONE OBJECTS FROM YURTA-STROYNO e geological maps indicate marbles and metamorphic limestones for this area (Petrova– Savov– Filipov 1988; Dabowski etal. 1989). is identification fits well to the macroscopic observations in the field: the fine - grained crystalline rock features either whitish to greyish colours with occasional dark reddish veins or the appearance of abreccia composed of the same material within areddish coloured matrix (Pl. 3/6:11–14). KAMENETS SPECIMENS e material of all four quarry samples nos. 11–14 consists of mostly fine - grained, multiply twinned subhedral calcite crystals with arather heterogeneous grain - size distribution and, thus, represents fine - grained marble. e crystal grain - sizes cover the range between 20–200 μm with amgs about 100 μm (Pl. 3/7:1–4). However, no. 13 represents an outlier as it also contains crystals of the MGS 500 μm (Pl. 3/7:5–6). While the structure of the crystal laice is predominantly of agranoblastic character (Pl. 3/7:1–2), in cases of the nos. 12 and 13 the calcite crystals show apreferred elongation direction (Pl. 3/7:3–4). All of the samples feature contents of iron hydroxide– mostly in the shape of conspicuous stylolites (Pl. 3/7:2–3 and esp. 7). In the case of nos. 13 and 14, the structure of the rock appears largely brecciated (Pl. 3/7:7–8). DISCUSSION While apetrographic analysis based on the described features is not sufficient to verify or exclude the investigated quarry as apossible source, this section briefly compares the investigated features in order to provide afirst assessment of the relationship between finds and available resources. However, this discussion can only be preliminary on the basis of the thin - section analyses alone and needs to be confirmed by aprospection of the surrounding area and further (geochemical) analyses (Rapp– Hill 1998, 140; see e.g. Klemm– Klemm 1993, 193–197 on the combination of petrography and induced plasma spectrometry for limestone provenancing). As already indicated by the geological maps (Petrova– Savov– Filipov 1988; Dabowskietal. 1989), the analysis of the specimens from the quarry resulted in identifying all of them as low - grade or fine - grained marbles. Subsequently, acomparative study with the micritic or volcanic samples is obsolete and the following discussion focuses on the marble group. It examines the finds of Yurta - Stroyno (nos. 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9) in the light of the morphological characteristics of the quarry specimens (nos. 11–14). Based on its individual characteristics, the sample of capital no. 1 fits well to the quarry specimens: not only do its grain - sizes cover asimilar range (20–200 μm), it also shares the same mgs (about 20 μm and 100 μm) and the heterogeneous grain - size distribution with the Kamenets specimens. Additionally, the granoblastic structure of the crystal laice partially characterized by apreferred elongation direction and the subhedral shape of the individual crystals are common features. Finally, and although in aminor amount, the sample also contains iron hydroxides same as the quarry specimens. Apart from these, the same applies to the rubble stone no. 4. Both samples might conclusively represent material from the sampled quarry site. While the cylindrical worked stone no. 3 shares most of its characteristics with the aforementioned samples as well as the specimens, it also contains much larger calcite crystals with aMGS of about 1.5 mm. e largest MGS measured for the quarry on specimen no. 13 measures 114 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT merely athird of this size (ca. 500 μm). However, considering the prevailing similarities, the sample no. 3 might originate from the quarry despite its large MGS. e worked stones nos. 8 and 9 represent adifferent case: not only is the range of their respective calcite crystal grain - sizes wider, but they do also both feature larger mgs as well as less or no iron hydroxides as foreign phases respectively (Tab.2). Another common feature of sample nos. 8 and 9 distinguishing them from the other marble samples is their lack of acrystal laice with preferred elongation direction. However, since this is not acommon characteristic of all quarry specimens it is neglected in the course of this discussion. Considering the larger crystals in sample no. 3 (1.0–1.5 mm) and, more importantly, the MGS of specimen no. 13 (500 μm), the worked stones nos. 8 and 9 do not seem to be conspicuous outliers. Nevertheless, their larger mgs of 300 μm (to 400 μm) remains without aparallel among the specimens. As does the total lack of iron hydroxides of worked stone no. 8. While it could be argued that the analysed thin - sections only represent alimited reference Fig. 2: Combined boxplot and violin graph visualising the range of grain sizes, mgs, and MGS of the marble samples as well as of the quarry specimens. 115THIN-SECTION ANALYSIS OF SELECTED STONE OBJECTS FROM YURTA-STROYNO point (Mrozek -Wysocka 2014, 108), the prevailing differences suggest, that samples nos. 8 and 9 at least do not originate from the sampled extraction points and represent rather arelated material. As the dense vegetation might have hindered the identification of all extraction sites at Kamenets as well as blurred the extent of the quarrying area, it is possible that the sampling was not representative for all varieties of the source rock. Moreover, considering the geology of the region (Petrova– Savov– Filipov 1988; Dabowski etal. 1989) other extraction points featuring related material are not unlikely: Map 1 highlights rock structures consisting largely of marbles and/or metamorphic limestones within aradius of only 10 km from Yurta - Stroyno. is map elucidates the possibility of ancient quarries even closer to the site. Asuggestive indicator for the extraction of the sampled marbles at another quarry might be that none of the finds from Yurta - Stroyno represents the breccia widely distributed on the Kamenets Quarry site. CONCLUSION e analyses of the ten sampled stone objects allowed for the identification of their individual rock material corresponding to the three groups a) fine - grained marble, b) micritic carbonate mudstone, and c) volcanic rocks represented by apyroclastic rock and abasaltic lava stone. Particularly for the micritic samples (nos. 2, 5 and 6) and the pyroclastic rock (no.10), the microscopic assessment greatly improved the previous understanding of the raw material based on macorscopic observations. e grouping of the objects by stone type also allows for some more observations: besides the two worked stones of undefined function, the fine - grained marble seems to have principally been used for architectural purposes. In comparison, the functionality of the micritic and volcanic rocks seems to have been more versatile– probably due to their very fine grain - sizes, higher density and hardness. At least one but possibly two micritic samples, the capital and the massive stone (nos. 2 and 5), have been used for architectural purposes. e third micritic sample (no. 6) and the lava stone (no. 7) represent milling equipment. While the functionality of the pyroclastic sample is ambiguous, asimilar utilization seems plausible considering its material properties. Moreover, the microscopic examination confirmed that the sampled quarry south - east of Kamenets exploits (fine - grained / low - grade) marbles. It also allowed acomparative analysis of the quarry specimens and the sampled marble objects of Yurta - Stroyno. Due to the methodology of the thin - section analysis, the question whether the marble artefacts originate from the sampled quarry or not was mainly approached by acomparison of the morphological characteristics of the calcite crystals (e.g. size, shape, structure, twinning) as well as foreign phases. On this basis, it seems highly probable that the samples taken from the capital (no. 1) and from the foundations of the excavated house (no. 4) represent locally sourced material as available in Kamenets Quarry. While the cylindrical worked stone (no. 3) is closely related to the Kamenets material, the two worked stones (nos. 8 and 9) represent rather material from aso far unknown extraction point. However, since the geological map indicates amuch larger area rich on marbles and/or metamorphic limestones in the surroundings of Yurta - Stroyno, the existence of other ancient quarries with asimilar or related material is highly probable. erefore, the identification of the Kamenets Quarry as the source represents one probable scenario rather than an only option. While aprospection for other ancient quarrying activities in the area might shed some more light on the ancient use of the available resources, the future 116 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT application of an intensified microscopy and geochemical analytic methods is essential to liÞ the preliminary discussion of the provenance potential to aproper provenance analysis. e laer would also be beneficial for the micritic and volcanic samples whose provenance could not be further discussed here due to alack of comparative material and analyses. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Iwould like to express my sincere thanks to the supervisors of the Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project, Dr.Barbora Weissová, Dr.Petra Tušlová and Dr.Stefan Bakardzhiev, for giving me the opportunity to take part in the field season of 2016 and process the thin - sections of the stones and thereby contribute to the project, and to Prof.Dr. Bernhard Stöckhert and Caroline ManteyM.Sc. for their help, patience and for providing me with the possibility to prepare the thin - sections and conduct the analyses at the Institute of Geology, Mineralogy and Geophysics of Ruhr - University Bochum. ABBREVIATIONS SH = Studia Hercynia BIBLIOGRAPHY Dabowski etal. 1989 = Дабовски, Хр.– Савов, С.– Чаталов, Г.– Шиляфов, Г. 1994: Геоложка Карта на България. Елхово (K-35-066) 1:100,000. Fant, J.C. 2008, Quarrying and Stoneworking. In: J.P.Oleson (ed.): e Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World. Oxford, 121–135. Klemm, R.– Klemm, D.D. 1993: Steine und Steinbrüche im Alten Ägypten. Berlin. McKenzie, W.S.– Adams, A.E. 1994: AColour Atlas of Rocks and Minerals in in Section. London. McKenzie, W.S.– Donaldson, C.H.– Guilford, C. 1982: Atlas of Igneous Rocks and their Textures. Essex. Mrozek - Wysocka, M. 2014: Ancient Marbles: Provenance Determination by Archaeometric Study. In: D. Michalska– M. Szczepaniak (eds.): Geoscience in Archaeometry. Methods and Case Studies. Poznań, 97–116. Petrova– Savov– Filipov 1988 = Петрова, А.– Савов, С.– Филипов, Л. 1988: Геоложка Карта на България. Ямвол (K-35-054) 1:100,000. Reedy, C.L. 1994: in - Section Petrography in Studies of Cultural Material. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 33:2, 115–129. Tušlová, P. – Weissová, B. – Bakardzhiev, S. 2022: e Final Excavation Report. In: P. Tušlova – B. Weissova– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 24–52. Vinx, R.2015: Gesteinsbestimmung im Gelände. Berlin. Weissová, B. 2022: Shedding Light on Architecture of Roman Rural Selements in race. Ceramic and Stone Building Materials from Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 70–89. 117THIN-SECTION ANALYSIS OF SELECTED STONE OBJECTS FROM YURTA-STROYNO Weissová, B.– Haubenthal, C.– Doležálková, V. 2022: e Milling Equipment. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 90–105. Weissová, B. – Tušlová, P. – Bakardzhiev, S. 2022: Systematic Selective Survey of Yurta-Stroyno. A Methodological Approach to Sites Heavily Disturbed by Looters. In: P. Tušlová – B. Weissová – S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 53–69. Clarissa Haubenthal Ruhr - Universität Bochum Institut für Archäologische WissenschaÞen Am Bergbaumuseum 31, D-44791 Bochum [email protected] 118 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT The Epigraphic Finds from Yurta-Stroyno in aRegional Context Petra Heřmánková ABSTRACT In the past two decades, several epigraphic monuments have been found at the selement of Yurta - Stroyno and its immediate vicinity. eir discovery contributed to the archaeological knowledge of the site but also placed the selement into abroader context of the middle Tundzha River region. is chapter examines in detail three inscriptions associated with the site which were found before 2014, and three objects with epigraphic value and eight graffiti found during the Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project in 2014–2016. e discussion of all 14 epigraphic objects and their regional comparanda are improving our understanding of the selement’scharacter and its links to other sites in the region. Based on the textual evidence from the inscriptions, it seems Yurta - Stroyno and the military camp at Kabyle, located some 34 km north of the settlement were interconnected during the 2nd c. AD by personal and military associations alike. KEYWORDS Bulgaria; race; Kabyle; Greek and Latin inscriptions; epigraphy; regional networks. EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM YURTA-STROYNO Several epigraphic monuments associated with the Roman selement of Yurta - Stroyno were found up to date. ey were reported as individual finds to the Regional Historical Museum of Yambol (RIM) or discovered during the archaeological prospection and excavation of the site conducted by the RIM in 2006–2007, or, most recently, excavated during the Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project (SAP) in 2014–2016. Before SAP, the epigraphic objects found at the site consisted of abronze military diploma fragment, one marble plate fragment depicting ahorse rider, and one marble plate with an inscription mentioning aRoman family Avilius (Bakardzhiev 2008; Boyanov 2007). e items uncovered from the excavations between 2014 and 2016 as part of SAP represent awider variety of finds, either bearing an inscription or providing objects without an inscribed text but showing very similar characteristics with the existing epigraphic monuments from the region. e epigraphic objects uncovered during SAP include amarble plate fragment depicting ahorse rider (Pl. 4/1:3), aterracoa plaque with Greek inscription and relief of atemple (Fig. 1), an inscribed brick (Pl. 4/2), and eight poery sherds containing alphabetic and pictorial graffiti (Fig. 2). For the overview and their archaeological context, see Tab.1 below. e epigraphic finds are divided into groups by their material and discussed together with their parallels from the Roman world. MILITARY DIPLOMA One fragment of aLatin military diploma has been discovered at Yurta - Stroyno and published by Ilian Boyanov (2007; AE 2007, 1259), now displayed at the Museum of the Archaeological 119THE EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM YURTA-STROYNO IN AREGIONAL CONTEXT Park of racian and Ancient City of Kabile.1 e military diploma was created and given to the soldier at the time of discharge from the army. As was customary in the Roman army, the soldier was honourably discharged from duty aÞer 25 years of service, or 26 years in the case of the navy. In most cases, the veteran received Roman citizenship and sometimes was given apiece of land in one of the Roman provinces (Gardiner 2000, 80). e veterans and their families kept the diplomas as evidence of their social status and past service. e reconstructed text indicates the veteran served in the Roman imperial fleet Classis Praetoria Misenensis, named aÞer its harbour at Misenum in the Bay of Naples, representing one of the two most important Roman Imperial fleets (Starr 1975, 13–21). Most sailors of the Classis Praetoria Misenensis were recruited in the Roman East, where the fleet also oÞen 1‘Kabyle’ represents the form used in ancient sources, including inscriptions and literary texts, while ‘Kabile’ is the spelling variant used in contemporary Bulgarian. Kabyle was an ancient city, located on the bends of the River Tundzha in the northern part of the Yambol District, some 34 km north of Yurta - Stroyno. Kabyle is recorded by the ancient sources already at the time of Philipp II of Macedon as aMacedonian military outpost and during the Roman times, it served as amilitary base for Roman auxiliary units (Velkov 1983, 233–234). Fig. / Pl. Yurta-Stroyno # / Reference SU Trench / Polygon Finding context Material Object Language Inscription / Text Chronology ×Boyanov 2007; AE 2007, 1259 surface ×find pre2006 bronze military diploma Latin Ext: RELI. N (?) NSTANTI PT ET RECOGN XA EST ROM IVI AVG Int: MISENEN XXVI STI SIONE FILISQ VS QVA aÞer mid-2nd c. AD Fig. 1 SY15_079; SY15_080; SY15_178; SY15_179; SY15_180; SY15_414; SY15_415; SY15_419 SU001 ×RT soil, SAP poery graffiti ×A, H, X 1st–3rd c. AD Fig. 2 SF15_218 SU001 95E_100N RT soil, SAP terraco- a votive plate Greek ΠΥΤΝΙΟΥ2nd–3rd c. AD (?) Pl. 4/1:1 Bakardzhiev 2008, 471–472, no. 1 × × excavation 2007 by RIM stone horse rider plate × × Roman period Pl. 4/1:2 Bakardzhiev 2008, 471–472, no. 2 × × excavation 2007 by RIM marble plate Greek ΑΒΙΛΛΙΟΥRoman period Pl. 4/1:3 SF15_080 SU002 105E_100N wall of the house excavated by SAP marble horse rider plate × × Prior to AD 218 Pl. 4/2 SY16_AC_030 survey G09 SAP clay fired brick Greek ΗΘΕΟC Roman period (lunate sigma) Tab.1: An overview of all inscriptions and objects with epigraphic potential associated with the selement at Yurta-Stroyno. 126 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Graffiti on poery are documented at major Hellenistic sites in Bulgaria such as Seuthopolis, Pistiros, Kabyle, Sboryanovo or Halka Bunar (Dimitrov– Chichikova– Alexieva 1978, 22–23; Chichikova 1984, 52–53, 74; Domaradzka 1996, 89–94; Lozanov 2002, 197–201; Domaradzka 2005, 296–307; 2013, 198–206; Dana 2015, 248–249), but they are rarely published in aRoman context. Unfortunately, the current corpus of inscriptions on poery from Yurta- -Stroyno is too small to make any conclusions about their meaning or the level of literacy of the local inhabitants. THE SETTLEMENT AT YURTA-STROYNO IN AREGIONAL CONTEXT e discussed collection of finds represents adiverse array of epigraphic objects that were likely produced during the Roman Imperial Period11 and used at Yurta - Stroyno or its immediate vicinity. e period of epigraphic activity on the site corresponds with the overall peak of the epigraphic activity in race, but also with the establishment of the permanent military camp at Kabyle and the military reforms of Septimius Severus in race (Dana 2015, 253; Janouchova 2017, 190). e selement at Yurta - Stroyno held astrategic position in the region of the middle Tundzha River near the reconstructed road connecting Kabyle and Propontis (Madzharov 2009, 237). Moreover, the site was conveniently located in the distance of approximately one day travel from the auxiliary unit stationed at Kabyle, making Yurta - Stroyno or similar selements in the neighbourhood an ideal candidate for asub - regional centre that would manage and guard the southern part of the sphere of influence of Kabyle. e connection of the site with the auxiliary camp at Kabyle is further strengthened by the Avilius family name aested on inscriptions found in both places, indicating members of the same veteran family were operating in the entire region. Additional military links of the site at Yurta - Stroyno are strengthened by the existence of the bronze military diploma, suggesting apart of the population was likely of (ex)military background and seled in rural race aÞer the honorary discharge in the second half of the 2nd century AD. Yet, the numismatic evidence from Yurta- -Stroyno, albeit heavily corrupted by looting activities, does not indicate any direct monetary exchange between the two selements in the Roman times (Heřmánková 2022). As to the civilian aspects of life, the discovery of the votive plaque with relief decoration and inscription in Greek, as well as the inscribed brick with the Greek dedication to an unknown female deity, or the presence of the horse rider plates, may indicate the local population was well embedded in the system of beliefs characteristic for race of the Roman period. e two horse rider reliefs found at Yurta - Stroyno represent atypical votive monument of the Roman period recorded in large numbers all over race (Dimitrova 2002, 210). According to Kazarow (1938) and Oppermann (2006), approximately 50 sites with the horse rider relief have been discovered along the middle Tundzha River Valley. Seven of the stone reliefs depicting horse rider were executed in asimilar way as the exemplars from Yurta - Stroyno, depicting agalloping horse with arider in shallow relief, asubcategory of Oppermann type B (Kazarow 1938, nos. 117, 170, 299; Oppermann 2006, 233; nos. 499, 750–753). e largest concentrations of the horse rider reliefs along the Tundzha River come from three village sanctuaries in the Kazanlak Valley, at the middle stream of the river (Tabakova 1959; Tabakova -Tsanova 1961; Tabakova -Tsanova 1980). e architecture of these sanctuaries did not differ from the casual dwellings of the village; therefore, they were oÞen identified 11 In the context of epigraphical finds understood as period from the 1st–3rd c. AD. 127THE EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM YURTA-STROYNO IN AREGIONAL CONTEXT as sanctuaries solely on the basis of votive offerings. e votive objects represented decorated stone plates with the horse rider or depictions of other deities, small terracoa statues, precious metal jewellery, coins, or decorated mirrors. Such objects, although in smaller quantities, Map 1: e spatial distribution of the horse rider inscriptions along the middle stream of the Tundzha River. e category ‘Findspots of inscriptions’ (21 pcs.) locates the findspots of all inscriptions, even the ones not related to the military. e category ‘Military-related inscriptions’ (8 pcs.) shows all inscriptions, including military diplomas, texts published by or mentioning asoldier, veteran, or aperson with combined Roman and racian personal names, see Janouchova (2018). e category ‘Horse rider monuments’ (49 pcs.) shows findspots of all horse rider monuments along the middle Tundzha River as recorded by Oppermann (2006). 128 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT possibly due to the disturbance of the site, were also found at Yurta - Stroyno, i.e. the fragment of the votive terracoa plate (Fig. 1), the brick with aplausibly votive inscription (Pl. 4/2), the enthroned terracoa deity (Minaříková 2022, fig. 2:2), or the marble head from astatuee of abearded male (Minaříková 2022, fig. 1, pl. 8/1). However intriguing, the existence of asanctuary in the vicinity of Yurta - Stroyno is only circumstantial and needs to be confirmed by further investigations. It was oÞen assumed the relief depicting ahorse rider was popular amongst Roman army soldiers, as evidenced by its broad spatial distribution and by the textual content of many inscriptions on the rider monuments (Dimitrova 2002, 210). However, Dilyana Boteva’squantitative analysis of horse rider inscriptions dedicated by soldiers shows only arelatively small number of horse rider dedications contain adirect reference to soldiers or veterans (Boteva 2005, 199–204). To extrapolate Boteva’sassumption to all Greek inscriptions from race, Ihave compared her findings with the dataset from the Hellenisation of Ancient race database.12 In October 2018, the database contained atotal of 732 horse rider relief plates with predominantly Greek inscriptions. e number represents approximately one - third of all horse rider reliefs found in race, with the two - thirds remaining anepigraphic (based on figures from Dimitrova 2002). By athorough study of the contents of all 732 inscriptions with the horse rider relief, we can confirm Boteva’sassumption that only approximately 10% of inscriptions were dedicated by someone explicitly identified as asoldier (‘stratiotes’), veteran, or by an individual male bearing acombined racian and Roman name, which was traditionally gained aÞer the honorary discharge from the Roman military service. e remaining 90% of dedications come mostly from people of unknown gender or origin, and their social status or their affiliation with the military remains tacit. Although only asmall part of inscriptions with the horse rider relief can be explicitly attributed to military personnel and the presence of horse rider reliefs is not proof of evidence of the military character of the selement per se, the incidence of inscriptions mentioning soldiers or veterans of the Roman army in the middle stream of the Tundzha River is conspicuous. Inscriptions either produced or mentioning military personnel were found along the middle stream of the Tundzha River not only at Yurta - Stroyno and Kabyle, but also in the region stretching between the villages Malomirovo, 50 km south of Kabyle; Meden Kladenets, 30 km southeast of Kabyle; Zornitsa, 55 km northeast of Kabyle; and Trapoklovo and Lozenets, 25 km northeast of Kabyle (Map 1; Janouchova 2018, 226–227). e spatial distribution of inscriptions affiliated with the Roman army and monuments with the horse rider relief coincides with what is assumed to be the sphere of influence of Kabyle. e selement at Yurta - Stroyno was most likely located on its southern outskirts, yet, according to the existing evidence, it was connected with Kabyle by aseries of personal, religious, and military associations, already suggested by Ilian Boyanov (2006, 235–239). CONCLUSION During the archaeological investigations of the selement at Yurta - Stroyno in 2014–2016, we found eight new objects with epigraphic value. Furthermore, we were able to re - evaluate three already known and partially published objects associated with the selement. In the light of the new finds, we were able to reassess the nature of epigraphic culture along the middle stream of the Tundzha River and its regional associations. Based on available comparanda, 12 Janouchova 2014; DOI10.17605/hps://osf.io/FJNW5/. 129THE EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM YURTA-STROYNO IN AREGIONAL CONTEXT most of the epigraphic objects date to the Roman Imperial Period and are of local, respectively regional, origin. ree of the inscriptions are wrien in Greek, one in Latin and the rest is too fragmentary to determine any epigraphic language. One inscription represents amilitary diploma, five of them dedications to adeity and eight are graffiti on poery sherds. e three inscriptions already published in the literature include one military diploma wrien in Latin on ametal plate and dated to mid-2nd c. AD, granting an honorary discharge from the Roman navy to an unknown inhabitant of Yurta - Stroyno. e re - examination of two other objects mentioned briefly in the archaeological reports showed an interesting connection to the new finds of 2014–2016: two stone plates were found in the vicinity of Yurta - Stroyno, one depicting ashallow relief of ahorse rider and the second one astanding deity, characteristic votive or funerary monuments of the Roman race (Pl. 4/1:1–2). e second plate contained aGreek inscription referring to aRoman family name Avilius that is epigraphically aested some 34 km north in the military camp at Kabyle (Pl. 4/1:2), further strengthening the regional links between Yurta - Stroyno and Kabyle. Afragment of astone plate similar in size and treatment was found by the SAP in 2015 and aÞer careful examination showed traces of the horse rider relief, awell - known cultural and religious phenomenon of the Roman race that is in some cases associated with Roman soldiers and veterans (Pl. 4/1:3). However, the evidence linking the spatial distribution of horse rider reliefs and the military background of the inhabitants is confirmed only in asmall fraction of all known horse rider inscriptions. erefore, the link between the occurrence of the two horse rider reliefs and the military background of the Yurta - Stroyno selement inhabitants remains ahypothesis, yet aplausible one. Two newly discovered clay objects with aGreek inscription improve our understanding of the religious beliefs of the Yurta - Stroyno inhabitants, assuming at least basic comprehension of the Graeco - Roman system of beliefs. e first one is the votive terracoa plate with arepresentation of aGraeco - Roman deity standing in the temple with aGreek dedication referring to an otherwise unaested male name Pytnios, Pitnios or Penios (Fig. 1). e second inscription in Greek was found on abrick dated to the Roman Imperial period. e inscribed text served as adedication either to ayoung female or ayoung female deity (Pl. 4/2). Both terracoa inscriptions confirm familiarity with Greek script. As to the levels of literacy of the inhabitants, eight graffiti on Roman poery were found during the poery processing in 2015. Four of them consist of individual leers on the boom or side of the original vessel, two incised graffiti before the firing and two aÞer the firing of the vessel, and the other four pictorial representations of fish (Fig. 2). e size of the sample leads to aconclusion that some groups of the inhabitants were likely able to write and comprehend simple text. However, in general, the ability to read and write was not customary for the majority of the Classical world (Harris 1989, 327). e close examination of the objects with the epigraphic value shows that the selement of Yurta - Stroyno was well established within the local socio - cultural networks. e epigraphic activity during the Roman Imperial Period reveals indirect links between the selement of Yurta - Stroyno and the military camp at Kabyle, suggesting the sphere of influence of Kabyle was reaching some 34 km south. Moreover, the surviving monuments reveal the inhabitants of the Yurta - Stroyno selement were adhering to the Graeco - Roman system of beliefs and its related iconography, typical for race of the Roman Imperial period. e new finds show the inhabitants of Yurta - Stroyno were aware, if not actively participating, in the Graeco- -Roman cultural phenomenon of publishing wrien messages on permanent media such as stone, terracoa or metal. 130 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT DIGITAL SUPPLEMENT e digital supplement containing Epidoc TEI/XML files can be accessed online at hp://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.3908271 or hps://petrifiedvoices.github.io/stroyno - inscriptions/, under the CC - BY-4.0 International license. ABBREVIATIONS AB = Archaeologia Bulgarica AE = L’Année épigraphique; Presses Universitaires de France. 1888–. AOR = Археологически открития иразкопки BCH = Bulletin de correspondance hellénique CNT = Corpus Nummorum racorum. Berlin - Brandenburgische Akademie der WissenschaÞen. hps://www. corpus - nummorum.eu/ (visited 4/12/2021). IG Bulg = Mihailov, G. (1956–1997): Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, 5 vols. Academiae Lierarum Bulgaricae. Sofia. IK Byz = Łajtar, A. 2000: Die InschriÈen von Byzantion. Bonn. IMS II = Miković, M. 1986: Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure. Vol. 2. Viminacium et Margum. Belgrade. RA = Revue Archéologique RIB = Vanderbilt, S. 2020: Roman Inscriptions of Britain Online: hps://romaninscriptionsoritain.org/, visited 4/12/2021. SGLIBulg = Beševliev, V. 1964: Spätgriechische und spätlateinische InschriÈen aus Bulgarien. Berlin. SH = Studia Hercynia SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Brill. 1923–. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cass. Dio, Historiae Romanae = Cassius Dio Cocceianus: Dio’sRoman History. Transl. E. Cary– H.B. Foster– W. Heinemann. Harvard University Press. London– New York 1914. Agre – Dichev – Hristov 2020 = Агре, Д., Дичев, Д., Христов, Х. 2020: Трако-римски селищен обект вм. св. Илия в землището на с. Стройно, общ. Елхово. АОR през 2020 г., 875–880. Bakardzhiev 2008 = Бакърджиев, С. 2008: Сондажни археологически проучвания вЮрта край село Стройно, община Елхово. АОR през 2007 г., 471–473. Bekker - Nielsen, T. 2017: racians in the Roman Imperial Navy. e International Journal of Maritime History 29:3, 479–494. Boteva, D. 2005: Soldiers and Veterans Dedicating Votive Monuments with aRepresentation of the racian Horseman within the Provinces of Lower Moesia and race. In: M. Mirković (ed.): Römische Städte und Festungen an der Donau. Akten der regionalen Konferenz (16–19 Oktober 2003). Beograd, 199–210. Boyanov 2006 = Боянов, И. 2006: Римски ветерани от региона Кабиле. In: И. Илиев (ed.): IV Международен симпозиум Поселищен живот вТракия, 9–11 Ноември 2005 г., Ямбол, Кабиле. Yambol, 235–242. Boyanov, I. 2007: Two Fragments from Military Diplomas in Yambol Museum. AB 11:3, 69–74. Brodribb, G. 1987: Roman Brick and Tile. Gloucester. Bujukliev, H. 1997: Le culte d’Apollon à Augusta Trajana et dans son Territoire. In: D. Triantaphyllos– D. Terzopoulou (eds.): Actes 2e Symposium International des Études raciennes, Komotini, 20–27 Septembre 1992, vol. 1. Komotini, 213–220. 131THE EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM YURTA-STROYNO IN AREGIONAL CONTEXT Chichikova 1984 = Чичикова, М. 1984: Антична керамика. In: Д. Димитров– М. Чичикова– А. Балканска– Л. Огненова - Маринова (eds.): Севтополис 1. София, 18–114. Dana, D. 2015: Inscriptions. In: J. Valeva– E. Nankov– D. Graninger (eds.): ACompanion to Ancient race. Malden– Oxford– Chichester, 243–264. Dimitrov, D.P.– Čičikova, M.– Alexieva, M.P.1978: e racian City of Seuthopolis. Oxford. Dimitrova, N. 2002: Inscriptions and Iconography in the Monuments of the racian Rider. Hesperia 71:2, 209–229. Domaradzka, L. 2005: Graeco - racian Relations in the Upper Maritza Valley (5th–4th c. B.C.) (Based on Epigraphic Evidence). In: J. Bouzek– L. Domaradzka (eds.): International Symposium in Memory of prof.Mieczyslaw Domaradzki. Oxford, 19–26. Domaradzka, L. 1996: Graffiti from Pistiros. In: J. Bouzek– M. Domaradzki– Z.H. Archibald (eds.): Pistiros I: Excavation and Studies. Prague, 89–95. Domaradzka, L. 2013: Newly Discovered Graffiti on Poery from Pistiros (2004–2010). In: J. Bouzek– L. Domaradzka– A. Gotzev– Z.H. Archibald (eds.): Pistiros V: Excavation and Studies. Prague, 198–206. Dremsizova - Nelchinova– Toncheva 1971 = Дремсизова - Нелчинова, Ц.– Тончева, Г. 1971: Антични tеракоти от България. София. Eck, W.– Pangerl, A. 2006: Die Konstitution für die Classis Misenensis aus dem Jahr 160 und der Krieg gegen Bar Kochba unter Hadrian. ZeitschriÈ für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 155, 239–252. Fraser, P.M.– Matthews, E. 2005: Macedonia, race, Northern Regions of the Black Sea. ALexicon of Greek Personal NamesIV. Oxford. Gardiner, R.2000: e Age of the Galey: Mediterranean Oared Vessels since Pre-Classical Times. New Jersey. Harris, W.V. 1989: Ancient Literacy. London. Heřmánková, P.2022: e Numismatic Finds. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.):e Yurta- -Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 133–144. Hopkins, L. 2014: Fleets and Manpower on Land and Sea: e Italian Classes and the Roman Empire 31 BC– AD 193. University of Oxford: unpublished PhD thesis. Janouchová, P.2014: Database of Greek Inscriptions ‘Hellenisation of Ancient race’: AFinal Report on Investigations during 2013–2014. SH XVIII:1–2, 67–74. Janouchová, P.2017: Hellénizace antické rákie ve světle epigrafických nálezů. Charles University: unpublished PhD thesis. Janouchová, P.2018: e Epigraphic Evidence from Kazanlak and Yambol, c. 500 BC– AD 300. In: S.A. Ross– A. Sobotkova– J. Tzvetkova– G. Nekhrizov– S. Connor (eds.): Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project, Surface Survey, Palaeoecology, and Related Studies (2009– 2011): Final Report. Oxford, 217–228. Jurukova, J. 1973: Griechisches Münzwerk: Die Münzprägung von Deultum. Berlin. Jurukova 1987 = Юрукова, Й. 1987: Монетосеченето на градовете вДолна Мизия иТракия II–III в. Хадрианопол. София. Kazarow, G.I. 1938: Die Denkmäler des thrakischen ReitergoÄes in Bulgarien. Budapest. Lozanov 2002 = Лозанов, И. 2002: Графити от Халка Бунар. Годишник на Археологически Институт сМузей-БАН 2, 197–205. Madzharov 2009 = Маджаров, М. 2009: Римски пътища вБългария: принос вразвитието на римската пътна система впровинциите Мизия иТракия. Велико Търново. Minaříková, A. 2022: Selected Small Finds. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta- -Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 245–258. Oppermann, M. 2006: Der thrakische Reiter: Des Ostbalkanraumes im Spannungsfeld von Graecitas, Romanitas und lokalen Traditionen. Langenweißbach. Schönert - Geiss, E. 1991: Die Münzprägung von Augusta Traiana und Traianopolis. Berlin. 132 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Seure, G. 1901: Voyage en race: Établissements scythiques dans la race; Tumuli et chars thraco - scythes. BCH 25, 156–220. Seure, G. 1917: Archéologie thrace documents inédits ou peu connus (suite). RA 5, 158–188. Starr, C.G. 1975: e Roman Imperial Navy: 31 B.C.– A.D. 324. Westport, Connecticut. Tabakova 1959 = Табакова, Г. 1959: Светилището на Аполон Зерденски при с. Крън, Старозагорско. Известия на Археологическия Институт 22, 97–110. Tabakova -Tsanova 1961 = Табакова - Цанова, Г. 1961: Тракийско светилище при с. Виден, Старозагорско. Известия на Археологическия Институт 24, 203–219. Tabakova -Tsanova 1980 = Табакова - Цанова, Г. 1980: Светилището на Аполон Терадеенос при с. Крън, Старозагорско. In: И. Венедиков– А. Фол (ed.): Тракийски Паметници II, Тракийски Светилища. София, 173–194. Tacheva - Hitova, M. 1983: Eastern Cults in Moesia Inferior and racia. Leiden. Tomlin, R.1979: Graffiti on Roman Bricks and Tiles found in Britain. In: A. McWhirr (ed.): Roman Brick and Tile. Oxford, 231–251. Topalilov, I. 2002: ARoman Veteran’sTombstone in Philippopolis. AB 6:1, 59–65. Topalilov, I. 2013: Veterani Classiarii in Philippopolis (race). Ancient West & East 12, 251–264. Tušlová etal. 2015 = Tušlová, P.– Weissová, P.– Bakardzhiev, S.– Čisťakova, V.– Frecer, R.– Janouchová, P.2015: e Stroyno Archaeological Project, Report on the Season 2015. SH XIX:1–2, 243–261. Tušlová, P.2022: e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. PoÄery Studies. SH Monographs 3. Praha. Velkov, V. 1983: e racian City of Cabyle. In: A.G. Poulter (ed.): Ancient Bulgaria. Noingham, 233–238. Vladkova 2009 = Владкова, П. 2009: Античен производствен център при Павликени (Долна Мизия)– периодизация ипроизводства. Част първа. Археология LI:1–2, 40–51. Vladkova 2010 = Владкова, П. 2010: Античен производствен център при Павликени (Долна Мизия). Част втора. Апликации за керамични съдове. Археология LII:1–2, 29–45. Weissová, B. 2022: Shedding Light on Architecture of Roman Rural Selements in race. Ceramic and Stone Building Materials from Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 70–89. Petra Heřmánková Aarhus University Department of History and Classical Studies Jens Chr. Skous Vej 5, DK-8000 Aarhus C petra.hermankov[email protected].dk 133THE NUMISMATIC FINDS The Numismatic Finds Petra Heřmánková ABSTRACT e following text presents numismatic finds associated with the selement of Yurta - Stroyno and its immediate vicinity which were discovered either as chance finds or during systematic archaeological investigations of the area conducted by the Historical Museum of Yambol in 2006–2007 and by the Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project in 2014–2016. From the total amount of 14 individual coins discussed within the text, 12 coins were minted in the period between the creation of the Roman province of race in the mid-1st century AD and the decline of minting activities in South - Eastern race around the mid-3rd c. AD. Two coins, however, predate the main group, such as the coin of Philip II dated to the mid-4th c. BC, and the coin of Emperor Augustus, corresponding to the Emperor’smilitary activities in the Eastern Mediterranean during the 1 st century BC.e majority of the coins found in Yurta - Stroyno were minted in the cities of South - Eastern race or in the eastern part of the Aegean area, such as Anchialos, Traianoupolis, Philippopolis, Augusta Traiana, Philippi, Cyzicus and Ephesus. Only two coins were minted in the western part of the Roman Empire, namely in the imperial mints in Lugdunum and in Rome. ey were likely brought to race by merchants or soldiers. KEYWORDS Bulgaria; Roman race; Numismatics; Roman coins; Roman provincial coinage. INTRODUCTION e numismatic finds associated with the selement at Yurta - Stroyno represent arelatively small corpus when compared to nearby centres that were minting or countermarking their own coinage such as Kabyle, Deultum, Augusta Traiana or Hadrianopolis. Despite their scarcity, the coins from Yurta - Stroyno still provide invaluable information about the socio - economic activity of the area in the Roman imperial period and the history of the site itself. e site at Yurta - Stroyno has been continuously looted and most of the coins originally present are now considered gone, together with their numismatic and archaeological value. Even the surviving coins are oÞen found in the secondary context, as part of atopsoil or from robbers’ trenches. eir presence at the site is rather accidental as they were most likely omied by the modern - day looters or neglected due to their low monetary value. Several coins, coming either from the site itself or its immediate vicinity, were recorded in archaeological sources prior to any systematic excavation project. eir description significantly varies in details of their recorded information. Several accidental coin finds were briefly summarised in regional site gazeeers, such as Dimitrova and Popov (1978, 26), or Bakardzhiev (2012, 365). Paunov (2013) lists acoin hoard found in the vicinity of the site and afew individual coins in his dissertation. e short excavation reports (AOR) from the trial excavation at the site in 2006 and 2007 also briefly mention numismatic finds (Bakardzhiev 2007, 238; Bakardzhiev 2008, 472) of which 29 coins were published in 2014 (Varbanov 2014). In order to provide acomprehensive outline of the numismatic records associated with the selement of Yurta - Stroyno, the current text summarizes the legacy data reported to the Historical Museum of Yambol (RIM) (i.e. four individual coins + one coin hoard with 29 134 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT coins [Varbanov 2014, 259–263]), with the finds discovered during the trial archaeological investigations of the environs of Yurta - Stroyno in 2006 and 2007 (one coin), and the coins uncovered within the Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project (SAP) in 2014–2016 (nine coins). Abrief overview of the legacy data is followed by adetailed discussion of the new coins of the SAP, providing achronological frame to archaeological contexts of the current volume. e concluding synopsis of the numismatic activity discusses all coin finds and examines the selement of Yurta - Stroyno within the context of regional monetary networks. NUMISMATIC FINDS FROM YURTA-STROYNO PRIOR TO SAP e coins known prior to the beginning of SAP in 2014 were all minted during the Roman imperial period, both by the imperial and the local provincial mints. e archaeological site gazeeer in Tabula Imperii Romanii K35/2 mentions specifically the finds from Yurta - Stroyno coming from the local mints in Anchialos, Hadrianopolis, Augusta Traiana, or Philippopolis with the majority of coins dated to the 2nd and the 3rd c. AD (Bakardzhiev 2012, 365).1 e earliest individual coin find is asilver denar of emperor Tiberius discovered near the village of Stroyno in 1961. e coin was minted in Lugdunum in Gallia in AD 14–37 and was likely brought to race by the members of the Roman army because of its substantial value (Paunov 2013, 697; RIM inv. no 1853; coin type RIC I2 30). In 1968 abronze sestertius minted in Rome during the reign of Emperor Trajan was uncovered directly at the site of Yurta - Stroyno, dating to AD 114–117 (Paunov 2013, 687; RIM inv. no. 4325; coin type RIC II 667). Again, this coin of large value was likely brought from Rome by the Roman soldiers during the 2nd c. AD. e coins dated to the 3rd c. AD represent the most numerous group of finds, such as the coin of emperor Maximinus rax, minted between AD 235–238, and the coin of Emperor Gordian III, minted in AD 238–244, both reported by the gazeeer of archaeological sites in the Yambol District (Dimitrova– Popov 1978, 26).2 Moreover, the gazeeer mentions ahoard of 29 silver denarii and antoniniani (Dimitrova– Popov 1978, 26; Bakardzhiev 2012, 365; RIM inv. no. 210; Varbanov 2014). e hoard contained 13 denarii minted in between AD 196–239 and 16 antoniniani minted in between AD 238–248, with 28 coins minted in Rome and one in Laodicea in Asia Minor. e hoard was possibly buried at the time of invasion of Goths to South - Eastern race in AD 250–251 (Varbanov 2014, 257). e trial excavations conducted by RIM in 2006 and 2007 recorded asilver antoninianus minted by Emperor Gallienus in AD 253–260 (Bakardzhiev 2007, 238; Bakardzhiev 2008, 472) which currently represents the youngest surviving coin found on the site. In addition to the coins associated with the selement of Yurta - Stroyno, ahoard of 195 silver coins was found in 1961 at the place called St. Iliya, located about 1.5 km south east of Yurta - Stroyno (IGCH 924) found in the vicinity of the newly excavated complex with a tholos temple-like structure, dated to 1st–3rd c. AD (Agre – Dichev – Hristov 2020). e terminus ante quem for the hoard was determined 81/80 BC (Schönert - Geiss 1987, 105–106; Paunov 2013, 727).3 e discovery confirms the hinterland of Yurta - Stroyno was undeniably econom1 Unfortunately, the source does not provide any further details nor the total counts of coins. 2Dimitrova and Popov (1978, 26) mention three coins in total, one of Maximinus, one of Gordian and one unidentified. 3 e hoard contained 126 tetradrachms of asos and its imitations, 62 tetradrachms of Maroneia, four tetradrachms of the New Style from Athens, two Macedonian tetradrachms of First Region and one tetradrachm of Aesillas, all coins are now deposited in RIM Yambol. 135THE NUMISMATIC FINDS ically active already during the first decades of the 1st c. BC and associated with the monetary networks of the Eastern Mediterranean. OVERVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL COINS FOUND WITHIN SAP DURING 2014–2016 e new coins found during the Yurta - Stroyno Archaeological Project represent asmall corpus of nine bronze coins, eight of them found within the archaeological excavation in 2014–2016 and one during the surface survey of the site in 2016 (nos. 1–9; see Tab.1, Pl. 5/1). Tab.1: List of coins found at Yurta-Stroyno in 2014–2016; d. = diameter. Five coins were found north of the house in an area that seems to serve as acourtyard, see Map 1. e area was covered by the so - called levelling layer, contemporary or later with the building phase of the house dated aÞer AD 220’s, which might have served as elevation and/ or drainage of the courtyard. e layer is about 40 cm thick, located below ca. 50–60 cm of topsoil (see Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2022). ree of the coins were discovered relatively close together in the topsoil; they were dated to the 4 th c. BC (Pl. 5/1:1), to the 1 st c.BC (Pl. 5/1:2) and to the 1st c. AD (Pl. 5/1:4), suggesting the secondary deposition of the soil as chronologically younger coins were found in the lower levels. Two other coins were found in the levelling layer of the square 105E_105N NW, located roughly from 50–60 to 90 cm below the surface. e coins were dated to the second half of the 2nd c. AD (Pl. 5/1:5) and to the first decades of the 3rd c. AD (Pl. 5/1:7). Two coins were found inside of the house, presumably in closed contexts, including the coin of Diadoumenian (Pl. 5/1:8), which was placed directly in the trench of the foundation wall [SU036], dating the building of the house to aperiod aÞer AD 218. Coin of Ioulia Domna (Pl. 5/1:6), dated to AD 193–217, was found in adeep pit - like deposit [SU057] located in the north - eastern corner of RoomC. One more coin (Pl. 5/1:3) was found during the excavation, placed in arobber’ssoil [SU001] in the square 100E_100N S. It might be dated to the first decades of the 2nd c. AD, but its original context is lost. No. SF # SU Trench / Polygon Sect. Mint Depiction Chronology D. (mm) Weight (g.) 1SF14_157 SU_023 100E_105N SE ×Philip II ca. 350–300 BC 15 ca. 5 2SF14_200 SU_027 90E_105N SE Ephesus / Pergamon Augustus 27–23 BC 30 ca. 10 3SF14_016 SU_001 100E_100N ×Philippi (Augustus?) Trajan (27 BC?) AD 98–117 19 ca. 5 4SF15_069 SU_033 95E_105N SE ×Flavian dynasty AD 81–96 18 3 5SF16_185 FA09 105E_105N NW (Bizye? / Augusta Traiana?) (Marcus Aurelius?) (AD 161–180) 20 3 6SF15_272 SU_057 100E_105N SE Anchialos Ioulia Domna AD 193–217 23 7 7SF16_143 FA06 105E_105N NW Traianoupolis Caracalla AD 211–217 22 5 8SF15_058 SU_036 100E_105N NCyzicus Diadumenian May AD 217–June AD 218 22 5 9F13_SE_12 Survey F13 SE Anchialos Tranquillina AD 241–244 18 2 142 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Considering all the coins associated with the site, the economic activities of the first two centuries AD are represented by individual coins only, whereas there is an increase in the numbers of coins present at the site during the 3rd c. AD, featuring individual coins as well as one coin hoard. e growth of the number of coins in later centuries may be accidental due to the nature of their discovery, but it likely also corresponds with the change in the minting activities in the area. e coins from the 1st c. BC and the 1st c. AD were minted outside race, either in the cities of the Northern Aegean or in Asia Minor and were brought to race either by soldiers or merchants. e coins from the 2nd and the 3rd c. AD were mostly minted in the local provincial mints in race, corresponding with the development of the political organisation, the existence of provincial administration and the establishment of provincial minting in race. e most important numismatic find, in terms of the chronology and our understanding of the selement development, represents the coin of Emperor Diadoumenian (Pl. 5/1:8) that dates the building phase of the house to AD 218 or aÞer. e coin was minted in Cyzicus between May AD 217 and June AD 218 and did not stay in circulation for long. erefore, we may assume the deposition of the coin into the wall foundation trench in the years following Diadoumenian’sdeath in late June AD 218. e discontinuation of provincial minting aÞer AD 250 may have resulted in the decreased circulation of coins and subsequently their absence from the site, as well as it may reflect the end of economic activity at the site aÞer the second half of the third century AD in reaction to the increased societal pressure. ABBREVIATIONS AOR = Археологически открития иразкопки BMC = Wroth, W. 1892: Mysia. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum 14. Oxford. CNT = Corpus Nummorum racorum, Berlin - Brandenburgische Akademie der WissenschaÞen, available at hps://www.corpus - nummorum.eu/, (visited 21/10/2021). Cohen = Cohen, H. 1880: Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’Empire RomainI. Paris– Londres. Giard = Giard, J.-B. 2001: Monnaies de l’Empire Romain, IAuguste. Paris. IGCH = Thompson, M.– Noe, S.P.– Kraay, C.M.– Mørkholm, O. 1973: An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York. Mionnet = Mionnet, T.E. 1806: Description de médailles antiques, grecques et romaines; avec leur degré de rareté et leur estimation; ouvrage servant de catalogue à une suite de plus de vingt mille empreintes en soufre, prise sur les pièces originales. Paris. Moushmov = Мушмов, Н. 1912: Античните монети на Балканския полуостров имонетите на българските царе. София. RIC = Mattingly, H.– Sydenham, E.A.– Sutherland, C.H.V.– Carson, R.A.G. 1926: e Roman Imperial Coinage. London. RPC = Burnett, A.M.– Amandry, M.– Pau Ripollès, P.– Carradice, I. 1992: Roman Provincial Coinage 1:1. London– Paris. RSC = Seaby, H.A.– Sear, D.R.1952: Roman Silver Coins. London. SH = Studia Hercynia SNG ANS = Waggoner, N. 1987: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: e Collection of the American Numismatic Society, Pt. 7. Macedonia I: Cities, race-Macedonian Tribes, Paeonian Kings. New York. 143THE NUMISMATIC FINDS SNG Cop = Kromann, A.– Mørkholm, O. 1982: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. e Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum 2: race. Copenhagen. SNG Tübingen = Mannsperger, D. 1989: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Deutschland. Münzsammlung der Universität Tübingen 4: Mysien-Ionien. Munich. Varbanov = Varbanov, I. 2007: Greek Imperial Coins 3: race (from Perinthus to Trajanopolis), Chersonesos raciae, Insula raciae, Macedonia. Bourgas. BIBLIOGRAPHY Eutropius Breviarium = Flavius Eutropius: Breviarium ab urbe condita cum versionibus Graecis et Pauli Landolfique additamentis. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctorum antiquissimorum 2. Transl. H. Droysen. Berlin 1961. Agre – Dichev – Hristov 2020 = Агре, Д. – Дичев, Д. – Христов, Х. 2020: Трако-римски селищен обект в м. св. Илия в землището на с. Стройно, общ. Елхово. АОR през 2020 г., 875–880. Bakardzhiev 2007 = Бакърджиев, С. 2007: Сондажни археологически проучвания вЮрта край село Стройно, община Елхово. AOR през 2006 г., 238–241. Bakardzhiev 2008 = Бакърджиев, С. 2008: Сондажни археологически проучвания вЮрта край село Стройно, община Елхово. AOR през 2007 г., 471–473. Bakardzhiev, S. 2012: Stroyno. In: R. Ivanov (ed.): Tabula Imperii Romani K35/2: Philippopolis. Sofia, 364–365. Burrell, B. 2004: Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden - Boston. Clay, C.L. 1979: e Roman Coinage of Macrinus and Diadumenian. Numismatische ZeitschriÈ 93, 21–40. Dimitrova– Popov 1978 = Димитрова, Д.– Попов, Ж. 1978: Археологически паметници вЯмболски окръг. София. Dimitrov 1982 = Димитров, К. 1982: Антични иранновизантийски монети от Кабиле, базилика no 1. In: Т. Иванов (ed.): Кабиле 1. София, 158–165. Hadzhieva 2018 = Хаджиева, Н. 2018: Бронзови монети на Филип ІІ (359–336 г. пр. хр.) иАлександър ІІІ (336–323 г. пр. хр.) от колекцията на РИМ– Благоевград. Известия на исторически музей Кюстендил 19, 33–42. Janouchová, P.2013: rácké Nymfy ařecké nápisy: možné využití GIS vepigrafice. Auriga 55:2, 5–26. Jurukova, J. 1981: Die Münzprägung von Bizye. Berlin. Jurukova, J. 1973: Die Münzprägung von Deultum. Berlin. Jurukova 1987 = Юрукова, Й. 1987: Монетосеченето на градовете вДолна Мизия иТракия II-III в. Хадрианопол. София. Larson, J. 2001: Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. New York. Lozanov, I. 2015: Roman race. In: J. Valeva– E. Nankov– D. Graninger (eds.): ACompanion to Ancient race. Malden– Oxford– Chichester, 75–90. Mihailov, G. 1970: Inscriptiones graecae in Bulgaria repertae I,2: Inscriptiones orae Ponti Euxini. Sofia. Milne, J.G. 1939: Greek and Roman Coins and the Study of History. London. Paunov, E.I. 2013: From Koine to Romanitas: e Numismatic Evidence for Roman Expansion and SeÄlement in Bulgaria in Antiquity (Moesia and race, ca. 146 BC–AD 98/117). Cardiff University, unpublished PhD thesis. Paunov, E.I. 2015: Introduction to the Numismatics of race, ca. 530 BCE–46 CE. In: J. Valeva– E. Nankov– D. Graninger (eds.): ACompanion to Ancient race. Malden– Oxford– Chichester, 265–292. Schönert - Geiss, E. 1987: Die Münzprägung von Maroneia. Berlin. Schönert - Geiss, E. 1991: Die Münzprägung von Augusta Traiana und Traianopolis. Berlin. Sear, D.R.1978: Greek Coins and eir Values 1: Europe. London. 144 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Sear, D.R.1982: Greek Imperial Coins and eir Values: e Local Coinages of the Roman Empire. London– Beverly Hills. Strong, D.– Brown, D. 1976: Roman CraÈs. New York. Tušlová, P.– Weissová, B.– Bakardzhiev, S. 2022: e Final Excavation Report. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 24–52. Varbanov 2014 = Върбанов, В. 2014: Находки от римски монети (ІІІ. век) от фонда на Регионален исторически музей– Ямбол. Проблеми иизследвания на тракийската култура 7, 254–284. Petra Heřmánková Aarhus University Department of History and Classical Studies Jens Chr. Skous Vej 5, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark petra.hermankov[email protected].dk 145THE TERRACOTTA LAMPS The Terracotta Lamps Robert Frecer ABSTRACT Atotal of 130 terracoa lamps, all but one in fragmentary state, were found during the three - year project at the Roman selement of Yurta - Stroyno. e processed fragments were retrieved from the area of the excavated house, from the so - called levelling layer, as well as from the surface survey. Most lamps came from the levelling layer north of the house, while several belong to stratified contexts within the house– primarily from fills of the ditches in Room B [SU021] and Room C [SU008]. Only 31 of all fragments, however, are diagnostic enough to be assigned to aspecific type. Five lamps of Broneer type XXVII are the most striking. Two of these, including an excellent bust of Athena in armour, may have been imports from aGreek workshop of the late 3 rd – early 4 th century AD, while three lamps likely stem from workshops operating near Pavlikeni in northern Bulgaria. Nine rib- -shouldered lamps of Iconomu type XXX/Broneer XXIX were scaered across several contexts. ree unique local racian imitations of Loeschcke type IV/Vvolute lamps come from asingle stratified context [SU021] dug in Room B. Eight variations on Loeschcke type VIII koiné lamps were found, including the only whole lamp from the corpus and another with an incised swastika on its base. ree baered fragments may have been Firmalampen. Finally, amould - made terracoa piece found unstratified may have been aproduction waster or part of alampstand. e lamps from Yurta - Stroyno can be roughly dated to aperiod stretching from the 3rd to early 4th century AD, yielding amixture of local ware, racian production, and two clear imports perhaps from Athens which aest to the trade connections of the selement with the Aegean area. KEYWORDS Bulgaria; race; Roman period; terracoa lamps; rural selement; Broneer type XXVII. LAMPS FROM THE EXCAVATION Eighty - four lamps or lamp fragments thereof were recovered during the excavation seasons 2014–2016 of the site Yurta - Stroyno proper, of these, 30 may be identified with varying confidence (Tab.1:1–28, 36–37). Overall, 13 of them had partially intact disci, 33 shoulders, 15 handles, 21 nozzles and 15 bases. ese numbers may overlap, as lamp fragments include various parts. FiÞeen fragments were considered entirely non - diagnostic as they could only be identified as lamps based on firing, clay structure and the presence of mould - made markings. Asingle lamp (Pl. 6/2:20) was discovered complete. SPATIAL AND STRATIGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Twenty - seven fragments may be said to have been found inside the house. Of these, 16 were from the treasure hunters RT soil [SU001], and 11 come from stratigraphic units. Rooms B and C had significant clusters of 12 lamps each, while Rooms D and E contained only apair each, respectively. Of note are three fragments from the context [SU008], afill of atrench dug in the southwest corner of RoomC. One of these is avariation of Loeschcke type VIII/ 146 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Broneer type XXIX (Pl. 6/2:21), another with an angular nozzle in the style of Loeschcke I (Pl. 6/3:27). Four fragments came from [SU021] atrench dug near the east wall of Room B. ese include three Loeschcke IV/Vimitations (Pl. 6/1:6–8) and one Broneer type XXVII, Group B or Vine- -and - Ray lamp (Pl. 6/1:1). Another Broneer type XXVII, Group C or Ovule - and - Panel lamp was found incorporated into afloor level ([SU063]) in the southeast corner of Room D (Pl. 6/1:5). In contrast, 57 fragments were found outside the house– mostly north of the structure– as this area was more intensely excavated and not disturbed by treasure hunters. irteen fragments may again be discounted as coming from the unstratified RT soil [SU001] (see Tab.1). An important stratified cluster was recovered from the levelling layer. is cluster consists of 42 lamps, of which eleven can be identified: nine fragments of Iconomu type XXX/Broneer type XXIX (Pl. 6/1:9–10, Pl. 6/2:11–17); Broneer type XXVII, Group C lamp (Pl. 6/1:3) and one more Broneer type XXVII, Group C or Ovule - and - Panel lamp (Pl. 6/1:4) dated to AD 300–325. e tying presence of identical lamp types across the area north of the house, found in different trenches and layers, confirms this was originally one layer created by homogenous material spread in short time. is conclusion is also supported by the character of other material retrieved from the levelling layer (for the poery see Tušlová 2022; for the glass Čisťakova– Zlámalová Cílová 2022; for the bones Nývltová Fišáková 2022). No. SF # SU Trench / Polygon Sect. SU specification Lamp classification / Type Chronology (AD) Lower range Upper range 1SF14_130 SU021 95E_100N SE fill of a ditch Broneer XXVII, Group B (Vine-and-Ray) 275 325 2SF14_011 SU001 100E_100N ×RT soil Broneer XXVII, Group C (Ovule-and-Panel) 200 350 3SF14_073 SU010 90E_105N NE levelling layer Broneer XXVII, Group C (Ovule-and-Panel) 200 350 4SF15_114 SU047 100E_105N NE levelling layer Broneer XXVII, Group C (Ovule-and-Panel) 300 325 5SF15_324 SU063 105E_100N NE floor level Broneer XXVII, Group C (Ovule-and-Panel) 200 350 6SF14_131 SU021 95E_100N SE fill of a ditch Loeschcke IV/V imitation 100 × 7SF14_132 SU021 95E_100N SE fill of a ditch Loeschcke IV/V imitation 100 × 8SF14_140 SU021 95E_100N SE fill of a ditch Loeschcke IV/V imitation 100 × 9SF14_072 SU010 90E_105N NE levelling layer Iconomu type XXX / Broneer type XXIX 200 600 10 SF14_084 SU016 95E_105N NW levelling layer Iconomu type XXX / Broneer type XXIX 200 600 11 SF14_107 SU016 95E_105N NW levelling layer Iconomu type XXX / Broneer type XXIX 200 600 12 SF14_210 SU033 100E_105N SE levelling layer Iconomu type XXX / Broneer type XXIX 200 600 13 SF15_145 SU052 100E_105N NE levelling layer Iconomu type XXX / Broneer type XXIX 200 600 14 SF15_168 SU052 100E_105N NE levelling layer Iconomu type XXX / Broneer type XXIX 200 600 147THE TERRACOTTA LAMPS No. SF # SU Trench / Polygon Sect. SU specification Lamp classification / Type Chronology (AD) Lower range Upper range 15 SF15_219 SU001 95E_100N ×RT soil Iconomu type XXX / Broneer type XXIX 200 600 16 SF16_130 SU078 100E_110N SE levelling layer Iconomu type XXX / Broneer type XXIX 200 600 17 SF16_211 SU084 100E_110N SE levelling layer Iconomu type XXX / Broneer type XXIX 200 600 18 SF14_007 SU001 100E_100N ×RT soil Loeschcke VIII 100 × 19 SF14_009 SU001 100E_100N ×RT soil Loeschcke VIII 100 × 20 SF14_090 SU021 95E_100N SE fill of a ditch Loeschcke VIII 100 × 21 SF14_207 SU008 100E_100N SW fill of a ditch Loeschcke VIII 100 × 22 SF14_224 SU001 125E_100N ×RT Loeschcke VIII 100 × 23 SF15_008 SU015 95E_105N NE topsoil Loeschcke VIII 100 × 24 SF15_024 SU001 90E_110N SE RT soil Loeschcke VIII 100 × 25 SF16_100 SU078 100E_110N SE/SW levelling layer Loeschcke VIII 100 × 26 SF15_183 SU001 95E_100N ×RT soil potential Bildlampen (Loeschcke types I–IV) 100 ? 27 SF14_180 SU001 90E_100N NE RT soil potential Bildlampen (Loeschcke types I–IV) 100 × 28 SF14_181 SU008 100E_100N SW fill of a ditch potential Bildlampen (Loeschcke types I–IV) 100 × 29 SF14_031 SU001 100E_100N ×RT soil unidentified × × 30 SF14_082 SU010 90E_105N NE levelling layer lampstand? × × 31 SF16_D13_ NW_39 ×D13 NW survey potential Bildlampen (Loeschcke type I–V?) 100 × 32 SF16_H13_ SW_02 ×H13 SW survey potential Bildlampen (Loeschcke type I–V?) 100 × 33 SF16_F13_ SE_07 ×F13 SE survey unidentified × × 34 SF16_H14_ NE_01 ×H14 NE survey unidentified × × 35 SF16_J13_ SE_02 ×J13 SW survey unidentified × × 36 SF14_010 SU001 100E_100N ×RT soil Firmalampen? 100 × 37 SF14_035 SU001 100E_100N ×RT soil Firmalampen? 100 × Tab.1: Overview of the presented terracoa lamps with indicated chronological lifespan of their production if possible. 148 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT BRONEER TYPE XXVII Five lamps of Broneer type XXVII dated from the 3rd to early 4th century AD described below are the most striking lamps from Yurta - Stroyno (Pl. 6/1:1–5; Tab.1:1–5). ey belong to Broneer type XXVII (in Oscar Broneer’stypology) and appeared as adistinct unslipped type in Corinth in the early decades of the 2nd century AD (Broneer 1930, 85, 96; Broneer 1977, 64), inspired by the koiné lamps of the Roman Mediterranean known as Loeschcke type VIII (Perlzweig 1961, 7) via the production centres of Africa Proconsularis (Deneauve 1969, pl. LXXX–LXXXI, cat. no. 878–898; known as Deneauve type VII - C). Broneer type XXVII, Group B Broneer type XXVII is divided into three sub - groups based on the dominant decorative element. Group B of this type is known as ‘Vine - and - Ray’ by the typical alternating shoulder motif. Not long aÞer the start of Corinthian production, Athens began manufacturing its own lamps in this style, and their output soon came to surpass Corinth in both quantity and quality (Perlzweig 1961, 57, 94, cat. no. 271–274, signed Sposianou and Kallistou). e Athenian production, with finer relief and probably influenced by metalwork (Perlzweig 1961, 18), was once thought to have been ended by the Herulean invasion in AD 267 but is now known to have continued until about AD 350 (Bailey 1988, 406–408) while Corinthian production persisted until at least the mid-5th century AD (Garnett 1975, 190, cat. nos. 5–6). Our only lamp of this subtype (Pl. 6/1:1) has grape bunches and vine leaves in circles connected with spirals in the typical Athenian ‘blurred relief’ style. Its best analogies are four lamps from the Athenian Agora (Perlzweig 1961, 145, cat. no. 1470–1473), two of them signed Κλάρο|υ and Πρείμο|υ, respectively, and dated to around AD 300 by Judith Perlzweig. ese are the only known analogies to our lamp, with corresponding shoulder forms and the vine/grape motifs in asinusoid spiral; asimilar lamp from the RGZM in Mainz has neither provenience nor provenance, and it is simply dated to ‘Late Antiquity’ (Menzel 1954, cat. no. 540, Abb. 47:5). Based on what we know of Athenian lamp shoulder decoration (Perlzweig 1961, cat. nos. 646, 707, 714, 726, 750, 757, 777, 784, 805, 908, 924, 1017, 1022), we can confidently aribute this lamp to the late 3 rd century or early 4 th century AD Athenian workshop producing in aCorinthianizing style. Broneer type XXVII, Group C Group C is dated much the same as Group B, having been produced in the 3rd and early 4th century AD. e lamps have symmetrical lugs, fixed up like locks, on each side of acentral decoration panel. eir shoulders bear acharacteristic ‘Ovule - and - Panel’ decoration and these lamps were called “the perfection of lampmaking in Greece during Roman Imperial times” (Broneer 1977, 66) due to their high level of craÞsmanship. With Athens being the primary production centre, these are no longer simply Corinthianizing but original Athenian products. Four lamps from Yurta - Stroyno can be matched to this type (Pl. 6/1:2–5). e first three are minor shoulder and discus fragments showing the flowing characteristic, Ovule - and - Panel motif. e laer of the four deserves alengthier discussion due to its stunning discus motif. is exceptional discus fragment with abust of Athena in full armour was found in the levelling layer north from the house in trench 100E_105N (Pl. 6/1:4). Its light yellowish - brown clay (10YR 6/4) without any slip makes it stand out from all other lamps found at Yurta - Stroyno. 149THE TERRACOTTA LAMPS Aseries of identical lamps (perhaps from the same mould as the one from Yurta - Stroyno!) from the Athenian Agora (Perlzweig 1961, cat. no. 653–655, pls. 12, 15, and 36) are the best analogies to our lamp. However, two similar discus fragments published from Augusta Traiana (Stara Zagora) were uncovered near akiln and are hypothesized by Maria Kamisheva - Ivanova to have been produced in that centre (Kamisheva 2010, 245, обр. 2 A - b). ese are covered by reddish slip, not present on our fragment. e two distinct analogies can be combined in three possible interpretations: a) our lamp, based on the clear match from the Athenian Agora, was produced in Athens and brought to Yurta - Stroyno by trade or as apersonal item. e fragments from Stara Zagora are mis - identified as local products but are in fact imports from the same Athenian batch; b) our lamp, along with the two fragments from Stara Zagora, was produced locally from amould taken directly off an original Athenian lamp; c) our lamp was in fact made in Athens, based on its crisp relief, difference in clay from the rest of the lamps from Yurta - Stroyno, and lack of reddish slip compared to the analogies from Stara Zagora. e two fragments from Stara Zagora were produced locally using moulds taken off of original Athenian lamps (similar to ours). Without conclusive chemical analysis of the clay from all lamps in this equation (Athens, Yurta - Stroyno, and Stara Zagora), we cannot be sure which of these interpretations is correct. However, each theory itself paints an interesting picture of the trade connections of Yurta- -Stroyno circa AD 300. Broneer type XXVII production and imitation Athenian lamps of Broneer type XXVII were widely exported across the Roman provinces, but they were also subject to local imitations. Athenian export is known from Dalmatian Nicopolis of Epirus Vetus (Busuladžić 2007, cat. no. 62), Norican Lauriacum (Deringer 1965, 116–117, cat. no. 349), Aquileia in Italy (di Filippo Balestrazzi 1988, 403–404; cat. nos. 1113–1117), Pannonian Intercisa and Arrabona (Iványi 1935, 98, cat. nos. 873–874) or other places in Greece and Asia Minor (Bruneau 1965, cat. nos. 4658–4659; Broneer 1977, 65). In light of this evidence, our conjectured Athenian originals (Group B: Pl. 6/1:1; and Group C: Pl. 6/1:4) may also have been exported from Athens in this manner. Broneer type XXVII lamps were also imitated by craÞsmen elsewhere in the Roman provinces. Group B was manufactured in Djerba, Tunisia (Zeischka 1997, cat. no. 182); Group C and D imitated in Noviodunum (Baumann 2009, 247–249; type XI, cat no. 99–109– with 13 items dated to the 3rd century AD). An interesting and early variation was found in Cnidus (Bailey 1988, 341–342, Q 2735, Q 2737, 344, Q 2760). But perhaps closest to home are the racian production centres of Pavlikeni and Butovo which produced lamps in Broneer type XXVII strikingly similar to those found at Yurta - Stroyno dated to the 3rd century AD (Sultova 1991, 116, 122–123, обр. 7–13;Vladkova 2011, 124, cat. no. 18). ree of our lamps aributed to GroupC (Pl. 6/1:2–3, 5) from Yurta - Stroyno, while similar to true Corinthian Group B wares (such as Broneer 1977, 75, cat. no. 2974), are probably local imitations of this kind. UNIQUE IMITATIONS OF LOESCHCKE TYPE IV/VBILDLAMPEN ree lamps (Pl. 6/1:6–8; Tab.1:6–8) found together in the south - eastern quadrant of the trench 95E_100N ([SU021]) in Room B are interesting imitations of Loeschcke type IV/VBildlampen. Uncharacteristically for the type, their clay is light brownish grey (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2) and they are covered in traces of adark grey slip (Munsell 5Y 4/1). eir volute is merely sug- 150 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT gested by an incised line, with arelief ring around the discus in the manner of Firmalampen, and with aprominent relief half - circle on the nozzle. Although lamps of Loeschcke types Ito Vwere produced in Italy from the Augustan Age to about AD 100, plenty of provincial imitations exist– even with similar incised volutes, no less (Baumann 2009, 230, cat. no. 29), or incorporating asimilar relief ring on the discus (Goethert - Polaschek 1985, Taf. 76). As the lamps of this special type from Yurta - Stroyno are significantly derivative from the original Loeschcke types IV/V, they must be dated to the 2nd century AD at the earliest. ICONOMU TYPE XXX/BRONEER TYPE XXIX Agroup of nine lamp fragments with varying clay structure but united by relief rays on their rounded shoulders can be soundly bundled together as agroup (Pl. 6/1:9–10, Pl. 6/2:11–17; Tab.1:9–17). All but one of these fragments were found in the levelling layer, the one was retrieved from RT soil [SU001]. ey best recall Dalmatian and racian local variations on Loeschcke type VIII round lamps. Examples of these may be found in Zagreb (Vikić - Belančić 1971, 162, cat. no. 238), Noviodunum (Baumann 2009, 254, fig. 14, cat. no. 122), Chersonesus, where they are termed “ribbed” lamps (Klenina– Biernacki 2015, 271–272), and in Butovo and Pavlikeni (Sultova 1991, 117, 123, обр. 14–16, 24; Vladkova 2011, 126, cat. no. 30). ese crude and rare lamps have an uncertain date range; usually they are aributed to the 3rd and 4th century AD. AÞer the 2nd century AD, the Loeschcke type VIII koiné lamp of the Mediterranean is more of an umbrella term for various round shaped lamps that were widely distributed and copied than aspecific type itself. e existence of these “ribbed” variations on the type should therefore come as no surprise. Alternatively, the rays on the shoulder recall Iconomu type XXX late Danube/Balkan lamps made as late as the 6th century AD, which were in turn avariation on North African lamp production (Curta 2016, 75–81). As the dating for this type proposed by analogies is unclear (from the 3rd to the 6th century AD), they cannot be used to date stratigraphic contexts at Yurta - Stroyno. OTHER VARIATIONS ON LOESCHCKE TYPE VIII LAMPS Adissonant group of Loeschcke type VIII round lamps– avery broad type in itself– complete the series with eight lamps found in mixed contexts, but mostly in the RT soil [SU001] (Pl. 6/2:18–25; Tab.1:18–25). ese hardy lamps were the common ware of the Roman East, and it is no surprise to find them locally produced in race as well. ree of our finds might be aributed to specific context: ashoulder and discus fragment (Pl. 6/2:21) comes from the trench [SU008] in Room C; ashoulder and handle fragment with aprominent globule (Pl. 6/2:25) was found in the levelling layer north of the house; and the round and worn slipped lamp (Pl. 6/2:20), which has the distinction of being the only complete lamp from Yurta- -Stroyno, comes from the fill of the ditch [SU021]. e last one has discus decorated by 8–10 petals around the central oil filling hole. POTENTIAL BILDLAMPEN (LOESCHCKE TYPES I–V) ree fragments have the limited potential to be Bildlampen (Pl. 6/3:26–28; Tab.1:26–28). One discus fragment (Pl. 6/3:26) has ashoulder groove typical of late Bildlampen produced from the 2nd century AD, although, in the Roman provinces, an upper date cannot be specified. Two fragments (Pl. 6/3:27– 28) potentially have angular nozzles typical of Loeschcke type 151THE TERRACOTTA LAMPS Ilamps but cannot be conclusively identified. Neither of these is sufficiently preserved as to allow definite aribution. PRODUCER STAMPS, WORKSHOP MARKS, AND AWASTER Almost no producer stamps or workshop marks survive on lamps from Yurta - Stroyno; however, aLoeschcke type VIII lamp (Pl. 6/2:24) is aprominent exception with an incised swastika on its base. Unfortunately, like another lamp (Pl. 6/3:29) with adecoration of incised rays on its base, it was found in RT soil [SU001] contaminated by modern looting activities. e two possible base fragments of Firmalampen (Pl. 6/3:36–37) may show faint signs of firm marks; both are beyond recognition. An interesting ceramic fragment found in the levelling layer (Pl. 6/3:30) may not belong to alamp at all, but certainly bears all the signs of being mould - made with finger smears on the inside surface, and small relief globules on the outside (indicating that aplaster form was used to make it). It is irregular, deformed and with asandwich firing structure, and could be interpreted either as aceramic lampstand or awaster. Since there is no reason for wasters to have travelled very far from their point of origin, if this aribution is true, it would indicate aceramics workshop located on or very nearby the selement of Yurta - Stroyno. LAMPS FROM THE SURFACE SURVEY Altogether 46 fragments were recovered from the surface survey. Most fragments were nondescript walls or shoulder joins which are astrong point for alamp’shardiness, oÞen preserved, but with lile diagnostic value. Nine disci, ten handles, five nozzles and five bases were recovered. Lamp finds from the survey area would appear to be clustered to the north- -northeast of the presumed extent of the selement core, especially in squares D13, F13, H13 (see Weissová – Tušlová– Bakarzdhiev 2022, map 3). LOESCHCKE TYPES I–V Despite their miniscule size, two fragments (Pl. 6/3:31–32; Tab.1:31–32) may have belonged to volute lamps of Loeschcke types I–V. e former is distinguished by its fine orange clay and three grooves which vaguely recall aForm I/IIa shoulder type found on early Loeschcke type Ia lamps (c.f. Loeschcke 1919, 28, Abb. 2). e latest imitations of this subtype were produced at the end of the 1 st century AD in Raetia (Leibundgut 1977, 22–23) but unfortunately the fragment is too baered to definitely assign it to Loeschcke type Ia or to identify it with other types. e laer fragment shows signs of avolute near the angular nozzle of an unspecified volute lamp– either of Loeschcke types I–Vor an imitation. SINGLE FINDS AND LOCAL VARIATIONS ON KNOWN TYPES Afragment (Pl. 6/3:33) has preserved discus and nozzle with similar relief decorations on the shoulder to our group of rib - shouldered Dalmatian and racian local variations on Iconomu type XXX/Broneer type XXIX from the excavation (c.f. Pl. 6/1:9–10, Pl. 6/2:11–17). However, in this case, the relief rays are made with deep incuse cuts on the shoulder, and the nozzle is separated by athick band with three relief globules. Alamp from Pavlikeni has similar relief ribs (Sultova 1991, обр. 24). Other parallels, such as alamp of this type from Noviodunum 254 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT DISTAFF Two objects, first one, no. 18, found during the excavations inside Room D, and another one, no. 19, recovered during the archaeological survey, could have once been part of adistaff. No. 18 (Fig. 4:18; Pl. 8/2:18)is abody part (ca. 50 mm long, broken on both sides), decorated near the broken ends by incised lines, and slightly narrowing towards one of the sides. e width persists almost the same throughout the whole fragment, which is unusual for pins, but characteristic for distaffs. e closest parallel to this body part might have been found in the burial mound excavated north - east of the village of Boyanovo,3 in Elhovo municipality in Yambol District, dated to the end of the 1st and 2nd century AD. Several entirely preserved bone distaffs had been uncovered there, three of them composed of three such body segments the same as our piece (Agre 2013, 353). Due to the narrowing on one side with more profound decoration, the Yurta- -Stroyno fragment could be reconstructed as the first segment of the distaff, nearest to the top. e second object, no. 19, represents carving of an animal, adog (ca. 20 mm high), standing on arectangular platform (Fig. 4:19; Pl. 8/2:19). e break in atriangular shape just at the boom of the platform suggests that the object had been broken off from ashaÞ. e animal representation is lively and bears relatively delicate details considering its size. e dog tail creates asmall loop which might have been used to secure the distaff by astring against losing it. Askilled artisan used knife as well as adrill for its carving. For the parallel we may look again to the necropolis of Boyanovo and the distaffs uncovered there. One of them is crowned by asmall animal standing on arectangular platform. e size, the construction of the platform, as well as the animal - shaped decoration on its top is very similar to the one from Yurta - Stroyno (c.f. Agre 2013, 353). SPOONS ere were also two examples of oval spoons found at Yurta - Stroyno, no. 20 (Fig. 4:20; Pl. 8/2:20)and no. 21 (Fig. 4:21; Pl. 8/2:21). Even though one has been uncovered at the excavation and the other one during the surface survey, they are very similar regarding the dimensions of the bowl (25×22 mm, 24×21 mm) and ashallow blade. ey seem to be shaped into avery similar form, however, no. 20 has ahandle aached on the longer side of the bowl, while no. 21 on the shorter side. Spoon bowl no. 20 preserves the rest of atriangle - like relief reinforcement placed over the handle aachment which was (unsuccessfully) strengthening the connection. e handle of no. 21 also broke off just above the spoon bowl, indicating the weakest point of this instrument. ese small, fragile, and rather delicate spoons might have been used in cosmetics, pharmacy, or medicine, as they are not suitable for dining (Bíró 1994, 44–45). Barely visible concentric marks in the inner sides of the bowls reveal the technology of its production, as, except for afile and aknife, the artisan must have employed alathe to make the surface almost perfectly smooth (Barbier 2016, 114–115); see Pl. 8/3:21. is type of spoon is acommon find in the Roman provinces (Riha– Stern 1982, 16), with parallels from different selements and necropolises in Bulgaria, such as those from Heraclea Sintica in the Struma Valley (Cholakov 2015, 132–133), tumular necropolis near Straldzha in the Yambol District (Cholakov 2016, 161), or from Novae at the Danube River (Vladkova 2012, 230–231). Finds of these spoons from Straldzha and Novae have been dated to the 2nd and 3rd century AD. 3 e excavated burial mound is in fact halfway between villages Boyanovo and Stroyno, which are about 4 km apart each other. 255SELECTED SMALL FINDS MISCELLANEOUS e last object, no. 22, could not have been conclusively classed among the worked bones, although it bears certain ambiguous traits for which it deserves to be incorporated into this collection. It looks like afragment of aflute (hollowed bone) with only one fully preserved hole and another one partly damaged (placed ca. 15 mm apart from each other) (Fig. 4:22; Pl. 8/2:22). e bone itself is slightly bent which is not typical for Roman flutes, which tend to be straight and bigger in size. e holes have been pierced but apart from that, there are no tool marks visible. Examples of bone flutes with both drilled and pierced holes are relatively common during prehistorical, Roman but also Medieval periods (Bíró 1994, 60; Gál 2005, 327). Fig. 4: Drawings of the bone items; 7: dice; 18–19: fragments of distaffs; 20–21: spoon bowls; 22: flute (?). ByD. Mildová. 256 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT CONCLUSION e terracoa figurines as well as the worked bones fall into the category of less frequent finds uncovered at the selement of Yurta - Stroyno. It is difficult to confirm, that this might be aresult of the looting activity, which seems to significantly modify the amount of information and items retrieved from the selement. Worked bones are completely missing in the RT soil [SU001], excavated and carefully examined by the looters, while they are quite frequent in the levelling layer as well as in the fills of the ditches inside of the house. is comparison gives us an opportunity to reflect on proportions of objects located in the soil excavated by looters and the original contexts of the selement. Despite the small number of finds, the most common categories of variable object are still well represented at the selement. ey include anthropomorphic and zoomorphic terracoa figurines and toys, marble statuees of small dimensions, and variable worked bones such as different types of pins, distaffs, small spoons used for cosmetics, pharmacy, or medicine, as well as items aesting to board games and gaming activities in general– the dice and probably some of the astragali. Both the terracoa products as well as the worked bones follow the same paerns and shapes widespread around the Roman Empire, which are usually not locally specific. However, the comparison with other such objects mostly from Balkan peninsula allowed us to date the finds into atime range of the 2nd–4th c. AD (see Tab.1). Several of the items are of high - quality execution including the representation of the dog figurine from adistaff, which, together with the other segment of adistaff, have direct parallels in the nearby rich grave of aburial mound in Boyanovo dated to the end of the 1st and 2nd century AD. We may also notice the similarity of the terracoa eagle wing with the products of the workshop in Philippopolis (race) active in the 3rd c.– early 4th c. AD, and the wheel, connected to the horse rider figurine, with the aested production centre in Butovo (Moesia Inferior), newly dated to the end of the 2nd and mid-3rd c. AD. We do not have any proof besides the typological similarity these objects originate from the named workshops, however, these parallels help us to put the selement of Yurta - Stroyno into the context of its hinterland and of the Roman province of race in general. e head of the bearded man, presumably agod Asclepius or Heracles, is done in finely grained white marble. e depiction of the man’sface is well executed, although heavily eroded. e find is outstanding in the whole assemblage of Yurta - Stroyno, however mostly for its singularity, as it represents the only free - standing statuee uncovered on the selement. ABBREVIATIONS AB = Archaeologia Bulgarica LIMC II = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae II: Aphrodisias– Athena. 1984, Zürich– München– Düsseldorf. LIMC IV = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae IV: Eros (in Etruria)– Herakles. 1988, Zürich– München– Düsseldorf. SH = Studia Hercynia 257SELECTED SMALL FINDS BIBLIOGRAPHY Agre 2013 = Агре, Д. 2013: Тракийска могила от римската епоха вземлището на с. Бояново, Елховска община. In: Сборник впамет на акад. Д.П. Димитров. София, 346–358. Barbier, M. 2016: L’artisanat de l’os à l’Epoque Gallo-Romaine. De l’osteologie à l’archeologie expérimentale. Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 16. Oxford. Bíró, M. 1994: e Bone Objects of the Roman Collection. Budapest. Bospatchieva, M. 2004: ALate Antiquity Poery Workshop in Philippopolis (Plovdiv, Southern Bulgaria). AB VIII:2, 89–104. Charles, B. 2013: Worked Bone and Ivory. In: W. Aylward (ed.): Excavations at Zeugma. Conducted by Oxford ArchaeologyIII. California, 281–294. hps://zeugma.packhum.org/ (visited 21/12/2021). Cholakov, I.D. 2015: HandcraÞ Production in Heraclea Sintica (On Archaeological Data). In: E. Nankov– L. Vagalinski (eds.): Heraclea Sintica: From Hellenistic Polis to Roman Civitas (4th c. BC–6th c. AD). Proceedings of aConference at Petrich, Bulgaria, September 19–21, 2013. Papers of the American Research Center in Sofia 2. Plovdiv, 126–143. Cholakovetal. 2016 = Чолаков, И.Д.– Александрова, С.– Русева, В.– Пеева, Н. 2016:Могилен некропол от римската епоха край град Стралджа, Ямболско. Българско е - Списание за Археология Suppl. 5. София. Choyke, A. 2010: e Bone is the Beast: Animal Amulets and Ornaments in Power and Magic. In: D. Campana– P.Crabtree– S.D. de France– J. Lev -Tov– A. Choyke (eds.): Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism, Complexity, and Animal Transformations. Oxford– Oakville, 197–209. Crummy, N. 1981: Bone - working at Colchester. Britannia 12,277–285. Čisťakova, V.– Kmošek, J. 2022: Metal Finds and Traces of Metallurgical Activities at Yurta - Stroyno. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 155–183. Čisťakova, V.– Zlámalová Cílová, Z. 2022: Archaeological and Archaeometric Study of the Roman and Late Antique Glass. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 184–244. Deschler - Erb, S. 1998a: Römische Beinartefakte aus Augusta Raurica. Rohmaterial, Technologie, Typologie und Chronologie. Text und Tafeln. Augst. Deschler - Erb. S. 1998b: Römische Beinartefakte aus Augusta Raurica. Rohmaterial, Technologie, Typologie und Chronologie. Katalog. Augst. Falkner, R.2007: Ceramic Objects. In: A.G. Poulter (ed.): Nicopolis ad Istrum. ALate Roman and Early Byzantine City. e Finds and the Biological Remains. Oxford, 88–103. Frecer, R.2022: e Terracoa Lamps. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.):e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 145–154. Gál, E. 2005: New data on bird bone artefacts from Hungary and Romania. In: H. Luik– A.M. Choyke– C.E. Batey– L. Lõugas (eds.): From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th–31st of August 2003. Tallinn, 325–338. Gingras, J.– Aylward, W. 2013: Terracoa Figurines. In: W. Aylward (ed.): Excavations at Zeugma. Conducted by Oxford ArchaeologyIII. California, 202–208. hps://zeugma.packhum.org/ (visited 21/12/2021). Gostenčnik, K. 2001: Preand Early Roman Bone and Antler Manufacturing in Kärnten, Austria. In: A. Choyke– L. Bartosiewicz (eds.): CraÈing Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 August– 5 September 1999. BAR International Series 937. Oxford, 383–397. Harizanov 2019 = Харизанов, А.К. 2019: Пещи за керамика вднешните български земи през I–VI век. Дисертации 15. София. 258 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Heřmánková, P.2022a: e Epigraphic Finds from Yurta - Stroyno in aRegional Context. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.): e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural Settlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 118–132. Heřmánková, P.2022b: e Numismatic Finds. In: P.Tušlová– B. Weissová– S. Bakardzhiev (eds.):e Yurta-Stroyno Archaeological Project. Studies on the Roman Rural SeÄlement in race. SH Monographs 2. Praha, 133–144. Hristov, I. 2015: e Preatorium of Sostra. AStudy of the Roman Roadside Station of Sostra on Oescus– Phillippopolis road (II–III century). Sofia. Hrnčiarik, E. 2016: Roman Bone Artifacts from Iža. In: S. Vitezović (ed.): Close to the bone: current studies in bone technologies. Belgrade, 140–145. Ignatov 1999 = Игнатов, В. 1999: Паметници на орли от Новозагорско. Археология 1999:1–2, 58–62. Ivanov 2021 = Иванов, С.Д. 2021: Типология ихронология на червенолаковата керамика от производствените комплекси между дунав ибалкана (II–III в.). Archaeologia Bulgarica supplement 1А. София. Kazarow, G.I. 1938: Die Denkmäler des thrakischen ReitergoÄes in Bulgarien. Budapest. Oppermann, M. 2006: Der thrakische Reiter des Ostbalkanraumes im Spannungsfeld von Graecitas, Romanitas und lokalen Traditionen. Langenweissbach. Roberts, A. 2007: Worked Bone. In: A.G. Poulter (ed.): Nicopolis ad Istrum. ALate Roman and Early Byzantine City. e Finds and the Biological Remains. Oxford, 65–79. Riha. E.– Stern, W.B. 1982: Die römischen Löffel aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. Archäologische und metallanalytische Untersuchungen 5. Augst. Sultov 1962 = Султов, Б. 1962: Един занаятчийски център от Долна Мизия. Археология 1962:4, 30–34. Sultov, B. 1976: Ancient PoÄery Centres in Moesia Inferior. Sofia. St. Clair, A. 2003: Carving as CraÈ: Palatine East and the Greco-Roman Bone and Ivory Carving Tradition. Baltimore. Tsontchev, D. 1959: Monuments de la sculpture romaine en Bulgarie méridionale. Collection Latomus 39. Bruxelles. Vass, L.– Pánczél, S.P.2009: To Play or Not to Play? Roman dice from Porolissum in the Wesselényi -Teleki Collection. In: S. Bíró (ed.): Ex officina…Studia in honorem Dénes Gabler. Györ, 561–572. Vladkova 2011 = Владкова, П. 2011: Античен производствен център при Павликени (Долна Мизия): план на комплекса, периодизация ивидове керамични изделия. Велико Търново. Vladkova, P.2012: On the Working of Bone and Horn in Novae. In: L. Vagalinski– N. Sharankov– S. Torbatov (eds.): e Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st– 6th c. AD). Sofia, 211–249. Adéla Minaříková Department of Art History Faculty of Arts, Charles University Celetná 20, CZ-11000, Prague 1 [email protected] 259ANALYSIS OF THE OSTEOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM YURTA-STROYNO Analysis of the Osteological Material from Yurta-Stroyno Miriam Nývltová Fišáková ABSTRACT e agricultural behaviour of the selement of Yurta - Stroyno shows that cale, sheep/goats and domestic pigs were important sources of meat and/or milk for the inhabitants. Most of the bone remains belong to cale, followed by pigs and small ruminants. In addition to domestic animals, bones of adomestic dog and cat were identified. Birds were not found and from fish only afew vertebrae and unspecified fragments were recognized. e representatives of snails point to the proximity of fields and drier and warmer climate and indicate the aquatic environment of stagnant and muddy waters. Particularly important are findings of the aquatic snails which show that the area of the excavated house was covered by river sediments caused by floods. Most of the osteological material from Yurta - Stroyno was retrieved from the so - called levelling layer laid north of the excavated house. is layer is amixture of selement waste which was accumulated there during the final stage of the house to elevate/drain the area. Exposition of the analysed bones on an open space is confirmed by the traces of dog gnawing on the bones. e results from Yurta - Stroyno were compared with the osteological analysis from Nicopolis ad Istrum. In the comparison, the basic spectrum of domestic fauna is the same, while the osteological remains from Yurta - Stroyno provided less varied wild fauna. In both cases we can however spot that the cale breeding and pastoralism was an important part of selement life in the area of modern Bulgaria during the Roman period. KEYWORDS Bulgaria; Roman race; rural selement; zooarchaeology; animals; bones. INTRODUCTION e article deals with the osteological material found within the excavations of the Yurta- -Stroyno Archaeological Project (SAP) taking place in 2014–2016 in Yambol District, Bulgaria. Altogether, material collected from ten deposits was evaluated, with seven of them creating apart of the so - called levelling layer1 placed north of the house on its courtyard, and with three fills of ditches found inside of the house2 located just below the soil excavated by the looters (see the excavation report: Tušlová– Weissová– Bakardzhiev 2022), here Tab.1. e levelling layer is up to 40 cm thick, located about 50 cm below the topsoil. It was spread at once in the area north of the house over different excavated trenches, elevating the area of the presumed courtyard of the house. It is characterized by ahigh amount of diverse and fragmented material compound of the selement waste: poery fragments, architectural ceramics, production waste, worked and unworked stones of different sizes and fragments of small finds of various materials. Besides that, it also contains ahigh amount of osteological material of different state of preservation. e levelling layer mixes material dated to the time span of the 2nd–5th/6th c. AD. 1 i.e. layers SU010; SU012; SU016; SU078; SU084; FA08 and levelling layer I. 2 Ditches SU008, SU021, SU057. 260 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT e osteological material from the area north of the house originates at different trenches and at several different stratigraphical units (SU). Nevertheless, all these are parts of one levelling layer. e levelling layer was divided within the excavation based on different squares and sub - units and, consequently, it has many SU numbers. What is important for us is the division into its upper and lower layers in some of the squares as the density of the finds, as well as their fragmentation, differs. Consequently, in the square 100E_110N SE the layer [SU078] was placed above the [SU084], in the square 95E_105N NW the layer [SU012] was placed above the layer [SU016].3 In square 100E_105N NE the sub - units were put together and processed in bulk as one layer, further marked as LevellingI. e two remaining layers processed here are [SU010] and FA08, both corresponding to the lower levelling layer, i.e. parallel in height with [SU016] and [SU084] (see Tab.1). e three fills of ditches ([SU008], [SU021], [SU057]) located inside of the house represent the rest of the analysed material. ey might have been created in antiquity, but also during material extraction, some time prior to the latest looting. ey were all covered by the RT soil [SU001] excavated recently by the treasure hunters. In consequence, they represent the only places inside of the house, which were not affected by the recent looting activities. For adetailed description of the situation and each layer and fill see Tušlová, Weissová and Bakardzhiev 2022. METHODS e archaeozoological material was determined by commonly used anatomical atlases and manuals (Schmid 1972; Cohen– Serjeantson 1996; Červený– Komárek– Štěrba 1999; Bocheński– Tomek 2000; Komárek– Štěrba– Fejfar 2001) and by the comparison with the osteological collection deposited at the Institute of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno. Bones of individual animals were distinguished and determined on the bases of the following works: the sheep and goats: W. Prummel– H. J. Frische (1986); S. Payne (1973); P.Haelstead– P.Collins (1995; 2002); and B. J. Adams– P.J. Crabtree (2008); the domestic and 3 While SU078 = SU012 and SU084 = SU016. SU Trench Sect. SU specification SU position SU010 90E_105N NE levelling layer lower SU012 95E_105N NW levelling layer upper SU016 95E_105N NW levelling layer lower SU078 100E_110N SE levelling layer upper SU084 100E_110N SE levelling layer lower Levelling I 100E_105N NE levelling layer upper + lower FA08 105E_105N NW levelling layer lower SU008 100E_100N SW ditch inside the house SU021 95E_105N SE ditch inside the house SU057 100E_105N SE ditch inside the house Tab.1: Overview of the layers and ditches which were evaluated for the osteological material. 261ANALYSIS OF THE OSTEOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM YURTA-STROYNO wild pigs: G. Payne– G. Bulla (1988); the cale sex was identified and described according to P.Armitage (1982). Where the condition of skeletal remains survived, osteometric values were measured according to von Driesch (1976) methodology. e height at withers of the animal was calculated based on the instructions of M. Teichert (1969) and A. von den Driesch– J. Boessneck (1974). To determine the age of the animals, current methods based on the development of epiphysis (Reitz– Wing 2008) and tooth eruption and abrasion (Payne 1973; Grant 1982) were used. e type of meat based on found bones was determined on the basis of the works of A. Trawiński (1948); M. Sobociński (1981; 1991); V. Páral– Z. Mechurová– M. Riedlová (1995); and L. Steinhauseretal. (2000). However, it should be borne in mind that these are modern criteria, their use for the Roman period conditions is only indicative. Basic quantification methods used in the article are based on standard methodologies, which are presented in the works of R. Kyselý (2004) and E. Reitz– E. Wing (2008). e complementary method of assessment based on the number of whole bone fragments is quantification of fragment mass analysis; bones were weighed on laboratory scales to two tenths of agram. e method of quantification of NISP (number of identified bone fragments) was calculated for individual fragments. In the case that it was clear that the failing epiphysis belongs to the diaphysis, then both fragments were counted as one bone (MNE– minimum number of elements). MNI values (minimum number of individuals) were determined based on the number of anatomical elements and their parts, taking into account the determination of the side in combination with fragmentation and age of each species. e zoological and anatomical terminology used in the work is based on current taxonomic nomenclature and recommendations (Gentry– Clutton - Brock– Groves 2004; Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria 2012). THE OSTEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Below is abrief overview of identified fauna and the size categories from all contexts together. Amore detailed breakdown is given in Tab.2. e list of the detected species Mammals species Bos taurus Sus domestica Ovis/Capra Canis familiaris Felis domestica Large mammals (cale or horse size) Medium size mammals (pig size) Small mammals (sheep or goat size) Fishes Pisces sp. Indet. Gastropoda Cepaea vindobonensis Pomatia elegans Cyraulus albus 262 THE YURTA-STROYNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT Tab.2: Detailed overview of the fauna found in each of the examined contexts with amount of the identified bones. e total number of the bones and bone fragments collected within the ten contexts was 2156 pieces with atotal weight of 8.7 kg (Tab.3). Most of the material was very fragmented; the bone fragments range from 1.5 cm to 10 cm. e collection of osteological remains from Yurta- -Stroyno provided acommon range of mammalian domestic species. It was represented by the cale (Bos taurus), the domestic pig (Sus domestica), the domestic sheep (Ovis aries), the domestic goat (Capra hircus), the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) the domestic cat (Felis domestica), and by size categories of alarge mammal (cale or horse size), amedium sized mammal (pig size), and asmall mammal (sheep or goat size). Wildlife animals are represented by remains of unidentified fishes and species grastropods Pomatia elegans, Cepaea vindobonensis and fluvial gastropod Cyraulus albus. Most of the bone remains come from the cale, followed by domestic pig and by size categories of medium - size and large mammals. Amuch lesser number of finds is of sheep/goats, medium - sized mammals, dogs and cats (Tab.2). On the basis of NISP, MNI and MNE the most represented groups were cale and large mammal categories, followed by pigs and medium size mammals with even lesser number of small ruminants (sheep/goats) and size categories of small mammals and snails; other species are in minority (Tab.3). From the point of view of the weight categories of the bones, the most abundant is the cale together with the large mammal size category corresponding to the size of the cale or horse. e second abundant species is the pig and the size category of amedium - sized mammal Archaeological context Determined animal species SU Trench Sect. SU specification Cale Pigs Sheep/Goats Cat Dog Pisces sp. Indet. Cepaea vindobonensis Pomatia elegans Cyraulus albus Large mammals Medium size mammals Small mammals Unidentified Total amount SU078 100E_110N SE levelling layer 96 27 8 42 50 20 97 340 SU084 100E_110N SE levelling layer 14 512 22 863 124 Levelling I 100E_105N NE levelling layer 14 3 4 18 26 18 53 136 SU012 95E_105N NW levelling layer 4 2 8 14 SU016 95E_105N NW levelling layer 17 14 433 56 401 525 SU010 90E_105N NE levelling layer 14 23 383 31 11 574 739 FA08 105E_105N NW levelling layer 4 5 2 3 2 8 24 SU008 100E_100N SW fill, inside of the house 21 11 12 1 2 7 78 132 SU021 95E_105N SE fill, inside of the house 4 0 1 2 2 9 SU057 100E_105N SE fill, inside of the house 2 4 2 6 9 11 79 113 Total amount 190 94 45 2 2 4 212 173 49 1363 2134 263ANALYSIS OF THE OSTEOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM YURTA-STROYNO (the size of apig). e third most abundant species is the sheep/goat in this respect, even in connection with the size category of asmall mammal, which corresponds to the sheep/goat size. Many bones are in poor condition which likely relates to the post - deposition processes; ribs and vertebrates, as well as evidence of severely burned bones, are completely missing in the evaluated assemblage. THE LEVELLING LAYER In the upper layer [SU078] in the square 100E_110N SE, and in the upper layer [SU012] in the square 95E_105N NW, we found the most abundant remains of an ox and the size category of the medium sized mammal (pig size), which are followed by domestic pigs and the size category of the large mammal (horse size); less represented is sheep/goats and the size category of asmall mammal; majority of the material belongs to unidentified bone fragments. Asimilar situation was detected in the lower layer [SU084] in the square 100E_110N SE, and the lower layer [SU016] in the square 95E_105N NW. Both contain the most remnants of the large mammal and cale size category, followed by sheep/goats, pigs, and the midsize mammal category. e unidentified bones are as well the most represented. e difference between the upper and the lower stratigraphically positioned layers is the higher fragmentation of the bones connected with the upper layers. In addition to these, the thick levelling layer I, which was not divided into the upper and lower sub - units, is composed predominantly of undeterminable bones and of bones of all Species NISP MNI MNE Cale 190 5 182 Domestic pig 94 4 74 Sheep/goats 45 4 32 Dog 2 1 2 Domestic cat 2 1 2 Pisces sp. Indet. 4 2 4 Pomatia elegans 666 Cepaea vindobonensis 777 Cyraulus albus 999 Large mammals 212 212 Medium size mammals 173 173 Small mammals 49 49 Totally determined 793 752 Undeterminable 1363 Total (pcs.) 2156 39 1322 Weight (g.) 8700 Tab.3: e overview of the following values: number of identified bone fragments (NISP); minimum number of individuals (MNI); minimum number of elements (MNE). [Document text truncated for crawler view.]