THE LONGEST TWILIGHT – On the Scordisci/Balkan Wars of the 2 – 1 c. BC

UD: Feb. 2020

 

 

 

 

“Part of this region (Thrace) was inhabited by the Scordisci … a people formerly cruel and savage, and, as ancient history declares, accustomed to offer up their prisoners to Bellona and Mars, and from their hollowed skulls greedily to drink human blood. By their savageness the Roman state was often sorely troubled…”

(Ammianus Marcellinus Book 27: iv,4)

 

Written out of history by classical and neo-classical ‘historians’, the desperate wars of resistance by the Celtic and Free Thracian tribes against the expansion of the Roman Empire on the Balkans was one of the longest and most brutal conflicts in European history.

 

 

PAX ROMANA

 

After the defeat of Macedonia in the 3^rd and 4^th Macedonian Wars, and the ease and speed with which Rome had destroyed the Achaean League, it appeared that the Roman conquest of southeastern Europe was unstoppable. The utter destruction of the city of Corinth in 146 BC, and the mass looting and enslavement which accompanied the establishment of the Roman province of Macedonia, were a clear warning to those who would oppose the empire.

It was therefore logical to expect that the barbarian tribes of the central and northern Balkans would quickly succumb to the Roman military machine, and the ‘Pax Romana’ which accompanied it. In fact, the conquest of Thrace would develop into a brutal and prolonged conflict which was to rage for over 150 years.

 

The first military encounter between the Balkan Celts and the Roman empire occurred in 156 BC (Obsequens 16), but the extent or location of this clash remains unknown, and it is not until the establishment of the Roman province of Macedonia in 146 BC that this conflict intensifies. In 141 BC a Roman offensive in Thrace was repulsed by the Celts, as was a Scordisci counter-attack on Macedonia (see Kazarov 1919:75 – Кацаров Г. Келти в стара Тракия и Македония СпБАН 18, кл. ист. фил. 10. София 1918, 41 – 80). This resulted in a period of apparent stalemate which was broken in 135 BC when an imperial force defeated the Scordisci in Thrace (M. Cosconius praetor in Thracia cum Scordiscis prospere pugnauit – Livy Periocha LVI).

 

Military equipment from from the Scordisci burial complex at Karaburma in the Balkan Celtic settlement of Singidunum (today’s Belgrade), Serbia
(3/2 c. BC)

 

 

Detail of anthropomorphic decoration on the pommel of an iron sword, and scabbard decorated in the “Hungarian Sword Style”, from the Scordisci burial complex at Kupinovo (Syrmia), Serbia (3rd c. BC)

(after: Drnić I. (2015) Groblje latenske culture/A La Têne Culture Cemetery. Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu, 2015)

 

In the 20’s of the 2^nd c. BC the Scordisci also came under attack from the north. An expansion of the Germanic Cimbri tribe was finally repulsed near the Celtic settlement of Singidunum (Belgrade), and the Cimbri migrated further west (Rankin D. Celts and the Classical World. New York 1987:19). It is likely that it was during these events that the most famous of Scordisci treasures, the Gundestrup cauldron, was looted and carried off by the Cimbri (Bergquist A.K., Taylor T.F. The Origin of the Gundestrup Cauldron, Antiquity, vol. 61, 1987. 10-24).

 

                                           THE GUNDESTRUP CAULDRON

(National Museum of Denmark – Copenhagen)

See: https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/the-gundestrup-ghosts-hidden-images-in-the-gundestrup-cauldron/

 

Celtic (Scordisci) jewelry box with ‘Foxtail’ chain from the Zidovar treasure (Serbia, 2/1 c. BC)

See: https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/barbarian-masterpieces-celtic-jewelry-boxes/

 

 

It should be borne in mind that all the information that we have at our disposal concerning this conflict comes from the Romans themselves, who tended to be rather selective in what they reported. For example, the victory of Cosconius should logically have led to territorial gains by the Romans in Thrace. However, the victory in 135 BC is followed by an ominous silence in Roman sources which is eloquent in itself. By the time of the next report relating to 119 BC (Kazarov (op cit) puts these attacks in 117 BC) the Celts have pushed all the way to the Aegean coast where the Roman governor Pompeius was killed during an attack on Argos. The Scordisci were finally pushed back by a force commanded by Quaestor Marcus Annius, (SIG 700 Sherk 1 48 R.K. Sherk Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Agustus (1993); CAH 9’32 = Cambridge Ancient History 2^nd Edition 1984 -1989) who also succeeded in repulsing a subsequent attack soon afterwards by the Scordisci, in alliance with the Thracian Maidi tribe.

 The participation of the Maidi (the tribe of Spartacus, who would be captured by Rome during a latter phase of this conflict – see below) in the second attack on Macedonia in 119 BC is particularly noteworthy, because it marks the beginning of a new pattern which would continue for the next 100 years of this conflict. While the Thracian Celts continued to be the main element in the resistance to Roman expansion on the Balkans, from this point onwards they are frequently accompanied by other Balkan tribes, notably the Bastarnae, Dardanii, and the Free Thracian tribes (Maidi, Triballi, Denteletes, and Bessi).

 

 In the aftermath of the events of 119 BC, the empire finally seems to have realized the gravity of the barbarian threat. In 115 BC Quintus Fabius Maximus Eburnus, who had been consul in 116 BC, was sent to Macedonia. Eburnus was renowned as a strict authoritarian figure who had sentenced his own son to death for ‘immorality’, and it appears that it was he who drew up the plans for the Roman conquest of Thrace (Valerius Maximus 6.1.5–6; Pseudo-Quintilian, Decl. 3.17; Orosius 5.16.8). As part of this strategy a Roman fortress was established at Heraclea Sintica (at today’s Rupite near Petritch in s.w. Bulgaria) under a commander called Lucullus. This garrison was situated in the strategic Struma river valley, the only practical route for a large military force to move into western Thrace. The culmination of the Roman strategy was the invasion of Thrace in 114 BC by a Roman army led by Gaius Porcius Cato.

Depiction of a Celtic (Scordisci) chieftain on a sliver/gilt plate from the Jakimovo treasure (Northwestern Bulgaria) II – I c. BC 

 

Inscribed cult relief bearing a dedication to the Celtic tribal God Scordus (Sofia region, Bulgaria 4^th – 3^rd c. BC) (After Manov 1993)

( See: https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/serdiserdica/ )

 

 

THE STRUMA MASSACRES

 

‘The cruelest of all the Thracians were the Scordisci…”.

(Florus, Epitome XXXVIIII (The Thracian War) III. 4)

 

The events of 114 BC were to prove catastrophic for the Romans. As mentioned, a Roman fortress was established on the upper Struma river at Heracleae Sintica, and two cohorts of Roman soldiers were stationed there under a commander called Lucullus (Front. Strat. 3,10,7). This fortress was on the border of, or even possibly within, the territory of the Celtic tribes in Thrace, and appears to have been intended as a staging post for further Roman expansion northwards. In 114 BC a Roman army, led by the consul Gaius Porcius Cato, marched along the Struma Valley into Thrace (Liv. Per. 63′a; Flor. 1.39, 1-4; Dio Cass fr. 88’1; Eutrop. 4.24.1; Amm. Marc. 27.4.4). The purpose of this attack appears to have been twofold – to eradicate the barbarian threat to Roman Macedonia, and to expand the empires power into the territory of today’s western Bulgaria.

 

 The western Rhodope mountains

 

This heavily afforested and mountainous area of the western Rhodope mountains is ill suited for the conventional military tactics of an imperial army, but perfect terrain for the surprise attacks and ambush tactics used by the Thracian Celts in this period. It would appear that the Roman consul completely underestimated the situation both in terms of the terrain, and the military potential of his enemy. The invading Roman army was wiped out, and the Celts counterattacked.

After the destruction of Cato’s army the Celts advanced on the Roman garrison at Heracleae Sintica. In light of the fact that a large Roman army had just invaded Thrace it appears that the last thing the garrison was expecting was a Celtic attack. The ensuing events are described by the Roman historian Frontinius (40 – 103 AD) in his work Strategemata (3,19,7):

“Scordisci equites, cum Heracleae diversarum partium praesidio praepositus esset Lucullus, pecora abigere simulantes provocaverunt eruptionem; fugam deinde mentiti sequentem Lucullum in insidias deduxerunt et octingentos cum eo milites occiderunt”.

The attack on Heracleae was marked, not by the headlong barbarian charge often associated with the Celts, but by a much more subtle and successful tactic. A small group of Celtic horsemen were first dispatched and, pretending to drive off the livestock, provoked Lucullus into a fatal error. No sooner had the Roman force emerged from their defenses to hunt down the ‘barbarians’, than the main body of the Celtic cavalry attacked. What followed was less a battle than a massacre, in the aftermath of which the Roman commander and 800 of his soldiers lay dead.

In a series of devastating attacks, the Thracian Celts had brought Roman expansion on the Balkans to a brutal halt.

 

Material from the burial Scordisci Cavalry Officer at Montana (N.W. Bulgaria)

(RGZM – Inv. # 0.42301/01-08; late 2nd / 1st c. BC)

 

https://www.academia.edu/26277623/A_CELTIC_SCORDISCI_CAVALRY_OFFICER_FROM_MONTANA_BULGARIA_

See also: https://www.academia.edu/5385798/Scordisci_Swords_from_Northwestern_Bulgaria

 

 

 QUI VENTUM SEMINAT …

The Scordisci victories of 114 BC brought a predictable reaction. The Celts were attacked in Thrace in 112 BC by the Consul Livius Drusus (Liv. Per 63′a; Flor. 1.39’5; Dio Cass. fr. 88’1; Festus Brev 9’2; Amm. Marc. 27.4’10), but the real retaliation for the events of 114 BC came three years later. In 109 BC a Roman army entered Thrace commanded by Minucius Rufus and, according to Roman sources (Flor. 1.39.5; Liv. Per. 65′a; Frontin Strat. 2. 4’3; Festus Brev 9’2; Eutrop 4.27’3; Amm. Marc. 27.4’10) and an inscription from Delphi (probably raised by Rufus himself), defeated the Scordisci and the Thracian Bessi tribe.

Inscription from Delphi mentioning the victory over the Scordisci and Bessi in 109 BC

(Dittenberger SIG 3, 348)

 

 It is interesting to note that the campaign of 109 BC was launched, not along the Struma valley where Cato’s army had been destroyed, but along the Maritza (Hebrus) river valley, a route more suitable for a Roman army. Furthermore, this campaign appears not to have been directed at a specific military target, but at the ‘barbarian’ population in general. Thus, while the Scordisci are again mentioned as the focus of the Roman campaign, it was the Thracian Bessi tribe along the Hebrus river who bore the brunt of the Roman attacks. In fact, until this point the Bessi tribe had taken no part in attacks on Roman forces on the Balkans, nor had they played any role in the Celtic campaign against Rome. It would appear that the Thracian tribe simply happened to be ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’.

 In terms of Roman expansion in the Balkans, Rufus’ victory in 109 BC did not lead to any territorial gains, and the Roman forces retreated south into Macedonia, indicating again the punitive nature of the campaign. During their homeward march a large part of the Roman army was drowned when the ice on the Hebros (Maritza) river cracked underneath them (Flor. 1.39.5).

 

 In the long term, the events of 109 BC did not significantly affect the geo-political situation in the Balkans. Rome had still not achieved a foothold in Thrace, and the attack on the Bessi tribe had the effect of turning this tribe into one of Rome’s most bitter enemies. In the ensuing conflict the Bessi became one of the most enthusiastic participants in attacks on Roman Macedonia, and continued to resist the Romans in Thrace even after the end of the Scordisci Wars. These events also forged closer links between the Bessi tribe and the Celts in Thrace.

The Roman campaign of 109 BC also appears to have had another long term effect. While encounters in this conflict prior to this had largely been confined to attacks on military targets, in subsequent ‘barbarian’ attacks on Roman occupied areas of the Balkans brutal tactics similar to those used by the Romans along the Hebros valley are recorded.

 The next phase of this war was to be marked by a spiral of atrocities on both sides. If the Roman strategy had been to terrorize the Celtic and Thracian tribes into submission, they had failed miserably. There is a proverb coined by the Romans themselves – ‘Qui ventum seminat, turbinem metet’ (He who sows the wind, will reap the whirlwind). In the decades which followed, the Romans on the Balkans were about to reap the whirlwind.

 

Celtic Thasos type tetradrachma from central Bulgaria   (1^st c. BC).

The deteriorating political situation and the growing brutality of the conflict is accompanied by an increasing abstractionist tendency in Celtic art in the region

( https://www.academia.edu/6144182/Celtic_Thasos_Type_Coinage_from_Central_Bulgaria )

 

Attacks on Roman Macedonia by the Scordisci and their Thracian allies, notably the Maidi tribe, continued throughout the final years of the 2^nd c. BC, and the first decade of the 1^st c. BC (St. Jerome, (Hieronymus) 170.1; Obseq. 43; Hieron. Chron. 1917; Flor. XXXVIIII, iii, 4; Cic. Pis. 61; Festus. Brev. 9’2). The militarization of Celtic society in Thrace during this period is evident from the dramatic increase in finds of La Têne weaponry from this period compared to earlier phases. The turbulent events are also reflected in mass ‘war’ burials such as that at Slana Voda, and in the numerous hoards of Hellenistic and Roman ‘plunder coinage’ from Thrace found together with Celtic issues from this period, which bear clear testimony to the ‘barbarian’ attacks on Roman Macedonia and Greece ( see: https://www.academia.edu/4963636/Plunder_Coinage_from_Thrace ).

 

 

Distribution of Celtic weapons in northwestern Bulgaria – 2^nd – 1^st c. BC (See: https://www.academia.edu/5385798/Scordisci_Swords_from_Northwestern_Bulgaria )

 

The Balkan Celtic fortress at Krševica near Bujanovac in southern Serbia

 

With the gradual Roman expansion into this region during the late 2^nd / 1^st century BC, and the resulting war of resistance by the local tribes, Krševica became of particular strategic importance. During this brutal conflict, the fortress was used by the Scordisci Federation, in conjunction with other members of the ‘barbarian coalition’, including the Free Thracian tribes and Dardanians, as a staging-post for frequent attacks/raids on Roman occupied territory to the south.

https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/the-balkan-celtic-fortress-at-krsevica-southern-serbia/

 

By the beginning of the 1^st c. BC the Roman forces on the Balkans were feeling the strain of the apparently endless attacks from the north. In 90 BC the dam finally burst and, confronted by yet another Celtic/Maidi attack, the Roman borders disintegrated (Kazarov op cit.). The events which followed are described by the Roman historian Florus (Epitome of Roman History XXXVIIII, iii, 4). The Celtic tribes, now joined by the Maidi and Denteletes, as well as the Dardanii, swarmed through Macedonia, Thessaly and Dalmatia, even reaching Epirus on the Adriatic coast. According to the Roman historian:

“Throughout their advance they left no cruelty untried, as they vented their fury on their prisoners; they sacrificed to their gods with human blood; they drank out of human skulls; by every kind of insult inflicted by burning and fumigation they made death more foul; they even forced infants from their mother’s wombs by torture”.

 In this litany of evil atrocities committed by their enemies, special mention is reserved by the Romans for the Celts – “The cruelest of all the Thracians were the Scordisci, and to their strength was added cunning as well” (loc cit.).

While much of the above account may be put down to Roman hysteria and exaggeration, it is clear that from 90 BC onwards the empire had lost de facto control over large parts of the Balkans and northern Greece. By 88 BC, i.e. 2 years after the collapse of the Roman borders in Macedonia, the Scordisci and their allies had swept through northern Greece and reached Dodona in Epirus where they, according to Roman accounts, destroyed the temple of Zeus (Kazarov 1919 with relevant lit). How exactly the barbarians ‘destroyed’ a temple which the Romans had already destroyed (by the army of Aemilius Paulus in 167 BC) is unclear. Presumably the Scordisci destroyed what the Greeks had managed to rebuild in the interim period. One of the repeating phenomena during this period is Roman reports of the ‘barbarians’ destroying Greek temples/sacred sites which had already been destroyed and looted by the Romans themselves (see below).

 

The Theatre at Dodona

 

It was not until 3 years later (85 BC) that Sula led a Roman army against the Scordisci and ‘punished’ the barbarians (Granius Licinianus 27-28; Appian Mith. 55 c; Livy Per 83’a). Although the exact nature of this ‘punishment’ is unclear, Florus gives us an account of the fate of those who fell into Roman hands:

“Severe cruelties were inflicted upon the captives by fire and sword, but nothing was regarded by the barbarians as more horrible than they should be left with their hands cut off and forced to survive”. (Flor. XXXVIIII, iii,4)

 

Bust of Sulla in the Munich Glyptothek

 

Instead of containing the situation, Sulla’s campaign produced the same vicious reaction as Minucius Rufo’s had in the previous century. No sooner had Sula left for Asia, than the Celts and their allies stormed south once more. Overrunning the southern Balkans and northern Greece, they swept through the Peloponnese. By the winter of 85/85 BC they had reached Delphi where, two centuries after Brennos’ army, they once more ‘destroyed’ the most sacred of Greek religious sites. (Plut. Num. 9; App. Illy. 5; Eusub. II; Eutrop. V, 7,1; Plut. Sula 23).

 

Temple of Apollo at Delphi

 

 

At the end of the 80’s of the 1^st c. BC the central Balkans again became the focus of large scale Roman military action. Presenting themselves as protector of the Greeks, the Romans launched yet another campaign to ‘punish’ the barbarians, this time for the sacrilege at Delphi (although again the temple had been plundered by Sula’s Roman forces long before the barbarians got there). The campaign of 81 BC, led by Cornelius Scipio (App. Ill. 5 a-b) appears, like those of Minucius Rufo and Sula in 114 and 85 BC, to have been punitive in nature and, like the previous ones, had no real long term geo-political effect.

 

The Druids Cave – Part of a large hoard of Celtic (Scordisci) material (14 sets of weapons, harness gear, jewellery… ) discovered in a cave on the Juhor Mountain in central Serbia.

 

 

COME INTO MY PARLOUR … 

 Five years after Scipio’s campaign Rome once more attempted a large scale invasion of Thrace. In 76 BC Appius Claudius Pulcher, who had been governor in Macedonia since the previous year, led a large Roman army against the Celts in southwestern Thrace. (Liv. Epit. XCI; Flor. II, 39.6; Eutrop. VI,2; Oros. V 23.19; Amm. Marc. XXVII, 4.10) It should be noted that in this case the term Scordisci is applied by the Romans to the tribes of today’s southwestern Bulgaria who lived in the Rila/Rhodope mountains area. This once again clearly illustrates that the term was used by the Romans to refer to all the Celts of Thrace, whether in today’s Serbia, northern Bulgaria or, as in the present case, southwestern Bulgaria. Thus, the tribes targeted by Pulcher’s army were the same ones who had destroyed the army of Porcius Cato, and massacred the Roman garrison at Heraclea Sintica, in 114 BC.

The Celtic tactics in 76 BC, however, were very different to those which had been employed 40 years earlier. Instead of engaging in a full-scale military confrontation with what was probably a superior military force, the Scordisci employed a more subtle course of action. Pulcher’s force encountered no major resistance as they advanced into the Thracian mountains. However, as Cato’s army had learned in the previous century, entering the Rhodope mountains was one thing – getting out again was a completely different story.

 A prolonged and vicious conflict developed in the mountains of Thrace between the Romans and the local population. Roman sources speak of a series of ‘small battles’ and ‘skirmishes’ which are consistent with a guerilla campaign in which the Celts, familiar with the terrain, gradually wore down the Roman force. This conflict, which is reminiscent of the Roman campaign in northern Britain in the 2^nd c. AD, finally took its toll, not only on the Roman army, but on its commander. After months of illness and military failure, Pulcher himself died, and the remains of the Roman army once more withdrew from western Thrace.

Celtic Strymon/Trident coin from s.w. Thrace (late 2^nd/ 1^st c. BC)

( See: https://www.academia.edu/6355583/Celtic_Strymon_Trident_Coinage )

 

 

Despite the latest failure in the Rhodope mountains, Rome was gradually making advances in other parts of Thrace. During the campaigns of Cnaeus Scribonius Curio in w. Thrace from 75 BC the Romans finally penetrated the Struma valley and reached the Danube (Liv. Per. 92’a; Front. Strat. 4.1’43; Flor. 1,39’6; Festus Brev. 3’2, 7’5; Eutrop. 6.2’2). During the Curio campaign large numbers of the native population were enslaved by the Romans, one of whom was a chieftain of the Maidi tribe – Spartacus. In this case, however, it appears that Rome had taken the vipers to her bed. In 73 BC a number of Thracian and Celtic slaves, led by Spartacus and the Celt Crixus, rose against the empire in a rebellion that would shake the very foundations of Rome. (Cic. Att. 6.2’8; Sall: Hist. 3’60-61; Liv. Per. 92’a; Vell. 2.30’5; Tac. Ann. 15’46; Plut. Crass. 8, 1-3; Flor. 2.8’3; Appian B. Civ. 116’a-b; Eutrop. 6. 7’2; August De Civ. 3.26’b, 5.22’a; Oros. 5.24’1)

 In Thrace itself, however, Curio’s campaign, and that of Lucullus in 72/71 BC in eastern Thrace, in which the latter conquered the Pontic cities and the central Thracian Valley, meant that the local tribes were now fighting an increasingly defensive war. Ironically, in the decades which followed it would not be Roman military force alone which would finally achieve the conquest of Thrace but, as with so often in Balkan history, treachery from within.

 

 

THE DACIAN BETRAYAL

 

For over 100 years the unity of the Balkan peoples – Thracians, Celts, Dardanii and Bastarnae – had held back the tide of Roman expansion in southeastern Europe. In the mid 1^st c. BC this unity was torn asunder by the greed and ambition of one of these tribes, who unleashed an orgy of violence and destruction on its neighbors which would create the conditions for final conquest that Rome herself had failed to achieve.

The Thracian Getae tribe who inhabited the area of today’s s.e. Romania and n.e. Bulgaria had been one of the main components in the barbarian resistance to Rome from the 2^nd c. BC onwards. In 61 BC they were again part of the force which, led by the Bastarnae, delivered a humiliating defeat on the Roman army of G. Antonius Hybrida (‘The Monster’) at the Battle of Histria (Dio Cass. 38. 10. 1-3; Liv. Per. 103’b; Obseq. 61’a; see: https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/akrosas-the-king-who-scared-a-monster/).

However, after Histria the relationship between the Getae (referred to in Roman sources by the geographical term ‘Dacians’) and their neighbors changed radically. From 60/59 BC the Getae tribe, under a leader called Burebista, who was apparently guided by a wizard called Deceneus, launched a series of brutal attacks on their former allies. The territory of the Celtic Boii and Taurisci in the west and the Scordisci in Thrace were laid waste and Burebista also ‘conquered’ the territory of his recent allies the Bastarnae in Dobruja, as well as the largely defenceless western Greek Pontic cities (Strabo 7.3.5, 7.3.11, 16.2.39;  Jordanes Getica 67; Suetonius, Caesar 44.6). Towns such as Olbia, Histros and Mesambria which resisted him were destroyed. Burebista subsequently declared himself ‘King of all Thrace’ as attested to by the Dionysopolis decree (ψήφισμα) (lines 22–23; dated to June-August 48 BC -Mihailov, IGBulg I2, 13 = V, 5006; Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum, II, 762).

  

In his quest for personal power, the brutality of Burebista’s attacks on his neighbors had reached genocidal proportions (Strabo VII 3:2, 11). For example, the territory of the Boii tribe after Burebista’s expansion was known as the deserta Boiorum (deserta meaning ’empty or sparsely populated lands’). The period of Burebista’s attacks also coincides with the end of local (Celtic and Bastarnae) coin production in this area, indicating that the economic and cultural status quo in the area was fatally disrupted during this period. Archaeological data from today’s southern Dobruja region also indicates the nature of Burebista’s ‘Dacian’ expansion. Of 70 late Iron Age settlements in today’s northeastern Bulgaria, only 29 survived into the Roman period and even at those there is no certainty of continuous habitation (Torbatov S. The Getae in Southern Dobruja in the Period of the Roman Domination: Archaeological Aspects. In: Actes 2é Symposium International Des Etudes Thraciennes, Komotini 1997. P. 512-51).

 

From a geo-political perspective, Burebista had destroyed the unity of the native population and severely weakened the very tribes who had for so long constituted the main opposition to Roman expansion. By the end of his reign the ‘Great Dacian King’ had created optimum conditions for Rome to complete her conquest of southeastern Europe – including Dacia itself.

In the 40’s of the 1^st c. BC the fortunes of the Getae turned. Supporting Pompey in the Roman civil war, Burebista became the target for the victorius Caesar (Strabo VII:3.5). However, before the Romans could reach them the Getae became the subject of revenge attacks from their old allies, particularly the Bastarnae. In 44 BC Burebista was murdered by his own people and, in the face of repeated Bastarnae attacks, the Getae turned for help to their only remaining ‘friend’ in the region – Rome.

 As Roman expansion in Thrace gathered pace, the Bastarnae crossed the Danube in 29 BC to come to the aid of the Scordisci tribes in today’s northwestern Bulgaria. The Roman forces, led by the proconsul of Macedonia M. Licinius Crasus, and helped by the Getic king Roles, defeated the Bastarnae and forced them back across the Danube. Roman sources tell us that the Bastarnae were ‘destroyed’ by Crassus (Dio Cass. 51,25-27), but, as with so often in Roman accounts, this is a gross exaggeration. In fact, the Bastarnae would continue to be a major thorn in Rome’s side for centuries, and an enthusiastic participant in every major ‘barbarian’ attack on Roman Dacia and Thrace right up to the collapse of the empire.

 

TWILIGHT

 Crassus’ campaign of 29 BC and a subsequent one the following year in which he ‘punished’ the Scordisci tribes of northwestern Bulgaria (the Serdi, Meldi and Artacoi) (Dio Cass. 51. 26-27), marked a watershed in the history of Thrace. Soon afterwards a Thracian puppet government, drawn from members of the Odrysae tribe who had collaborated with Rome (loc cit), was installed to preside over the Romanization of Thrace. This so-called Sapaioi dynasty had little or no popular support in Thrace and Roman armies had to repeatedly intervene to save the new Thracian ‘kings’ from their own people.

 (On the Odrysae Puppet Kings : https://www.academia.edu/4126512/Sevtopolis_and_the_Valley_of_the_Thracian_Kings )

 

Bronze issue of the Thracian ‘King’ Rhoemetalkes.

Laureate head of Caligula left / diademed & draped bust of Rhoemetalkes III left

see: https://balkancelts.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-thracian-puppet-kings/

 

 

 In the final decades of the 1^st c. BC the Roman conquest of Thrace, after almost exactly 150 years of resistance by the native tribes, had finally been achieved. Or had it ?

Before the dust settled on Roman Thrace there was one more surprise in store for the empire.  In 16 BC, as the new imperial order was gradually being imposed, Celtic tribes swooped from the Thracian mountains, swarmed into Macedonia, and laid waste to the Roman province once again (Dio Cass. 54.20). This attack, which can only have come from the Celts of the Rhodope area of today’s southwestern Bulgaria, was a brutal reminder to Rome that although the cities and plains may have been ‘civilized’, in the mountains of central and western Thrace the ‘wolves’ still roamed…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Mac Congail

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Celtic Settlements in Bulgaria – (1) Northern Bulgaria

Mac Congail

 

 

 

One of the most remarkable contradictions in modern historical research over the last 50 years has been the identification by international and Bulgarian linguists of a large number of Celtic settlements in a region where local ‘Thracologists’ continue to claim that there was never any Celtic presence. As a result of this phenomenon topographic evidence of Celtic settlement in this region, as is the case with the overwhelming archaeological and numismatic evidence, has hitherto been largely ignored.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. NORTH-WESTERN BULGARIA

 

 

In the northwestern part of today’s Bulgaria extensive numismatic and archaeological evidence testifies to a Celtic cultural presence from the end of the 4^th c. BC into the Roman period (see Archaeology and Numismatics sections). In this area a number of Celtic settlements from this period have been located:

In the Aquae area of Moesia Superior – around  the confluence of the Timok and Danube rivers in northwestern Bulgaria – two Celtic settlements have been identified by academics – Braiola / Βραίολα  (Beševliev 1970:25; Duridanov 1997:134; Probably todays Bregovo), and Setlotes / Σετλοτες (Detschew 1957:434 – ‘sicher keltisch’; Duridanov 1997:134; Delamarre 2003: 272-273), the latter possibly at the Kula site where recent excavations have uncovered Celtic material dating from the 1^st c. B.C. – 1^st c. A.D under the late Roman fortification Castra Martis. (See ‘New Material (1)’ article – archaeology section). Slightly further along the Danube lay the Celtic settlements of Bononia / Βονωνία (modern Vidin)(Holder I, 1904, 481ff; Der Kleine Pauly I, 928; Kazarow, 1919:62; Hubert II, 43; Duridanov, 1980 (2); 1997, 134; Falileyev 2009:281), Ratiaria (modern Archar, Vidin region) (Tomaschek, II, 2, 69; Holder II, 1075; Kazarov, 1919, 62; Hubert II, 43; contra Detschew 1957) and Remetodia (modern Orsojo – between Ratiaria and Almus – Lom district, Montana region) (Tomaschek, II, 2. 1894:69; Detschew 1957:391; Duridanov 1997:134; Falileyev A., Graham R. 2006,  Falileyev 2009: 282).

In the Kazetzos area (Dacia Mediterranea), which lies to the north of Sofia (Serdica) in the hills between Vratza and Berkovitza, lay three Celtic settlements – Ardeia (Falileyev 2009: 281), Arkounes (Άρχοϋνες) (Detschew 1957:25; Beševliev 1970:22; Duridanov 1997:134-135; Falileyev 2009: 281; 2010:123-124) and Duriis (Δουρίες) (Beševliev 1968:418 and 1970:22; Duridanov 1997:135; Falileyev 2009: 281). Slightly to the north of these lay the settlements of Tautiomosis (today’s Krivodol, Vratza region) (BIAB 19 (Serta Kazar. 2) 1955, 201 – Detschew 1957: 540; from Celtic  – teuto- / touto- = people, tribe, land (Gaulish – toutā. OIr – túath, Welsh and Breton –tud, thus Welsh Tudyr from Celtic nominative Touto-Riχs and Tudur from the Celtic genitive Touto-rīgos; cf. also in Bulgaria the Celtic settlement of Tiutamenus Vicus (Plovdiv region) – Mac Congail 2004); the second element as in the Celtic P.N.’s Mossus, Mossius etc. (Holder AC 2, 644-645); and Vorovum Minor (Kravoder, Krivodol district, Vratza region) (BAT021 F6  – Vorovum Minor =  Kravoder, Bulgaria; Velkov 1970; Falileyev 2009: 282).

 

 

 

2.  BASTARNAE

 

 

The next settlement marked in the Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia after the aforementioned Remetodia on the  Danube in northwestern Bulgaria is Cumodina (Liber IV 7 190.4) (today’s Stanev – located 9 m. east of Almus (Lom). Settlement names containing the Celtic element –din(a) (Proto-Celtic *dino-, OI duín, MW din [in toponyms] MB din gl. Arx (OB) Cf. also Proto Germanic *tino – a loan word from Celtic; first element = PC *kom – ‘with’ (UELPC) are to be found primarily in today’s n.e. Bulgaria/s.e. Romania –  cf.  Άδινα / Adīna (Proc. aed. 132.19) (between Palmatis and Tilicium) (On Tilicum see below; The Adina site mentioned by Prokopius as a φρούριον in the E region of the province of Moesia Secunda, is located 2.8 km N–NE of the village Balik, on a 40-50 m high rock peninsula), Вασσίδινα / Bassidina (Proc. aed. 148.38) immediately to the south of Callatis, Вελεδίνα / Beledīna (Proc. aed. 148.39) to the east of Abritus (see below), Вισδίνα / Bisdīna (Proc. aed. 148.28) (in the vicinity of Marcianopolis – today’s Devnya, Varna region), Γηδινά / Gēdina (Acta SS. July 4 376 (18 July) (in the immediate vicinity of the (Celtic) settlement of Durostorum (Silestra) (see below), Παλαδεινηνος / Paladīna (IGB II, 832/833) (Staroseletz, Provadia district, Varna region), and Zinesdina (RMD IV, 311, diploma, AD 225) near Nicopolis ad Istrum  (vico Zinesdina Maiore).

In the latter area (Nicopolis ad Istrum) the settlement of Βαςτέρναι is recorded (Proc. aed. 307.28) while in Haemus (Stara Planina/Balkan) where the settlement Δίνγιον was located (Proc. 305,37; Tomaschek II, 2, 72– Maenchen-Helfen 1973:256; Beševliev, 1970, 141. Tomaschek, II,2, p. 58) we find another settlement called Βαςτέρναι (Nic. Chon. P. 518, 2). In Dardania, where the settlement of Δίνιον was located (Tomaschek op cit; Neroznak 1974: 46-47), the presence of the Bastarnae is again attested to (Livy 40,58). One should also note the recent publication of an inscription from Silestra (Durostorum) which testifies to two Celtic settlements in the vicinity – Arnuntum and Gavidina, the latter again a Bastarnae settlement (Boyanov 2010;  Ivanov R., Roman Cities in Bulgaria (2012 – In print).

According to Strabo (VII, 3, 17) the Bastarnae consisted of 4 distinct tribes – the Atmoni, Sidoni, Roxalani and Peucini. The latter he places on the Danube (VII, 3,15) as does Plutarch (‘the Gauls on the Danube who are called Bastarnae’ – Plut. Aem. 9,6) while Livy places them in today’s northeastern Bulgaria as early as the 2^nd c. BC (Livy op cit). In the Balchik district (Dobruja region) of n.e. Bulgaria one finds the settlement of Peucae (IGBulg V, 5011 (terr. Dionysopolis), again obviously a settlement of the (Bastarnae) Peucini tribe. Archaeological and numismatic material from this area again confirms a Celtic/Bastarnae presence (see relevant sections).

One should, however, note the resettlement of 100,000 Bastarnae in Moesia by Probus (276 – 82) (Probus, History Agusta, Vol. III, 18), and the possibility therefore exists that the aforementioned settlement of Cumodina, and other Bastarnae settlements in Bulgaria, date not from the late Iron Age, but from the Roman period.

 

 

 

 

3. NORTH-CENTRAL BULGARIA

 

In north-central Bulgaria the Celtic settlement of Icacidunum has been identified at the confluence of the Danube and Iskar (Oescus) river, near the present day village of Gigen (Guleantsi district, Pleven region) (Beševliev 1952:#92; Duridanov 1997:136; Falileyev 2009: 282). Between Oescus and Novae lay the Celtic settlement of Διαχόν (Tomaschek II, 2, 71; Detschew’s view that Διαχόν was another name for Dimum is less than convincing) which, based on the archaeological and numismatic data from this area, was probably located around the area of modern Somovit at the mouth of the Vid river.

Between the Osem and Vid rivers, in the modern Lovech region, lay the Celtic settlement of Doriones (Tab. Peut. VIII,1/2)BATL022B5 – Slatina, Lovech region; from the same root as the aforementioned Duriis and the first element in Durostorum (see below). Celtic settlement in this area is confirmed by archaeological and numismatic material from the nearby villages of Dojrentzi, Smochan, Bachovitza, Kurpachevo, the town of Lovech, etc.

  Particularly interesting in this area are settlement names constructed from the Celtic elements abo- ‘river’ (O/Mir ab, aub, derive. Abann; MB auon gl. Flumen, OW Abon, W Afon DGVB: 50-51; GPC 43; LEIA A-4-5; PECA: 11; Falileyev DCCPN 2007;  also present in n. Bulgaria, for example, as the first element in the other 2 Celtic settlements bearing the name ‘Ablana’ = River Plain; see also the first element in Abritus and Appiaria) and  lān(i)o  ‘plain’ (DCCPN) which is also present as the second element in the placename Mediolanum – today’s Pirgovo on the Danube in n. Bulgaria (see Mediolanа/Pirgovo below). Such is the case with Jablanitza – in the plain between the Malak Iskar and Cheren Vit rivers (Lovech region), and Ablanitza  (Lovech district, Lovech region) which is located on the plain by the Dripla, a tributary of the Osam river. (on the Slavic suffix –itza/-итцаin Bulgarian river names see Georgiev 1977:247)

 Celtic presence in both these areas is confirmed by numismatic and archaeological data, in the case of the former by material discovered at the nearby villages of Toros (La Têne material dating from the II- I c. BC – Domaradski 1984), and Glojene (Celtic coins of the Philip II type, again dating to the II – I c. BC – see numismatics section 1), and the latter by Celtic material from Staro Selo (See Thasos – numismatic section), and a massive hoard of Celtic Philip III type drachmas and other Celtic material from Lometz, slightly to the south of Ablanitza (Ablana), which itself is situated slightly to the south of the aforementioned Celtic settlement of Doriones.

The Jantra river was an important trade artery between the Danube and Celtic settlements in the Thracian interior during the 3^rd – 1^st c. BC as finds of Celtic coinage from the 3^rd – 1^st c. BC at sites such as Belyanovo and Byala (Russe region) Polski Trumbesh, Radanovo, Kruscheto, the Hill at Rachovetz west of Gorna Oryachoviza, Hotnitza, Samovodene, Laskovetz, the Hill of Zaravetz beside Tarnovo, and Veliko Tarnovo itself, all of the latter in the Veliko Tarnovo region along the course of the Jantra river, clearly indicate. At the confluence of the Jantra and the Danube the recent discovery of Celtic material dating from the 1^st c. BC/1^st c. AD at Krivina and the aforementioned Celtic coinage from Belyanovo again indicate a Celtic settlement in this area. This was located at today’s Gorno Ablanovo (Bulgarian Gorno = Upper  + Ablana) – again a topographic compound of Celtic abo- ‘river’ +  lān(i)o  ‘plain’. Gorno Ablanovo is indeed situated on a plain to the south and west of the Danube and Jantra rivers respectively.

Between Ablana (Gorno Ablanovo) and the archaeologically attested to Celtic settlement on the Hill of Zaravetz near Veliko Tarnovo were two settlements which are particularly significant from a geo-political perspective. On the Jantra river in the vicinity of the later Roman settlement of Nicopolis ad Istrum two settlements are recorded – vico Zinesdina Maiore (terr. Nicopolis ad Istrum – RMD IV, 311, diploma, AD 225) and Βαςτέρναι (in the area of Nicopolis (Proc. 307:28) both of which appear to have been Bastarnae settlements. (On the latter see also Tomaschek, II,2: 58; Detschew 1957: 46; Beševliev, 1970:141; Maenchen-Helfen 1973:256; Mac Congail 2008: 59)

 

 

 

   4.  NORTH-EASTERN BULGARIA

 

 

To the east of the aforementioned settlement of Ablana (Gorno Ablanovo) on the Danube, extensive Celtic archaeological and numismatic material dating from the 3^rd – 1^st c. BC testify to an intensive and lasting Celtic presence in this area. Hoards of Celtic coins from Ostritza, Mechka, Russe, Pirgovo, Nikolovo, and Slivo Pole on this short stretch of the Danube clearly indicate that this was an important centre of trade for the Celto-Bastarnae (Zaravetz) culture which inhabited the area of northeastern Bulgaria in the late Iron Age. Particularly interesting are two large hoards of Celtic coins (Philip II and Philip III models) and associated ceramic found at the village of Pirgovo in 1910 and 1978. Modern Pirgovo is on the location where the Celtic settlement of Mediolana was situated (Not. Dign., XL, 21 (Mediolana); Falileyev 2009: 282).   

 

 

 Slightly further along the Danube were located the settlements of Tigra / Tegris (Holder AC 2, 1842) (today’s Marten, Russe region) (IA, 122,4; Not. Dign. 40.9.15 – Castelum Tegra – cuneus equitum secundarum armigerorum; Proc. Aed. 4.7.6/131.22; Rav. An. Cosm. IV,7) Tab. Peut. (Tegris); IA, 222, 4 (Tigra); Not. Dign., 40. 9.15 (Castelum Tegra – cuneus equitum secundarum armigerorum); Procop., De aedef. IV. 7.6 /131.22/ (Τιγρᾶς); Rav.An. Cosm., IV, 7 (Tigris) – from Proto-Celtic -*Tego- < PIE *teg-os – ‘cover, roof’ (OIr. tech – a house, a dwelling’) and Proto-Celtic * rīg – King. (OIr Ri, OB ri, OW rig; GPC: 3065; LEIA R-25, PECA 92; McCone K. ‘King’ and ‘Queen’ in Celtic and Indo-European, in Éiru 49 (1998), 1-12;  Falileyev 2007 DCCPN), and Appiaria (Ptol., Geog., III, 10, 5 (Ἀπιαρήνσιοι); Tab. Peut. (Appiaris); It.Ant., 222,5 (Appiaria); Not. Dign. XL, 16 (Milites nauclarii, Appiaria); Hier. Syn., 636,7 (Ἀππιάρια); Procop., Aed., IV, 11, 147, 1 ( Ἀππίαρα); Theoph. Sim., II,15 (Ἀππιάρειν). In Roman sources Appiaria is placed XIV and IX Roman miles from Tigra (respectively TP and IA) and XIII Roman miles from Transmarisca. From the aforementioned Celtic abo- = ‘river’, and are- ‘near, by’ (OIr air, W er, B ar; DGVB 70; LEIA A-37; See Falileyev DCCPN).

As the Bulgarian linguist Duridanov has pointed out – in the land of the Getae, ‘findet man eine ganze Reihe von Ortsnamen keltischen Ursprungs, die von einer dauernden keltischen Anwesenheit Zeugnis ablegen” (Duridanov 1997:136). Further along the Danube towards modern Silestra (Durostorum) were the settlements of Transmarisca (Proc. Aed. IV, 3, 7/9) (Holder, 1904, I, 431; Beŝevliev, 1966: 422; Duridanov 1980(2):6), Altina (Proc. aed. 4,7,9, see Detschew 1957:14, the element -tina identical with –dina in Beledina, Gavidina etc.) Candidiana (modern Malak Preslavets (Glavnitza district, Silestra region) (Latin construction from the Celtic Cando- white. Duridanov 1980(2):6; 1997, 136) and Dinogetia (modern Garvan – Sitovo district, Silestra region) (Tomaschek II,2:72; DeLamarre ZCP 54, 2004: 262). Transmarisca (modern Tutrakan) and Candidiana appear to have been of Celtic origin while Altina and Dinogetia, both with the element –dina, should be attributed to the Bastarnae.

This pattern of mixed Celtic and Bastarnae settlement is also to be observed in the interior between the Jantra river and the Black Sea. In the Razgrad area, where large amounts of La Têne material and Celtic coinage have been found, lay the settlement of Abritus (Abritu) to the east of present day Razgrad. The remains of the Roman town of Abritus are located in the Hisarlaka district of modern Razgrad, near the Beli Lom river. Despite the fact that it has hitherto been assumed that the settlement was initially of Roman origin, archaeological evidence shows intense Celtic settlement in this area in the pre-Roman period. The Bulgarian linguist Georgiev suggested that the name of the settlement came from the Latin participle abruptus, from the verb abrumpo – = ‘tear, break up’ (Георгиев, В. 1977: 36) which from a logical perspective appears quite an unlikely name for a settlement. It is infinitely more likely, particularly in light of the archaeological evidence and the geographical situation of Abritus on the Beli Lom river, that the name comes from the aforementioned Celtic – abo-  (Also recorded in Thrace as the first element of the Celtic settlements bearing the name ‘Ablana’ = river plain – see above) = river, and –ritu- = Ford (MIr -rith, OB rit, ret, OC rid (also in LNN), OW rit (LNN), MW ryt, W rhyd. ADA: 123-124; CPNE: 197-198; DGVB: 297; GPC: 3126; LEIA:R-34; PECA: 91; Falaliev DCCPN 2007)

It would therefore appear clear from the available facts that the original settlement at Abritus developed initially around a river ford on the Beli Lom river, as the Celtic name suggests.

  To the north of Abritu (between Razgrad and Tutrakan) was Όβουλος, an area settled by the Celtic Όβουλίνσιοι tribe (Ptol. 3,10,4 (Holder I, 431; Tomaschek II, 2, 56;  Detschew: 1957, 334/335; Duridanov 1980 II: 6), probably a sub-tribe of the Celtic Coralli tribe who are recorded in this area (Domaradski 1984; Duridanov 1997; Mac Congail 2008), while further to the southeast, on the Kamchia river, Celtic settlement has recently been confirmed by extensive archaeological evidence from the Kalnovo and Arkovna sites (See Archaeology section). The opinion of the Russian linguist Faliliyev, that Arkovna comes from a ‘Slavic model’ (Falileyev 2010) contradicts all the available numismatic and archaeological facts, and illustrates the danger of reconstructing settlements on purely linguistic ‘models’ without taking into account the numismatic and archaeological evidence on the ground.

  It is now generally accepted, due to the overwhelming Celtic numismatic and archaeological evidence, that the Hill at Arkovna was the centre (or at least one of the main centers) of the of the so-called ‘Tyle’ kingdom in eastern Bulgaria during the 3^rd c. BC. (latest: Mac Congail 2008; Lazarov 2010; Manov 2010) However, the search for the elusive Celtic ‘capital’ of ‘Tyle/ Tylis’ mentioned by Polybius (IV.46 – Τύλις) continues unabated among academics. Over the last century ‘Tyle’ has been located by experts in the Dobruja region, Balkan mountains, on the Danube, on the Black Sea etc. (Detailed discussion and relevant literature in Mac Congail 2008:60-63(attached pdf.) Most recently this elusive ‘city’ has been located by the Bulgarian ‘Thracologist’ Stoyanov, based apparently on the ‘lack of evidence’ from the eastern Rhodope mountains, ‘to the east of the left bank of the lower reaches of the Hebros river’(Stoyanov 2010:118) – once more a location which contradicts all the archaeological and numismatic evidence of Celtic settlement in this area pertaining to the 3^rd c. BC.

  In fact a number of settlements in Thrace are derived from the Celtic element reflected in the Welsh tyle – slope, Irish tullach – ‘hillock’  (Mac Mathúna 1988: 36, 38-43; see also Faliliyev 2010; Mac Congail op cit; cf. ), one of which is the fortified settlement Τιλικίων  (Procop., Aed. 4. 7.14 /132.22/ (φρούριον δὲ τὸ Τιλικίων) on a rocky outcrop near today’s Dryanovets (Dobrichka district, Dobrich region) which was located slightly to the southwest of the aforementioned (Bastarnae) settlement of Adina at Balik (See Bastarnae section). Both settlements are on the Suka river along the course of which extensive La Têne material has been discovered (See archaeology section).

Particularly illustrative of the population which inhabited the region of today’s northeastern Bulgaria in the late Iron Age is evidence from around Durostorum – today’s Silestra. Durostorum itself was a Celtic settlement (Dottin 1906:334; Tomaschek II, 2:73; Kazarov 1919:62; Hubert II, 43; Beševliev 1970:26; Duridanov 1997:139; Mac Congail 2008:38; Boyanov 2010; Ivanov R. Roman Cities in Bulgaria 2012 (In print) which has been confirmed lately by the discovery of an inscription from Silestra which mentions two other settlements of Celtic origin – Gavidina and Arnumtum, in the vicinity of Durostorum (Boyanov op cit). The local coinage circulating in this area in the 3^rd – 1^st c. BC consisted of both Celtic and Bastarnae issues (See Numismatic section 8), again indicating the mixed Celto-Bastarnae nature of the population. The available archaeological, numismatic and linguistic data thus confirms the testimony of Strabo (VII, 3,2) who tells us that in the pre-Roman period this region was inhabited by a mixed Thraco-Celtic/Bastarnae population, with the Bastarnae element becoming stronger as one moves north-eastwards into Scythia Minor.

 

 

 

 

Celtic (and Bastarnae) settlements in northern Bulgaria (Provisional)

(Click to Enlarge)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Modern) Literature Cited

 

Beševliev V.  Keltische Ortsnamen in der Kastellverzeichnissen bei Prokop // Actes du Premier congres international des etudes balkaniques et sud-est europeennes. T. VI. Sofia, 1968. S. 415–423.

Beševliev V. Zur Deutung der Kastellnamen in Prokops Werk „De aedificiis”. Amsterdam 1970.

Detschew D. Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Wien 1976.

Delamarre X. Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise. Paris 2003.

Duridanov I. (1980) Les Rapports Linguistiques Entre Les Thraces Et Les Celtes. In: NOI TRACII VII, # 68, 69, 1980.  Mai (1) Juni (2)

Duridanov I.  (1997) Keltische Sprachspuren in Thrakien und Mosien. ZCP 1997. B. 49/50. S. 130–142.

Falileyev A., Graham R. (2006). Remetodia. Acta Onomastica, 47 (1), pp. 173 – 177

Фалилеев А. , KЕЛЬТСКИЕ ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЕ ОСТАТКИ ЮГО-ВОСТОЧНОЙ EВРОПЫ. In:  Acta Linguistica Petropolitana – Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Science.  Vol. V, part 1. Ed. N. N. Kazansky. St. Petersburg. 2009. P. 275 – 299

Falileyev  A. (in collaboration with A. E. Gohil and N. Ward). Dictionary of Continental Celtic Place-Names. Aberystwyth 2010. (DCCPN)

Falileyev A. Ancient Place-Names of the Eastern Balkans: Defining Celtic Areas. In: In Search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III c. BC) Sofia 2010. P. 121- 129.

Георгиев В. (1977)  Траките и Технят Език. София.

Holder A.. Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz. B. 1–3. Leipzig 1896-1910.

Lazarov L. The Celtic Tylite State in the Time of Cavaros. In: In Search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III c. BC) Sofia 2010. P. 97-113.

Mac Congail B. Observations on Inscriptions from the Plovdiv/Pazarjik regions containing the element τιουτα-. In: Annual of the Archaeological Museum, Plovdiv. Volume IX/2. 2004. P.171-178)

Mac Congail B. (2008) Kingdoms of the Forgotten. Celtic Expansion in south-eastern Europe and Asia-Minor. 4^th – 3^rd c. BC. Plovdiv (attached Pdf.)

Mac Mathύna L. (1988) Old Irish heights and word-field potential. Studia Hibernica 24, 29-50

Maenchen-Helfen O. (1973)The World of the Huns: Studies in their History and Culture, 1973. University of California Press.

Manov M. (2010) In Search of Tyle (Tylis). Problems of Localization. In: In Search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III c. BC) Sofia 2010. P. 89 – 96.

Stoyanov T. (2010) The Mal-Tepe Tomb at Mezek and the Problem of the Celtic Kingdom in South-Eastern Thrace. In: In Search of Celtic Tylis in Thrace (III c. BC) Sofia 2010. P. 115 – 119.

Tomaschek W. (1894) Die alten Thraker. Teil II.2 // Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Band 131. Wien 1894. S. 1–103.

 

 

 

Abbreviations

 

P.C. – Proto-Celtic

OI  – Old Irish

Mir  – Middle Irish

OW – Old Welsh

MW – Middle Welsh

C – Cornish

MB  – Middle Breton

B- Breton

 

BAT = Reference to the map and square in the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, ed. Richard J. A. Talbert (Princeton 2000, e.g. 26 A3 = Map 26 square A3)

DCCPN – Dictionary of Continental Celtic Place-Names, 2007

GPC – Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, Caerdydd, 1950-2002

LEIA – Lexique étymologique de l’irlandais ancient. Paris and Dublin, 1959 –

UELPC – An Etymological Lexicon of Proto-Celtic. University of Leiden