Você está na página 1de 24

The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor Author(s): Gareth Darbyshire, Stephen Mitchell, Levent Vardar Source: Anatolian Studies,

Vol. 50 (2000), pp. 75-97 Published by: British Institute at Ankara Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3643015 Accessed: 08/09/2010 09:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anatolian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

The Galatiansettlementin Asia Minor*

GarethDarbyshire',StephenMitchell', Levent Vardar3


'G A Wainwright Fellow, OrientalInstitute,Oxford,2Universityof Wales, Swansea of Monumentsand Museums, Ankara 3Department

Introduction Until very recently almost everything of substance that was known about the Galatians was derived from historical,more specifically Greek and Roman, sources. Modem perceptions of the Galatians have accordingly not only been one-sided, but have also depended on outsiders' views and representations of a complex culture. A stereotypicalpicture established itself in the modem literature, which itself was moulded by the preconceptionsof ancient Greek observers. This view, which will also provide a chronological frameworkfor an examinationof Galatianculture,may be summarised broadlyas follows: the Galatianswere groups of Celticspeaking peoples who arrived on the borders of the Classical world, Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor, around281 BC (see fig 1). Warlike,barbarousand set upon raiding and plunder,they attackedcities and sanctuaries in Greece, before crossing to Asia Minor where they conducted themselves in similar fashion until the various efforts of Hellenistic rulers forced them to settle in north centralAnatolia, the region aroundAnkara(see fig 2). Thus marginalised, but not mastered, by the Hellenistic kingdoms they remaineda constantthreatto the more sophisticated communities of western Asia Minor,at least until 189 BC when they suffereda major defeat at the hands of a Roman army. The victims and enemies of the Galatianssaw them as a dangerousincarnation of barbarism. They were viewed as a threat to Hellenistic civic culture precisely as the Persian 'barbarian'had been stylised into the enemy par excellence of Classical Greece. Hellenistic kings saw themselves as protectorsof civilisation against the new menace, and victories over the Galatians led to them duringthe later being granteddivine honours. Gradually, Hellenistic period, the rough edges of Celtic tribal culturewere smoothedby exposureto Hellenisationand by the manipulations of Roman foreign politics and

diplomacy. Eventually their territorieswere absorbed into the Roman empire by Augustus. Within this new framework they developed as a subject people of the empire,who neverthelesspreservedimportantaspects of their former cultural identity, thanks above all to the survival of the Celtic languageuntil late antiquity'. weaknesses in this traditional There are fundamental reconstruction, which may be traced to excessive dependenceon the partisanand tendentiousaccounts of the Classicalwriters. This is the mainburdenof the most recent, and by far the fullest, study of the Galatians,by of Professor Karl Strobel (1996)2. Strobel's reappraisal the evidence has establisheda new base-line, not only for the study of the Galatiansin Asia Minor,but also for that of Celtic society - if indeedthe termhas any meaning at large (see, for example, Champion1995); it providesa point of referencefor the various aspects of the Galatian settlement which we consider in this paper. His reappraisalof the Galatians proceeds on three fronts. Firstly, he analyses the distinct, but in both cases misleading,ways in which Hellenistic and Romanwriters representedthe Celts in general, and the Galatians in particular. These complex historiographicaltraditions have shaped the modem picture of the Galatians as a marginalpeople: nomadicor at best unsettled;politically primitive and barely, if at all, capable of state organisation;warlikeand economicallyunsophisticated, relying on raidsand plundering,ratherthan organisedsystems of agriculture and land-use to maintain their society's livelihood3. Secondly, he bases his approach to the analysis of Galatiansociety and culture on comparisons and methodologies developed in the study of Celtic groups in Europe, as a means of escaping from the

This standardview was most fully developed in Staehelin 1907. The main outlines are not called into question by Mitchell 1993: 11-58. 2 A second volume is forthcoming. For an outline of this interpretation,see Strobel 1991: 101-34. * Thispaper 'Anatolia: 3 For an important aspect of the Graeco-Roman tradition, entitled for a conference was prepared Betweenthe NearEastandEurope' organised by IanHodder emphasising the differences between Hellenistic and Roman of the Celts, see also Strobel 1994: 67-96. characterisations in April1998. andheldat theBritish Academy

75

Anatolian Studies 2000

'"-"

>

%..

(~
_ ??

~
'

7iYf12iiO> ~
---''

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7-j 280 2 --->> R Rome ~ ~


_ __: _,~ "'" _=--1--N tL--t?

A_ -,

.........i...

---Delpii

Fig 1. Map I showing migrations of Celtic peoples, ca. 400-270 BC (after Cunliffe 1997: fig 55)

Fig 2. Map 2 showingfindspots of La Tene type metalworkin Turkey(afterMiiller-Karpe1998: fig 2)

76

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar of the bondage imposed by the Classical historiography Celts. Thirdly,he has undertakena reappraisalof the geographical aspects of Galatian settlement in Asia Minor4. This has led to two main conclusions, namely that greateremphasis than hithertoshould be placed on the extent of Galatiansettlementnorth and northwestof Ankara, in the direction of Bithynia; and that the environmentof the region stretchingfrom the Sangarius at Gordium through Ankara to the Halys was more heavily wooded in antiquity, more comparable to the originalareas of Celtic settlementin centralEuropethan it appearstoday,and eminentlysuitablefor the permanent of Celtic peoples. establishment of Linguisticevidence is crucialto our understanding the Galatians although, as we shall indicate in our conclusion, it must be used with caution. The name Galataiis itself Celtic andwas not merely a label attached to them by outside observers(so Renfrew 1996: 101-2), but the termby which they chose to describethemselves. The root gal- is identified in Old Irish with a bundle of meanings and associations,includingwar-fever,bravery; smoke, cloud; steam; and the notion of 'being able', of 'k6nnen' (Schmidt 1994). It was not a name appliedto a tribalgroupas such,but was adoptedto describeeitherthe warriorsection of a single tribe or of several tribes, in relationto certainforms of aggressiveactivity,duringthe period of Celtic expansion, migrationand warfarefrom the fourthcenturyBC onwards. Thusthe threetribeswho settled in Asia Minor were named both by themselves (Mitchell et al 1982: no 188)5 and by Graeco-Roman observersthe GalataiTolistobogii,the GalataiTectosages and the GalataiTrocmi respectively,just as other Celtic groups are attested outside Asia Minor as the Galatai Olbia in the Crimea(Dittenberger Skirai,who threatened 1915-24:495 B 5-7), or the GalataiScordisci(Fluss 1921). In this respect,as in several others,the Galatiansmay be comparedwith the Germanic'barbarian' groupingsof the of in the late antiquity. period Volkerwanderungen Strobel, who rightly places great emphasis on such parallels, draws attentionto the very comparableterms Franci, derived from a root meaning 'grasping' or 'strenuous', and Alamanni, meaning, roughly, 'all men'. These were not designationsof individual (warrior) tribes, but applied to warrior bands assembled from smaller kinship-based groupings, and denoted their functions, capabilities and warrior aspirations (Strobel 1996: 131-5). 4 See also Strobel 1994:29-65. set up forthe son (andco-regent) of funerary inscription at his tumulus, in whichboth the Galatian chieftain Deiotarus father andson (alsocalledDeiotarus) arecalledtetrarch of the Galatian andTrocmi. Tolistobogii
5 The

The appearanceof the Galatiansin Asia Minor is to be seen retrospectively as the conclusive stage to the migration and expansion of Celtic peoples from their supposed homelands in the upper Danubian region duringthe fourthand thirdcenturiesBC (see again fig 1). The origins, natureand purposeof these movements are all controversial and much discussed. There is little compelling evidence to supportmonocausalexplanations such as drastic overpopulation, pressure from other migrating peoples, regional famines, substantial ecological changes, the lure exercised by the wealthy cultural centres of the Classical Mediterranean, or specific political and economic pressures. The motivation for the migrations, which was doubtless extremely complicated, thus remains obscure. The answers should lie, at least in part,in the natureof Celtic society itself, but there is a logical difficulty in going beyond this hypothesis. Our evidence for the natureof these Celtic societies is entirely derived from observations of, or inferences from, their activities, in particulartheir behaviour during the period of migrations. Yet this behaviouris the very thing which we need to explain. Any explanation formulatedon these lines risks becoming a tautology. Some of the difficulties and limitations of the evidence may be illustratedby examiningthe case of the Tectosages, the one Galatiantribal group which is also known by the same name in the Celtic West. Groups called Tectosagesare attestedin threepartsof the ancient world: in Galatia;in the Hercynianforest, that is roughly in the region north of the upper Danube, where they are mentionedby Julius Caesar;and in southernGaul, more especially in the region aroundTolosa (Toulouse),where they were probablythe strongerof two groupsof Volcae, (the otherbeing the Volcae Arecomici) which dominated southern France between the Rhone and the Pyrenees (see Bannert 1978). The name of the largergroupto which the Tectosages belonged, the Volcae, appears semantically comparable to terms such as Galatai and Alamanni, denoting a broaderunit than a tribalkin group. Indeed it is almost impossible to resist the notion that it is etymologically related to the term Volk,simply 'the people' (Strobel 1996: 173, n 1)6. Our fullest source, Strabo, who was familiar with the Tectosages both in his native Asia Minor and in southernFrance, about which he certainly drew information from his predecessor Posidonius, assumed that the group which eventually reached Asia Minorhad ultimatelystartedfrom Gaul, and explains the Strobelcites Riibekeil(1992: 59ff) who indicatesthatthe is unclear, butthatthenamewas oneadopted etymology by the Volcaeforthemselves (Selbstbenennung).
6

77

AnatolianStudies 2000 migrationwith a story that a section of the Tectosages had been expelled as a result of internal disorder is (IV.1.13, 188, see XII.5.1, 567). This reconstruction who modem suppose unanimouslyrejected by scholars, thatthe people's originlay somewherein centralGermany to the west of the Elbe. The basis for this belief is, on the one hand, Caesar's remark that the Volcae Tectosages were to be found in his time circa Hercyniamsilvam, (Gallic WarVI.24. 1-4)7 and, on the other,on deductions from the archaeologicallyattestedculturesof Thiiringen and northern Bavaria. The modem reconstructionof majormigrationsof the Volcae, includingthe Tectosagan where a tribeof branch,both eastwards throughPannonia, VolcaePaludes(MarshVolcae)is attested,to Galatia,and southwest to southernFrance is entirely built on these suggestive,but fragile,foundations.Apartfromthe observations of ancient authors,whose reconstructionof the have been universallyrejected,the only Volcanmigrations materialevidence for connectionsbetweenthe substantive of a gold torc found in scatteredgroupsis the appearance southern Pannonia, whose nearest parallels are types discovered in Tectosagan territory in southern France (Strobel 1996: 179, n 80). The latest modern reconstructionmay be close to the truth,but the argumenton which it is based is very far from proven. Our understanding of the Celtic migrations rests almost entirely upon elaboratehypotheses. Strobel's contributionhere is to offer an hypothesis concerningthe structureof the earlier,migratorygroups, which in turnmay explain their behaviouralpatterns. The wide-rangingmigratorymovementsof the fourth centuryBC were carriedforwardby a mobile, noble warriorclass with their followers, by clans and their component parts or tribal sections, which joined up with the mobile warriorgroups and members of the leading kin-groups of a relatively large tribal aristocracyto form wanderingbands. The traditional core, which gave the bandstheir identity,was formed by these princely and noble kin-groups. These core groups, which provided or representeda line of kin descent and a sense of identity,were the convergence factors in the processes of tribe, and thereby, of ethnos formationand of their internalshaping,which are presupposedduring every phase of mobility and land acquisition. (Strobel 1996: 154-5) It will be clear that this reconstructionpresupposes thatthe social andpolitical groupingsof Celtic peoples in this period were the opposite of primitive. This is a description of a highly sophisticated set of social strucures, which were clearly cemented together by sharedvalue systems. Certainlythat would explain two undeniablepropositionsconcerning the migratingCelts of the fourth and third centuries BC: firstly, their sustainedsuccess at the expense of other populationsof natureof the settleEurope;and secondly,the permanent mentswhich they establishedas a resultof the migrations in Asia Minor and elsewhere. It is beyond question that the ultimate goal of these migratorymovementswas to acquireland for permanent settlement. This is the aspect where the Classical sources, which repeatedlyemphasise the Galatianquest for booty and plunder,are at theirmost misleading. This is not to deny that raids againstrichercommunitieswere commonplace occurrencesduring the periods of Celtic migration,but these need to be seen within the context of the overall rhythmof these movements. They belong to the initial phases of conflict, in which warrior bands made the first impactand exertedthe initial pressureson forces opposed to them. They were followed by the major movements of tribal groups, accompanied by diplomatic negotiations (more suo), which ended in the permanentor semi-permanentoccupation of settlement areas. In fact the detailed, although fragmentary historical record of the arrival of the Galatians in Asia Minor provides one of the fullest records of these processes operatingin a known historical context. First came the initial conflicts in Macedonia and Greece between 281 and 278. Then the Galatianswere admitted across the Bosphorusand the Hellespont, as a result of an alliance struckwith Nicomedes, king of Bithynia,who secured their help as allies against the Seleucids. In return for their service they were permittedto occupy land in the region southeast of Bithynia, that is in the direction of Ankara,and they continuedto hold this for the rest of their history. The precise chronology and nature of the Galatian takeover of the region remain obscure, but it is reasonableto assume that the various major groupings were settled in their newly acquired by the end of the 260s BC. How many Galatian territory settlers were involved is unclear, but the historical evidence suggests they may have been relatively few (Livy relates that Nicomedes enlisted 20,000, including non-combatants);however, these figures are open to question, and other Galatians could subsequentlyhave boosted the total. Whateverthe case, it is clear that the indigenousresidentpopulationwas neitherexterminated nor driven away en masse (even if acts of violence may have been a featureof the settlementprocess), and they probablyconstitutedthe majorityof the populace of the new, Galatian polities (Strobel 1996: 186-264, with crucial emphasis on the ultimate goal of 'Landnahme'; Mitchell 1993: 13-20).

hadalsooriginated in Gaulwest thatthisgroup Caesar opined

of the Rhine. It is doubtful whether his comments refer to conditions in his own day, the mid first centuryBC.

78

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar Defining the region We are fortunate, given the Classical sources and a number of place-names, that the general area of the Galatian settlement in north-centralAnatolia can be broadly comprehended,and the general location of the three main tribes- the Tolistobogii,the Tectosages and the Trocmi can be discerned (see figs 2 and 3); the archaeological evidence alone would be woefully insufficient to reach this level of understanding. Nevertheless, the documentaryevidence provides only a rough impression: the boundaries between (and within) the tribes are uncertain, as are those with neighbouring polities; and these boundaries changed over time. Whether any pre-existing boundaries survived in the Galatian arrangements is unknown (Strobel 1994; Mitchell 1993: 51-8)8. Strabo indicates that the Trocmi, the easternmostof the three tribes, were settled in the land adjoining the Taviumwas one of territoriesof Pontus and Cappadocia; their strongholds. There is evidence to show that the Kizilirmak(the ancientriverHalys) formedtheirwestern border,althoughinformationin Pliny may indicatethatat some time they also held territorynorthwestof the river in Paphlagonia. Their eastern frontier probably lay somewhere to the east of modem Yozgat although how far is unclear. Strabo'saccountplaces the Tectosages in the area adjoining GreaterPhrygia around the templestate of Pessinus and the Orcaorci9; Ancyra was one of their fortifications. The evidence would indicate that their territory extendedfrom the Sangariusto the Halys, south of Tolistobogiian land. Probably during the second or first centuryBC, the Tectosageshad also extended south into the Proseilemmene, 'the added land' including parts of Lycaonia;and probablyinto parts of Pisidia. The Tolistobogii occupied northernand western Galatia:north of Pessinus their territory stretched west across the Sangarius, on either side of the Tembris (Tembrogius) river (the modem Porsuk), to Phrygia Epictetus; their southern lands probably at some time included or borderedthe (ile Dagl, since these prominenthills are likely to be the ancient Mount Olympus, the site of the great defeat of the Tolistobogii at the hands of the to the norththeirterritoryextended Romansin 189 BC10; In addition, Strabo towardsBithynia and Paphlagonia11. 8Inaddition to thethree maintribes, thenamesof other groups in the Classical see Mitchell1993:43. sources; appear 9 withinthe on the west side of MountDindymus, Pessinus, river wasnot the modem bend of (the Sakarya), great Sangarius a part of Galatiain the Hellenisticperiod, constitutionally influence. it cameunder Galatian increasingly although
10See note 24 below. l l The northwestern boundarybetween the Romanprovincesof

refers to a district of western Paphlagoniaknown as the country of Gaezatorix;this territory,in the upper valley of the Siberis (the modern Kirmir (Cayi),might correspond to the territoryof a Galatian noble, Gaezatorix, who is mentionedas a chieftainin 180 BC (Strobel 1994: 41-54). Galatianlands were even more extensive after 63 BC, following Pompey's successful conclusion of Rome's war against MithridatesVI of Pontus. In return for giving significant military assistance, the Galatian rulers were well-rewarded by the Romans: Deiotarus of the Tolistobogii)received lands in Pontusand (tetrarch at of the (later least) ArmeniaMinor;Brogitarus(tetrarch Trocmi) was given Mithridatium(a fortress in Pontus) and perhaps land in Armenia Minor; and both men received the title of king. Throughhis close relationship with Rome, the last Galatianking, Amyntas, had, by 36 BC, acquired control of a huge area, including Pisidia, Galatia, Lycaonia, Phrygia Paroreius and part of Pamphylia(Mitchell 1993: 31-41). Clearly,the Galatian polities, despite sufferingreverses, togetherconstituteda significant and increasingly important geo-political the kingdoms of western entity which, correspondingly, and centralAsia Minorcould not affordto underestimate. We shall focus our attention on the core-area of settlement (i.e. the region shown on fig 3). As documented in the historical sources, it was here only that the Galatiansestablished major polities in the third centuryBC; and these, undergoingchanges, survivedthe troubles of the later Hellenistic period- a timespan of some two and a half centuries- to be incorporated into the Roman empire. It is in this region that we would expect interactions, fusions and transformationsof the varied lifestyles of the resident groups to have been at theirmost intense and complex. The extantdocumentary sources offer little in the way of informationregarding socio-economic and other cultural changes, developments and continuitieswithin the region; rather,the brief informationthey do containonly indirectlyreflects these issues. It is archaeologywhich must providethe material for a fuller and more balanced understandingof these matters. Galatia and Bithynia lay alongthe Siberisriver(the modem KirmirQayi), but for the Hellenistic periodthe boundaries betweenGalatia,Bithyniaand Paphlagonia are unclearand withcircumstances. Indeed thereis evidence probably changed to suggestthat Tolistobogiian extended west of the territory in the firstcentury Siberis BC: if the fort(discussed below)at KaleontheSiberis is indeed thehistorically attested Tabanhoglu of theTolistobogiian thenit might seem treasury kingDeiotarus, thatsucha repository of wealth inconceivable wouldhavebeen located on the veryedge of the polity. On the otherhand,we shouldbearin mindevidence whichindicates thatcertain preRoman Iron Age sanctuariesin Gaul lay on inter-tribal boundaries;for example,see Brunaux1988: 3 (fig), 12.

79

tCb'j5

\5= > ^<*\-... k a <- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. - o .

Anatolian Studies 2000

~~~~............. . . .. .. . . . . i . . i . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .
.
-

................

E, ...

* . . . .! .

. . . .m E...... ....H ,

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . ..

' ! :b& . ........... .... ?

2 2i i i i i l ;. . . . . . . . . . . ..

? ...... ... ::::~~~~~~~~~ t :::::: :{ :: :::::::::::::: ~~~..

::::

ce

3)

~ . '.........
~~~~. J. ? , . . .. ...
...... : -

..........
. . . . . . . . . . .......

a~ /. ~~,:ii! i:::~:::x,::::'.~
:

. . . ......, . ... . ..

....

.....

"

o . . . . . . . .::::::::1 . . ............. :.:e!~..i. : :. )\ ,~ : f 7 .o :.~ .........


.... -V Jv ,.. ; ; ::::::::::::: .

' ::;:w:::::;:::; :::::::::::::::::X:::


- ? ~~~~~~~~~........ ~,,, :":~~~~~~~~~~~........ _ :5...~ ~,_,v 4MS )~''%t, <,
o~~
,V
-

--..........................

. . . . . . ..

. . .

~a

.N<
'M'.

:yJs: ~r *:::
X

~:::::'

.
~ ./

..............

. . . . .

CL

.7..
' (:: Ii s 80 ( r^

ii !i . Q/ .!

.. . .

... . . . ..
. .. . .0

. \.

iX*o ' x

80

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar of other artefacts, in particular metalwork, lend Problems with the archaeological evidence To appreciate the cultural impact of the Galatian themselves to broad typological dating. Epigraphic evidence from the Hellenistic period in centralAnatolia settlement and evaluate the longer-term processes of is virtuallynon-existent(Mitchell 1993: 86). change and continuity,we requiredetailedknowledge of the pre-Galatian context as well as that of the Hellenistic and later periods. Unfortunately,although a body of Social organisation relevant archaeological data does exist it is small, We know almost nothing about the social structures and poorly dated;a conse- which existed in the region prior to the arrival of the generallypoorly characterised of and quence piecemeal sporadic archaeologicalwork. Galatians (see, for example, Sekunda 1991). As a result of earlierinvestigationsby a few researchers Nonetheless, the Classical writersindirectlyindicatethat working in isolation, a numberof relevantor potentially the Galatians imposed their own particular sociorelevantsites have been noted- in particular, forts. This political organisation on the region, and a process of work has focused mainly on the lands of the Tectosages socio-political developmenttook place over time which and Tolistobogii east of the Sakarya; but Trocmian remainspoorly understood(for furtherdetails and references, see Mitchell 1993: 24, 27-9, 35, 42-4, 46-7). The country, east of the Kizilirmak has received far less attention. There has been virtually no excavation of impression provided by the documentary sources, Hellenisticperiod sites in the region and the character of althoughprobablycorrectin its broadoutlines, is limited and lacks detail. Only the highest echelons of the immediately pre-Galatian settlement here is likewise The obscure. long-termexcavationand surveyprojectsat Galatian aristocracywere deemed worthy of note and Gordiumand Bogazk6y are obvious exceptionsbut these consequently we know next to nothing of the lower sites are clearly more unusualsettlementforms. Smaller- orders. Whether elements of pre-existing Anatolian scale investigationshave occurredat only a handful of social organisationwere somehow assimilated into the other relevant sites, yet such places are crucial to our Galatianstructures,or whetherthe Galatiansinstituteda broader of socio-economicand otherstruc- complete and total rearrangement, is not obvious. The understanding tures. Nevertheless,the situationis at last being remedied archaeologicalevidence is insufficientto shed much light by more widespread systematic archaeologicalinvesti- on these matters,although data from burials and settlegationso thatthe next decadeor two shouldwitness signif- ments is pertinent. icant advancesin our understanding: in particular, in the The character of Galatiansocio-political organisation modem province of Ankarathe first extensive survey of in the region in the third century,and for much of the forts in north Galatia is being conducted (see Vardar, second century BC, remains extremely obscure; the coVardar 1997);andto the northof the centralplateau,in the existence of several chieftains is apparent from the more mountainouscountry of Paphlagonia,the current Classical writers (of relevance here is Strobel's survey directed by Roger Matthews of the BIAA is hypothetical reconstruction of the migration period bands, outlined earlier) and in addition, it seems likely improving our knowledge of the settlement record in Cankin province (Matthewset al 1998). However, the enough that one prominent Tolistobogiian aristocrat, historically important area of western Paphlagonia Ortiagon, was for a while sole ruler of the region towardsBolu, adjoiningBithynia, has receivedhardlyany following the disastrouseffects of the Romaninvasion in attention andmustbe a focus of futurework. The southern 189 BC. The fullest and most coherent picture of the lands, extendingto the areaaroundKonya and the Taurus Galatianconstitutionis providedby Strabowho indicates Mountainsare also poorly understood. that formerly(before the mid first centuryBC) the three A persistentmajorproblem is the absence of a wellmain tribes had shared the same form of organisation; characterised ceramic framework (derived from each tribe being divided into four sections (tetrarchies). excavatedmaterial)which could provide a chronological The leader of each section was called a tetrarch,and scheme for sites in the region in Hellenistic, Roman and subordinate to each tetrarch there was a judge, one Byzantine times. A very small proportionof the known military commander and two junior commanders. A pottery can be assigned to one or other of these periods, council of the 12 tetrarchs,comprising three hundred though not to finer chronological subdivisions (for members, met at a place called the Drynemetos. Here murdercases were decided by the council, and all other example, Megarianbowls, black-glazed wares and fine red-slippedwares, all paralleledin western Asia Minor, affairswere settled by the tetrarchsandjudges. There is can be datedto the third-firstcenturiesBC)12. A number nothing to demonstratethat this system of 12 tetrarchs existed in the first phases of the Galatiansettlement,and 12 it is perhaps most likely (although not certain) that it of thefullrangeof Hellenistic Studyandpublication pottery developed during the second century BC rather than from Gordiumshould help.

81

AnatolianStudies 2000 earlier. Certainlythe Greek title of tetrarchgiven to the leading figures implies a degree of Hellenisation of the Galatianelite in the second century BC and this is also indicated by what is known about Ortiagon'3. Nevertheless, the fourfold division of each tribe, and the pantribalcouncil meeting, are featuresthat are paralleledto some extent by otherhistoricallyattestedforms of sociopolitical organisationof the first century BC in parts of western Europe. Despite increasing HellenisticAnatolian influence there can be no doubt that in its basics, at the elite level at least, the form of this Galatian political constitution was 'Celtic'/European, not Anatolian. However, in view of our ignorance of its detailed character,it should not be assumed that in its other aspects it was directly comparable with other (likewise poorly understood)societies in Europe. There had is historicalevidence to indicatethatthese tetrarchies a territorialbasis, but their geographical aspects and social compositionremainlargely unknown. The system of 12 tetrarchs was surely drastically altered in 86 BC, when Mithridates VI of Pontus murderednearly all the leading figures at Pergamum. Thereafter there was only one ruling tetrarchfor each of the three tribes. As a consequence of furtherpolitical changes in the later first century BC, the number of ruling tetrarchswas reduced to two, and then only one (Deiotarus, followed by Castor and lastly by Amyntas the Great). Some of these last Galatianrulerswere also kings, but only by virtue of a kingdom (outside the corearea of Galatian settlement) conferred upon them by Rome (see 'Defining the region' above). By the mid first centuryBC it is clear from the documentarysources that the Galatian elite was Hellenised to a considerable degree and had assimilatedvalues and behaviourpatterns characteristic of otheraristocraciesand dynastiesin Asia Minor. There can be no doubt that Galatian social organisation was hierarchicalin structure. Although changing over time, it seems likely to have always includedseveral grades of free and unfree, with correspondingvariations in status, honour, obligations and dues; amongst the unfree, there is limited evidence for slaves. And despite Strabo'sstatementthatthe threetribesdifferedin no way from each other,it seems possible thatsocial forms could have varied in their details across the region, as well as throughtime. Kinship and clientship, however difficult to define clearly in this particular historical context, would presumably have been fundamentallyimportant factorsin establishingan individual'sstatusand in structuring social relationships. Membershipof a kin-group would provide an individualwith an importantform of identity. Clientage (which could exist amongst the aristocracyas well as those of lower status) would have been an unequalrelationship between social inferiorsand those of higher status, whereby clients were obliged to render produce, goods and services economic, military,political and other- in returnfor patronageand protection. The power of the ruling elite ultimately lay in coercion and wealth (the basis of which remainsto be considered). Galatian personal names, whose meanings can be approximatelydeciphered,allude indirectlyto the institutionsand value systems of Galatiansociety. A random groupof examples illustratesthis. Brikkonderives from the stem brigo-, meaning strengthor worth;Tektomaros can be translated 'rich in possessions'; Olorix means roughly 'mighty king'; the root bat-, found in several personalnames, implies the meaningof 'strike' or 'beat'. Over a hundredsuch names are known and a preliminary classification suggests that there were large groups of names which implied strength, power and personal worth, others associated with warfare and victory, and otherswith landedpossessions. They providea valuable onomastic source of informationby which the views of Classicalwriterscan be by-passed,and a directapproach made to ideas which the Galatiansheld aboutthemselves (Holder 1896-1910; Weissgerber 1931; Dressler 1967; Schmidt 1994; Strobel 1996: 142-51; Staehelin 1907: 109-19). Given the dearthof evidence it is unclearhow, in the thirdcenturyBC, the nativeresidentpopulation,and later their descendants, were integratedinto Galatian social organisation.Duringthe initial settlementphase it would seem likely that many if not all members of the native ruling elite were reduced in power (if not driven into exile or even killed), to make way for the incoming Galatian aristocracy. It seems probable that the lower ranks of Galatiansociety were mostly filled, at least in the early period, by those of native Anatolian origin, most of whom, it can be suggested, were permittedto remain in the region on terms of diminished status and reducedrights. Nevertheless, a degree of upwardsocial mobility may have been possible over time. Although the historical evidence suggests that the Galatianruling elite kept themselves distinct from their subjects (with intermarriage being restrictedto other dynastic families in Anatolia), it seems likely that those of lower grades (bothof GalatianandnativeAnatoliandescent)gradually 13 That the title of 'tetrarch' was used by the Galatians became more thoroughlyamalgamated throughintermarat leastby the mid firstcentury BC if not signifithemselves, riage. It can be suggested that amongst the mixed cantly earlier, is indicated by the funerary inscription to populace, shared identities and value systems would Deiotarusthe Younger,mentionedabove at note 5.

82

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar ments that occurredin Galatianmilitary equipmentand organisationremain rather obscure. Livy's account of the Roman invasion of Galatia in 189 BC (38.12-27), if based on reliable sources, would indicate that arms and of other 'Celtic' peoples fighting methods characteristic in Europewere being used in Galatiain the early second century. However,changes had occurredby the mid first centuryBC, at least within the Tolistobogiianpolity, for the documentary evidence indicates that Deiotarus' infantry were equipped, organised (and presumably trained)in Roman fashion: a reflection of the close and special relationship that existed between the king and Rome (Mitchell 1993: 34, 45-6, 54).16 Material culture The other main category of La Tene type artefacts The archaeologicalrecord demonstrates that elements of comprisesitems of adornment.A Romancopy of one of 'Middle La Tene' type materialculture(i.e. of the same the Pergamenemonumentsshows the distinctive,twistedform as a rangeof European artefactual styles of the third metal La Tene type neck-ring (or 'torque') on a dying and second centuriesBC) were introduced to Asia Minor Galatianwarrior. In addition,at least four La Tene style by the Galatians,and certainly some of these elements arm- or leg-rings, and over 20 La Tene style fibulae continued into the first century BC. The data are not (which divide into two main typologicalgroups),are now at in least to due the of lack numerous, part archaeological known from Turkey(see fig 2). Virtuallyall of these are from unknown or poorly defined contexts. Examples of work, and probablyto the failure to report(and even to recognisethe significanceof) strayfinds of such material. the first group of fibulae, typologically very similar to Most of the dataaremetalwork, the majority of which have certaineasternEuropeanMiddle La Tene specimens, are been foundoutsidethe core-area of Galatian settlement dateableto the thirdand earliersecond centuriesBC; and althoughfuturediscoveries could change the spatial and three of the rings are also dateable by their European distribution chronological patterns significantly. parallels to the third century. These examples, widely Accurate representationsof Middle La Tene type distributed in a numberof regions lying well outside the militaryequipmentare found in the monumentalvictory core-areaof Galatiansettlement,may well be a reflection of earlierGalatian sculptures(or their later Roman copies) erected by the raiding,mercenary activity,or localised to state mark successes scored the settlement (although other interpretations Pergamene against are possible). Galatiansin the laterthirdcenturyBC, and similarrepre- Fibulae of the second typological group appear to be sentations occur on other monuments and small finds somewhatlater variants,dateableto the later second and from Turkey. All the main items of the Galatianpanoply first centuriesBC; these have been found within (and a appear -shields, spears, helmets, chainmail, swords, little outside) the main settlementarea of the Galatians the carnyx (a form of discordantmusical horn), and the shown on fig 3, including two from cist graves archaeochariot (representedby some of its components). But logically excavatedat Bogazk6y. In additionthereis a La actual examples are hardly known15,and the developTene type twisted-goldlimb-ring(or infant'sneck-ring?) from the western tumulus at Ta~oluk-Hidir?ihlar (see section on burials which 14 date to the second below) might As notedin ourconclusion, theCelticlanguage survived and century BC (Mitchell 1993: 54). Within the territory was predominant in the regionfor severalcenturies: thoseof nativeAnatolian descent the shown on fig 3, fibulae have been found at Bogazkoy, assimilated presumably gradually Celtictongue. Ku~saray,KaracaKoyii, and in the vicinity of Ankara;in 15A late Hellenistic cist graveat Bogazk6y, froma cemetery addition, an example in the museum at Eski?ehirmay described an ironshortswordwith its now- have below,contained come from the environsof that city. ironscabbard andsuspension with fragmentary rings,together an ironspearhead. Theswordis muchshorter thantheknown swordsdeemedtypicalof MiddleLa Tene Europe; but this 16 Other evidence morerecently includes: a reliefof published feature wouldaccord withthe short-length swords Galatian shieldon a templeat Limyra represented a (probably) builtin the in thesculptures notedabove.Thespearhead is too damaged to 270s BC, forwhichsee Borchhardt 1987:106-8,abb.7; anda be typologically butits remains arenot inconsistent (probably) Galatian diagnostic andother itemscarved on the shield,sword with La Tene formsknownfrom Europe. An unpublished lintelof a Hellenistic towerat Hangerli in Cilicia,forwhichsee brokeniron cheek-piecefrom Gordium could be part of a Durugniil1998:13-19,abb2, taf54. ForLaTenetypeswords
Galatianhelmet but it may be earlierin date (McClellan 1975: 102-10. see, for example, Pleiner 1993; de Navarro 1972. For La Tene type spearheads,a useful startingpoint is Brunaux,Rapin 1988.

have developed over time - as a resultof belonging to a particularkin-group,tetrarchyor tribe, of a developing history of shared experiences and problems, (e.g. the various wars of the later Hellenistic period), and a common language14 and a process of ethnogenesis could have occurred. Indeed,the testimony of Livy may be significant in this regard when he portrays the Galatians of 189 BC, albeit perjoratively through the mouth of the Roman consul Manlius Vulso, as a hybrid people'Gallogrecians', and 'Phrygians' bearing Gallic military equipment (Livy 38.17; Mitchell 1980: 1057-60; 1993: 47).

83

AnatolianStudies 2000 Together with La Tene style material culture, it is clear from the limited available evidence that native Anatolian artefactualtraditions continued through the period, as shown for example by the ceramics (both locally produced and imported), and metalwork and othermaterialfrom the Gordiumexcavations:indeed, no distinctive assemblage of La Tene type materialhas yet been found at the site. Furthermore, despite claims to the contrary, the so-called 'Galatian' ware, found in Trocmianterritoryand dating from the second century BC, may be a local ceramic tradition owing little or nothing to influences from La Tene Europe. In addition, finds from Gordiumand the Galatianchamberedtomb A at Karalar (see 'burials' below) demonstrate that Anatolianstyle fibulae continuedto be used throughthe laterHellenistic period (the context at Karalarindicating that the fibula in question belonged to a member of the Galatian elite); and other artefacts from the chambered tombs indicatethatthe elite placed considerablevalue on high quality metalwork and ceramics of Hellenistic/ Anatolianstyles. (For Gordiumsee Mitchell 1993: 54-5; DeVries 1984; 1990; Sams 1995; Sams, Voigt 1989; 1994; 1996; 1997; Winter 1988. For Karalarfibula see Ank 1934: levha 9, ?ekil 18. For Galatian ware see Mitchell 1993: 51, 54; Miiller-Karpe1988 argues for a La Tene connection.) The Pergamene sculptures and other pictographic representations noted above, together with Livy's account of Vulso's invasion, serve to underline the distinctive visual appearanceof Galatianwarriormales (including nakedness in combat, wild hair and moustaches)in the laterthirdand earliersecond centuries BC. Despite the fact that these impressions(and similar ones from Classical Europe)are those of 'outsiders' and to some degree idealised or stereotypical, situated in propagandising contexts, they find corroborationnot in EuropeanLa Tene art but also only in representations in Anatolia: a characteristically and unmistakeably Galatianmale face, depicted in relief on a gold buckle seems from the western tumulus at Ta~oluk-Hidir?ihlar, Elements such likely to be an 'insider's' representation. as hairstyles,garb and the various ways specific types of artefactswere worn aboutthe body, could have conveyed variouskinds of informationor 'messages' regardingthe social identity of the wearer (e.g. torques could have been symbols of divinity and high status). The continuities and changes in such social practicesas a resultof the Galatiansettlementremainto be explored(they could be approached, for example, through burials although unfortunately,as we shall see, such contexts are few). For how long, and to what extent, distinctiveelements of traditionalGalatiandress, hairstylesand symbolic use of persistedin the region is uncertain personalornaments the presence of first century BC La Tene type fibulae could, for example, indicate the survival of traditional styles of Galatian clothing and symbolic practice, but they do not prove this- thoughthereis nothingspecific tombs to indicatethatthe rulingelite fromthe chambered of the first century BC retained traditional Galatian modes of appearance. Ritual and religion The Galatians introducedtheir own distinctive beliefsystems, rituals and forms of sacred space to the region; but the characterof these is hardly known. To what extent these were assimilated by those of native Anatoliandescent is unclear;nor is it obvious as to how long the various elements of these ritual traditions remaineddistinctive, if altered-although by the later Roman period there is little trace of them. Certainly, through time the Galatian elite assimilated native religious forms, themselves poorly understood,but again the chronology and characterof this process are rather obscure. To what extent, and in what ways, the various different strands of belief and ritual merged or were syncretisedin the Hellenistic period is hardlycapableof analysis given the available data. Brief and indirectglimpses providedby the Classical sources indicatethe existence of forms of Galatianritual in Anatoliawhich find parallelsin broadlycontemporary Europeancontexts: for example, the ritual sacrifice of prisoners(in ca. 166 BC) and warriornakedness(in 189 BC). In addition, the Galatian assembly at the Drynemetos, which we noted earlier, surely had a religious, as well as politico-judicial character, even thoughthis is not made explicit by Strabo:it is indicated primarilyby the termDrynemetositself ('sacredgrove of also finds supportfrom oak trees'), but the interpretation the existence of a somewhatsimilarinstitution,a druidic assembly, noted by Julius Caesar in first century BC Gaul. It is unknown whether or not the Galatian Drynemetos,with its religious component,continuedto be used at all following the drasticallysuddendecline of the system of 12 tetrarchsin the earlierfirst centuryBC. The presence of druids in Galatia cannot be ruled out, despite the fact that they are not explicitly and reliably attestedfor this region in the Classical sources (perhaps the judges or some of the other notables at the Drvnemetos were druids?). In addition, it is possible (though by no means certain) that traditionalforms of Galatianaugurymay have survived into the first century BC, perhapsbeing practisedby King Deiotarus(Mitchell 1993: 45, 47-50; and see Dunham (1995) for a useful illustration of the difficulties in using the Classical sources as an approach to the druids and other nonClassical social institutions).

84

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar In addition,strikingarchaeologicalevidence from the Gordiumexcavations- revealedonly recently- apparently indicates the existence of distinctive forms of Galatianritualintroducedto Anatoliafrom Europe. This evidence, dateable to the late third or earlier second century BC, includes: two human torsos, laid one over the other; a human skull with attached vertebrae, set uprightnext to a dog skull, with a dog leg laid over them both; a larger deposit with mixed equid, bovid and human remains; and three other humans, with broken necks (Sams 1995). These burials are closely paralleled in several parts of later prehistoricEuropeby a body of evidence for ritual processes which involved the dismembermentand 'structureddeposition' of humans and animals, as well as artefacts, at sanctuaries/sacred places and in a range of contexts on settlement sites. Although the beliefs behind such rites are little understood, these were clearly not normative forms of burial and it is possible that the humans were, for example, outcasts of some kind. The new discoveries at Gordium underline how little we know about Galatianritual and they suggest that other elements, similar to the evidence found in several contemporaryEuropeancontexts, may yet be identified: for example, rituals involving the structureddeposition (as opposed to day-to-day 'refuse disposal') of artefacts and other material (metalwork, ceramics, food/drink etc.) in features/structures at settlements and sacred enclosures, and in natural features in the landscape such as rivers and bogs/pools (Brunaux 1988; Webster 1995; Wait 1995). Nevertheless, broadly similar forms of activity involving artefact deposition (and that of humans and animals too?) may have formed a part of the region's traditional Anatolian culture: given the limited data available, we should consider this matter as open. Study of the artefactual material from Gordium in relation to their archaeological contexts may help to clarify our understanding in this regard. native Anatolianreligion and ritualin Unfortunately, the region is also poorly defined in this period. The Classical sources indicatethatby the mid second century BC at the latest, the Galatianruling classes had assimilated at least some elements of the native religion, and this process developed over time. The most notable example is their continuing involvement in the cult of Cybele and her consortAttis, at Pessinus;otherevidence includes the case of the Galatianaristocrat, Kamma,who was the hereditarypriestess of Artemis (probably the Hellenised mothergoddess); and later,in the earlierfirst centuryAD, the aristocrat, Dyteutus,who was high priest of the goddess Ma at Comana Pontica. Strabo also indicates that a monumentalbronze statue of Zeus, with a sacred precinct with the right of asylum, existed at Tavium (by the later first century BC). Archaeological evidence for native Anatolianreligion includes representations of Cybele from Gordium, dateable to the later third/early second century BC (Mitchell 1993: 47-50; DeVries 1990: 404-5). As a consequence of the paucity of archaeological information regarding cult sites and settlements, the ways in which sacred space was organised and structuredare obscure. UnfortunatelyStrabogives no details of the form of the sacred place Drynemetos, and its location is unknown, althoughit could be suggested that it included some form of sacred enclosure, perhaps similar to examples known from later Iron Age Europe (Webster 1995). The characterof the shrine at Tavium is likewise uncertain(Strabo 12.5.2). The dismembered bodies at Gordiummay well have been situatedat some kind of cult locus or sanctuarybut the contextualdetails of this part of the site remain to be defined and it is unclear(as yet) whetherthere were any associated structural features. Natural features in the landscape were probably also religious foci. The ways in which ritual/cosmological concepts influenced the spatial and activities at settlementsremainsto be arrangements investigated. Later, in the time of the Roman province, there is little to indicatethataspects of traditional Galatianrituals had survivedin a recognisablydistinctform, althoughwe must bear in mind that archaeologicalevidence from this period is again limited. Admittedly there is a little epigraphic material dating to the second and third centuries AD which reveals local cults taking Celtic names, includingthose of Zeus Souolibrogenos(Mitchell et al 1982: no 191) and Zeus Bussurigios (Mitchell et al 1982: nos 203-4); however, despite the Celtic epithets there is nothing in the texts to indicate the survival of traditional Galatian cultic features as distinct from familiarAnatolianpatterns. Burials As well as the human remains from Gordium noted above, a few formal burials are known from the region. At least several of these clearly belonged to the social elite and these bearno resemblanceto EuropeanLa Tene period burials. Indeed, it remains uncertainas to what distinctive types of formal mortuary practice the Galatiansintroducedto the region from Europe. For the majorityof the populaceof the Galatianpolities, we have no evidence for where and how their remains were disposed. Doubtless the low level of information is partlydue to the paucity of archaeologicalinvestigation, but it might also indicatethat forms of mortuary practice existed which were unlikely to leave readily identifiable traces in the archaeologicalrecord.

85

AnatolianStudies 2000 By far the most impressive burials, in terms of their architectureand the range and quality of grave goods, are those in stone chambered tombs beneath earthen tumuli. These tombs are directly paralleled outside Galatia by architecturally identical examples from Bithynia and Pontus, dateablebroadly to the Hellenistic period. Examples dateable to the fifth-third centuries BC from Thrace and the Bosporan Chora are also, though less closely, related. Withinthe Galatianregion, three examples are known from Karalar, two from (ca. 8km south of Bolu), and two Ta?oluk-Hidir,ihlar from Gordium. Two tombs near Eski?ehir,at Igdir and Yalaclk, may also be Galatian, at the western limit of Galatianterritory. In addition, an unpublishedtomb at (im?it near Karalaris either later Hellenistic or Roman in date. The quadrangular-plan chambers are constructed from large ashlar blocks carefully cut to shape and fitted togetherwithout the use of mortar;in at least one case (Karalar tomb C), iron clamps were employed to hold the blocks together more securely. The chambers were provided with a door. Although these tombs and their parallels require more detailed synthetic study they can be readily classified into three basic types according to the form of their roof construction. The first type has a corbelled roof and some of these tombs have an antechamber and/or dromos (Karalar tomb C, one of those at Gordium, Igdlr, Yalacik; and further afield, Tepecik, Gemlik, Kepsut, Milas, Belevi, Mudanya and Pammukkale). The second type has a peaked roof and a dromos (Karalar tomb B and the east tumulus at Ta?oluk-H1dlr?ihlar; also the dromos of the tomb noted below at Be?evler). The third type has a barrel-vaultedroof and a dromos (Karalar tomb A and, outside Galatia, Kii9iicek, Be?evler, Kanlibag and Ikiztepe). Of uncertain type (owing to later damage and lack of full publication) is the other example from Gordium, the west tumulus at and S(im?it. The significance of Ta?oluk-Hidir?lhlar the different types of chamberedtomb, both within and outside Galatia, remains to be explored in detail: for example, the architecturalvariations could be related to differences in chronology or in factors such as the age, sex, social rank or kinship of the deceased. Unfortunately, the majority of these tombs have been robbed prior to academic investigation, so details of the arrangementof the corpses and the full complement and arrangement of the grave goods are uncertain (Mitchell 1993: 55, n 123, 57, n 124, 125, 126; Meri9boyu, Atasoy 1969; Memerci, Yagci 1991; Alkim et al 1988: 204-6; Tsetskhladze 1998; information regarding the rescue excavation of (im?it tomb was kindly given by Dr Remzi Yagcl). The distinctive architectureof these burials has no parallelin EuropeanLa Tene contexts and virtuallynone of the extantgrave goods of those within Galatiais of La Tene form. Nonetheless, some of the finds from Karalar and one of the two Ta~oluk-Hidir?ihlar tombs indicate that these burials are indeed Galatian. We are most fortunatethat an inscription in Greek from tomb B at Karalaridentifies this particulartumulus as the resting place of Deiotarus the Younger, who we know from documentary evidence died between 43 and 41 BC (Mitchell et al 1982: no 188)'7. A date in the second centuryBC has been suggested for the burialin the west tumulusat Ta?oluk-Hidilr?hlar, which containedthe gold buckle and La Tene type torquementionedearlier;and it seems likely that the two Gordium tombs date to the Galatian occupation rather than before the diabasis. However it is impossible to date closely these other burials'8. The funeraryinscriptionof Deiotarus, together with the sumptuary of the grave goods and costly architecture tombs, indicates that this class of burialbelonged to the Galatianaristocracy,and indeed it seems likely to have been limited solely to members of the ruling families. These wealthy tombs of the first centuryBC and (most probably)earlierare evidence of markedsocial differentiation in Galatian society and they can be seen as a physical expression of the elite's wider pretensions, contacts, achievementsand affiliations:the employment of this particularform of Anatolian burial architecture was a means by which the Galatianrulingclass identifed itself as the peer of those who governed Bithynia and Pontus'9. It can be suggested that the form and siting of these particularburials were intended to emphasise the legitimacyand social distinctionof the rulinglineage and its controlover the naturalresourcesof the area:those at 17Other material withthis (noneof La Tenetype)associated of purple burial included theremains cloth,a porphyry offering andlion. table,glasswork and,in stone,a sculptured trophy 18 All these tombs have been robbed. Howevermaterial tumulus atTa?oluk-Hidirslhlar recovered from thewestem (and foundwithina roughly-cut included (in addition sarcophagus) to the gold torque andbuckle)gold bracelets, a gold earrings, silverpatera andsilverMegarian horsebit bowl,anda bronze
(not of La Tene type); ironwork(not recovered)was also noted. From the Karalar tombs, finds included fine Hellenistic/ Anatolian painted ceramics and golden necklaces set with precious stones as well as those mentionedat note 16 above. 19At present, the distributionof these Galatiantombs appears to be confined to the northwesternand western part of the region, the territoryoccupied by the Tolistobogii (and Gaezatorix), which may indicate that this burial practice was a traditionwithin Galatia,reflecting distinctlylocalised mortuary the specific extra-regionalcontacts of this particularterritory (although of course future discoveries might significantly widen the distribution within Galatia).

86

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar Karalar, for example, are prominently visible and overlook the fertile plain of the Ova Cay as well as the Galatian elite residence at Karalarwhich is described below; they indicate a focal point of the Tolistobogiian polity20. The Anatolianisationof this Galatian elite is further indicated by the character of the grave goods (some of which may have been obtained through gift exchange with neighbouringelites outside the region); and the historically-attested Hellenisationof the Tolistobogiian ruling lineage is demonstratedin particularby the use of epigraphy and the Greek language for Deiotarus the Younger's memorial. In addition the employmentin this inscriptionof the personalisedroyal epithet 'philoromaius'for the father,Deiotarusthe Great, is an indicationboth of the Hellenising influence on the characterof late Galatian kingship (use of Hellenisticstyle royal titulature)and also a clear affirmationof the king's allegiance to Rome (see Braund 1984: 105-6). It is yet to be demonstatedwhether the mortuaryrites of these Galatianburials differed noticeably from those of other Anatolian polities, and retained something of the traditionalritualsof the Galatians. Two other types of burial are known, from the late Hellenistic cemetery at Bogazk6y in Trocmianterritory: extendedinhumationsin stone cist graves (some of these most probablybeneath small tumuli, as indicatedby the presence of a stone circle or kerb defining the area around the cist); and interments of children in jars. Wheredateablethe graves have been assigned to the first centuryBC but the chronologicalrange of the cemetery could be wider than this. The burialsin jars representan Anatoliantraditionand the same may be true of the cist graves, though cists are also known from limited regions of laterprehistoricEurope. The majorityof burials lack grave goods (or at least items likely to leave visible archaeological traces) and none of the others was lavishly equipped, only one or two items usually being present. The artefacts from the cists include silver armrings, coins, pottery and ironwork, the latter includinga La Tene type fibula, and in anothergrave the sword, scabbardand spearheadnoted earlier. In orderto elucidate the rites, symbolism and social significance of these burials, further,synthetic study is requiredof the arrangement, age and sex of the bodies, and the form and of arrangement the grave goods. Although these burials are obviously much less impressive than those in the chambered tombs described above, the expensive characterof some of the grave goods, and the probable presence of tumuli, may indicate that at least some are the burials of a social elite (althoughnot necessarily the governing class), and again representmortuarypractices restrictedto a limited segment of the populace21.Again it is uncertainwhether these rites owed more to native Anatoliantraditionsor to those introducedto the region by the Galatians, although the burial with weapons is paralleledby 'warriorburials'in severalpartsof La Tene In addition,given the lack of comparativedata Europe22. it is uncertainas to how extensive across the region were these forms of burial;it is possible that, in their details at least, they representa localised tradition(Mitchell 1993: 54, n 101). Settlements As a consequence of the generally low level of survey and the lack of excavation in the region, our knowledge of settlementsis poor and is stronglybiased towardssites which are still physically prominenttoday. Nevertheless, the evidence from these sites indicates that at least some elements of the pre-Galatian settlementpattern important continuedto functionin the laterHellenistic period,even though there may have been short-term disruptions duringthe initial takeoverof the region by the Galatians in the third century BC; and this pattern might be expected at other sites. To what extent the detailed character of occupation at these places changed as a result of the Galatiantakeover will only be revealed by study of excavateddata. Three centres clearly of earlier importance (political/economic) which continued under the Galatians (and which were important enough in the Hellenistic period to be mentionedby Classical writers) were Gordium, Tavium and Ancyra. Gordium had formerly been the regional capital of the Phrygian kingdom and subsequentlya minorpolitical centreof the Achaemenid empire; and there are indications of high status Phrygian activity at Ancyra. Ceramics from Taviumshow that the place had a history extendingwell back into the Hittiteperiodand earlierin the BronzeAge.
Perhapsthey are those of a particular kin-groupor clan. The burials may also reveal differences in the way various social categories were represented in death: for example, the jar burials suggest that infants constituted a separate social category requiringmortuaryforms differentto those of adults; and other categories based on factors such as age and sex may be representedin the cist burials.
22
21

We mightspeculate as to who else was buriedin the elite It is possible, althoughof necropolisat Karalar/Blucium. course uncertain, that the other two tombs containedthe remains of Deiotarus the Great himselfandhis wife Berenice. Theirdaughters, married out to membersof otherGalatian
ruling families, would presumablyhave been buriedelsewhere. See Mitchell 1993: 28 for stemmaof the family of Deiotarus.

20

with swordsarenot common Burials in European IronAge

contexts and are often deemed to indicate the relatively high rankof the deceased; see, for example, Wait 1995.

87

AnatolianStudies 2000 The Classical writers indicate that both Gordium and Taviumwere emporiain the Galatianperiod (a function which Gordium certainly, and Tavium most probably, possessed in earliertimes), being sited at the intersection of main trans-regionalrouteways and engaged in interregional trade/exchange; the extent of Ancyra's economic importance is unclear, but it certainly possessed a strategiclocation. The ongoing excavations at Gordiumarerevealingevidence for manufacturing and other activities at the site, althoughthe overall character and extent of the Hellenistic settlement remain to be defined; the evidence demonstrates that pre-existing traditions of Anatolian architecture continued in the Galatianperiod (rectangular-plan buildings with stonefooted mudbrickwalls and roofs of thatchor tile)23. The relevant archaeology at Tavium and Ancyra is hardly known, but Straboindicates that here the Galatianshad strongholds (phrouria); and both sites continued in importance, for they became two of the three main centresof the Romanprovince of Galatia,with Pessinus, not Gordium,becoming the thirdcentre (Gordium:Livy 38.18.5, 18.11;Polybius 21.37.8; Strabo12.5.3, 568; and see Mitchell 1993: 54-5, n 110-14; DeVries 1990: 371406; Sams,Voigt 1984; 1989; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997. Tavium:Strabo 12.5.2; Mitchell 1976b; 1993: 51, n 98; the resurgenceof investigationat the site, recently instituted by Professor Strobel, should see significant results in the years to come. Ancyra: Strabo 12.5.2, 567; Livy 38.24.1; Polybius 21.39.1; Mitchell 1976a). A number of other hoyuks sited in open plains on natural routeways, including Tolgeri, G61l,Cim?it and (erkez (see map), have yielded surface sherds which again indicatesome form of continuityfrom earliertimes into the Hellenistic period. But none of these large mounds has been excavated and their character and functions in different periods are uncertain. Another settlementoccupied in the Galatianperiod, Parnassus,is mentioned by Polybius in the second century BC, although as yet there is no relevant archaeological materialknown from the site; perhapsit is an indication thatotherRomantowns in the region likewise had earlier origins (Hild, Restle 1981). At the walled settlementof Kmik Hamamdere, surface sherds indicate activity in Hellenistic, as well as Roman and later times, but again the historyof the site is very poorly understood(Mitchell et al 1982: 25-6). Knowledge of smaller settlements is virtually nonexistent (doubtless due to their poor archaeological visibility combinedwith the lack of survey in the region), of Galatian yet without such evidence our understanding society will always remain extremely partial. Excavations at Yalincak(a few kilometressouthwestof Ancyra) were of limited extent but revealedrectangular buildings with stone footings (Tezcan 1971), identical to those found at Gordiumand many of the forts discussedbelow. Activity continued from Hellenistic through Roman times, a pattern that might be expected at other small sites. To what extent the Galatianswere responsiblefor the appearanceof new settlement forms and architectural styles is as yet uncertain,although it can be suggested that their historically attested strongholds, to be described in the following section, were a new and significantfeatureof the region's settlementpatterns.

Forts and elite centres The accounts of Strabo and Livy indicate that from at least the early second century BC the Galatians possessed a numberof strongholds,andthatat least some of thesephrouria/castellawere the fortifiedresidencesof the Galatianruling elite in the first centuryBC. Unfortunately,the form of these forts is hardly apparentfrom the written sources, and archaeological evidence for them is mostly poorly defined or non-existent, either because the location of the sites has not been confidently identified or because the monuments have been destroyedor obscuredby lateractivity,andbecause there has been no excavation (e.g. the Galatianphrouria at Ancyra and Tavium). Nevertheless, at least three named sites can be identified, with some confidence, with known monuments. Two forts, ZengibarKale and Tabanlioglu Kale, are examples of sophisticated Hellenistic workmanship (with well-laid ashlar blocks) and they sharemarkedlysimilarfeatures:most notablythe formof their projectingpolygonal towers (with draftedmargins) and their gates. There can be no reasonabledoubt that ZengibarKale, near Bozklr in the Taurusregion (well to the south of the core-areaof Galatiansettlementshown on fig 3), is the site of Isaura,and thatthe long defensive circuit visible there (encircling the summit of a large, steep-sided hill) is that built by the Galatian king and tetrarch Amyntas,and unfinishedat the time of his death in 25 BC (Strabo 12.6.3; Swoboda et al 1935: 120). The 23 that Hellenistic style defences at TabanliogluKale in western Boththe archaeological andhistorical sourcesindicate fromearlyin the Galatia (see fig 4; Mitchell 1974; theimportance of thesitedeclined, apparently Vardar,Vardar1997: aftertheRoman secondcentury BC andquitepossiblydirectly so far as is known, unique to the core-areaof the reasonsfor this apparent 254) are, invasionof 189 BC. Although Galatian Much less extensive than those of territory. as an declinearenot altogether clear,the site'spre-eminence a short curtainwall cutting off Zengibar, they comprise later Pessinus. was emporium certainly eclipsed by

88

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar the neck of a steep-sidedpromontorycreatedby a loop in the Girmir(ay. Given their location and theirdistinctive they seem most likely to be those of Peium, the character, site mentioned by Strabo and Cicero as being the 'treasury'of king Deiotarus (Amyntas' predecessor);if this identificationis correct,they could have been built in the 50s BC. Another fortification south of the area shown on fig 3 and closer to Zengibaris Ba? Dag; this has constructional features very similar to those of Zengibarand the two are clearly of similar date. It may have been built by a local dynast,Antipaterof Derbe, or perhapsby Amyntas himself (Belke, Restle 1978-80). In addition there can be little doubt that the small Hellenistic period site on the Asar rock at Karalar(see map) is the historically-attestedBlucium (or Luceium), the fort or 'palace' of king Deiotarus- notablybecause the tomb of his son overlooks it from the adjacenthilltop (see section on burialsabove). Althoughthereis no clear evidence for man-madedefences, the fortified aspect of the site is suggestedby the topographical setting (a rocky prominencein a narrowside-valley of the MurtedOva). The site has undoubtedlybeen robbed in later times and it is not unlikely that a defensive circuit originally ran aroundthe rock (perhapsin some of the rock-cutbeds at the summit). Lower down the slope thereare the remains of a monumental terrace made from clamped ashlar blocks of well-cut andesite (brought to the site from elsewhere). In addition, there is an extensive series of rock-cut steps or terraces, together with an impressive Hellenistic shaft/cistern rock-cut (probably workmanship); and there are rock-cut slots for the buildings on/nearthe summit, as footings of rectangular well as the remainsof rubble-footedbuildings and enclosures (which include later activity) further down the slopes (Ank 1934; Mitchell 1974; 1993: 55-7; Mitchell et al 1982: 25; Saatqi 1987; 1988; Mitchell 1990: 130). These monumentshave nothing in common with the 'hillforts' well-known from many parts of La Tene features, in particularthose Europe. Their architectural of ZengibarKale and TabanliogluKale, are a sign of the greatly increased Hellenisation of the Galatian elite of the later first century BC. The costliness of these defences (and other features) can be interpretedas a manifestation of the increased power-base of the last Galatian rulers, one of the most importantand historically-attested contributoryfactors being that of Roman support,both financial and other. In addition,the rockcut steps and shaft at Karalar,if indeed of Hellenistic date, could be evidence for the Galatianassimilation of native Anatolian monumental (and ritual?) traditions. (For Anatolian rock-cut monuments, see, for example, Haspels 1971.) These sites illustratetypes of fortified residence belonging to the most prominentmembers of the Galatian elite in the later first century BC, and it should not be expected that the form of other,especially earlier,Galatianstrongholdswould necessarily conform to these. Evidence for a rather different and earlier form of Galatianfortificationis providedby Livy. According to his accountof the Roman invasion of Galatiain 189 BC, the Galatiansabandonedtheir settlementsand, acting in concert, retreatedto two large and high places, Mount Olympus and Mount Magaba, to make their pan-tribal stand against the Romans;and they furtherstrengthened these naturally-defensive eminences with ditches and other defensive works, to afford protection not only to the Galatianwarriorsbut also to the thousands of noncombatantsseeking refuge there. Althoughthe locations, and hence the defences, of both these sites remainto be conclusively defined, it can be argued that these fortifiof the Galatian cations were not representative phrourion or castellum. Rather,they were a rapid,pan-tribalscale response to a specific, externally induced, large-scale whetheror militarycrisis. It remainsto be demonstrated not these Galatian defences were at all similar to the (glacis style) hillforts typical impressive ditch-and-bank of several regions of laterprehistoricEurope24. In additionto the monumentsnoted above, there is a muchlargergroupof sites knownfromthe region,manyof which deserves them only recentlydiscoveredor recorded, serious consideration in our survey of the Galatians. Although their dates and specific functions remain in the absenceof excavation,and althoughthese uncertain sites bear no direct resemblance to typical forms of and La Tenehillforts,norto the fortsof Zengibar European for the Galatian contenders are they good Tabanhoglu, phrouria/castella of the Classical writers. Hellenistic potteryhas been observedon the surfacein several cases but nevertheless ceramics of other periods (including Byzantineand Roman)are also, if not better,known;but the danger of dating structuresfrom a few unstratified sherds is obvious. At some sites no chronologically diagnosticsherdshave been noted at all (andthe extensive spreadsof collapsedwall fabric common to many of the fortsmakerecognitionof such materialdifficult).
24

For the two sites, see Livy 38.19. Theirlocationshave if we accept that formanyyears. However, uncertain remained initsdetails, it can is atallreliable of thecampaign Livy'saccount of the of thegeneral froma consideration be argued topography is infact Gordium andAncyra) that the(ile Dagli (between region fit Livy'sdescription andcharacter its location Mount Olympus: will produce further and investigation perhaps well-enough, of Mount Theindentification fortifications. of theGalatian details of Elma more is as yetrather uncertain, Dagi, southeast Magaba
European Ankara,is one possibility. For broadlycontemporary see as a starting fortifications, point,Ralston 1995.

89

Anatolian Studies 2000

Tabanlioglu Kalel

(suggested reconstruction)

4- promontory

1
b
TII

..
qagnik (BOyukkale)

!l

'

t
I

Yenikayi
-..-) .0 -0-Tor, t' -5-711"

-t ;;c

Hisarlikaya
- river 4 cliffs

Dikmenkale

Tallkale

0I

Ak9aoren

50 metres

(anilll

; ___!ii

Fig 4. Comparative provisionalplans offorts in Galatia

90

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar They are typically,thoughnot always, sited on small- assumed: stretchesof fortificationwall can be discerned crowned, steep-sided hilltops (usually between ca. 1000 (or were formerly visible) at Soman Hisar, (anak9i, and 1400m asl) and the majority command relatively Giizelcekale, and Yenikayi (see fig 4); traces of what fertile areas and naturalrouteways (valleys and plains). may be the remains of fortifications can be seen at Although unimpressive to the casual eye, these small Ogulbey, Sirkeli and Yara?h26.Angular projections or enclosures,rarelymore than40-70m across, were clearly bastions are visible at Yenikayi and Giizelcekale, and some of the other sites could have possessed similar importantlocal centres. We will provisionally label all these sites as 'forts', their military function being elaborations. Where observable, the quality of the suggested or demonstrated by their topographical stonework is noticeably lower than that found at Zengibar,Tabanliogluand Karalar,and within the group settings and the character of their enclosure walls, the quality varies considerably. Nevertheless, the although it remains a possibility that some had no from At are known amountof cutting and shaping of the blocks is generally 20 such forts least militarypurpose. much greater than can be seen at the second group of the heartland of Galatia, mostly to the west of the Kizilirmak,and five others have recently been recorded sites discussed below, with a real attemptto produce a in Paphlagoniaby the BIAA survey of Cankin province. degree of block-rectangularity(perhaps an effort to emulate finer quality Hellenistic style workmanshipas The sparsityof examples to the east of the Kizilirmakis found at Zengibar, Tabanlioglu and Karalar). As at partly explained by the lack of fieldwork there. A number of different types can be identified; for the Karalar,there are rock-cut features at some of the sites: at (anak9i it is clear that the fortificationwall continued purposesof our brief summarythey will be consideredin onto the rocky outcrop of the hilltop in a rock-cut two main groups25. The sites of Soman Hisar (Mitchell et al 1982: 25; bedding channel/shelf(also seen at Karalar),and similar beds are apparentat Yenikayland Sirkeli, althoughin all Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine pottery noted), cases the stoneworkis no longer in situ; in addition,rockCanak91(Vardar,Vardar 1997: 249-50; Mitchell et al 1982: 27; with Hellenistic and Roman pottery), Sirkeli cut steps/terracing and sometimes other features, (Mitchell et al 1982: 25; Hellenistic pottery noted), including the footings of buildings, and possible are visible at (;anak9i,Sirkeli and Yara?li. Guiizelcekale (Vardar,Vardar 1997: 250; Mitchell et al shrines/altars, 1982: 27; with Roman and medieval pottery;here as at Perhapsthen, at least some of the forts in this groupwere roughly contemporarywith, or somewhat earlier than, Tabanlioglu Kale, Byzantine defences sit on top of a clearly earlierphase of fortification),Yenikayl (Vardar, the first centuryBC phrourionof Karalar/Blucium. The second group of forts comprises enclosureswith Vardar 1997: 257-8; with Hittite, Middle Phrygian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine pottery), Ogulbey 'rubble' walling, the stonework exhibiting only a (Mitchell et al 1982: 27; Hellenistic pottery noted), and minimumof cutting and shaping. Although the remains Yara?lhKale (French, Mitchell 1973: 60-2; Hellenistic might seem crude and primitive they are nevertheless excellent examples of the drystone building technique, and Roman pottery noted) can be provisionally consideredas forminga reasonablycoherenttypological with neatly-facedwalls ca. 2-3m thick andprobablyoriginally at least ca. 2-3m high (and it is likely that at least groupwhich sharesa numberof featuresin commonwith some of them possessed mud-brick superstructures). noted above. In additionit is the Galatiansite at Karalar These walls usually standat the top of steep slopes which worth noting that the location of the hill near Ogulbey is a good match for that of Gorbeous,the laterfirst century are sometimesaccentuated by man-madescarping. Such BC stronghold of the Galatian tetrarch, Castor, defences would seem to be very adequate security mentionedby Strabo. The small hilltops on which these measures against small forces unaccustomedto techniforts are sited tend to possess prominentrock outcrops. cally-advancedsiege warfare. Most of the enclosuresare and sub-rectangular Althoughnot often readilyvisible (due in partto robbing seen to containranges of rectangular and burial of the remains) the presence of man-made buildings (virtuallyidentical to those found at Gordium defences can usually be demonstrated or reasonably andYalincak)andin manycases identicalbuildingscan be seen outside the enclosure (although not uncommonly thought to be modem, these buildings seem far more 25 fortsof uncertain relevant or potentially Relevant type(due likely, given theirlayout,to have been associatedwith the in ourdiscussion, life of the fort). Within this group of forts, several whicharenot included to lackof evidence), butwhichareshownon fig 3, include Basri, Tavium, Ancyra, fibulawas wherea Galatian andBaglum.A fortat Ku?saray, it is worth that Moredetailed 26Withreference to Ogulbey/?Gorbeous, further noting found, investigation. requires supposedly Deiotarus studiesof the region'sfortsare being prepared (in ca. 43 BC), pulleddownthe walls of Gorbeous by L and N
and by G Darbyshire. Vardar accordingto Strabo(12.5.3, 568).

91

AnatolianStudies 2000 differenttypes are apparentaccordingto the plan of the defences. The simplest form comprises a single wall enclosing a roughly circularor square area ca. 30-40m across, with a single, simple entranceca. 2-3m wide, for exampleKaraviran (Mitchellet al 1982: (A?agiKaraoren) 26; a smaller structurefurtherdown the hill could be another,smaller fortified residence;there are also fairly extensivetracesof an extra-mural settlement)and Tahirler Kale may also be of (unpublished); Saqak (unpublished) this type. Similarbut more complex are those sites with two very closely-spacedconcentriccircuitwalls (usually less than 10m apart),for example,Hisarlikaya (Mitchellet al 1982:26; Vardar, 1997:247-8; Byzantinepottery Vardar recorded)and Tizke (unpublished; althoughthe walling at Hisarlikayaand Tizke is delapidated by collapse/robbing there is little doubt that both forts possessed complete double wall-circuitsoriginally). The inner wall almost certainly stood higher than the outer, being further thicker(see fig 4). The form upslope and (at Hisarlikaya) of the 'Biiyiikkale' at Cagnik (Caglaylk) is also related Vardar1997: 255-6; (Mitchell et al 1982: 26-7; Vardar, and extensive traces of recorded, Byzantine pottery settlement enclosures on the plateau). Although it encloses a markedly bigger area (ca. 90m x 50m), is rectangular in plan, and has prominent man-made defences on two sides only, these differencesare essentially the productof the siting, for the fort lies on the edge of a plateau backing onto a gorge of the Sakaryariver, with naturallydefensive cliffs on two sides of the fort's circuit(see fig 4). Othervariantswithinthis secondgroup are characterised by the presenceof D-shapedprojections or 'bastions'alongthe enclosurewall, apparently designed for displayas well as for defence. Of this series, one type is similarto Karaviran but has two bastions flankingthe entrance,for exampleAfsar (unpublished).Anotherform is representedby Dikmenkale(see fig 4; Vardar, Vardar 1997: 246-7, Hellenistic potteryrecorded;Mitchell et al 1982: 25) which comprises a small triangular enclosure with bastions grouped along one wall (two of them standingon rock outcrops;a fourthbastionmay well have stood on the outcropat the east apex of the trianglebut no evidence survives). This fort, althoughsmall, is sited on the most prominenthill in the area, with superb views giving it excellent strategic potential. Another form of small enclosure is found at Ta?lhkale (see fig 4; Vardar, Vardar which in is forthcoming), square plan with comerbastions (only one is now clearly visible). Somewhat largerthanthe majority(up to ca. 70m across),and with a moreimpressiveseriesof bastions,arethe sub-rectangular enclosures at Akqa6ren (Vardar, Vardar 1997: 256; Vardar 1997: Byzantinepotteryrecorded),Camlli(Vardar, 260-1; Middle Phrygian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantinepotteryrecorded),Bozoglu Tepe (Matthewset al 1998: site 74; Roman and Byzantine ceramics identified)and GavurKale (Matthewset al 1998: site 43; andthe polygonalenclosures Byzantinepotteryrecorded), at Cicekhane Tepe (unpublished) and Yalakcukur6ren Kale (Matthewet al 1998: site 85; Romanand Byzantine pottery recorded);a smaller but similar sub-rectangular fort is known at G6kqeoren Kale Mevkii (Matthewset al 1998: 195-206; Iron Age, Roman and Byzantinepottery was recordedbut no Hellenisticmaterialwas identified). As well as D-shapedbastions,(anilli also has two rectan(see fig 4). The fortat gularversionsflankingthe entrance Girmec(Belke, Restle 1984: 169; French,Mitchell 1973: 98) is yet anothervariantof similarsize to these: backing onto a cliff, a defensivewall (withonly threebastions)was needed on just one side (an inner wall here, presumably and differentin character, Byzantine,is mortared probably a laterrefortification).It could be suggested representing that at least a numberof these forts date to the Galatian period,and these might be generallyearlierthan those of the first group noted above, with no evidence for Hellenisinginfluencesin the style of fortification27. Of course, without excavationthe significanceof the various types within these two undatedgroups remains uncertain. Very little is known of the history of first millenniumBC/AD fortificationin centralAnatolia and sites of similar form may not have performed similar functions, nor might they belong to the same chronological horizon;indeed,the rangeof formsoutlinedabove may well representa long span of time and belong to a varietyof differenthistoricaland socio-politicalcontexts. Some for example, might derive from late Roman/Byzantine contexts (as presumably Aktepe, mentionedin note 27); however, if the forts were indeed this late it is perhapssurprising that lime mortarwas not used in their wall construction. A date earlier in the Romanperiodseems most unlikely since the defences are not of Roman militarystyle and it is hardlyfeasible that the imperial authorities would have permitted the construction of privateforts in the region. Some mightbe earlier than the Galatianperiod: for example, the tyrsis was a type of fortifiedresidencebelongingto certainlocal potentatesof the Achaemenidempire;however,very little is knownof socio-politicalorganisation in the regionin the pre-Galatian periodandno Achaemenid periodpotteryhas yet been identifiedat the sites (Sekunda1991). Another fortwithsemi-circular bastions (thesearenotshown on thepublished of Aktepe.Thissite plan)sits on the summit has previously been identified as Galatian (see Mitchellet al 1982: 27-8; Leonhardt 1915: 59, fig 17). However,the defences havebeenbuiltusingmortar andtheyareclearly later thanthe Hellenistic in addition the fortis muchlarger period;
(ca. 180m x 40m) and more inaccesible than most of those we have been considering.
27

92

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar Nevertheless, we know for certain that in the first century BC the Galatian ruling elite did use fortified residences and, it can be suggested, they would have needed defended centres from a much earlier date too, not least to provide protectionfrom each other. Despite the fact that the Galatianleaderswere clearly capable of large-scale, well-organised co-operation and coordinationagainst a common enemy (as demonstrated, for example, by Galatian activities in the Balkans and western Asia Minor in the earlier third century,and by the pan-tribalresistance to the Romans in 189 BC), the documentaryevidence indicates that aristocraticrivalry and divided loyalties were a notable and typical feature of Galatiansocial organisation(as of other related,early European, societies). There seems little doubt that mutual raiding, feuding, and the taking of land, animals and hostages would have been long-standing and legitimate aristocratic activities. The historically attested presence of a considerablenumberof Galatianleadersat any one time, especially in the third and second centuries,was surely a recipe for internaltroublesand it may be suggested that in this earlierperiod, as well as in the first century,at least some of the ruling chieftains or tetrarchs(perhapsalso some of the subordinate elite) are likely to have possessed fortifiedresidences. We would expect to find remainsof such forts in the region's archaeologicalrecord. Of course it is possible that some at least could have been built primarily of timber(assumingthatsuitabletrees were in fact available in the region), or have comprised small earthworks, which would leave less obvious archaeological traces. Nevertheless, many broadly contemporary European earthworks,even those of small size, are clearly visible in the landscape. But the types of fort outlined above would not appear to be out of place in the context of Galatianelite rivalry:their generally small size indicates that most at least were not designed to shelter large communities in times of trouble; the majority of these forts would probablyhave presentedno serious obstacle to large, well-trainedforces, such as those fielded by the externalenemies of the Galatians(faced with such major threats,the Galatiansused differenttactics as shown for example by their response to the Roman invasion of 189 BC). And their topographicalsettings suggest that they were generally sited to control access to the natural (land-use)resourcesin their environs. The fact that they bear no close resemblanceto the better-knowntypes of La Tene hillfortis no obstacleto this view, for as we have seen, there is much in the archaeology of Galatia that differs from the contemporaryEuropeanmaterial. The Galatians could have assimilated Anatolian or Balkan styles of fortification(still poorly understood)in the third century BC; and in any case, they had to adapt in some ways to the particularconditions and resources of the local environment. It might be significantthatthese forts at present appear to be broadly confined to areas occupied, or potentially occupied, by the Galatians. However, survey in other regions has been equally limited and these forms of fortificationmay yet prove to have a much wider distribution(although even if this were proved to be the case it would not necessarily remove the possibility that at least a numberof those in ourregion were Galatian). Provisionally,and to be tested by excavation,it may be suggested that at least a number of them were Galatian elite strongholds (the phrouria/castellaof the Classical writers)and a physical manifestationof the new patternof aristocraticcontrol imposed upon the region by the Galatians. To speculate further,those residentin and aroundthe enclosures could have included, as well as the leaderand members of his kin-group, a military following, craftworkers, and those neccessary for the daily functioning of the place. As well as residences,the structures present would have included storage facilities for food and equipment,includingthe producerenderedto the lord by social inferiors;and for storage of other forms of wealth (see Deiotarus' treasury,Peium). The fort could have served as a court(see Deiotarus' 'palace', Blucium), and perhapsas a cult focus; it may also have been a centrefor limited exchange of goods, and perhaps a venue for periodic communalgatherings. Perhapsthere were also small settlementsof a more general characterassociated with some forts, as Strabo indicates for Gorbeous (Strabo, 12.5.3). The physical characterof the sites the elevated locations, the form of the defences suggests they were designed to impressthe populace and symbolise the power and legitimacy of elite rule. The enclosures were sited so as to control access to the natural resources of their environs, but also served to segregate spatially the ruling elite from the lower orders of society, most of whom presumably resided in the lower lying land. However, it should also be noted that several of the chambered tombs discussed above (see 'Burials') are apparentlyunassociatedwith forts, which may indicate that the Galatian elite did not always possess fortified centres. Economy Given the limited amountof excavatedmaterialavailable and the dearth of environmentaland land-use data, we know very little aboutthe economies of the pre-Galatian and Galatian polities. Presumably the imposition and development of Galatian socio-political organisation resulted in at least some alterations to pre-existing economic structures: for example, in patternsof land and

93

AnatolianStudies 2000 propertyownership,in the way work was organised,and in the specific ways in which produce, goods and services were rendered and consumed (presumably through specifically-defined social relations of kinship and clientage). But the extent to which pre-existing economic forms were integrated by the Galatians remainsuncertain. Nevertheless some general observationsand suggestions can be made. We indicated earlier that at least some significant elements of the pre-Galatian settlement pattern continued into the later Hellenistic period, and this limited evidence points to a measure of broad continuity of certainpre-existing economic structures (and thereforeof some elements of social structure too?). The emporiumat Gordiumcontinuedto function (and as suggested earlier, Tavium too was probably an emporium in pre-Galatian times as well as in the Galatian period); indeed excavated evidence from the site demonstrates that at least some pre-Galatian trade/exchange networks were not in the longer term destroyed by the Galatians, even if temporary disruptions may have occurred during the initial settlement phase; and specialised manufacturing activities continued here, for example, production of painted terracottafigurines. Imports of black-glazed pottery (from southernand western Turkeyand elsewhere), and imports of Rhodian and Thasian trade amphorae (with their contents), continued into the Galatianperiod from earlier times. However, some alterations to these networks may have occurred. For example, it has been suggested that the noteable absence of Pergamene black-glazed ware at the site could have been a result of the antipathybetween the Galatiansand the Pergamene state (see Winter 1984). (For manufacturing at Gordium, see Mitchell 1993: 54-5; DeVries 1990; Sams, Voigt 1984; 1989; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997.) At the other, unexcavated hoyiiks noted earlier (Tolgeri etc.), surface finds of Hellenistic pottery are present in quantity and include high quality ceramics (e.g. fine red-slip wares): provisionally it could be suggested that in the Galatian period and before, these h6yiiks served as local market centres for the collection and redistribution of produce and supplied a range of goods and services not obtainable at smaller sites. Furthermore, it seems most likely that the basic pattern of land use continued from pre-Galatiantimes. The heartlandof the Galatiansettlement area comprises hill-ranges interspersed with relatively fertile valleys and plains: in the Roman period as in modern times the principal products of this region comprised grain and wool, and there is evidence to suggest that this was also the case in the pre-Galatian Iron Age (for example, there is evidence for grain production/processing in Phrygiancontexts at Gordium). Despite the paucity of direct evidence, it may be suggested that cereal production, as well as stock-raising, would have been important in the later Hellenistic period, and that the significance of plant husbandry in the Galatian economies has been seriously underestimated in previous interpretations. Relevant in this regard are a number of unpublished iron agricultural implements from Hellenistic Gordium, most notably share-tips for ards or ploughs (McClellan 1975: 264-73). In addition, the location of the known Galatian centres (as well as the possible Galatianforts) strongly suggests that these places were foci for local agriculturalregimes. It is surely significant, for example, that the royal centre at Karalar (like several other sites we have mentioned) was located in the MurtedOva, one of the most fertile plains in the region. In the drier southernplains (to the south of the area shown in fig 3) stock-raising, and sheep in particular,was probably predominant in the Hellenistic period, as in later times: relevant here is Strabo's statementthat king Amyntas owned more than 300 flocks (Strabo 12.6.1, 568; for land-use in the Roman period see Mitchell 1993: 143ff). Other resources in the region that were probably utilised include timber (from the north), salt (from Tatta:Tiiz Golii/the Salt Lake, and from the environs of the Kizilirmak/Halysriver), metals and slaves. In addition, historically attested Galatian mercenary activity and raiding/booty-acquisitionwould have been important, although not necessarily regular,sources of income. To survive, the Galatians had to adapt to the particular environmental characteristics of their new homelandand it can be suggested that they made few (if any) radical and deep-seated alterations to the basic character of the pre-existing, and presumably welladapted, economies of the region. It can be suggested that the wealth of the Galatianaristocraticelite, although supplementedby booty and tributepayments,was based regimes primarilyupon control of settled, agro-pastoral and consumptionof theirproduce,with households,kingroups or communitiesproducinga surplusof food and materialslarge enough to meet both their own needs and their obligations to their social superiors. The elite probably also excercised at least some measure of control over trade/exchange networks and specialist craft production(the chamberedtombs at Gordium,and the historically attested phrourion at Tavium, could indicate at least some element of elite control of the economy at these emporia.). In addition, the last Galatian kings (Deiotarus, Brogitarus, Amyntas) benefited greatly from Rome's gifts, subsidies and grants of extensive tracts of land, in returnfor services renderedor promised.

94

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar Conclusions The Galatian communities established in the third century BC in north-central Anatolia constituted, together, a new, significant and increasingly important geo-political entity within Asia Minor. The permanent natureof this Galatiansettlementcan hardlybe attributed to a marginal,and politically, socially and economically the fact thattheir unsophisticated people; on the contrary, polities survived to be incorporated into the Roman empirewould indicatethe existence of highly developed social structures boundtogetherby sharedvalue systems. The European Galatians successfully adapted to their new environment,changing it and being changed by it. However, the historical significance of this settlement would be difficult to appreciate using the currently available archaeological evidence alone, without recourseto writtensources. The chronology, nature and process of the transformations in European Galatian and native Anatolian culture in the region are at present poorly understood; and despite the undoubtedpotential of archaeology for providing a broader and more detailed perspective on cultural change and continuity, much of this cultural interaction will probably only ever be partially and indirectly perceived through the archaeological and historicalrecord. The Galatians of central Anatolia retained at least elements of their former cultural identity, for it is clear that the communities which they established remained, in at least a number of respects, unique and distinctive within Asia Minor throughthe Hellenistic period: most obviously in their use of a Celtic language, in aspects of their socio-political organisation, in elements of their material culture, and in certain ritual forms. And with the Galatian settlement, new ideologies of (shared) social identity appeared and developed in the region, identities which could have ranged from the level of the kin-group(and even finer subdivisions), throughthat of tetrarchyand tribe, to a larger pan-tribalshared identification which is manifest at the Drynemetos council meeting and in combined, co-ordinated action against others outside the region. It should also be borne in mind that cultural forms could have varied in their details across the region as well as over time, for the Galatianswere not one people but ratheran assemblage of several groups, presumably possessing their own particularcultural traditions and identities; and within Anatolia the different tribes to some degree followed their own separate historical paths and had different connections outside the region. Nevertheless, with the survival of the resident indigenous population, the various forms of native centralAnatolianculturewere always presentto provide the other significant component to the culture of the Galatian communities, and to act as a modifying agent on the former cultural identity of the Galatian settlers. Although it is very uncertain whether anything significant survived of pre-existing Anatolian social organisation, important elements of the native settlement patternremained in place, and with these, pre-existing networks of trade/exchange, manufacturing traditions and, most probably,patternsof land-use. And clearly in a number of respects, elements of Anatolian culture came to exert an increasingly strong influence on the cultural character of the Galatian communities, most obviously in aspects of religious belief and in mortuary practices. Another agent for modifying the former cultural identity of the Galatians was the process of Hellenisation. This had begun in the region before the arrival of the Galatians but it becomes most apparentby the first centuryBC, though only significantly at the level of the ruling elite. It is manifest, for example, in the military architecture of Zengibar Kale/Isaura and Tabanlioglu Kale/?Peium, and in the funerary inscription of Deiotarus the Younger at Karalar;and in the occasional minting of silver coin by the last Galatian rulers, Deiotarus, Brogitarus and Amyntas. Otherwise there is little to indicate that Hellenisation had struck deeply into other areas of Galatian society and culture, despite the fact that the Galatians came to be called 'Gallograeci' by outsiders (see for example Mitchell 1993: 85-6; from Gordium there is evidence that a limited number of the populace (members of an elite?) were more obviously Hellenised: see DeVries 1990: 404-5). Similarly, the increasing influence of Rome in the region is only apparent at the elite level and in related military matters: for example, in the Romanstyle organisation of Deiotarus' troops, and in Deiotarus' affiliation to Rome as declared in the funeraryinscriptionset up for his dead son. Certainlylater,in the time of the Roman province of Galatia,many distinctive features of the former cultural identityof the Galatiansappearto have blurredor disappearedaltogether. The most obvious exception to this is the Celtic language, which persisted in the region for several centuries. In all attempts to define the nature of Galatian culture and its relationship to the Celtic cultures of Europe the linguistic evidence has been of central importance. The Galatiansof Asia Minor spoke a form of Celtic in late antiquity which was recognisably very similar to the dialect spoken at the Gallic city of Trier. This observation, made by the Church Father St

95

AnatolianStudies 2000 Jerome, is supported by the remarks of other ancient writers and by the appearance of Celtic place and personal names in inscriptions from Asia Minor (Jerome, Commentaryon Paul s Letter to the Galatians 2. 3; the other evidence is collected by Mitchell 1993: 50-1, 170-4; Strobel 1996: 139-42). The strikingnature of this evidence has caused the survival and use of the Celtic language to be given particular emphasis in defining the 'Celticness' of the Galatians. Strobel, for example, comments that, Bibliography Alkim, U B, Alkim, H, Bilgi, 0 1988: IkiztepeI. Ankara Arik, R 0 1934: 'Karalar Hafriyati' Turk Tarih, Arkeologyave EtnografyaDergisi 2: 102-67 Bannert, H 1978: 'Volcae' in K Ziegler (ed), Paulys Realencyclopddie der classischen Altertumswis15. Munich:937-60 senschaft Supplementband Belke, K, Restle, M 1978-80: 'Die Festungsanlage auf dem Ba? Dag (Kara Dag); Eine hellenistische Burg im zentralen Kleinasien' Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Institutes in the Celticness of the three Galatian tribes of Asia Wien52: Beiblatt: 1-30 Minor is manifested primarily as a linguistic 1984: Galatien und Lykaonien (Tabula Imperii category,which both sets them in contrastand binds Byzantini4). Wien them to their environment. Withinthe frameworkof in J 1987: 'Bericht der Grabungskampagne Borchhardt, as also of their (their)ethnogenesisand acculturation, 8 (2): 106-8 Limyra1985' Kazi SonuqlarlToplantisl broader social and cultural development, it is of Braund,D 1984: Rome and the FriendlyKing. London fundamentalimportance(1996: 139). Brunaux,J-L 1988: The Celtic Gauls. Gods, Rites and Sanctuaries.London Shared language use and observed similarities of Brunaux,J-L, Rapin, A 1988: GournayII. boucliers et material culture have always been key components in lances, depots et trophees.Paris discussions of problems of ethnic identification among T C 1995: 'Power, politics and status' in M Champion, in in and subhistoric or particular peoples, prehistoric Green (ed), The Celtic World. London:85-94 the question of Celtic identity (Graves-Brown et al 1996; Strobel 1996: 15-54). Nevertheless related Cunliffe, B 1997: TheAncient Celts. Oxford language groups, similar materialculturesand ethnicity, DeVries, K 1984: 'Gordion 1982' Kazi Sonu?lari Toplantisi5: 265-8 however much they overlap with one another, remain 'The Gordionexcavationseasons of 1969-1973 1990: distinct analytical categories (Strobel himself assumes and subsequent research' American Journal of substantialinter-culturalsimilarity between the central 94: 371-406 Archaeology La from the Early European Celtic-speaking groups W 1915-24: Sylloge Inscriptionum Dittenberger, Tene period onwards(1996: 149-5 1). The privileging of Graecarum,4 vols (3rd edition). Leipzig language as a defining criterion of ethnic and cultural W 1967: 'Galtisches' in W Meid (ed), Beitrdge is a for there Dressier, with be to treated needs caution, identity undKeltologie.Julius Pokorny zur Indogermanistik dangerthat anotherimbalance in the evidence available zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Innsbruck147-54 to us, in this case the predominanceof linguistic over archaeological information,may cause too much stress Dunham,S B 1995: 'Caesar'sperceptionof Gallic social structures' in B Arnold, D Blair Gibson (eds), being placed on language at the expense of other Celtic chiefdom,Celtic state. Cambridge:110-115 categories. The linguistic evidence for the Celticness of the Galatians appears dominant in part because other Durugniil, S 1998: Tiirmeund Siedlungen im Rauhen Kilikien (Asia Minor Studien28). Bonn categories of information,and in particularthe material M 1921: 'Scordisci' in W Kroll, K Witte (eds), Fluss culture,have hardlybeen examined. Paulys Realencyclopddieder classischen AltertumNevertheless, the situation is changing. The recent 831-5 excavation and survey work outlined above is yielding swissenschaft2al. Stuttgart: Ankara 50 (Ankara S French D, Mitchell, date): (no significant new informationand it is to be hoped that in Tiirizmi,Eskieserlerive MiizeleriSevenlerDemegi the years to come there will be more intensive and coYaymlan 5). Ankara ordinatedarchaeologicalinvestigation(and in particular, excavation), which will provide the materialfor a more Graves-Brown, P, Jones, S, Gamble, C (eds) 1996: Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The balanced and fuller assessment of the GalatiancommuLondon Constructionof EuropeanCommunities. nities of Asia Minor. Haspels, C H E 1971: The Highlands of Phrygia. Princeton Hild F, Restle, M 1981: Tabula Imperii Byzantini 2. Kappadokien.Vienna Holder,A 1896-1910:Alt-CeltischerSprachsatz(3 vols). Leipzig 96

Darbyshire,Mitchell, Vardar Leonhard, R 1915: Paphlagonia. Reisen und Forschungen im n6rdlichenKleinasien. Berlin Matthews, R, Pollard, T, Ramage, M 1998: 'Project Paphlagonia:regional survey in northernAnatolia' in R Matthews (ed), Ancient Anatolia. London: 195-206 McClellan J A 1975: The Iron Objectsfrom Gordion, a Typologicaland Functional Analysis (PhD thesis). University of Pennsylvania Memerci, D, Yagci, R 1991: 'Yukan Bagdere, Yalacik Kazisi' Miize Kurtarma Tiimuluisii1989 Kurtarma Kazilarl Semineri 1990: 163-76 Mericboyu, Y, Atasoy, S 1969: 'Izmit Kanlibag Tuimiiliisii'Istanbul Arkeoloji Miizeleri Yillgi 1516: 67-95 Mitchell, S 1974: 'Blucium and Peium:the Galatianforts of King Deiotarus'Anatolian Studies 24: 61-75 1976a: 'Ancyra' in R Stillwell (ed), The Princeton Encyclopediaof Classical Sites. Princeton:54-5 1976b: 'Tavium' in R Stillwell (ed), The Princeton Encyclopediaof Classical Sites. Princeton:887 1980: 'Population and the land in Roman Galatia' Aufstieg und Niedergang der R6mischen Welt 2, 7.2: 1053-81 1990: 'Archaeology in Asia Minor 1985-1989' Societyfor the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and the British School at Athens: Archaeological Reportsfor 1989-1990: 83-131 1993: Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor I. The Celts and the Impactof RomanRule. Oxford Mitchell, S, French, D, Greenhalgh J, 1982: Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor 2. The Inscriptionsof North Galatia. Oxford Miiller-Karpe, A 1988: 'Neue galatische Funde aus Anatolien' tstanbulerMitteilungen38: 189-99 de Navarro, J M 1972: The Finds from the Site of La Tene.I: Scabbardsand the SwordsFound in Them. London Pleiner,R 1993: The Celtic Sword.Oxford Ralston, I 1995: 'Fortificationsand defence' in M Green London:59-81 (ed), The Celtic World. Renfrew,C 1996: 'Prehistoryand the identityof Europe' in P Graves-Brown, S Jones, C Gamble (eds), Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Constructionof European Communities.London: 125-37 Riibekeil, L 1992: Suebica. V6lkernamenund Ethnos. Innsbruck Sams, G K 1995: 'Gordion archaeological activities, 1994' Kazi Sonu9larl Toplantisi17/1: 436-7 Sams, G K, Voigt M M 1989: 'Workat Gordionin 1988' Kazi Sonu?larl Toplantisi11/2: 77-105 - 1994: 'Gordion archaeologicalactivities, 1993' Kazi Sonu?larl Toplantisi16/1: 369-92 1996: 'Gordion 1995' Kazi Sonu9larlToplantisi18/1: 475-97 -1997: 'Gordion,1996' Kazi Sonu?larlToplantisi19/1: 681-701 Saatqi, T 1987: 'Karalar Kazisi 1986' Anadolu MedeniyetleriMiizesi, 1986 Yilligl:30-3 'KaralarKazi Raporu 1987', Anadolu Medeniyetleri Miizesi, 1987 Yilligl: 19-22 Schmidt, K H 1994: 'Galatische Sprachreste' in E Schwertheim(ed), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12). Bonn: 15-28 Sekunda, N 1991: 'Achaemenid settlement in Caria, Lycia and Greater Phrygia' in H SancisiA Kuhrt (eds), AchaemenidHistory Weerdenburg, VI.Leiden: 83-143 Staehelin, F 1907: Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater (2nd ed). Leipzig Strobel, K 1991: 'Die Galater im hellenistischen Kleinasien: historische Aspekte einer keltischen Staatenbildung' in J Seibert (ed), Hellenistische Studien. Gedenkschrift fir H Bengtson. Miinchen: 101-34 1994: 'Keltensieg und Galatersieger' in E Schwertheim(ed), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12). Bonn: 67-96 - 1994: 'Galatienund seine Grenzregionen.Zu Fragen der historischen Geographie Galatiens' in E Schwertheim(ed), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12). Bonn: 29-65 - 1996: Die Galater. Geschichte und Eigenart der keltischen Staatenbildung auf dem Boden des hellenistischen Kleinasien Bd. I. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und historischen Geographie des hellenistischenund r6mischenKleinasien 1. Berlin Swoboda, E, Keil, J, Knoll, F 1935: Denkmiiler aus Lykaonien,Pisidien und Isaurien. Leipzig Ankara Tezcan, B 1971: Yalincak. R 'Who built the Scythian and 1998: G Tsetskhladze, Thracianroyal and elite tombs?' OxfordJournal of Archaeology 17(1): 55-92 Vardar, L E, Vardar, N A 1997: 'Galatia B6olgesi Yiizey Ara,tirmasl:AnkaraIli Kaleleri/Yerleomeleri 1996' Ara~tirma Sonu?larlToplantisi15/1: 245-79 Wait, G A 1995: 'Burial and the otherworld'in M Green London:489-511 (ed), The Celtic World. Webster, J 1995: 'Sanctuaries and sacred places'in M London:445-64 Green (ed), The Celtic World. L 1931: 'Galatische Weissgerber, Sprachreste' Natalicium Johannes Geffcken.Vienna: 151-75 Winter,F A 1984: Late Classical and Hellenistic Pottery from Gordion: the Imported Black-Glazed Wares (PhD thesis). University of Pennsylvania - 1988: 'Phrygian Gordion in the Hellenistic period' Source 7(3/4): 60-71

97

Interesses relacionados