Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:38:50.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anatolia and Thrace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2015

V. Gordon Childe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Intimate Connections Between Anatolia and Thrace had been suspected ever since Kazarov published his finds from Kyrillovo. Despite the peculiarities in their handles, the vases and bronzes look so distinctively Anatolian that Thrace seemed just a provincial extension of the Early Troadic Bronze Age culture as known in 1914. Since 1945 new finds from Mikhalits, taken in conjunction with Mikov's discoveries at Karanovo and those of Hamit Zubeyr Koşay, at Büyük Güllücek have put these relations in an entirely new light. Mikhalits, near Svilingrad where a depas amphikypellon had been found in 1941, lies so close to the present frontier that fuller excavation since 1945 has been impracticable. But the observations made in that year alone are sufficiently illuminating. The site is not a tell, but occupies the crest of a natural ridge, and was defended by a stone wall enclosing an area of 80–90 m. in diameter.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 6 , December 1956 , pp. 45 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 PZ., VI, 1914, 67–88Google Scholar.

2 Bittel, , Prähistorische Forschungen in Kleinasien, Istanbul, 1934Google Scholar.

3 Fouilles et Recherches, I, Musé National Bulgare, Sofia, 1948, pp. 7–20Google Scholar.

4 Sovetskaya Arch., XXIV, 1955, p. 125Google Scholar.

5 Belleten, XII, 1948, pp. 471–485Google Scholar.

6 Fouilles et Rccherches, p. 22.

7 Lamb, , Thermi, p. 159Google Scholar; Pl. XXIV, 31, 78; Schliemann Sammlung, 8831–5.

8 Mikov, compares Schliemann Sammlung, 8240Google Scholar.

9 Blegen, etc., Troy I, Fig. 236, 25.

10 Ibid., p. 65.

11 Ibid., Fig. 235, 3; 244, 1–10; Thermi, Pl. XVI, 1.

12 AJA., LI, 168Google Scholar.

13 Hăbăşeşti: Monogrqfie Arheologicā, Acad. Repub. Pop. Routine, Bucuresti, 1954, pp. 469–472Google Scholar.

14 Hausler, in Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther Universität, Halle–Wittenburg, V, 1955, 102Google Scholar.

15 Milojčić, , Germania, XXXIII, 1955, 151–4Google Scholar.

16 See note 5.

17 e.g., by Gaul, , “The Neolithic Period in Bulgaria” (American Sch. Preh. Research, Bull., XVI), 1948, pp. 229–234Google Scholar.

18 Sov. Arkh., XXIV, p. 125Google Scholar; Godiščnik Narod. Arkh. Muzeï, Plovdiv, II, 1950, pp. 4–20Google Scholar.

19 Arandeljovic-Garašanin, , Starčevacka Kultura (Univerz. v Ljubljani), 1954Google Scholar; Milojčić, , Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit, Berlin, 1949, pp. 65–85Google Scholar.

20 Studi şi Cercetari de Istorie Veche, Bucuresti, II, 1951, pp. 57–64Google Scholar.

21 Milojčić, , Arch. Ant., 1954Google Scholar (Jhb. d. Inst., LXIX), pp. 11–25Google Scholar.

22 Fragments with excised decoration like von der Osten, , The Alishar Hüyük, 1930–1932Google Scholar (OIP. XXVIII, 1937Google Scholar), Fig. 65, find parallels in “altars” from Veselinovo levels in Thrace.

23 Material in museum of Nova Zagora unpublished; some vases bear cord impressions and one vase, in black ware with red blotches, is paralleled at Maltepe near Sivas, Belleten, 44, 1937, p. 670Google Scholar, no. 11.

24 Personal communication to the writer.

25 Mikov, , “Selisča mogila otu bronzovata epokha do s. Veselinovo,” Izvestiya Bulgar. Arkheol. Institut, XIII, 1939Google Scholar.