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

Menhirs in the Graveyards: Fact or Fiction?

A Reconsideration of Erected Stone Monuments
of Gallipoli Peninsula
Onur ZBEK*

Abstract: Keili and Bahili erected stone monument complexes are situated in the
Gallipoli Peninsula in Turkish Thrace. These two sites are found roughly in the middle 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 situated 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 Keili
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.

Introduction
This 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 zbek, anakkale Onsekiz Mart niversitesi, Fen ve Edebiyat Fakltesi, Arkeoloji Blm, Terziolu

Kampus, anakkale, Trkiye.

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.

84

Onur zbek

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 organized 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 menhirs 4 or monoliths for the prehistoric man remained
a mystery for the archaeologist for a long time. Even today, the specialists studying megalithic 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 representations of megalithic monuments in the world can be considered as a burial organization 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 spiritual purposes started very early in human history. One of the earliest cases in megalithism is
reported from the South East Turkey. Gbekli 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: dikilita. 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 Gbekli Tepe stone monuments previously (2000b: 1-14). In his article,

he compared the engravings of the Gbekli Tepe monuments to the engraved rock surfaces. However, in the
neolithic site of Gbekli 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 latest 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 Gbekli 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 functionalist 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 Kkten and Kansu
in the early 1940s (Kkten 1943a, 1943b, 1945, Kansu 1947, 1963a, 1963b, 1964, 1969,
1971). Later on, it was Mehmet zdoan with his team from Istanbul University that continued studies on the megalithic monuments in Thrace region. Many years after the first
megalithic excavation made by Kansu in Turkish Thrace, Mehmet zdoan and Murat
Akman excavated a few preserved dolmens (zdoan and Akman 1991, zdoan 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 Thrace

In Turkish Thrace the villagers usually call menhirs martyr graves10. It is for this reason
that they were usually protected and less destructed than other megalithic structures like
dolmens (zdoan 1991).
According to a recent research in the Strandja Mountains (Yldz 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 worlds 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 reutilisation 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 Ykmen 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 mot translation of the word ehit mezarlar in Turkish. However, in Turkish language, the word

ehit have no archaic sense as this may be a grave stone of a soldier died not long ago.

86

Onur zbek

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, antiquarians 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, Krkky, and Haclar megalithic monuments were done by Turkish scholar
. A. Kansu between the sixties and the seventies. But it was only after zdogans survey
in Turkish Thrace in 1980 that we were acknowledged about the numbers of these monuments (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 menhirs 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 its a tall, usually rough, upright 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 especially 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
Ayazmas situated near Lalapasa in Edirne. They are mainly rough uncut stones exceeding 600 according to the same researchers 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 Krklareli. Little is known of prehistoric Gallipoli burial customs. No dolmens have been reported from the peninsula yet.
According to zdoan 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 (zdoan 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 zdoan, erection of dolmens could be dated far back to the middle of second millennium B.C. (2006: 144).
12 The last preserved forms of them can be found at the north of Edirne near mlek Akpnar village also at the
same locality of the present graveyard of the modern village (zdoan 2006: 145).

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

87

Keili site
Keili 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, Keili Mezarl is indicated with a
cemetery symbol (Coordinates 401738.5 N, 262538.6 E)13. The shapes of the standing 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 Adyaman and Gaziantep
(Ykmen 2003, 1998). The Keili standing stones may be grouped as below with a generalization 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 inscriptions and ottoman cap form at top sometimes (Fig. 5).

Bahili site
Despite the Keili site which was not mentioned in zdoans contribution to the cultural
inventory work on the peninsula,14 Bahili and its resemblance to the megalithic concept
is mentioned by him (Coordinates 401555.4 N, 262241.1 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 medieval and modern erection positions, their present orientation if original is also open
13 Keili site is not mentioned in the cultural inventory work which was prepared for the foundation of the National

Historical Park of Gallipoli. Mehmet zdoan treated these cemetery-menhir sites in two pages in the published
project report: Gelibolu Yarmadas Bar Park Uluslararas Fikir Tasarm Yarmas 1997 (Katalog), ODTU,
Ankara.
14 See Gelibolu Yarmadas Bar Park Uluslararas Fikir Tasarm Yarmas.
15 zdoan mentions Boncuklu standing stones between Kk Anafarta and Byk 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. Krklareli or Edirne menhirs) Ibid. 1997

Onur zbek

88

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 metamorphic 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 associations are not common. No decorations are observed on these monuments.
The Bahili 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 inscriptions and pointed form at top sometimes.

Discussion
For 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, menhirs 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 Krklareli
and Edirne standing stones (Erdou 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 1990s in Turkey
by different archaeologists (zdoan and Akman 1991, zdoan 1998, Akman 1997,
Erdou et al. 2002, Erdou 2003)
The common point we can deduce from the two sites of Bahili and Keili 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 1920s 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 vegetation. 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 hayr in Turkish. This word defines
a periodic meeting usually held near a sacred Muslim ancestors 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 believed 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.
Bayrami 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 towards 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 Krklareli 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 Krklareli 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 associations are not common. No decorations are observed on these monuments.

Onur zbek

90

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 Keili locality. Some exceeding four meters high were probably worked to obtain 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 zdoan 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
Thrace

Krklareli X

Thrace

Edirne

Thrace

Gelibolu

Petrographical

Macroscopic

Analysis

Observations

X
X

gneiss, marble, granite and diorite

gneiss, granite, diorite, micaschist and
gneiss (Hacettepe)
marble

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

Krlareli

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 received 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 colleagues and friends like Rstem Aslan, Aksel Tibet, and finally with Murat Akman, someone 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 zdoan 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 zbek

92

Bibliography
Akman, M. 1997 Megalithforschung in Thrakien, Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Band 47, Ernst Vasmuth, Verlag,
Tubingen.
Azemar, R. 1992 Un menhir en remploi ? Commune de Rosis, Bulletin de la Socit archologique et historique des
hauts cantons de lHrault, no15, Nissergues. pp. 3-5.
Binant, P. 1991 La Prhistoire de la Mort, Collection des Hesperides, Editions Errance.
Boujot , C. and CASSEN, S. 1998 Tertres Armorocains et tertres carnacens dans le cadre de la nolithisation
de la France occidentale, in J. Guilaine (ed.) Sepultures dOccident et Genses des mgalithism Errance,
Paris pp. 107-126.
Bradley, R. 2002 The Past in Prehistoric Societies, Routledge, London.
Briard, J. 1997 Les Megalithes, sotrism et ralit (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:
Erdou, B., ERDOGU R. and J. CHAPMAN 2002 Kirikky-The Largest Megalithic Complex in Turkish Thrace.
Antaeus 25, pp. 547-569.
Erdou, R. 2003 A Major New Megalithic Complex in Europe Antiquity (Project Gallery) Vol 77, No 297
September 2003.
ANONYM 1997 Gelibolu Yarmadas Bar Park Uluslararas Fikir Tasarm Yarmas 1997 (Katalog), ODTU,
Ankara.
Joussaume, R. 1985 Des Dolmens pour les Morts: Les Mgalithisme 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 Blgesi ve Trakyada Prehistorik skan Tarihi Bakmndan Aratrmalar, Belleten,
27 pp. 105-108.
1963b Edirnenin Lalapaa Bynl Dolmenleri Hakknda lk Not. Belleten 27 pp. 491-492.
1964 Kuzeydou Anadoluda Arpaay (ayc Ky) Dolmenlerinden Galerili bir dolmen
hakknda. Belleten C.28, S. 110 pp. 327-330.
1969 Edirnede bulunan Dolmenler ve Dikilitaslar Hakkinda Yeni Gzlemler. Belleten 33 pp.
577-579.
1971 Edirnenin Lalapaa evresindeki Kalkanst, Vaysal, Karagl Dolmenleri Belleten 35 pp.
124-136.
Kkten, . K. 1943a Karsn Tarihncesi, III Trk Tarih Kongresi pp. 194-205.
1943b Dou Anadolu Kars Blgesi tarihncesi aratrmalarna dair ilk not D.T.C.F. Dergisi
1945 Kuzeydou Anadolu Prehistoryas 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.
zdoan, M. 1998 Early Iron Age in Eastern Thrace and the Megalithic Monuments. In N. Tuna, Z. Aktre and
M. Lynch (Eds), Thracians and Phrygians: Problem and Parallelism, METU Ankara, pp. 29-40
2006 Trakya Sr Talar Arkeo Atlas No: 5, pp. 140-145.
zdoan, M. and M. Akman. 1991 1990 Yl Trakya ve Marmara Blgesi Aratrmalar, IX Aratrma Sonular
Toplants 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 Gbekli Tepe southeastern Turkey. A preliminary report on the 1995-1999 excavations,
Paleorient 26 (1), pp. 45-54.
2000b Gbekli Tepe and the Rock Art of the Near East, TUBA-AR Turkish Academy of Sciences
Journal of Archaeology, No: 3, pp. 1-14.
2002 Gbekli Tepe, Arkeo Atlas, No: 1, p. 74.
2005 Gbekli 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 northwest 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.
Ykmen, 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, (CIPSHUNESCO) A.B.A.C.O. Edizione, pp. 325-332.
Ykmen, B. 2003 Dou ve Gneydou Anadolu Dolmenleri Inda Anadolu Megalitleri, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlar,
Istanbul.

94

Onur zbek

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

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

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

Fig. 3 Keili standing stones

Fig. 4 Keili standing stones

Fig. 5 Keili standing stones

95

96

Onur zbek

Fig. 6 Bahiky standing stones

Fig. 7 Bahiky standing stones