L. A. Mayer's Islamic Architects and their Works, a provisional list of individuals associated with the erection of Muslim buildings, has justly become a standard handbook of Muslim architectural practice. However, this varied as much as in the West, from Byzantium through the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. There are differences of basic vocabulary: the ustādh (master builder or master craftsman) of Seljuk Anatolia is unknown in the Maghrib; differences of status, suggested by the frequency of “signatures” in Seljuk Anatolia and their rarity in Mamlūk Syria and Egypt; or even differences of organization, particularly the Ottoman khāṣṣa mi‘mārlari, a corps of architect-engineers whose rôle in the 16th century has been briefly described by Şerafettin Turan but whose existence in Seljuk Anatolia is highly dubious. The present article is an attempt to use the Seljuk foundation inscriptions of Anatolia, which have not hitherto been exploited as a source, to illuminate Seljuk practice, despite the obvious difficulty of generalizing from the very inadequate evidence.

Volume XXII of Anatolian Studies which was dedicated to Prof. S. Lloyd contains (in pp. 87–114) a detailed study by J. D. Hawkins of the Hittite hieroglyphic monumental inscriptions and stone monuments from the area of the Lower Palace in Carchemish. It seems needless to stress the importance of this study which presents a reliable and up to date reading of the inscriptions. The data gathered from them can now be better used in attempts to solve the complex problems of the chronology and arrangement of the associated monuments. This was done by Hawkins who on the basis of the inscriptional evidence came to various conclusions concerning the monuments of the Long Wall of Sculpture and the Great Staircase. Some of his conclusions form the subject of this rejoinder.

The Adana Museum possesses a statue of a lion some aspects of which merit attention. The site of its discovery, Çolaklıköy, is discussed below.

The animal, carved in the round from brownish black basalt, stands on a base now in bad condition. Its position is upright, front paws together, hind left-paw advanced. The belly and paws are not detached from the block. The surface is badly worn, the muzzle damaged and the claws broken. The jaws are shown open and partly hollowed out. The head is wreathed by the mane, the ears were meant to be lying back and pointed in shape (Fig. 3). Around the eyes and on the muzzle the basalt surface has flaked off. The mane, covering the shoulders and the belly, seems not to have been marked out in tufts. The right-hand section of the back from the shoulder to the rump is flattened into a horizontal surface in the middle of which is a rectangular hole (length 5 cm., width 3.5 cm., depth 3 cm.). Lastly, the rear end is squared off in a vertical plane. The treatment of the back and of its extension shows that the sculpture has been used for some purpose (Fig. 4).

In addition to security considerations, the course of Hittite history can largely be explained by the economic motif, to control the sources and markets of metals.

The expulsion or departure of the Assyrian merchants from Anatolia at the end of Anittas' reign not only deprived the newly founded Hittite Kingdom in the central plateau of the organized trade which, among other commodities, supplied Anatolia with its imported tin (from. Assur), but also cut it off from the supply centres in the East Mediterranean and North Syria, by now under the control of the strong Yamhadian Dynasty.

In Anatolia itself the mineral-rich regions, which supplied both Anatolian and Mesopotamian provinces with copper, silver and lead, were mostly in the northern and eastern areas which the Hittites, due to the geo-political situation already pointed out by Mellaart, could not control or controlled with difficulty. This situation no doubt forced the Hittites to turn to alternative mineral-fields and supply centres in areas west of the plateau.

The Alalakh tablets were published by Wiseman in 1953, and in subsequent years the main chronological problems raised by them have been treated in numerous studies. Already in 1954, Landsberger, in a comprehensive paper on the chronology, determined that the Alalakh archive was later than the days of BḪammurapi and the destruction of Mari, and suggested identifying YḪammurapi (end of the period of the Mari archives) with YḪammurapi the father of YAbbael, the first ruler of Yamḫad mentioned in the Alalakh tablets. Landsberger thus was able to form a chronological continuity between the rulers known from the Mari archives (including BḪammurapi) and the rulers known from the Alalakh archives. This suggestion was generally accepted among scholars subsequently dealing with the Alalakh material.

In the same paper, Landsberger set out a full reconstruction of the dynasties ruling in Yamḫad and in Alalakh in the period of the archive from level VII. This scheme has been modified slightly by Smith, Goetze, and Kupper, in the years following, demonstrating that YIrkabtum, who appears in the year-names in several documents from the archive (AT 33, 38, 54, 58, 64 and 65) was the heir of YNiqmiepuḫ, and contemporary with AAmmitaqum. Thus, it was determined that, in the period of the Alalakh archive, the following six kings ruled in succession at Ḫaleb: YAbbael, YYarimlim II, YNiqmiepuḫ, YIrkabtum, YḪammurapi II, YYarimlim III (the latter two are often listed in reverse order). The first four kings of this list are noted in father-son relationships, while the relationships of the two latter are unknown.

Renfrew has rightly remarked that in Anatolian Early Bronze Age chronology “the basic problem is to decide how to correlate the Trojan early bronze age periods … with the sequence of Tarsus”. It is largely to this problem that the following article is addressed.

Professor Mellink has argued that Troy I is contemporary with Tarsus EBII on the grounds that Troy II and Tarsus EBIII appear to her to be contemporary. Since she places the start of Tarsus EBI at c. 3000 B.C. this scheme places the beginning of Troy I considerably after that date, perhaps at c. 2700 B.C. Mellaart, by contrast, disputes the equation between Troy I and Tarsus EBII and argued at first that Tarsus EBIIIa must begin later than the beginning of Troy II, envisaging a period of overlap. He has subsequently suggested that it actually follows the end of Troy II. According to this correlation Troy I would be contemporary with Tarsus EBI, and not Tarsus EBII.

The Greek inscriptions of Lycia frequently indicate specific monetary penalties to be imposed upon any person guilty of tomb violation, and a parallel has often been drawn with certain of the indigenous inscriptions which also contain specific monetary sums, expressed as various multiples of the ada. The passages in which ada occurs have generally been thought to indicate penalties directed against wrongful use of a tomb. But this assumption is open to several serious objections, and can now perhaps be discarded in favour of a rather different interpretation, which may cast a new light on the function and purpose of the texts in question.

As a general rule, ada is found in a number of short, self-contained statements at the end of the sepulchral inscriptions.

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.