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.

This paper presents data on the painted pottery of Hasanlu II/IIIA from an analysis of field records. The excavation programme at Tepe Hasanlu was carried out between 1956 and 1977 for the University of Pennsylvania Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Archaeological Service of Iran. Period II/IIIA, the final pre-Islamic occupation of the site, dates to the Late Achaemenid-Early Hellenistic period. The painted pottery includes Western Triangle Ware, Cream-slipped Bichrome Ware, Brown-line Ware, and Classic Triangle Ware.

Site and sequence

Hasanlu is one of several large Iron Age mounds in the Qadar River valley at the southern end of Lake Urmia in western Azerbaijan, Iran. It consists of a central Citadel Mound (25m above the plain and about 200m in diameter) surrounded by an Outer Town. It was occupied from about 5500 BC to about 280 BC and again in Islamic times.

The purpose of this article is to draw attention to a series of problems which arise from a comprehensive study of the architectural remains of Troy I and II discovered by H. Schliemann, W. Dörpfeld and C. W. Blegen. One had hoped that Professor Blegen himself would publish at least a detailed plan showing how the newly discovered walls were related to those found by the earlier excavators; for there are problems arising from such a combination of plans which might have been solved with little expense or difficulty by the excavators on the spot, whereas to solve them now would require a new expedition. However, it is twenty years since the conclusion of the University of Cincinnati's excavations at Troy, and neither in the final publication of the results of the expedition, which appeared in 1950, nor elsewhere, has any such synthesis been attempted by him.

It was in 1908 that D. G. Hogarth first published information about a “Central Basis” (Pl. XI (a), Fig. 1) that he had excavated in 1904 and 1905 in the Artemision at Ephesus, and for many decades his words remained the authoritative statement concerning the early sanctuaries not only in Ephesus, but also in the rest of the classical world. A colloquium in the British Museum in 1984, however, demonstrated that there were issues, raised by numismatists and art historians, that continued to be at odds with the results of Hogarth's excavations, and that could only be solved by a further examination of the “central basis” in question.

As early as 1986, under the northern outer rim of the crepidoma of the archaic dipteros (Croesus temple), a square base had been discovered which obviously formed the centre of a distinct cult area. A flood stratum of sand, which was typical of all the parts of the Artemision we had excavated, appeared under the base. Fortunately, the low level of the ground water made it possible to measure this stratum (66 cm.) and to observe beneath it a new culture stratum—a pavement made of yellow marly limestone slabs—that had previously escaped detection. This observation gave rise to the hope that more discoveries could be expected under Hogarth's “central basis”.

Tepecik is situated in the province of Aydın, on the edge of the Çine valley that forms the southern branch of the Maeander river system. It is located on a mountain pass extending towards the south, as well as on a natural passageway through the mountain range on the western side of the Çine plain. Its location on a number of natural routes is reflected in the material culture of the site, which displays both local (western Anatolian) and Aegean elements. The Late Bronze Age cultural remains from Çine-Tepecik include a group of Mycenaean pottery, presented and assessed in this study, that can be dated to the LH III B1 to LH III C period (ca. 1320/1300–1190/1090 BC) based on decorative style and typology. Both the locally produced and imported Mycenaean ceramics at Çine-Tepecik reflect characteristic vessel forms and decorative elements of Mycenaean decorated pottery. In particular, the motifs used in the decoration of the vessels resemble those of the later phases of the Mycenaean decorative style and exemplify the decorated pottery tradition of the period. The later phases of Mycenaean culture are noteworthy for the distribution of the culture across a wide area, including the eastern Aegean islands and the coastal region of western Anatolia. The Mycenaean finds from Çine-Tepecik demand a re-evaluation and an extension of the Mycenaean cultural sphere in this period to include Çine (Marsyas).

The Göksu valley (Fig. 1), which furnishes one of the two main routes from Turkey's southern shore through the Taurus to the Konya plain and the rest of the central plateau, must be deemed one of the country's national treasures. The clear turquoise ribbon of the river threads its way south-eastwards from high in the mountains west of Ermenek to reach the Mediterranean at Silifke, or rather at the mouth of the delta it has created to the south of the classical and modern town. The valley itself, however, is by no means uniform, nor is the road which follows it. Coming from the interior, the traveller leaves the Konya plain not far south of Karaman, and after a gentle climb to the pass at Sertavul, begins to descend thickly pine-grown slopes high on the eastern shoulders of the valley, with the Göksu itself glimpsed occasionally flowing far below. Dropping steeply down, leaving the monastery of Alahan high above one to the left, one passes into a very different landscape around the regional centre of Mut, Roman Claudiopolis (earlier Ninica, see Mitchell 1979). Here the Göksu is joined from the west by the Ermenek Su, and the narrow valleys of their upper courses give way to a wide, low-lying basin, where the stream has cut through one terrace after another, to yield a curiously desert landscape in which remaining patches of the geological terraces, harbouring olive groves and cereal crops in early summer, stand isolated from one another by high eroded scarps, whose steep bare yellow and white limestone slopes are studded only sparsely with pines and low evergreen bushes like prickly oak.

This is one of the most eventful periods in the early history of preliterate Anatolia. Urban and rural settlements in western Anatolia, in the central Anatolian plateau including the Pontus region and in the eastern highlands show signs of conflagration. Archaeological surveys carried out in north-central Anatolia and in the Konya plain suggest that in some cases permanent settlements were abandoned at different phases of the EB III. These destructions were no doubt caused by unrecorded events such as inter-regional rivalry between city-states, intruding pastoralists, incursions by foreign armies (e.g. from Mesopotamia/N. Syria), invasions by nomadic hordes and natural catastrophes (Yakar 1981a: 106–7). On the basis of field surveys and a few excavations of limited scope alone one cannot establish a pattern of destructions which could be attributed to one particular factor described above. I prefer to refer to this period as “emerging dynasties” because monumental architecture in some of the major sites points to centrally located administrative complexes (palaces?) which, taken together with unprecedented mortuary practices (e.g. Alacahöyük Royal Tombs), may confirm the existence of ruling aristocracies in Anatolia.

In Antiquity 57 David Traill claims to have exposed Schliemann's discovery of “Priam's Treasure” as a fraud (Traill, 1983). By this he means that it was not a single find as Schliemann represents, but an artificial collection put together from several different sources. The collection was formed around a group of bronzes (not identified exactly, but presumably including some of the spearheads, daggers, and flat axes) which was genuinely found on the site of Troy near the end of the 1873 season, but whose precise findspot and date of discovery Schliemann falsified. To this were added more valuable items which Schliemann had been setting aside from his excavations for just such a purpose over a period of months “or even years”. This theory was first put forward in outline in a BBC Chronicle programme on 20th January, 1982 and at that time included the further suggestion that some items were not even excavated at Troy but were bought from dealers in Constantinople or Athens. It is not clear how far Traill still holds to this notion: he acknowledges that all the pieces contained in the Treasure are appropriate to the Early Bronze Age at Troy, but at the same time hints that the purchase-theory would be a legitimate speculation (Traill, 1983, 185).

A number of visitors to the prehistoric collections at Ankara have noticed with interest a large bowl-like vessel decorated with horned knobs, and seeming to be a portable hearth or altar. Investigating further, they find that it has companion pieces, some smaller, some differently shaped, no less odd; that all come from Karaz near Erzerum; and there are many remarkable vases, metal implements and other antiquities from the same site. The preliminary account of Karaz, by its excavator Dr. Hamit Koşay, is available for consultation in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the Turkish Historical Foundation. A fuller report, by the same writer, is in preparation.

The salvage excavations and related surveys carried out both in the Keban and in the Karakaya reservoir areas during the last twenty years have made the Elazıǧ region one of the most thoroughly examined areas of Anatolia. Our archaeological information about this region, which previously was extremely limited, has now reached a significantly high level. Surveys conducted by the present writer during 1985–87, especially in the outlying areas of the reservoir regions, have resulted in the establishment of an archaeological sequence for almost the whole of the area. In spite of all this, it cannot be said that the history of the region is yet fully understood. For example, the two questions, when did the Early Iron Age begin in the region and what were the reasons behind its beginnings, are still far from being answered.

In written documents relating to the Hittite ruler Shuppiluliuma I, the region is referred to as a kingdom, while in the time of Tudhalia IV it is clearly understood that the area, known as Ishuwa, had become a vassal kingdom of the Hittite empire, where people of Hurrian origin were living.

As water mills are quickly disappearing throughout Turkey, it is becoming very difficult to collect information about this type of ancient technology. By means of an ethno-archaeological study carried out in the territory of ancient Sagalassos (Pisidia), the very limited remains of 15 water mills were recorded. Following the recent introduction of electric mills, water mills have lost their previous importance and today some of the mill houses are used as stables or shelters. Interviews with local people provided some information about the capacity of the mills and about the kind of grain that was ground in them. All the mills under discussion belong to the ‘ordinary’ horizontal-wheeled type of water mill. This type may have originated in or near Turkey during the Hellenistic period. A literary and archaeological study concerning the various types of mills showed that the type found near Sagalassos was best suited to local circumstances. Tax records confirm the presence of water mills in the area during early Ottoman times.

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.

Professor Seton Lloyd's publications and teaching have always been marked by his profound understanding of Mesopotamian architecture. It therefore seems appropriate, in this volume to his honour, to present some hitherto unpublished tablets which may add a little to our knowledge of some aspects of the ancient practice of surveying.

The small tablet BM.38217 (Fig. 1), probably originating from Babylon itself, shows in elevation a six, originally seven, stepped ziggurat with the principal dimensions given, UŠ being used for the length, and SAG (the “short side” of the rectangle as drawn) for the height. The second level is described as “Front (-view) of the dwelling of Anshar” (pa-ni šu-bat an-šár). While this note may well apply to the whole of this unique plan, it is to be observed that the first two storeys have accentuated (and external) markings which must represent the frontal and lateral access. The inner markings are perhaps to show where the ramps or stairway crossed the front of the main building (as in the ziggurat at Ur). The gaps in the base of the third and probably fourth (and higher?) stages may show that a direct frontal stairway to the seventh stage was envisaged. This seems a better explanation than that a five staged ziggurat is shown imposed upon the ground-plan of an adjacent and larger building. The lower stages are certainly not the plan of any two-storied “temple of Anshar” or of a gate-building.

Eleven samples comprising an estimated 39,000 plant remains were analysed from a burnt destruction level at the pottery Neolithic site of Höyücek, southwest Turkey (radiocarbon dated 7550–7350 uncalibrated bp, 6400–6100 calibrated BC). Large stores of emmer (Triticum dicoccum), free threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum), lentils (Lens culinaris), bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) were identified and these plants were interpreted as crops. The low levels of weeds and crop processing by-products suggest most of the samples were remains of stores of human food. Two samples in which wild components (for example, Triticum boeticum, Medicago, Aegilops) dominated were interpreted as crop processing by-products, presumably stored for fodder. The presence of these stores in a structure interpreted as having a religious function shows that domestic activities also took place there. Comparison with other Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of west central Turkey demonstrates a good correspondence in the range of crops. The poor representation of barley at Höyücek doubtless reflects the small number of samples from the site.

The analysis of the chipped stone industry of Çatal Hüyük East presented here is based on a collection of 1,377 pieces, of which only 366 are waste flakes. The collection represents the complete assemblage of chipped stone recovered during six weeks' excavation (17th May to 29th June, 1961) by Mr. James Mellaart at which the author assisted. All stone was saved. The area excavated covers approximately two-thirds of an acre, in which nearly forty houses from the various levels were uncovered. The considerable number of chipped stone implements which we collected from the surface of the mound during our first two days at the site (the presence of which along with an Early Neolithic pottery was initially responsible for Mr. Mellaart's special interest in the site) is not presented here. Except for the pleasure of presenting some beautiful examples of pressure flaked projectile points it would not alter the facts as garnered from the excavated material.

A third season of excavations at Hacılar, carried out under the auspices of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, lasted from 10th August to 11th September, 1959.

The Assistant Director was in charge of the excavations, ably assisted by Mrs. Mellaart, Miss Clare Goff (surveyor), Mr. David Stronach (field assistant and photographer) and Mr. David French (pottery expert). Mr. David French also kindly provided the transport for the expedition. The Turkish Department of Antiquities was again represented by Bay Osman Aksoy, whose efficiency relieved the Director of much administrative anxiety.

Once again we record our gratitude to Mr. Seton Lloyd for his help and advice, to the Department of Antiquities and to the local authorities in Burdur.

Among the visitors to the Hacılar excavations, we must mention Mr. and Mrs. Seton Lloyd, the Vali of Burdur and a party of local dignitaries from Burdur, Mr. Charles Burney and Miss Burney, who kindly drew our figurines, Professor Machteld Mellink, Bay Burhan Tezcan, Mrs. I. D. Stronach and Mr. and Mrs. J. Lanfear.

Some preliminary conclusions and individual discoveries from the first four seasons of a survey in the province of Adıyaman are presented here. Initial inspiration for this project grew out of the Institute's excavations at Tille Höyük and the realization that Tille and other excavations in the Lower Euphrates Rescue Project were beginning to provide the kind of precise ceramic sequence which had not hitherto existed for the region. An element of urgency was introduced by the imminence of flooding up to the 550 m. contour by the creation of a huge reservoir above the Atatürk Dam. Consequently a permit to carry out a survey of all archaeological remains in the province was applied for and granted by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.

During the four seasons, 1985–1988, which have taken place so far, our effort has been very largely directed towards a detailed investigation of that area on the west bank of the Euphrates which will be flooded (Fig. 1). At least one further season is required to complete this examination. To this end, part of the Euphrates valley and one tributary system were the focus of attention in the 1985–1987 seasons (Fig. 2).

Palaeolithic assemblages in the Near East do not yield any clay artifacts. During the Mesolithic period clay objects begin to appear as rarities but with the beginning of the Neolithic one witnesses a proliferation of uses of clay for architecture, house furnishings, firing devices, containers, and a variety of objects. Suddenly the villages seem to consist entirely of clay. I have been puzzled by the seemingly long indifference of man towards a material as easy to work with and as accessible as clay, followed by a sudden floruit. I have tried to find out more about the beginnings of the use of clay and have studied Near Eastern clay collections looking for answers to three questions: (1) When did clay begin to be used? (2) What is the evolutionary pattern of the first uses of clay? (3) What gave clay its sudden importance? I first tackled these problems in the Zagros and in Syria. The present paper is a review of the first evidences of the use of clay in Anatolia.

Starting from Kilise Tepe in the Göksu valley north of Silifke two phenomena in pre-Classical Anatolian ceramics are examined. One is the appearance at the end of the Bronze Age, or beginning of the Iron Age, of hand-made, often crude, wares decorated with red painted patterns. This is also attested in different forms at Boğazköy, and as far east as Tille on the Euphrates. In both cases it has been suggested that it may reflect the re-assertion of earlier traditions, and other instances of re-emergent ceramic styles are found at the end of the Bronze Age, both elsewhere in Anatolia and in Thessaly. The other phenomenon is the occurrence of ceramic repertoires which seem to coincide precisely with the frontiers of a polity. In Anatolia this is best recognised in the case of the later Hittite Empire. The salient characteristics of ‘Hittite’ shapes are standardised, from Boğazköy at the centre to Gordion in the west and Korucu Tepe in the east. This is often tacitly associated with Hittite political control, but how and why some kind of standardisation prevails has not often been addressed explicitly. Yet this is a recurring phenomenon, and in first millennium Anatolia similar standardised wares have been associated with both the Phrygian and the Urartian kingdoms. This paper suggests that we should associate it directly with the administrative practices of the regimes in question.

During the summer of 1999 members of the Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP) conducted archaeological excavations and surveys at two sites in the upper Tigris river region of southeastern Turkey. This article presents the results of that research. At the site of Boztepe excavations yielded four Halaf period burials, all of which contained grave goods, and an Iron Age house dated by C14 to the Assyrian Imperial period. Intensive surveys at Talavaş Tepe and Boztepe have refined the chronology and size of both sites. Although the exposures of the Halaf period are very small, these data add important insights into Halaf mortuary practices, while evidence from both Boztepe and Talavaş Tepe supplements our understanding of the upper Tigris river region during the Iron Age.