GLASS BEADS FROM DREN-DELYAN NECROPOLIS (ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOMETRIC STUDY)

ANCIENT THRACE: MYTH AND REALITY THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THRACOLOGY KAZANLAK, SEPTEMBER 3 – 7, 2017 VOLUME ONE Sofia, 2022 St. Kliment Ohridski University Press 1 Ancient Thrace: Myth and Reality The Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Thracology Volume One 2 Софийски университет „Св. Климент Охридски“ Национален археологически институт с музей, БАН Институт за балканистика с център по тракология, БАН Исторически музей „Искра“, Казанлък ДРЕВНА ТРАКИЯ: МИТ И РЕАЛНОСТ МАТЕРИАЛИ ОТ ТРИНАДЕСЕТИЯ МЕЖДУНАРОДЕН КОНГРЕС ПО ТРАКОЛОГИЯ КАЗАНЛЪК, 3 – 7 СЕПТЕМВРИ 2017 г. ПЪРВИ ТОМ под редакцията на Петър Делев, Тотко Стоянов, Светлана Янакиева, Христо Попов, Анелия Божкова, Майя Василева, Юлия Цветкова, Маргарит Дамянов, Петя Илиева, Юлий Емилов СОФИЯ 2022 Университетско издателство „Св. Климент Охридски“ 3 St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia National Archaeological Institute and Museum, BAS Institute of Balkan Studies and Center of Thracology, BAS Museum of History Iskra, Kazanlak ANCIENT THRACE: MYTH AND REALITY THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THRACOLOGY KAZANLAK, SEPTEMBER 3 – 7, 2017 VOLUME ONE еdited by Peter Delev, Totko Stoyanov, Svetlana Yanakieva, Hristo Popov, Anelia Bozkova, Maya Vassileva, Julia Tzvetkova, Margarit Damyanov, Petya Ilieva, Juliy Emilov SOFIA, 2022 St. Kliment Ohridski University Press The four organizing institutions of the 13th International Congress of Thracology in 2017 have each celebrated important anniversaries thereafter: • 130 years since the foundation of the National Museum in Sofia (1892) [now the National Archaeological Museum affiliated to the National Archaeological Institute]; • 120 years since the foundation of the Museum Iskra in Kazanlak (1901); • 100 years since the establishment of the Department of Archaeology at the St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia (1920); • 100 years since the foundation of the Bulgarian Archaeological Institute (1921); • 100 years since the establishment of the Department of Classical Philology at the St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia (1922); • 50 years since the foundation of the Institute of Thracology at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (1972) [now a Center of Thracology affiliated to the Institute of Balkan Studies]. The editors dedicate the publication of the congress proceedings to the commemoration of these six events. The printing of the proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Thracology has been sponsored financially by: National Archaeological Institute and Museum, BAS Institute of Balkan Studies with Center of Thracology “Prof. A. Fol”, BAS St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia Iskra Historical Museum, Kazanlak Kazanlak Municipality St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia National Archaeological Instotute and Museum, BAS Institute of Balkan Studies and Center of Thracology “Prof. A. Fol”, BAS Museum of History Iskra, Kazanlak ANCIENT THRACE: MYTH AND REALITY. THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THRACOLOGY, KAZANLAK, SEPTEMBER 3 – 7, 2017. VOLUME ONE edited by Peter Delev, Totko Stoyanov, Svetlana Yanakieva, Hristo Popov, Anelia Bozkova, Maya Vassileva, Julia Tzvetkova, Margarit Damyanov, Petya Ilieva, Juliy Emilov © the editors and the respective authors, unless where otherwise indicated © 2022 NICE AN LTD, Sofia (prepress and graphic design) © 2022 St. Kliment Ohridski University Press ISBN 978-954-07-5621-9 (printed edition) ISBN 978-954-07-5623-3 (E-book, pdf) Ancient Thrace: Myth and Reality Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Thracology, Volume 1 GLASS BEADS FROM DREN-DELYAN NECROPOLIS (ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOMETRIC STUDY) Philip Mihaylov, Nikoleta Tzankova The aim of the present study is to present the archaeological context in which the studied glass beads were found, their typology, and the preliminary results of archaeometric analysis of the main oxides in the composition of the glass paste. The necropolis of Dren-Delyan was discovered in 2011 during rescue excavations preceding the construction of the Struma motorway. The section of the site lying under the motorway was fully excavated in 2012 and during 2014-2015 excavations continued to the west of the road.1 The necropolis is located in the Druganski pat locality, between the villages of Dren and Delyan,2 in the south-east periphery of the Radomir plain, at an altitude of about 665 m (Pl. 1, fig. 1). Concentrations of unworked stones appear beneath the grass and topsoil, towards the low east slopes of Konyavska Mountain. Excavations have so far uncovered three rows of such stone features, running parallel from north-east to south-west, and obliquely cut by the Struma motorway (Pl. 1, fig. 2). Burial structures – description and dating The removal of the layer of unworked stones revealed groups of quadrangular features, made of flat stone slabs. Some of these features were used for burial, while others probably served for related mortuary and commemorative rites.3 Two phases of use of the necropolis can be discerned: the first dates to the Early Iron Age (from the end of the 11th to the beginning of the 8th c. BC), while the second one dates to the Late Iron Age (from the 6th to the first half of the 4th c. BC). 1 2 3 Mihaylov 2014, 60-76; Mihaylov 2015, 153-157; Mihaylov 2016, 284-286. The village of Dren belongs to Radomir municipality, Pernik district and Delyan – to Dupnitsa municipality, Kyustendil district. We would like to thank Dr Bela Dimova who helped with the translation of part of the text and proof-reading. During the first phase, the deceased were cremated along with their personal belongings. Their remains were placed in ceramic urns. The personal adornments included beads of bone. At this early phase, glass beads were not found. Even if there had been glass beads originally, the probability of their surviving the cremation is slim, with the pyre temperature reaching over 1000 degrees.4 Ceramic vessels were placed as grave goods in some cases: usually besides, but occasionally also inside the urns. During the second phase, most of the graves and ritual features were built of stone (Pl. 1, fig. 3). The deceased were cremated outside the grave. The burnt bones, along with the grave goods are usually found upon the ground or on the stones. Deposition in urns is rare. Cases of inhumation also appeared during this phase.5 As the necropolis came to combine inhumation and cremation, the archaeological footprint of other mortuary rituals did not change. Grave goods consisted mainly of weapons, jewelry, pottery, parts of horse gear, and insignias. Beads are the dominant element of the jewelry and the majority are made of glass. Amber and unworked amber beads are significantly rarer. Glass beads The glass beads, along with the other grave goods and the remains of the deceased, are usually found on the ground or between the stones without a recognizable arrangement (Pl. 2, fig. 1). Some beads went through the funerary pyre (Pl. 2, fig. 2), while others were added during the burial or related activities (Pl. 2, fig. 1). In most cases, the beads were placed during the rites accompanying the burial. They were not always buried at the same time as the human remains. Often beads are found under the small 4 5 Mihaylov, Galabova in this volume. Mihaylov, Galabova in this volume. 272 Philip Mihaylov, Nikoleta Tzankova stones covering the top of the burial structures,6 and between the medium and larger stones covering the features related to the burial (Pl. 2, fig. 3). Despite the large number of glass beads from the necropolis, not a single necklace has yet been found in situ.7 This suggests that the beads, like most other finds, including the remains of the deceased, were scattered during the burial or commemorative rites. The use of the beads as markers or insignia adds an interesting nuance. Structure 25 provides the best example: no human remains were found inside and there were no traces of ritual activities. In the center, however, lay a gold pectoral, which had been crushed and cut,8 and a glass bead was found in the north-west periphery, outside the wall (Pl. 2, fig. 4). It was placed on the ground, without any other archaeological material. Over 100 glass beads were found in contexts such as those described above. Most of them are complete or sufficiently preserved to reconstruct their shape and size. Many glass bead fragments were also recovered, but their size and shape do not allow us to determine the original number of beads. Considering the great number of fragments, they are probably no less than the intact beads. Table 1 presents the 18 main types of glass beads discovered in the necropolis at Dren-Delyan, classified according to their shape, color, and decoration. Glass beads were discovered in almost all stone structures. That is, they are chronologically in the entire second phase of the necropolis – from the 6th to the first half of the 4th c. BC. Preliminary chemical analysis was applied to 14 glass beads (Pl. 3, fig. 1:1-11, 13, 16-17) to identify the main oxides in their composition. The 14 beads were selected as a sample representative of different archaeological types: monochrome, polychrome, and beads with specific decoration. The basic technique for making these beads is that they are rod-forming. This technique is part of the big group of the Hot-working techniques.9 6 7 8 9 For details on the construction of the stone features, see Михайлов, Пировска 2020. There are however indications that the beads were parts of sets: similar, even identical beads are found scattered in the grave and in an area of up to 2 metres around. Михайлов, Пировска 2020. Spaer 2001, 44-45, fig. 10a-b. Methods Scanning Electron Microscope SEM CDDEDS JEOL JSM-6010 Plus/LA was used for surface observations with micro-photography and to identify the main oxides in the glass beads’ composition. The SEM was operated in secondary electron mode (SEI) as well as in backscattered electron mode (BES). Analyses were conducted in low vacuum (30Pa), accelerating voltage of 15kV, and a scan time of 90 seconds. Typology The beads from the Dren-Dylan necropolis vary in shape, color, and transparency, which suggests that they were made using different techniques. Monochrome as well as polychrome beads, made with extreme precision, were found. Monochrome beads are mostly blue (light blue to blue-green and deep blue), beige, and orange with a great variety of color nuances. These beads are melon-shaped with a different number of grooves (five, seven, or eight), globular, cylindrical, “segmented”, and annular. Most of them are translucent and bubbly (Pl. 3, fig. 1: 4). Polychrome beads are opaque with patterns in two, three, or four colors. Their shapes are also different: globular, less often cylindrical, and very rarely sub-triangular annular. Most of the polychrome beads belong to the so-called stratified eye glass beads. In globular and cylindrical beads, the decoration is only in the form of eyes – four (Pl. 3, fig. 1: 13, 15), six (Pl. 3, fig. 1: 12), or eight (Pl. 3, fig. 1: 11) (three/four pairs), placed symmetrically. Sub-triangular annular beads have only three eyes (Tab. 3, fig. 1: 14, 16, 18). There is also one polychrome opaque bead that differs in composition and pattern from the rest. It is a globular dark green glass bead with four beige convex dots (Tab. 3, fig. 1: 17). Chemical study In the glass matrix composition of the most studied samples, the content of Na2O varies from 13.88 to 18.93 wt % and that of CaO from 5.37 to 12.18 wt %. The content of K2O is in very low limits, up to 0.64 wt %, MgO is up to 0.73 wt % and P2O5 is up to 0.09 wt %. The weight percentage of Al2O3 ranges from 0.52 to 3.02 wt% and the weight percentage of SiO2 is between 62.06 and 70.81 wt %. Consequently the obtained data from this preliminary study al- Glass beads from Dren-Delyan necropolis (archaeological and archaeometric study) low us to classify these finds as low-magnesium glass beads (LMG). An opaque dark green bead with beige decoration differs from all the other glass finds in its higher content of K2O (4.37 wt %), MgO (2.96 wt %), Al2O3 (5.15 wt %), P2O5 (1.13 wt %), and the lower content of SiO2 (59.16 wt %). These values of the main oxides in its composition define this glass as high-magnesium – HMG. The additional identification of the chemical type of the glass, its impurities and trace elements, which bring information about color additives, decolorizing agents and opacifiers, is subject to a detailed forthcoming study, using methods with greater precision and a higher level of sensitivity. During the SEM study, we found flat, irregularly-shaped Au-Ag particles on the surfaces of the annular beige and orange beads, with a chemical composition of approximately ¾ Au and ¼ Ag (Pl. 3, table 1). These gold-containing particles were found only on the surfaces of monochrome beads without glaze and decoration. The flat shape of these gold-silver particles and their relatively uniform distribution on the studied beads’ surfaces allow us to suggest that they represent the remains of a gold foil, which was used to coat these surfaces. According to Galibin, the presence of gold in the ancient glass in the form of an impurity indicates its use for decorative purposes, although the film can be destroyed over time.10 At this stage, we cannot exclude the possibility that these gold-silver particles entered the glass in a natural way. Comparison The closest site, in both geographical and chronological terms, which has yielded similar glass beads, is the mound necropolis near Staro selo in Radomir district. 11 Considering the similarities between the two sites,12 we can propose that the appearance of glass beads at both is the result of shared cultural traditions and commercial interactions.13 10 11 12 13 Галибин 2001, 31. Паунова 2006, 190. Михайлов 2014, 67. Glass beads from the cemetery near Staro selo have not been published. The publication only mentions that they have been found. This is why it is impossible to do a more detailed analysis of the beads and their provenance. They are similar to those from Dren-Delyan, according to the excavator, to whom I am grateful for this information. 273 The partially excavated fort at Krasta locality near Bosnek is slightly more distant in space and time. Several glass beads were found within the fort, but the majority came from a grave located next to the fort. They number a total of 78. Dated to the 2nd c. BC these beads differ from the Dren-Delyan ones in shape.14 But the people who acquired and used them probably belonged to the same culture and used similar commercial networks as the people who had buried their dead at Dren-Delyan earlier. The following sites, which we will consider are more distant from the necropolis of DrenDelyan, but they are part of the broader cultural region. The glass beads found in the prehistoric burial mound at Lofkënd, Albania are among the earliest in the Balkans.15 This relatively early appearance of glass beads in burial context is not an isolated phenomenon, neither for the west Balkans, nor for the period: just 140 km to the north-east, near Skopje a necklace of glass beads was deposited as a grave good in a necropolis dating exclusively to the Late Bronze Age.16 Placing glass beads in graves was common practice in necropoleis of the 6th–4th century BC on the territory of the modern North Macedonia and Serbia.17 These necropoleis are very close to Dren-Delyan both geographically and culturally. The glass beads found there are similar in appearance. Unfortunately, we do not have any information regarding their composition, which would allow us to compare data on provenance, production centers, and exchange routes through which the beads could reach their respective sites. At Apollonia Pontica the situation is different. Despite the clear typological similarities18 between some of the glass beads found at Apollonia and Dren-Delyan, we believe that there are certain differences in their chemical composition and in the cultural and trade contacts of each community. We may expect that the glass objects at Apollonia Pontica came from Asia Minor, where Apollonia’s founders came 14 Ljubenova 2005, 190. 15 Papadopoulos et. al. 2007, 120, fig. 12: e. 16 I am grateful to Aleksandra Papazova from the Archaeological Museum of North Macedonia for this information. 17 Jovanović 1986, 56, fig. 161; Господари сребра 1990, 180, № 123; Санев et. al. 1976, 59, № 593. 18 Lyubomirova et. al. 2014, 3-4, tab. 1; Чачева 2015, 53, обр. 2. 274 Philip Mihaylov, Nikoleta Tzankova from.19 The beads found at Dren-Delyan, on the other hand, were most likely imported through the valleys of Struma (Strymon) and Vardar (Axios) from the region of Thessaly and Pieria: a proposition that we will attempt to justify in the following paragraphs. Import from central Europe and the Italic peninsula is also possible. Although distant, the necropolis at Pichvnari, Georgia is important for identifying the sources of the beads at Dren-Delyan. Some of the beads at the two sites have similar typological features (Tab. 3, fig. 1: 6).20 Most of the bead types familiar from Dren-Delyan were also found in the cemeteries around ancient Amphipolis at the mouth of Struma21 and Sindos, located at the mouth of Vardar.22 In terms of shape and decoration, the beads from Dren-Delyan correspond to the glass beads found at Methone (Tab. 3, fig. 1: 4-9, 14-16; 1-2; 3, 10-11, 14-16, 18),23 some of which were produced locally.24 The types of glass beads from the DrenDelyan necropolis are mainly found in the region of Chalkidiki, Pieria, Thessaly (e.g., at Kastoria, Pella, Grevena, Makrigialos (Pydna), Thermi, Souroti (cemetery), Mesimery, Olynthus),25 but also in the Black Sea (Kerch), and the wider Mediterranean, from the Levant (Myrina, Éléonte) through Italy (Tolfa, Corneto etc.), north Africa (Carthage, Utique, Gouraya), and Spain (Tharros).26 One of the few parallels of globular bead with six eyes (Tab. 3, fig. 1: 12) is found in the Levant.27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Bouzek 2000, 136. Shortland 2009, 953, fig. 5. Lazaridis 1997, fig. 64. Δεσποίνη 2016, 588, εικ. 251-252. Ιγνατιάδου 2017, 200, fig. 1-3, 202, fig. 8; Ignatiadou 2015, 85, fig 4, 86, fig. 5, 87, fig. 6. Dotsika, Maniatis, Ignatiadou 2008. Adam-Veleni 2010, 185, fig. 18-19, 186, fig. 20-21, 23, 187, fig. 24-26, 189, fig. 29, 190, 30-31, 220, fig. 87, 316-319, fig. 304-306, fig. 308-312, fig. 314, 321, fig. 317, 324, fig. 321, 325, fig. 322, 326, fig. 324, 372, fig. 425-427, 373, fig. 428429. Les Verres Antiques 2011, 81, No 140b, 82, No 144, 90, No 154, 93, No 157, 94, No 158, 97, No 160, 106, No 166g/h, 112-113, No 175, 116-117, No 177-13, 120-121, No 179-3233, 136-137, No 187, 138-139, No 189, 168-169, No 209, 170-171, No 210, 210-211, No 292a-c. Les Verres Antiques 2011, 211, No 292c. Discussion Without intending to open the debate over the earliest appearance of glass beads on the territory of modern Bulgaria, we must note that the period between the 5th and 2nd century BC, proposed by some authors,28 is too late. The glass beads from Dren-Delyan were found with materials from the 6th–4th c. BC and these are not an exception. Some examples listed above show the presence of glass beads in necropoleis of the LBA–EIA in neighboring regions with cultural links to our study area. It is very unlikely that the appearance of these objects in Bulgaria was delayed by over 500 years, compared to neighboring regions. We would further contest the proposition that glass workshops did not exist on the territory of modern Bulgaria during the Iron Age.29 The only argument supporting this idea is the absence of studies on ancient glass: a situation, which we are working towards changing. And we are not the first to propose that some glass beads were produced locally.30 Conclusion The glass beads found in the Dren Delyan necropolis essentially differ one from another in their shape, color, and ornamental pattern. Some of these samples belong to the so-called eye-glass beads, with differently colored eyes on their surfaces. Based on the results of our research, we assume that the studied glass finds have been produced in more than one glass workshop using different raw materials. 28 Lyubomirova et. al. 2014, 8. 29 Lyubomirova et. al. 2014, 10. 30 Чачева 2015, 51 with references. Glass beads from Dren-Delyan necropolis (archaeological and archaeometric study) Bibliography Angelini, I., G. Artioli, P. Bellintani, A. Polla 2003: Protohistoric vitreous materials of Italy: from early faience to final Bronze Age glasses. – In: Developments in the Second and Earlier First Millennia BC. AIHVAnnales du 16e Congres, 32-36. Blomme A., P. Degryse, E. Dotsika, D. Ignatiadou, A. Longinelli, A. Silvestri 2017: Provenance of polychrome and colourless 8th-4th century BC glass from Pieria, Greece: A chemical and isotopic approach. – Journal of Archaeological Science 78, 134-146. Bouzek, J. 2000: Les Phéniciens en mer Noire? – In: A. Avram, M. Babeş (eds.) Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques périphériques. Hommage à Petre Alexandrescu à son 70e anniversaire. . Bucarest, 134-137. Adam-Veleni, P (ed.) 2010: Glass Cosmos. ., Thessaloniki. Les Verres Antiques Du Musee Du Louvre III (eds.?) 2011:. Louvre editions. Conte, S., R. Arletti, J. Henderson, P. Degryse, A. Blomme 2016: Different glassmaking technologies in the production of Iron Age black glass from Italy and Slovakia. – Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 1-19. Dotsika, E., D. Poutoukis, I. Tzavidopoulos, Y. Maniatis, D. Ignatiadou, B. Raco 2009: A natron source at Pikrolimni Lake in Greece? Geochemical evidence. – Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 1-11. Dotsika, E., Y. Maniatis, D. Ignatiadou 2008: A natron source for glass making in Greece? Preliminary results. – In: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Archaeometry of the Hellenic Society of Archaeometry (Y. Fakorellis, N. Zacharias, K. Polikreti, eds), Athens 2003, (BAR 2008), 359-361. Henderson, J. 1985: The raw materials of early glass production. – Oxford Journal of Archaeology 4. Ignatiadou, D. 2015: Early glass in Methone. – In: I. Lazar (ed.) Annales du 19e congrès de l’Association internationale pour l’histoire du verre, Piran, 2012, Koper, 81-88. Jovanović, М. 1986: Gomolava. Novi Sad. Jovanović, М. 1986: Gomolava. Od Praistorije do Srednjeg veka. Mlade Gvozdeno doba. Novi Sad. Lazaridis, D. 1997: Amphipolis. Ministry of culture, Archaeological receipts fund. Athena. Lyubomirova, V., Ž. Šmit, H. Fajfar, I. Kuleff 2014: Chemical Composition of Glass Beads from the Necropolis of Apollonia Pontica (5th– 3rd Century BC). – Archaeologia Bulgarica XVIII, 2, 1-17. Mihaylov, Ph., B. Galabova in this volume: The necropolis Dren-Delyan (11th-4th century BC.). Cultural and physical anthropological analyses. 275 Sayre, E., R. Smith 1967. Some materials of glass manufacturing in antiquity. – In: M. Levey (ed.) Archaeological chemistry, a symposium. Third Symposium of Archaeological Chemistry, Atlantic City, NJ. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Shortland, A., H. Schroeder 2009: Analysis of first millennium BC glass vessels and beads from the Pichvnari necropolis, Georgia. – Archaeometry 51, 947-965. Spaer, M. 2001: Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum. Beads and Other Small Objects. Tonkova, M. 1997: Traditions and Aegean influences on the Jewellery of Thrace in early Ηellenistic times. – Archaeologia Bulgarica, 2, 18–31. Δεσποίνη, A. 2016: ΣΙΝΔΟΣ III. Αθηναι. Ιγνατιάδου, Δ., Α. Αθανασιάδου 2017: Υαλουργία Μεθώνης. – Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 26, 2012. Θεσσαλονικη, 199-204. Галибин, В. 2001: Состав стекла как археологический источник. Санкт-Петербург (Институт истории материальной културы, Труды ІV). Господари сребра 1990: Господари сребра. Гвоздено доба на тлу Србиjе. Каталог изложбе, Народни музеj Београд. Кулев, Ив. 2012: Археометрия. София: Свети Климент Охридски,. Михайлов, Ф. 2014: Резултати от спасителните археологически разкопки на некропол от І хил. пр.Хр. край село Делян. – Известия РИМ-Перник 2. Фабер, 60-76. Михайлов, Ф. 2015: Редовно археологическо проучване на некропол от І хил. пр. Хр. между селата Дрен и Делян, община Дупница. – АОР през 2014 г. София, 153-157. Михайлов, Ф. 2016: Археологическо проучване на некропол от І хил. пр. Хр. между селата Дрен, общ. Радомир и Делян, общ. Дупница – АОР през 2015 г. София, 284-286. Михайлов, Ф., А. Пировска 2020: Златни нагръдници и пластини от некропола между селата Дрен и Делян. – В: Б. Божкова, Е. Генчева (ред.). In memoriam Ivani Venedikov. По случай 100-годишнината от рождението му. София, НАИМ-БАН, 79-96. Паунова, В. 2006: Проучване на могилен некропол в с. Старо село, Радомирско, м. Равнището. – АОР през 2005 г. 188-190. Санев, В., Д. Симоска, Б. Китаноски, С. Саржоски 1976: Праисториjа во Македониjа. Скопие. Чачева, М. 2015: Антропоморфни стъклени пандантиви от гръцките колонии по Западния Понт. – Археология LVI, кн. 1-2, 49-61. 276 Philip Mihaylov, Nikoleta Tzankova Plate 1. The necropolis at Dren-Delyan. Figure 1. Map of the region, indicating the location of the DrenDelyan necropolis. Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the necropolis. Figure 3. The burial features. Glass beads from Dren-Delyan necropolis (archaeological and archaeometric study) 277 Plate 2. Location of the glass beads in the necropolis. Figure 1. Location of the beads in relation to the grave. Figure 3. Location of some beads in the grave structures Figure 2. A bead that was present at the pyre. Figure 4. Structure 25: a bead placed as insignia in front of the structure wall. 278 Philip Mihaylov, Nikoleta Tzankova Figure 1. Shape, pattern and color of the studied glass beads. 1-9: Monochrome glass beads – melon-shaped, globular, cylindrical, and annular. 10-18: Polychrome eye-glass beads – globular, cylindrical, and sub-triangular annular. Table 1. Average chemical composition of Au-Ag particles. Figure 2. SEM CDD-EDS microanalyses of the gold-silver particles, found in beige and orange glass beads. Plate 3. Types of glass beads and analytical charts