L’archéologie de l’empire achéménide

Paris, Collège de France, 21-22 novembre 2003 The Place of the Achaemenid Persian Period in Archaeological Research in Cilicia and Hatay (Turkey) 1. Introduction. I am honored to be invited to participate in this colloquium. I am a neophyte in Achaemenid matters, but have supervised excavations in levels dating to 550-300 B.C. at Kinet Höyük (Dörtyol, Hatay) and will be responsible for the publication of the finds of the Persian and Hellenistic levels. I have much to learn and look forward to doing so. 2. Geographical region examined in this paper. The paper will explore results from archaeological investigations in the Turkish provinces of Antalya (east), İçel, and Adana (these together = Cilicia, ‘Rough,’ or ‘Tracheia’ or ‘Aspera,’ in the mountainous west, and ‘Smooth,’ or ‘Pedias’ or ‘Campestris,’ in the mostly alluvial plains of the east) and Hatay, the provinces that line the northeast Mediterranean corner. Kinet Höyük is located in the center of this region geographically at the southeast corner of Smooth Cilicia, but in modern administrative divisions, in the northwest corner of Hatay province. A limit is drawn at the Turkish-Syrian border. This is an artificial border, for clearly problems concerning Cilicia and Hatay need to be examined in a larger context. The next larger circle of context would include Syria and Cyprus, as well as south-east Turkey. For Syria in the Achaemenid Persian period, see Elayi 2000 (with further references) and the journal Transeuphratène. For Cyprus in the Persian period, see Buitron-Oliver and Herscher 1997 and accompanying papers in BASOR 308. The area should be promising for information about trade, economy, and rural and urban life in the period 550-300 BC (as indeed for all periods). It includes two mountain chains (Taurus and Amanus), sources of timber and metals; a long coastline which in its eastern sector gives quick access to Upper Mesopotamia (the Fertile Crescent); a rich agricultural area (Smooth Cilicia, today's Çukurova plain) with a city prominent in written sources (Tarsus); a smaller but also fertile plain (the Amuq, or, in Turkish, Amik) dominated in the Bronze Age by important cities and in Hellenistic and Roman imperial times by the great city of Antioch. In addition, the Battle of Issos took place in this region -- a distinction, although of little importance for the archaeological record. 3. Archaeological evidence for the Achaemenid period in this region: aims of this paper. I aim to evaluate the place of the Persian period in the larger context of archaeological research in the region, in all periods1. Evidence from excavations and surveys is my interest. I will highlight the research goals of excavators, and then, if a project has indeed revealed pertinent evidence, I will summarize findings from the

For a broader perspective on the history of archaeological research in Turkey, see C. Gates 1996.
Ne pas citer Not to be quoted

Charles Gates

2 Achaemenid period, assess the problems that they have generated, and characterize the studies undertaken in order to solve them. I will rarely consider textual evidence, and will have little to say about coins (because they rarely come from excavated contexts)2. My starting hypothesis was that no archaeological project in this region began with the express aim of illuminating the Achaemenid period. Instead, I believed, all projects were directed toward other periods and problems. Remains of the Achaemenid period were thus by-products of archaeological research. My conclusion is that this hypothesis is indeed true -- but that the by-products have proved in some cases to be fascinating and valuable. I will first present the aims and results of archaeological projects conducted before World War II. Much space is devoted to them, because they are research projects that have completed their trajectory, with field work finished and final reports published. I shall then explore those initiated after the war. Some projects have been completed, but most are still in progress. Finally, I would like to look toward the future: what are the possibilities for further research concerning the Persian period? 4. Archaeological projects begun before World War II. No formal excavations were conducted in this region either before the First World War, during the Ottoman Empire, or after the war until the 1930s3 (for early travellers and scholars, see Dussaud 1927: iii-xviii, 413-447; Braidwood 1937: 2-3; Downey 1961). After World War I, most (but not all) of today's Hatay province was controlled by France, until ceded to the Turkish Republic in 1939. The remainder of our region was part of the Turkish Republic, right from its start in 1923. During the 1930s, five major archaeological projects were undertaken, three in the Sanjak of Alexandretta, and two in (Turkish) Cilicia. The projects in the Sanjak focused on Antioch, the Amuq Plain, and Al Mina together with, principally, Atchana (Alalakh). The Cilician projects explored occupation mounds in Tarsus (Gözlü Kule) and Mersin (Yumuk Tepe). 4a. Antioch. Exploration of Hellenistic-Roman Antioch was the first of the archaeological expeditions to take to the field in today's Hatay province. The sponsoring institution was Princeton University, perennially strong in late antique - medieval studies, and with an established scholarly interest in the region, thanks to the important study of Early Christian churches in northwest Syria undertaken before World War I (19041905 and 1909) by one of its distinguished professors, Howard Crosby Butler (died 1922). Co-sponsors were the Louvre and the Musées Nationaux de France, the Baltimore Art Museum, and the Worcester Art Museum, with the Fogg Art Museum and Dumbarton Oaks joining later (C.R. Morey, in Elderkin 1934: vii; Kondoleon 2000: 5-8). Excavations were conducted annually from 1932 to 1939, without resumption after World War II. The aim was to reveal the city of Antioch, one of the four great cities of the Roman Empire, from Hellenistic to medieval times. This goal was
For a historical perspective, see Desideri and Jasink 1990: 177-202: and Casabonne 1998 (with a revised, published version forthcoming, 2003). 3 Zincirli and Sakçagözü, Iron Age sites excavated in the late Ottoman period, lie nearby, east of Cilicia, north of Hatay (see section 5b, below).
Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted

were neither sought nor encountered. for unspecified reasons. considering the text-based orientation of traditional archaeology in the Near East and eastern Mediterranean – but fell at the end of the long Phase O (formerly period IV).R. extremely deep silt deposits overlay the ancient city. After all.D. Seleucia Pieria. 5500-2000 BC (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960. 1000-500 BC” and in Phase P (formerly period IIIb). From 1933-1938. The aim of this expedition was to find monumental remains and written records of Iron Age 'Syro-Hittite' kingdoms (Breasted 1933: 87-89 and 301309. Lassus 1972. Waagé 1948. the Achaemenid Persian period was not given its own distinct slot – surprising. to the north and east of Antakya. Architecture of later phases K-S was eventually published by Richard Haines (1971). the Oriental Institute had just formed its own Persian Expedition. The Persians were not a concern for this project. overlain by only a small city. ca. Tell Tainat. The pottery of phases K-O was presented only in a Ph. Tell Tainat (Ta‛yinat. and Kondoleon 2000). A-J. would later publish comprehensively the evidence for the earliest Amuq phases. ca.indeed any pre-Hellenistic cultures -. W. Daphne. 2000: 165). Eventually. 4b. as part of the larger project. Robert Braidwood conducted a three-week surface survey of the plain. 500-300 BC. He was looking specifically for pre-classical mounds (Braidwood 1937: 1-2). Excavations were conducted not only within the ancient city itself. now ca. Amuq Plain. In all this work. 6000-2000 BC. in a wealthy suburb. in Elderkin 1934: viii. F.A. ca. It quickly became apparent that. provided evidence for a complete ceramic sequence of the region. D. unlike the other three great cities (Rome.3 believed possible because antique Antioch. “Syro-Hittite. not a metropolis (C. Stillwell 1938 and 1941.” (Haines 1971: 1-2. Morey. but never in a formal publication. Waagé 1952. in Stillwell 1938: vi). with a concession to excavate at Persepolis (Breasted 1933: 89-91 and 310-336). the Achaemenid Persians -. McEwan 1937: 10). as Phases A-V (this terminology first appeared in Krogman 1949: Table I). Campbell. thanks to the Orontes River. Constantinople/Istanbul. In spring. Exposing the late antique city was not going to be easy. later relabeled. The second site. the excavators (with the blessing of their museum sponsors) made a virtue of necessity and. but also in its port town. Braidwood and his wife. “Syro-Hellenic. 1936. even with the unnuanced approach to clearing buildings that was characteristic of archaeological excavations of the time. after the villas of Daphne began yielding one fine mosaic after another. and Alexandria). In the Amuq Project terminology. at first called periods XIV-I (McEwan 1937: 10. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . and in miscellaneous places (Elderkin 1934. in the 1930s. 2000: 163-165). in Yener et al. dissertation of limited distribution (Swift 1958). McEwan 1937: 8. Tell Judeideh. Tayinat). Yener et al. Braidwood 1937: 6-7). The first yielded much pottery and other artifacts but nothing of the desired monumentality. giving up on the vast deep soundings. Linda Braidwood. was. did give the monumental architecture and large-scale sculpture of the earlier Iron Age that the expedition was hoping for (McEwan 1937). concentrated on the mosaics (Lassus 1983: 253). The third and last. The Amuq project concentrated excavations at three sites: Chatal (Çatal) Hüyük. the “Syrian Expedition” of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago carried out its exploration of the Amuq Plain. and Tell al-Judaidah (Judeideh) .

summary of the findings Al Mina is a low mound located at the mouth of the Orontes River. has only been briefly surveyed. will be mentioned only in passing. and deserves our closer attention. 4c. are centered on the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. In all such find spots. 65C). Q (= Hellenistic). the projects of her colleagues are already chronologically much more wide-ranging. the guiding spirit of the projects. with a special emphasis on metallurgy. surviving only in its lower courses. Alalakh. Its ancient name is unknown. Amuq Plain: the Oriental Institute returns. Although the interests of Aslıhan Yener. and R (= Roman) were discovered in certain places in the four highest levels on the mound (Haines 1971: 26. and Alalakh are three of the sites in the Hatay explored by Leonard Woolley in the 1930s and 1940s. Al Mina. If. with the exception of Tell Tayinat). Publication of these levels has been partial. latest Phase O being impossible to distinguish from earlier Phase O. made of dressed limestone blocks (Haines 1971: 61 and 66). 31. site plan pl. architectural remains of Phases P. 54A. help develop a clearer picture of the chronology of these architectural remains. the chronological significance of the stratigraphical differences not being explored. 46A. Any archaeological identity for the Persian period (Phase P) thus rests on architectural remains presented by Haines. after a hiatus of 57 years. Al Mina: History of excavations. 2000). which to Phases Q and R. 4b.4 Pottery and other finds from Phases P-V have never been published. with bearing on the economy and the ethnic identities in the region. Chatal Hüyük yielded no architectural remains from Phase P (Haines 1971: 3-25). plans and photos in pls. modest remains of a ‘fifth building period’ dated to the sixth century BC were uncovered on the top of the mound: Room G of building I. we can expect that information about the Persian period will be forthcoming. Of the five projects begun in the 1930s. of course.1.1. but the remains of foundations of naturally shaped stones were extremely fragmentary (Haines 1971: 31). Sabouni. only Al Mina has significant remains from the Persian period. These projects include both surface survey and excavations at selected sites. and have received her blessing and support. Publication of the relevant pottery and other finds might. the Oriental Institute began a new series of explorations in the Amuq Plain (Yener et al. Since the ethos of archaeological research has developed over the decades to include responsibility for recording finds of all periods. the OI projects of the 1930s shed virtually no light at all on the Persian and later periods in the Amuq. we learn the following. If we stick to Phase P. In one area. At Tell Tayinat. and Alalakh Al Mina. and Building X. Tell Judeideh.5 m deep. they are lumped together. 34-36. In essence. deposits were 1. hope is now higher for a more equitable treatment of all periods encountered. 50B. In 1995. along the Mediterranean coast. although of interest for this paper. Sabouni. it is not clear which structures can be assigned to Phase P. a fragmentary baked-bricked paving on Platform XV. Possibilities include Ah-ta-[a] Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . 4c. a major Bronze Age site. 60. 53. Focus here will be on Al Mina. because of focus on the Iron Age and earlier. 63C. squares D-F 7-10. The picture is not particularly striking. Sabouni (Sabouniyeh). This site is important. The surface surveys are the most promising in this regard (I know of no excavations planned at sites with the Persian period attested. 1996. and the findings have been subjected to a great variety of interpretation. At the third major site.

reference from Fantalkin 2001: 121. 28-30. BC. n. to be the more southerly site of Ras el-Bassit. and Poseideion. a town named in ancient itineraries. Late Bronze Age remains noted on the nearby hill of Sabouni demonstrated to his satisfaction the firm LBA presence here at the river's mouth (Woolley 1938: 6-8. also that from Levels 10-5. he excavated at Tell Atchana (Alalakh). and 1938b. yes. BC (some have said late 9th c. Nishiyama for the Orontes Delta Archaeological Project (ODAP) of Mustafa Kemal University (Antakya) and the University of Chicago (Pamir and Nishiyama 2000: 294-302). For Sabouni. The site was surveyed again in 1999 by H. Kašpuna (Kuhrt 2002: 18.5 (Zadok 1996. with much of the work done in a three-month season in 1936 with 180 workers -. not Al Mina (references in Waldbaum 1997: 4). Like Robertson's report. in summary fashion. his article was an "exercise in connoisseurship" (Waldbaum 1997: 13. clearly disappointed. Beazley wrote up the Attic red-figure (1939). 153-154). however. 1959: 159-160). he selected sites for excavation that lay on this route (1938: 1-5). Woolley's excavation report (1938a and 1938b) established the stratigraphy and chronology of the site. but Al Mina did not. but for Al Mina – wishful thinking on Woolley’s part. 1948. Fantalkin 2001: 121) to the late 4th c. 1938a. the finds -. and has thus been brought back into the scientific eye (Pamir and Nishiyama 2002: 302-311). Alalakh rewarded Woolley's Bronze Age interests. but the duty was never satisfactorily completed. for LBA occupation is completely unproven. Al Mina was excavated by Leonard Woolley in 1936-37. but without any mention of find spots. maintained that earlier levels had been washed away by the Orontes when flowing in a different place (1938: 6-8). notably the Minoans. 1959: 4). where the river valley opens up into the Amuq Plain (for Alalakh: Woolley 1955 and 1959). and presented the architecture and.a speed and scale unthinkable today (Woolley 1937. he included. Survey finds confirm a long occupation from MBA to the Islamic period. Cypriot pottery. Because the Orontes River valley offered the easiest access from the seacoast to the interior plain. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . The following year Robertson published a selection of early Greek pottery (1940). In 1999. ten architectural levels (including the medieval). As a complement to coastal Al Mina. contra: Boardman 2002: 328). The publication of the pottery was left to others. Sabouni (Sabouniyeh) was freshly surveyed by ODAP. Taylor's covered only early levels: 10-5. essentially useless for understanding the role of this pottery in Persian period Al Mina. Pamir and S. comments on the Attic black-figure and red-figure of Level 4. with some late Roman-early Byzantine material and a substantial medieval occupation (9th-13th centuries). would later be the focus of Einar Gjerstad (1974). for reasons not clear to me. 2). Woolley’s excavation was part of a larger campaign in the years 1936-1949 (excluding the war years) to search for direct connections during the Bronze Age between the Aegean world. Parpola). a mound that lies just over the mountains from the seacoast. citing S. The region attracted Woolley because of the proximity of the Mediterranean to upper Mesopotamia. 1959: 4. the Cypriot and Syrian examples had to wait until 1959 before they appeared in public view (Taylor). from levels 9-5 only. He discovered remains from Al Mina that date from the 8th c. BC: Taylor 1959: 91. In none of these reports were finds from the nearby site of Sabouni presented in any detail. Perreault 1993: 63). This last was Woolley’s original suggestion (Woolley 1938: 3.with the important exception of the pottery. The 1999 ODAP survey found Hellenistic and Roman pottery as well (Pamir and Nishiyama 2002: 300-301. Of the non-Greek pottery. Woolley. a review of Beazley's 1939 findings. Poseideion is now generally believed. 312). and the Near East (Woolley 1937: 1.

he proposed. 28).6 At Woolley's death in 1960. are: Level 4. In many of these articles. see Gill 1988: 180). see Tsetskhladze. by the builders of architectural Level 4 when they prepared the site for new construction. 3. only a very fragmentary picture of the ceramic finds at Al Mina was available. 1. 375300 BC (1938: 20. 174. and hence the length of the gap in occupation. all ceramic specialists. was swept away. Indeed. 600 BC or early 6th c. Woolley proposed that Level 5 ended in 550 BC. Level 3. ca. and 2002). There are no structures that can be characterized as civic or religious buildings. ca. perhaps the result of Nabonidus’s deportation of 2. n. The practicalities of collecting this data are daunting. and Level 2. Since this gap falls in the early Achaemenid Empire. For a bibliography of his writings. and 2 The Persian period at Al Mina is represented by three architectural levels. or even private houses5.2. These warehouses are rectangular in plan. BC (Robertson 1940: 21: Taylor 1959: 92. and Snodgrass 2000: 403-410. has been suggested by F. assuming that it did occur. The architecture consists of large buildings. n. for a later dating of the start of Level 4. Many others have written on Al Mina. similar but not identical in plan. 10-5 (for a recent bibliography. much controversy has surrounded exactly what was found at Al Mina. Woolley believed Al Mina was in use during that time (1938: 21). is controversial. The indefatigable John Boardman had already identified Al Mina as providing key evidence for early Greek contacts with the Near East and begun his now numerous publications on the site4 (see. Perreault 1986: 146). that Woolley identified as warehouses. later Level 5. the lack of a comprehensive ceramic report has been keenly felt. see Lehman 1996: 172174). 27a. ca. based on finds of coins and Attic pottery. 1952-1999. The Persian period at Al Mina: Levels 4. The overall town plan is regular. Nonetheless. but it does not (Woolley 1959: 163). might well indicate some important shift in the commercial relations between the Aegean and North Syria. in the UK. A gap in occupation of Al Mina. the site was entering the archaeological discourse in a major way. and the US. reconstruction on 157. and Levels 3 and 2 are successive rebuildings of it (Woolley 1938: 133-150). But preparing an authoritative report is made all the more difficult because the finds were distributed among several sponsoring institutions. 1999a for the broad perspective. Fig. Because early Attic black-figure. 1959: 163-164. Prag. Level 4 sets the model. its length and causes are of interest to us. was found at Sabouni. 4c. The character of the three Persian levels is similar. 6). Braemer. 5 An interpretation of these buildings as private houses. as well as the site’s home base.850 captives from Cilicia (Vanderhooft 1999: ch. the Antakya Museum. have dated that end earlier. 430-375 BC. others. 520-430 BC. not yet published (Perreault 1993: 65. A gap in finds occurs below Level 4. the degree of change between the two levels suits an abandonment of the site for some 30 or even 80 years. to ca. 1999b. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . The date of the end of the earlier Level 5. and the frustration of arguing from incomplete evidence lingers on. 4 Boardman has also written extensively about Greek-Persian relations. especially on the early levels. most recently. Fig. pottery datable from his 30-year gap. The relevant material from Al Mina. 4-2 (from earlier to later). with rooms arranged on three sides around a central court that opens directly onto the street (= the fourth side) (Woolley 1959: plan on 156. although. part of the larger world of Babylonian and then Persian concerns with the Mediterranean region. as of 1993. This explanation would be more persuasive if the architecture of Level 4 repeated that of Level 5. not warehouses. Woolley's dates for them. Australia. with streets crossing at right angles. A local decline is also possible.

are best attested in Level 3. stressing the Levantine or Phoenician features of the early settlement Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . Woolley had fully conditioned his readers to accept this conclusion (see Waldbaum 1997: 2-4)." he wrote. Graham (1986). and reed matting (Woolley 1938: 10-11. nothing in the material or literary record proved conclusively that the town was Greek. A few buildings of Levels 3 and 2 (but not 4) have tombs beneath the floors. Waldbaum 1997: 3). 24-26. with mudbrick superstructures. What has been contested is Woolley's view that Al Mina was a Greek town. and by devoting space to arguing for the identity of Al Mina as the ancient town known as Poseideion. IV. 1959: 155) The functions of the warehouse rooms. Moreover. though. and one result of future excavations and surveys will surely be to amplify the role of this region in the Persian and Mediterranean economy. The indicators seemed clear. branches. these buildings may have been residences. local pottery imitated Attic shapes. constructed of mud clay on a base of poles. for daily life matters. stone sarcophagi or stone-lined cists. pl. by assigning the Greek pottery as the subjects of the first separate reports by specialists. Woolley 1959: 166). Although certain non-Greek items. "At Al Mina. whereas only coins of small denominations. for example (1938: 155-157). This architectural plan has not been found elsewhere in the Achaemenid Empire. however.7 17b – but evidence for an upper floor was not attested during the excavations. locally produced lekythoi another. ca. Such finds have been interpreted as the stock of merchants. The interpretation of Al Mina as a Phoenician establishment is widespread. This view is now challenged. the handling of the trade can scarcely have been done by others than Greeks or Levantines of Greek origin" (1938: 15-16). as indeed in earlier times: foundations of naturally shaped stones. Woolley's view of the essentially commercial function of Al Mina Levels 4-2 has not been contested (but see my footnote 4).2). and so on (Woolley 1938: 11-12. so roofs must have been flat. where the foreign trade was exclusively with Greece. For example. a burial practice seen in much earlier Ugaritian houses. oil or wine jars filled one room. such as Egyptian glass amulets and Syrian/Mesopotamian weights. Because this level was destroyed by a fire. a site located in a higher. at Sabouni. demonstrated the international nature of the trade (1938: 157-168). For A. No roofing tiles were found. although it has loose correspondences with storage buildings at Minet el-Beida. Of the coinage found. as Waldbaum has noted. Woolley believed that most people lived elsewhere. Each room was typically devoted to the storage of one particular type of object. Perreault agrees. came from regional mints (Robinson 1937. The mudbrick has been poorly preserved. on the unstated assumption that a person would not be buried beneath a warehouse. by publishing his reports in the Journal of Hellenic Studies. Taylor was the first to publicize the Levantine (Cypriot and Syrian) aspects of the site (1959). more healthy spot than the marshy land at the river's mouth (1938: 13). We might wish to know more about the trade network in which it played a part. and thus show the commercial function of the buildings (1938: 13). 375 BC. J. In general. the key objects were Greek. Attic silver tetradrachms made up the large denominations. Certain standard construction techniques were used in these levels. and buildings with the court/fourth side partially closed that are attested in the South Levant (Nunn 2000: 517-518). determined by their contents. Thus. a rich harvest of objects was preserved in situ. The imported pottery during the Persian period was Attic. used for the largescale purchases. "These merchants must have been Greeks.

we can no longer this of this as a “Classical Greek” settlement. and the burials under the floors that recall Ugaritic practice. The Attic pottery imports need not have been handled exclusively by Athenians. the nearest large Phoenician settlement (1987: 261-263). give only a Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . Elayi avows that her case is strongest for Level 3. the inscriptions are. Only one of the warehouses of Level 3. they were common currency throughout the eastern Mediterranean. This important publication made credible the interpretation of Al Mina during the Persian period as a Phoenician center. or a mix (Elayi 1987: 257). not so well preserved. Gözlü Kule (Tarsus) As known from historical sources. a Levantine center. perhaps we should fall back on the more moderate position of Jane Waldbaum (1997): the population of Al Mina and similar towns was ethnically mixed (for an affirmation of the mixed Greek and Phoenician components of trade in Syria. Elayi proposes a significant increase in the Phoenicians presence in the town and the region in the later 5th c. Building H. on the Persian period. some Aramaic. Kroll 2001. for contemporary Egypt). one needs to distinguish carefully between different levels. The ethnic affiliations of the earliest residents of Al Mina might have been quite different from those of later centuries. Tarsus was the important regional center during the Achaemenid Persian period. The potential for a rich reflection in the archaeological record is thus high. like the dollar today (1987: 256-257. the high percentage of Greek pottery from the early levels leaves no doubt. eventually. Indeed. The letter forms give a date range of late 5th . too (1987: 256). Elayi. see Lehmann 1996: 312-315. The case for Levels 4-2 as Phoenician has been best articulated by Josette Elayi (1987). In this debate. Called “Greek” by Woolley (1938: 15).4th centuries BC. suggest a strong connection with that city. Phoenicians traded it. but one would feel more secure in evaluating her interpretation (and in comparing and contrasting Level 3 with adjacent Levels 4 and 2) if all available finds (pottery included) were properly published. scholars such as Boardman and Kearsley continue to favor the view that the site was founded and inhabited by Greeks (Boardman 2002. Likewise for the Attic silver tetradrachms. focusing exclusively. Accordingly. the distinctive features are not so clear. The fractional coins. had exclusively Greek items. claims that the excavated finds do not simply cast doubt on the Greekness of the town. from which come the coins. almost entirely Semitic. Nonetheless. but in fact clearly indicate its Phoenician character. instead. see Lehmann 1998: 32). used by all ethnic groups. unlike Graham. the remains from Gözlü Kule. Level 4 has some Phoenician finds. not the Persian (1999b: 139). Kearsley 1999). key for the interpretation of the Persian period levels was the publication by Bron and Lemaire of the inscriptions. with illustrations (for the currently established corpus for Levels 4-2. Until this happens. A town founded by Greeks could very well have become. the only archaeological excavations that have touched on the Persian period. However. Level 2. she finds difficult to interpret.8 (Perreault 1993: 60-68). with references to his catalogue of shapes 358-512). of which a large number came from Arados. the others had local products only. Elayi may well be correct. most Phoenician. this would correspond with Level 3 (Bron and Lemaire 1983: 677-678). graffiti scratched on sherds (1983). the inscriptions. Although Boardman recently labeled Levels 4-2 as the "Classical" levels. For the previous and subsequent levels. for them. 4d. (1987: 266). A more restricted dating of late 5th-early 4th was suggested by the black glaze sherds on which the inscriptions were incised.

these centuries are referred to as the "Hellenic period" (Goldman 1950: 29. one of her stated aims. Jones in Goldman 1950: 149-296). when the city was clearly an important place (Goldman 1963: 143). Only 22 sherds could be attributed to these centuries. Current excavations in the center of the modern city have shown that to be the case for at least parts of Roman Tarsus.9 modest sample of the material culture. Hanfmann wondered why this should be. Zincirli. But he does not explain why the Persians would not take advantage of such installations and simply occupy them in turn. with a main east-west street and. and Turkey (Colophon) (Thompson et al. This settlement follows the plan established by the preceding level. Although the purpose of the excavations at Gözlü Kule was the “establishing of the cultural sequence in Cilicia of prehistoric times” (Goldman 1935: 528). Persian Tarsus may well be buried deep under meters of river-born silt. he speculated that perhaps the Persian conquerors required the locals to give up fortified positions on high places such as Gözlü Kule (Hanfmann 1956: 166-167.30 Attic sherds dated to 550-330 BC). imported plain black glazed ware and imported decorated pottery (Goldman 1950: 5. in Greece (Halae and Eutresis). presented above). would have been in existence at the beginning of Achaemenid rule (Goldman 1963: 11-14. she had excavated at sites with both classical and Bronze Age remains. however. her last and largest field project. 4d. smaller streets at right angles. The site is best known for its Bronze Age remains (Goldman 1956). 150). and in Goldman 1963: 21. in the Amuq. Hanfmann in Goldman 1963: 18-332: and F. the fashion typical for the region (Goldman 1963: 11). there was a gap in occupation of some 200 years. Iron Age and Roman architecture. off it. Goldman’s interests were wide-ranging. such as Karatepe. 600-530/520 BC. Current excavations in Tarsus: a Roman street and. is less impressive.1. 21." with mud-brick superstructures. Under the direction of Hetty Goldman. The Persian city center was surely located elsewhere. The last of the Iron Age architectural levels.. 210-212. Thanks to the excellent publications of the results. it seems clear that she was prepared to deal fairly with whatever periods might appear in the trenches. Noting a similar gap in material evidence at nearby Yumuk Tepe (Mersin) (see below). 29. Uncovering evidence about the Persian period was not. Indeed. 1974). undertaken in 1934 in Syria and Cilicia by Emil Forrer (Albright 1935: 146. before Tarsus. as yet to be discovered – although like ancient Antioch. G. It was selected for excavation by Bryn Mawr College after a inspection tour of sites. including some soundings. one thinks first of sites to the east. Konya). 145). again. but in 1963: 153 -. The Persian period is poorly represented at Gözlü Kule. Gözlü Kule quickly became a type-site for the region (Goldman 1950. Gözlü Kule Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . revealed by the on-going excavations of Levent Zoroğlu (Selçuk University. and for the reports on the pottery of the Iron Age and the Hellenistic-Roman periods (respectively. Yugoslavia (Starčevo). and buildings made of "low foundations of large and small stones laid at random. from the late 6thlate 4th centuries BC (Goldman 1963: 11. dated to ca. although recorded. 1956. The Roman city is now much better represented by the magnificent basalt street and adjacent shops. excavations were carried out from 1935-1939 and 1947-1949. Goldman 1935: 526). 150-152. 145). and 1963). 36. Gözlü Kule is a large mound located on the south-west edge of the center of modern Tarsus. After this. 23. and Carchemish (as well as Tell Tayinat. 20. 23). For Iron Age architecture and sculpture.

1938: 20-22). Only a few sherds of the 5th-4th centuries BC were identified (Garstang 1939-40a. the Persians per se were not of interest for him. Gjerstad. work has recently resumed there under the direction of Aslı Özyar of Boğaziçi University. and from Adana south to Karataş on the Mediterranean coast (1934). by John Garstang. the director of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition of 1927-1931. with Garstang. The prime aim of this new series of excavations will be the clarification of problems concerning the Bronze Age. Istanbul. Barnett 1939-40: 127-130). 4e. from the 4th c. Garstang came to Yümük Tepe by a surprising turn of events. but Garstang also found “some possibly Persian wares” in his Trench C. Garstang wrote movingly about this fate: "When civil disturbance made it necessary to choose another spot. I formed the impression that the fertile plain of Cilicia in southern Turkey. had endowed a research expedition in Palestine ('Bible Lands'). a depth that discourages a look for remains from several hundred years earlier. as director. But the street is already many meters below modern ground level. the result. according to Garstang. shut off as it was by the great ranges of Taurus from the Anatolian plateau and by bold Amanus from northern Syria while open to the Mediterranean Sea. a mound on the outskirts of the modern city of Mersin. there is a long-lasting gap in occupation at the site. a large step trench (1937: 64-66. during a survey in Cilicia. although it has Iron Age deposits. Compelled to find a new site. Garstang began work in 1935 at Tell Keisan. the site has yielded few remains of the Persian period. Sirkeli is notable for a rock relief of the Hittite king Muwatalli. Level III is dated to the 7th-6th centuries BC (Barnett 1939-40: 99). including Sirkeli.10 Reference has already been made to the ongoing excavations of a Roman street and adjacent shops and other buildings. from Anamur east to Misis. Yumuk Tepe is best known for its prehistoric sequence. was looking for connections with Cyprus. The site had been visited earlier by E. of the prominence of the nearby city of Soloi/Pompeiopolis (1939-40b: 90-91). and I had always wished to investigate its past" (Garstang 1953: 1). But Yumuk Tepe was the project’s key site. in northern Palestine. seemed designed by nature for a history of its own. and why. a specialist in the Hittites and the Ancient Near East. Yumuk Tepe (Mersin) The last of the excavation projects begun before World War II was carried out at Yumuk (Yümük) Tepe. Gjerstad in 1930. a project that began when digging for a multi-storied underground car park hit interesting things (Zoroğlu 1996). AD. a wealthy gentleman from Chicago with an interest in archaeology. and here he excavated from 1936-1939 and again in 1946-47. with rooms arranged on three sides of a small Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . Like Gözlü Kule (Tarsus). he answered in the Introduction to his final report: "During my early journeys of exploration in Anatolia. dipping down into the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. As for Gözlü Kule. Francis Neilson. he settled on Yumuk Tepe. leftovers from the Goldman excavations. destroyed by fire. dating from 1904. BC to the 8th c. After this. I found myself responsible for carrying out at the age of sixty what I had longed to do thirty years before" (1943: 1). he continued in 1936-37 with soundings at a handful of sites. a professor at the University of Liverpool. After a preliminary survey in 1936. but was forced to stop because of civil disturbances. east of Adana. Iron Age and earlier. The architectural remains tentatively attributed to Level III consist only of a small house. What exactly he had wanted to do. but no architectural level could be assigned to this period.

especially) and III was published by Barnett (1939-40. and 252. opened onto a gravel-paved street (Lloyd 1939-40: 97. On a larger.tr). XVIV. although not nearly so neat in its lines (see above). In this section. organized by the Ministry of Culture. Most recently. But if I have read the scales correctly. and thus the scientific impact of a project cannot be fully evaluated. the inventory of sites being established by the TAY Project (begun in 1993) has already made a huge contribution for prehistoric periods.1. 5. fig.edu. our region now hosts a lively roster of archaeological projects. 15m long. the trajectory of research has not been completed. 8. required that every project present a public summary of its results (KST and AST). Local pottery of Level III was not published.g. now under the direction of Veli Sevin (Istanbul University) and Isabella Caneva (University of Rome). the Mersin house is. The newer Department of Archaeology at Mustafa Kemal University. country-wide scale. The annual Symposium of Excavations and Research. paved with gravel. more and more. The aim is to amplify the findings of Garstang. The treatment will be less detailed than in the earlier part of this paper. considerably bigger than the Al Mina examples (e. because with few exceptions. and now. The courtyard. and pl.mersin. The Greek pottery from Levels IV (8th c. projects are begun for a variety of reasons: interest in a particular period or sub-region.95m). 4e. BC. comments reproduced in Garstang 1953: 253. An additional goal is to reach out to the public by creating an archaeological park (Sevin and Caneva 1995). to amplify our understanding of settlement at Yumuk Tepe in the 7th-6th centuries BC. Archaeological projects begun after World War II After a fairly quiet start in the 1940s through the 1980s. especially concerning chronology. Levels 4-2. also Garstang 1953: 253-255). This plan looks very much like the “commercial” buildings at Al Mina. and Archaeological Reports have been invaluable. It is a pity that more architecture was not found. we shall examine projects begun after World War II. Newsletters in the American Journal of Archaeology. since 1979. information about archaeological activities in Cilicia and Hatay have come from various sources.25 x 5. with outer walls ca. with Sevin exploring the Iron Age settlements and Caneva the Neolithic. The establishment in the early 1990s of the Department of Classical Archaeology at Mersin University and its allied Research Center for Cilician Archaeology with its journal.11 courtyard. both renewed work at previously active sites (noted above) and new projects. Antakya. the need to protect the region’s cultural heritage as industry. House E of Al Mina Level III measures ca. has proved a great stimulus for regional research (web site: http://kaam. most projects are still on-going: excavations continue and final publications have not yet appeared. one hopes for comparable treatment of first millennium BC sites. the chance find of important objects that demand further research. Olba.. promises to do the same for research in Hatay province. has. the Achaemenid Persian period has played a minor role in the Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . and urban centers develop. 159). tourism and holiday facilities. excavations resumed at Yumuk Tepe in 1993. Also as in earlier times. with a small amount of Cypriot from Levels VI-III presented in Garstang 1953 (256-257). Anatolian Studies. As in earlier times. In such cases. New excavations at Yumuk Tepe (Mersin) After a hiatus of 45 years.

in late 1951 and in April-November 1952. 1970). have conducted surveys. however. surface surveys will not be an important source of information about Cilicia and Hatay in the Achaemenid centuries. in Rough Cilicia. with only a few distinctive types as yet well known (notably Attic imports or imitations. More specifically focused surveys have included the Greek/Roman epigraphic surveys in 1961-1968 of George Bean and Timothy Mitford (1962. With the exceptions of Tobin’s work and ODAP. “The Persian Period” (1954: 138-139). Arık. Nonetheless. from Mersin west to Miletus. this attention paid to the Persians in the archaeological record represents an important moment in Cilician archaeology. Soon after. also looking. high in the Taurus Mountains. and reviewed archaeological research in the Hatay (1944: 355-384). at the west end of our region. Attic black glazed pottery. In her conclusion. the Amuq Valley Regional Project and the Orontes Delta Archaeological Project. researchers would certainly respond with interest. and certain East Greek ceramics. Although he began in Smooth Cilicia in 1949 (Gough 1952). O. labelled exactly that. Results from stratigraphical excavations could change this situation. mentioned above. Steadman 1994). In general. but she included later sites as well. a member of Garstang’s original team at Yumuk Tepe. via Adana. In Smooth Cilicia. 5a. he moved westward in ensuing years. explaining the region’s antiquity for a Turkish readership. the exploration of quite different periods has inspired survey work. as did SetonWilliams. by making pottery shapes and decoration of the period better known. citing only Levantine green wares. Surface surveys. Seton-Williams. in recent years. In the Hatay. for prehistoric sites. Her purpose was to record pre-classical sites. Seton-Williams was the first to report Persian period findings in a separate section. Surface surveys have taken place sporadically since the 1940s. 550-300 BC is difficult to recognize. But if excavation and survey were to provide abundant evidence for the period 550-300 BC. and thus easier to identify when collected during survey. The first scholar active in the area after World War II was Michael Gough. because pottery from ca. Classical (esp.12 development of research projects. new information about pre-classical sites has been the main hope of these projects. the tradition Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . This project still remains a fundamental inventory of sites. even a half century after it was carried out. his research regularly reported in Anatolian Studies. an area largely untouched by Seton-Williams (Özgen and Gates 1992. described the ancient landscape as he journeyed in 1942 from Ankara to Belen. in Smooth and Rough Cilicia as well as in the Hatay. surveyed the Cilician Plain in June-July 1951 (1954). and Onurkan 1967). The section is short. In contrast. with Jennifer Tobin amplifying in 1994 Bilkent’s examination of the late Roman coastal site of Küçük Burnaz (Tobin 1995). Rosenbaum. also diagnostic sherds from certain amphora types). along the coast and then up into the mountains. In addition to this larger distinction. 1965. V. R. Subsequent surveys in Rough Cilicia have also featured Hellenistic and Roman remains (eg. He is best known for his excavations at the 5th-7th monastery complex at Alahan. Huber. Cilicia formed but one sector of the survey (Mellaart 1954: 175-178). Later surveys include a 1991 exploration by a team from Bilkent University along the north coast of the Gulf of Iskenderun. Roman) and Late antique/Early Byzantine remains were his main interest. she notes having found “little material evidence for the Persian period” (1954: 145). James Mellaart surveyed a huge area.

1959-1964. the Iron Age sculpture workshop at Yesemek (1974).ecn. The initial aim of this survey was to look for traces of the Cilician pirates who. This larger region. The first major project to begin in the postWW II period was the exploration of Karatepe. 1998). site preservation. pre-classical. 13967 BC. later by E. this project still continues. according to ancient literary sources. full-scale excavations began in the fall.purdue. has the wish to illuminate the Achaemenid Persian period been the inspiring force. pre-Persian even: the Iron Age and Bronze Age. the report was investigated. in the heartland of the Neo-Hittite kingdoms. R. Although the pirates have been elusive. Sayar. Lindley Vann has examined the coast of both Cilicias for ancient harbors (1992). 5c. for the later Middle Ages. He then excavated at two sites east of the Amanus Mountain. both important Iron Age sites. and Üçağızlı cave. Edwards presents the many castles that line the entire Cilician coast. South-east Cilicia and coastal Hatay6: Kinet Höyük The coastal Hatay also contains important Paleolithic sites. Tilmen Hüyük. Güleç and S. and other structures of Rough Cilicia (1989. In none of these projects. 500 BC at Selinus. 5b. and. recording architectural and other finds regardless of period. with annual reports: http://pasture. first. see also Blanton 2000). with a particular interest in ancient road systems (1965). is of particular interest for its Bronze Age remains. the project has carried out full-scale intensive survey in an area in westernmost Rough Cilicia. 1964-1968 (Alkım 1969).” Begun in 1996. in these projects in east Cilicia / north Hatay. Helmut Bossert (a professor of pre-classical Anatolian languages and civilizations) and colleagues from Istanbul University were investigating possible Iron Age routes from Kayseri (on the Anatolian plateau) across the Taurus Mountains to south-east Turkey/north Syria. Tilmen Hüyük. such as caves near Mağracık explored in the late 1950s-1960s by M. the heartland of the Neo-Hittite kingdoms. “The Rough Cilicia Archaeological Survey Project. excavated in the 1990s-present by. towers.edu/~rauhn. under the direction of Halet Çambel. A problem of early Roman/Hellenistic history set in motion the largest and longest lasting of the surveys. North-east Cilicia and north Hatay: Karatepe and Tilmen Hüyük Let us turn now to excavations. A few fragments of pottery dating to the Persian centuries have been collected: “Phoenician” amphora rims of ca. to the south-east of Karatepe. had seen excavation during the late 19th century at Zincirli and in 1908 and 1911 at Sakçagözü. the magisterial work of R. and publication have continued to the present day. and Gedikli. then. Among other examples. Minzoni-Déroche. although a multi-period site. A. In 1946 and 1947. One of Bossert's early associates was U. Serra Durugönül has explored rural rock reliefs. In late 1945.13 of epigraphic survey has been taken up by Mustafa H. Thus. from the start. and survey work was conducted at the site. Kuhn. under the direction of Nicholas Rauh and Luann Wandsnider (website. the interest was. Bahadır Alkım. Also a specialist in Anatolian Bronze and Iron Ages. in the area of İslahiye (eastern Cilicia / north Hatay). from the coast inland. and a basket handled amphora handle. Research. established their home base in this region in the later Hellenistic period. Şenyürek and others. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted 6 . he eventually conducted his own survey. an early Iron Age site located in the forested foothills of north-east Cilicia. and explored a third. with inland examples as well (1987). A report reached them of a lion monument seen near Kadirli. 1947 (Alkım 1948).

also a Near Eastern archaeologist. Mopsus. of which the southern example was still covered with traces of painted plaster. Iron Age. But the site’s excavator. attracted by the link. 550-450 BC. Chian. with towers or buttresses included. summarizing findings from 1992-1997). 450-400/early 4th century BC). Period 3 has also been exposed on the north and east. but the many amphora fragments found in 4A suggest a warehouse or other commercial activity. Period 4. gravel.-H. with only a brief Crusader-period reoccupation. The Achaemenid Persian period (Late Iron Age. B. and Solokha I – belong to the Cypro-Levantine and east/south-east Aegean. Marie-Henriette Gates. the specialist in BA and IA Anatolia. However. The elegance of this Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . A long gap ensued. in the late 12th-early 14th centuries. Period 5. The amphora types represented – such as basket-handled. the earliest.14 This region contains Kinet Höyük. resuming work where Garstang had left off before World War II (Hrouda 1997). The foundation of a single course of large limestone blocks. with the transitional BA/IA hero. was covered with cement-like mortar and. Phase III: 1) duly takes its place in this long sequence (C. cut flush on top but left irregular in the invisible sections below. Levels 3B and 3A. in contrast. is still shadowy. one of the important sources of archaeological evidence about the Achaemenid Persian period. attested at Karatepe where he had previously worked. was marked at the end by upright limestone blocks. the site is multi-period. all found on the west side of the mound. and 3 (this last reaching into Early Hellenistic). Like others in this region. saw dramatic changes.-H. 1961: 80). Period 3. Hrouda. and speak of trade connections between Kinet Hoyuk and the larger eastern Mediterranean world in the second half of the Achaemenid Empire. The function of these rooms is unclear. 5m wide.D. in particular in the second millennium BC (M. and Hellenistic-Roman. she hoped for information on connections between the Mediterranean world and the inland Near East. and the LBA has not been particularly forthcoming. Predecessors included H. Gates 1994). including EB-MB. red (west face) and yellow (north face). with only fragments of stone wall foundations. and little was learned about earlier periods (Mellink 1956: 376-377. did not begin this project in order to learn more about the Persians. In 1992. although so far out of context) through the mid-first century BC. has yielded substantial and coherent architectural plans of rooms. The site was inhabited from at least the Early Bronze Age (with Halaf sherds found as well. Hrouda began a new campaign at Sirkeli. she hoped for illumination of the Bronze Age. A new city wall was built around the mound in the early fourth century BC: stone foundations. surely was hoping that the rock relief of Muwatalli indicated that good evidence for the Hittites was close at hand. On the west side. Gates 1999: 326). with two levels. above. who excavated at Misis-Mopsouhestia from 1956 until his death in 1961. Excavations began at Kinet Höyük in 1992 (M. But Misis has a substantial Roman and medieval overlay. This gateway. Amphora fragments (of types noted above) and Attic black-glazed sherds have supplied the date (C. the wall connected with the unusually well-built foundations of a grand entrance. Three architectural levels have been identified for this period: Periods 5. with two architectural levels of Late Persian – Early/Middle Hellenistic date. Gates 1999. In selecting Kinet Höyük for excavation. 4B and 4A (ca. Gates herself had studied the mid-second millennium BC Levels VI and V at Alalakh/Tell Atchana for her Ph. and a stone glacis. Bossert. The great scientific value of the site comes from its stratigraphic sequence of hundreds of years of continuous habitation. 4. ca. dissertation. Gates 1999).

This wall system. the third from Rhodes and Achaea. The earliest project was at Anemurium. apparently. 5d. such as pottery.-H. up in the hills. as one would expect. 400 BC for this contruction. Kelenderis (Zoroğlu 1986. it contained few finds. for military purposes. by overlying them. Clearly an important structure. this building is now dated to 400 BC or soon thereafter (M. made reaching them difficult. of course. and Aydınoğlu 2000). Pottery finds. The Roman period is the interest of other researchers as well. Because construction details.-H. Greco-Roman towns explored more recently include (west to east) Nagidos (Durugönül.15 construction is unparalleled elsewhere at Kinet Höyük. such as pottery. initiated in 1965 by E. such as basket-handled amphoras. The Persian period is attested here in fragments. near Kilis. 1997) and at Oylum Höyük. Like Anemurium. The circuit wall has also appeared on the north sıde of the mound. these rooms continued in use for some 200 years (M. however. However. but it may be that Hellenistic and Roman reuse of earlier sites has destroyed earlier remains or simply. full analysis of the architecture and the finds. at Elaiussa-Sebaste (Equini Schneider 1999) and. continued in use well into the Hellenistic age. Texts indicate an earlier presence. and Soloi/Pompeiopolis (Yağcı 2001). as on the western side of the mound. A portion of a building with thick mud brick walls was recovered. notably the pottery. Its date in the Persian period is certain. Until now. however. now that beach-front property has become increasingly valuable. Unlike Anemurium. all are on the Mediterranean coast. Work in 1998 and 1999 has amplified our understanding of this section of the fortification and the connected complex of rooms. for specialists in Greek archaeology. have already indicated such early settlement. Gates 2001: 208-210). confirm the dating of ca. with a network of attached rooms. the most tantalizing Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . used. Such projects reflect the interests of the excavators. of excavating at these sites. its function is unknown. little evidence concerning pre-Classical periods has emerged. Although certain coastal sites have yielded such evidence. its architectural form recalls contemporary buildings from inland sites to the north-east. discovered in 1992. only one level attributable to the Persian period has been identified. On the east side of the mound. But this summary should indicate the importance that these stratigraphic excavations of Achaemenid Persian period levels have for our understanding of the region in the years 550-300 BC. at Hacınebi on the Euphrates (McMahon 1996. because of its stratigraphic placement between Period 6 below (mid seventh-early/mid sixth centuries BC) and Early Hellenistic above. and. And. Rough Cilicia and south-west Smooth Cilicia: Meydancık Kalesi Excavations undertaken since World War II in the western part of our area have overwhelmingly concentrated on Classical (and late antique) periods. A secondary reason to excavate such coastal sites is protection of the cultural heritage. the above three were all founded by Greek settlers from the Aegean (the first two from Samos. continued after 1970 well into the 1980s by J. Rosenbaum (Campbell and Russell 1993). Keen 2002: 37). Sporadic finds. an informed discussion of their significance remain to be undertaken. correspond with the architecture of Period 3 discovered on the north side in 1998-1999. such as brick size. a Roman and early Medieval town. Russell (Russell 1980). Olba / Diocaesarea (this last has a pre-Roman past). Durukan. with the important exceptions of Yumuktepe (Mersin) and Gözlü Kule (Tarsus). The above results are preliminary. Gates 2001: 209). 1994). and so offer the promise of remains from the Persian period and indeed earlier in the Iron Age – an attraction.

but dated thanks to an Aramaic inscription. This place appears in Neo-Babylonian chronicles. The Persian period remains are only partly published (Davesne. There should be much more to learn about this exceptional site in the Achaemenid Persian period. The Aramaic inscriptions have supplied an exciting detail. Le Rider and then A. Such details. some 15 km inland as the crow flies. such as pottery. but Laroche forged ahead anyway. Conclusions The Achaemenid Persian period has never been a focus of archaeological research in Cilicia and Hatay. but had been reused in Hellenistic times. Each site presents a different facet of ancient life. Lemaire. Laroche. Achaemenid Persians. Al Mina speaks about commerce. thought Davesne. which has been vocalized as Kirši/Kiršu bîrtâ. and Lozachmeur 1987). Davesne. Davesne speculates that the location had value as a fortified outpost from which both the coast and the timber-rich Taurus Mountains could be patrolled (Davesne. have. and it was burned by Neriglissar in 557 BC (Davesne. and Meydancıkkale. men in procession in manner and style similar to those processing at Persepolis (even if much less well-preserved). king of Pirandu. The citadel was used by Hittites. and Lozachmeur 1987: 361-365. Why? The access is difficult. 7th-6th centuries pre-Persian dynasts. and Lozachmeur 1987: 379-381). Lemaire. fascinating and important as they are. The initial attraction for Hittitologist Laroche was certainly a report of Hittite reliefs. Casabonne 1998: 200-208). 6. Other Persian period finds include the fortified entrance (rebuilt in various periods)(Laroche-Traunecker 1993: 21-25) and a tomb on the west slope of the site. but the descriptions are dramatic: a large rocky plateau ca. meaning the “fortress of Kirši/Kiršu” (Davesne.16 remains from this period come from Meydancıkkale. robbed. today the site lies tortuously off the main road from the coast (Silifke) to the Anatolian plateau (Karaman). One hopes that the material remains will eventually receive the full publication that they merit. it contained a palace. Protection of the site. Lemaire. the ancient name of the site: KRŠ BYRT’. Excavations began in 1971 under the direction of E. and Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . however. Appuašu. Lemaire. they originally came from Building A. BC. have as yet received only passing mention. Kinet Höyük. see also Laroche-Traunecker 1993: 25-28). however. This fortified city belonged to Appuašu. and Lozachmeur 1987. The reliefs turned out to be Persian. Lemaire. Kinet Höyük about commerce and then 4th century BC fortifications. and Hellenistic Lagids and Ptolemies. shifted the study of Iron Age Meydancık from a discourse based on excavated finds to one of text-based history. Meydancıkkale is a fortress on a hilltop. Lemaire. Nonetheless. Laroche-Traunecker 1993. G. was also cited as an aim of the project. 700m high. the combination of all three of great import. The principal publication so far has been of a spectacular coin hoard of the 3rd c. managed to escape. Other finds. Davesne continued the work from 1981 until 1997 (Laroche and Davesne 1981. Attention has focused on blocks with relief sculpture. 750 x 150m. and eventually found Hittite reliefs. I have not visited the site. the large building at the south end of the site (Davesne. and Lozachmeur 1987: 379). Three sites in particular have yielded significant information: Al Mina. Perhaps. material remains from the period have been recovered in certain excavations and surveys. which makes the contribution of each valuable. and Lozachmeur 1987: 377). threatened by natural forces and by locals in search of building stone. and from those documents we learn more. These blocks were not found in situ.

Map of sites to come later) References cited: Albright. Syria-Palestine. and the Upper Euphrates basin in particular. W. D.B. but with relief sculptures that suggest grander connections with imperial authority. the evidence recovered from these sites has not yet been fully published. Persian Tarsus. that means the distant future). which we would love to see. 2003. F. ----. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted .” in Garstang 1939-40b: 98-130. Alkım.” AJA 39: 137-148. the potential of these research projects has thus not yet been realized." Archaeology 22: 280-289. However.” Belleten 8: 341-384. ----. U. Arık. The finds of Al Mina Levels 4-2 still need systematic attention. New Light on the Historical Geography and Archaeology. (1939-40) “The Greek Pottery. TR-06800 Ankara (First version:April. R. where excavations continue. (1948) "Karatepe Kazısı/Excavations at Karatepe.17 Meydancıkkale also about regional defense. Other sites have as yet yielded bits and pieces. Such publications will advance greatly our understanding of this region and of its connections with Cyprus. Transjordan.(1974) Yesemek Taşocağı ve Heykel Atelyesinde yapılan Kazı ve Araştırmalar. [Excavation and Research in the Yesemek Quarry and Sculpture Workshop]. 249-255 (English)." Belleten 12: 241248 (Turkish).(1965) "The Road from Sam'al to Asitawandawa. and Syria. ----. (1935) “Archaeological Research in Palestine. but the potential for more substantial evidence is always there: in the Amuq Plain and at the coastal towns founded by Greeks in pre-Classical times.(1969) "The Amanus Region in Turkey. the chances of exposing it are slim. must lie buried deep in silt. R. of Archaeology and History of Art. Charles Gates Bilkent University. O." Anadolu Araştırmaları 2: 145. Final reports from the other two sites should appear in due course (for Kinet Höyük. Ankara: General Directorate of Monuments and Museums. Ministry of Culture. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Press. Barnett. (1944) “1942 de Türk Tarih Kurumu adına yapılan Bitik kazısı ve Hatay tetkikleri hakkında kısa rapor [A short report about excavations at Bitik conducted in 1942 under the aegis of the Turkish Historical Society and about investigations in the Hatay]. Dept. AST = Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı.

(1999a) The Greeks Overseas. London: Thames and Hudson. Tsetskhladze (ed). J. D. J." in G. Sueidia. Phases A-J. (1937) Mounds in the Plain of Antioch: An Archeological Survey. Bron. S. Breasted. Campbell. pp. E. (1983) "Inscriptions d'Al-Mina. Casabonne. (1939) "Excavations at al Mina. O. Roma." JHS 59: 1-44. ----. H.” AJA 97: 565-566." Ancient West and East 1: 315-331. and Braidwood. ----. Roman and Byzantine Settlement Patterns of the Coast Lands of Western Rough Cilicia. Oxford: BAR/Archaeopress. and Lozachmeur. 677-686. The Red-figured Vases. Blanton. ----. B. R. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. F. and Russell. (1998) La Cilicie à l’époque achéménide. Davesne.” CRAI 1987: 359-382." AnatSt 12: 185-217. H.18 Bean. G. Braidwood. (1960) Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. A. Ph. and Lemaire. R. pp. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Köln: Brill. 1921-1992. T. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Université de Toulouse-le Mirail. E. and Mitford. Ancient Greeks West and East. dissertation. 135-161. E. (1997) “The City-Kingdoms of Early Iron Age Cyprus in Their Eastern Mediterranean Context. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . Boardman.(1970) Journeys in Rough Cilicia 1964-1968. ----. and Herscher.D. Buitron-Oliver. Leiden. 5-10 Novembre 1979. Braidwood. J. Beazley. J. D.. (1962) "Sites Old and New in Rough Cilicia. S. I: The Earlier Assemblages.(1999b) "The Excavated History of Al Mina. R.” BASOR 308: 5-7. (2000) Hellenistic. Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. A. Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. (1987) “Le site archéologique de Meydancıkkale (Turquie): du royaume de Pirindu à la garnaison ptolémaïque. R." in Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici. J..(1965) Journeys in Rough Cilicia in 1962 and 1963. (1993) “Elisabeth Alföldi-Rosenbaum. (1933) The Oriental Institute. L. J. Lemaire. III. A.(2002) "Al Mina: The Study of a Site. Boston. 4th edn.

(1938) “Explorations in Cilicia.” LivAAA 25: 12-23. Fantalkin. J. I: The Excavations of 1932. and Jasink. (1937) “Explorations in Cilicia. (1961) A History of Antioch in Syria: from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Bunnens (ed) Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. W. 327-348. M.” LivAAA 26: 38-50. ----. E. Ü. S.(1939-40a) “Explorations in Cilicia. The Neilson Expedition: Preliminary Report II. (2000) “1998 Yılı Nagidos (Bozyazı) Kazı Çalışmaları. G.) (1934) Antioch-on-the-Orontes. and Aydınoğlu. Turin: Casa Editrice Le Lettere. Washington. A. P. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . (1987) The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia. Garstang." in E.(1998) Türme und Siedlungen im Rauhen Kilikien: eine Untersuchung zu den archäologischen Hinterlassenschaften im Olbischen Territorium. LouvainParis-Sterling. (1927) Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale. (1989) Die Felsreliefs im Rauhen Kilikien. J. The Neilson Expedition: Preliminary Report.(2000) “Les sites phéniciens de Syrie au Fer III/Perse: Bilan et perspectives de recherche. (ed. VA: Peeters Press.: Dumbarton Oaks. D. R. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Oxford: BAR. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Studia Phoenicia V: Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B. pp.” LivAAA 24: 52-66. Elderkin. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (1987) "Al-Mina sur l'Oronte à l'époque perse. Lipinski (ed). Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. (1990) Cilicia. Dall’età di Kizzuwatna alla conquista macedone. Edwards. pp.C. Equini Schneider. Durugönül. The Neilson Expedition: Fourth Interim Report.. Dussaud. A.” [“Excavations at Nagidos (Bozyazı) in 1998”] KST 21/2: 283-292..” in G.19 Desideri. (ed) (1999) Elaiussa Sebaste I: Campagne di scavo 1995-1997. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Excavations at Mersin: 1938-39. Proceedings of the Conference held in Leuven from the 14th to the 16th of November 1985. ----. (2001) “Low Chronology and Greek Protogeometric and Geometric Pottery in the Southern Levant.” Levant 33: 117-125. Durugönül. S. 249-266.C. ----. Durukan. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Elayi. M. G. Downey. Parts I and II (concluded). ----. R.

" Revue Archéologique 3 (6e série): 155-203.bilkent." AnatSt 2: 85-150. Gough. Tarsus.” LivAAA 26: 89-158. The Neilson Expedition: Fifth Interim Report. August 31-September 4.(ed) (1950) Excavations at Gözlü Kule. II (Text and Plates): From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. ----. Gjerstad. Princeton: Princeton University Press.(2001) “1999 Excavations at Kinet Höyük (Yeşil-Dörtyol. Oxford: Gates." in J. J. (1934) "Cilician Studies. Part III. Excavations at Mersin: 1938-39. Tarsus.(1974) "The Stratification at Al Mina (Syria) and its Chronological Evidence. C. Melander (eds).” Olba 2: 303-312.(1999) “Kinet Höyük in Eastern Cilicia: A Case Study for Acculturation in Ancient Harbors.tr/~jast/Number4/Gates. M. The Iron Age: Post-Hittite Periods. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . (1994) “1992 Excavations at Kinet Höyük (Dörtyol/Hatay). 1935.(1956) Excavations at Gözlü Kule.(1999) “Kinet Höyük 1992-1997: The Achaemenid Persian and Hellenistic Periods.” Journal of American Studies of Turkey 4: 47-68.(1943) "The Discoveries at Mersin and their Significance. Hatay). Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek and Thorvaldsens Museum. ----(1953) Prehistoric Mersin: Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. ----.” Olba 2: 323-332. [http://www. (1935) “Preliminary Expedition to Cilicia.” KST 22/1: 203-222. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tarsus. W.-H. H. ----. and Excavations at Gözlü Kule. Gates." Acta Archaeologica 45: 107-123. ----.(1939-40b) “Excavations in Cilicia. The Late and Middle Bronze Ages: Imperial Hittite and Cilician-Hittite Periods." AJA 47: 1-14. ----.edu. E. M. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Part IV.html] ----.” KST 15/1: 193-200. Copenhagen.” AJA 39: 526-549. 1934. Gill. I (Text and Plates): The Hellenistic and Roman Periods. ----. (1996) “American Archaeologists in Turkey: Intellectual and Social Dimensions. 175-185. (1952) "Anazarbus. pp. 1987. ----. Christiansen and T. III (Text and Plates): The Iron Age. The Historic Periods. Clarendon Press. Tarsus. Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery. (1988) "The Distribution of Greek Vases and Long Distance Trade. D.20 ----.(ed) (1963) Excavations at Gözlü Kule. Goldman.

Kondoleon.” CRAI 1981: 356-370. H. 109-134. Kuhrt. II: The Structural Remains of the Later Phases. Moretti (eds). Hrouda. Graham 2001: 67-81. (1993) “Les édifices d’époque archaïque et gréco-perse de Medancıkkale (Gülnar). Pisidia) and their Civic Identity: The ‘Interface’ Between the Hellenic and the Barbarian Polis. NY: J. A.-C. Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman on the Occasion of her Seventy-fifth Birthday. S. Laroche.C. E. Kearsley. Ministry of Culture. A. R. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. J. A.” in Tsetskhladze and Snodgrass 2002: 27-40.D. Ankara: General Directorate of Monuments and Museums. Leiden. Weinberg (ed).” pp. Locust Valley. and Tell Ta‘yinat. des Courtıls and J.C. Pamphylia. C. pp. Boston. Princeton: Princeton Krogman. Kroll. G. Al Mina and Assyrian Imperialism. Köln: Brill.” in G." DHA 12: 51-65." in S. Hanfmann. to the Mid-Seventh Century.” Belleten 13: 407-477. Les grands ateliers d’architecture dans le monde égéen du VIe siècle av. Chatal Hüyük. Syria. from the Late Fifth Millennium B. University Press and Worcester Art Museum. W. (2002) “Greek Contact with the Levant and Mesopotamia in the First Half of the First Millennium BC: A View from the East. J.” American Journal of Numismatics (Second Series) 13: 1-20. J. reprinted in A..: Euboeans. G. Boston. (1949) “Ancient Cranial Types at Chatal Hüyük and Tell alJudaidah.” IstMitt 47: 91-150. Laroche-Traunecker. Tsetskhladze (ed). Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . 165-184. Köln: Brill. F.-C. A. A. (2000) Antioch: the Lost Ancient City.(2001) Collected Papers on Greek Colonization. Leiden. Tell al-Judaidah. Ancient Greeks West and East. (2002) “The Poleis of the Southern Anatolian Coast (Lycia. KST = Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı. (1999) “Greeks Overseas in the 8th Century B. M. (1956) "On Some Eastern Greek Wares Found at Tarsus. (1997) “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungsergebnisse auf dem Sirkeli Höyük/Südtürkei von 1992-1996. A. (1986) "The Historical Interpretation of Al Mina. (1981) “Les fouilles de Meydandjik près de Gülnar (Turquie) et le trésor monétaire hellénistique. C. J. and Davesne. B.J. (1971) Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. 13-28 in J. ----. (2001) “A Small Find of Silver Bullion from Egypt.21 Graham. Keen. pp. Haines. The Aegean and the Near East.” in Tsetskhlaze and Snodgrass 2002: 17-25. A. Augustin. M. R.

Özgen. A. 1996 Interim Report. (1972) Antioch-on-the-Orontes. (eds.(1998) "Trends in the Local Pottery Development of the Late Iron Age and Persian Period in Syria and Lebanon. (1992) “Report on the Bilkent University Archaeological Survey in Cilicia and the Northern Hatay: August 1991.(1961) “Archaeology in Asia Minor.” AST 10: 387-394. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . McMahon. Dittmann et al. ----.). G. Turkey – 1996: Preliminary Report. Variatio Delectat: Iran und der Westen. M.' in R." In R. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Stein et al. 502538. (1937) "The Syrian Expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Recueil d'hommages à Henri Stern.-H. (1996) “The Achaemenid-Hellenistic Occupation at Hacınebi. (1954) “Preliminary Report on a Survey of Pre-classical Remains in Southern Turkey.” AnatSt 4: 175-240." BASOR 311: 737.” AJA 60: 369-385. Mellaart. (eds). Mellink. and Gates.” AJA 100: 205-260. “Uruk Colonies and Anatolian Communities: An Interim Report on the 1992-1993 Excavations at Hacınebi. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. (1939-40) “Architectural Features of Levels I-VIII. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.” in Garstang 1939-40b: 93-97.. J. Lassus. (2000) "Zur Architektur in Westvorderasien während der Achämenidenzeit.. Chr. Paris: De Boccard/Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes d’Istanbul. ----.(1997) “Achaemenid-Hellenistic Remains at Hacınebi. 23-25 mai 1991. ----. 222-229 in G. (1956) “Archaeology in Asia Minor. 720 bis 300 v. ca. McEwan. C." AJA 41: 8-16. (1996) Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon. S. Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer. Lloyd.C.(1983) "Le fouilleur et les mosaïques. Stein et al.22 Actes du colloque d’Istanbul. pp..” Anatolica 23: 111-171.” AJA 66: 37-52. Nunn. Lehmann. 121-124 in G. “Excavations at Hacınebi. M. 253-258.” pp. 700 to 300 B.” pp. W. Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. İ. J. A. V: Les Portiques d'Antioche. J. ----.. Turkey. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Ginouvès et al.

Stillwell. E. Huber. Seton-Williams. Perreault. London: Oxford University Press. S. E.edu. -. III: The Excavations 1937-1939. V. Robertson. IV. dissertation. II: The Excavations 1933-1936. The Rough Cilicia Archaeological Survey Project. (1958) The Pottery of the Amuq Phases K to O and its Historical Relationships. (1940) "The Excavations at Al Mina. S. I. Ph. (1967) A Survey of Coastal Cities in Western Cilicia. M.tr and: www. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Web sites: http://tayproject.” [“Excavations at Mersin/Yumuktepe in 1993”] KST 16/1: 27-41.” AnatSt 4: 121-174. R. Sueidia. Sevin. (1995) “1993 Yılı Mersin/Yumuktepe Kazıları. J.html Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . M. S. Rouillard (eds). R.) (1941) Antioch-on-the-Orontes. (1980) “Anemurium: The Changing Face of a Roman City.” AnatSt 44: 85-103. Steadman. G. Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri/The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey. (1994) “Prehistoric Sites on the Cilician Coastal Plain: Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery from the 1991 Bilkent University Survey. ----. Paris: De Boccard.edu/~rauhn Russell. F.ecn. Swift. 1996-present. and Onurkan. J. G." Ancient West and East 1: 294-314.. 59-83.les données archéologiques. (1986) "Céramique et échanges: les importations attiques au ProcheOrient du VIe au milieu du Ve av. and Caneva. V. London: Oxford University Press. (1954) “Cilician Survey. (1937) “Coins from the Excavations at Al-Mina (1936). University of Chicago. Princeton: Princeton University Press. J. with an Appendix on the Coins of Posidium. pp.D. TAY Project. and The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.purdue. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.tayproject.itu.. The Early Greek Vases.eies.-C." JHS 60: 2-21. S. Bresson and P..” Numismatic Chronicle 17 (5th series): 182-196." BCH 110: 145-175.) (1938) Antioch-on-the-Orontes. Rosenbaum. L’Emporion. and The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.(1993) “Les emporia grecs du Levant: mythe ou realité?” in A. ----(ed. Jr.23 Pamir.” Archaeology 33/5: 31-40. Web site: http:// pasture. Robinson. H.org/enghome. G. (ed. (2002) "The Orontes Delta Survey: Archaeological Investigation of Ancient Trade Stations/Settlements. and Nishiyama.

and The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Waldbaum. R.(1938a) “Excavations at al Mina. May 4th. E.” AST 10: 29-40. (eds) (2002) Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea.. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1973. J. Byzantine and Crusaders' Coins.” [“Excavations at Soli/Pompeiopolıs”] KST 22/2: 259-272. rev edn.” AST 13/2: 151-164. IV. J. Princeton: Princeton University Press. and Snodgrass. Woolley. Tsetskhladze. A. H. Yener. Princeton. M. Wilkinson.. J. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted . London: Oxford University Press. Vanderhooft. D. R. Tobin. C. S. Sueidia. L.(1948) "The Date of al Mina. J. A. (1997) "Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition and Recognition of Presence. Waagé. T. Vann. (1999) The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. held at The Institute for Advanced Study. (1937) “Excavations near Antioch in 1936.. Yağcı. (1959) "The Cypriot and Syrian Pottery from Al Mina. Roman.. (1996) “The Oriental Institute Amuq Valley Projects. K. et al. Waagé." JHS 68: 148. I. B. ----. (1992) “A Survey of Ancient Harbors in Rough Cilicia: The 1991 Preliminary Survey.” JHS 58: 133-170. (ed. 1881-1972. Part Two: Greek. (1974) A Symposium in memory of Hetty Goldman. J. Atlanta: Scholars Press. (2001) “Soli/Pompeiopolis Kazıları 1999. ----.) (1948) Antioch-on-the-Orontes IV. F. London: Max Parrish. Sueidia. C. Friedman.(1938b) “ The Excavations at al Mina. Syria. S. D. D.” Anatolica 22: 49-84.(1959) A Forgotten Kingdom. New Jersey. Princeton: The Institute for Advanced Study. Oxford: BAR/Archaeopress. du P. L. ----. ----. G.. London: Oxford University Press. Part One: Ceramics and Islamic Coins.” JHS 58: 1-30. Lyon." BASOR 305: 1-17. D." Iraq 21: 62-92. ----.24 Taylor. (1952) Antioch-on-the-Orontes.. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Branting. Thompson.” The Antiquaries Journal 17: 1-15. and The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.(1955) Alalakh. (1995) “The City in the Sand Dunes: a Survey of a Roman Port Facility in Cilicia. R. and Reichel.

Zoroğlu. 1995-1998. Sources. Zadok. J.” KST 17/2: 245-263.. Tadmor. T. (1996) “Geographic and Onomastic Remarks on H. Edens. T. C. Charles Gates Ne pas citer Not to be quoted .” AJA 104: 163-220. (1987) “Kelenderis 1986 Yılı Çalışmaları. Harrison. [Kelenderis I.(1994) Kelenderis I. (2000) “The Amuq Valley Regional Project. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. K. Kaynaklar. R. Verstraete.(1996) “Tarsus Cumhuriyet Alanı 1994 Yılı Çalışmaları. Remains. L. ----. A. and Wilkinson.” [“Work at Kelenderis in 1986”] AST 5/1: 409-422. J. Buluntular. ----. P..” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 1: 11-12..25 Yener. Kalıntılar. Finds] Ankara: Dönmez Ofset Basımevi..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful