At the Rencontre Assyriologique held in Vienna in July, 1981, Dr. Harry Hoffner Jr. presented a paper in which he discussed a new join he had made to the Milawata letter, a document long recognized as being of considerable importance for Hittite historical studies, although one which is frustratingly fragmentary and incomplete.

Without doubt, the join provides important new information on historical and political developments in western Anatolia in the period when the letter was written, during the 13th century B.C.; more specifically, it throws interesting new light on the circumstances in which it was written, and may help indirectly to establish the identity of both its author, a Hittite king, and its recipient. Perhaps of most immediate interest is the fact that we now have the name of another king of Wilua—Walmu. Walmu was already known to us from the original text, but the two passages in which his name appeared were too fragmentary to provide any more specific information about him. The new join provides us not only with this information, but a good deal more besides.

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 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.

At least as early as the day, nearly eighty years ago, when Hans Rott gained access to “Doghalikilise” through an entrance reduced to a narrow cleft by heaps of rubble and alluvial soil, the monument has been recognized as the largest and most important in Göreme. Many of the wall-paintings of both the Old and the New Church at Tokalı were published by Jerphanion who correctly appreciated the relative chronology of these successive phases. This pioneering and still fundamental survey was supplemented by the excellent photographs of Jeannine Le Brun in Restle's corpus of 1967. In the same year, Cormack suggested on stylistic and iconographic grounds a probable date of ca. 913–920 for the decoration of the Old Church, a period little less than half a century before its relatively gigantic successor was cut transversely across its eastern end. Now, within a year or two, Tokalı Kilise will receive the ultimate accolade of monographic treatment by Ann Wharton Epstein in a book which treats the church as a cultural whole and finally recognizes the frescoes in the New Church as the supreme achievement of Byzantine wall-painting to survive from the tenth century.

The development of the skills necessary for working in iron, making possible the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, has long been regarded as one of the major break-throughs in man's technological history. For Lewis Henry Morgan, writing in 1877, the smelting of iron ore was a development on a par with the domestication of animals (Morgan 1877:39):

The importance of the appearance of iron as a practical, utilitarian metal has usually been seen in terms of a military context. With iron it was possible to produce weapons not only superior to those of bronze but also much cheaper. These improvements made it possible to arm a large peasant infantry in order to challenge the military superiority of the chariot forces of the Late Bronze Age aristocracy, armed with bronze weapons.

Many interesting aspects appear in the article by J. Davis about “the earliest Minoans in the S.E. Aegean” (AnSt. XXXII, (1982), 33–41). There are two aspects in his work, the archaeological and the historical, both quite important for the research in this area.

I would like to comment first on the archaeological evidence.

Davis gives a review of the Light-on-Dark (henceforth L-on-D) fabric of E. Aegean sites (Trianda, Miletus, Serraglio, Iasos), and points out that the stratigraphic evidence suggests that “pots of this kind were in use during the early phases of the LBA.” (ibid. 36). He goes on to examine the settlement pattern of the S.E. Aegean islands (Samos, Rhodes, Karpathos, Kasos) and concludes that because “there is a paucity of evidence for MBA (or even EBA) settlements of any sort, in contact with Crete or not—on these same islands … there is a possibility that the islands were nearly uninhabited in the MBA.” (ibid. 39).

The ruins at Yanıkhan form the remains of a Late Roman village in the interior of Rough Cilicia some 8 kilometres inland from the village of Limonlu on the road to Canbazlı (see Fig. 1). The site has not been frequently visited by scholars, and the first certain reference to its existence was made by the late Professor Michael Gough after his visit on 2 September 1959. Yanıkhan is now occupied only by the Yürüks who for years have wintered on the southern slopes of Sandal Dağ. The ancient settlement at Yanıkhan consisted of a village covering several acres. The remains are still extensive, and some, especially the North Basilica, are very well preserved, but there has been considerable disturbance in recent years as stone and rubble have been removed in order to create small arable clearings. The visible remains include many domestic buildings constructed both from polygonal masonry without mortar and from mortar and rubble with coursed smallstone facing. There are several underground cisterns and a range of olive presses. The countryside around the settlement has been terraced for agricultural purposes in antiquity, and is, like the settlement itself, densely covered with scrub oak and wild olive trees. The most impressive remains are those of the two basilical churches which are of little artistic pretension, but considerable architectural interest. The inscription which forms the substance of this article was found on the lintel block of the main west entrance of the South Basilica.

The scarabs found with the wreck at Cape Gelidonya are important for the dating of the ship. The group has been discussed in detail by Schulman in a chapter of the publication of the wreck. A new look at the scarab group after so many years may be worthwhile.

We have the following comments on Schulman's dating of these scarabs:

Scarab 1: “Late 18. or 19. Dynasty.”

In the discussion of this object “Gaza” is mentioned as the site of origin of one of the parallel pieces. However “Ancient Gaza” is the name of the 5 volumes by Petrie dealing with the excavations at Tell el-Ajjul, seven kilometres south of modern Gaza. The closest parallel to Scarab 1 is, however, at Tell el-Far'a. It has two horizontal lines under the nb sign, showing that “Lord of the Two Countries” (= Egypt) is intended in all these cases.

Scarab 2: “New Kingdom” “Early New Kingdom, more specifically … 18. Dynasty.”

It should be noted that the “short apparently meaningless vertical lines” are a duplication of the sign which usually follows an ideogram Z.1 in Gardiner's sign list. It is often duplicated thus, or appears as sign V.20 or Q.3.

Im Jahre 1984 wurde bei den Ausgrabungen im Artemision von Ephesos ein Beinplättchen mit einer Ritzzeichnung gefunden, deren Thematik eine griechische Herkunft eher ausschloß. Das Plättchen trägt die Fundnummer 84/K 312 und wurde 39,20 m östlich der Altarostkante und 46,40 m nördlich der Altarsüdkante, 0,28 m unter der obersten Fundamentlage des Altars gefunden. Der Fundort befindet sich in dem Bereich zwischen dem nördlichen Stereobat des Kroisostempels und der Nordgrenze des zugehörigen Peristasisfundamentes unmittelbar in der Nähe seiner Nordwestecke. Seine Höhenlage ergibt eine stratigraphische Position bereits unter den Fundamenten des Stereobates bzw. Krepidoma des Tempels. Das Plättchen dürfte daher wohl noch vor der Erbauung des Tempels an diese Stelle gekommen sein. Die Abmessungen des Plättchens betragen 7,5 × 2,5 cm, seine Stärke mißt 0,2 cm. Dargestellt ist in Ritztechnik eine stehende weibliche, im Profil nach links gewandte Figur, die mit einem weiten halblangen Mantel bekleidet ist. Sie trägt eine dreiteilige ägyptische Perücke und darüber eine pilzförmige Lotosblüte mit einem vorne angesetzten spitzen geäderten Lotosblatt.

Aşıklı Hüyük, a large Aceramic Neolithic mound in the Melendizsuyu valley, some 25 km. SE of Aksaray (prov. Niğde), was visited in 1964 by Ian Todd, who collected a very large quantity of obsidian tools and flakes from the surface, and, at the same time, was able to collect samples including animal bones, charcoal and seeds from a large section cut by the river into the side of the mound (Todd 1966). The obsidian industry suggested a date earlier than Çatal Hüyük East, and this was confirmed by a series of five 14C dates between 7008±130 bc and 6661±108 bc (using the 5568±30 yr half-life) (Todd 1968, Stuckenrath and Lawn 1969). The site is therefore of great interest, being one of the earliest mound sites in Turkey. Its size (c. 250 m. across and 8 m. in height) suggests a lengthy permanent settlement; its location is well-suited for agriculture and animal husbandry (Todd 1980).

Early Roman mould-blown glass vessels are widespread and well-known in the museums, private collections and sale rooms of Europe and America. However, one encounters such items less frequently in the regions where a great many of them were made. Although much work has been done on the origins and early practitioners of the craft of mould-blowing, few actual vessels have been recorded in the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. So it is pleasing that I am able to add to the list a fine example in the Gaziantep Museum.

Hexagonal flask. 1st century A.D. Translucent cobalt blue glass. Blown in a three-part mould. Flat bottom. Cylindrical neck with everted rim, lip folded inward. (Fig. 1 and Pl. XIX/a–c).

Exact find-spot not recorded; acquired by purchase in the Gaziantep region. No registration number by October 1984.

Height 7·8 cm. Diameter of bottom 2·4 cm.

The following discussion begins with a study of a bronze bowl belonging to Monsieur George Ortiz, whose collection of ancient bronzes in Vandoeuvres/Geneva includes a large number of outstanding pieces of Near Eastern art. The bowl was recently acquired in the antiquities market and is said to come from modern Turkey. It is one of the finest and best preserved examples of a particular class of oriental metalwork in repoussé, the so-called Syro-Phoenician “bull-bowls”, which were most probably produced in the Levant in the early first millennium B.C. The main decoration of this class consists of concentric friezes of bovine animals in procession or similar sequence arranged around a central floral motif. The present paper will also examine a second, as yet unpublished, bowl kept in the British Museum.

Few will doubt that in the East Mediterranean world and in the Near East the development of metallurgy was an important factor (though certainly not the only one) in the evolution of socio-economic organization in the Late Chalcolithic and especially in the Early and Late Bronze Age. The availability of silver, lead and gold added markedly to the possibilities of the acquisition of prestigious objects by the few, to developments in the concept of wealth and in the development of hierarchical societies. The availability of copper, arsenical copper, and later, tin bronze made possible the production of tools which transformed certain crafts (perhaps particularly carpentry and shipbuilding) and, with the development of weapons, revolutionized warfare.

This no doubt led to something of an arms race which put its own pressures on societies in the search for and exploitation of metals. The more successful population groups will have greatly increased the density of their population and changed their structure, not only by moving from local chief to regional monarch but also by that monarch securing his authority by the creation of dependent privileged groups and by the encouragement of the emergence of specialized workers and craftsmen. In turn such socio-economic developments, in which the emergence of class differentiation led to the creation of aristocracies or other forms of elite ruling classes, eventually provided the environments in which skilled metal workers could find the time, necessary incentives and artistic inspiration to develop advanced metalworking skills.