Full text of the magnificent work of Dr. Evgeni Paunov of Cardiff University – From Koine to Romanitas: The numismatic evidence for Roman expansion and settlement in Bulgaria in Antiquity (Moesia and Thrace, ca. 146 BC – AD 98/117) – an overview of all the available ancient numismatic evidence from the territory of modern Bulgaria relating to the period between the 2nd century BC and 2nd century AD.
Besides an expansive study on all ancient coinage from this region pertaining to the period in question, for the first time since the Communist Period numismatic material relating to the later Celtic presence/settlement in Bulgaria (2-1 century BC) is also presented in a comprehensive and objective manner:
UD: August 2016
One of the most fascinating aspects of Iron Age European society is the deposition of weapons and other artifacts in various ritual contexts. This is particularly true of spearheads which have been found in Celtic burials and religious sites across the continent. In fact, such ritual deposition can be traced back to the European Bronze Age, with numerous examples recorded from across the continent.
Socketed spearhead with rapier-shaped blade deposited in the River Thames at Taplow (Buckinghamshire), England. (Dated ca. 1,200 BC)
(See also Gibson G. (2013) Beakers Into Bronze: Tracing Connections Between Western Iberia And The British Isles 2800-800. In: Celtic From The West 2. Oxford 2013. pp. 71-100)
Celtic spearheads discovered in the River Sava between Slavonski Šamac, Croatia and Šamac, Republika Srpska/Bosnia and Herzegovina (2/1 c. BC)
On Celtic material from the Sava River see also:
Another phenomenon frequently associated with such deposition is the ritual of ‘killing the objects’ – the deliberate breaking or bending of objects before deposition. While this custom is to be observed throughout the European Bronze and Iron Ages, its exact significance remains unclear, as does the question of why some objects are ‘killed’ while others in the same context are deposited intact.
Ritually ‘killed’ spearhead and other artifacts from the burial of a Celtic (Scordisci) cavalry officer at Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia (1 c. BC)
Ritually deformed iron spear (soliferreum) from the Celtiberian necropolis of El Altillo (Guadalajara), Spain (5/4 c. BC)
On ‘Killing The Objects’:
In terms of weaponry, although all manner of Celtic military equipment is found in such ritual contexts most common are spearheads registered in numerous Iron Age Celtic warrior burials across Europe.
Ritually ‘killed’ sword/scabbard and spearheads in a Celtic warrior burial (LT 96) at Zvonimirovo (Croatia) (2nd c. BC)
A fascinating phenomenon to be observed among the Balkan Celts in the later Iron Age, i.e. the period of the Scordisci Wars against Rome, is the custom of ‘stabbing’ spears into the warrior burials. The main assault weapon of the Balkan Celtic warrior, numerous cases of spears being stabbed into burials in this distinctive fashion have been recorded throughout the region, particularly among the Scordisci tribes in eastern Croatia, southwestern Romania, Serbia and northern Bulgaria.
Spearhead ‘stabbed’ into a Celtic warrior burial (LT 48) at Zvonimirovo (Croatia) (2nd c. BC)
Celtic spear ‘stabbed’ into a Celtic warrior burial (#11) at Karaburma (Belgrade), Serbia (1st c. BC)
The spear treated in this fashion from burial #11 at Karaburma is of a very specific Balkan Celtic type (Drnić type 3), dating to the 1st century BC, with two grooves on both sides of the blade. Examples of such have been discovered in Celtic (Scordisci) warrior burials stretching from Slavonski Šamac and Otok near Vinkovci in eastern Croatia (Map #1,2), through Serbia and southwestern Romania to Borovan and Tarnava in northwestern Bulgaria (Map # 11,12)*.
Distribution of recorded finds of Balkan Celtic Type 3 spearheads in eastern Croatia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria (1st century BC)
*Celtic / La Têne material within the modern borders of Bulgaria and Romania is still attributed by many Thracologists to the ‘Padea-Panagjurski Kolonii group’ – a pseudo-culture invented by communist scientists in the 1970’s as part of the Protochronism process.
UD November 2014
Since the first half of the 20th century a series of strange ceramic objects, consisting of zoomorphic representations of animal heads – snakes, horses, rams, etc., have been discovered at sites across Bulgaria (Mikov 1932-33, Gerasimov 1960). These artifacts, associated with other Celtic material (‘eye beads’, glass bracelets, daggers, fibulae etc.; see below), and decorated with familiar La Têne motifs – herring-bone, concentric circles/solar symbols, s-scrolls etc., appear most often at cult complexes and burials – indicating that they had a religious function.
Recent excavations in southwestern and south-central Bulgaria have enabled us to definitively date these objects, and the associated ‘Zepina’ type pottery to the 3rd – 1st c. BC (Tonkova, Gotcheva 2008, Tonkova et al 2011), and to finally determine the real function of these mysterious ‘cult objects’.
Celtic ‘Zepina Type’ ceramic from Bratya Daskalovi (Stara Zagora reg.), south-central Bulgaria (see http://www.academia.edu/4107842/The_Celts_in_Central_Thrace)
Zoomorphic ‘Cult Object’ from Sliven region, Bulgaria
(Sliven regional Museum)
Information from these latest excavations have also enabled us to clarify the real nature of these artifacts. It has transpired that they are not in fact ‘cult objects’, but zoomorphic attachments from the lids of small portable fire-pots, which were used to carry fire to the cult complex. The significance of this practice is still unclear, but they appear to have been found mostly in areas of the sanctuaries where artifacts associated with women (household objects, jewelry, etc.) predominate (Tonkova, Gotcheva op cit.).
Celtic zoomorphic Ram figurine/attachment from Boznik (Pernik region), western Bulgaria (History Museum of Pernik)
From a geographical perspective most of these firepots come from the upper Maritza and Struma/Mesta river valleys, and the Sofia plain, i.e. the zoomorphic fire-pots and associated ‘Zepina’ pottery are concentrated in sites in western and south-western Bulgaria: Batak, Belovo, Sv. Ilia and Ostretz Peak (both near Velingrad), Streltcha, Zepina fortress (Dorkovo), and Patelenitza (Pazardjik region); Babyak, Belitsa, and Kochan in the Blagoevgrad region; Kyustendil, Boznik (Pernik region); Poduaine, Muchovo and Jana in the Sofia region. Other finds of these zoomorphic lids and the ‘Zepina type’ pottery from other areas of Bulgaria include examples from Kazanlak/Seuthopolis, Targovischte, Plovdiv, Rousse, Skalsko (Gabrovo region), and Sliven (Mikov 1932-33, Gerasimov 1960, R a d o n o v, 1965, Domaradski 1984, Katincharova 2005). The latter examples, while fewer in number, confirm that these were not confined to the Celtic tribes of western Bulgaria, but were in use in other parts of the region.
Ceramic vessel of the ‘Zepina Type’ used as a funerary urn in a Celtic female burial at Karakochovata Tumulus, Bratya Daskalovi, south-central Bulgaria
Recent finds of Celtic ceramic of this type in Thrace include examples from the Unatzi site (Pazardjik reg.), also in central Bulgaria, which was, as at Bratya Daskalovi, found together with a bronze La Têne fibula of the Jezerine type, and from the Celtic chieftain’s burial at Sashova Tumulus near the Shipka Pass, where this type of ‘Cult’ ceramic was discovered together with a gold fibula, torc, Celtic sword, etc. (see http://www.academia.edu/4126512/Sevtopolis_and_the_Valley_of_the_Thracian_Kings).
Bronze La Têne Fibula of the Jezerine type from the central Celtic burial at Karakochovata Tumulus, Bratya Daskalovi.
The fibula is of great importance for the dating of the complex. This type of late La Têne fibula first appears between 40-30 BC and is most common in the period between 30 and 10 BC (Rustoiu 1997). It is worth noting that the other jewelry from the burial is of types typical of the Scordisci and other Balkan Celts during this period (Tonkova op cit).
It should also be noted that the concentration of the firepots in the western Rhodope mountains/Mesta Valley region also corresponds with the circulation of Celtic Strymon/Trident coinage which dates to the same period (http://www.academia.edu/4067834/Bandit_Nation_-_The_Bogolin_Hoard) – logically indicating that they were produced by the same tribes.
Zoomorphic lid, and reconstructed fire-pot from Babyak (Blagoevgrad region), s.w. Bulgaria) (after Tonkova, Gotcheva 2008).
Download Pdf. version of this file:
Gerasimov T. (1960) Keltski kultovi figuri ot Bulgariia. Izvestiia na Arkheologicheskiia institut (IAI) 23. Sofia: BAN, pp. 165–204.
Катинчарова Д. (2005) Аpхеологически проучвания на обект “Свети Илия” край Велинград през 2004. In: Археологически Институт с Музей – БАН. Археологически Открития и Разкопки през 2004 г. XLIV. Национална Археологически Конференция София 2005
Mikov V. (1932–1933). Keltski nakhodki u nas. Bulgarska istoricheska biblioteka V: 1. Sofia
R a d o n o v Z. (1965) Kultovi pametnici v Okryzhnija muzej v Pernik. Arheologia,VII, № 4, 47 – 53
Rustoiu A. (1997) Fibulele din Dacia Preromana (sec. I i.e.n. – I e.n). Bucuresti .
Тонкова, М. и Гоцев A. (2008) Тракийското светилище при Бабяк и неговата археологическа среда. София.
Tonkova et al (2011) Трако-римски династичен център в районнаЧирпанските възвишения. Тонкова M. (ed.) София.
The personal names of a population recorded in a region during a given historical period are perhaps the best indicator of the linguistic and historical culture of the population that inhabited that region. What does this linguistic evidence tell us about the ethnic origin of the population of today’s Bulgaria in the centuries after Christ? …
UD: October 2016
“the avengers of murder overwhelmed them sooner than the enemy, and the ghosts of the slain rising up before their eyes …”.
(Justinus: Epitome of Pompeius Trogus’ “Philippic histories” Book 26:2)
One of the key turning points in ancient history was the Battle of Lysimachia in 277 BC, in which the Macedonian forces of Antigonus Gonatas destroyed the Celtic armies which had been sweeping through southeastern Europe, thereby halting the barbarian expansion in the region, and saving the ’civilized’ world from destruction (Fol et al, Ancient Thrace, 2000, Delev 2003, Boteva 2010, Emilov 2010, Dimitrov 2010, Stoyanov 2010, Megaw 2004, 2005, Emilov/Megaw 2012).
Or was it?
For centuries the Battle of Lysimachia has been presented to us as one of the most important events in the ancient history of southeastern Europe. However, an analysis of the geo-political context and ancient sources on this period…
UD: August 2016
Decebalus (originally Diurpaneus), is rightly remembered as the greatest of Dacian leaders, who led his peoples’ prolonged resistance to Rome, which would eventually lead to him making the ultimate sacrifice. The tragic death of this exceptional ruler in 106, after almost 20 years of struggle, marked the end of Dacian statehood.
However, who was Decebalus, and where did he come from? An analysis of this leader’s name and ancestry reveals evidence which casts new light on Decebalus himself, and once again poses the question – who were the “Dacians”?
The first fact to consider is that the name Decebalus, besides sources referring to the Dacian leader, is recorded in a large number of inscriptions from the Roman period – from Italy (CIL 6, 25572 (Roma): Decibalus; AE 1954,83 (Roma): Decibal(us); AE 1989,299 (Asisium=Assisi, Umbria): Decibalo; AE 1945,35 (Ostia): Decibali; CIL 15,2797 (Roma): Deceb[alus]), Thrace (CIL 3,7477 (Durostorum=Silistria, Moesia Inf.): Decibalm; AE 1998, 01141: (Sacidava, Moes.Inf.): Decibali; CIL 3,7437 (from Lăžen near Nicopol): Decebali; IGLNovae nr.82 (Novae, Moesia Inf.): Decebalo), Macedonia (AE 1985, nr.721 (Philippi): Decebalu(m), Pannonia (CIL 3,4150 (Savaria=Szombathely, Pannonia Sup.): Decibalus), Gaul (1964, 144f (Blain, Lugdunensis): Decibal(us) 1964, 144f (Blain, Lugdunensis, Franţa): Decibal(us), and Britain (CIL 13,10013: Decibal(us), i.e. with the exception of the famous Dacian leader, all recorded examples of the name Decebalus come from outside Dacia.
Another fact to consider is that names ending in the element –balus occur only twice in the Balkans in the pre-Roman period. The first example is encountered in Cambaules, a Celtic chieftain who led a raid in Thrace at the beginning of the 3rd c. BC (Paus. X 19:5), and the second – Kersebaules, a king of the Celtic Tyle state in eastern Thrace in the first half of the 3rd c. BC. (cf. also Celtic : Άνδοβάλης, Άνδοννόβαλλος, etc. – Evans 1967: 147-148, and Balanus, Balarus, Balio etc. Holder AC 1 334-336; the first element in the name of Decebalus has long been attributed to the PIE *dekm- (‘ten’) (cf. Sanskrit daśabala); Cf. PC *dekam ‘ten’, Olr. deieh, MW deg, MBret. dek, MoBret. Deg; Matasovic 94). Thus, this ‘Dacian’ element occurs in the pre-Roman period in the region exclusively in the names of Celtic leaders.
Kersebaules Tetradrachma. Inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΚΕΡΣΙΒΑΥΛΟΥ
(ca. 270 BC)
In The Name Of The Father…
The key to the ethnic origin of Decebalus is to be found on the famous inscription on a large ceremonial vessel, discovered at Sarmizegetusa. This is the only ‘Dacian’ inscription, and reads:
“DECEBALUS PER SCORILO”
– meaning ‘Decebalus, son of Scorilo’ (Nandris 1976, Georgiev 1977, Duridanov 1985; Asenova 1999; Boïadjiev 2000).
The Decebalus per Scorilo inscription
The Decebalus inscription was stamped on a huge vase twenty-four inches (0.6 meter) high and forty-one inches (1 metre) across. It is stamped in mirror-writing, in the Latin alphabet.
In the case of the name of Decebalus’ father, Scorilo (Scorylo dux Dacorum – Front 1. 10.4, from which Iord. Get. Coryllus rex Gothorum – Detschew 1957:460; on the variant Scorus, see Mac Congail 2008), further examples of the name are found exclusively beyond Dacia. The first example comes from Kostolac in eastern Serbia, in the territory of the Celtic Scordisci (Scorilo – CIL 3, 14507), while in the second example (from Pannonia) (CIL 3, 2328) – Scorilo Ressati libertus – not only Scorilo, but also Ressatus, who was a potter of the Eravisci tribe (Maróti 1991), are both Celtic names (Holder AC 2, 1405).
Recent research by Romanian academics has found no evidence of a separate Dacian anthroponomastic system, i.e. distinct from Thracian and Celtic (Varga 2010), and the evidence outlined above indicates that the only ‘Dacian’ inscription is actually comprised of two names of Celtic origin, providing further proof that research into the ancient Thracian/Dacian language(s) since the communist period has systematically included Celtic data, logically rendering all such research invalid.
In the present context the linguistic evidence, chronological context, and spatial distribution of the names of both Decebalus, and his father Scorilo, clearly indicate that both were of Celtic (or Celto-Scythian/Bastarnae) origin, and is further proof that the concept of a separate ‘Dacian’ ethnicity and language is largely the product of 1970’s protochronism/nationalism.*
*On the political manipulation of Romanian (/Bulgarian) archaeology see:
On the use of linguistics in this process:
Asenova, P. (1999). Bulgarian in Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik. Wiesbaden
Boïadjiev D. (2000) Les Relations Ethno-Linguistiques En Thrace Et En Mesie Pendant L’Epoque Romaine. Sofia
Du Nay A. (1996): The origins of the Rumanians: the early history of the Rumanian language, Buffalo
Duridanov I. (1985) Die Sprache der Thraker, Neuried: Hieronymus
Detschew D. (1957) Die thrakischen Sprachreste. ÖAW, Phil.- hist. Kl. Schriften der Balkankomission, Linguist. Abteilung XV. Wien
Duridanov I. (1997) Keltische Sprachspuren in Thrakien und Mösien. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie. Band 49-50
Evans D.E. (1967) Gaulish Personal Names: A Study of some Continental Celtic Formations. Oxford
Felecan O. A Diachronic Excursion into the Anthroponymy of Eastern Romania. Philologica Jassyensia, An VI, Nr. 1 (11), 2010, p. 57–80
Georgiev V. (1977) Trakite i techniat ezik. Sofia. = Георгиев, Вл. 1977. Траките и техният език. София
Georgiev V. (1983) “Thrakish und Dakisch”, in: Temporini, Hildegard (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, 1148–1194, Berlin / New York
Holder A. (1896-1907). Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz, Bd. I-III – Nachdruck Graz 1961-1962
Mac Gonagle B. (2008) Thracian and Celtic Anthroponymy – A comparative study. In: Mac Congail B. Kingdoms of the Forgotten. Celtic expansion in south-eastern Europe and Asia-Minor – 4th – 3rd c. BC. Plovdiv. P. 131-163
Mac Gonagle B. (2012) https://www.academia.edu/3292310/The_Thracian_Myth_-_Celtic_Personal_Names_in_Thrace
Maróti É. (1991) A római kori pecsételt kerámia és a Resatus kérdés. Studia Comitatensia 21. 365-427
Nandris, J. (1976) The Dacian Iron Age A Comment in a European Context in Festschrift für Richard Pittioni zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Wien
Varga R. (2010) The Military Peregrini of Dacia: Onomastical and Statistical Considerations. Analele Universităţii Creştine „Dimitrie Cantemir”, Bucureşti, Seria Istorie – Serie nouă, Anul 1, Nr. 4, 2010, p. 108-116
UD: October 2016
The Celtic chariot burial from the Mal Tepe tomb at Mezek in the Haskovo region of southern Bulgaria is one of the most significant Celtic finds from the Balkans, in terms of the artifacts themselves, and the nature and chronology of the burial.
Interior of the Mal Tepe Tomb near Mezek, Haskovo region, Southern Bulgaria
Sadly, Mezek has also become a symbol of the ‘Mezek Syndrome’ – the political manipulation of archaeological evidence in Bulgaria during and since the communist period (on this manipulation see ‘Behind the Golden Mask’, ‘The Pizos System’ and ‘The Absence of Truth’ articles on this site). The initial solution to the Mezek ‘problem’ in Bulgaria was, as with many other Celtic artifacts, to simply re-label it as ‘Thracian’. More recently, the chariot fittings and other Celtic material from Mezek have been repeatedly published without any reference to the general archaeological context in the region, leading to an array of absurd conclusions about its origin. This tradition has been kept up in the latest publication by the Thracologist Juli Emilov, and Vincent ‘Disney’ Megaw, who has worked closely with ‘Thracologists’ in Bulgaria since the communist period (Emilov J., Megaw J.V.S. Celts in Thrace? A Re-Examination of the Tomb of Mal Tepe, Mezek with Particular Reference to the La Tène Chariot Fittings. In: Archaeologia Bulgarica XVI, 1 (2012), 1-32).
The Mezek tomb was first excavated by local villagers during the Czarist period at the beginning of the 20th century, and subsequently recorded by the Bulgarian archaeologist, Filov, in 1937 (Филов, Б. Куполните гробници при Мезек. Известия на Българския археологически институт ІІ, София, 1937, 1-107; See also: Велков, И. Разкопки около Мезек и гара Свиленград през 1932-33 година. – Известия на Българския археологически институт ІІ, София, 1937, 117-170; Filov, B. The Beehive Tombs of Mezek – Antiquity XI, Oxford 1937, 300-305).
Celtic bronze boar from the Mezek site (Istanbul Archaeological Museum)
A few years later the significance of the finds from Mezek were first realized by international experts (Jacobsthal 1941, 1969, 151-152; see also Duval 1977 p. 113-115, fig. 103 – 104, 106; Hoddinott 1981, 100, 126-127; Archibald 1998, 126, 287; Megaw 2004; Bouzek 2005, 105) who identified a Celtic chariot burial from the artifacts executed in the distinctive Celtic ‘plastic’ style. Artifacts associated from the Celtic burial at the site include bronze bridle rings (NAIM Sofia inv. no. 6411-6412), a bronze rosette on a stalk (NAIM 6413 no. 6413), a bronze forked ornament featuring mirrored birds of prey (NAIM no. 6418), as well as two sets of gold beads from a harness, and an impressive bronze boar statue (Jacobsthal 1941).
(After Emilov/Megaw 2012)
(After Emilov/Megaw 2012)
Bronze forked fitting with bird heads from the Mezek chariot
Another attachment from a Celtic chariot, similar in style and function to that from Mezek has recently been found at the Bobata fortress, north of Osmar village in the Shumen region of northestern Bulgaria. This bronze Celtic chariot fitting (Atanassov 2005: 126, 130, fig. 3) is similar in function to the chariot decorations from Mezek. Two snake-like figures flank an abstract human face in high relief on the bronze plate of the fitting. The findspot of the application is in the territory of a fortified settlement, and dated to the end of the 4th – the 2nd century BC.
Bronze Celtic chariot fitting from Bobata fortress, Schumen region
Also interesting, from an artistic perspective, is a gold ‘Janus head’ pendant executed in a repossé technique and decorated filigreé and granulation, also found in the Shumen region, and dated to the same period. Executed in the same ‘plastic style’ as the Mezek artifacts, from a morphological and stylistic perspective the closest analogies are the Celtic ‘bead heads’ found among the Celts of central and eastern Europe, examples of which come from sites such as Mangalia, Piscolt and Vác (Rustoiu 2008), as well as from sites in Bulgaria such as Appolonia Pontica (Sozopol), Mogilanska Tumulus (Vratza region), Mavrova Tumulus (Starosel, Plovdiv region), Burgas, Kavarna (Dobruja region), etc. (See ‘Little Glass Men’ article with relevant lit.).
Gold Celtic ‘Janus Head’ pendant from Schumen region, northeastern Bulgaria (after Rustoiu A. 2008)
Celtic ‘Face Bead’ from Mogilanska Tumulus (Vratza region, Bulgaria)
The Celtic cult of the head is well documented (see discussion in ‘The Letnitza Treasure’ article) and ‘Janus heads’ are also one of the central motifs on Celtic coinage and other artifacts from the Balkans during this period.
Celtic Silver ‘Janus head’ Tetradrachma, Central Balkans (2nd c. BC)
(See Numismatics section 3)
THE MEZEK SYNDROME
In fact, the secondary burial of Celtic aristocrats in the 3rd / 2nd c. BC in earlier Thraco-Macedonian tombs is part of a pattern common in Thrace during this period. This phenomenon is to be observed, for example, in the so-called ‘Valley of the Thracian Kings’ (see in particular ‘Behind the Golden Mask’ article). These burials, along with the other archaeological and numismatic material from the region of sub-Balkan Thrace, as well as evidence from sites such as Pisteros and Krakra where the destruction of the Thraco-Macedonian fortresses are recorded at the beginning of the 3rd c. BC, provide indisputable proof that the arrival of the Celts marked the end of the period of Thraco-Macedonian cultural and political dominance in the Thracian interior, and the transition to the Thraco-Celtic period which followed it (On the latest evidence of Celtic settlement in sub-Balkan Thrace see ‘The Heart of Thrace’ article).
As mentioned, the subjective presentation of the Mezek chariot burial without reference to the general geo-political and archaeological context in this part of Thrace in the late Iron Age has led to a number of absurd conclusions about its origin, a phenomenon rooted in the ‘Thracology’ which has dominated Bulgarian archaeology since the early 1970’s. Thus, even in recent articles (latest Emilov/Megaw 2012) the extensive archaeological and numismatic evidence of Celtic settlement in sub-Balkan Bulgaria during this period, such as that found at the recent large-scale excavations in the Chirpan Heights area, continues to be ignored.
Antonova V. (1995) Šumen i Šumenskata krepost. Šumen.
Atanassov G. (1992). S’or’ženija ot III-II v. pr. n. e. ot okolnostite na s. K’lnovo, Šumensko. – Izvestija na Istoričeskija Muzej – Šumen, 7, 5-39.
Atanassov G.(2005) Instrumenti za proizvodstvo na juvelirni izdelija ot fonda na RIM-Šumen. – In: Marazov I., (ed.) Trakite i okolnija svjat. Naučna konferenciya Šumen, 2004, MIF 9. Sofia. 123-136.
Bouzek J. (2005) Thracians and their Neighbors. Their Destiny, Art and Heritage (= Studia Hercynia 9. Prague)
Duval P.M. (1977) Les Celtes. Paris
Emilov J. (2007) La Téne finds and the indigenous communities in Thrace. Interrelations during the Hellenistic period. In: Studia Hercynia 11, 57-75
Emilov J., Megaw J.V.S. Celts in Thrace? A Re-Examination of the Tomb of Mal Tepe, Mezek with Particular Reference to the La Tène Chariot Fittings. In: Archaeologia Bulgarica XVI, 1 (2012), 1-32
Филов Б. (1937) Куполните гробници при Мезек. In: Известия на Българския археологически институт ІІ, София, 1937, 1-107.
Filov, B. (1937) The Beehive Tombs of Mezek – Antiquity XI, Oxford 1937, 300-305
Hoddinott R.F. (1981) The Thracians.London.
Jacobsthal (1941) Kelten in Thracien. In: Έπιτύμβιον Χρήστου Τσούντα. Άθήναι. 391-400.
Jacobsthal P. (1969) Early Celtic Art. Oxford.
Megaw J.V.S. (2004) In the footsteps of Brennos? Further archaeological evidence for Celts in the Balkans. – In: Hänsel B., Studenikova E., (eds.) Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis. Neolithikum und ältere Bronzezeit. Gedenkschrift für Viera Nemejcova-Pavukova. Rahden / Westf. 93-107.
Megaw J.V.S. (2005) Celts in Thrace ? A reappraisal. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of M. Domaradzki, Kazanlak 1999. Oxford, BAR Archaeopress, International Series 1350, 209-314.
Rustoiu A. (2008) ‘Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde’ – A double faced gold pendant from the History Museum of Schumen (Bulgaria) and the glass masked-beads. In: Instrumentum. No. 27. June 2008. P. 10-12
Велков И. (1937) Разкопки около Мезек и гара Свиленград през 1932-33 година. In: Известия на Българския археологически институт ІІ, София, 1937, 117-170