No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2016
While the only Thracian inscription known so far remains the one on the golden ring brought to light in 1912, in Ezerovo, near Philippopolis, the possibility cannot be ruled out of finding other inscriptions in this language in the not too distant future. At least two important discoveries have been made recently on the territory of ancient Thrace: the richly decorated royal tomb, near Kazanlak, dating from the third century B.C., which was found in 1944, and the objects excavated at the site of Seuthopolis, a city which seems to have gone down in flames around 229 B.C., after a life of some 130 years. The site was allowed to disappear at the bottom of a man-made lake, following the completion of a hydro-electric project in 1954. Prior to that, valuable archaeological material had been recovered, including more than 1,100 ancient coins, and an interesting inscription in Greek, concerning relations between Thrace and Macedon.
1 For photographs of the ring and a summary of the attempts made to interpret the inscription on it, see Detschew, D., Die thrakischen Sprachreste (Vienna, 1957), pp. 566–82.Google Scholar
2 Micoff, V., Le tombeau antique près de Kazanlak (Sofia, 1954).Google Scholar
3 Dimitrov, D. P., “Seuthopolis, etc.” (in Russian), Sovyetskaya Archaeologiya, no. 1/2 (Moscow, 1957), p. 199f.Google Scholar
4 Diod. Sic. 3.67.5.
5 An attempt to determine the exact number of items belonging in the glossary, besides being of doubtful value, would be frustrated by the presence of synonyms, alternative spellings, uncertain cases, and continuous additions.
6 A transliteration key for Greek and Cyrillic script is given on pp. 103-4.
7 Head, B. V., Historia Numorum, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1911), p. 282.Google Scholar
8 Accordingly, SEUTHA would be the genitive case of SEUTHĒS. This is relevant to any future attempt to reconstruct the Thracian grammar.
9 Of further interest in this connection is perhaps the fact that the Bulgarian word kopito means “hoof.”
10 Strabo, 7.6.2.
11 10.3.17.
12 14.2.28.
13 Euseb. Chronicle referring to Diod. Sic. 7.11.
14 As given by Pallottino, M., The Etruscans (English ed., London, 1956), ch. 12.Google Scholar
15 Strabo, 11.14.14.
16 The vowel u, pronounced as in the English “but,” is symbolized here by the apostrophe. It sometimes precedes, sometimes follows the r, as required by euphony.
17 This analysis of the word SARAPARAI differs considerably from the one found in Detschew. By comparing the two, the reader will be able to decide which is the more convincing.
18 These are discussed in the glossary.
19 This includes words designated as ancient, words from Thrace, Scythia, or Macedonia, as well as words designated as Phrygian or Dacian. Strabo (7.3.2.) explains that the Phrygians were “Brigians, a Thracian tribe.” The language of the Daci, according to the same author, was “the same as that of the Getae” (7.3.13). Menander, who was proud of his Getan origin, attested to the fact that the Getae were a Thracian people. (Quoted in Strabo, 7.3.4).
20 The Decipherment of Linear B (London, 1959).
21 Mycenaeans and Minoans (London, 1961).