The mountain Avla Dağ lies c. 245 km. SE. of Ankara, c. 8 km. SSE. of Ürgüp on the east side of the Damsa Çay valley, in the vilayet of Nevşehir.

Obsidian implements were first found on this site by Dr. Giorgio Pasquare of the Maden Tetkik ve Arama Enstitüsü, Ankara, during the course of a geological survey of the Ürgüp area in 1963–4. A considerable quantity of obsidian implements and flakes was collected at the time, and subsequent visits to the area by the authors have resulted in further additions to this collection.

The geological section of this paper was written by Dr. G. Pasquare, and the archaeological section by I. A. Todd.

In this paper we deploy both archaeological evidence, principally from survey, as well as topographic textual evidence in an integrated attempt to localise a broad range of place-names attested in the Hittite period of the Late Bronze Age. The geographical focus is on the north-central region of Anatolia, particularly relating to the survey area of Inner Paphlagonia. Investigated toponyms include rivers, mountains, regions and settlement names. By these means we aim to situate the recurrent Hittite-Kaska conflict of the Late Bronze Age more firmly within its physical environment.

The city of Oinoanda is situated on a lofty ridge rising some 300 m. above the surrounding plain, at a point of obvious strategic value. It is a naturally strong site, but it lacks a generous natural water supply. The following investigation of the various water supply arrangements formed part of the survey at Oinoanda conducted by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara under the direction of Mr. A. S. Hall, and with the cooperation and assistance of the Directorate of Antiquities of Turkey.

There is a number of small springs on the slopes below the city, and there may have been more, or at least different ones, in antiquity (Fig. 1). There were probably springs at the Leto sanctuary on the west slope of the acropolis and more certainly at the sanctuary of the Nymphs on the east slope, although these do not now function, in summer at least, and perhaps never produced a great deal of water. A third sanctuary, much further down the east slope, also has a small spring, and was apparently devoted to Apollo. However, the only spring which nowadays produces water enough to contribute significantly to the supply of a substantial community lies some 500 m. west of the west gate and over 130 m. lower down, where it would be exposed to any attacking force.

Perhaps no other site in the region of northern Syria and south-eastern Anatolia played as important a role in the history of the early first millennium B.C. as Carchemish, “on the banks of the Euphrates.” It is one of the best-documented sites of the period, due to a combination of Neo-Assyrian references and the excavated material of the site itself, including inscriptions, reliefs and large-scale architectural projects initiated by the rulers of Carchemish. All of these documents attest to its immense wealth and power.

The site was first explored in the 1870's on behalf of the British Museum, once George Smith had determined that the modern town of Djerabis must be ancient Carchemish; and was subsequently excavated and published under the Museum's auspices. Several encyclopedic compendia published in recent years have summarized in cogent syntheses the information known about Carchemish. Nevertheless, I would like to include this present review of the material as a tribute to Richard D. Barnett – whose own work has been closely associated with the site in particular and with North Syria in general – in order to add a few points regarding the nature of Carchemish and the role played by the state in the history and art-history of the times.

Due to its geographical position, the Anatolian plateau has always been considered as a bridge in transmitting cultural formations that originated in the Near East to southeastern Europe and to the Aegean. Such a standpoint downgrades the role played by the Anatolian plateau to a transit route between the East and the West, overlooking its distinct structure. It seems that the main bias is in considering the Anatolian plateau as a single cultural unit, ignoring the multifarious nature of its structure. The role the Anatolian plateau played between the ‘East’ and the ‘West’ was much more complex and multi-facetted than assumed, even at times hampering all interaction. Yet another bias is considering Anatolia, in spite of its geographic extent, as the dividing line in defining the boundary between the East and the West. However, it is evident that the geographic limits of the peninsula do not necessarily correspond with the cultural entities. Thus, for example, while the cultural boundary separating the East and the West was somewhere in between the Aegean littoral and the central plateau during the Neolithic period, later it shifted considerably in both directions. On the other hand, through the earlier part of the Chalcolithic period, the extent of the Taurus mountains marks the dividing line between the Near Eastern and Anatolia-Balkan cultural formative zones, which by the Late Chalcolithic period moved much further to the west, up to the Marmara region, the Sea of Marmara then acting as a cultural barrier. Presented here is a conspectus of the recent picture on changing cultural boundaries through the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age.

Until very recently almost everything of substance that was known about the Galatians was derived from historical, more specifically Greek and Roman, sources. Modern perceptions of the Galatians have accordingly not only been one-sided, but have also depended on outsiders' views and representations of a complex culture. A stereotypical picture established itself in the modern literature, which itself was moulded by the preconceptions of ancient Greek observers. This view, which will also provide a chronological framework for an examination of Galatian culture, may be summarised broadly as follows: the Galatians were groups of Celticspeaking peoples who arrived on the borders of the Classical world, Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor, around 281 BC (see fig 1). Warlike, barbarous and set upon raiding and plunder, they attacked cities and sanctuaries in Greece, before crossing to Asia Minor where they conducted themselves in similar fashion until the various efforts of Hellenistic rulers forced them to settle in north central Anatolia, the region around Ankara (see fig 2).

Professor John Cook died on 2 January 1994 at the age of eighty-five. His scrupulous and meticulously published field work in the western coastal regions of Turkey, in Caria, Ionia, Aeolis, and above all in the Troas, has made a fundamental contribution to our understanding of the East Greek world. Much historical research in the future will be built up on the foundations he laid. I hope that this present study, which is a product of the same methods of field research into the Classical sites of Asia Minor as he practised, will help to confirm the continuing value of these methods and serve as a fitting tribute to the memory of a great scholar.

The aim of this paper is to highlight the evidence for Achaemenid settlement in eastern Turkey and to publish the sherds from two sites, Altıntepe (Cimin Tepe I, CAB Site 112) and Cimin Tepe II (CAB Site 113) collected by C. A. Burney during his survey in 1955 and now housed in the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. An Achaemenid date for Altıntepe level II has often been proposed (e.g. Burney and Lang 1971, 158–9; Forbes 1983, 59) and the site is often now included in studies of the Achaemenid Empire without comment (e.g. Tuplin 1987, 201 n. 118 and map I p. 241; Cook 1983, 198), but the large amount of evidence for extensive and wealthy Achaemenid settlement at the closely related sites of Altıntepe and Cimin Tepe II has not been considered in detail.

Three recent papers concerned with the administration of the Achaemenid Empire in general (Tuplin 1987) and Achaemenid garrisons (Tuplin 1987 B and 1988) have highlighted the sparsity of sites in eastern Anatolia which are known to have been occupied in the Persian period. For the preceding era of the Median Empire, which stretched as far westwards as the Halys river (the modern Kızılırmak), archaeological evidence has been so thin that the very existence of a Median Empire has been seriously, if not convincingly, questioned (SancisiWeerdenburg 1988).

The redating of certain Hittite texts – notably the Indictment of Madduwatta and the annals of Tudhaliya and Arnuwanda – from the end of the thirteenth century to the turn of the fifteenth has been one of the most discussed Hittitological subjects in recent years. The sudden availability of sources covering a previously poorly known period in Hittite history has naturally brought about an intense preoccupation with the Early Hittite Empire, largely overshadowing the less “fortunate” side of the redating, the “deprivation” of the main body of sources relating to western Anatolia in the second half of the thirteenth century. The situation is aptly demonstrated in the most recent comprehensive study on Arzawa, where the chapter dealing with the period after Muwatalli to the end of the Hittite Empire barely covers 16 pages, in contrast to the far more abundant documentation on the fourteenth century.

If there is one aspect of life in the ancient Near East which may be taken as a common factor between lands and cities so far removed in space and time as Sumer and Urartu, Eridu and Van, it is irrigation. This is a subject crying out for more research, especially on the ground. Here too is a link between Seton Lloyd's excavations at Eridu and in the Diyala region, his publication of Sennacherib's acqueduct and his later interest in Urartu. The writer can claim first-hand knowledge only of the last. Without Seton Lloyd's encouragement in the Institute at Ankara and likewise during the weeks spent as an assistant during the first season's excavations at Beycesultan, the writer would scarcely have set out on his first archaeological survey in northern Anatolia, followed by that in the Pontic region of Tokat and Amasya (1955). These two surveys were but the prelude to those of 1956 and 1957 in eastern Anatolia. These, undertaken initially in the expectation of discovering mounds of the Bronze Age and earlier periods, became instead largely a revelation of the great number of Urartian sites, including numerous fortresses recognizable as such from their surface remains.

The Medieval Castle at Adılcevaz, on the north shore of Lake Van, incorporated in its walls fragments of a relief sculpture carved in basalt. Six such fragments have now been recovered. Two Urartian inscribed blocks, also of basalt, which have for some years stood outside the primary school, had also, no doubt, been used in the wall of the mediaeval castle.

The fragments of sculpture belong to a relief representing a god or king standing on a bull, facing left towards two triple spearheads, placed one above the other. Five of the fragments belong to this figure, but the sixth shows that there was another figure, looking towards the first and likewise facing a triple spearhead. Behind the right-hand figure stands a single triple spearhead, rather taller and more slender than those in the middle, and perhaps fixed on some solid base, only part of which remains. The god or king wears an elaborately decorated garment, probably woven of wool: the pattern, perhaps in gold brocade, is repetitive, with a wide border, edged with a fringe and a band of “herring-bone” pattern.

The reading of the Hieroglyphic signs had from the early days of decipherment been linked with that of other signs, in particular with , and with the two forms of the RELATIVE, an association based on similarity of appearance as well as the parallelism of the distinction by means of the double stroke at the base. The evaluation of as the “vowel series” i/ī/a/ā by Meriggi, and the recognition of the RELATIVE signs as such by Forrer, divided the way between these two groups. The phonetic reading of the relative remained long in doubt. An earlier reading as ia etc., based on a confusion with the “vowel signs” was rejected by Gelb, while Gelb's own reading of ki was discarded by Bossert, who on largely invalid grounds postulated a phonetic development kwa > hwa > wa. In spite of the dubious points in his argument, Bossert has generally been followed, at least in his reading hwa, especially since the identification of a number of Hieroglyphic verbs employing in their writing the signs REL/REL2 with corresponding cuneiform Luwian verbs written with a hu or ku(-wa). Most recently it has been argued that the relative belongs to the class of -i-stems with a presumed reading hwi-.

With this number of Anatolian Studies we begin the publication of the Sultantepe tablets, as foreshadowed in Volume II, p. 35. The general nature of the hoard of tablets has already been described in the previous article. We present here three texts which are of some historical importance: the two eponym lists, and the tablet from “ M.2 ” (nos. 150, 18 + 21, and 331, of the 1952 season). All three provide some additional information about the series of limmu officials or eponyms, whose names were used by the Assyrians for dating their years and therefore form the basis of Assyrian chronology; the first two referring to the period covered by the “ Eponym Canon ” (911–648 B.C.) and the third to the short period between 648 and the fall of Nineveh (612 B.C.), for which there are no lists. It is hoped to continue the publication of the tablets in succeeding volumes.

The treasure deposits of Troy have been largely studied in isolation from both architectural developments and other depositional contexts in Troia II–III. The corpus has been perceived as little more than a catalogue of information that can be assessed to outline various trends related to metallurgical production, expanding networks of exchange and fluctuations in economic wealth. Considerations of agency have been few and limited. This study relates the content and context of the treasures to depositional and architectural patterns that begin in Troia II. Meaningful continuities and transformations between Troia II–III ultimately challenge the widely held reconstruction that the treasures were a concealment of wealth in anticipation of an attack. The study arrives at an alternative explanation with a consideration of the relationship between the destruction and abandonment of the Troia II central megaron complex and the deposition of treasure. The central megaron complex and the treasure deposits represent two distinct and divergent strategies of élite initiative on the citadel. The study concludes with a consideration of the inherently destabilising practices of treasures deposition, the final destruction of Troia III and the end of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia.

Germia was a well-connected Byzantine polis in western-central Anatolia, famous for its healing waters and a church of St Michael. After three years of survey the site can now be reconstructed: it included several other churches and monasteries, but little space for ordinary residential buildings. This comes as a surprise, but can be explained by the discovery of two older Roman cities within walking-distance of Germia, where the ordinary people seem to have lived. One of these cities, Mantalos, was home to a local cult of the pagan god Men. This may explain why the Christian healing centre was established at Germia. Later, Mantalos shed its pagan legacy and was apparently renamed Eudoxias after a homonymous member of the Theodosian dynasty. No Roman or Byzantine settlement of the region has a history extending back beyond the Iron Age, when the population retreated to fortified hilltop settlements and many sizable Bronze Age höyüks were deserted. Settlement locations changed often and grew little in central Anatolia, and this may be blamed on the uniform landscape of the high plateau; it lacks the Mediterranean's diverse geography of ‘definite places’ that would favour one site above others and ensure its continuity and growth.

This article focuses on the Initial Neolithic (ca 6850–6500 cal. BC) lithic assemblages of Ulucak and Uğurlu in the Aegean region of Turkey. Ulucak and Uğurlu are among the earliest Aegean Neolithic sites, and their lithic industries were managed with specific traditions and skills, quite different from what we know of the industry for other regions such as central Anatolia, Cyprus and the Levant, and even some other areas of the Aegean. This article presents the results of the study of the chipped-stone assemblages of Ulucak and Uğurlu, and aims to demonstrate how they contribute to wider theories about the Neolithisation of the Aegean.

Since the publication of the Late Bronze Age material from Tarsus in 1956, there have been important developments in the study of Mycenaean pottery–a ware that forms the distinctive feature of the LB IIb levels at Tarsus. At Mycenae itself the work of the Helleno-British expedition has produced comparable material, some stratified, some in bulk, which is presently under study. Major excavations have taken place at Tiryns, Lefkandi, Perati, Ag. Irini (Keos) etc. and are either fully or partially published. In Cyprus the work of Dikaios at Enkomi is published and new work at Paphos has brought startling results. All these affect the standing of the Tarsus material.

My previous opinion, used by Desborough (1964, 206), that the pottery was “Mycenaean of the transition from LH IIIB to C, with the accent rather on LH IIIB” had become quite obviously wrong and this opinion was corrected in my notes on early LH IIIC pottery written in 1968 (French VI, 136 and n. 7). Shortly after, I sought permission to study the Tarsus material when possible and this permission was kindly granted by Professor Goldman and Professor Mellink in April 1971. The significance which Professor Mellink attached to the project can be judged from her comments (1971, 168).

Short Reports on the Institute's excavations at Beycesultan, dealing with discoveries in the seasons of 1954, 1955 and 1956 have already been published in this journal (vols. V–VII). In the third of these reports, a break in continuity was occasioned by our temporary concentration on a single isolated discovery; and accordingly, before resuming the more general account, a short recapitulation of our operational sequence may be desirable.

In the final weeks of the 1955 season, a sounding was made in Area “A” on the western summit (see site-plan, Fig. 1), which revealed the presence in this part of the mound of a large public building of the Middle Bronze Age, corresponding in time to the “Burnt Palace” already partly excavated on the eastern summit (Level V). Some preliminary investigations were also made of three occupation levels (VI, VII and VIII) lying directly beneath this building (see Anatolian Studies VI). In 1956 an extension of this sounding was made in the form of a 5-metre trench more than 40 metres long, running out approximately eastwards towards the flank of the mound (Trench “S”). After passing through the already well established sequence of later occupations, further foundations of the Middle Bronze Age were here encountered and it became clear that the building discovered in Area “A” formed part of an administrative complex, perhaps covering the whole of the western summit, and surrounded by its own substantial enclosure wall.

Following Wagstaff's paper on physical geography and settlements, a brief expansion of the discussion of distribution of agricultural resources is in place. This topic provides the necessary background for studies conducted in the village itself as well as for the following paper on “Agricultural productivity and past population potential at Aşvan”.

My object here is firstly, to outline the spatial distribution of major land resources (this is achieved via Figs. 1 and 2), secondly to discuss a few of the factors which appear to have conditioned this distribution and, thirdly, to outline some problems involved in the location of ancient settlements relative to these land resources. Few conclusions can, however, be drawn until we have more data on sedimentation history (and thence ancient distribution of soils) in the region.

Numerous interpretations of the meaning, function, and derivation of the Minoan “horns of consecration” have been put forward since Evans discovered the first object of this kind in his excavations at Knossos. As yet, not one of the various theories proposed has been universally accepted. Consequently, the authors of this article would prefer not to be so presumptuous as to claim that they have indeed solved the problem of the usage and origins of the Minoan “horns”; on the other hand they believe that excavations in the past twenty years have strongly suggested that the Minoan “horns” have their origins in Anatolia and that the object's function, originally at least, was a pot-support in a hearth.

In Anatolia, horned objects which we consider served as precursors of the Minoan “horns of consecration” fall into three classes. Examples of the first of these classes have been found in EB II hearths at Beycesultan and at Tarsus. Survivals of this type of “horns” are also found in Late Bronze Age [hereafter LB] Kusura C and Beycesultan III–II. The second class consists of the pot-stands or andirons connected with Khirbet Kerak ware in the 'Amuq, Palestine, north-east Anatolia, and the Caucasus.