logoes

Еthnological study

Survey of the Cultural and Historical Heritage and Traditions

under the Study of Roman Road project

on the location, ethnographic development, traditions of local products and crafts on the Roman Road passing through municipal territories.

The Roman Road  crosses the lands of the villages of Rogosh, Skutare and Manole, along the Maritsa river.

under the Study of Roman Road project

 

The study was performed by a special research team.

Team members:

Assos.Prof. Krasimira Krastanova PhD

Chief Assistant Bozhidar Draganov PhD

Todor Todorov

 

  1. About the project

The Study of Roman Road project aims to gather information by fieldwork about the living heritage of the villages of Skutare, Rogosh and Manole, which are located on the territory of the Roman Road of Maritsa municipality. The Maritsa municipality is situated in the heart of the Upper Thracian Plain – a strategic area both from political and economic point of view, which predetermined the settlement of the population on the Balkan Peninsula as early as the early stages of the Neolithic culture. Historical and archeological data show that agriculture and livestock farming were the main economic activities during the thousands of years of life here. New settlers always moved along the valleys of the Stryama and Maritsa rivers; thus, migration and cultural processes gained stability over time. This made it possible to create and inherit a specific culture which became the recognizable symbol of the Maritsa municipality, respectively – of the villages of Skutare, Rogosh and Manole that are included in this study.

The project envisages a historical study of the real values as well as historical sources providing information on the  region’s culture. At the same time, the research focuses on the knowledge, skills and practices that are part of the cultural traditions and heritage and are passed on to the generations through various formal and informal means. Special focus is placed on the intensity and perspectives of archaeological research, conservation and socialization of sites that were part of the Roman road system in the Maritsa municipality, documentation, evaluation (valorization) and assistance for the development of the cultural heritage of the Maritsa municipality, supporting the affirmation of local cultural identity and the region’s sustainable development by its inclusion in tourist projects, modern cultural practices and festivals as well as by non-formal education and creative activities.

Further to all activities within this range, we started the study with a broader focus on the past and traditions of the settlements along the Maritsa river.

 

  1. Archeological studies of the Roman Road
  • Road network in Thracian Roman provinces[1]

Along with urbanization and water supply, one of the main factors of the Roman civilization model was the construction of a connected road system in each province. The total length of first-class roads in the Roman Empire during the Principate reached 90,000 km and the length of second-class arterial roads was even more.

The Romans were the ones to set the beginning of a well-structured and organized road system, reaching the highest point of its development in the imperial period. The construction and maintenance of this system was subject to the interaction of various political, economic, social, military, technical and natural factors. In their expansionary policy, Romans first started the construction of the roads of the highest military strategic importance. First used for military purposes, such roads later became the backbone of the Roman road system.

The few still preserved traces of the routes of such roads present important evidence on the matters of road construction in the Roman epoch. Today, they are almost destroyed in the planes and it is nearly impossible to find their traces by archeological means. The only way is to use the comparative method with field trips, geophysical research, use of aerial photography and LIDAR for a comparison of the distances between road stations entered in Roman travel guides and the real distances between the antique settlements located on the routes of Roman roads.

The larger road constructions of the Romans date from the first half of the Ist century BC. Classical first-class Roman roads reached 6-meter width and were built of four main layers. First, the strip of land designated for the future road was outlined by means of furrows. The road bed was then excavated, the depth of the excavation depending on the nature of the terrain. The purpose was to ensure a maximally stable foundationа. Where rock was not reached, the bottom of the trench was rammed and, if necessary, reinforced with wooden gratings or even a layer of mortar.  At the bottom, gravel with sand was laid, then small stones, and on top again gravel, but poured abundantly with mortar. The last visible layer was covered with massive stone, limestone or basalt slabs. Curbs were placed on both sides. There were often ditches and sometimes even sidewalks for pedestrians. The thickness of the multi-layer roadway varied widely, sometimes exceeding 1.50 m. The central part of the road was more convex so that storm water could drain away. Road width in straight sections varied from 3 to 6 m and it was twice more in bends. In the plains, they were built on embankments to protect them from flooding and swamping. In the mountain passes, the roads were significantly narrower and were often cut into the rocks. Sometimes, on steep sections and bends, ruts were deliberately carved for the wheels of freight vehicles.

Considering the geographical characteristics of the terrain, Roman road architects and builders sought to maintain as much straight sections as possible, with an incline of up to 20 degrees.  This is a kind of compromise between travel speed and comfort, at the same time facilitating construction works and significantly reducing the associated costs:

  • forest massifs, unstable river terraces, swampy and flood-prone terrains were avoided;
  • if necessary, bridges, viaducts, fords, dykes, embankments, retaining walls and tunnels were constructed, rocks were cut, swamps were drained;
  • often, the roads were positioned on the crest of watershed ridges or on the so-called military embankments.

            At every Roman mile (1482 m) a milestone called milliaria was placed. These columns were mostly cylindrical in shape, with height from 2 to 4 m, carved from monolithic pieces of limestone, sandstone, granite or basalt. A square base was formed at the bottom for higher stability. On them, the name of the reigning emperor, the provincial governor, the military unit that erected the milestone as well as the distance to the nearest settlement, was written.

Two- or three-storey towers (turris, turres) or small fortifications (burgus, burgi) were built on the roads in border regions at visible distances of several miles. In the mountains, linear defensive facilities (clausura) were built, which blocked the mountain passes.

Road stations were built for the purpose of ensuring good traffic organization on Roman roads. Initially, during the Republic, markets (fora) were created near the roads for the purpose of supporting road traffic. Such markets were later expanded into settlements of different size. A strict system of road stations was constructed on Roman roads – mutatio, mutationеs and mansio, mansionеs. Mutationеs were used for changing draft animals and mansionеs were the largest stations. They were located within a day’s journey from each other and offered conditions for rest or overnight stay. They had 8-10 employees and 40-50 heads of draft cattle. They had tabernas for food and overnight stay, balneae, choreums, stables for animals, blacksmith shops, carpenter shops, etc. Such stations used the services of grooms, blacksmiths, militia, tax officials, etc. Annual fairs or permanent markets were frequently organized around the largest ones. Shops, workshops, inns, brothels, etc. were established there. Frequently, the structure of road stations is compared with modern complexes comprising of filling stations, motels and commercial sites.  With gradual expansion and improvement, some road stations turned into specific forms of settlement life resembling the vicus (Roman village).

Road stations were frequently built in the style of Italian townhouses with open courtyards. Their construction as a state initiative was, in all probability, based on previously developed standartprojects of the same type. At the same time, each one of them was approached individually, according to the field conditions and the specific purpose. In quite a few cases, the road stations were built to the side, but close to the settlement they served, and the connection to it was made through an additional diversion road. So, it was not a compulsory condition for Roman roads to cross towns and villages, as stated in ancient travel guides (the so-called itineraries iter – road). Three Roman itinerary monuments have survived to the present day – Itinerarium Antonini Augusti, Tabula Peutingeriana and Itinerarium Burdigalense containing the most detailed and systematized information of antique origin on the road network of Thrace and Mysia..

A powerful impetus for the development of roadside infrastructure was provided by the Roman state post office (cursus publicus) organized by Augustus. There were two types of postal services – fast and slow. The first type travelled with horses, mules and hinnies and the second one used yoked oxen. The travel speed of the average passenger is 17 Roman miles on foot and 25 – 30 miles with a vehicle. This is the most frequent average distance between two mansionеs. The normal maximum speed that could be maintained year-round by the state postal couriers was 50 Roman miles per day, thus making timely and rapid contacts between the capital of the empire and the most distant points in a given province. An example of the functionality of this state organization is the historical account that, after the assassination of Maximinus Thrax in 238, a military courier traveled the 650 km distance from Aquileia to Rome in less than three days.

According to Sergei Torbatov’s typology, the legal status of Roman roads can be summarized into three main categories:

  1. Viae publicae or the so-called “public roads”. These were roads of a precisely set width, built and maintained with public funds and accessible to any passenger. A specific variety of viae publicae was the so-called viae militares. These were roads with all characteristics of “public” ones that were differentiated by their specific strategic significance. Very frequently, they were constructed by the army;
  1. The second road category included the so-called viae vicinales (inter-village roads). These were roads of local significance that deviated from the main ones and connected the smaller settlements located to the side of them. Their construction and maintenance were carried out by the municipalities whose territories they crossed. They were publicly accessible;
  2. The third category included the so-called viae privatae (private roads), constructed by private persons for their own purposes. Usually, they branched from the main and local roads and the route was passing completely through the territory of large land estates. Access to them was sometimes limited.
  3. Wendel grouped Roman roads into five categories: Roman imperial roads, diocesan roads, provincial roads, supplementary roads, connecting sections[2].

During the Roman and early Byzantine eras, several road arteries were of primary importance in the eastern Balkan provinces:

Via Egnatia

This was the first road constructed by Romans on the Balkan Peninsula and also the first Roman road outside Italy. It was a continuation of Via Appia and was mainly used for rapid deployment of military contingents from the centre to the east periphery of the Empire. Its total length exceeded 1100 km. On the territory of the Balkan Peninsula, it started from the cities on the Adriatic coast: Dyrrachium (Drach, now Durrës) and Apollonia Adriatica. The two rays merged and reached Lichnidos (now Ohrid), and from there Heraclea (now Bitola), Thessalonica (now Thessaloniki), Amphipolis, Neapolis (now Kavala), Traianopolis, Perinthus (now Tekirdağ) and Byzantium (now Istanbul).

Via Istrum (Low Danubian Road)

Today, this road has no analogue in Bulgaria. In many places, travelers must turn south inland and then back again to the Danube River. Its construction began under Tiberius ( AD 14 – 37) and was finally completed under Trajan before his wars with the Dacians, i.e. before AD 101. In places, the road route is currently located in the floodplain of the Danube River. The road started from Singidunum (Belgrade), crossed Viminacium (Kostolac) and the Iron Gates and entered modern Bulgarian territories in Dorticum (Vrav vill.). The section to Durostorum (now Silistra) was 471 km long, with documentary and archeological evidence of 31 road stations, legion camps and fortified posts of vexillatios. The road continued in Northern Dobruja on Romanian territory and ended at the Danube delta.

West Pontic Road

It has been known since V c. BC. The Romans reconstructed it, but it did not become an important land artery. In place,s it moves away from the water area of Ponta. To the south of the Burgas Bay, there is almost no information about road stations. Most likely some road existed, but it failed to displace cheap cabotage.

Road between the Danube Delta and Byzantium

This road was a continuation of the Low Danubian Road. It was a part of the communication and military line between the Middle Danube and Asia Minor. In places, it overlapped with the West Pontic Road, but in general it was routed a considerable distance from the coast. From Odessus, it headed to Marcianopolis, crossed the Balkan mountain range through the Dulin pass and reached Ponta at Anchialos for the last time. It then headed to Deultum, and from there all the way south until it merged with the Diagonal Road.

North Balkan Road

This road was parallel to the Low Danubian Road. It followed the border between the Danubian Plain and the Pre-Balkans and roughly cut in half the provincial territory of Lower Mysia. It started from Odessus (Varna), crossed Marcianopolis (Devnya), Kovachevsko Kale near Popovo, Nicopolis ad Istrum (Nikyup vill.), Melta (Lovech) and reached Regio Montanensium (Montana).

            Oescus – Philippopolis (part of the large Via Traiana Road)

Via Traiana was of key importance because it connected the neuralgic provinces along the Roman limes – Pannonia, Dacia and Lower Mysia. It was completed in ІІ c. after the Dacian Wars but the Oescus – Philippopolis section was started almost immediately after the establishment of the Thrace province in AD 45. There were 12 road stations on the road – Oescus (Gigen vill.), Ad Putea (Riben  vill., Pleven county), Storgosia (Pleven), Melta (Lovech), Sostra (Lomets vill., Troyan county), Montemno (the Beklemeto resort near the Troyan pass), Sub radice (Hristo Danovo vill.), Via mata (between the lands of the Voynyagovo and Mihiltsi vill.), Philippopolis (Plovdiv). In the Rhodope Mountains, this important road artery was divided into at least three “sleeves” which merged with Via Egnatia near the Aegean coast.

The entire territory of the eastern Balkan Roman provinces was cut by numerous secondary roads that connected the individual centers of urbanization. The well-developed road network facilitated trade, communications and the rapid deployment of military units in the Balkan provinces, but during the barbarian invasions from ІІI c. onwards, this achievement of the Roman cultural model turned out to be a “double-edged sword”, as after the periodic “breakthrough” of the limes, it was a matter of months for the barbaric tribes to reach the Aegean coast of the Thrace province.

  • Diagonal Road (Central Road, Via Diagonalis, Via Militaris)[3]

The Diagonal Road crossed the Balkan Peninsula from the northwest to the southeast, starting from Singidunum (Belgrade) and reaching Byzantium (Istanbul). It was the most important and direct land link between the western borders of the empire, the Balkan Roman provinces and Asia Minor. The very route has been known since the early Neolithic period but its transformation into a true Roman road began only after the creation of the Thrace province in AD  45. Three identical inscriptions found along its route testify that its construction took place in the middle of the I c. There is evidence of nearly 30 road stations on Bulgarian territory; typically, the main road artery did not run in the immediate vicinity of the cities but along the nearby road stations, from which there were deviations. As an important strategic, commercial and economic artery, the Diagonal Road was entered in all known Roman travel guides.

The first comprehensive list of road stations located along the route of the Diagonal Road was that of the Alexandrian geographer Claudius Ptolemy.

The Tabula Peutingeriana, Emperor Antoninus’ Travel Guide and Itinerarium Burdigalense (Burdigala travel guide) confirm that on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria the Central Road started from mutatio Ballanstra (located near the Kalotina vill.) and reached mansio Burdipta (near Momkovo vill., Svilengrad county).

Interesting information about the Diagonal Path is also contained in the hagiographic work The Journey of St. Alexander of Rome through Thrace[4]. The transitions during the transfer of the Saint’s relics from Serdica to Syrallo (today Çorlu, Republic of Turkey) were described in great detail with predominantly topographic elements. This is of particular importance for the study of the road system during the Roman era in the Thrace province. On the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, The Journey of St. Alexander of Rome stated from Serdica and reached the Burdipta station. From there, the transfer of relics continued through the road stations of Hadrianopolis, Burtizo, Drysiporo and ended in the Syrallo station – all of them on the territory of the Republic of Turkey.

The structure and route of the Central Road has been examined by a number of authors. Detailed research on the topic has been carried out by Konstantin Irechek, Škorpil brothers, Ivan Velkov, Petar Mutafchiev, Dimitar Dimitrov, Pavel Deliradev, Yanko Todorov, Petar Detev, Dimitar Tsonchev, Dimcho Aladzhov, Mitko Madzharov.

In his study, The Roman Road from Singidunum to Byzantium, K.Irechek was able to trace the road route and attempted to locate most of the road stations positioned near it[5]. At the same time, he was sometimes inaccurate when determining the location of some road stations near the road route. In this regard, he does not present convincing data of the location of the road stations of Parambole, Carassura, Pizo as well as of the route of the Roman road to the east of  Philippopolis. In this area, Irechek inaccurately located the route along the right shore of the Maritsa river, not the left one where it was actually located.

  1. Tsonchev offers information of high interest about the Central Road in the sections between Philippopolis and Bessapara and Philippopolis and Carassura[6]. In his research, the author precisely traced and studied the road route in the above sections.

From the settlements located along the route of the Central Road that were entered in Roman travel guides as road stations, systematic archeological studies were carried out in the cities of Serdica and Philippopolis, the road stations of Scretisca (near Kostinbrod) and Castra Rubra near Izvorovo vill., Haskovo county, the late antique settlement of Carassura (Rupkite vill., Chirpan municipality) and the early Byzantine fortification of Soneium (at the Trayanovi Vrata pass).

The studied sections of the route of the Central Roman Road show that it was built with a solid stone pavement, in accordance with the requirements of Roman road construction, and when making the road, all four methods, characteristic of the construction of Roman roads, were used.

  • The Diagonal Road (Central Road, Via Diagonalis, Via Militaris) on the territory of Maritsa municipality[7]

The Diagonal Roman Road left Philippopolis on its northwest side, near today’s Dzhumaya Mosque. It crossed the Maritsa River with a bridge which was located around the place of today’s pedestrian bridge and continued in parallel and slightly to the side along the left bank of the river. Further, the road continued through the lands of the village of Rogosh, crossed the modern road from the city of Plovdiv to the village of  Manole and entered the next road station of Sernota. In his research, D. Tsonchev reports the road pavement he found between the villages of Rogosh and Manole[8]. As a station on the Roman road, Sernota was only entered in the Burdigala travel guide which showed it was ХІІ miles away from Philippopolis. The road station of Sernota functioned as mutatio and was located near the village of  Manole, Plovdiv county.

Tomashek located the Sernota station near the village of Manole on the left bank of the Stryama river. In his map, H. Kiepert inaccurately noted that the branch of the Roman road to Beroe was located at this station. The Škorpil brothers, using the latest Russian map of the Bulgarian lands at the time, generally assume that the Sernota station was located on the Stryama river and that it was about 15 km away from the city of Plovdiv. In their research, they do not mention exactly in which lands this station was located. K. Irechek located Sernota Х miles away from Plovdiv, near the bridge of the Stanimaka river (today the Asenitsa river). The author incorrectly identified the Sirmius river (Stryama river) with the Stanimaka river and this is the reason why he incorrectly traced the road not on the left but on the right bank of the Maritsa river. Y. Todorov also located the road station of Sernota to the south of the village of Manole[9] .

After the Sernota station, the Roman road continued in a southeasterly direction and crossed the areas of Gerena, Maltepe and Yurta, the lands of the villages of Manole and Belozem, Rakovski municipality. D. Tsonchev mentions that in the area of Gerena, south of the Manole railway station, the traces of the road surface were very well preserved. South of the village of Manole, on the right bank of the Cherna River, Tsonchev discovered remains of walls, building and household ceramics. After the Cherna river, the road continued in an eastern direction. It crossed the areas of Dalak well, Acacias, Kaldarama and Gerena. From here, through the Asarlaka area, it entered the next road station of Parambole. This station is only entered in the Burdigala travel guide with the function of mutatio, located Х miles away from the Sernota  station. Information of Parambole is also available in the hagiographic work The Journey of St. Alexander of Rome through Thrace. From it, we learned that the Parambole station functioned as emporion (market). According to K. Irechek, the Parembole road station was located near the village of Popovitsa (Papazli), Plovdiv county[10]. In his study, he mentioned that this station was a fortified camp. His opinion suggests that the Roman road in this section was laid along the right bank of the Maritsa River. The Škorpil brothers located the Parembole station in the area of the village of Belozem[11]. They substantiate this opinion with the remains of an old settlement, discovered by them southeast of the village of Belozem and with the distances between Philippopolis, Sernota and Parambole indicated in the Burdigala travel guide. They corresponded to the actual distance from the village of Belozem to the city of Plovdiv. In their research, the Škorpil brothers stated that Parambole was XVIII Roman miles away from Philippopolis and VIII miles away from Sernota. Obviously, they made a mistake in their work with the Burdigala travel guide because it states that the distance from Philippopolis to Parambole is XXII miles and the distance from Sernota to Parambole is X miles. D. Tsonchev located mutatio Parembole in the Asarlaka locality, about 4 km southeast of the village of Belozem on the left bank of the Maritsa river. When Tsonchev explored the road, the remains of this station were well preserved. He reports that it was fortified with a fortress wall that had the shape of a circle with a diameter of the enclosed space of about 100 m. The wall was built of rubble stones, joined with mortar mixed with red brick. Tsonchev also gave information about the archaeological materials found at this place (bricks, tiles, fragments of clay vessels, coins). P. Deliradev also mentions the Parambole road station in his research. In his opinion, this station was located 2 km south of the village of Belozem[12].

2.4. Intensity of archaeological research on the territory of Maritsa municipality

The strategic location of the territory of the municipality of Maritsa in the heart of the Upper Thracian Plain predetermined its early settlement in the initial stages of neolithization on the Balkan Peninsula. The valleys of the Stryama and Maritsa rivers have become arteries of migration and cultural processes over the millennia. On the other hand, the prevailing flat terrain, the low altitude and the lack of naturally fortified points is a prerequisite in certain turbulent periods of history, such as the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, for the area of today’s Maritsa municipality to be mainly used for agriculture and cattle-breeding; the archaeological complexes falling within the mentioned chronological frames that have survived today are difficult to recognize on the ground and of low representative value. The shifting of the riverbeds and the accumulated sediments also make it difficult to locate a large part of the flat archaeological sites (necropolises, settlements, marketplaces, etc.).

On the other hand, in the peaceful periods of settled agriculture and prosperous commercial and cultural communication during the Bronze, Late Iron and Roman ages, eponymous sites for Bulgarian archeology arose on the territory of the municipality of Maritsa, among which the Razkopanitsa mound studied by Petar Detev near the village of Manole stands out in the first place[13]. During the Late Iron Age, the area of today’s Maritsa municipality was positioned between the dynastic Thracian centers (turzis) located at Nebettepe (in the southwest direction) and Halkabunar, Bratya Daskalovi municipality (in the northeast direction), as well as the rich mound complexes from the V – IV c. BC, falling within the territory of today’s Brezovo and Kaloyanovo municipalities. Located along Via Diagonalis, the strategic location of the municipality of Maritza most clearly stands out in the administrative policy of the Roman Empire after the creation of the province of Thrace in AD 44-45; the still incompletely explored memorial complex of Maltepe, near the village of Manole, as well as the adjacent Sernota road station can be dated to the period of II – IV c. AD..

Most findings marking the archaeological heritage of Maritsa municipality are stored in the Regional Archaeological Museum of Plovdiv and the National Archaeological Institute with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia. Regular research, as well as individual archaeological monuments, discovered on the territory of the municipality from the end of the XIX c. to the 70s of the XX c. can be easily traced through the settlement index of the Bibliography of Bulgarian Archeology[14].

In the last twenty years, the large-scale infrastructure projects in southern and, more recently, in northern Bulgaria, have completely changed the vision of Bulgarian archeology by making it possible to comprehensively study sites that, on one hand, require huge financial resources and often have no representative potential, but, on the other hand, are extremely important from a scientific point of view and contribute to the modernization and completion of the archaeological map of Bulgaria.

The infrastructural construction of the municipality of Maritsa was almost fully completed in the 70s of the XX c. and the large “infrastructural corridors” – the highway, railway and gas pipeline projects started after 2000 do not fall within its territory. This was clearly evidenced by the fact that in the past twenty years only one rescue excavation and several field visits were carried out under similar projects during the construction of the railway section of Skutare – Orizovo[15]. As for the regular archaeological excavations, in the 90s of the XX c., Kostadin Kisyov conducted field visits along the Stryama River, which partially falls within the territory of the municipality[16]. The reasons for the lack of regular archeological excavations in the last thirty years are complex, including mainly administrative, legal and financial difficulties.

The above difficulties regarding the study of the archaeological and cultural heritage of Maritsa municipality reduce its potential in no way. The projects for further archaeological research, conservation, restoration and socialization of the memorial complex in the Maltepe mound near Manole are a prerequisite for it to become a national tourist, cultural and archaeological destination.

Apart from Kostadin Kisyov’s publications concerning the Maltepe complex, which are in their initial stage[17], several monographs have appeared in the last ten years, in which general information can be found about the archaeological past of the municipality of Maritsa, especially during the Roman era. This includes Mitko Madzharov’s monographs on Roman roads in Bulgaria[18], in which special focus is placed on the Sernota road station near Manole, Ivan Valchev’s monographs on the non-urban sanctuaries in the Roman province of Thrace[19], synthesizing the information on the sanctuary of Apollo Ζγουλαμηνος near the village of Trud, as well as Kaloyan Pramatarov’s dissertation on the non-urban necropolises in the province of Thrace[20], which has not yet been fully published, but contains the cataloged information about the Roman necropolises found in the lands of the villages of Voyvodinovo, Graf Ignatievo, Stroevo, Skutare and Tsaratsovo.

2.5. Prospects for the archaeological research, conservation and socialization of objects belonging to the Roman road system in the municipality of Maritsa

Undoubtedly, the archaeological site that has the greatest exhibition potential in the municipality of Maritsa is the memorial complex in the Maltepe mound near Manole. It is itself directly linked to the Roman road system, and it is no coincidence that it is located in the immediate vicinity of the Sernota – Parambole section of Via Diagonalis, being visible from kilometers away.

When preparing a project for archaeological research, conservation, restoration and socialization of the memorial complex in the Maltepe mound, it is recommended to include studies of objects related to the Roman settlements along the Via Diagonalis in the lands of the village of Manole. Several promising sites from the Thracian and Roman eras in the immediate vicinity of Maltepe have been witnessed during archaeological surveys /Annex 1 – 4/. When carrying out geophysical surveys of the hinterland, it is possible to come across intact sections of Via Diagonalis, which will subsequently be exposed during the overall socialization of the site. Even now, debris from the road can be located on private properties in the village.

From a scientific point of view, the study of the Sernota road station is most promising; it is most likely located in the westernmost part of the village of Manole. The study of the site would be facilitated by the fact that it falls within private arable and municipal properties, rather than forest land. If exploratory actions are intended, it is recommended to make preliminary consultations with the database of AMP /archaeological map of Bulgaria/ in the National Archaeological Institute with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Regional Archaeological Museum of Plovdiv. The next step is to carry out field archaeological surveys-visits and to perform geophysical studies of the selected promising areas. If decided so and pursuant to previously signed agreements, archaeological research may be carried out by teams of the Regional Archaeological Museum of Plovdiv, the National Archaeological Institute with Museum – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Paisii Hilendarski University of Plovdiv or a different institution having the right to perform field archaeological surveys/.

When preparing any project for archaeological research with municipal, private or investor funds, it should be taken into account that the activities related to the conservation, restoration, socialization and maintenance of the sites are very often extended over time and require much more financial resources in comparison with field archaeological surveys.

In the neighboring municipalities to the west of the municipality of Maritsa, projects related to the archaeological heritage and the cultural and social potential of Via Diagonalis are in progress. Such projects are either in the process of being launched or have been implemented with varying intensity for decades.

  • a framework agreement for mutual assistance in the study of the Parembole road station will be signed between the Rakovski municipality, Parembole Non-Profit Organization and the Paisii Hilendarski University of Plovdiv[21];
  • in Bratya Daskalovi municipality, for 15 years, work has been carried out on a project financed under the financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area – investment fund of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein /EEA Grants Iceland Liechtenstein Norway/ for the study of the Thracian dynastic center near Halka well and the Roman road station of Cillae near the village of Cherna Gora[22];
  • last year marked the 40th anniversary of the launch of the joint Bulgarian-German project investigating the road station and late antique fortification of Carassura near the village of Rupkite, Chirpan municipality[23].

Each of these projects faces difficulties of administrative, financial, scientific and exhibition nature. An example is the Bulgarian-German project near Carassura, which started with great impetus and potential in the early 80s of the ХХ c. At the beginning of the ХХI c. during the construction of the section of the Trakia highway between Chirpan and Stara Zagora, the studies were renewed again, since the route runs in close proximity to the archaeological site and its adjacent facilities. At the moment, tourists have no access to the site, and the municipality of Chirpan only provides security for the archaeological facilities. A private finance initiative will give a chance for the construction of an acceptable environment for the socialization of the site, for the purpose of construction of a photovoltaic park and charging station for electric cars south of the route of the Trakia highway in the hinterland of the archaeological site. The project envisages the construction of a road detour and socialization of the site as an opportunity to fill in the time of travellers when charging electric cars, but it has not yet started due to administrative and financial difficulties.

For the preparation of a high quality project related to the archaeological and cultural heritage of Via Diagonalis in the Maritsa municipality, it is recommended to consider the experience of the neighboring municipalities, as well as the possibility of cooperation with them.

  1. Cultural traditions and festivity

The area located along the banks of the Maritza river is characterized by fertile lands and flourishing settlements that attract both residents coming from different parts of the country and invaders. This explains the demographic dynamics of the population in a longer period of time from the 14th to the 20th centuries. After the Ottomans imposed their rule, part of the population found refuge in the more difficult-to-access mountain areas, and Yuruks, Tatars, and Circassians settled in their place. The ruling power’s goal was to take control of Thrace strategically. The researchers specify that since the end of the 16th century, more and more Bulgarians from different regions of the country (Chiprovo, Nikopol, Lovech, Sofia, Western Macedonia) began to settle again in the district, and they were carriers of specific local tradition. The information from the Ottoman-Turkish registers confirms that during the 16th-17th century, the old Bulgarian settlements in the immediate vicinity of Plovdiv preserved their Bulgarian character. Internal migration movements affected the demographic processes, and migration moved in direction from the mountains to the Thracian plains. A relatively stable settlement pattern was observed since the mid-19th century, which was preserved even after the Liberation.

The migration of population to the cities began in the 1950s, and the reason for that was, on the one hand, the collectivization of agricultural holdings, and, on the other hand, the demand for workforce for the developing industrialization. The main economic activity in the villages was still agriculture. The cultural differences between various immigrant groups began to blur, and coexistence formed local specifics as a result from the way of life and work, as well as from traditions – all of which are the basis of local cultural identity.

One of the main studies on the lifestyle and culture of the population in the valley of Maritsa river is the monographic work “Plovdiv Region”[24]. The study aimed to answer the question of how traditions adapt to a new natural-geographical environment and how local and group ethnographic marks change in conditions of close cultural contact[25]. The collection is based on field research and interprets the material and spiritual culture, lifestyle and traditions of the people in this region. It presents materials about the nature of the settlements and dwellings in the area, about the economic activities, among which a major place is given to farming and stock-breeding. Weaving, clothing and food of the population were also studied. This picture was complemented by the features of social life, customary law, family, calendar and labor customs and rites, folk worldview and language.

3.1. Temples and religious holidays

In all the populated areas of Maritsa municipality were built Orthodox Christian temples, which belong to the Diocese of Plovdiv. The oldest of them were built as early as  the 19th century. “St. Athanasius” in the village of Rogosh (1878), “St. Prophet Elijah” in the village of Skutare (1879), which was entered in the Register of Artistic Cultural Valueables ​​of Local Importance by the National Institute for Immovable Cultural Heritage.

 

In the early 20th century was also built the church of “St. Dimitar” (1902) in the village of Manole. It is located near the community center and upholds the celebration of the temple holiday. The first church “St. Venerable Paraskeva” in the village of Trilistnik was also built in the early 20th century, reinforced after the earthquake in Chirpan, and in the first decade of the new millennium it was gradually repaired and renovated under the leadership of the priest Father Dimitar and the entire congregation.

3.2.  Village fairs

Temples are the main center not only of religious but also of social life. This is particularly manifested during the fairs, when the celebration of the temple holiday takes place. It is usually attended by all the people from the settlement, as well as guests from the area. A major celebration for all the villages of Maritsa municipality is the Annunciation Day (25th March), which has been adopted as a municipality holiday. An important part of the celebration is the liturgy for the patron saint of the temple, as well as the kurban rite. The fairs are mainly organized by the church boards, but often the community centers and mayor’s administration take part in the organization.

In the village of Manole, a fair is held on the feast day of the Holy Nativity of the Virgin Mary, as well as on St. Dimitar’s Day, according to the temple holiday. The temple holiday of the village of Skutare is St. Elijah, when the village fair is also organized. The village fair in the village of Rogosh is on 16th June. Among the traditional holidays, the most celebrated are Epiphany, Babinden, Trifon Zarezan, Lazarus Saturday, Easter and Christmas. It is noteworthy that both traditional and modern aspects of the celebration are included, which enhance the experience and good mood of the participants. Not only the celebration, but also the organization of the holidays involves the whole community, and the local government, community centers and schools are among the main drivers for continuation of traditions. The calendar holidays and customs among the population are mostly observed as knowledge and memory than as practice. A part of them, however, is taken in the formation of the modern regional calendar-holiday system and as a cultural and artistic heritage participates in the development of amateur artistic activities.

A specific and fun holiday in the studied villages is “Zetyovska vecher” (Sons-in-law’s Evening) – a custom that arose in the 1960s. It can be associated with internal migration, when lots of people descended from the mountains and settled in the plain villages near the cities for better working and living conditions. Its story fits into the context of cultural policies implemented during the socialism in Bulgaria and nowadays, which outline the path of changes in the form and meaning of cultural practices. By including the celebration of the son-in-law in the local festivity, we can also read the processes of including the “outsider” residents of the village and strengthening the healthy social fabric of the community.

Everyday life and cultural heritage

The cultural heritage passed down from ancestors has a complex nature and contains diverse elements. The entire environment with its natural resources comes to the fore. Practice shows that their assimilation plays an important part in maintaining the way of life and inheriting traditions in the long term. A major role is played by technologies and skills, which over a long period of time have driven the way of life and work and determine what object environment is created and consumed every day. The transmission of heritage and traditions as a living practice that maintains or renews the relationship between generations also plays an important role.

4.1. Farming and farming technologies

Farming is the main livelihood for the villages in Maritsa municipality, including Rogosh, Skutare and Manole. The inhabitants of each settlement knew which soils were suitable for which crops – cereals, fruit trees, vegetables. There was a practice for one farmer’s fields to be located in different places and small areas throughout the land around the pasture lands and meadows, so that if hail fell, it would not impact all the fields of the same farmer. Horticulture played an important role in the area. Almost every family cultivated areas of 2-3 decares, located around the houses, with the participation of family members. Ethnographic research shows that work in vegetable production continued throughout the whole year[1]. All kinds of vegetables were grown in the gardens, “In the summer we used to go to the market, my father took me to sell what we produced. We went to Thursday Market. We produced everything ourselves and fed ourselves. We grew everything – tomatoes, cucumbers, potatoes, rice, beans, pumpkins…” [vill. Manole, Petar Rakov and Temenuzhka Pehlivanska]. Furtheron, the development of horticulture led to the cultivation of early tomatoes, peppers and other vegetable crops. Tobacco was also grown in the area. Other main livelihoods were related to the production and breeding of animals for meat, milk and wool.

Since the mid-20th century and with the change of the political system and the creation of the TKZS (agricultural cooperatives), the zoning of cultivated crops and animals has been regulated by the central state and party leadership. Then industrial models of agriculture were imposed, as well as industrial breeds of animals and plants. This led to a decrease in local animal breeds and plant varieties. Collaborative future work between ethnologists and ethnobotanists is needed to identify and document the local biodiversity of animal species and local varieties.

4.2. Weaving and clothing

Ethnographic studies conducted in the 1980s show that the textile traditions in the Plovdiv region are very stable and are passed down through the generations. In the past, all the known weaving materials were used – hemp, linen, wool, fur, silk and cotton, and the known tools of labor were a distaff and spindle, spinning-wheel, loom with a base bent towards the back beam. The plain (with two healds) and the quadruple (with four healds) techniques were preserved until late, and depending on the way the base is inserted into the healds and the alternation of the feet, there were different types which formed the fabric pattern – dokurdzhumena, shpatena, krivulichkena, etc.[2] Our conversations with the local people made it clear that towards the middle of the 20th century, mostly wool and cotton were processed. Depending on the use, the fabrics produced at home were divided into fabrics for home furnishing and fabrics related to traditional rites and customs; fabrics for clothing were also made. Until later, rag rugs were woven with a dark background (dark blue or black), interrupted rhythmically by multicolored stripes. The main floor fabric was the mat. “There was a mat on the floor, you put a blanket on top and lie down there, you wrap yourself in a woollen rug and that’s it.” “People used to make everything themselves – mats, rugs. We had a loom and everything was woven on it” [vill. Manole, Temenuzhka Pehlivanska].

Homemade textiles were used in everyday life almost until the middle of the 20th century. People’s stories as well as museum exhibitions displayed in the community centers witness that the rug occupied an important place at home. Depending on the material used to make them, they came in wool, hemp and rag (from cut rags) and were often used for both bedding and covering. In the villages we studied, they were most often woollen, in the natural color of the material with alternating white and drab lines. The wide ones are called mothers, and narrow strips were placed on both sides of them – chicks, which completely matched when sewing the two fabrics and formed lines along the entire width of the rug. Sometimes, however, they would mismatch and form dark rectangles on a white field, which would break the linear rhythmicity.

Researchers note that after the First World War, household culture increased and fabrics for mattresses and quilts began to be woven[3]. Then home-woven sheets for making or covering the beds also began to be used. There was a great assortment of manufacturing techniques and color combinations for the pillows. Colorful woven rugs for the wall also appeared. A large part of the fabrics were used to make tablecloths, necessary for preparing and carrying food – bread cloths, long cloths, kerchiefs, bags, etc. The older ones were usually in black and white tonality, but with the widespread introduction of aniline dyes, various combinations appeared – black, red and green, supplemented with yellow or lilac, and the decoration was linear or geometric, most often achieved with a weaving technique of four or more healds.

Men’s clothing belonged to one of the main varieties of traditional Bulgarian men’s costumes, which is defined by ethnographic studies as a traditional costume of black-cloth type[4]. It consists of breeches and a waistcoat, sewn from the natural drab color of the wool or from dyed frieze. It used to be made by tailors. “My father was a tailor – he sewed breeches. She sewed for us and for other people, for friends. There was no electricity then, he sewed by the light of candles or gas lamp” [vill. Manole, Petar Rakov]. Along with them, tailors appeared who knew how to make clothes in European fashion.

Women’s clothing in the villages north of the Maritsa river was of two main types – sukman and fustan. Researchers define it as Thracian-type clothing, which includes: a shirt, sukman, apron, outerwear and additional parts[5]. The shirt has a tunic-like shape, it is made of a whole cloth the size of homespun cloth and a length suitable for the size of the person which is called boi. Sometimes it was decorated with kenar edging, which was placed on both hems of the cloth. The edges on sleeves, skirts, bosom were decorated with home-knitted lace.

The older type of sukman had a shirt-like cut and was also sewn from a single cloth, boi, which was woven from woollen yarn though. Stylistically, sukman matches extremely well the old local woollen or hemp shirt, which was a good artistic addition with its colorful embroidery. Since the 1920s – 1930s, the wide sukman with wedges, which reached from 6 to 18-20 wedges, became popular. In order to make it more comfortable to wear, they started to weave a thinner woolen fabric for its manufacture. The aprons to it also changed compared to the older aprons, and haberdashery began to be more widely used for their decoration. The next stage of the development of sukman was reflected in its cut, which was characterized by a cut at the waist, and velvet and satin were used for decoration. Gradually, the women in every household stopped sewing their clothing and it went into the hands of tailors: “At the time, they would go to a tailor for 2-3 months to watch, and if the person had a talent and it pulled them, they got used to it and started to sew” [vill. Manole, Temenuzhka Pehlivanska]. This is associated with both the urban influence on clothing and the emergence and spread of sewing machines that were used to sew clothes.

The period from the 1920s to the 1950s witnessed the spread of a new type of outerwear, such as fustans. They were sewn with homespun woollen fabric and decorated with velvet or satin ribbons. Machine-embroidered aprons gradually began to replace hand-woven ones.

To sew clothing was used plain or kenar-edged fabric for shirts, and after the 1930s, checkered fabric was made for men’s shirts and women’s fustans. “My mother used to whiten cloth on the Cherna river, which then passed through the village. As children, we used to go with her and catch little fish.” “My grandmother was a widow with four children and gave my mother as a servant at the age of 13 to Grandpa Tonyo. They had a very large estate and lots of servants, but they did not harrass them. My mother was very pleased with Grandma Todora – she taught her to weave, she taught her to spin, to warp – everything.” [Manole, Grandma Temenuzhka]

4.3. Ceramics and pottery

The increased use of various materials and the introduction of industrial production slowly caused this craft to died out. The knowledge of where quality clay could be obtained, as well as the very know-how of making various products, gradually faded away. One of the few craftsmen who still fight to preserve the craft works in the village of Voysil, but is closely connected with the Maltepe Cultural and Information Center. This is master potter Radostin Ganev, who has had more than 30 years of experience. He is extremely dedicated to his work and beside perfecting what he had learned from the older masters who taught him (he studied with various masters from Plovdiv and Troyan), he himself searches for old and newer techniques to experiment with. He applies ancient techniques, and the dishes thus produced are exceptionally beautiful and of high quality.

The Institute of Ethnography and Folklore Studies with a Museum has in its archive a rich collection of documentary photos of round loaves of bread baked in a closed clay pot (podnitsa) from the village of Rogosh.

 

The studies of archaeologists Rumyana Georgieva and Eli Filipova[1] also reveal culinary techniques and clay dishes for food preparation. Their different sizes and wall and bottom thickness are the result of consciously sought thermal conductivity. Covering their inner surface with engobe implies impermeability and easy cleaning. It is impressive that the shape of the cooking vessels remained almost unchanged for a millennium, which testifies to the reached optimal qualities and continuity in cooking techniques. Another interesting fact is that the so-called primitive pottery which was made by women to meet the family’s needs for baking and cooking utensils still exists on the Balkans since ancient times. Researchers such as Milenko Filipovich and Biljana Djordjevich[2] claim that linguistic data and preserved objects testify that this tradition was sustained in the central territories of the Balkans until the mid-20th century. It can be assumed that such type of vessels were also the pots (podnitsi), which were traditionally made by women and this practice was alive in the villages of Maritsa municipality until the mid-20th century. The podnitsa and vrashnik dishes have become a culinary symbol of the villages in the municipality and continue to be used to prepare food and bake bread on holidays. It is noteworthy that their make is at risk today, as there are few people who are skilled in manual ceramic techniques. Therefore, modern educational programs aimed at transmitting this intangible cultural heritage are of utmost importance.

 

  1. Modern preservation and transmission of cultural heritage

Over the years, community centers (chitalishte) have become the main source of valuable knowledge about local traditions and cultural memory, a repository of the very own cultural heritage of settlement communities. They create and preserve museum collections representing the territorial communities. In addition, they are the main guardians of the local dance and song folklore, storytelling customs, knowledge coming from the ancestors[3]. Community centers in the Maritsa municipality work actively (including on projects) and conduct numerous diverse activities and classes, amateur singing groups[4]. They especially focus on music and dance folklore, on recreating the traditional Christian calendar and on restoring some rites and customs (lazaruvane, koleduvane, Trifon Zarezan, harvest, wedding). The community centers often house the only cultural scene in the villages. A similar role is played by the Maltepe Cultural and Information Center, where various events and trainings are organized. The resource that they all possess can also be used for the purposes of various festivals or tourist routes with educational or creative elements.

These are significant first steps towards appreciation and acceptance of the local cultural heritage. They also present opportunities to stimulate a multitude of activities, knowledge and skills that cultural bearers possess and express. Villages have a great potential of cultural traditions and practices that can and should be valued as a heritage and become a resource both for merging and strengthening the local community with its local specifics, and for their integration into future activities, events, educational programs and projects.

References:

Бъчваров, К., Г. Кацаров, А. Цурев, Н. Николова, Р. Радев. Археологически обект при Скутаре, общ. Марица. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2018 год. София, 2019.

Вълчев, И. Извънградски светилища в римската провинция Тракия (I – IV в.). София, 2015.

Георгиева, Р., Е., Филипова. Кулинарни техники и съоръжения за готвене в Тракия през I хил. пр. Xр., THRACIA XХIІ, 2020, 

Георгиева, С., В. Велков. Библиография на българската археология (1879 – 1966). София, 1974.

Грозданова, Е. Турски документи за данъка джизие през XVII-XVIII в., Известия на Държавен архив, 28, 1970.

Делирадев, П. Принос към историческата география на Тракия, ІІ. София, 1953, 264.

Детев, П. Селищната могила Разкопаница. – ИАИ, XVII, 1950, 171 – 190.

Димитров, Д. Пътуването на Св. Александър Римски през Тракия. – ИБАИ, 1934.

Иречек, К. Етнографски променения в България от основаването на Княжеството, Сборник за Народни умотворения, наука и книжнина. София 1891 г.

Иречек, К. Римският път от Сингидунум за Византия. – БИБ, ІV, 1932.

Кисьов, К. Тракийската култура в региона на Пловдив и течението на р. Стряма през втората половина на I хил. пр. Хр. София, 2004.

Кисьов, К., Л. Мерджанов. Археологически разкопки на могила „Мал Тепе” до с. Маноле, община Марица. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2017 год. София, 2018.

Кисьов, К., Л. Мерджанов. Археологически разкопки на могила „Мал Тепе” до с. Маноле, община Марица – Пловдивска област. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2018 год. София, 2019.

Кисьов, К., Л. Мерджанов. Археологически разкопки на могила „Мал Тепе” (III в.) до с. Маноле, общ. Марица, обл. Пловдив. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2019 год. София, 2020.

Кисьов, К., С. Христева. Археологически разкопки на могила „Мал Тепе” до с. Маноле, община Марица, Пловдивска област. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2016 год. София, 2017.

Колева, Е. Историко-демографски преглед., Пловдивски край. Етнографски и езикови проучвания. Изд. БАН, София 1986.

Лещаков, П., С. Христева. Археологическо наблюдение на строителството на железопътен участък Скутаре – Оризово. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2018 год. София, 2019.

Маджаров, М. Римски пътища в България, Принос в развитието на римската пътна система в провинциите Мизия и Тракия. Велико Търново, 2009.

Маринов, В. Земеделие. Пловдивски край. Етнографски и езикови проучвания. Изд. БАН. София 1986

Колева, Е. Тъкачество и тъкани. Пловдивски край. Етнографски и езикови проучвания. Изд. БАН. София 1986.

Михайлова, Г. Облекло. Пловдивски край. Етнографски и езикови проучвания. Изд. БАН. София 1986, 135-165

Мутафчиева, В. Нови османски документи за вакъфите в България под турска власт, Известия на Държавен архив, 7, 1962, 269-274;

Ненова, Ст. Общности и читалищна институция в съхранението на нематериалното културно наследство – нормативни документи и практики. Български фолклор, 2019,1.

Пловдивски край. Етнографски и езикови проучвания. Изд. БАН. София 1986 (редакционна колегия Г. Михайлова, отг. Редактор, М. Василева, М. Велева, А. Примовски, Л. Радева, секретар, Хр. Холиолчев. 390 стр.

Праматаров, К. Извънградски некрополи в провинция Тракия (I – III в.). Автореферат на дисертация за присъждане на образователна и научна степен „доктор”. София, 2018.

Регистър на народните читалища Информация за школите и заниманията  на читалищата могат да се видят в: https://chitalishta.com/?act=content&rec=3 

Тодоров, Н. За демографското състояние на Балканския полуостров през XV-XVI в., Годишник на Софийския университет. Философско-исторически факултет, 53, 1960, 2.

Тодоров, Т. Римският път Philippopolis – Parembole 80 години по-късно по Димитър Цончев. – XVII национални студентски научни четения. Европейско културно-историческо наследство. Доклади от студентска конференция в град Пловдив. 14 – 15 май 2022 година. Пловдив, 2022 /под печат/.

Тонкова, М. Трако-римски династичен център в района на Чирпанските възвишения. София, 2011.

Торбатов, С. Пътна мрежа в Тракия и Мизия (І – ІІІ в.). – В: Археология на българските земи, София, 2004.

Цончев, Д. Римският път Philippopolis – Carassura и разклонението му при Ranilum. – ГПНБМ, 1940 – 1941.

Цончев, Д. Римският път Philippopolis – Tugugerum – Bessapara. – ГНАМПл, II, 1950.

Чолаков И., С. Христева. Теренни издирвания по проект „Развитие на железопътен възел Пловдив”. – Археологически открития и разкопки през 2017 год. София, 2018, 644 – 647;

Шкорпил, В., К. Шкорпил 1885. Някои бележки върху археологическите и историческите изследвания в Тракия. Пловдив, 1885, 98 – 99.

Яранов, Д. Преселническото движение на българи от Македония и Албания към източнобългарските земи през XV-XIX в., Македонски преглед, 7, 1931-1932, 2-3.

Filipovich, M. S. Primitive Ceramics Made by Women among the Balkan Peoples, published in 1951; Biljana Djordjevich. Ethnoarchaeological research as a method of protection of traditional ceramics technologies. CONDITION OF THE CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE IN THE BALKAN REGION.

Todorov, Y. Le grandi strade romane in Bulgaria. Instituto di studi romani, XVI, 1937.

Wendel, M. Die Verkehrsanbindung in frühbyzantinischer Zeit (4.-8. Jh. N. Chr). Karasura. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten hrakien, vol. III. Langenweissbach, Beier & Beran, 2005.

Wendel, М. Die Straßen: In: Karasura III, Langenweissbach, 2005, 13 – 14.