@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Arts, Faculty of"@en, "Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, Department of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Nixon, Lucia Frances"@en ; dcterms:issued "2010-02-26T03:55:41Z"@en, "1977"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Arts - MA"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description """The Galatians were a group of Celts who arrived in Anatolia from the west in 278 B.C. According to the historical sources, they earned their livelihood by plundering and by serving as mercenaries in the eastern Mediterranean. Ancient authors state that the Galatians constituted a definite threat to the cities of western Asia Minor before they were settled in central Anatolia. Galatia became a Roman province in 25 B.C.; by that time, the Galatians had been thoroughly absorbed by the local population. The purpose of this paper is to see what archaeological evidence exists for the presence of the Galatians in Anatolia during the pre-provincial period, and how that evidence can be obtained. Three types of evidence are examined: pottery, burials and grave goods, and forts and settlements. Galatian pottery is still a controversial subject requiring more study and excavation. Only one burial site, Karalar, can definitely be identified by an inscription in Greek. The evidence from this site suggests that the Galatians adopted various types of Hellenistic tomb architecture and that they placed a fundamentally Hellenistic selection of grave goods within their tombs and graves. Galatian burials are therefore hard to distinguish from ordinary Hellenistic burials in Anatolia. Three tores and three fibulae from burials at Karalar, Bolu, and Bogazk5y are probably Celtic; that there are so few of them suggests that they had been imported from Europe, and that the Galatians were not themselves metalworkers in the Celtic tradition. Such objects cannot be used as the sole means of identifying Galatian burials. The situation is little better for forts and settlements. Some have been identified because they were inhabited by literate people before or after the arrival of the Galatians; others have been suggested because of the likelihood of their location. Settlement seems to be more dense west of the Halys but more surveys and excavation are necessary to test this emerging pattern. So far, the pre-provincial period has yielded little in the way of archaeological evidence for the presence of the Galatians in Anatolia, despite the solid background provided by the historical sources. The Galatians had little connection with the European Celts and adapted easily to local customs. This capacity for adaptation makes it difficult to say what is Galatian and what is Anatolian Hellenistic. Only further work in the field can remedy this state of affairs."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/21055?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note "THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL. RECORD OF THE GALATIANS IN ANATOLIA, 278-63 B..C. by Lucia Frances Nixon A.B., Bryn Maw College, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR -THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Classics s, We accept this thesis as;conforming to the required standard THE..UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1977 © Lucia Frances Nixon, 1977 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of . G l a s s i e s The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1W5 Date p p h m a r y 3fi r 1 Q7ft i i ABSTRACT The G a l a t i a n s were a group of C e l t s who a r r i v e d i n A n a t o l i a from the west i n 278 B.C. According to the h i s t o r i c a l sources, they earned t h e i r l i v e l i h o o d by plu n d e r i n g and by s e r v i n g as mercenaries i n the eastern Medit-erranean. Ancient authors s t a t e that the Ga l a t i a n s c o n s t i t u t e d a d e f i n i t e t h r e a t to the c i t i e s of western A s i a Minor before they were s e t t l e d i n c e n t r a l A n a t o l i a . G a l a t i a became a Roman province i n 25 B.C.; by t h a t time, the G a l a t i a n s had been thoroughly absorbed by the l o c a l p o p u l a t i o n . The purpose of t h i s paper i s t o see what a r c h a e o l o g i c a l evidence e x i s t s f o r the presence of the G a l a t i a n s i n A n a t o l i a during the p r e - p r o v i n c i a l per-i o d , and how th a t evidence can be obtained. Three types of evidence are examined: p o t t e r y , b u r i a l s and grave goods, and f o r t s and settlements. G a l a t i a n p o t t e r y i s s t i l l a c o n t r o v e r s i a l sub-j e c t r e q u i r i n g more study and excavation. Only one b u r i a l s i t e , K a r a l a r , can d e f i n i t e l y be i d e n t i f i e d by an i n s c r i p t i o n i n Greek. The evidence from t h i s s i t e suggests t h a t the G a l a t i a n s adopted v a r i o u s types o f H e l l e n i s t i c tomb a r c h i t e c t u r e and that they placed a fundamentally H e l l e n i s t i c s e l e c t i o n of grave goods w i t h i n t h e i r tombs and graves. G a l a t i a n b u r i a l s are there-fore hard to d i s t i n g u i s h from o r d i n a r y H e l l e n i s t i c b u r i a l s i n A n a t o l i a . Three to r e s and three f i b u l a e from b u r i a l s a t K a r a l a r , Bolu, and Bogazk5y are probably C e l t i c ; t h a t there are so few of them suggests t h a t they had been imported from Europe, and that the Ga l a t i a n s were not themselves metal-workers i n the C e l t i c t r a d i t i o n . Such o b j e c t s cannot be used as the sole means of i d e n t i f y i n g G a l a t i a n b u r i a l s . The s i t u a t i o n i s l i t t l e b e t t e r f o r f o r t s and settlements. Some have been i d e n t i f i e d because they were i n h a b i t e d by l i t e r a t e people before or a f t e r the a r r i v a l o f the G a l a t i a n s ; others have been suggested because of the l i k e l i h o o d of t h e i r l o c a t i o n . Settlement seems to be more dense west of the Halys but more surveys and excavation are necessary to t e s t t h i s emerging p a t t e r n . So f a r , the p r e - p r o v i n c i a l p e r i o d has y i e l d e d l i t t l e i n the way of a r c h a e o l o g i c a l evidence f o r the presence of the G a l a t i a n s i n A n a t o l i a , d e s p i t e the s o l i d background provided by the h i s t o r i c a l sources. The Gala-t i a n s had l i t t l e connection w i t h the European C e l t s and adapted e a s i l y to l o c a l customs. This c a p a c i t y f o r adaptation makes i t d i f f i c u l t to say what i s G a l a t i a n and what i s A n a t o l i a n H e l l e n i s t i c . Only f u r t h e r work i n the f i e l d can remedy t h i s s t a t e of a f f a i r s . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS In t r o d u c t i o n 1 H i s t o r i c a l O u t l i n e 8 P o t t e r y 35 B u r i a l s and Grave Goods 44 Fo r t s and Settlements 69 Conclusion 87 Figures and I l l u s t r a t i o n s 89 B i b l i o g r a p h y 106 V LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS 1. \"Galatian\" pottery. Maier, J d l 78 (1963) 235, f i g . 14. 2. Shapes of \"Galatian\" pottery. Maier, J d l 78 (1963), pp. 221, 222, f i g s . 1, 2. 3. Map of Galatian, \"Galatian\", and other tombs. 4. Kurtkale. Mansel, Belleten 38 (1974), f i g . 22. Igdir. T6kg6z, TurkArkDerg 22 (1975), p. 157, f i g . 3 Gemlik. Mellink, AJA 71 (1967), p. 173, f i g . 1. 5. Mudanya. Mansel, Belleten 38 (1974), f i g . 16. Kirkagac. Mellink, AJA 67 (1963), p. 189, f i g . 1. 6. Map of Karalar. Arik, Turk Tarih A r k e o l o j i Etnografya D e r g i s i 2 (1934), p i . 2. 7. Karalar C. Mansel, Belleten 38 (1974), f i g . 21. Gordibn I. Young AJA 59 (1955), p i . 81, f i g . 4. 8. Karalar A. Arik, TTAED 2 (1934), p i . 8. 9. Karalar A. Arik, TTAED 2 (1934), p i . 14. 10. Kucucek/Aykazi. F i r a t l i , Belleten 17 (1953), f i g . 5. 11. Karalar B. Arik, TTAED 2 (1934), p i . 11. 12. Bolu East. F i r a t l i , AJA 69 (1965), p i . 94, f i g . 5. 13. Buckle from Bolu West. F i r a t l i , AJA 69 (1965), p i . 95, f i g . 7. 14. Gordion I I . Edwards, Expedition 5 (1963), f i g . 34. Besevler. Hoepfner, AthMitt 86 (1971), f i g . 4. 15. Map of possible Galatian h i l l - f o r t s and settlements, a f t e r M i t c h e l l , D.Phil, t h e s i s , Oxford, 1974. 16. Peium. M i t c h e l l , AnatSt 24 (1974), p. 67, f i g . 8. 17. Karalar. Arik, TTAED 2 (1934), p i . 19. v i ACKNOWLE DGEMENT I would l i k e to thank Professor E.H. Williams for suggesting the topic of t h i s paper, and Professors J.A.S. Evans and J. Russell for acting as thesis supervisors. A l l three have made h e l p f u l and appropriate comments, and have provided much-needed encouragement. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y g r a t e f u l to Stephen M i t c h e l l f o r helping me with r e f -erences and for making his t h e s i s on Ga l a t i a a v a i l a b l e to me. Additional thanks are due to Professors Machteld J . Mellink and Fred Winter, Peter Kuniholm, and David French for help with bibliography. David French also l e t me see the draught of the unpublished guide to the v i l a y e t of Ankara. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia provided generous f i n a n c i a l a i d i n 1971-72 and 1972-73 through the H.R. MacMillan Foundation, which made i t possible f o r me to v i s i t Galatian and \"Galatian\" s i t e s when I was i n Turkey i n 1973. I would also l i k e to thank my family and friends f o r a l l t h e i r help and support. 1. INTRODUCTION This paper i s concerned with c e r t a i n aspects of the archaeological record of the Galatians, a group of o r i g i n a l l y European C e l t s , from t h e i r a r r i v a l i n Asia Minor i n 278 B.C., u n t i l Pompey's eastern settlement of 63 B.C. The Galatians themselves were an i l l i t e r a t e people, but t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s i n western Asia Minor and c e n t r a l Anatolia are f a i r l y well documented i n Greek and Roman h i s t o r i c a l sources. Thus i t i s possible to use the h i s t o r i c a l evidence as a basis for archaeological i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The task, then, i s to combine both h i s t o r i c a l and archaeological i n f o r -mation, i n order to obtain some notion of the Galatian c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y i n Anatolia. The c l o s e s t analogy for t h i s kind of problem i s probably that of the Kimmerians, who preceded the Galatians i n Anatolia by a l i t t l e over four centuries. They are mentioned i n Greek, Assyrian, and B i b l i c a l sources, although they themselves were i l l i t e r a t e . The Kimmerians may have been .. driven from t h e i r homeland i n the south Russian steppes by the Scythians; i n the e a r l y seventh century they acted as mercenaries for Urartian kings, and l a t e r they constituted one of the nuisances which led to the downfall of the Assyrians. They posed a threat i n Lydia and i n Phrygia, where they made a r a i d on Gordion. I t i s thought that u l t i m a t e l y they s e t t l e d i n Cappa-docia.\"'' Archaeologically, the Kimmerians are very d i f f i c u l t to detect; i n f a c t , without the evidence of the h i s t o r i c a l sources, t h e i r presence i n Anatolia might well have gone unnoticed. The Kimmerians brought with them no d i s t i n c t i v e s t y l e i n a r t or weaponry, and were not apparently the b u i l d -ers of substantial settlements. 2. The case of the G a l a t i a n s i s s i m i l a r . They were described by the h i s t -o r i a n s of other c u l t u r e s ; they had been on the move f o r long enough to have shed most of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c c u l t u r a l t r a i t s which might have l i n k e d them w i t h t h e i r European counterparts. Thus they could e a s i l y have adapted to l o c a l customs. I t i s the evidence from h i s t o r i c a l sources, w i t h the confirm-a t i o n from i n s c r i p t i o n s and s c u l p t u r a l d e d i c a t i o n s , t h a t makes the G a l a t i a n presence i n A n a t o l i a during the two c e n t u r i e s i n question a f a c t r a t h e r than a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s u p p o s i t i o n . Nonetheless, an attempt must be made to piece together the a v a i l a b l e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l evidence. There are two main d i f f i c u l t i e s i n doing t h i s . In the f i r s t p l a c e , a great deal of work remains to be done on the archaeology of the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , e s p e c i a l l y i n areas such as A n a t o l i a which were not p a r t of the c u l t u r a l mainstream. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between general h e l -l e n i s i h g i n f l u e n c e and r e s i d u a l Phrygian elements needs to be f i r m l y estab-l i s h e d . At present i t i s hard to say how the G a l a t i a n s reacted to the t h i r d century B.C. c u l t u r e of c e n t r a l A n a t o l i a i n terms of what h a b i t s of t h e i r own were discarded or modified, s i n c e the m a t e r i a l existence of the l o c a l people of the area i s i t s e l f i l l - d e f i n e d . In the second p l a c e , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to be p r e c i s e about the c u l t u r e the G a l a t i a n s brought w i t h them to A s i a Minor, although much i s known about the European C e l t s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the c l a s s i c a l world i n e a r l i e r p e r i o d s . The G a l a t i a n s were among the C e l t s who had penetrated i n t o the Balkans by the mid-fourth century B.C., and who l a t e r invaded 2 Macedonia and attacked Delphi. This knowledge does not help us much, as there i s no d e t a i l e d study of the c u l t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between these C e l t s and the peoples of the lower Danube on the other. I t i s not w i t h i n the 3. scope of t h i s paper to r e s o l v e the l a t t e r questions, but i t i s necessary to mention the gaps i n our knowledge which complicate the G a l a t i a n problem. Even a f t e r they had reached c e n t r a l A n a t o l i a w i t h whatever c u l t u r e they had r e t a i n e d during t h e i r wanderings, the G a l a t i a n s seem to have l i v e d from hand to mouth; i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t such a way of l i f e was r e f l e c t e d by a correspondingly ad hoc c u l t u r e . While the Ga l a t i a n s were not p a s t o r a l i s t s w i t h a r e g u l a r p a t t e r n o f transhumance (and th e r e f o r e d i d not evolve the streamlined c u l t u r e o f the true nomad), they took a long time to adapt to a s e t t l e d l i f e which d i d not r e q u i r e sporadic f i g h t i n g and p i l l a g i n g . This may e x p l a i n the s p o t t i n e s s of the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l record, and the r e l a t i v e l a c k of obvious c u l t u r a l t r a i t s which can be l a b e l l e d G a l a t i a n w i t h c e r t -a i n t y . To sum up the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n v o l v e d i n undertaking t o e s t a b l i s h the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the G a l a t i a n s : we l a c k the bas i c archaeo-l o g i c a l sequence f o r the pla c e and time under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h a t i s , the p e r i o d between the t h i r d and f i r s t c e n t u r i e s B.C., and the area of modern Turkey from S i v r i h i s s a r to Yozgat, o r c e n t r a l A n a t o l i a . Furthermore, we are d e a l i n g w i t h a people whose c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y had become b l u r r e d before they entered t h i s t e r r i t o r y , and who f a i l e d to produce an e a s i l y recognizable c u l t u r e o f t h e i r own before G a l a t i a was made a Roman province. By and l a r g e , the study of G a l a t i a n archaeology s u f f e r s most from never having been regarded as a problem, or r a t h e r as a subject worthy of system-a t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Evidence f o r G a l a t i a n m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e has accumulated almost by acc i d e n t : few a r c h a e o l o g i s t s have set out to d i s c o v e r the Gala-t i a n s , and most, when confronted w i t h u n t i d y H e l l e n i s t i c d e b r i s on s i t e s i n c e n t r a l A n a t o l i a , i d e n t i f y i t as G a l a t i a n and remove i t i n order to 4. excavate what they are r e a l l y l o o k i n g f o r . Such a s i t u a t i o n i s understand-able i n A n a t o l i a , given the splendours of the H i t t i t e and Phrygian p e r i o d s , to say nothing of the c l a s s i c a l f r i n g e s of western A s i a Minor, but i t i s h a r d l y a good s i t u a t i o n from the p o i n t of view of p r e - p r o v i n c i a l G a l a t i a . The f i r s t attempts a t r e c o n c i l i n g h i s t o r y and archaeology were made i n the nineteenth century by s c h o l a r s such as Ramsay. He was preoccupied w i t h the Jerusalem I t i n e r a r y and Roman road systems, but he suggested s e v e r a l s i t e s as p o s s i b l e G a l a t i a n h i l l - f o r t s . Others of h i s era t r i e d to do the same but were c e r t a i n t h a t the G a l a t i a n s i n h a b i t e d magnificent c i t i e s , and o f t e n erred i n t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s to the detriment of H i t t i t e s and Phrygians. In the e a r l y t w e n t i e t h century, s c h o l a r s became i n t e r e s t e d i n the s i m i l a r i t i e s o f European C e l t i c p o t t e r y and \" G a l a t i a n \" p o t t e r y , both l o c a l o f f s h o o t s of t y p i c a l l y H e l l e n i s t i c wares. The connection between Europe and A s i a Minor seemed more d e f i n i t e . In the 1930's, Kurt. B i t t e l v i s i t e d s i t e s such as Pessinus and the newly l o c a t e d Tavium, t r y i n g t o e s t a b l i s h the nature of the G a l a t i a n occupation. C e l t i c f i b u l a e turned up a t Bogazkby and i n d i c a t e d some l i n k w i t h Europe. Al s o i n the 1930's, the K a r a l a r ex-cavations were conducted and p u b l i s h e d by Remzi Og\"uz A r i k . K a r a l a r was then, and i s now, the only s i t e i d e n t i f i e d beyond doubt as G a l a t i a n . I t i s important f o r i t s three tumuli and i t s h i l l - f o r t , but u n f o r t u n a t e l y provides l i t t l e evidence f o r G a l a t i a n h a b i t a t i o n . A r i f M i i f i d Mansel was p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the c o r b e l l e d tomb at K a r a l a r and i t s p o s s i b l e connections w i t h Thracian and Macedonian ex-amples. Since the 1940's he has c o n t i n u a l l y t r i e d to e s t a b l i s h the degree and extent of the i n f l u e n c e of these areas on western A s i a Minor. Since then a number of tombs has been found i n B i t h y n i a ; these show t h a t Thrac-. ian'.and Macedonian i n f l u e n c e was probably f e l t i n A s i a Minor before the a r r i v a l of the G a l a t i a n s . More work i s needed i n these p e r i p h e r a l areas to determine what non-Greek peoples were l i v i n g there and to d i s c o v e r how c l o s e l y they were a f f i l i a t e d w i t h Europe i t s e l f . \" G a l a t i a n \" p o t t e r y continues t o nag at the conscience of a r c h a e o l o g i s t s . Having analyzed the type i n d e t a i l , Ferdinand Maier asse r t e d t h a t G a l a t i a n p o t t e r y i s G a l a t i a n only i n provenance, making i t f a r l e s s easy to c a l l the rough H e l l e n i s t i c settlements on s i t e s such as Gordion p u r e l y G a l a t i a n . F r e d e r i c k Winter, who studied the H e l l e n i s t i c p o t t e r y at Gordion, i s i n t o t a l agreement w i t h Maier and subscribes to the now p r e v a l e n t b e l i e f t h a t the G a l a t i a n s were an extremely adaptable people, and t h e r e f o r e d i f f i c u l t to p i n down i n terms of d i s t i n c t i v e types of p o t t e r y and a r c h i t e c t u r e . But B i t t e l staunchly continues to b e l i e v e t h a t \" G a l a t i a n \" p o t t e r y i s G a l a t i a n , and the controversy remains. More r e c e n t l y , Stephen M i t c h e l l has completed a D . P h i l , t h e s i s en-3 t i t l e d The H i s t o r y and Archaeology of G a l a t i a . He examines the h i s t o r i c a l evidence from the p o i n t of view of the G a l a t i a n s — t h e f i r s t time t h a t t h i s has been done—and proceeds t o a d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the topography and archaeology of G a l a t i a . His study i s of immense value to students of the area, since i t combines sound h i s t o r i c a l research w i t h a w e l l - o r g a n i z e d a r c h a e o l o g i c a l survey. M i t c h e l l manages to extend our knowledge of the G a l a t i a n s without l o s i n g s i g h t of the l i m i t a t i o n s of the a v a i l a b l e evidence; he i s p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l on the subject of h i l l - f o r t s and p o s s i b l e un-f o r t i f i e d settlement s i t e s . I t i s time now to consider the scope and r e s t r i c t i o n s of t h i s paper. What f o l l o w s i s not a comprehensive study of p r e - p r o v i n c i a l G a l a t i a n arch-aeology, f o r such an opus would be f a r beyond the competence of the present 6 . writer. Rather, t h i s paper w i l l examine three types of archaeological evidence—pottery, b u r i a l s and grave goods, and f o r t s and settlements, to c l a r i f y the methods used to amass each of these types of evidence. The problems involved i n d e f i n i n g the material culture of the Galatians recur i n any attempt to focus on the archaeological i d e n t i t y of a marginal people. This i s why the Kimmerian problem, discussion of which might i n i t i a l l y have seemed i r r e l e v a n t , was mentioned at the beginning of t h i s introduction. I t may not i n f a c t be possible to abstract any general p r i n c i p l e s from the uneven evidence at hand, but i t i s necessary at l e a s t to t r y . The f i r s t step i s c e r t a i n l y c l e a r . In t h i s case, the h i s t o r i c a l evid-ence i s r e l a t i v e l y coherent, and so, before any examination of the archaeo-l o g i c a l material, a b r i e f chronological o u t l i n e w i l l be given, i n order to put the Galatians i n t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l context. This w i l l include a short note on the a r t i s t i c representations of the Galatians. Then we w i l l pro-ceed to the archaeological sections on pottery, b u r i a l s and grave goods, and f o r t s and settlements. 7. FOOTNOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION 1. E.D. P h i l l i p s , \"The Scythian Domination i n Western A s i a : i t s Record i n H i s t o r y , S c r i p t u r e and Archaeology\", World Archaeology 4 (1973-73) 129-139. See a l s o Rodney Young, \"The Nomadic Impact: Gordion\", pp. 52-57 i n Dark Ages and Nomads c_. 1000 B.C., e d i t e d by Machteld J . M e l l i n k , Nederlands H i s t o r i s c h - A r c h a e o l o g i s c h I n s t i t u u t , I s t a n b u l , 1964. 2. T.G.E. Powell, The C e l t s , Thames and Hudson, London, 1958, pp. 22-23. See a l s o C.F.C. Hawkes' e x c e l l e n t summary, \"The C e l t s : Report on the Study of t h e i r C u l t u r e and t h e i r Mediterranean R e l a t i o n s , 1942-1962\", pp. 61-79 i n Le_ Rayonnement des C i v i l i s a t i o n s Grecque et Romaine sur l e s C u l t u r e s P e r i p h e r i q u e s , V I I I Congres I n t e r n a t i o n a l d1Arch£ologie (P a r i s 1963), E d i t i o n s de Boccard, P a r i s , 1965; Nora K. Chadwick and Myles D i l l o n , The C e l t i c Realms, Weidenfeld and N i c o l s o n , London, 1967, chapter 1, pp. 1-17; Jan F i l i p , C e l t i c C i v i l i s a t i o n and i t s Heritage, P u b l i s h i n g House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences and A r t i a , Prague 1960 ( E n g l i s h e d i t i o n 1962); and S t u a r t P i g g o t t , Ancient Europe, A l d i n e , Chicago, 1965, chapter 6, pp. 115-266. For the a r t of the European C e l t s , see Paul J a c o b s t h a l , E a r l y C e l t i c A r t , Oxford, Clarendon, o r i g i n a l e d i t i o n 1944, c o r r e c t e d e d i t i o n 1969; and Nancy K. Sandars, P r e h i s t o r i c A r t rin.'.Europe, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1967, chapters 8 and 9, pp. 226-284. 3. Stephen M i t c h e l l , The H i s t o r y and Archaeology of G a l a t i a , D. P h i l . : . z ' . t h e s i s , Oxford U n i v e r s i t y , 1974, h e r e a f t e r M i t c h e l l . 8. HISTORICAL OUTLINE The h i s t o r i c a l o u t l i n e t h a t f o l l o w s i s not intended to be a comprehen-s i v e account of p r e - p r o v i n c i a l G a l a t i a n h i s t o r y . ^ The i n t e n t i o n i s t o present the b a s i c h i s t o r i c a l data w i t h a view to e s t a b l i s h i n g a time-frame fo r the a r c h a e o l o g i c a l evidence c o l l e c t e d i n the l a t e r s e c t i o n s of t h i s paper. I t was mentioned i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n t h a t the G a l a t i a n s made a p r a c t i c e of l o o t i n g and p i l l a g i n g i n order to s u s t a i n themselves, and t h a t they . . seemed to f i n d s e t t l e d l i f e uncongenial. Thus t h e i r e a r l y h i s t o r y i n Ana-t o l i a i s t h a t of a people always on the lookout f o r short-term p r o f i t s , whether m a t e r i a l or p o l i t i c a l . They found i t easy to prey on the prosperous c i t i e s of A s i a Minor, and were quick to take advantage of the s h i f t s of a l l e g i a n c e among more s t a b l e populations i n the area. Their f i r s t encounters w i t h the H e l l e n t i s t i c world set the tone f o r t h e i r subsequent h i s t o r y . In the f i r s t t h i r d o f the f o u r t h century B.C., groups of C e l t s , b e t t e r known as the Gauls, were d r i v e n south..from t h e i r c e n t r a l European homeland. Some were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the sack of Rome; others t r a v e l l e d east and followed the Danube to I l l y r i a and Pannonia. In 280 B.C., a second, and t r i p a r t i t e , m i g r a t i o n began. One group, under C e r e t h r i u s , went t o Thrace: the second, under Brennus and Acichorus, to 2 Paeonia; while the t h i r d , under B e l g i u s or B o l g i u s , went to Macedonia. Brennus and some of h i s men made an unsuccessful a t t a c k on the sanc-tuary of A p o l l o at D e l p h i , and were discouraged from f u r t h e r r a i d s on 3 Greece. Another group of C e l t s , a f t e r v a r i o u s campaigns i n Macedonia and 4 Thrace, was defeated by Antigonus Gonatas at Lysimacheia i n the P r o p o n t i s . 9. Some of the C e l t s , under Commontorius, founded the kingdom of T y l i s on the 5 west shore of the Black Sea n o r t h of Byzantium. M i t c h e l l p o i n t s out t h a t although, the sequence of events i n Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace between (roughly) 280 and 278 B.C. i s d i f f i c u l t t o e s t a b l i s h , the a c t i v i t i e s of the C e l t s were remarkably c o n s i s t e n t . As M i t c h e l l puts i t : ^ T heir aim was not land on which to s e t t l e , but money or booty, which could be acquired i n a v a r i e t y of ways: by h i r i n g out t h e i r s e r v i c e s as mercenaries, by demanding p r o t e c t i o n money from r u l e r s whose land they were i n a p o s i t i o n to ravage, by a t t a c k i n g wealthy c i t i e s or s a n c t u a r i e s , and by plundering the countryside. A l l these methods c l e a r l y a n t i c i p a t e the more widespread G a l a t i a n a c t i v i t i e s i n A s i a Minor. The next major event i n the h i s t o r y of the G a l a t i a n s was the d i a b a s i s of 278 to A s i a Minor, which presumably took place a f t e r the defeat of 7 Lysxmachexa. Under Leonnorxus and L u t a r i u s , some of the C e l t s who had been w i t h Brennus 1 and Acichorus' group had l e f t Thrace f o r the P r o p o n t i s . Perhaps i t was there t h a t they f i r s t heard of the r i c h n e s s of A s i a Minor; i n any case, L u t a r i u s and a small band obtained f i v e boats from the l o c a l Macedonia g a r r i s o n , and crossed the Hellespont independently. Leonnorius and the l a r g e r p a r t of the two l e a d e r s ' o r i g i n a l group were engaged by Nicomedes of B i t h y n i a , to help subdue h i s r e b e l l i o u s brother Zipoetes (and thereby l e s s e n the t h r e a t of B i t h y n i a n annexation by Zipoetes' a l l y A n t i o -g chus I ) , and thus obtained t h e i r passage to A s i a Minor. Whatever the p r e c i s e terms of the c o n t r a c t between Nicomedes and the 9 G a l a t i a n s were , once they had helped him to q u e l l Zipoetes' r e v o l t , they were permitted to r a i d any p a r t of A n a t o l i a outside B i t h y n i a n t e r r i t o r y . At t h i s p o i n t , the G a l a t i a n s d i v i d e d i n t o three t r i b e s , each w i t h i t s own area f o r plunder: the Trocmi took the coast of the H e l l e s p o n t , and the 10. 11 T o l i s t o b o g i i chose A e o l i s and I o n i a , w h i l e the Tectosages were t o concentrate on the i n l a n d p a r t s of A s i a M i n o r . ^ For the next f i v e years or so, the G a l a t i a n s roamed these areas a t w i l l , l e a v i n g t e r r o r and d e s t r u c t i o n i n t h e i r wake. Cyzicus was h i t i n e a r l y 277, probably by L u t a r i u s and h i s men on t h e i r way to j o i n Leonnorius. I l i u m was b r i e f l y considered as a p o s s i b l e G a l a t i a n base, but r e j e c t e d be-12 cause i t was unwalled. An i n s c r i p t i o n a t Erythrae thanks the generals o f the f i r s t four months of the year f o r arranging \"Danegeld\" payments to the 13 14 15 G a l a t i a n s . M i l e t u s and Didyma a l s o s u f f e r e d a t t a c k s , nor d i d T h y a t e i r a 16 escape. An i n s c r i p t i o n from Priene describes G a l a t i a n r a i d i n g methods and records the measures taken by Sotas t o get r i d o f the c i t y ' s a t t a c k e r s . The G a l a t i a n s moved i n t o the t e r r i t o r y of P r i e n e , desecrated s a n c t u a r i e s , cap-tured c i t i z e n s l i v i n g outside the w a l l s a t random, set f i r e to houses and farms, and k i l l e d numerous people. Sotas p a i d v o l u n t e e r s t o man strong 17 p o i n t s i n the countryside, from which a t t a c k s could be made. E v e n t u a l l y Antiochus I undertook to r i d A s i a Minor o f the G a l a t i a n menace. Records o f t h i s campaign are almost e n t i r e l y l a c k i n g , except f o r mentions of a b a t t l e i n which Antiochus, w i t h the help of s i x t e e n elephants, x / 18 defeated the G a l a t i a n s and earned the t i t l e of io>T*jp. The date o f the b a t t l e has r e c e n t l y been moved from 275 t o 272, which means t h a t the Gala-19 t i a n s had had f u l l y f i v e years i n which t o plunder and t e r r o r i z e . . 20 Ancient h i s t o r i a n s d i f f e r as t o what happened next. Appian and 21 L i v y imply t h a t because of Antiochus I , the G a l a t i a n s had t o leave west-ern A s i a Minor and take up residence i n the b a s i n of the Halys and the 22 23 Sangarius. Strabo and Pausanias suggest t h a t the G a l a t i a n s were con-11. fined to G a l a t i a proper only a f t e r t h e i r defeat at the hands of the A t t a l -i d s some f o r t y years l a t e r . M i t c h e l l points out that Livy, Strabo, and Pausanias are t r y i n g to emphasize l a t e r s u c c e s s e s — o f Cn. Manlius Vulso on the one hand who defeated the Galatians on t h e i r own ground i n 189 B.C., and of the A t t a l i d s on the other. Other factors also have a bearing on t h i s subject. One i s Antiochus 1 reputation a f t e r the b a t t l e ; another i s the a v a i l a b l e evidence for Galatian h i s t o r y between ca 270 and ca 230. There are no f i r m l y dated attacks on the c i t i e s of western Asia Minor a f t e r 270; t h i s implies that the Galatians were using some other area as t h e i r base, probably c e n t r a l Anatolia. Then, too, f o r t y years of Galatian wandering, during, which the f i g h t i n g men would have been accompanied by t h e i r wives and c h i l d r e n seem d i f f i c u l t , u n l i k e l y and unnecessary. As M i t c h e l l says, i t i s f a r more sensible to assume that at some time a f t e r the B a t t l e o f the Elephants, the Galatians s e t t l e d on the Anatolian plateau i n the three groups mentioned by ancient h i s t o r i a n s . The t e r r i t o r y around Pessinus was inhabited by the T o l i s t o b o g i i , that around Ankara by the Tectosages, while the area east of the Halys around Tavium was populated 24 by the Trocmi. In theory, then, i t should be possible to f i n d traces of the Galatians i n G a l a t i a i t s e l f dating from ca 270 B.C. or l a t e r . I t should not be forgotten that Antiochus' v i c t o r y over the Galatians i n 272 was cemented by payments of_protection money i n order to prevent future Galatian harassment i n western A s i a Minor. The Galatians, pre-sumably established i n t h e i r new settlements i n c e n t r a l Anatolia by now, looked north and east for a d d i t i o n a l sources of income. An episode of ca 255-253 i s perhaps paradeigmatic of t h e i r approach to earning a l i v i n g . Ziaelas had been passed over as h e i r by h i s father Nicomedes of Bithynia, 12. the o l d a l l y of the G a l a t i a n s who had procured t h e i r passage to Turkey i n 278. When the c i t i z e n s o f H e r a c l e i a P o n t i c a s e t t l e d the dispute between Z i a e l a s and Nicomedes p e a c e f u l l y , the G a l a t i a n s attacked t h e i r t e r r i t o r y 25 and marched home w i t h the booty. I t i s obvious t h a t the G a l a t i a n s d i d not have ahigh regard f o r t r e a t i e s , since t h e i r r a i d on H e r a c l e i a was a d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n of t h e i r agreement w i t h Nicomedes. R e l a t i v e l y soon a f t e r the B a t t l e of the Elephants, the G a l a t i a n s had fought w i t h M i t h r i d a t e s of Pontus and Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia against a Ptolemaic e x p e d i t i o n i n the Black Sea. The G a l a t i a n s captured the anchors of the enemy sh i p s , were awarded the t e r r i t o r y around Ancyra, and named t h e i r new c i t y a f t e r t h e i r naval t r o p h i e s . Tidy a e t i o l o g i c a l myths o f t h i s type o f t e n c o n t a i n some t r u t h : M i t c h e l l says t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t M i t h r i d a t e s I C t i s t e s was p a r t i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s e t t l i n g the Gala-26 t i a n s i n the Ankara r e g i o n before he d i e d i n 266. This i s a l s o another i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the G a l a t i a n s were e s t a b l i s h i n g themselves i n c e n t r a l Ana-t o l i a before the middle of the t h i r d century. The G a l a t i a n s remained on a f r i e n d l y f o o t i n g w i t h P o n t i c r u l e r s u n t i l the death o f M i t h r i d a t e s ' succes-sor Ariobarzanes i n ca 250 B.C., a t which p o i n t Ariobarzanes' son M i t h r i -dates I I , who was s t i l l a boy, succeeded to the Po n t i c throne, and the Ga l a t i a n s plundered the kingdom. When H e r a c l e i a t r i e d to help out one of the P o n t i c c i t i e s , the Ga l a t i a n s attacked i t again. In the end, the usual 27 a n t i d o t e to G a l a t i a n i n v a s i o n was employed, and they were p a i d o f f . The G a l a t i a n s became i n v o l v e d w i t h the Se l e u c i d s during the \"Brothers' War\" i n ca 241-239 B.C., when they were r e c r u i t e d to help Antiochus Hierax against h i s brother Seleucus I I . Seleucus had given h i s A n a t o l i a n h o l d -ings to Antiochus f o r h i s a i d i n the war against Ptolemy I I I , but a f t e r 13. peace had been made, r e g r e t t e d t h i s d e c i s i o n and t r i e d to win A n a t o l i a back. He l e d an e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t Antiochus' a l l y M i t h r i d a t e s of Pontus, and continued to c e n t r a l A n a t o l i a , where he was thoroughly defeated by M i t h r i d a t e s and Antiochus f i g h t i n g w i t h G a l a t i a n mercenaries near Ancyra. The Ga l a t i a n s saw t h e i r chance to get r i d of the Seleucids a l t o g e t h e r , since Antiochus could not maintain h i s a u t h o r i t y over them. They forced Antiochus t o make them h i s a l l i e s , and to give them p a r t o f the s p o i l s of the war, p l u s some of the t r i b u t e which Antiochus r e q u i r e d of the c i t i e s of A s i a . Once these terms had been agreed upon, they threatened the l i f e 28 o f Antiochus, who then f l e d t o Magnesia. Now t h a t the G a l a t i a n s had manoeuvered themselves i n t o a s u p e r i o r p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s the S e l e u c i d s , they could put pressure on western A s i a Minor again, p a r t i c u l a r l y on Pergamon which had r i s e n to power i n the f o r t y years since the G a l a t i a n r a i d s i n t h a t area. Pergamon under the A t t a l i d s was s t i l l paying the G a l a t i a n s money to avoid a recurrence of 29 these e a r l i e r a t t a c k s , but at t h i s p o i n t they refused to do so any longer. The T o l i s t o b o g i i set out f o r Pergamon, and were repulsed by A t t a l u s i n the 30 V a l l e y of the Caicus i n ca 241-240 B.C. The T o l i s t o b o g i i c a l l e d i n t h e i r a l l i e s , the Tectosages and Antiochus Hierax, and got as f a r as the w a l l s of Pergamon i t s e l f before being trounced by A t t a l u s . A t t a l u s contined t o f i g h t Antiochus u n t i l 229 or 228, but the G a l a t i a n s accepted the v i c t o r y 31 as a d e c i s i v e one, and i n f u t u r e l e f t Pergamene t e r r i t o r y alone. A t t a l u s l o s t no time ...in making p o l i t i c a l c a p i t a l out of t h i s v i c t o r y , which was commemorated i n monuments i n Pergamon and Athens c e l e b r a t i n g the triumph o f c i v i l i z e d H e llenism over C e l t i c b a r b a r i t y . The S e l e u c i d s , how-ever, were not so e a s i l y e l i m i n a t e d . Antiochus I I I succeeded Seleucus I I I 14. i n 223; w i t h i n a year, Antiochus 1 uncle Achaeus had s t r i p p e d A t t a l u s of h i s r e c e n t l y acquired Asian t e r r i t o r y and had r e s t o r e d S e l e u c i d r u l e i n 32 A n a t o l i a . When i n 220 Achaeus declared h i m s e l f k i n g o f t h i s Asian t e r r i -t o r y , A t t a l u s pursued the undoubtedly d i s t a s t e f u l course of e n l i s t i n g the a i d of the Aegosages, probably the He l l e s p o n t i n e refugees of the kingdom o f T y l i s which f e l l i n ca 218. A t t a l u s 1 next step was to march a g a i n s t the c i t i e s o f A e o l i s , which Achaeus had encouraged to r e v o l t a g a i n s t him. I n i -t i a l l y the e x p e d i t i o n was a success, but an e c l i p s e of the moon gave the 33 discontented C e l t s an excuse to mutiny. A t t a l u s solved t h i s dangerous problem by s e t t l i n g them as a m i l i t a r y colony i n the region of the Hellespont, under the guidance of Lampsacus, Alexandreia Troas, and I l i u m . The G a l a t i a n s almost immediately turned a g a i n s t the c i t i e s , and stormed I l i u m . The Alexandrians defeated them and drove them northeast to A r i s b a near Abydus. P r u s i a s of B i t h y n i a r e a l i z e d t h a t h i s own kingdom was i n danger; he defeated them and k i l l e d the men 34 i n the b a t t l e f i e l d , and the women and c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r encampment. For the next generation, a c e r t a i n calm prevaled among the G a l a t i a n s i n A n a t o l i a . The Aegosages had been wiped out, and i t was u n l i k e l y t h a t any r u l e r o f A s i a Minor would make the mistake o f i n v i t i n g Thracian Gauls across the Hellespont f o r a t h i r d time. Thus the G a l a t i a n migrations to A s i a Minor were at an end. At t h i s p o i n t i n h i s h i s t o r i c a l account of the Ga l a t i a n s , M i t c h e l l takes advantage of the l u l l i n G a l a t i a n a c t i v i t y a f t e r the Pergamene defeats to sum up the inf o r m a t i o n on the G a l a t i a n t r i b e s i n the t h i r d century B.C. He begins w i t h the problem of t h e i r numbers. Ac-35 cording to L i v y , Nicomedes r e c r u i t e d only 20,000men. The f i g u r e s a v a i l -able f o r the G a l l i c e x p e d i t i o n i n t o Greece are s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher. 15. Pausanias says t h a t there were 152,000 f o o t - s o l d i e r s and 20,400 cavalrymen 3 6 each w i t h two mounted servants. Pompeius Trogus mentioned 150,000 f o o t -37 s o l d i e r s and cavalrymen a l t o g e t h e r , while Diodorus reckons t h e i r s t r e n g t h at 150,000 f o o t - s o l d i e r s , 10,000 cavalrymen, and a baggage-train o f 2,000 38 v e h i c l e s . While these f i g u r e s are l a r g e , M i t c h e l l p o i n t s out t h a t they are c o n s i s t e n t and e x p l a i n why the Gauls caused so much t e r r o r when they • * • „ 3 9 a r r i v e d i n Greece.-There i s s t i l l some discrepancy between these f i g u r e s and L i v y ' s , which are much lower. Many of the Gauls were of course k i l l e d i n Greece and Macedonia, while others s e t t l e d i n the kingdom of T y l i s near the Black Sea. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some o f the Gauls migrated to A s i a Minor a f t e r N i c o - . 40 medes 20,000 crossed the Hellespont. As f o r t h e i r s t r e n g t h i n A n a t o l i a , 41 t h i s was apparently ensured by r a p i d r e p r o d u c t i o n , mentioned by L i v y , . 4 2 and by J u s t i n : quamquam Gallorum ea tempestate tantae f e c u n d i t a t i s iuventus f u i t , u t Asiam omnem v e l u t examen a l i q u o d implerent. Danique neque reges O r i e n t i s since Mercennario Gallorum e x e r c i t u u l l a b e l l a gesserunt, neque p u l s i regno ad a l i o s quam ad G a l l o s confugerunt. M i t c h e l l c i t e s Launey's work on the armies o f the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d as co n f i r m a t i o n o f J u s t i n ' s second statement. G a l a t i a n s d i d serve i n the army o f every k i n g i n the eastern Mediterranean, according to Launey, and they e n l i s t e d from A s i a Minor. Thus the numbers of the G a l a t i a n s and 43 t h e i r m i l i t a r y prowess are emphasized. M i t c h e l l next addresses h i m s e l f to the question of the e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e p u t a t i o n of the G a l a t i a n s . H e l l e n i s t i c s o l d i e r s were w e l l - t r a i n e d pro-f e s s i o n a l s , and the G a l a t i a n s who fought as mercenaries w i t h them grad-44 u a l l y adopted standard Greek armour and equipment. When they fought on 16. t h e i r own, t h e i r m i l i t a r y methods may have been d i f f e r e n t . According to L i v y , they d i d b a t t l e naked, armed w i t h l a r g e s h i e l d s , long swords, and any Gal a t i a n s tend to show them naked or only p a r t l y c l o t h e d , f i g h t i n g without the help o f H e l l e n i s t i c weapons or equipment. Whether the G a l a t i a n s always fought l i k e t h i s , or whether these d e s c r i p t i o n s simply make them conform to the conventional image of barbarians, i t i s hard to say. In any case, M i t c h e l l concludes t h a t they had two advantages over t h e i r opponents. F i r s t was t h e i r formidable and probably exaggerated r e p u t a t i o n f o r b a r b a r i c cour-age; add to t h i s t h e i r unusual appearance—the \"procera corpora, promissae 46 et r u t i l a e comae, va s t a scuta, p r a e l o n g i g l a d i i \" mentioned by L i v y — and the p s y c h o l o g i c a l advantage of the G a l a t i a n s over t h e i r t e r r i f i e d opponents becomes c l e a r . 4 7 Their second advantage, M i t c h e l l says, was t h a t they d i d not f i g h t l i k e Greeks. They d i d not use the phalanx, which r e q u i r e d a f l a t and un-impeded f i e l d of b a t t l e ; r a t h e r , they used the t a c t i c s of g u e r r i l a warfare, 48 and made the most of rough ground and quick skirmishes. In the e a r l y second century B.C., the G a l a t i a n s were a c t i v e again. 49 In 197/6 they were g i v i n g the people o f Lampsacus t r o u b l e , and a t roughly the same time, they attacked H e r a c l e i a P o n t i c a yet again, i n order to gain access to the sea, and perhaps to t h e i r kinsmen i n the Danube ba s i n ; they were f o i l e d i n t h e i r a t t e m p t . S o m e G a l a t i a n a c t i v i t y i n Paphlagonia during t h i s p e r i o d may a l s o be i n d i c a t e d , i f M i t c h e l l i s co r -r e c t i n assuming t h a t a t t h i s p o i n t the C e l t i c noblemen Ge z a t o r i x , whose name i s mentioned by P o l y b i o s , h i m s e l f acquired the d i s t r i c t i n Paphla-« r X ' 51 gonia known as *j t€^e(ropi^o£. a v a i l a b l e stones. 45 Statues and re p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n other media o f the 17. The major event of the second century B.C. from the Galatian point of view was the expedition l e d against them by Cn. Manlius Vulso i n 189 B.C. One of h i s f i r s t steps a f t e r he took over the consulship and the army at Ephesus was to declare h i s i n t e n t i o n of subduing the Galatians for good, as part of a general campaign to p a c i f y Asia up to the Halys. Manlius marched up the Maeander v a l l e y , through Phrygia and P i s i d i a , south to Pamphylia, and north through eastern and c e n t r a l Phrygia to the f r o n t i e r s 52 of the T o l i s t o b o g i i , accompanied by Attalus, and aided by Eumenes. Afte r a b r i e f and f r u i t l e s s attempt at a diplomatic settlement i n which Eposognatus, one of the Galatian r e g u l i , t r i e d to persuade the Gala-ti a n s to surrender without a f i g h t , a b a t t l e was fought on Mount Olympus somewhere between the Sangarius and Ancyra. The T o l i s t o b o g i i , helped by some of the Trocmi, were badly defeated, and 40,000 captives were taken. When the Romans proceeded to Ancyra and t r i e d again to negotiate, the Galatians responded with an ambush on Manlius, which f a i l e d . The r e s u l t was another b a t t l e , t h i s time at Magaba, where the Tectosages and the r e s t of the Trocmi, aided by Ariarathes III of Cappadocia and Morzius, a Paphlagonian dynast, were defeated. 8000 Galatians were k i l l e d , and those that survived f l e d east across the Halys. Manlius marched back to Ephesus 53 with the s p o i l s before winter set i n . Manlius concluded two separate settlements, one with Eumenes i n Eph-esus, and a second with the Galatians i n Lampsacus. Although Eumenes re -ceived a l l of Antiochus 1 former possessions, G a l a t i a was not one of them. In the meeting with the Galatians, Manlius d i d not require them to become c i t i z e n s of Pergamon, nor did they have to pay an indemnity, as Ariarathes did. They were simply to keep the peace with Eumenes and to contain them-selves within the boundaries of t h e i r t e r r i t o r y . M i t c h e l l concludes from 18. t h i s evidence t h a t \"the Romans were r e l u c t a n t to crush the G a l a t i a n s once and f o r a l l , but already saw them as a p o t e n t i a l counterweight to the k i n g -54 dom of Pergamum\". For the next generation, the p r i n c i p a l r o l e of G a l a t i a was i n f a c t t h a t of a b u f f e r s t a t e between Pergamon and Pontus. Ortiagon, one of the r e g u l i of the T o l i s t o b o g i i , played a l e a d i n g p a r t i n the disputes o f the 180's, which c o n s i s t e d mainly of wars between the A t t a l i d s and the kingdoms forced by Rome to y i e l d t e r r i t o r y to them. Ortiagon was p a r t i c u l a r l y i n v o l v e d w i t h P r u s i a s o f B i t h y n i a i n a war wi t h Pergamon from ca 186 to 184. M i t c h -e l l notes t h a t i n an i n s c r i p t i o n from Telmessus, P r u s i a s and Ortiagon are named as equal p a r t n e r s i n the war, and t h a t the G a l a t i a n s are c a l l e d IctfAetTrtt r a t h e r than being mentioned i n t r i b a l d i v i s i o n s . These f a c t s , M i t c h e l l says, give credence to P o l y b i o s ' statement t h a t Ortiagon had 55 managed to u n i t e the Ga l a t i a n s a f t e r the defeat a t the hands of Manlius. Eumenes was able to put a stop to the a l l i a n c e of Ortiagon and.Prusias, but he was not so luck y w i t h a c o a l i t i o n formed by Pharnaces o f Pontus and c e r t a i n eastern r u l e r s such as M i t h r i d a t e s of Armenia, formed i n 183. In 179, he d i d defeat Pharnaces, but not before a P o n t i c attempt t o ravage G a l a t i a . As M i t c h e l l p o i n t s out, even a f t e r the t r e a t y between Pharnaces and Eumenes was signed, G a l a t i a was i n a d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n , s i n c e she was 56 open to att a c k from both s i d e s . There f o l l o w s a ten year gap i n G a l a t i a n h i s t o r y . In the mid 160's however G a l a t i a enjoyed a temporary resurgence o f power. In 168 the Galati a n s a c t u a l l y rose against Eumenes, f o r c i n g him to ask Rome f o r help. P. L i c i n i u s was sent to A s i a Minor to n e g o t i a t e , but he f a i l e d to estab-l i s h any b a s i s f o r a l a s t i n g peace. As P o l y b i o s i n d i c a t e s , t h i s f a i l u r e was no a c c i d e n t , but the r e s u l t of the Roman d e s i r e to use the G a l a t i a n s 57 as a check on the power of Pergamon. The same s t r a t e g y i s evident i n the Roman r e a c t i o n to P r u s i a s ' (of B i t h y n i a ) accusation t h a t Eumenes was occupying G a l a t i a n t e r r i t o r y i l l e g a l l y . 58 Rome i n t h i s case was content to r e - a f f i r m G a l a t i a ' s independence. At the same time, again during the mid 160's, the Trocmi were making t r o u b l e 59 f o r A r i a r a t h e s of Cappadocia. In a d d i t i o n , M i t c h e l l dates the a c q u i s i -t i o n of much of Lycaonia by the G a l a t i a n s to t h i s p e r i o d . ^ The spread of G a l a t i a n i n f l u e n c e i n the middle of the second century B.C. can be seen i n another area as w e l l . A s e r i e s of i n s c r i p t i o n s from Pessinus preserves the correspondence between Eumenes and A t t a l u s I I , and the high p r i e s t o f the sanctuary, A t t i s . The f i r s t l e t t e r i n the s e r i e s has been dated to 163 B.C. The second mentions t h a t A i o i o r i x , the brother of the h i g h p r i e s t , was accused of some crime against the temple of the Mother Goddess. The name A i o i o r i x r e v e a l s t h a t a f t e r the e x p e d i t i o n of Manlius, the G a l a t i a n s had taken over a h i t h e r t o e x c l u s i v e l y Phrygian .- .. 61 p r i v i l e g e . A f t e r t h i s b r i e f renaissance, G a l a t i a becomes l e s s and l e s s important, as the scanty evidence f o r the next century seems to i n d i c a t e . No evidence has s u r v i v e d f o r any Pergamene t r a n s a c t i o n s w i t h the G a l a t i a n s d u r i n g the second h a l f of A t t a l u s I i ' s r e i g n , nor d u r i n g the r e i g n of h i s successor. The G a l a t i a n d e c l i n e i n t o o b s c u r i t y can be i n f e r r e d from other evidence. When A s i a was made a province i n 129, Phrygia was turned over to M i t h r i -dates V of Pontus. Since M i t h r i d a t e s could only have communicated w i t h Phrygia through G a l a t i a , Jones suggests t h a t by t h i s time the area was 62 c o n t r o l l e d by Pontus. Later i n 96 B.C., M i t h r i d a t e s VI was forced to give up h i s c o n t r o l of G a l a t i a , as w e l l as of Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, 20. when Nicomedes of Bithynia shifted his allegiance from Mithridates to Rome. In Mitchell's opinion, from this time onward the Galatians were simply the a l l i e s of Rome in the Mithridatic wars.^ The Galatians turned against Mithridates because of what he did after his defeat by Sulla. He had apparently decided to eliminate any future threats from the Galatians, so he invited the tetrarchs to Pergamon on some friendly pretext, and had a l l but one of them k i l l e d . Mithridates then sent men to Galatia to take care of the tetrarchs who had not come to Per-gamon. The three tetrarchs who survived the massacre, one of whom was Deiotarus, promptly threw out Mithridates' satrap. After this, there was no question of loyalty to Mithridates, and the Galatians went over to Rome. Mitchell makes a number of perceptive comments about second century B.C. Galatian history. During this period the description of the Galatians becomes less and less accurate, as they learned to use p o l i t i c s and diplom-acy as much as military a b i l i t y . As Galatian diplomatic activity increased, the names of individuals such as Ortiagon begin to appear. Mitchell assumes that by this time the aristocracy had learned some Greek, but he says that \"there is l i t t l e evidence that the cultural aspects of Hellenic c i v i l i z a -tion were already being adopted by the Gauls. During this period, the name \"Galatian\" seems to be applied as a reg-ional rather than an ethnic term. Mitchell cites as evidence for this change the names of two Galatian slaves mentioned in inscriptions from Delphi: Sosias, a boot-maker, and Athenais, an artisan. The name of an-other Galatian slave, r\\*irJtpooi TO t<*$°9\"Ac< K I O V . Cicero also r e f e r s to the establishments of his f r i e n d Deiotarus, but owing to confusion i n the manuscripts, gives the name of both as Luceium (an obvious corruption of Blucium). I t i s probable that the name of the second f o r t was Peium. In the excavations at Karalar i n the f i r s t t h i r d o f t h i s century an i n s c r i p t i o n was found which revealed that the s i t e was the b u r i a l place of King Deiotarus, son of Deiotarus, both r u l e r s of the T o l i s t o b o g i i and the Trocmi. The elder Deiotarus was the f r i e n d of Cicero, 3 and h i s son, who died before him, was known from other ancient references. 4 Picard therefore i d e n t i f i e d Karalar with Blucium or Peium, while Coupry stated outright that-Karalar was Blucium.~* I t remained to f i n d a s i t e for Peium. During h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Pilgrim's Route between I u l i o p o l i s and Ancyra, Anderson i d e n t i f i e d a presumably Galatian h i l l - f o r t with the Ipetobroge of the Jerusalem I t i n e r a r y which describes the road from Istan-bul, through Tarsus, to the Holy Land. The road i t s e l f was probably-built i n the Hadrianic period along e a r l i e r paths.^ The s i t e l i e s 90 km west of Ankara, on the opposite side of the Girrnir a^,y from Dikmen, Anderson describes i t s s i t u a t i o n as follows: 77. From the f l o o r of the canon, i n which the r i v e r flows, there r i s e s a c o n i c a l h i l l joined only by a low saddle to. the high, l e f t bank; round t h i s h i l l the r i v e r makes a bend exactly i n the shape of an A , and i t s summit i s crowned by a c a s t l e which commands a f i n e view of the v a l l e y below. The f o r t i f i c a t i o n s were n a t u r a l l y strongest on the side away from the r i v e r , where the towers s t i l l stand as - . • they were r e b u i l t i n l a t e Roman times. The southern one i s shaped l i k e an open hexagon, faced on the outer side with, o l d stones, —marble door-stones, and other rectangular b l o c k s — and backed with opus incertum (small stones l a i d i n beds of mortar). The other i s of t r i a n g u l a r shape and i n i t s higher courses contains numerous o l d blocks; but the lower h a l f of one face i s of b e a u t i f u l Greek work, b u i l t of rectangular blocks, squared along the edges and l e f t 'free' i n the middle, and l a i d i n regular courses without cement (the three or four lowest courses p r o j e c t i n g s l i g h t l y i n step fashion and being admirably f i t t e d into the rock). On the sides overhanging the r i v e r the remains are purely Byzantine. I t was disap-pointing to f i n d no i n s c r i p t i o n s exposed to view.7 M i t c h e l l agrees with Anderson that the s i t e i s Galatian and states that Anderson's Petobriga was d e f i n i t e l y Strabo's Peium, the treasury of 8 Deiotaros. He strengthens h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n using evidence from other ancient sources. Cicero i n the Pro Rege Deiotaro wishes to prove that Deiotaros d i d not t r y to murder Caesar. The l a t t e r was returning from 9 Zela i n 47 B.C. and stayed at Deiotarus' f o r t r e s s e s on successive nights. The f o r t s must therefore have been a day's journey apart. Dio t e l l s us that Caesar was on h i s way to B i t h y n i a ; 1 0 t h i s information i s also given i n the Bellum Alexandrinum which states e x p l i c i t l y that \"per Gallograeciam Bithyniamque i n Asiam i t e r fecit\".\"'''1\" M i t c h e l l i n t e r p r e t s t h i s i n the s t r i c t e s t sense—Caesar d i d not reach the province of Asia before he cros-sed Bithynia. Therefore he could have taken only one road as he headed west: the Pilgrim's Route from Ankara to I u l i o p o l i s through the north-western part of Galatia, Peium, says M i t c h e l l , must l i e i n northwestern G a l a t i a , one day's journey from Blucium. Blucium we know to be Karalar, and Tabanlioglu 78. C i f t l i k i s 50 km away. The two f o r t s are situated to the north, of the l a t e r main road. Further evidence comes from the l i f e of a l a t e r Galatian ( s i x t h or seventh, century A-D.1, St, Theodore of Sykeon, TTis<£v or IT^ uv was a n 13 small v i l l a g e near the Ytoqiov SvKpcttZv t*fc Act£etvTt\\/Hf - Eukraa remains obscure but the Lagantine i s the area surrounding Lagania, a town on the A n c y r a - I u l i o p o l i s route, and perhaps to be i d e n t i f i e d with Dikmen Huyuk, a s i t e south of Tabanlioglu C i f t l i k . Thus St. Theodore's TTeZtv must be the TTtfiov of Strabo and the f o r t r e s s must be situated near Lagania. 14 Tabanlioglu Kale s a t i s f i e d both these conditions. 15 M i t c h e l l gives a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the construction and masonry. As the passage quoted from Anderson in d i c a t e s , f o r t i f i c a t i o n s were necessary only where the peninsula was not cut o f f by the r i v e r . Although there were subsidiary i n s t a l l a t i o n s on the north and south sides of the h i l l , e f f o r t was concentrated on the unprotected east side. There are two s t y l e s of masonry, the c a r e f u l H e l l e n i s t i c and the i r r e g u l a r Byzantine. One of the e a r l i e r terrace walls i s b u i l t of pseudo-isodomic, quarry-faced ashlar -~ blocks, l a i d as headers and stretchers, without mortar. The south tower, also of H e l l e n i s t i c construction, was not as well b u i l t , but i t i s e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the Byzantine additions which contained re-used blocks of various periods with mortar and smaller stones. M i t c h e l l reconstructs the H e l l e n i s t i c f o r t i f i c a t i o n s as follows: there was a gateway approximately 2.65 m wide, flanked by two symmetrically placed polygonal towers about 14.50 m apart. Another polygonal tower l a y 18 m to the north., with, i t s lower courses bonded in t o the terrace w a l l , so as to prevent access from a g u l l y on the north side of the h i l l . One 79, tower i s d e f i n i t e l y hexagonal and i t i s assumed tha,t a l l three were b u i l t to the same plan. The thickness of the wall, which can be measured only at the gate, i s 1.88m, The q u a l i t y of the construction i s e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y high, M i t c h e l l compares i t with the f o r t i f i c a t i o n s at Isaura i n the Taurus b u i l t by Amyntas, Deiotarus 1 successor, i n 25 B.C. Here too i s a system of polygonal towers connected by a c u r t a i n wall; the gateways are s i m i l a r i n plan: \"both are single arches r e l i e v e d by a simple moulding at the point where the arch joins the upright\".'''^ In both cases M i t c h e l l concludes that the construction was accomplished by Greek workmen at the command of the l o c a l Galatian r u l e r . At Tabanliog'lu Kale Deiotarus would have given the orders for the stronghold suitable for a r e l a t i v e l y small garrison to be b u i l t , sometime i n the middle of the f i r s t century B.C. 1. Strabo, 12.5.2. 2. Cicero Pro Rege Deiotaro 17.21. 3. Cicero Ad Atticum V.17.3; P h i l . XI x i i i 31; Pro Rege Deiotaro 36. 4. Picard, Comptes Rendus de 1'Academie des I n s c r i p t i o n s et B e l l e s - L e t t r e s (1935) 42-44. 5. Coupry, RAVI (1935) 142f. 6. Anderson, JHS IX (1899) 53-54. See also p l a t e IV, the map of G a l a t i a . 7. Anderson, op. c i t . , pp. 63-64. 8. M i t c h e l l , \"Blucium and Peium: the Galatian Forts of King Deiotarus\", AnatSt 24 (1974) 61-75,p. 73, n. 22. 9. Cicero Pro Rege Deiotaro 17,21. 10. Dio XLII.49-. 11. Cicero Bellum Alexandrinum 78. 80. 12. M i t c h e l l , AnatSt 24 (1974) , p. 72. 13. V i t a , St Theodore 118.2, ed. A.J, FestugiSre, 1970, c i t e d by M i t c h e l l , AnatSt 24 (19741, n. 17. 14. M i t c h e l l , AnatSt 24 (19-741, pp, 72-73, See also n, 22 of the same a r t i c l e , i n which M i t c h e l l discusses the possible transference of the name Peium to the s i t e a c t u a l l y on the Pilgrim's Route, a l i t t l e south of the Galatian h i l l - f o r t , which, was known as Ipetobrogen or Petobriga. 15. M i t c h e l l , pp. 4-6. 16. M i t c h e l l , p. 7. Isaura i s the modern Zengibar K a l e s i , near Bozkir, southwest of Konya. For a photograph of one of the Isaura towers, see f i g . 60 i n F.E. Winter, Greek F o r t i f i c a t i o n s , Phoenix, Supplementary Volume IX, University of Toronto Press, 1971. See also f i g s . 149 and 201 for plans of the towers, and 202 for the arch spanning the acrop-o l i s gate. 4. Karalar/Blucium ( f i g . 17, p.105 ) The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Karalar with Blucium was discussed above with that of Peium. Karalar has been f a i r l y systematically excavated, so that plans of the f o r t are av a i l a b l e ; the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the f o r t (Asar) to the tumuli can be seen from the map of the s i t e ( f i g . 6, p. 94 ). On the h i l l there are numerous c u t t i n g and below there i s a man-made tunnel with steps leading down to a spring. Thus water was a v a i l a b l e i f the f o r t was under siege. The palace of King Deiotarus was probably located beside h i s tomb on the opposite h i l l . 1 Arik describes the f o r t i n somewhat greater d e t a i l . The f o r t con-s i s t s of a rocky t r i a n g u l a r prominence shaped l i k e a camel's hump. In excavations at the southwest end, p i l e s of cut stone, fragments of Roman and Byzantine pottery, r o o f - t i l e s , and ashes were found. Also found were the foot and base of a female statue i n marble, of Graeco-Roman type, 2 and fragments of H e l l e n i s t i c pottery, A number of coins emerged, mostly 3 Byzantine, a few Trajanic. L i t t l e sense can be made of the confused walls 81. and cuttings, which cannot a l l belong to the same period. The underground staircase (M) i s located near a p a r t i c u l a r l y complicated set of walls (A, B, C, etc.).. I t o r i g i n a l l y had 56 steps, but 4 were eliminated to give 4 a larger landing at the foot. One thing i s c e r t a i n from the evidence of the pottery: occupation of the f o r t i s at l e a s t H e l l e n i s t i c i f not earlier.' This f a c t and the other evidence c i t e d i n the section on Peium makes the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Karalar with Blucium v i r t u a l l y d e f i n i t e . 1. M i t c h e l l , unpublished guide to the v i l a y e t of Ankara, pp. 33-34. 2. Remzi Og\"uz Arik, \"Karalar H a f r i y a t i \" , Turk Tarih A r k e o l o j i Etnografya D e r g i s i 2 (1934), p. 152. 3. Arik, p. 154. 4. Arik, p. 158. 5. Arik, p. 163. 5. Karacakaya Karacakaya was f i r s t v i s i t e d by Anderson who knew i t as Soman H i s s a r . 1 The pottery from the s i t e was recognizably H e l l e n i s t i c — a worn fragment of a Megarian bowl, and a piece of black glaze. I l l e g a l excavation has r e -vealed part of a small enclosure of large roughly cut limestone blocks, set two t h i r d s of the way up the h i l l . At the top of the h i l l are the remains of a d d i t i o n a l b u i l d i n g s , including a c i s t e r n l i n e d with p l a s t e r to ensure a supply of water during any emergencies, M i t c h e l l theorises that so small a s i t e was a residence for a small group, perhaps a r u l i n g family 2 in fear of neighbourly violence. 1. Anderson, JHS 1899, p. 87. 82. 2. M i t c h e l l , p. 409. 6. S i r k e l i S i r k e l i i s known l o c a l l y as the.castle-caye or hissar magVrasi, The remains consist of traces of rock cuttings on the summit of the h i l l , and a thick s c a t t e r i n g of pottery, some of i t obviously Hellenistic.\"'' 1. M i t c h e l l , p. 426. 7. Y a r a s l i The p o s i t i o n of Y a r a s l i resembles those of Karalar and S i r k e l i , i n ... that a l l three of them are placed not on the highest a v a i l a b l e h i l l , but instead on the summit of a somewhat lower prominence. Y a r a s l i i s essen-t i a l l y a p l a u s i b l e f o r t s i t e covered with wall foundations and H e l l e n i s t i c 1 and Roman pottery. 1. M i t c h e l l , p. 440. 8. Dikmen Kale Dikmen i s 90 km west of Ankara, north of Dikmen v i l l a g e , i n the t e r -r i t o r y of the T o l i s t o b o g i i . I t was f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d as a \"Gaulish c a s t e l -lum\" by J.G.C. Anderson i n 1899.''\" Anderson reported that i t s a l t i t u d e - i s 1700 f t . ; thus the f o r t at the top of the c o n i c a l h i l l provided an ex c e l -l e n t look-out post. He described the f o r t as a t r i a n g l e with an entrance at the southern apex. In addition thare a r e three semi-circular bastions i n the western wall, one i n the middle of the wa l l , and one at the north-west end.. The plan of the f o r t was p a r t i a l l y d i c t a t e d by the shape.of 83, the h i l l - t o p ; loose fragments of the outcrop provided the b u i l d i n g material. The walls are double: two separate.walls, f a i r l y well constructed, with, a rubble core seven feet wide between them. They are preserved to a maximum height of eight feet.. The f o r t i s small, measuring only t h i r t y yards across, Anderson observed no pottery; nor d i d M i t c h e l l , who has also 2 proposed the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Dikmen Kale as a Galatian h i l l - f o r t . An exact date i s impossible to assign. The s t r a t e g i c importance of the f o r t i s obvious from i t s p o s i t i o n , and i t i s i n v i s i b l e from below, owing to a screen of oak trees and to the configuration of the h i l l i t s e l f . 1. Anderson, 1899, p. 64. 2. M i t c h e l l , p. 417. M i t c h e l l adds that \"west of the Kale i t s e l f , i s a grassy saddle enclosed by a second f o r t i f i c a t i o n , of uncertain date.\" 9. Tizke Tizke consists of a double c i r c u i t of rough stone walls, enclosing an area ca 28 by 20 metres. No d i s t i n c t i v e sherds were found, e i t h e r by 1 2 Anderson, who f i r s t suggested i t as a Galatian h i l l - f o r t , or by M i t c h e l l . 1. Anderson, JHS 1899, p. 63. 2. M i t c h e l l , pp. 417-418. M i t c h e l l adds that e i t h e r Dikmen or Tizke could be the 'fytppo^ejjg XtofiiOv mentioned by St. Theodore, which from i t s name must have been a Galatian s i t e (Vita St. Theod. 26a). 10. Assarlikaya While M i t c h e l l has given good reasons for thinking that Blucium and Peium should be i d e n t i f i e d with. Karalar and Tabanlio^lu £iftlik respect-i v e l y , Anderson i d e n t i f i e d Blucium and Peium with two other s i t e s , B a s r i , 84. a rather dubious Galatian s i t e mentioned above, and Assarllkaya; both are located along the road from Pessinus to Ancyra. 1 The f o r t consisted of two concentric dry-stone walls, enclosing a more or l e s s c i r c u l a r area of 45 metres across-. There were several entrances, and, as well, numerous i n t e r n a l walls d i v i d i n g the area .into small rooms. As usual, a h i l l - t o p provided the l o c a t i o n for t h i s Galatian lookout post. The double walls are reminiscent of those at Dikmen and Tizke, while the 2 i n t e r n a l d i v i s i o n s r e c a l l those at Karalar. 1. Anderson, JHS 1899, p. 94. 2. M i t c h e l l , p. 433. SETTLEMENTS L. Gordion There are traces of a possible Galatian occupation at Gordion, which by the Roman period had received the C e l t i c name V i n d i a . 1 Gordion at the 2 time of Manlius' v i s i t was an emporium \"celebre et frequens\"; i t declined a f t e r the Galatian defeat i n 189. Level 2 of the H e l l e n i s t i c s t r a t a has been recognized as the probable Galatian l e v e l . I t contains mostly l i g h t b u ildings suitable perhaps f o r a farming v i l l a g e . There are no monumental buildi n g s , and no structures with any conceivable p u b l i c use. The c i t y was unwalled at t h i s point, the c i r c u i t walls having been neglected and abandoned a f t e r Alexander, and i n some cases quarried for the stone blocks. Associated with, the scattered houses are grinding stones, a g r i c u l t u r a l implements, cl a y bee-hive ovens, p i t h o i , imported Greek pottery, t e r r a cotta Cybele f i g u r e s , and several coin hoards which, may have been Galatian 85. booty. There was d e f i n i t e l y a gap between the H e l l e n i s t i c settlement, 3 and the Roman road s t a t i o n . 1. M i t c h e l l , p. 435. 2. Livy 38.18. 3. Rodney S. Young, AJA 68 (19641, pp. 279-280; AJA 64 (I960), p. 232; AJA 60 (1956), pp. 249-250. Cf. the tombs discussed i n the previous section. 2. T o l g e r i Huyiik T o l g e r i Hiiyuk l i e s due west of Ankara; i t was occupied from the Bronze Age onward, and may have been a medium-sized market town used by the Gala-t i a n s . The H e l l e n i s t i c pottery found there includes a f a i r proportion of high q u a l i t y f i n e red wares, not usually found on Galatian s i t e s , with the exception. of Tavium. 1 1. M i t c h e l l , p. 418. 3. Yalincak At Yalincak near Ankara, a possible Galatian v i l l a g e s i t e has been ex-cavated. Here there was apparently no gap between H e l l e n i s t i c and Roman occupations. The pottery includes some Megarian bowl fragments, good i n -dic a t o r s of a H e l l e n i s t i c date. A r c h i t e c t u r a l remains consist of small rectangular houses and stone foundations, the mud bri c k super structure of which- i s now l a c k i n g , 1 1. Burhan Tezcan, Yalincak V i l l a g e Excavation 1964, METU Archaeological Publications, Ankara 1966, pp. 14-15. 86, 4. Golhilyuk Go'lhtiyuk, which, l i e s south, of Ankara near Garbeous, was also inhabited i n the Bronze Age, but the H e l l e n i s t i c material, covering a large area around the mound as well as on i t , i s more conspicuous. The sherds are of good q u a l i t y , and the H e l l e n i s t i c occupation i s part of a long habitation sequence. This suggests that the Phrygian elements of society may simply have absorbed some of the Galatian population into t h e i r own comfortable ex i s t e n c e . 1 1. M i t c h e l l , p. 451. 5. BogazkSy As mentioned i n the preceding chapter, there are b u r i a l s at Bogazkoy which may be t e n t a t i v e l y classed as Galatian. Evidence for p o s s i b l e Gala-t i a n habitation i s also forthcoming. The remains of H e l l e n i s t i c buildings are p l o t t e d on an e a r l y sketch map of the s i t e , and a general s t r a t i g r a p h i c table for BogazkSy published some twenty years l a t e r r e f e r s to i t as a 2 Trocmian outpost. In addition, houses with several rooms b u i l t at random on a s l i g h t slope have been found, and dated to the H e l l e n i s t i c period. 3 These may be Trocmian residences. 1. K. B i t t e l and R. Naumann, Bogazkay-Hattusa I, Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart 1952, p. 28 f i g . 2, and c f . p. 34. 2. K. B i t t e l , Hattusha, The C a p i t a l of the H i t t i t e s , Oxford University Press, New York, 1970, p. i x , 3. Wulf Schirmer, Die Bebauung am unteren Buyukkale-Nordwesthang i n Bogazko'y, Gebr. Mann Verlag, B e r l i n , 1969. WVDOG 81, Bogazkoy- Hattusa VI, pp. 12-14, Beilage 3 and 4. 87. CONCLUSION At the beginning of this- paper, the problems of Galatian archaeology-were described as endemic to the f i e l d . I t i s very d i f f i c u l t to work from l i t e r a r y sources, however d e t a i l e d they may be on the subjects of h i s t o r y and p o l i t i c s , i f they give l i t t l e or no information of the ethnographic v a r i e t y . The Galatians w i l l remain an archaeological.conundrum u n t i l the evidence from the sources.is-followed up by surveys and excavation. Through the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of pottery, b u r i a l customs, and f o r t s and settlements, we have seen that c e r t a i n methods are not nec e s s a r i l y h e l p f u l i n t h i s context. I t i s not possible to count on a strong C e l t i c heritage fo r the Galatians because of t h e i r long migrations. Thus v a l i d connections with Europe w i l l always be hard to f i n d . Because so l i t t l e work has been done on the H e l l e n i s t i c period, p l a c i n g the Galatians i n the context of the H e l l e n i s t i c period i n Anatolia w i l l be v i r t u a l l y impossible u n t i l t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s resolved. The Galatians may or may not have made t h e i r own pottery; they may have buried t h e i r dead i n a v a r i e t y of ways; t h e i r settlements do not bear a d e f i n i t e a r c h i t e c t u r a l stamp which can be interpreted as e x c l u s i v e l y Galatian. I f we were dealing with a p r e h i s t o r i c period, i t i s pos s i b l e that the presence of the Galatians i n Anatolia would have gone undetected. The few fib u l a e and tores which seem d e f i n i t e l y C e l t i c do not, f o r the most part, come from s i t e s which- can d e f i n i t e l y be c a l l e d Galatian; these anomalous finds could e a s i l y be'explained as imports from outside the area. Since there are s t i l l no r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t o r s of Galatian material culture, archaeology can add l i t t l e to the evidence provided by the h i s t -88. o r i c a l sources. This i s not for l a c k of t r y i n g ; i n some instances scholars have been too o p t i m i s t i c i n t h e i r attempts to f i n d traces of the elusive Galatians. The evidence such, as i t i s does not at the moment permit a f u l l archaeological reconstruction of the l i f e and times of the p r e - p r o v i n c i a l Galatians. The future need not be so bleak, however.. As evidence accumulates on the general nature of l i f e i n H e l l e n i s t i c Anatolia, i t w i l l become easier to situate the Galatians i n the appropriate context. A somewhat s i m i l a r case may serve as encouragement. The S c o r d i s c i were another group of C e l t s who s e t t l e d i n what i s now Yugoslavia i n the e a r l y t h i r d century B.C. They are mentioned i n the h i s t o r i c a l sources l e s s frequently than the Galatians, but i t has been possible to reconstruct sev-e r a l phases of t h e i r existence i n Yugoslavia from t h e i r a r r i v a l u n t i l the area was absorbed into the Roman Empire. Detailed information now e x i s t s on Scordiscan pottery, b u r i a l customs, settlements, and even s o c i a l organ-i z a t i o n . 1 With continuing f i e l d work, i t should be p o s s i b l e to f i l l i n some of the gaps i n our knowledge of p r e - p r o v i n c i a l G a l a t i a . For the present, i t i s hoped that t h i s paper has at l e a s t shown what the terms of the problems of Galatian archaeology are, and what obstacles must be overcome before they can be resolved. 1. Jovan Todorovic, S k o r d i s c i . I s t o r i j a i_Kultura, I n s t i t u t za IzuSavanje I s t o r i j e Vojvodine Savez ArheoloSkih. DruStava Jugoslavije, Beograd, 1974, with. English, summary. 89. 1. : ,Galatian\" pottery 90. 2. Shapes of \"Galatian\" pottery .Belevi •I Mi l a s 4b, I§dir 4c, Gemlik 5b. Kirka§aj 6. Map of Karalar 9-5, 96. O 98. 100. 101. 13. Buckle from Bolu West 102. AJTEfc .S- .MITCHELL 0*FORD|C>.PHIL. I3>4-/ / 1 0 4 . PEIUM (TABANLIOGLU K A L E ) \"*(/>' \"Ul •' V •' ' l'A\\\\'' SKETCH PLAN OF THE •! mi HELLENISTIC FORTIF ICATIONS '''''' Position of fortress ( no scale) 16. Peium 105. 106. BIBLIOGRAPHY Standard editions have been used for the ancient authors c i t e d , except where otherwise noted; s i m i l a r l y , standard abbreviations have been used for the t i t l e s of journals. J.G.C. Anderson, \"Exploration i n G a l a t i a c i s Halym\", Part I I , JHS XIX (1899) 52-132; 280-318. Sumer Atasoy, \"The Kocakizlar Tumulus i n E s k i s e h i r , Turkey,\" AJA -78 (1974) 255-263. Remzi Oguz Arik, \"Karalar H a f r i y a t i , \" Turk Tarih. A r k e o l o j i Etnografya Dergi s i 2 U934) 102-167. , \"Les Tumuli de Karalar et l a Sepulture du Roi Deiotaros I I \" , RA 6 (1935) 133-151. Margarete Bieber, The Sculpture of the H e l l e n i s t i c Age, revised e d i t i o n , Columbia University Press, New York, 1970. P. Bienkowski, Die Darstellungen der G a l l i e r i n der h e l l e n i s t i s c h e n Kunst, A l f r e d HSlder, Vienna, 1908. Kurt B i t t e l , K l e i n a s i a t i s c h e Studien,. I s t M i t t 5 (1942). , BogazkOy IV. Funde aus den Grabungen 1967 und 1968, Mann Verlag, B e r l i n , 1969. , Hattusha, The C a p i t a l of the H i t t i t e s , Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, New York, 1970. , \"Bemerkungen zur sogenannten galatischen Keramik\", pp. 227-237, i n Melanges Mansel, Turk Tarih Kurumu Yaymlarindan D i z i VII, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1974. . and R. Naumann, Bogazkoy-Hattus'a I, Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart, 1952. Clemens Bosch, \"Die Kelten i n Ankara,\" Jahrbuch fur k l e i n a s i a t i s c h e Forschung 2 (1953) 283-293. Jean Carpenter and Dan Boyd, \"Dragon-houses: Euboia, A t t i k a , Karia,\" AJA 81 (1977) 179-215. Rhys Carpenter, Greek Sculpture, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1960. John L. Caskey, \"Objects from a Well at Isthmia,\" Hesp 29 (I960) 168-176. Nora K. Chadwick and Myles D i l l o n , The C e l t i c Realms, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1967. J.M. Cook, The Troad, Oxford, Clarendon, 1973. R.M. Cook, Greek Painted Pottery, second e d i t i o n , Methuen, London, 1972. W. Willson Cummer, \"A Roman Tomb at Corinthian Kenchreai,\" Hesp 40 (1971) 205-231. G.M. Dalton, The Treasure of the Oxus, o r i g i n a l l y published by the B r i t i s h Museum at the Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1926; republished by Lund Humphries, London, 1964. J. De*chelette, Manuel d'arch^ologie prShistorique, c e l t i q u e , et g a l l o - romaine I I , 1914. Walter von Diest, \"Von T i l s i t nach. Angora, u Petermanns Geographisches Mitteilungen, Erganzungsheft no. 125 (289-8).. 107. Rilstem Duyuran, \"Decouverte d'un tumulus pre-s de l'ancienne Dardanos,\" Anadolu V (1960). 9-12. G.R. Edwards, \"Gqrdion 1962, \" E x p e d i t i o n 5 (1963). 47-48, A f i f Erzen, i l k , gagda Ankara, Turk Tarih- Kurumu Yayinlarmdan, VII S e r i , no. 12, TTK Basimevi, Ankara, 1946, Jan F i l i p , C e l t i c C i v i l i z a t i o n and i t s Heritage, Publishing House of the Czechoslovak. Academy of Sciences and A r t i a , Prague, 1960 (English e d i t i o n 1962).. B. F i l o v , \"Die Kuppelgr'aber von Mezek,\" B u l l e t i n de 1' I n s t i t u t d'Archeologie Bulgare XI (19-37) 79-84. __, \"The Bee-hive Tombs of Mezek,\" Anti q u i t y XI (.1937). 300-304. Nezih. F i r a t l i , \" B i t i n y a Ara|tirmalarina Birkac l l a v e , \" B e l l e t e n 17 (1953) 22-23. , \"The Tumulus of Tersiyekoy near Adapazari,\" Istanbul A r k e o l o j i Muzeleri Y i l l i g i 9 (1960) 73-76. , \"Two Galatian Tumuli i n the V i c i n i t y of Bolu,\" AJA 69 (1965) 365-367. , \"Jewellery Found at izmit,\" Istanbul A r k e o l o j i Muzeleri Y i l l i g i 15-15 (1969) Nicholas and Joan Gage, \"Treasures from a Golden Tomb,\" New York Times Magazine, December 25, 1977, pp. 14-19, p. 32. G.T. G r i f f i t h , Mercenaries of the Ancient World, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1935. Esther V. Hansen, The A t t a l i d s of Pergamon, second e d i t i o n , C o r n e l l Univer-s i t y Press, Ithaca and London, 1971. C h r i s t i n e M i t c h e l l Havelock, H e l l e n i s t i c Art, Phaidon, London, 1971. C.F.C. Hawkes, \"The C e l t s : Report on the Study of t h e i r Culture and t h e i r Mediterranean Relations, 1942-1962,\" pp. 61-69 i n Le Rayonnement des C i v i l i z a t i o n s Grecque et Romaine sur l e s Cultures Peripheriques, VIII CongrSs International d'Archeologie (Paris 1963), E d i t i o n s de Boccard, P a r i s , 1965. Wolfram Hoepfner, \"Kammergrab i n bithynisch-paphlagonischen Grenzegebiet,\" AthMitt 86 (1971) 125-139. Paul Jacobsthal, E a r l y C e l t i c Art, Oxford, Clarendon, o r i g i n a l e d i t i o n 1944, corrected e d i t i o n 1969. F e l i x Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen H i s t o r i k e r , v o l . I l l b , Leiden, E.J. B r i l l , 1950. A.H.M. Jones, The C i t i e s of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford, Clarendon, 1971. Donna C. Kurtz and John Boardman, Greek B u r i a l Customs, Thames and Hudson, London, 1971. M. Launey, \"Une Episode oublie\"e de 1'invasion galate en Asie Mineure,\" REA XLVII (1944) 217-234. A.W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1967, second e d i t i o n . David Magie, Roman Rule i n Asia Minor, Princeton U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1950 Ferdinand Maier, \"Bemerkungen zur sogenannten galatischen Keramik von Bogazkoy, J d l 78 (1963). 218-255, A r i f Mtifid Mansel, T r a k y a - K i r k l a r e l i Kubbelj Mezarlari ve Sahte Kerner ve Kubbe Problem!, Turk Tarih. Kurumu Yayinlarmdan VI S e r i , no. 2, Ankara, 1943. 108. , \"Mudanyal.Mezar B i n a s i \" , Belleten 10 (1946) 1-12. , \"Gebze YBresince kutluca Kubbeli.Mezari ve onun Trakya Kubbeli Mezarlari Arasmda A l d i g i Yer,\" Belleten 37 (1973) 143-158. 't- , \"Gemlik Tumiiliis Mezari\", Be l l e t e n 38 (1974) 181-189.' James R. McCredie, F o r t i f i e d M i l i t a r y Camps i n A t t i c a , Hesperia Supple-. .. ment XI, 1966. Roger McShane, The Foreign P o l i c y of the A t t a l i d s of Pergamum ( I l l i n o i s Studies i n the S o c i a l Sciences No. 53), U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press, Urbana, 1964. J.V.S. Megaw, \"Two Finds of the C e l t i c Iron Age from Dodona,\" pp. 185-193 i n Liber Iosepho Kostrzewski octogenario a_ veneratoribus dicatus, edited by Konrad Jazdzewski, Wrociaw, 1968. , Art of the European Iron Age, Adams and Dart, Bath, 1970. Machteld J. Mellink, \"Archaeology i n Asia Minor,\" AJA 65 (1961) 51-52. , \"Archaeology i n Asia Minor,\" AJA 67 (1963) 189 , \"Archaeology i n Asia Minor,\" AJA 75 (1971) 179. Y i l d i z Mericboyu and Sumer Atasoy, \"The Kanlibag Tumulus at Izmit,\" Istanbul A r k e o l o j i Muzeleri Y i l l i g i 15-16 (1969) 67-95; Engl i s h summary pp. 91-95. Stephen M i t c h e l l , The History and Archaeology of G a l a t i a , D. P h i l , t h e s i s , Oxford University, 1974. , \"Blucium and Peium: The Galatian Forts of King Deiotarus,\" AnatSt 24 (1974) 61-75. Winfried• Orthmann, \"Untersuchungen auf dem Asarcik Hviyuk b e i I l i c a , \" I s t M i t t 16 (1966) 27-78. E. D. P h i l l i p s , \"The Scythian Domination i n Western Asia: i t s Record i n History, Scripture and Archaeology,\" World Archaeology 4 (1972-72) 129-139. Stuart Piggott, Ancient Europe, Aldine, Chicago, 1965. Edi t h Porada, The Art of Ancient Iran, Methuen, London, 1965. Johann Potratz, \"Die Pferdetrensen des a l t e n Orient,\" Analecta O r i e n t a l i a 41 (1966). T.G.E. Powell, The C e l t s , Thames and Hudson, London, 1958. W.M. Ramsay, A H i s t o r i c a l Commentary on St. Paul's E p i s t l e to the Gala- t i a n s , Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1899. Anne Ross, Pagan C e l t i c B r i t a i n , Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1967. Nancy K. Sandars, P r e h i s t o r i c Art i n Europe, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1967. Jorg Schafer, H e l l e n i s t i s c h e Keramik aus Pergamon, Walter de Gruyter and Co., B e r l i n , 1968 (Pergamenische Forschungen, Band 2) Wulf Schirmer, Die Bebauung am unteren Biiyukkale-Nordwesthang i n Boffazkoy. Bog*azkSy-Hattusa VI, Mann Verlag, B e r l i n , 1969. Arnold Schober, \"Die Gallierdenkmal Attalo s I. i n Pergamon,\" Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen I n s t i t u t s . Romische Abteilung 51 (1936) 104-124. Otto Seel, Pompei Trogi Fragmenta, Teubner, L e i p z i g , 1956. F. Stahel i n , Geschichte der k l e i n a s i a t i s c h e n Galater, second e d i t i o n , L e i p z i g , 1907. Tadeusz S u l i m i r s k i , \"The Cel t s i n Eastern Europe,\" pp. 182-190 i n To I l l u s t r a t e the Monuments. Essays on Archaeology presented to Stuart Piggott, ed. by J.V.S. Megaw, Thames and Hudson, London, 1976. 109. Zafer T a g l i k l i o g l u , \"Dardanos gehri Yakmindaki Turauliiste Yeni Bulunan Grekce Ki t a b e l e r , \" T a r i h D e r g i s i XIII.17.18 (1963) 160-173. Burhan Tezcan, Yalmcak V i l l a g e Excavation 1964, Middle East Technical University Publications, Ankara, 1966. J. Todorovic, S k o r d i s c i . I s t o r i j a i_ Kultura, I n s t i t u t za IzuEavanje I s t o r i j e Vojvodine Savez ArheoloSkih DruStava Jugoslavije, Beograd, 1974; with E n g l i s h summary. Diindar Tokgoz, \"Igdir K a z i s i Raporu,\" TiirkArkDerg 22 (1975) 151-153. Hermann Vetters, \"Ephesos. Vorlaufiger Grabungsbericht 1971,\" AnzWien 109 (1972) 85-88. C. Bradford Welles, Royal Correspondence i n the H e l l e n i s t i c Period, Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, New Haven, 1934. Edouard W i l l , H i s t o i r e p o l i t i q u e du monde h e l l e n i s t i q u e , I I , Nancy, 1967. F.E. Winter, Greek F o r t i f i c a t i o n s , Phoenix, Supplementary Volume IX, University of Toronto Press, 1971. Rodney Young, \"The Campaign of 1955 at Gordion: Preliminary Report,\" AJA 60 (1956) 249-252. , \"The Nomadic Impact: Gordion,\" pp. 52-57 i n Dark Ages and Nomads c_. 1000 B.C., edited by Machteld J . Mellink, Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch I n s t i t u u t , Istanbul, 1964. Ladislav Zgusta, K l e i n a s i a t i s c h e Personennamen, Verlag der Tschechoslovak-ischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Prague, 1964. "@en ; edm:hasType "Thesis/Dissertation"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0094439"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:degreeDiscipline "Classics"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:publisher "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:rights "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:title "The archaeological record of the Galatians in Anatolia, 278-63 B.C."@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/21055"@en .