Beginning in the early sixth century a large-scale rebuilding programme was undertaken by the Phrygians on the City Mound at Gordion, probably with the approval of their overlords, the Lydians. This renewed activity was no doubt one factor in the appearance at this time of several new imported fine wares at Gordion. These supplement the small number of imports finding their way to Gordion during the seventh century. One large group consists of Lydian pottery belonging to several fabrics including black-on-red, bichrome, marbled ware, and black-on-buff. Detailed study of this pottery has yet to be carried out. Work here will depend heavily on the study and classification of pottery from excavations at Sardis. Another, smaller body of imported pottery came from the cities of Greece. Study of this material, mainly from Corinth, Athens, and East Greece, is being conducted by K. DeVries and is now well advanced. A third small body of pottery, originating from areas to the west and south of Gordion, is presented here. The different wares of this group are very poorly known from other West Anatolian sites, so that the Gordion material adds considerably to our understanding of each of them.

The archaeology of Early Bronze Age northeast Anatolia has often been characterised by the dominant presence of the so-called Karaz Ware, a black burnished ware often decorated in relief. In northeast Anatolia, this distinctive ceramic tradition is represented in the archaeological contexts of major excavated sites of the Erzurum plain: Karaz, Güzelova, Pulur, Büyüktepe, and Sos Höyük (Kosay, Turfan 1959; Kosay, Vary 1964; 1967; Sagona et al 1993; Sagona et al 1996). Nevertheless, it is not something unique to the sites of northeast Anatolia, but a widely occurring phenomenon at third millennium BC sites from Transcaucasia to Syria-Palestine under other names such as Kura-Araxes Ware, Early Transcaucasian Ware, or Khirbet Kerak Ware (Burney 1989: 45ff; Edens 1995: 53). Even though it is handmade, its quality, manufacture and distinctive relief decoration, and its widespread distribution in northeast Anatolia and surrounding regions, demonstrate that it had a cultural and economic value attached to it. The widespread use of this pottery may be explained as evidence of a movement of nomadic pastoral groups or traders who also brought their pots or potting techniques with them. Although the newcomers responsible for this phenomenon appear to be small in number, the intermixing of the older local Late Chalcolithic populations and newcomers seems to have led to local variations in this ware in different spatial and temporal contexts (Rothman, Kozbe 1997).

The village of Hacilar is situated in the Vilayet of Burdur in South-west Anatolia, about 25 km. west of Burdur itself on the main road to Yeşilova and Denizli. The chalcolithic site lies about 1·5 km. west of the village and just beyond the orchards, which are irrigated by a plentiful spring at the foot of a great limestone crag which overlooks the village. It is this spring which since neolithic times has been the main reason for more or less continuous occupation in this region. Apart from the neolithic and early chalcolithic site at Hacılar there is a large Early Bronze Age mound on the northern outskirts and a classical site to the south-west of the village.

The prehistoric site is an inconspicuous mound, about 150 metres in diameter, rising to a height of not more than 1·50 m. above the level of the surrounding fields (Fig. 1 and Pl. XXIXa). The entire surface of the mound is under cultivation and a series of depressions show the holes made by a local antique-dealer in search of painted pots and small objects. About 1 km. west of the site runs the Koca Çay, the ancient Lysis, and on the eastern scarp of this river valley lies the cemetery of the Early Bronze Age settlement. Not a single burial has yet been found in the chalcolithic or neolithic levels of our site and it is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that its cemetery also may eventually be located there.

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.

This article comprises descriptive and explanatory notes on a number of plans made during a plane-table survey carried out by the authors in the Van region in the summer of 1957. In addition to the plans and photographs, there are two details, one being an elevation. The form of publication is partly determined by the appearance of sketch-plans of most of these Urartian fortresses in a preliminary article. Apart from correction of certain errors in that article, the general information given therein will not be repeated. For the position of the various fortresses reference should be made to the map published in that preliminary report. To the sites marked thereon should be added two more, Aznavur and Kancıklı, both near Patnos, on the road north-west from Erciş. to Karaköse and thus some way north of Lake Van. Both are of major importance: Aznavur lies one mile north-west of Patnos and Kancıklı some nine miles south-east.

The use of iron-bearing sands such as those of the Black Sea has often been thought of as an early source of iron ore by archaeo-metallurgists. Indeed Japan was an avid user of such material as late as the 19th century, and its use was being considered by the Turkish authorities in 1975.

The black sands of the south side of the Black Sea are very extensive, and obvious to the layman because of their unusual nature. They are also highly magnetic and quite a high proportion can be picked up with the aid of a small permanent magnet. On two occasions samples were taken and examined for their iron content and to see how reducible they were, i.e. how easy it would be for early smiths to use them. The analysis of two batches is given in Table 1. The first sample was taken from near Kirazlik, which is 42 km. west of Trabzon, and the second from sites extending from 4 km. west of Ordu to 10 km. west of Ünye. It is clear that there is not much difference in the composition from the two sites which are about 100 km. apart.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Beycesultan Hüyük is situated three-and-a-half miles south-west of the kaza town of Çivril in the vilayet of Denizli, and about one hundred and thirty miles east of Smyrna. The Çivril valley, of which Beycesultan must in ancient times have represented the provincial capital, is watered by the upper course of the Meander River and has an elevation of some three thousand feet above sea-level. Its length is traversed by a modern road, taking the line of a very ancient trade-route, which, at the south-west end of the valley, leaves the upland country and drops down suddenly, some two thousand feet, into the great rift of the lower Meander, whose olive groves slope towards the Aegean Sea. This must always have been one of the traditional approaches to the Anatolian Plateau from the west. The climate of Çivril is accordingly that of central Anatolia: very low winter temperatures, succeeded by perpetual summer sunshine and moderate heat.

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).

Hitherto these articles have been concerned with texts which were at least partially known to Assyriologists from other sources. The composition now presented is not only new but unique in character, and it gives me great pleasure that the translation of this, in some ways the showpiece of the Sultantepe collection, should appear in a volume which is planned as a tribute of admiration and gratitude to the founder and President of the Institute.

It has been said that “the man of Mesopotamia was a stranger to laughter: never, it seems, did he learn to relax”. The present text belies this statement, for it is nothing less than a humorous tale, recognizable as the prototype (at least in part) of one actually preserved in a manuscript of the Arabian Nights.

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.

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 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-.

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.

The great interest and importance attaching to the ruins of Harran, particularly in relation to the city's age-old association with the Mesopotamian moon-cult, has never been in doubt. The remarkable degree to which, during the past generation, they have escaped the attention of archaeologists has been due entirely to their geographical inaccessibility. So many references to Harran, either under its own name or in the classical guise of Carrhae, occur throughout the length of Mesopotamian, Roman and mediaeval Arab literature, that it has acquired a strong historical personality, almost without reference to its material remains.

In fact, the few and brief investigations of the site so far accomplished by archaeological explorers, have failed to throw any light whatsoever on the outstandingly important matter of local topography in relation to the several religious shrines for which the city was famous during nearly three millennia. In the middle of the last century, it was successively visited by members of Chesney's Euphrates Expedition and the English missionary, G. P. Badger.

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.