The treaty of a Hittite king, whose name is lost, with Ulmi-Tešub, king of Tarhuntassa (KBo. IV 10 + KUB XL 69 + 1548/u, CTH 106) is a complex and problematic document. Published as a hand-copy by Forrer in 1920, no modern edition of the text has yet appeared in print. It contains an unusually full description of the boundaries of Ulmi-Tešub's vassal kingdom, and in order to provide a sound basis for the reconstruction of Hittite political geography I contributed a translation of the boundary description and of most of the other clauses to John Garstang's book The Geography of the Hittite Empire in 1959. J. Lorenz, a student of Marburg University, prepared an edition in 1986 as a dissertation, but this has remained unpublished. The same is true of a similar edition prepared in 1989 for the University of Amsterdam by T. van den Hout, though this is understood to have gone to press. Dr. van den Hout, however, has published his views on this treaty in some detail in an article “A Chronology of the Tarhuntassa Treaties” in JCS 41 (1989), 100–14, where he introduces the text in his first sentence as “KBo 4 10 (CTH 106), the treaty between Tudhaliya IV and Ulmi-Tešub, king of Tarhuntassa”.

In 1986 the world of Hittitology was excited on hearing of the discovery of a well preserved bronze tablet. Inscribed on this tablet was a treaty between Hittite Great-King Tudḫaliya IV and his cousin Kurunta, appanage king of Tarḫuntašša, son of Tudḫaliya's father Ḫattušili III's elder brother Muwattalli II. An editio princeps of this treaty was published promptly, thoroughly, and, as always, extremely competently by H. Otten.

The tenth paragraph of this treaty reads:

ANA AWATNA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ=ya=kan ABUYAmMaraššantaš KA×U-za karpta

m.dLAMMA-aš=wa ANANA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ lē manninkuwan

nu ABUYA ANAmMaraššanta ṬUPPU iyat

n=atmMaraššantas ḫarzi

eni=ma ABUYA UL šakta

AWATNA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ=kan maḫḫan ŠAd10 kuntarra andan gulšanza

NA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ=kan maḫḫan zilatiya ANAm.dLAMMA parkiyauwanzi UL kišari

uit=ma maḫḫan ABUYA memian IŠME nu memiyan ABUYA=pat ḫullaš

maḫḫann=a ūkmTutḫaliyaš LUGAL.GAL LUGAL-izziaḫḫat

nu antuḫšan uiyanun

nu=kan AWATNA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ maḫḫan ŠAd10 kuntarra andan gulšanza

n=an aušta

nu=kanNA4ḫekur SAG.UŠ zilatiya ANAm.dLAMMA parkiyauwanzi UL kišari

mMaraššantaš=ma kuit ṬUPPU ḫarzi n=at uizzi mān udai n=at lē dattari

To the north east of Balboura, on the far side of the stream-bed, lie the ruins of an imposing tomb (see Fig. 1), the largest and most elaborate so far discovered in the area. Built directly on and partly into the hillside, the building was oriented to look straight across the valley towards the city (orientation: 27° E of true north—see Fig. 2; i.e. the tomb faces approx. SSW); and apparently it stood in splendid isolation, at some distance from the other tombs of the northern necropolis, and on somewhat higher ground. The remains of another tomb of similar type, but of smaller dimensions, can be seen across the valley in the neighbouring cemetery; and a third faces the city from the slopes to the south.

Although at first sight there seems to be little of the building left in place Pl. 1 (a, b); Fig. 2), enough remains for us to be fairly sure of its original form. It was built on two levels: above, standing on a stepped podium, a monumental building designed to house large stone sarcophagi—a structure most often described in inscriptions throughout Asia. Minor as a heroön (and for convenience so designated here); and below, within the podium, a lower chamber or crypt, often referred to in inscriptions as a hyposorion, normally intended for the various dependants of those entombed above. The building was constructed from the local white limestone; and while certainly the most ambitious sepulchral monument yet known from Balboura, it shows a relatively simple design, and the same rather rough-and-ready workmanship as the other buildings of the site.

This brief account concentrates on the results of the third consecutive summer (9 June–18 July) of excavations at Büyüktepe Höyük, a collaborative expedition between the University of Melbourne and Erzurum Museum conducted by a staff of fifteen. Many thanks are due to the Ministry of Culture and the Directorate of Museums and Monuments for granting permission to carry out the research, and to their officers who once again showed their customary helpfulness. These gentlemen, particularly Mesut Güngör, Director of Culture at Erzurum, Abdullah Taşdelen, Director of Erzurum Museum, and Hilmi Özkorucuklu, representative of the Ministry of Culture, are primarily responsible for ensuring that our work progressed without any interruptions. We were delighted by a visit from the Vali of Bayburt and his staff, as well as authorities from Demirözü, including the Kaymakan, who made us welcome and gave us much assistance.

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 publication in this journal of a hoard of metalwork reported to have come from the region of Sakçagözü omitted any reference to the original publication of this material by Engin Özgen in 1985. The opportunity has now been taken to publish photographs of the two copper (?alloy) figurines and their gold and silver adornments, one in the Adana Museum and the other in Gaziantep Museum (PI. XV) and, because the original publication is out of print, to provide a detailed description of the Adana piece. We are grateful to the Directors of the two museums Bey İsmet İpek (Adana) and Bey Rifat Ergeç (Gaziantep) for facilitating this study and to Tuğrul Čakar for the photographs.

No new information concerning the discovery and dispersal of the metalwork has come to light. It is the conviction of the authors that the close stylistic and technical resemblance between the two figurines and the addition to both of gold foil and silver torques greatly increases the probability that, firstly, the pieces are genuine antiquities and, secondly, that all of the objects were found together in a single hoard. No new evidence has emerged to contradict our earlier, independently deduced suggestion of an early second millennium date.

In the Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek in Munich (SASuG) there are four marble schematic idols from Schliemann's excavations at Troy. In 1902 these objects together with a large group of other Trojan artefacts (pottery, spindle whorls and small stone objects) were transferred from Berlin to Munich, to the Königliche Vasen-Sammlung (Bertram 1992: 44) now an integral part of SASuG.

From Schmidt's catalogue we know that more schematic stone idols were sent to Munich (Schmidt 1902: 334). Alfred Götze in the subsection “Brettförmige Idole: Aus Stein und Muschel” of this catalogue described several groups of idols. Thirty idols—28 of marble, one of schist(?) and one of limestone—were marked with numbers 7348 to 7377 (Götze 1902: 277 ff.). Among this group predominate idols with engraved features on the face and neck (nine examples), face (seven examples), face, neck and hair (two examples); the others have engraved features on the face and breasts (one example); on the face and a circle with a central point between “shoulders” (one example).

1992 was the first season of the Oxford University/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Survey of Medieval Castles of Anatolia. Over the next five years it is planned to survey and record in as much detail as practicable five Byzantine castles in the area of the Büyük and Küçük Menderes river systems in western Turkey. The five castles will eventually be published in a single monograph where they can be discussed as a group and placed in their historical and geographical context. An annual preliminary report will appear in Anatolian Studies, which we hope will serve as a forum to test ideas, raise problems, and encourage other historians and archaeologists to suggest further ways of obtaining the most from these sites.

The five sites—indicated on Fig. 1—are Mastaura kalesi (near Bozyurt, in Aydın ili, Nazilli ilçesi, merkez bucağı); Yılanlı kalesi (on the side of the Boz dağ near Kemer in İzmir ili, Ödemiş. ilçesi, Birgi bucağı); Çardak kalesi (near Çardak in Denizli ili, Çardak ilçesi, merkez bucağı); Yöre kalesi (near Yöre köy in Aydın ili, Kuyucak ilçesi, Pamukören bucağı); and Ulubey kalesi (on the Kazancı deresi near Ulubey in Uşak ili, Ulubey ilçesi). None has received more than brief notice before; none has been planned or studied in any detail. They have been chosen to cover the whole period of Byzantine rule in the area from the seventh century to the early fourteenth, and a variety of the different types and functions of Byzantine castles. Yılanlı is possibly a late seventh-century fortress, built in the context of the Arab attempts to take Constantinople and the consequent struggle to control the western coastlands of Asia Minor. Çardak appears to have been built between the seventh and the ninth century principally to act as a look-out point in the Byzantine defensive system against Arab raids.

In the topographical introduction to his biographical dictionary of people connected with the city of Aleppo, the seventh/thirteenth century north Syrian writer Kamāl al-Dīn ‘Umar b. Aḥmad Ibn al-‘Adīm includes a brief gazetteer entry on the castle of al-Rāwandān (present-day Revanda Kalesi), situated north of Aleppo on the way to ‘Ayn Tāb (modern Gaziantep):

Amasya, wrote a visitor at the turn of this century, is “the most picturesque town of all Anatolia, the Baghdad of Rûm”. Another called the city “l'Oxford de l'Anatolie”. One of its principal charms is the River Iris, the Yeşil Irmak, which runs through the town. Beautiful but not potable: “Tokat dumps in it, Amasya drinks it” is a Turkish proverb at least as old as Evliye Çelebi, who visited the town in the first half of the seventeenth century.

In ancient times the city would seem to have taken its water from a source in the neighbouring hills. It was carried along an aqueduct cut, for the most part, into the face of the cliffs which form the side of the river valley south and west of the town and on the right bank of the river (Fig. 1). The castle of Amasya, on the left bank, had its own arrangements for water supply described by the geographer Strabo, a native of the city, and these should not be confused with the aqueduct on the right bank.

August 1992 marked the sixth season of survey and excavation at the east Phrygian site of Amorium, located 170 km. south-west of Ankara. Excavation has so far sampled only a tiny part of what was in Roman and Byzantine times an extensive urban site, but results have consistently revealed that an exciting range of data can be drawn from this largely unexplored centre. Indeed, despite evident modern robbing for stone, the trenched areas have revealed that substantial zones may remain archaeologically intact.

The ancient site of Amorium comprised two distinct fortified zones: a compact upper town, and a larger lower town, part of which is now overlain by the modern village of Hisarköy. A particular aim of the excavations so far carried out at Amorium has been to define the relationship between these two urban areas in the overall occupational sequence, with special interest placed on elucidating the transitional phase from the Early to Middle Byzantine period—a period in Amorium's long history which is fairly well documented by both Byzantine and Arab sources.

Archaeological excavations were conducted at Alişar Höyük in central Turkey from 1927 to 1932 by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. The six years of investigation uncovered evidence that indicated the mound had been occupied intermittently from at least the Early Bronze Age through the modern Turkish period. The premature cessation of excavations at the site, however, left many issues unresolved, a situation that has bedeviled Anatolian specialists up to the present day.

Foremost among the problems left unsettled by the Oriental Institute excavations was the question of whether a Late Bronze II settlement (1400–1200 B.C.) had existed at the site, an issue that was raised by the discovery at Alişar of cuneiform tablets written in the Old Assyrian script that referred to a town called Amkuwa, known also from Hittite texts as Ankuwa. On the basis of these references, scholars were quick to associate Amkuwa/Ankuwa with Alişar. The problem with this equation is that, on the one hand, a Hittite text dating to the reign of Hittite king Ḫattušili III makes it clear that Ankuwa was occupied in the LB II.

During the survey campaigns of 1986, 1987 and 1988 at Sagalassos, one of the main cities of ancient Pisidia, the visible remains on both the Upper (S. Mitchell and M. Waelkens, 1987, p. 38; S. Mitchell and M. Waelkens, 1988, pp. 62-3; M. Waelkens, 1992, pp. 50-1) and the Lower Agora (S. Mitchell and M. Waelkens, 1989, p. 68; M. Waelkens, 1989, p. 121, Fig. 6; M. Waelkens, 1992, p. 51) were examined and a series of honorific monuments of varying shape on both the agoras were recorded. The excavation of these squares during this year's campaign (1992) uncovered even more of them. Larger, free-standing honorific monuments adorn the centre of the Upper Agora; smaller monuments were placed around the edges, in front of the porticoes. From the remains, it appears that especially the eastern side of the Upper Agora, together with its corners were regarded as very suitable for this kind of honorific monuments. Similar small memorials also enliven at least the eastern and the southern borders of the Lower Agora.

The diversity in form and the richness of decoration and mouldings of some of these small monuments are eye-catching and deserve a more detailed analysis. Unfortunately, although similar memorials most likely decorated most of the other Classical cities in Asia Minor, they have hardly received any attention hitherto. This paper is a first attempt to classify the small honorific monuments in Sagalassos.

The seal rolled on the six sides of the envelope containing a legal document found at el-Qiṭār (Pls. XXXV–XXXVI), on the west bank of the Euphrates some 33 km. downstream from Tell Ahmar, has its best parallels in the imprints of the Hittite seals from Ugarit and Emar of the thirteenth century B.C.

The scene is framed above and below by a border à guilloche. To the left is the Weather-god, standing on two triangles representing mountains, which do not seem to be marked with a scale pattern as in Yaz. 64.

The god wears a beard and his hair falls in a long pigtail down his back to his waist. He is wearing a short kilt and probably a shirt which leaves his arms bare. On his head he wears a tiara with horns, and a curved sword hangs from his waist, with the tip pointing downward and with the usual half-moon pommel. In his right hand, raised behind his head, he brandishes an axe. Behind his back, beneath the pigtail, is a filling motif (cf. SBo II no. 229). His raised left arm reaches out in front, and on the fist rests the god's symbol: TONITRUS, L 199, to the right of which is a star.

The Northern Anatolian region under consideration here, the Bafra plain with its main site of Ikiztepe, and the Samsun area with Dündartepe, should be seen as a contact zone between Central Anatolia, the Balkans and the Eastern Aegean. Several items of material culture from Northern Anatolia can be linked with Southeast Europe, the islands off the coast of Western Turkey and Central Anatolia. These connections were established at least by the end of the fifth millennium B.C. Strong similarities in pottery and metal finds from North and Central Anatolian sites with the Cernavoda cultures in Romania indicate that close linkage did in fact continue into the third millennium B.C., thus giving proof of a long tradition. Here, only a small segment of this huge time-span, viz., the last quarter of the fourth millennium, equated with the last stretch of the Late Chalcolithic period, is my concern.