Menhirs in the Graveyards: Fact or Fiction? A Reconsideration of Erected Stone Monuments

of Gallipoli Peninsula

Onur ÖZBEK*

Abstract: Keçili and Bahşili erected stone monument complexes are situated in the Gallipoli Peninsula in Turkish Thrace. These two sites are found roughly in the mid-dle of the peninsula, on low hills with no view of the two seas Marmara or Aegean Sea. Right near the fresh water sources with fertile lands surrounding, they are situ-ated in the most dense forest cover of the land. These two occurrences of erected stone monuments are not very far from each other. These standing stones are found on the localities marked as ancient graveyards on the old maps but only in Keçili locality we find a number of medieval ottoman gravestones with Arabic inscriptions on a separate sector of the site. Similar stones are called “martyr gravestones” by the local people not only in Turkish Thrace but on the Asian part facing the Gallipoli peninsula as well. Are these erected stones date to medieval (Byzantine or Ottoman) or nomadic cultures which later frequented these lands until they transformed to a sedentary life? This paper tries to find the answers to these questions.

Keywords: Thrace, Gallipoli peninsula, megalithism, menhirs, monolith tradition, graveyards, gravestones.

IntroductionThis paper is an attempt to draw attention to a monument type in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages in Gallipoli peninsula which is geographically a stretching tongue like part of land in the Turkish Thrace region1. As a part of the monumental architecture called

* Onur Özbek, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Fen ve Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, Terzioğlu Kampus, Çanakkale, Türkiye.e.mail: ozbekonur@yahoo.com

1 The different parts of the Thrace region are often called according to the present political situation: Bulgarian Thrace, Turkish Thrace or Greek Thrace. But much often, which may be more acceptable to call these lands according to the geographical position, it is described as “Western Thrace”, “Eastern Thrace”, “Aegean Thrace” or “Southern Thrace”, etc.. However, to precisely draw the borders of the described geography, we will call it “Turkish Thrace” for the Eastern part of Thrace.

Funeral Rites, Rituals and Ceremonies from Prehistory to Antiquity 83-96

Onur Özbek84

“megalith” by the broader sense, menhirs2 are a part of this cultural phenomenon which affected a very large geography in the world. Sometimes these standing stones were or-ganized in different forms on land to make a circle or a corridor of long lines termed as cromlechs or peristaliths3. In comparison with other megalithic structures like dolmens which served as primary or secondary burials, individual or collective burial architectural forms, the reason for erecting menhirs4 or monoliths for the prehistoric man remained a mystery for the archaeologist for a long time. Even today, the specialists studying mega-lithic monuments can not decide for sure whether the reason for erecting menhirs was practical or ritual purposes.

In fact, if we consider the first occurrences of man made stone structures resembling megalithic monuments, we should give the example from France. One of the first repre-sentations of megalithic monuments in the world can be considered as a burial organiza-tion in Saint Germain La Riviere. Here lies an Upper Paleolithic skeleton under a small form of dolmen (Binant 1991). The aim of these constructions usually with stone inside the caves is not only for practical reasons but also for certain valorisation for the structure itself. Saint Germain la Riviere Burial brings in mind a preparation for a collective burial structure but not in open air.

So the first inhumations in Upper Paleolithic can be grouped into two. The first group consists of inhumations in which stone slabs were used to cover the dead. The other group consists of monumental structures where there is more elaborate work at the part of the skulls. As we see from these examples, using big stones for burial customs or for the spiritu-al purposes started very early in human history. One of the earliest cases in megalithism is reported from the South East Turkey. Göbekli Tepe is considered to be one of the earliest megalithic complexes in the world that can be easily associated with huge standing stones: menhirs. The word ‘megalithic’ could not be used for some time for this extraordinary monument as it was hard to believe that it had been erected approximately four thousand years before the earliest European megaliths5 (Schmidt 2000a: 45-54, 2005: 158).

Menhirs are one of the unsolved questions in archaeological studies. They cover one of the three important groups in megalithic monuments. Menhirs and dolmens were

2 Instead of using the term “monolith” which rightly stands for these type of monuments if they are not found in groups, we used “erected stone monuments”.

3 Some of these erected stone monuments are called anthropomorphic stelae or “statues-menhirs” when they are extremely stylistic. However, these forms are quite rare in Turkey. The problem arises with the existence of some traditions of archaic Turco tribes situated in the East Asian steppes dating roughly A.D. 5th century. According to a new discovery in Hakkari, thirteen well represented forms of anthropomorphic stelae resembling of those found in Bulgaria and North Black Sea. The radiocarbon dates indicates 2030-1690 BC for a burial site of fifty individuals found just 20 meters to the group of stelae (Sevin 2004:123-124). Thus, far Southeast in Anatolia there were engraved examples of these standing stones closely associated with burial customs in the beginning of the second millennium BC.

4 This term has only one widely used Turkish equivalent in Turkey: “dikilitaş”. However, in Turkish archaeology the same term, the term menhir has a more common usage than monolith.

5 Schmidt used the term “rock art” for the Göbekli Tepe stone monuments previously (2000b: 1-14). In his article, he compared the engravings of the Göbekli Tepe monuments to the engraved rock surfaces. However, in the neolithic site of Göbekli Tepe, the unearthed stones are erected monoliths like menhirs which are not a part of a rock outcrop in the archaeological site. Schmidt now, uses the term megalithic for these structures in his lat-est conferences. We think that they can not be considered as “rock art” examples but “decorated monoliths” of Anatolia. Matthews (2003) also uses the term megalithic for the Göbekli Tepe monuments.

Menhirs in the Graveyards: Fact or Fiction? A Reconsideration of Erected Stone Monuments .... 85

thought to have different functions in human history. In the beginning of 20th century, dolmens were regarded as funerary monuments and menhirs as astronomical observation centres. Among many theories which tried to explain the reasons for their erections, the ideas about sacred meeting places and market places were favoured by the most function-alist scholars. However as the number of excavations increased in Europe, their relation with the dolmens became evident (Bradley 2002: 34). Some ethnographic studies indicate that menhirs may be links between the ancestors and the living societies (Whittle 2000)6.The shamanic speculations of these monuments are not so few too7.

It was always very difficult to understand the originality of the megalithic monuments in the past. In southern Brittany for instance, the menhirs were reused more than once in the prehistory (Boujot and Cassen 1998: 107-126). Menhirs were sometimes transported from elsewhere and used inside the dolmens with passages (Bradley 2002: 36)8.

The existence of megaliths throughout Turkey was first questioned by Kökten and Kansu in the early 1940’s (Kökten 1943a, 1943b, 1945, Kansu 1947, 1963a, 1963b, 1964, 1969, 1971). Later on, it was Mehmet Özdoğan with his team from Istanbul University that con-tinued studies on the megalithic monuments in Thrace region. Many years after the first megalithic excavation made by Kansu in Turkish Thrace, Mehmet Özdoğan and Murat Akman excavated a few preserved dolmens (Özdoğan and Akman 1991, Özdoğan 1998, Akman 1997)9. Whilst there has not been an interest in archaeological excavation of the very few preserved dolmens in Turkish Thrace region, menhirs were ignored due to their practical difficulty of excavation.

Megalithic Monuments in ThraceIn Turkish Thrace the villagers usually call menhirs “martyr graves”10. It is for this reason that they were usually protected and less destructed than other megalithic structures like dolmens (Özdoğan 1991).

According to a recent research in the Strandja Mountains (Yıldız Mountains) conducted by Rabia Erdogu (2003), near the geographical hilly setting of Muhittin Baba Mountain there are 2000 menhirs. According to Erdogu, this quantity is high enough to compare with one of the world’s most famous megalithic monuments in France with Carnac where there are nearly 3000 menhirs erected. For the Turkish Thrace menhirs, although there are no systematic inventories covering the province limits or national boundaries we can

6 Whittle argues mythological importance of these megalithic monuments and that they may reflect some charac-ters of the “local populations” lived there.

7 See Collins 1973, Briard 1997 and Joussaume 1985 for the discussion of rituals.8 Especially when the dolmens of Gavrinis and Locmariaquer were studied in more detail, the re-positioning or

re-using the menhirs were more evident. Especially some number of menhirs was removed from their original positions and the fragments of dolmens were used inside the dolmens. Petts opposes the idea that this reutilisa-tion was quite frequent and advises a better and precise typology of menhirs to comprehend this case (2002: 195-209). We also agree with the idea that the following cultures may imitate the practices of the preceding ones other than using the same material and transforming them into other forms by destroying the original.

9 See also Yükmen 1998 and 2003 on the discussion of the new megalith discoveries in Eastern and South eastern Anatolia as well as the discussion on the different construction trends on different parts of the land.

10 It is the mot à mot translation of the word “şehit mezarları” in Turkish. However, in Turkish language, the word “şehit” have no archaic sense as this may be a grave stone of a soldier died not long ago.

Onur Özbek86

assume that they were erected in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age and continued to be used till Roman times11. Some of the researchers also argue that they were reused in some way till the Ottoman periods.

Before the standing stones attracted the attention of nineteenth century scholars, anti-quarians were well before attracted with the mythic stance of dolmens. These structures were subjects of many paintings. However the first systematic researches began at the end of nineteenth century (Shkorpil 1890; Slaveikov 1891). The first survey concentrated upon Eski Mezarlik, Kırıkköy, and Hacılar megalithic monuments were done by Turkish scholar Ş. A. Kansu between the sixties and the seventies. But it was only after Özdogan’s survey in Turkish Thrace in 1980 that we were acknowledged about the numbers of these monu-ments (Fig. 1).

Nomenclature is usually difficult when we consider the prehistoric stone monuments. It is widely accepted that the word menhir derives from Breton language (men: stone + hir: long). It defines mono blocs in rock generally long and roughly made. They may be isolated but according to their sizes, the small ones are found usually in great numbers. Menhirs set up in certain orders as rows or as circles take a different name: cromlechs. Sometimes the men-hirs in circles are called peristaliths in West Europe like in Spain and Portugal. The mono blocks as the finest examples seen in Bretagne in North West France exceed hundreds of kilograms in weight. The simple definition of a menhir is that it’s a tall, usually rough, up-right megalith, probably erected as a Neolithic monument either individually or as a part of a row or circle. Considering the variety of the appearance of these standing stones espe-cially in Europe, we can not proclaim the presence of cromlechs in Turkish Thrace.

One of recent studies about the menhirs in Turkish Thrace is a propos the Berberoglu Ayazması situated near Lalapasa in Edirne. They are mainly rough uncut stones exceed-ing 600 according to the same researcher’s observations (R. Erdogu 2003). The complexes found in Muhittin Baba Mountain cover half a hectare (5000m2) with about 590 stones. There is an open area which can be taken as a ceremonial gathering place between the two groups of this complex. All of these megalithic complexes in Thrace have undergone a destruction period from the modern agricultural activities.

Until now we have thought that the menhirs were only concentrated at the Bulgarian border of Turkish Thrace. However the recent studies on Gallipoli Megaliths show that this line has surpassed further south. The occurrence of menhirs in Turkish Thrace was only noted mostly around North of Edirne and Kırklareli. Little is known of prehis-toric Gallipoli burial customs. No dolmens have been reported from the peninsula yet. According to Özdoğan the second group constituting the menhirs is a subject of debate for long time. They can be described as long and thin sole stones without any treatment at their surfaces, erected vertically to the earth whilst sometimes having four and half meters of length. Although they can be found single, sometimes there are tens of them in groups or in lines (Özdoğan 2006: 145)12.

11 Some historians and archaeologists believe that, these were started to be erected after 1400 BC in Turkish Thrace. For instance according to Özdoğan, erection of dolmens could be dated far back to the middle of sec-ond millennium B.C. (2006: 144).

12 The last preserved forms of them can be found at the north of Edirne near Çömlek Akpınar village also at the same locality of the present graveyard of the modern village (Özdoğan 2006: 145).

Menhirs in the Graveyards: Fact or Fiction? A Reconsideration of Erected Stone Monuments .... 87

Keçili siteKeçili is the name of an old village which has been abandoned after the World War I or earlier (Fig. 2). Today, instead of the previous village, we can see only a few amount of stones used in the basement of the houses and two or three water wells here. On the previous topographical maps with 1/25.000 scale, “Keçili Mezarlığı” is indicated with a cemetery symbol (Coordinates 40°17’38.5” N, 26°25’38.6” E)13. The shapes of the stand-ing stones differ in size (Fig.3, 4). We suppose that especially the taller ones are roughly shaped at the quarry sites of the peninsula. As their raw materials are poor in quality, durable limestone is hardly found in the peninsula, we have to wait future field surveys to locate the exact situations of quarries. No apparent cup mark was observed on them. The presence of cup marks on megalithic structures has not been sufficiently studied in Turkey. As far as we know, the only concrete presence about the cup-marks is reported from Southeast Anatolia for the dolmen slab stones found near Adıyaman and Gaziantep (Yükmen 2003, 1998). The Keçili standing stones may be grouped as below with a gener-alization on their dimensions;

1. Long roughly carved very slim stones which may reach 3.5 meters high, 30 cm wide, and 30 cm thick.

2. 1-1.5 meter long, 50 cm wide entirely rough sides, 20 cm thick.

3. 2 meter long approximately triangle shaped, 50 to 30 cm wide, mostly rough sides of 20 cm thick with pointed top (Fig. 3).

4. Anthropomorphic but very small sized rough stone slabs 1 meter long 50 cm wide, 10 cm thick (Fig. 4).

5. Small sized, 50 cm to 1.5 meter long carefully carved slab stones with Arabic in-scriptions and ottoman cap form at top sometimes (Fig. 5).

Bahşili siteDespite the Keçili site which was not mentioned in Özdoğan’s contribution to the cultural inventory work on the peninsula,14 Bahşili and its resemblance to the megalithic concept is mentioned by him (Coordinates 40°15’55.4” N, 26°22’41.1” E). The erected standing stones here are bigger than any other stones found in the peninsula15. Although there is no previous and recent excavation considering these monuments, we suppose that they would measure more than three meters starting from the base (Fig. 6). As they have no common orientation, occasionally they are observed as a group oriented towards East or West. However, the Islamic period gravestones usually are oriented south east in me-dieval and modern erection positions, their present orientation if original is also open

13 Keçili site is not mentioned in the cultural inventory work which was prepared for the foundation of the National Historical Park of Gallipoli. Mehmet Özdoğan treated these cemetery-menhir sites in two pages in the published project report: “Gelibolu Yarımadası Barış Parkı Uluslararası Fikir Tasarım Yarışması” 1997 (Katalog), ODTU, Ankara.

14 See “Gelibolu Yarımadası Barış Parkı Uluslararası Fikir Tasarım Yarışması”.15 Özdoğan mentions Boncuklu standing stones between Küçük Anafarta and Büyük Anafarta villages situated

near to the border of National Historical Park of Gallipoli and also relates its resemblance with the menhirs found in the north of Turkish Thrace (e.g. Kırklareli or Edirne menhirs) Ibid. 1997

Onur Özbek88

to discussion. The flat parts of the menhirs are generally oriented toward west and east. However there is also a preference towards south west. The biggest ones are 4 meter high with the estimated sunken part under the earth. Their width varies between 60 to 50 centimetres. The raw material of these monuments is usually local, sedimentary or meta-morphic rocks. The percentage of the worked stones is not high. Worked elements are usually the thinnest and longest ones. There are also rare triangular prism forms. A new typological study on their forms may be useful in the future. Anthropomorphic associa-tions are not common. No decorations are observed on these monuments.

The Bahşili standing stones may be grouped as below;

1. Long roughly quarried slim stones which may reach 2,5 meters high, 25 cm wide, 25 cm thick, (Fig. 6).

2. Long roughly quarried stones about 4 meters high (estimated part under earth 1 meter), 40-50 cm wide and 30 cm thick.

3. Roughly quarried stones, smaller rounded top, 1.5 meter long, 60 cm wide 30 cm thick, (Fig. 7).

4. Small sized 50 cm to 1.5 meter long carefully carved slab stones with Arabic inscrip-tions and pointed form at top sometimes.

DiscussionFor many researchers the handling of the menhirs in various parts of Europe can display a high level of symbolism and may be in a very abstract perception (Cassen 2000, Whittle 2000). If we consider all the studies made on megaliths in Europe we may see that their architectural or symbolic relation with the dolmens has significance. In some cases, men-hirs are found near dolmens and sometimes menhirs were found inside or at the entrance of passage graves (Cassen 2000). Especially in the last decade, archaeologists found more burials besides these standing stones throughout the world and this situation compelled our early theories: “dolmens for the dead”, “menhirs for the supernatural events”. Even now we are not sure if menhirs were meant to characterize divine person except with the statue menhirs which seems to be the situation. We do not encounter decorations on these monuments like in Europe except on very rare occasions of cup-marks in Kırklareli and Edirne standing stones (Erdoğu 2003).

The menhirs or statue menhirs are extensively spread in prehistory in different parts of the world. We may see them at the Black Sea shores, in Mediterranean Islands, in North Germany, in South France in the Alps and in Ireland. A very general chronology of the standing stones in West and East Europe including Turkey can be summarized as below:

- Later Phases of Neolithic

- Chalcolithic (or Eneolithic) or Copper Age

- Bronze Age

- Iron Age

Menhirs in the Graveyards: Fact or Fiction? A Reconsideration of Erected Stone Monuments .... 89

1. According to some researches, their origin is South East Europe.

2. Most of them portray human body in a well stylized approach.

3. Dismantled statue menhirs or relief sculptures are used later in dolmens (Bradley 2002).

The former studies in Europe also put forward that many menhirs were transported from their original places and most of them were used in or besides dolmens as architectural elements (Azemar 1992, Williams 1997, Cassen 2000). This point should also be inquired for the Turkish menhirs. The only systematic researches were done after 1990’s in Turkey by different archaeologists (Özdoğan and Akman 1991, Özdoğan 1998, Akman 1997, Erdoğu et al. 2002, Erdoğu 2003)

The common point we can deduce from the two sites of Bahşili and Keçili is that they are situated in the graveyards of the abandoned villages which are not used at present. The latest burials seem to have been practiced until 1920’s when Anatolia still used the Arabic alphabet. The geographical setting of the area is situated in the Central part of the isthmus where there are low hills a few kilometres away from the Marmara Sea (Fig. 1). They are close to seasonal small brooks and on the fertile lands with dense vegeta-tion. As far as we know, although there is no recent epigraphic or ethnographic study on the dating of the first use of the standing stones, it seems that this place had been used as an early Muslim cemetery since the first Turkish occupation of the isthmus. What is intriguing anthropologically is that this place is still used as a general meeting place for the religious or pre-religious ceremonies called as “hayır” in Turkish. This word defines a periodic meeting usually held near a sacred Muslim ancestor’s graveyard with crowded eating ceremonies. The aim of this rite is to secure the fertility of the land and to stay away from illnesses. Each year one village is responsible for this gathering and it is be-lieved that in case a village forgets or inadequately organizes these meetings, malady or catastrophic things happen for the villagers. This custom is still a social practice among the Troas villagers living mainly at the foothills of Ida Mountain at the Asiatic part (e.g. Bayramiç region).

Considering the typology of the standing stones in these two sites, the flat parts of the stones are generally oriented toward west and east. However, there is also a preference to-wards south west. The biggest ones are 4 meters high with their parts approximately one meter under the earth. Their width varies between 70 to 50 centimetres. The raw material of these monuments is usually local, sedimentary or metamorphic rocks. In contrast to Edirne and Kırklareli megaliths which are usually of micaschist and gneiss material, most of Gallipoli megaliths are made of durable limestone, clay or sandstone (Table 1). When their surfaces are compared, Edirne and Kırklareli monoliths are cruder. We should also draw attention to the association between the dolmens and menhirs in the northern parts of East Thrace. However, in the Gallipoli peninsula there are no dolmens reported until now (Table 2). The percentage of the worked stones is not high. Worked elements are usually the thinnest and longest ones. There are also rare triangular prism forms. A new typological study on their forms may be useful in the future. Anthropomorphic associa-tions are not common. No decorations are observed on these monuments.

Onur Özbek90

These standing stones are situated on the most densely forest cover of the peninsula. The monuments are sometimes difficult to be photographed as they are lost inside the pine tree trunks having nearly the similar colours. The longest and thinnest elements were observed in Keçili locality. Some exceeding four meters high were probably worked to ob-tain these slender and exceptional forms. Just out of the forest the menhirs continue but now with smaller forms amalgamated with the marble Ottoman period grave stones, their epitaphs are still neat and decipherable16.

Although long time passed since the first studies on the megaliths of Turkish Thrace, there is no efficient inventory on megalithic monuments. Considering especially their dates of erection, we are far from giving a decision for the moment. As Mehmet Özdoğan pointed out in many cases, we should finish an inventory and obtain more information regarding their dates as quickly as possible before they are destructed. We hope that our preliminary observations on Gallipoli megaliths can draw attention for future study. However, only with excavations and radiocarbon dating can we be sure of their chronologies.

EASTERN THRACE MEGALITHS: RAW MATERIAL

Region Province Type Raw Material

Dolmen Menhir Petrographical Macroscopic

Analysis Observations

Thrace Kırklareli X X gneiss, marble, granite and diorite

Thrace Edirne X X gneiss (Hacettepe) gneiss, granite, diorite, micaschist and marble

Thrace Gelibolu X (?) Marn, limestone

Table 1. Raw material of the megalithic structures in the Eastern Thrace.

TURKISH THRACE MEGALITHS

Dolmen-Menhir Association Menhirs in Graveyards or Vice versa

Central Europe √

Sakar Mountains √ √

Edirne √ √

Kırlareli √ √

Gallipoli √

Table 2. Dolmen-menhir association and the occurrence of megalithic standing stones in or near graveyards.

Acknowledgements

It was after my presentation in the Conference Hall of Canakkale University that I re-ceived some critics and very interesting ideas from my colleagues. As I received some wise questions from these friends, I was aware of the fact that I had plunged to an interesting

16 See Miksic (2004 : 191-210) in a similar anthropological study in Highland Western Sumatra (From Megaliths to Tombstones...) where the author discusses the past of erecting standing stones and the continuity of this custom in the Islamic period.

Menhirs in the Graveyards: Fact or Fiction? A Reconsideration of Erected Stone Monuments .... 91

subject not treated before me in detail especially for the local standing stone monuments situated on the Gallipoli Peninsula. While editing this paper I have had the occasion to discuss some significant points of megalithism - if exists - in this part of Turkey with col-leagues and friends like Rüstem Aslan, Aksel Tibet, and finally with Murat Akman, some-one who spent considerable amount of time and effort in the megalithism issue in Turkey. I would like to thank to all of these real friends who honestly and with good will wanted to warn me about the “danger” of dealing with a new subject in a new land. I also wish to express my gratitude to my Professor Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan for encouraging me to study the Gallipoli peninsula as he constantly did with my previous “dangerous and not worked before” subjects in archaeology. Therefore, readers should bear in mind the fact that the existence of “megalithic?” monuments in Gallipoli peninsula needs further research and excavation in order to solve the problem.

Onur Özbek92

Bibliography Akman, M. 1997 Megalithforschung in Thrakien, Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Band 47, Ernst Vasmuth, Verlag,

Tubingen.

Azemar, R. 1992 Un menhir en réemploi ? Commune de Rosis, Bulletin de la Société archéologique et historique des hauts cantons de l’Hérault, no15, Nissergues. pp. 3-5.

Binant, P. 1991 La Préhistoire de la Mort, Collection des Hesperides, Editions Errance.

Boujot , C. and CASSEN, S. 1998 Tertres Armorocains et tertres carnacéens dans le cadre de la néolithisation de la France occidentale, in J. Guilaine (ed.) Sepultures d’Occident et Genèses des mégalithism Errance, Paris pp. 107-126.

Bradley, R. 2002 The Past in Prehistoric Societies, Routledge, London.

Briard, J. 1997 Les Megalithes, ésotérism et réalité (eds) Jean Paul Gisserot, Bordeux.

Cassen, S. 2000 Stelae reused in the passage graves of Western France: history of research and sexualisation of the carvings, in A. Ritchie (ed.) Neolithic Orkney in its Europeen Context, Mc Donald Inst. For Archaeological Research, pp. 233-246.

Collins, A.E.P. 1973 A Re-examination of the Clyde Carlingford Tombs, Megalithic Graves and Rituals (eds) Glyn Daniel and Paul Kjaorum, III Atlantic Colloqium (1969) Tuttland Archaeological Society, Moesguard, pp. 93-103:

Erdoğu, B., ERDOGU R. and J. CHAPMAN 2002 Kirikköy-The Largest Megalithic Complex in Turkish Thrace. Antaeus 25, pp. 547-569.

Erdoğu, R. 2003 A Major New Megalithic Complex in Europe Antiquity (Project Gallery) Vol 77, No 297 September 2003.

ANONYM 1997 Gelibolu Yarımadası Barış Parkı Uluslararası Fikir Tasarım Yarışması 1997 (Katalog), ODTU, Ankara.

Joussaume, R. 1985 Des Dolmens pour les Morts: Les Mégalithisme à travers le monde. Hachette, Paris.

Kansu, S .A 1947 Stone Age Cultures in Turkey, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 51, No. 3 pp. 232.

— 1963a Marmara Bölgesi ve Trakya’da Prehistorik İskan Tarihi Bakımından Araştırmalar, Belleten,27 pp. 105-108.

— 1963b Edirne’nin Lalapaşa Büyünlü Dolmenleri Hakkında İlk Not. Belleten 27 pp. 491-492.

— 1964 Kuzeydoğu Anadolu’da Arpaçay (Çaycı Köyü) Dolmenlerinden Galerili bir dolmen hakkında. Belleten C.28, S. 110 pp. 327-330.

— 1969 Edirne’de bulunan Dolmenler ve Dikilitaslar Hakkinda Yeni Gözlemler. Belleten 33 pp. 577-579.

— 1971 Edirnenin Lalapaşa Çevresindeki Kalkansöğüt, Vaysal, Karagöl Dolmenleri Belleten 35 pp. 124-136.

Kökten, İ. K. 1943a Karsın Tarihöncesi, III Türk Tarih Kongresi pp. 194-205.

— 1943b Doğu Anadolu Kars Bölgesi tarihöncesi araştırmalarına dair ilk not D.T.C.F. Dergisi

— 1945 Kuzeydoğu Anadolu Prehistoryası D.T.C.F Dergisi III p. 474.

Matthews, R. 2003 The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, Theories and Approachs Routledge, London.

Miksic, J. 2004 From Megalithism to tombstones: The transition from prehistory to the Early Islamic Period in Highland Western Sumatra, Indonesia and the Malay World, Vol. 32, No. 93, Routledge, pp. 191-210.

Özdoğan, M. 1998 Early Iron Age in Eastern Thrace and the Megalithic Monuments. In N. Tuna, Z. Aktüre and M. Lynch (Eds), Thracians and Phrygians: Problem and Parallelism, METU Ankara, pp. 29-40

— 2006 Trakya Sır Taşlar Arkeo Atlas No: 5, pp. 140-145.

Özdoğan, M. and M. Akman. 1991 “1990 Yılı Trakya ve Marmara Bölgesi Araştırmaları”, IX Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı Ankara, pp. 405-423.

Petts, D. 2002 The reuse of prehistoric standing stones in Western Britain? A critical consideration of an aspect of early medieval Monument Reuse, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21, 2 pp. 195-209.

Schmidt, K. 2000a Göbekli Tepe southeastern Turkey. A preliminary report on the 1995-1999 excavations, Paleorient 26 (1), pp. 45-54.

— 2000b Göbekli Tepe and the Rock Art of the Near East, TUBA-AR Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology, No: 3, pp. 1-14.

— 2002 Göbekli Tepe, Arkeo Atlas, No: 1, p. 74.

— 2005 Göbekli Tepe, TUBA-AR Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Archaeology, No: 8, pp. 158,159.

Menhirs in the Graveyards: Fact or Fiction? A Reconsideration of Erected Stone Monuments .... 93

Sevin, V. 2004 Hakkari, Arkeo Atlas 3, pp. 123-124.

Shkorpil, B. 1890 Chernomorskoto kraibrezhie i sasednite podbalkanski strain v iuzhna Bulgaria, Sbornik za norodni umotvorenia nauka i knizhnina, 3, pp. 3-30.

Slaveikov, P. 1891 Razni belezki Drevni ostatki, Sbornik za norodni umotvorenia nauka i knizhnina, 6, pp. 440-442.

Whittle, A. 2000 Very like a whale. Menhirs, Motifs and Myths in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition of north-west Europe, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10, pp. 243-259.

Williams, H. 1997, Ancient Landscape and the dead: reuse of prehistoric and Roman monuments as early Anglo-Saxon burial sites. Medieval Archaeology, 61, pp. 1-33.

Yükmen, B. 1998 Anatolian Megaliths, in R. G. Cremonesi, C. Tozzi, A.Vigliardi, C. Peretto (eds.) XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Proceedings, Volume 3, Forli, (CIPSH-UNESCO) A.B.A.C.O. Edizione, pp. 325-332.

Yükmen, B. 2003 Doğu ve Güneydoğu Anadolu Dolmenleri Işığında Anadolu Megalitleri, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, Istanbul.

Onur Özbek94

Fig. 1 Dolmen and menhir fields approximated and generalized according to Özdoğan’s studies in Turkish Thrace in the previous years (After Özdoğan and Akman 1991, Özdoğan 2006).

Fig. 2 Gallipoli Peninsula in South Thrace and the geographical situation of the two localities Keçili and Bahşili five kilometres apart from each other.

Menhirs in the Graveyards: Fact or Fiction? A Reconsideration of Erected Stone Monuments .... 95

Fig. 3 Keçili standing stones

Fig. 4 Keçili standing stones Fig. 5 Keçili standing stones

Onur Özbek96

Fig. 6 Bahşiköy standing stones

Fig. 7 Bahşiköy standing stones