The seventh season of excavations took place between July 7 and August 20, although actual digging only lasted for four weeks because of the Project's limited resources this year. Part of the season was devoted to continuing the regional survey that was started on behalf of the Ministry of Culture in 1993. The Project is extremely grateful to the Kaymakan of Emirdağ, the Mayor and Municipality of Emirdağ, the local Jandarma Komutanlığı, and to the many muhtars and villagers who facilitated the survey work with their help, knowledge and advice. A bonus from this work was that 23 stones inventoried in the neighbouring villages at the end of last season were gathered up by the staff of Afyon Museum (with the help of the Emirdağ Kaymakamı) and deposited at the Amorium Dig House for safe-keeping. This year's survey took us up into the northern foothills of the Emirdağ mountains, where we visited 30 villages and sites, recording an impressive number of individual monuments and inscriptions. The survey thus enabled us to see something of the hinterland to Amorium, which appears to have been extensively occupied in the Byzantine period.

The so-called Tawagalawas Letter – the longest and most controversial document in the Ahhiyawa dossier – opens with the well-known incident in which (as hitherto understood) Tawagalawas sends a message to the Hittite king demanding recognition as a vassal and requesting the dispatch of the tuhkanti- to conduct him into the royal presence. The king dispatches the TARTĒNU, one of his sons, but Tawagalawas refuses to go with him and demands immediate recognition on the spot. The demand is refused and the king protests to the king of Ahhiyawa in this letter about the insult inflicted on his representative.

Dr. Itamar Singer has shown, in an article later in this volume, that the applicant for vassaldom was most probably not Tawagalawas at all but Piyamaradus, whose activities are the subject of the rest of the document. The present article however is concerned rather with the rank of the envoy sent by the Hittite king.

Over twenty years have passed since the present writer first drew attention to the remarkable but completely forgotten archaeological discoveries made at the Urartian site of Toprak Kale, discoveries made in 1880 by Rassam and his associates, Dr. Raynolds and Captain Clayton, acting for the British Museum. I also summarised the results of the work in 1898 at the same site done by Lehmann (afterwards Lehmann-Haupt) and Belck; these finds are now all well-known. Since then, modern museum conservation work and study has resulted in several new achievements, such as in a fresh publication of the candelabrum at Hamburg Museum, the discovery and publication by Professor G. R. Meyer of a small silver pectoral at Berlin with a presentation scene and á detailed study by him also of the large bronze figure of a “eunuch” in the same museum. Professor Meyer also mentions a fine bronze palmette forming part of a wall panel of bronze plate made up of 17 fragments, also part of a bronze model building similar to that in the British Museum. Lastly, a brief preliminary report of the fruitful excavations of Professors Afif Erzen and Emin Bilgiç, in 1959–61, has been published. One of their most notable finds was another shield similar to those found by Rassam and Lehmann-Haupt with concentric friezes of lions and bulls and a dedicatory inscription of Rusas III.

This essay seeks to rehistoricise the birth of liberalism in Turkey with the aim of bringing an alternative interpretation to its historiography and throwing some light upon its characteristics, past and present. In contrast to recent comments on liberalism in the Turkish context, it argues that there is an intellectual background of the liberal tradition in Turkey, and that understanding the characteristics of this background requires (1) the mapping out and examination of the key concepts used by liberal writers in the context of the general political lexicon of their times and (2) an intellectual excavation tracing the mostly western European origins of the ideas of Turkish liberals. This leads to the conclusion that early republicans in Turkey embraced a version of liberalism that has not been identified in previous attempts to historicise liberal Turkish thought.

This paper provides an assessment of four grave stelae that were found recently in the area surrounding Bozüyük, on the Anatolian plateau in the south of the Bilecik province. The plateau was part of the core of the kingdom of Phrygia during the Early and Middle Iron Ages, and part of the satrapy of Phrygia during the Achaemenid period of the Late Iron Age in Anatolia. The main focus is to examine the place of such stelae among Anatolian-Persian examples and to explore elements of Persian presence and organisation in the region. The precise archaeological contexts of these stelae are unknown, but are likely to have been tumuli. They are examples of an Anatolian-Persian style from the Achaemenid period, but can also be considered to be part of a somewhat rustic 'rural' sub-style, compared with more elaborate stelae that have been found around Dascylium, the satrapal capital of Hellespontine Phrygia. The Bozüyük stelae feature banquet, hunting and ritual scenes, and also battle scenes that distinguish them from other Anatolian-Persian stelae. Despite similarities, particularly with the Vezirhan stele, there are also discrepancies that make precise analogies with reliefs on other stelae difficult, though not impossible. It is likely that they were created by a connected group of sculptors, and might therefore be evidence of a workshop that sculpted local materials in a unique rural style.

The region known as the Troad in western Anatolia is famed not only as the setting of Homer's Iliad but also for the Hellespont strait (modern Çanakkale Boğazı) linking the Sea of Marmara to the Aegean. In addition to large cities such as Sigeum, Abydus and Lampsacus, ancient writers also mention smaller cities located on the Hellespont. In this article, the location of the ancient city of Arisbe, presumed to have existed between Abydus and Lampsacus, is examined in the light of new archaeological data. Between 2002 and 2010, the author conducted surveys in the northern Troad. These surveys revealed an ancient settlement with archaeological material belonging to the Late Bronze Age, late Geometric, Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods. The location of this settlement, the archaeological data and information from ancient literary sources all indicate that this site should be identified as Arisbe.

The trade in tin, textiles, and silver between Ashur and its trading colony Kanesh is by now well known from the partly published archives from Kanesh. While the textiles involved were primarily produced in Ashur itself, a small proportion of them were imported from Babylonia, being described in the texts as “Akkadian textiles”. This link in the trading chain is still scarcely documented in the absence of the trading archives which must be presumed to have existed at Ashur, and probably at Sippar. The Babylonians themselves were actively involved in the trade, as is shown by the well-known but still inadequately published letter VAT 9249, referring to the absence of the Akkadians and their textiles from Ashur because of a revolt in their country.

From its geographical position the city of Sippar must have occupied a focal position in trading relations between Babylonia and the kingdoms to the north and north-west. It naturally figures in the Old Babylonian itinerary from Larsa to Emar. Some years ago W. F. Leemans summarised the evidence for trading relations between Sippar and Assyria and the Middle Euphrates and for Sippar's involvement in the trade in tin in the reverse direction from Ashur to Babylonia.

Although Beycesultan III; the Late Bronze Age is in the course of preparation, it would appear from a number of reviews of Beycesultan II, London, 1965, that some of our colleagues still maintain the erroneous view that Beycesultan was uninhabited during the Late Bronze Age. It is the purpose of this article to show that this view is not supported by the evidence; on the contrary Beycesultan has a rich and well stratified sequence of Late Bronze Age building-levels (III–IA), that run parallel to the Hittite New Kingdom deposits of Central Anatolia.

In the absence of epigraphic material or radiocarbon dates, the dating evidence from Beycesultan consists primarily of a stratified pottery sequence, for which occasional typological parallels can be found at other sites in Anatolia.

The second season at Hacılar lasted from the middle of August till the middle of September. The writer was in charge, assisted for part of the time by Mrs. Mellaart, and by the Director in an advisory capacity. Miss Elizabeth Beazley, Mr. David Stronach and Mr. David French dealt most efficiently with the architecture, photography and field supervision and pottery respectively. The Turkish Government was again represented by Bay Osman Aksoy. The expedition is much indebted to the Vali of Burdur, Bay Turhan Kapanlı, especially for his generous loan of a bulldozer to assist in re-levelling the site after excavation; also to the Gendarme Commander of Burdur and the Maarif Müdürü, for facilitating our relations with the peasant owners of the site, and for permission to use the large school at Hacılar as expedition headquarters.

The city on the Kerkenes Dağ in central Anatolia is the largest pre-Hellenistic urban centre on the plateau (figs 1–2). It has plausibly been identified with a city of the Medes, called Pteria by Herodotus (1.76). If the identification is accepted, the city represents an expansion and imposition of Iranian power over the northern part of the central plateau. Kerkenes might thus provide evidence concerning the first sustained cultural, political and military contact between an Iranian imperial regime and Anatolian powers. Unique circumstances and developing technologies are providing an opportunity to map the city in great detail. The data base will enable analyses of the urban dynamics of an ancient city that, by combining Iranian, Anatolian and east Greek elements in centralised urban planning, were perhaps catalytic in the formation and development of the Achaemenid Empire.

The dating of the Neo-Hittite enclosure in Karatepe, discovered about twenty years ago by H. Th. Bossert and his Turkish colleagues, forms a problem of primary importance, the solution of which could have deep repercussions on wide fields of study. Even though Azitawadda, the builder and ruler of Karatepe, has left a relatively long bilingual inscription, it lacks the direct and conclusive evidence which might have proved its dating. It is not surprising, then, that several scholars differ widely on the date of Karatepe.

The dating generally accepted today is the one put forward by Bossert in 1948, who proposed that Karatepe was built, and Azitawadda reigned, during the second half of the eighth century B.C. This dating is mainly based on three arguments each of a different kind: firstly, it was assumed that “Awrikku king of the Dannunites” (Á-wa+ri-ku-s of the Hittite hieroglyphic inscription), whom Azitawadda mentioned as his benefactor, must be identified with “Urikki of Que” who, as related in the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III, paid a tribute to Assyria probably in 738 B.C. Secondly, a palaeographical analysis of the script of Azitawadda's Phoenician text indicated that the letters are of a rather “developed” and late type, a fact which points to as late a date as possible for this inscription. Thirdly, the artistic style of the reliefs seemed to be late, and as argued by E. Akurgal, to be much influenced by Assyrian art.

In the Byzantine period, urban life in Anatolia underwent a decay in which ancient cities shrank behind reduced circuits of walls or withdrew to the fortified hilltops whence they had descended in the Hellenistic age. Even the greatest city of the empire, Constantinople, saw a drastic diminution of population and resources, abandonment of its ancient public works and services, and consequent transformation from a classical to a medieval city. These changes began with the devastating invasions of Persians and Arabs in the seventh century. Sources reveal little about Anatolia between the early seventh and mid-ninth century, a true dark age, but the evidence of archaeology often makes it possible to visualize conditions at the time.

The Byzantines, whose empire long survived these troubles, generally occupied existing sites in Asia Minor where their ruins are superimposed on those of the Romans or earlier cultures. In only a few instances, usually occasioned by the needs of defence or of a militarized administration, were new sites founded. Although the Dark Ages were not a propitious time for urban development, some new towns did come into existence or prominence. Few of them have been studied. Strobilos on the Carian coast, therefore, is of some potential interest as an example of a Byzantine town which first appears in the historical record in the eighth century, and whose remains have been preserved.

This paper presents a detailed investigation of an Early Bronze Age clay sealing from Boz Höyük, a settlement mound located along the Büyük Menderes valley (inland western Anatolia). The artefact, clearly local in manufacture, was employed as a stopper to seal a bottle/flask and impressed with two different stamp seals. These elements are compared to all other published contemporary sealings in western and central Anatolia, in order to understand the degree of complexity of sealing practices in the region. In turn, evidence of Early Bronze Age Anatolian sealing practices is discussed in relation to the available evidence regarding the degree of social complexity in local communities. It is suggested that, during the Early Bronze Age, sealings were employed for product branding rather than control over storage and redistribution of commodities, and only at the beginning of the second millennium BC did the region witness the introduction of complex administrative practices.

Professor Seton Lloyd has since the time of his Directorship of the Institute been interested in the site of Comana of Cappadocia at Şar, and has often helped and encouraged my work there and elsewhere in Turkey. I am therefore glad to be able to offer him this brief supplement to the corpus of inscriptions of Comana which has already appeared in the pages of Anatolian Studies in 1968 and 1969.

After the season of excavation at Şar in 1968 conducted by Mrs. İnci Bayburtluoǧlu and myself, a depot of stone monuments was entrusted to the care of the former Muhtar, Bay Mustafa Yergök. In 1971, with the new Adana regional museum nearing completion it was decided to move this material to the museum so that Comana should be represented in the museum's collections.

With an overall length of about 550km, the Pontic-Cappadocian frontier was among the longest in the Roman Empire. It is also the least known, as there is a minimal amount of literary, epigraphic and archaeological evidence available for the location and identity of the province's garrison. In addition, many of the military stations known or believed to have existed on the frontier are now lost beneath the waters of the Keban dam. However, a re-examination of the available evidence, along with recent limited and spontaneous fieldwork in the region, allows for some tentative remarks to be made on the origins and early history of this frontier. These form the main subject of this article, and include the suggestion that Nero should be credited with the genesis of this frontier, not Vespasian, as usually indicated in the modern literature.

Oenoanda in the Cabalis was the most southerly city of the Tetrapolis led by Cibyra in the late Hellenistic period; and it dominated both its close neighbour Termessus Minor and the fertile mountain valley through which runs an upper stretch of the river Xanthus. When L. Licinius Murena broke up the Cibyratis in 84 B.C., Oenoanda became a member of the Koinon of the Lycians. Little is known of its earlier history.

The remains lie on the southern side of the Seki valley, on a hill which overlooks the modern road from Fethiye to Korkuteli, at the point where it crosses the river. The road to Seki diverges just south of the bridge, and the site of Termessus Minor lies on the other side of the river. Oenoanda's main buildings are grouped on a saddle-ridge below and south of the acropolis hill, some 300 metres above the valley. Against the lower slopes of this hill lies the theatre.

The purpose of this long, interim report is fourfold:

1. to provide a straightforward preliminary account of results of excavations in the Aşvan region in the years 1968–72;

2. to attempt an explanation of how and why the modern studies were carried out;

3. to offer a tentative demonstration of the relevance of the modern studies to archaeology (i.e. the excavation of objects and structures);

4. to outline, by using concrete examples, the general theory and methods, and thereby to demonstrate the feasibility of a co-ordinated approach.

The Keban Project was founded in 1968 under the aegis of the Middle East Technical University and with the co-operation of the Turkish Government. The stated aim of the Project was the rescue of historical materials from the area to be flooded by the Keban Dam, located just below the confluence of the Murat and the upper Euphrates (Fig. 1). The necessity of immediate action had been demonstrated largely through the efforts of the Faculty of Architecture and Restoration. In the area of the flood zone staff and students had carried out feasibility and recording surveys which then made clear both the nature and requirements of a rescue operation. Their results were published in Doomed by the Dam (METU, Ankara 1967). In 1968 a Committee (METU Keban Dam Area Salvage Project Executive Committee) was set up, under the chairmanship of the then Rector of METU, Dr. Kemal Kurdaş, to co-ordinate the efforts of those various teams, both Turkish and foreign, which had accepted the Committee's appeal for joint action in a rescue operation.

Was late Troy VI a large Anatolian palatial city, a hub for trade, a commercial metropolis or even the centre of a Bronze Age federation of cities (hanse), as the present excavator of Hisarlik, M. Korfmann, has claimed in numerous publications? Several German archaeologists and historians have maintained the opposite and declared Korfmann's view of Troy as unfounded and a fiction. In a recent article in Anatolian Studies (2002: 75–109) D.F. Easton, J.D. Hawkins, and A.G. and E.S. Sherratt state that they share the opinion of the excavator. In reality, they do not defend the above mentioned views, but offer a more restrained description of the role of Troy VI in the Late Bronze Age. Their arguments, though, can be shown to be untenable due to insufficient evidence. Thus, a thorough criticism of Korfmann's statements remains fully justified.

Schliemann's first campaign of excavation at Troy (1871–3) culminated in the discovery of ‘Priam's Treasure’. The find remains the largest and certainly the most controversial ever to have been made at Troy. In 1984 l argued that it was not a single find, as Schliemann reports, but a composite, comprising a core of pieces actually found on 31 May 1873 and a number of other pieces found earlier (Traill 1984 = 1993: 127–53). The article generated a considerable response and, apparently, some confusion. For instance, after demonstrating that Schliemann's story of Sophia's assistance at the discovery was a lie, I asked if there were adequate grounds for believing that he had actually found the pieces of ‘Priam's Treasure’ at Troy rather than, say, bought them from local dealers. I then indicated that the answer was ‘overwhelmingly in the affirmative’ and listed six specific reasons why we should believe this. I concluded: ‘These facts constitute a powerful argument that most, and probably all, of the pieces of ‘Priam's Treasure’ were in fact found in Early Bronze Age Troy’ (Traill 1984: 111 = 1993: 148–9). It would have been remarkable if after this I went on to argue, or even to suggest, that some of the pieces might be fakes. I did not. I have never suggested that any item of ‘Priam's Treasure’ is a fake. Yet critics have persistently represented me, either explicitly or implicitly, as holding this view, thereby muddying waters already murky and distracting attention from the real issues. It is hoped that this paper will refocus the debate on relevant topics.

In 1977, during the construction of a tunnel at Aksu, in the İlçe of Eǧridir, a statue of the river god Eurymedon was discovered and brought to İsparta Museum. This proved to have come from a sanctuary situated in front of a cave, known as the Zindan maǧarası, overlooking the river Aksu. The statue has remained unpublished to date, and for permission to make it known here I am grateful to the Museum Director, Mr İlhan Ünlüsay. In 1982 I acted as the Turkish government representative for Dr. Stephen Mitchell's survey at Yalvaç (Pisidian Antioch); he gave me friendly encouragement to write this article. I would like to thank him for providing translations and notes on the inscriptions, and also Dr. Marc Waelkens for sending his observations on the architectural remains at the sanctuary.