61

Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in

Lydia, Western Turkey: Determining
Lydian- and Persian-Period
Settlement Patterns

Christopher H. Roosevelt
Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts

Regional archaeological research in Lydia (western Turkey) has focused on prehistoric and
Hellenistic through Byzantine periods with relative neglect of settlement patterns during
the period in which Lydia was under Lydian and, subsequently, Persian control in the 7th
through 4th centuries B.C. A multi-component research project conducted in 2000 and
2001 aimed to establish Lydian- and Persian-period settlement patterns through a regional
survey targeting tumuli (burial mounds) and documentation of primarily unpublished
archives and provenienced finds in local museums. The primary hypothesis was that tumu-
lus groups could be used to infer general locations of settlement areas. At least 510 tumuli,
representing between 75 and 117 groups of tumuli, and at least 113 other sites of the Lydi-
an and Persian periods were identified. Comparison of the tumulus survey and museum
data using Geographic Information Systems shows that tumulus groups do indicate general
locations of Lydian- and Persian-period settlement in greater Lydia and can be used to
determine contemporary regional settlement patterns. This approach shows the value of com-
bining different classes of data in regional archaeological approaches and the continuing
utility of extensive survey for regional studies of particular periods in archaeologically
untested areas.

Introduction Davis, and Mantzourani 1991; Jameson, Runnels, and van

Recent archaeological surveys of Mediterranean land-
scapes have tended towards intensive approaches designed
to recover representative samples of diachronic archaeo-
logical materials and use them to interpret changes in pat-
terns of settlement, land-use, and various economic, socio-
political, and religious meanings (Cherry 1983; Mattingly
2000; Athanssapoulos and Wandsnider 2004). Intensive
surveys generally include “quantified observations and
controlled artefact collections, usually made in the course
of line-walking by team members spaced at intervals of, at
most, 15 to 20 meters” (Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994:
137). Surveys employing variations of this approach have
been conducted on almost every shore of the Mediter-
ranean: in North Africa (e.g., Lazreg and Mattingly 1992),
Spain (e.g., Carreté, Keay, and Millett 1995; Barton et al.
2004), Italy (e.g., Malone and Stoddart 1994; Barker
1995; Patterson 2004), Croatia (e.g., Gaffney, Bintliff, and
Slapšak 1991); Greece (e.g., Renfrew and Wagstaff 1982;
Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985; Wright et al. 1990; Cherry,
Andel 1994; Wells and Runnels 1996; Wiseman and Za-
chos 2003), Cyprus (e.g., Fejfer 1995; Given and Knapp
2003), Turkey (e.g., Doonan 2004), and Syro-Palestine
(e.g., Wilkinson 1990, 2003), among other areas. The cur-
rent ubiquity of intensive survey in the Mediterranean and
in other parts of the world speaks to its general acceptance
as the most fruitful archaeological approach to regional or
landscape studies.
For surveys of geographically limited areas, with copi-
ous time and funding, there is little argument that inten-
sive diachronic survey is the ideal that would allow full and
accurate interpretation (Cherry 1983). In such cases it may
indeed be true that “only intensive survey techniques appear
defensible” (Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994: 137, empha-
sis original). Archaeologists interested in conducting
broader regional studies, however, are faced with a com-
mon dilemma: either survey a small sample of the region
of interest intensively or survey that entire region with an
extensive approach. The first type of survey recovers a de-
tailed picture of one specific area, leaving the interpretation
62 Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey/Roosevelt

Figure 1. Map showing the bounds of ancient Lydia (thick, dashed, gray lines), modern Turkish provinces (thin, dashed, black lines), major modern
cities (black squares), and ancient Sardis. Inset shows the location of Lydia in western Turkey.

of the larger region to interpolation or future studies; the
second makes no claims to comprehensiveness, but recov-
ers a general picture of the entire region and provides base-
line data for more intensive studies in the future. Intensive
survey is usually credited with producing more useful data
with greater interpretive depth (Cherry 1983: 391–392),
but extensive survey, if systematic and coupled with other
research strategies, still has its place in regional studies, par-
ticularly those that are aimed at specific types of remains
and those that are in their initial stages (Doelle 1977;
Schiffer, Sullivan, and Klinger 1978: 16–18; Cherry 1983:
394).
One complementary strategy often underutilized in re-
gional research programs is intensive study of prove-
nienced museum collections and museum archives. The
use of such archives and objects may guide survey efforts
and aid the planning of more narrowly focused investiga-
tions. The present survey combined regional fieldwork and
museum research in ancient Lydia in western Turkey (fig.
1) and shows the value of such an approach to archaeolog-
ically untested ground. We integrated targeted survey of
tumuli (burial mounds) and museum research to gain a
general picture of regional settlement patterns during the
previously understudied Lydian and Persian periods of the
7th through 4th centuries b.c.
Regional Overview and Previous Research
The heartland of Lydia comprised those areas flanking
the Hermos (Gediz) River and its main tributaries, espe-
cially the middle Hermos Valley north of Sardis in the

Figure 2. Map of Lydia showing the distribution of Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age sites.
modern province of Manisa (fig. 1). Lydia extended fur-
ther to the south and east, however, also encompassing the
Tmolus (Boz Dağ) and Mesogis (Aydın Dağları) mountain
ranges, most of the Kayster (K. Menderes) River valley,
and the Maeander (B. Menderes) River valley down to the
river itself on the south, in the modern provinces of İzmir,
Aydın, and Denizli; to the east, it included areas of the up-
per Hermos River valley in the provinces of Uşak and Kü-
tahya, perhaps stretching as far east as modern Uşak. On
the north it was probably constrained by the Temnos
(Simav) mountain range, and on the west by a string of
mountains and passes that can be identified with the east-
ern frontiers of Ionian Greek territories (Roosevelt 2003).
In accordance with Turkish research permit regulations the
current study was limited geographically to the modern
province of Manisa, an area of ca. 12,950 sq km roughly
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 31, 2006 63
the size of the state of Connecticut in the United States,
and to items and archives housed in the Manisa and Uşak
Museums. Published accounts and personal communica-
tions provided information on additional materials and
sites located outside Manisa and Uşak but within the an-
cient bounds of Lydia.
Varied topography with numerous rivers and lakes,
abundant stone and mineral resources, and rich agricultur-
al soils in alluvial valleys and rolling uplands allowed di-
verse subsistence strategies throughout all periods of hu-
man presence in the region. Despite relative neglect of the
Lydian and Persian periods in the hinterland of Sardis, un-
derstanding both earlier and later periods has been the aim
of much previous archaeological research. David French
first addressed the earliest human interaction with Lydian
landscapes through a survey of several parts of the modern
64 Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey/Roosevelt
Figure 3. Map of Lydia showing the distribution of sites dating to the Hellenistic through Byzantine periods.
province of Manisa in 1959 and 1960, establishing the lo-
cations of numerous prehistoric sites (French 1969). Seton
Lloyd and James Mellaart’s search for parallels to Beyce-
sultan in the late 1950s and early 1960s located yet more
sites (Lloyd and Mellaart 1962), and the more recent ex-
tensive surveys by Recep Meriç (1983a, 1983b, 1985,
1986, 1987, 1988, 1989) and Rafet Dinç (1991, 1996,
1997), and intensive studies by Turan Takaoğlu (2004,
2005) have increased our knowledge of settlement distrib-
utions in Neolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age times
(fig. 2). Besides Manfred Korfmann, Ayşe Baykal-Seeher,
and Sinan Kılıç’s (1994) bibliography for many of these
sites, and a few other important studies, such as J. D.
Hawkins’ recent work on the Hittite monument at Kara-
bel (1998, 1999), there has been little synthesis of collect-
ed archaeological data to make better sense of the pre- and
early (or proto-) historical setting of this region. Lydia is
located north and west of earlier and better understood
Neolithic developments in the Lakes District and in the
southern part of an Early Bronze Age sphere defined by fu-
nerary assemblages of Yortan pottery; in the Late Bronze
Age it comprised parts of the Seha River land in the north
and Mira (or Arzawa) in the south, regions named in Im-
perial Hittite archives (Hawkins 1998).
Settlement patterns during these pre-Lydian periods are
defined by occupation on mounds artificially raised from
valley floors or on flat sites along natural ridges and
plateaus at valley edges. All known sites are surrounded by
or are in close proximity to well-watered, agriculturally rich
land. The distribution can also be understood in the con-

text of Lydia as a nexus of communication corridors: most
sites are located at regular intervals along the courses of
major rivers and their valley floors (Meriç 1993: 144).
Our understanding of settlement patterns following the
Lydian and Persian periods is even fuller. From the 15th
century of our era up to the present day, early travelers and
modern researchers alike have documented their observa-
tions in numerous articles and volumes that complement
the written histories of Hellenistic through Byzantine
times. Such studies have been mainly epigraphic in nature,
focusing on Hellenistic and later inscriptions. Chief among
the earlier researchers were Karl Buresch (1898), Josef Keil
and Anton von Premerstein (1908, 1911, 1914), William
Ramsay (1890), and Georges Radet (1893). More recent
epigraphic surveyors and topographers include the late
Louis Robert and Peter Hermann—early authorities in this
region—and Hasan Malay, George Petzl, and Cumhur
Tanrıver. Compilations of inscriptional and geographic in-
formation, most recently those of Hasan Malay (1994,
1999) and Işık Şahin (1998), reveal the distribution of
Hellenistic and later sites along with the findspots of iso-
lated Hellenistic and later inscriptions (fig. 3).
Settlement patterns during these later periods are de-
fined again by a distribution along the main corridors of
communication, but also by almost complete abandon-
ment of earlier occupation mounds in favor of more urban
settlement structures typical of the times. The increasing
urbanization and Hellenization of Asia Minor and the ac-
companying political reorganization of Lydia into poleis
(city-states) and their smaller subsidiaries in the 3rd and
2nd centuries b.c. was an initial result of Macedonian, Se-
leucid, and Attalid garrison and city foundations (Gauthi-
er 1989). The current state of the evidence suggests that
the number of known settlements in Lydia probably
reached a peak in the 2nd century a.d. of the Roman Im-
perial period and then dwindled by slow attrition to a
much smaller number represented by remote and fortified
citadels of the middle and late Byzantine periods (Foss
1979, 1987).
Lydia in the Lydian and Persian Periods
(7th–4th Centuries B.C.)
Despite the impressive history of archaeological re-
search in Lydia and a general understanding of diachronic
settlement patterns, only a few projects have noted remains
of the Lydian and Persian periods outside of Sardis, where
excavation of settlement, burial, and other contexts in and
around the city have primarily local significance (Hanf-
mann 1983). At the outset of the present project the loca-
tions of around 44 non-tumulus sites with evidence for Ly-
dian- and Persian-period occupation had been established
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 31, 2006 65
through the excavation and survey efforts of members of
the Sardis Expedition and the Manisa Museum, including
the survey projects of Meriç and Dinç. The number of sites,
much lower than the number known for the Bronze Age
and Hellenistic through Byzantine periods, implied that
the region was partially abandoned in what, according to
ancient authors, was its most prosperous time.
From the beginning of the 7th through the middle of
the 6th century b.c., Lydia was the territory of an inde-
pendent kingdom; its kings of the Mermnad Dynasty, such
as Gyges, Alyattes, and Croesus, are best known from con-
temporary and later Greek sources. In the mid-6th century
b.c., the Persians under Cyrus the Great sacked Sardis, the
capital of the region, and maintained some degree of con-
trol in Lydia through transient Persian governors until the
late 4th century b.c., when Persian hegemony gave way to
Alexander the Great and his successors. By all ancient ac-
counts Sardis was a thriving cosmopolitan center during
the Lydian and Persian periods and was inhabited by a
polyethnic elite famed for its effete luxuries (Dusinberre
2003). A uniformity of material culture in the Lydian hin-
terland of Sardis suggests that it, too, was prosperous dur-
ing these times, despite the low site population known at
the outset of the present project.
This understanding of site populations in rural Lydia in
the Lydian and Persian periods results from previous re-
search that focused either on the urban center of Sardis or
on the remains of both earlier and later periods in its hin-
terland, but never specifically on the hinterland of Sardis
during the heyday of Lydian society in the Lydian and Per-
sian periods. To understand Lydian society as a whole, es-
pecially its spatial distribution throughout the region dur-
ing these times, a research program was devised to assess
regional settlement patterns through a study of tumuli and
provenienced finds in regional archaeological museums.
This approach drew on current scholarship showing that
the vast majority of tumuli in Lydia date to the 7th through
the 4th centuries b.c. (see below), centuries in which the
paucity of pronounced material cultural change in Lydia re-
quires that the Lydian and Persian periods be treated to-
gether archaeologically (Greenewalt 1995: 125; Dusin-
berre 2003: 131–133). The initial hypothesis was that
groups of tumuli indicate the general locations of settle-
ments in the Lydian and Persian periods. To test the hy-
pothesis, the distribution of tumuli and groups of tumuli
was compared to that of previously known Lydian- and
Persian-period non-tumulus sites and the provenience da-
ta of primarily unpublished material in the Manisa and
Uşak Museums. Geographic Information System (GIS)
software was employed throughout to manage and analyze
all spatial data.
66 Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey/Roosevelt
Figure 4. Photograph of tumuli in the eastern end of the middle Hermos River valley looking w–sw.
Tumuli in Lydia and the 2001 Survey
The fieldwork component of this study was made pos-
sible by the identifiability of tumuli spread throughout Ly-
dia (fig. 4). A long tradition of Anatolian tumuli, begin-
ning with late 9th- or early 8th-century examples in Phry-
gia, precedes their appearance in Lydia (Young 1981;
Kohler 1995; Voigt 2002: 195). Earlier traditions of tho-
los tombs and dolmens in the larger Aegean area (Bridges
1974; Erkanal 1987, 1988; Ersoy 1988; Özdoğan 1987,
1998; Özdoğan and Akman 1992) are similar develop-
ments, but these and other earlier monuments fall outside
the scope of this article. Tumuli resembling those of the
earlier traditions with earthen mounds covering rock-cut
or masonry-built chamber tomb complexes appear in Lydia
during a period in which they proliferated throughout
western Anatolia and surrounding regions, with reports of
around 100 tumuli in the Elmalı Plain near Bayındır (Öz-
gen and Öztürk 1996: 27), and many others known from
Lycia (Zahle 1975), Caria (Radt 1970, 1978: 340–341;
Carstens 2002; Paton 1900: 65–73; Humann et al. 1898:
fig. 23; Demus-Quatember 1958: 74–75, figs. 47–49;
Bean 1989: 211, pl. 83), and the Troad (Sevinç 1996a,
1996b; Sevinç et al. 1998, 2001; Sevinç, Rose, and Stra-
han 1999). Tumuli in rural Lydia are the most conspicuous
markers of Lydian- and Persian-period activity in the area,
and for this reason they serve as fitting subjects for target-
ed survey.
In April and May of 2001 a four-person team carried
out a survey focused on documenting the locations of tu-
muli spread throughout the modern province of Manisa.
The survey followed the methods of Andrew and Nancy
Ramage’s 1970 project (Ramage and Ramage 1971), as-
suming that the vast majority of tumuli in Lydia are of Ly-

Figure 5. Photograph of the porch of the tomb chamber complex in the looted and partially destroyed
Çaldağ-Musacalıtepe tumulus. The exposed height of the interior doorway is ca. 1.6 m.
dian- or Persian-period construction and original use, a
common understanding of their chronology (Hanfmann
1983: 55; McLauchlin 1985: 53). At the outset of the pro-
ject, some 174 tumuli had been documented in previous
studies with varying degrees of detail, and the burial com-
plexes of 89 of these tumuli had been explored sufficiently
to provide chronological evidence from surviving grave
goods and architectural details (Ratté 1989; Dinç 1993).
The earliest known tumulus in Lydia is dated by ancient
and modern association with Alyattes, the second-to-last
king of Lydia, and by archaeological remains retrieved
from its looted tomb chamber. The construction of this tu-
mulus tomb must have been completed soon after the
king’s death in ca. 560 b.c., and was perhaps conceived as
early as ca. 585 b.c., following a campaign through Phry-
gia during which the king probably saw similar monu-
ments dotting the landscape (Ratté 1993: 5). While a num-
ber of tumuli in Lydia probably date to the Lydian period
before the Persian conquest of the mid-540s b.c., the vast
majority were built between the second half of the 6th cen-
tury and the 4th century b.c.: 85 of the previously explored
89 burial complexes—that is, around 96%—were con-
structed in these periods (Roosevelt 2003).
The primary hypothesis of the survey was that locations
of burial sites correspond in some way to locations of set-
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 31, 2006 67
tlement sites. Pertaining to Lydian tumuli and tumulus
groups, this hypothesis first appeared over 30 years ago
(Ramage and Ramage 1971), and it has been a common
assumption for other areas of Anatolia as well. Just as dense
tumulus cemeteries are associated with the Phrygian capi-
tal at Gordion, so tumuli in Güre (Akbıyıkoğlu 1993: 53),
Ankara (Mellink 1998: 7–12; Özguç and Akok 1947: 29),
and the Lakes District of western Anatolia (Mellaart 1954:
180) have been understood to indicate the locations of im-
portant sites. In areas outside Anatolia, too, tumulus ceme-
teries have been identified as territory or settlement mark-
ers or symbolic community centers (Renfrew 1976; Chap-
man 1981; Gaffney, Stančič, and Watson 1995); such in-
terpretations have also been applied to Siberian kurgans
(Polosmak 1994) and to Thracian (Lilova 1994: 124;
Topalov 1994: 133) as well as to Balkan tumuli (Palavestra
1998: 63–64). The dense tumulus cemetery in central Ly-
dia called Bin Tepe, or “A Thousand Mounds,” has long
been associated with Sardis, further supporting the model
of settlement-cemetery association. Because of this clear as-
sociation, as well as time and permit limitations, Bin Tepe
was excluded from the 2001 survey.
In preparation for the extensive survey of the province
of Manisa we made use of historical maps and earlier stud-
ies to assess the locations of previously observed tumuli
68 Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey/Roosevelt
Figure 6. Map of Lydia showing the distribution of 510 tumuli.
and other non-tumulus sites. These and other geographi-
cal, topographical, and hydrological data were entered in-
to a GIS, while Russian 1:100,000 scale maps served as
field sheets. During the survey we systematically covered
the area by car and foot, driving as many roads and hiking
as many ridges as possible in the time allotted. Tumuli in
Lydia are usually easy to identify; they have an average di-
ameter of 46 m and an average height of 5 m, but they can
reach up to 361 m in diameter and 70 m in height. We al-
so employed local informants and guides, as available, to
ensure as thorough a search as possible. The majority of the
province of Manisa is dominated by wide river valleys with
open visibility that permitted the identification of numer-
ous tumuli (fig. 4); tumulus identification in forested up-
land areas, however, suffered from poor visibility and,
where local information provided no further hints, was
limited primarily to areas nearest routes traversed by car or
foot.
At each tumulus, we recorded geographic coordinates
with a hand-held GPS receiver and documented tumulus
dimensions and condition. In addition, we recorded ac-
cess, topographic situation, ground cover, land-use, visi-
bility, and any other notable characteristics on standardized
forms. We noted other archaeological materials on the sur-
face, around, or within tumuli as well, but these were not
collected because of permit restrictions. At looted tumuli
with accessible interiors, burial complexes were entered
and fully documented (fig. 5). A result of these investiga-
tions (to be explored in future publications) is a fuller un-
derstanding of the rich diversity of tumulus burial types in
Lydia—including combinations of masonry-built and
rock-cut chamber tomb complexes, simple pits, and sar-

cophagi—and the variations of chamber tomb complex
arrangements including units such as chambers, antecham-
bers, forecourts, porches, and dromoi (access corridors). In
total, we documented 26 previously unrecorded burial
complexes, bringing the total from 89 to 115 documented
tumulus tomb complexes.
Tumuli with unexposed or inaccessible tomb complexes
were identified as such based on a series of primarily sub-
jective criteria summarized by the Ramages (Ramage and
Ramage 1971: 145): “symmetrical conical shape… rising
from [an] otherwise different landscape; absence of rocky
outcrops near the top of the mound; presence of limestone
chips or other distinguishing features such as change in
earth color; [and] cuts or tunneling.” Other features that
aided identification when these criteria proved ambiguous
included a location chosen for high visibility and Lydian-
and Persian-period pottery on the surface or in the mound
fill. Even with such standards of identification, 47 mounds
were recorded as “possible tumuli” because their tumulus
nature was suggestive but not conclusive. One hundred
other previously undocumented tumuli were identified as
well, bringing the total from 174 to 274 tumuli in the
province of Manisa. When the number of previously
known tumuli located outside Manisa are added, we now
know of at least 383 tumuli and 127 possible tumuli, a
working total of at least 510 tumuli, all located within the
bounds of ancient Lydia (fig. 6). There were undoubted-
ly many more tumuli in Lydia, but many have been de-
stroyed by looting and industrial agricultural activities
(Roosevelt and Luke in press a, b), many have been erod-
ed so much as to be unrecognizable as tumuli, and many
probably lie hidden in terrain or ground cover that ob-
scures their presence.
While the survey focused primarily on tumuli, we in-
vestigated their vicinities by car and foot, sometimes guid-
ed by local informants, and discovered sites of other types
and periods as well. Among these were six previously un-
known non-tumulus sites with evidence of Lydian- and
Persian-period activities. These included two sites with
rock-cut remains (Sivridağ and Gürle), three flat sites with
architectural remains (Bağyolu, Yağcılar Kalesi, and Çak-
maktepe), and one occupation mound (Tilki Höyük)
(Roosevelt 2003).
Provenienced Finds and Archives in Regional
Museums: Non-Systematic Survey Data
Before we began, 44 Lydian- and Persian-period non-
tumulus sites had been identified by previous research; we
can now add to this number six previously undocumented
sites identified during the course of the extensive survey.
Study of provenienced finds and archives in the Manisa
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 31, 2006 69
and Uşak Museums helped to establish more fully the dis-
tribution of non-tumulus sites of the Lydian and Persian
periods throughout Lydia.
The nature of finds located in these museum collections
and that of their discovery varies greatly. Some items come
from tumuli or other burial sites excavated by museum
staff following illicit digging, others from salvage opera-
tions associated with development or agricultural activity.
Others come from local villagers who chance upon or illic-
itly recover finds in the countryside and take advantage of
the governmentally sanctioned system, employed by most
Turkish museums, of reimbursement for archaeological
materials. Proveniences recorded for such finds have
proven to be generally accurate. These, and many other
sites not represented by finds, are documented in unpub-
lished museum inventories and archives. As the Manisa and
Uşak Museums, like many museums, kept no exhaustive
database of archives or previously known sites, our find-
ings were, in many cases, “rediscoveries” of long-forgotten
sites. These records provide a working database of known
sites to be confirmed and more systematically studied in
the future.
Adopting an approach employed elsewhere with success
(Gardin 1980; Massagrande 1995), we treated such finds
and archival records as non-systematically collected survey
data. Considered as such, archival references and archaeo-
logical materials including inscriptions, coins, relief stelai,
statues and statuettes, grave assemblages, and assemblages
of mixed material—altogether at least 205 individual ob-
jects and 5 coin hoards—suggest the presence of at least 63
previously unpublished non-tumulus sites of Lydian- and
Persian-period activity in Lydia. While the precise contexts
of those finds collected by museum officials are usually
known, the contextual nature of some items and assem-
blages provided by non-specialists can only be assumed to
be of certain general types: occupational, funerary, etc.
With the 44 previously known non-tumulus sites, the 6
sites identified during the extensive survey, and the 63 sites
identified through museum research, the number of Lydi-
an- and Persian-period non-tumulus sites in Lydia now to-
tals 113 (table 1). This number appears to fit better with-
in the range of site populations known from earlier and lat-
er periods. Of these 113 sites, 49 are represented by settle-
ment remains of some sort, 30 by non-tumulus graves, 7
by rock-cut monuments of some sort, and the remaining
27 by isolated finds (fig. 7).
Comparison of Distributions
Based on the association of the large tumulus cemetery
at Bin Tepe with Sardis and a group of Phrygian tumuli
with Gordion, we posited that the general locations of set-
70 Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey/Roosevelt
Figure 7. Map of Lydia showing the distribution of 113 non-tumulus sites of the Lydian and Persian periods.
tlements in Lydia could be determined by their association
with tumulus groups. Before comparing the locations of
non-tumulus sites and tumuli we sorted the 510 tumuli lo-
cated within the ancient bounds of Lydia into groups based
on their proximity to one another and their locations with
respect to natural geographic boundaries such as rivers and
ridges. Proximity was established in the GIS by K-means
cluster analysis using an ESRI ArcView script that uses a
statistical algorithm (Hartigen and Wong 1979) to deter-
mine which members of a distributed population belong
together by attributing points (in this case tumulus loca-
tions) to groups so that the distances between the points
within each group are minimized. Seventy-five tumulus
groups were identified by this method. The majority of
these groups are made up of three or more tumuli; three
groups are represented by paired tumuli while 13 tumuli
are singletons. Although the singleton and paired tumuli
may reflect their ancient situations, they may also have had
neighboring tumuli that were either missed by us or de-
stroyed prior to the survey. In addition, some of the larger
groups might actually represent a number of smaller
groups in close proximity. If all of these larger groups are
subdivided, there are a maximum of 117 tumulus groups.
The lack of preservation of some tumuli and a still poor un-
derstanding of their spatial relationships to other ancient
features make group determinations difficult, and lend
those established here a degree of flexibility.
Using the GIS, the comparison of the distributions of
the 113 non-tumulus sites and the tumulus groups strong-
ly confirms our primary hypothesis: more than 75% of the
 Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 31, 2006 71

non-tumulus sites are located within 5 km of a tumulus Table 1. Number of non-tumulus sites in Lydia.
group; around half of those are located within only 1 km Period Number
of a tumulus group (fig. 8, table 2). The exact nature of Late Neolithic 12
Chalcolithic 23
the correspondence between particular tumulus groups Early Bronze Age 99
and their associated settlements is less clear. Some tumulus 2nd millennium 69
groups are arranged in tight clusters and others in linear Lydian- and Persian-period
ribbons that usually conform to the edges of valleys. Tu- 44 sites previously published
6 sites discovered during tumulus survey
mulus groups with the latter configuration suggest the lo- 63 sites (re)discovered through museum research 113
cations of prominent routes of communication leading to Hellenistic 121
and from settlements, as has been argued for tumuli at Roman 142
Gordion (Young 1981: 191, note 2) and along the Black Byzantine 86

Sea coast (Panayotova 1994: 88). Tightly clustered groups

probably represent the formal interment areas of particular
settlements, but, for all we know, large tumulus groups
may have served multiple settlements. This may even have
been the case at Bin Tepe, where distinct groups within the
larger cemetery area may have been associated with sepa-
rate settlements. The particular situation at Bin Tepe will be
investigated by a new field project (begun in 2005) that
will include intensive survey.
If the association of tumulus groups with settlement
areas in Lydia is taken as a rule, the number of Lydian- and
Persian-period settlement areas can be increased even fur-
ther. No known settlement remains are located in close
proximity to 13 tumulus groups in Lydia. If these 13
groups are associated with settlements that have yet to be
discovered, as this study suggests, the number of Lydian-
and Persian-period settlement areas in Lydia can be in-
creased from 113 to at least 126.
This new picture of the distribution of non-tumulus
sites throughout the Lydian countryside in the Lydian and
Persian periods drastically alters our view of Sardis and its
interrelations with its hinterland. Although Sardis was his-
torically the most important settlement in the region, a sta-
tus confirmed archaeologically as the only known urban
center in Lydia, it can now be seen as just one among many
sites spread throughout the region. The interaction be-
tween Sardis and its hinterland and the hinterland interac-
tions themselves can now be analyzed in research projects
designed with a more informed perspective on the region-
al context of Lydia.
Conclusions
It is clear that tumulus groups indicate the general loca-
tions of Lydian- and Persian-period settlements in greater
Lydia. The distribution of Lydian- and Persian-period ac-
tivities established through museum research and survey
provides a general understanding of settlement patterns
throughout the region of ancient Lydia. As in earlier and
later periods, the majority of the known 126 settlement ar-
eas were located in agriculturally rich areas, commonly
Table 2. Numbers and percentages of non-tumulus
sites within specific distances of tumulus groups of
the Lydian and Persian periods.
No. of non-tumulus % of non-tumulus Distance to tumulus
sites sites group (km)
113 100 ≤ 16
104 92 ≤ 10
86 76.1 ≤5
80 70.8 ≤4
73 64.6 ≤3
54 47.8 ≤2
41 36.3 ≤1
along the edges of major river valleys and routes of com-
munication. Settlements in other locations may have been
close to rare, area-specific resources and/or have been es-
tablished with an eye to defense. Site selection preferences
and the overall significance of Lydian settlement patterns
for social, political, and economic organization can now be
explored as part of future research programs.
Beyond its specific importance to Lydian archaeology,
the success of this multi-component approach has signifi-
cance for regional studies in any part of the world. Muse-
um collections and archives are often underutilized or ig-
nored completely in regional studies. The dramatically
changed picture of regional settlement achieved through
this approach suggests that similar study of collections and
archives, even if relatively poorly documented, can reap
great rewards. In addition, this study shows that extensive,
targeted surveys still have a place in regional studies, espe-
cially in the early phases of multi-stage archaeological re-
search, and particularly when conspicuous, identifiable re-
mains are present. The combination of these two different
classes of data in a GIS allows for visual and statistical
analyses that aid interpretation and permit far-reaching
conclusions about regional settlement patterns. Intensive
survey may produce a more complete picture of a geo-
graphically limited area, but it remains an incomplete ap-
proach when considering broader regional contexts. With
72 Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey/Roosevelt

Figure 8. Map of Lydia showing the distribution of 113 non-tumulus sites (black circles) and both large (75;
open gray polygons) and small (117; solid gray polygons) tumulus groups of the Lydian and Persian periods.

its broad coverage of different landscape types and its illu-
mination of a diversity of archaeological patterns, the mul-
ti-component approach advocated here is not only defen-
sible, but recommended, especially in the early stages of re-
gional studies that aspire to substantiate and refine archae-
ological interpretations through future intensive surveys in
more focused areas.
Acknowledgments
The field and museum research was conducted between
2000 and 2001 with the permission of the General Direc-
torate of Cultural Resources and Museums of the Ministry
of Culture and Tourism, Republic of Turkey, and with fi-
nancial support from the Olivia James Traveling Fellow-
ship of the Archaeological Institute of America. The ESRI
ArcView script used to group tumuli is that copyrighted by
William A. Huber of Quantitative Decisions on 18 Octo-
ber 1999. I give profuse thanks to the Archaeological Ex-
ploration of Sardis and its director, Crawford H. Gree-
newalt, Jr., under whose permit the six-week tumulus sur-
vey was conducted. For other help, advice, and general
support on the survey and otherwise, I wish to thank sin-
cerely Jale Dedeoğlu (Ministry of Culture and Tourism
Representative), Andrew Ramage and Peter I. Kuniholm
(Cornell University), and many individuals at the Archae-
ological Exploration of Sardis, Ege University, the Manisa
Museum, and elsewhere, including Baran Aydın, Rose Lou
and Uğur Bengisu, Nick Cahill, Hasan Dedeoğlu, Eliza-
beth Gombosi, Hasan Malay, Mehmet and Nilüfer Önder,
Gürcan Polat, Cumhur Tanrıver, Müyesser Tosunbaş, and

Teoman Yalçınkaya. For their instructive comments and
help, I thank also the anonymous reviewers of an earlier
draft. Last, but not least, many thanks to Christina Luke,
for hard work during the survey, comments on earlier
drafts, and continuing support and encouragement.
Christopher H. Roosevelt (Ph.D. 2003, Cornell University), is
an Assistant Professor of Classical Archaeology in the Depart-
ment of Archaeology at Boston University. His research focuses
on the archaeology of western Asia Minor, specifically the an-
cient region of Lydia, the hinterland of Sardis. Mailing ad-
dress: Department of Archaeology, Boston University, 675
Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215. E-mail:
chr@bu.edu
Akbıyıkoğlu, Kâzım
1993 “Güre Velişin Tepe Tümülüsü Kurtarma Kazısı,” Müze Kur-
tarma Kazısı Semineri 3: 53–63.
Alcock, Susan E., John F. Cherry, and Jack L. Davis
1994 “Intensive Survey, Agricultural Practice and the Classical
Landscape of Greece,” in Ian Morris, ed., Classical Greece:
Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 137–170.
Athanassopoulos, Effie F., and LuAnn Wandsnider, editors
2004 Mediterranean Archaeological Landscapes: Current Issues.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Ar-
chaeology and Anthropology.
Barker, Graeme
1995 A Mediterranean Valley. Landscape Archaeology and Annales
History in the Biferno Valley. London: Leicester University
Press.
Barton, C. Michael, Joan Bernabeu, J. Emili Aura, Lluis Molina, and
Steven Schmich
2004 “Historical Contingency, Nonlinearity, and the Neolithiza-
tion of the Western Mediterranean,” in Effie F. Athanas-
sopoulos and LuAnn Wandsnider, eds., Mediterranean Ar-
chaeological Landscapes: Current Issues. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and An-
thropology, 99–124.
Bean, George E.
1989 Turkey Beyond the Maeander, second edition. London: Mur-
ray.
Bintliff, John L., and Anthony M. Snodgrass
1985 “The Cambridge/Bradford Boeotian Expedition: The First
Four Years,” Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 123–161.
Bridges, Robert A.
1974 “The Mycenaean Tholos Tomb at Kolophon,” Hesperia 43:
264–266.
Buresch, Karl
1898 Aus Lydien: epigraphisch-geographische Reisefrüchte. Leipzig:
B. G. Teubner.
Carreté, Josep-Maria, Simon Keay, and Martin Millett
1995 A Roman Provincial Capital and its Hinterland: The Survey
of the Territory of Tarragona, Spain, 1985–1990. Journal of
Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 15. Ann Arbor:
Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 31, 2006 73
Carstens, Anna Marie
2002 “Tomb Cult on the Halikarnassos Peninsula,” American
Journal of Archaeology 106: 391–409.
Chapman, Robert
1981 “The Emergence of Formal Disposal Areas and the ‘Prob-
lem’ of Megalithic Tombs in Prehistoric Europe,” in Robert
Chapman, Ian Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg, eds., The Ar-
chaeology of Death. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press, 71–81.
Cherry, John F.
1983 “Frogs Round the Pond: Perspectives on Current Archae-
ological Survey Projects in the Mediterranean Region,” in
Donald R. Keller and David W. Rupp, eds., Archaeological
Survey in the Mediterranean Area. BAR International Series
155. Oxford: B.A.R, 375–416.
Cherry, John F., Jack L. Davis, and Eleni Mantzourani, editors.
1991 Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos
in the Cycladic Islands. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Ar-
chaeology.
Demus-Quatember, Margarete
1958 Etruskische Grabarchitektur. Typologie und Ursprungsfragen.
Baden-Baden: B. Grimm.
Dinç, Rafet
1991 “Erdelli Höyük und die Bedeutung seiner Funde für die
bronzezeitliche Geschichte des Manisa-Akhisar-Gebietes,”
Istanbuler Mitteilungen 41: 25–38.
1993 “Lidya Tümülusleri,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ege
·
University, Izmir.
1996 “1994 Yılı Akhisar-Kulaksızlar Mermer Idol Atölyesi Yüzey
Araştırması,” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 13: 11–41.
1997 “Kulaksızlar Mermer Idol Atölyesi ve Çevre Araştırması,”
Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 14: 255–282.
Doonan, Owen P.
2004 Sinop Landscapes: Exploring Connection in a Black Sea Hin-
terland. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum
of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Doelle, William H.
1977 “A Multiple Survey Strategy for Cultural Resource Man-
agement Studies,” in Michael B. Schiffer and George J.
Gumerman, eds., Conservation Archaeology. New York: Aca-
demic Press, 201–209.
Dusinberre, Elspeth R. M.
2003 Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Erkanal, Armağan
1987 “Panaztepe Kazısı 1985 Yılı Sonuçları,” Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 8: 253–261.
1988 “Panaztepe Kazısı 1986 Yılı Sonuçları,” Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 9: 345–350.
Ersoy, Yaşar
1988 “Finds from Menemen/Panaztepe in the Manisa Museum,”
Annual of the British School at Athens 83. Athens: British
School at Athens, 55–82.
Fejfer, Jane, editor
1995 Ancient Akamas I. Settlement and Environment. Aarhus:
Aarhus University Press.
Foss, Clive
1979 “Late Byzantine Fortifications in Lydia,” Jahrbuch der Öster-
reichischen Byzantinistik 28: 297–320.
74 Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey/Roosevelt
1987 “Sites and Strongholds of Northern Lydia,” Anatolian Stud-
ies 37: 81–101.
French, David H.
1969 “Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia II. The Balıkesir
and Akhisar/Manisa Areas,” Anatolian Studies 19: 41–98.
Gaffney, Vincent L., John Bintliff, and B. Slapšak
1991 “Site Formation Processes and the Hvar Survey Project,
Yugoslavia,” in A. J. Schofield, ed., Interpreting Artefact
Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 59–77.
Gaffney, Vincent L., Zoran Stančič, and Helen Watson
1995 “The Impact of GIS in Archaeology: A Personal Perspec-
tive,” in Gary Lock and Zoran Stančič, eds., Archaeology and
Geographic Information Systems: A European Perspective.
London and Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis, 211–229.
Gardin, Jean Claude
1980 Archaeological Constructs: An Aspect of Theoretical Archaeolo-
gy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gauthier, Philippe
1989 Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes II. Centre de Recherche d’His-
toire et de Philologie de la IVe Section de l’École pratique des
Hautes Études, III. Hautes Études du Monde Gréco-Romaine
15. Geneva: Droz.
Given, Michael, and A. Bernard Knapp
2003 The Sydney Cyprus Survey Project: Social Approaches to Re-
gional Archaeological Survey. Monumenta Archaeologica 21.
Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA.
Greenewalt, Crawford H., Jr.
1995 “Sardis in the Age of Xenophon,” in Pierre Briant, ed., Dans
les pas des Dix-Mille: peuples et pays du Proche-Orient vus par
un grec. Actes de la table ronde internationale organisé à l'ini-
tiative du GRACO, Toulouse 3–4 février 1995. PALLAS 43.
Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail, 125–145.
Hanfmann, George M. A.
1983 Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Hartigen, J. A., and M. A. Wong
1979 “Algorithm AS 136: A K-Means Clustering Algorithm,”
Applied Statistics 28: 100–108.
Hawkins, J. D.
1998 “Tarkasnawa King of Mira: ‘Tarkondemos,’ Boğazköy Seal-
ings and Karabel,” Anatolian Studies 48: 1–31.
1999 “New Evidence on the Hittite Empire Period in Western
Anatolia,” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswis-
senschaft, Neue Folge 23: 7–14.
Humann, Carl, Conrad Cichorius, Walther Judeich, and Franz Win-
ter
1898 Altertümer von Hierapolis. Berlin: G. Reimer.
Jameson, Michael H., Curtis Runnels, and Tjeerd H. van Andel
1994 A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to
the Modern Day. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Keil, Josef, and Anton von Premerstein
1908 Bericht über eine Reise in Lydien und der südlichen Aiolis, aus-
geführt 1906. Vienna: A. Hölder.
1911 Bericht über eine zweite Reise in Lydien, ausgeführt 1908. Vi-
enna: A. Hölder.
1914 Bericht über eine dritte Reise in Lydien, ausgeführt 1911. Vi-
enna: A. Hölder.
Korfmann, Manfred, Ayşe Baykal-Seeher, and Sinan Kılıç
1994 Anatolien in der Frühen und Mittleren Bronzezeit. Wies-
baden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Kohler, Ellen L.
1995 Gordion Excavations (1950–1973) Final Reports Volume II:
The Lesser Phrygian Tumuli, Part I, The Inhumations.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Ar-
chaeology and Anthropology.
Lazreg, N. Ben, and David J. Mattingly
1992 Leptiminus (Lamta): A Roman Port City in Tunisia. Report
No. 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lilova, Bogdana
1994 “Burial Tumuli in the Kazanluk Region,” in Kos’o Zarev,
ed., Nadgrobnite mogili v IUgoiztochna Evropa: purvi mezh-
dunaroden simpozium “Sevtopolis,” Kazanluk, 4–8 iuni 1993
Vol. 1. Veliko Turnovo: Izd-vo “PIK,” 117–124.
Lloyd, Seton, and James Mellaart
1962 Beycesultan I. London: British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara.
McLauchlin, Barbara K.
1985 Lydian Graves and Burial Customs. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley. Ann Arbor: University Mi-
crofilms.
Malay, Hasan
1994 Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Manisa Museum. Österre-
ichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-Hist. Klasse,
Denkschriften 237. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
1999 Researches in Lydia, Mysia and Aiolis. Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Denkschriften
279. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Malone, Caroline, and Simon Stoddart, editors
1994 Territory, Time, and State. The Archaeological Development of
the Gubbio Basin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Massagrande, Federica
1995 “Using GIS with Non-Systematic Survey Data: The
Mediterranean Evidence,” in Gary Lock and Zoran Stančič,
eds., Archaeology and Geographic Information Systems: A Eu-
ropean Perspective. London and Bristol, PA: Taylor & Fran-
cis, 55–65.
Mattingly, David
2000 “Methods of Collection, Recording, and Quantification,”
in Riccardo Francovich, Helen Patterson, and Graeme
Barker, eds., Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assem-
blages. The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes 5. Ox-
ford: Oxbow Books, 5–15.
Mellaart, James
1954 “Preliminary Report on a Survey of Pre-Classical Remains
in Southern Turkey,” Anatolian Studies 4: 175–240.
Mellink, Machteld J.
1998 “Opening Speech on Behalf of Scientific Institutions,” in
Numan Tuna, Zeynep Aktüre, and Maggie Lynch, eds.,
Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallelism. Proceedings
of an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and
Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia, Ankara, 3–4 June
1995. Ankara: Centre for Research and Assessment of the
Historic Environment and METU Faculty of Architecture
Press, 7–12.

Meriç, Recep
1983a “1982 Yılı İzmir-Aydın-Manisa İllerinde Tarihsel Coğrafya
Konulu Yüzey Araştırmaları Raporu,” Araştırma Sonuçları
Toplantısı 1: 51–52.
1983b “Küçük Menderes (Kaystros) Havzasının Tarihsel
Coğrafyası,” unpublished Doçentlik thesis, Güzel Sanatlar
Fakültesi, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey.
1985 “1984 Yılı İzmir ve Manisa İlleri Yüzey Araştırmaları,”
Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 3: 199–208.
1986 “1985 Yılı İzmir ve Manisa İlleri Yüzey Araştırması,”
Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 4: 301–310.
1987 “1986 Yılı İzmir ve Manisa İlleri Yüzey Araştırması,”
Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 5: 247–256.
1988 “1987 İzmir-Aydın-Manisa İlleri Yüzey Araştırması,”
Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 6: 385–392.
1989 “1988 Yılı İzmir, Manisa İlleri Arkeolojik Yüzey
Araştırması,” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 7: 361–366.
1993 “Pre-Bronze Age Settlements of West-Central Anatolia (An
Extended Abstract),” Anatolica 19: 143–150.
Özdoğan, Mehmet
1987 “Taşlıcabayır, a Late Bronze Age Burial Mound in Eastern
Thrace,” Anatolica 14: 7–39.
1998 “The Early Iron Age in Eastern Thrace and the Megalithic
Monuments,” in Numan Tuna, Zeynep Aktüre, and Mag-
gie Lynch, eds., Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Paral-
lelism. Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Ar-
chaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phry-
gia, Ankara, 3–4 June 1995. Ankara: Centre for Research
and Assessment of the Historic Environment and METU
Faculty of Architecture Press, 29–40.
Özdoğan, Mehmet, and M. Akman
1992 “1990 Yılı Trakya ve Marmara Bölgesi Araştırmaları,”
Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 9: 405–423.
Özgen, İlknür, and Jean Öztürk
1996 The Lydian Treasure: Heritage Recovered. İstanbul: Uğur
Okman for [the] Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Culture,
General Directorate of Monuments and Museums.
Özguç, Tahsin, and Mehmet Akok
1947 “Anıt-Kabir Alanında Yapılan Tümülüs Kazıları,” Belleten
11: 27–56.
Palavestra, Aleksandar
1998 “Landmarks of Power: Princely Tombs in the Central
Balkan Iron Age,” in Douglass Bailey and Steve Mills, eds.,
The Archaeology of Value: Essays on Prestige and Processes of
Valuation. BAR International Series 730. Oxford: John and
Erica Hedges, 55–69.
Panayotova, Christina
1994 “Tumuli in the Ancient Greek Settlements on the Bulgari-
an Black Sea Coast,” in Kos’o Zarev, ed., Nadgrobnite mogili
v IUgoiztochna Evropa: purvi mezhdunaroden simpozium
“Sevtopolis,” Kazanluk, 4–8 iuni 1993, Vol. 1. Veliko Turno-
vo: Izd-vo “PIK,” 81–88.
Paton, William R.
1900 “Sites in East Caria and South Lydia,” Journal of Hellenic
Studies 20: 57–80.
Patterson, Helen, editor
2004 Bridging the Tiber: Approaches to Regional Archaeology in the
Middle Tiber Valley. London: The British School at Rome.
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 31, 2006 75
Polosmak, Natalia V.
1994 “Siberian Mummy Unearthed,” National Geographic, Octo-
ber: 80–103.
Radet, Georges
1893 La Lydie et le monde grec au temps des Mermnades (687–546).
Paris: Thorin & Fils.
Radt, Wolfgang
1970 Siedlungen und Bauten auf der Halbinsel von Halikarnassos
unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archaischen Epoche. Is-
tanbüler Mitteilungen 3. Tübingen: E. Wasmuth.
1978 “Die Leleger auf der Halbinsel von Halikarnassos,” in
Ekrem Akurgal, ed., The Proceedings of the Xth Internation-
al Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara–İzmir,
23–30/IX/1973. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 335–347.
Ramage, Andrew, and Nancy Ramage
1971 “The Siting of Lydian Burial Mounds,” in David G. Mitten,
John G. Pedley, and Jane A. Scott, eds., Studies Presented to
George M. A. Hanfmann. Mainz: von Zabern, 143–160.
Ramsay, William M.
1890 The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London: John Mur-
ray.
Ratté, Christopher J.
1989 Lydian Masonry and Monumental Architecture at Sardis.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Ann
Arbor: University Microfilms.
1993 “Lydian Contributions to Archaic East Greek Architec-
ture,” in Jacques des Courtils and Jean-Charles Moretti,
eds., Les grands ateliers d’architecture dans le monde égéen du
VIe siècle av. J.-C. Actes du colloque d’Istanbul, 23–25 mai
1991. İstanbul: Institut français d'études anatoliennes,
1–12.
Renfrew, Colin
1976 “Megaliths, Territories, and Populations,” in Sigfried J. de
Laet, ed., Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe
Mainly During the Neolithic Period and the Bronze Age. Pa-
pers presented at the IV Atlantic Colloquium, Ghent 1975. Dis-
sertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 16. Brugge: De Tempel,
298–320.
Renfrew, Colin, and Malcolm Wagstaff, editors
1982 An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roosevelt, Christopher H.
2003 Lydian and Persian Period Settlement in Lydia. Ph.D. disser-
tation, Cornell University, Ithaca. Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms.
Roosevelt, Christopher H., and Christina Luke
in press a “Mysterious Shepherds and Hidden Treasures: The Cul-
ture of Looting in Lydia,” Journal of Field Archaeology.
in press b “Looting Lydia: The Destruction of an Archaeological
Landscape in Western Turkey,” in Neil Brodie, Morag
Kersel, Christina Luke, and Katherine W. Tubbs, eds., Ar-
chaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Trade in Antiquities.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Şahin, Işık
1998 “Lydia’da Küçük Yerleşimler,” unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Ege University, İzmir.
Schiffer, Michael B., Alan P. Sullivan, and Timothy C. Klinger
1978 “The Design of Archaeological Surveys,” World Archaeology
10: 1–28.
76 Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey/Roosevelt

Sevinç, Nurten
1996a “Çanakkale-Gümüşçay Tümülüsleri 1994 Yılı Kurtarma
Kazıları Ön Raporu,” Müze Kurtarma Kazısı Semineri 6:
443–449.
1996b “A New Sarcophagus of Polyxena from the Salvage Exca-
vations at Gümüşçay,” Studia Troica 6: 251–264.
Sevinç, Nurten, Charles Brian Rose, and Donna Strahan
1999 “A Child’s Sarcophagus from the Salvage Excavations at
Gümüşçay,” Studia Troica 9: 489–509.
Sevinç, Nurten, Charles Brian Rose, Donna Strahan, and Billur
Tekkök-Biçken
1998 “The Dedetepe Tumulus,” Studia Troica 8: 305–327.
Sevinç, Nurten, Reyhan Körpe, Musa Tombul, Charles Brian Rose,
Donna Strahan, Henrike Kiesewetter, and John Wallrodt
2001 “A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from Çan,”
Studia Troica 11: 383–420.
Takaoğlu, Turan
2004 “Moralı: A Neolithic Mound in Central-Western Anatolia,”
in Taner Korkut, Havva İkan, and Gül Işın, eds., Anadolu’-
da Doğdu 60. Yaşında Fahri Işık’a Armağan. Festschrift für
Fahri Işık zum 60. Geburtstag. Istanbul: Ege Yayınevi.
2005 A Chalcolithic Marble Workshop at Kulaksizlar in Western
Anatolia: An Analysis of Production and Craft Specialization.
BAR International Series 1358. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Topalov, Stavri
1994 The Odrisian Kingdom from the Late 5th to the Mid 4th c. BC:
Contributions to the Study of its Coinage and History. Sofia:
Agato.
Voigt, Mary M.
2002 “Gordion: The Rise and Fall of an Iron Age Capital,” in
David C. Hopkins, ed., Across the Anatolian Plateau. Annu-
al of the American School for Oriental Research 57 (2000).
Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 187–196.
Wells, Berit, and Curtis Runnels, editors
1996 The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988–1990. Stock-
holm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.
Wilkinson, Tony J.
1990 Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia, Volume 1: Set-
tlement and Land Use at Kurban Höyük and Other Sites in
the Lower Karababa Basin. Oriental Institute Publication
109. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
2003 Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. Tucson: Univer-
sity of Arizona Press.
Wiseman, James, and Konstantinos Zachos, editors
2003 Landscape Archaeology in Southern Epirus, Greece 1. Hesperia
Supplement 32. Princeton: American School of Classical
Studies at Athens.
Wright, James C., John F. Cherry, Jack L. Davis, Eleni Mantzourani,
Susan B. Sutton, and Robert F. Sutton, Jr.
1990 “The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: A Preliminary
Report,” Hesperia 59: 579–659.
Young, Rodney S.
1981 Gordion Excavations (1975–1973) Final Reports Volume I:
Three Great Early Tumuli. Philadelphia: University of Penn-
sylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Zahle, Jan
1975 “Archaic Tumulus Tombs in Central Lycia (Phellos),” Acta
Archaeologica 46: 77–94.