The chronology and sequence dating of the rich series of sculpture discovered at Carchemish remains a problem, even after 60 years of investigation, but it is generally recognised that Leonard Woolley exaggerated the antiquity of some of the orthostats and it is no longer possible to assign any of them to the second millennium B.C. On the contrary, many critics will now support Frankfort's view that none of this particular series of sculptures could have been executed without an awareness of neo-Assyrian art.

Frankfort's view is also shared by Akurgal who has judiciously assigned much of the Carchemish sculpture to a period ranging from the middle of the ninth to the latter half of the eighth century B.C. and has justified his sequence dating by reference to the development of sculpture at Zincirli where we have a sequence of carving which ranges from about 850–830 B.C. (Kilamu) or possibly a generation earlier, through Panammu I c. 790 B.C., Panammu II c. 760 B.C. and Bar-rakib c. 740 B.C.

With the publication in 1952 of Carchemish, part III, Sir Leonard Woolley attempted to allocate the excavated buildings and monuments to reigns and dates. For the epigraphic evidence of the Hieroglyphic Hittite inscriptions, he relied upon the chapter contributed to the publication by R. D. Barnett. Here Barnett constructed a chronological framework based on the names and genealogies appearing in the inscriptions. He was, however, working in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of Karatepe, before even the preliminary publication of the bilingual was complete, so that a number of his readings required subsequent correction. Detailed epigraphic criticism was offered particularly by Güterbock and Meriggi in their reviews of the volume. The efforts of all these scholars considerably advanced our knowledge of the chronology of the buildings and sculpture, and subsequent treatments of the art and archaeology of Carchemish have naturally relied heavily upon them.

More recently however, the study of the hieroglyphic inscriptions, which are for the most part concerned mainly with the erection of buildings and sculptures, has fallen behind that of the monuments to which they relate. This remains true even after the new edition of some of these inscriptions published by Meriggi in what is primarily a philological study. It would therefore seem desirable to present editions of the Carchemish building inscriptions as complete as their fragmentary nature and persistent difficulties interpretation will permit; and on this basis to review the chronology of the buildings and sculptures described therein. It is the purpose of this article therefore to examine the inscriptions relating to the Long Wall of Sculpture and the Great Staircase, which elucidate to some extent the history of the construction of that complex.

Following their discovery of the “Burnt Palace” at Beycesultan in the mid 1950's, Seton Lloyd and James Mellaart drew attention to a number of features of its architecture which seemed to indicate links with the palace architecture of Minoan Crete, and discussed the possible significance of these similarities (Lloyd and Mellaart, 1956 118–123, 1965 61, 62). Whatever this may be in terms of relationships between the two areas in the second millennium B.C., however, it seems clear that they cannot throw any light on the first appearance of palaces in Crete. The problems of the origin and development of the Cretan Bronze Age palaces are complex, and though they have been much discussed since the first excavations in the early years of the century, a major obstacle to progress has always been the lack of precise evidence, or even of any evidence at all, for the early stages of the process. As they stand, most of the palaces are the product of a series of rebuildings and remodellings over a long period, and it is not always clear just what they were like when first erected. Most frustrating of all, however, is the lack of evidence bearing on the question of whether they were preceded, during the Early Bronze Age, by buildings which were in any respect analogous in form and function.

It has long been clear that the sites of some of the major Middle and Late Minoan palaces were occupied during the Early Minoan period, but at Phaistos and Knossos at any rate extensive clearing and levelling in preparation for the erection of the Middle Minoan palaces has obliterated practically all traces of the Early Minoan buildings. At Phaistos Branigan has hinted that the fragments of walls found by Pernier (1935, pl. VI) on the highest point of the hill might have belonged to a building of some consequence, possibly similar to the Early Minoan II mansion known as the House on the Hill at Vasiliki (Branigan 1970, p. 41). Branigan thinks that in addition to the rooms mentioned by Pernier, there may be traces of a corridor similar to that in the Vasiliki building. Only the bottom two courses of the walls survive, so that it is difficult to say much about their construction, though it seems to be poorer than that of the walls of some Early Minoan private houses later found by Levi on another part of the site.

The very first reports on excavations at sites in southern Sumer appeared in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1855 under the name of ‘J. E. Taylor, Esq.’ A typographer's misreading thus gave Taylor the wrong initials under which he is usually mentioned. His middle name was in fact George. It may, of course, seem surprising that the author himself did not bother to correct the error. One can only suppose that, postal communications being what they were at the time (see below, §6), he never had a chance of seeing his articles in proof.

Very little seems to be known of John George Taylor's life and career. According to information kindly supplied by Miss S. Johnson, India Office Records, he was the son of R. Taylor, “almost certainly Colonel R. Taylor”, Rawlinson's predecessor at Baghdad. If so, it is remarkable that the latter does not seem to mention the fact in his correspondence with the British Museum. What is certain is that J. G. Taylor was The Hon. East India Company's Agent and H.M. Vice-Consul at Basrah from 1851 to 1859. In 1853 he started his explorations of the “Chaldaean Marshes” for and on behalf of the British Museum under the very strict instructions and supervision of Rawlinson who, as The Hon. East India Company's Political Agent in Turkish Arabia and H.M. Consul-General at Baghdad, was then presiding over Mesopotamian archaeology with truly vice-regal grandeur and an almost proprietary interest.

Professor Seton Lloyd's publications and teaching have always been marked by his profound understanding of Mesopotamian architecture. It therefore seems appropriate, in this volume to his honour, to present some hitherto unpublished tablets which may add a little to our knowledge of some aspects of the ancient practice of surveying.

The small tablet BM.38217 (Fig. 1), probably originating from Babylon itself, shows in elevation a six, originally seven, stepped ziggurat with the principal dimensions given, UŠ being used for the length, and SAG (the “short side” of the rectangle as drawn) for the height. The second level is described as “Front (-view) of the dwelling of Anshar” (pa-ni šu-bat an-šár). While this note may well apply to the whole of this unique plan, it is to be observed that the first two storeys have accentuated (and external) markings which must represent the frontal and lateral access. The inner markings are perhaps to show where the ramps or stairway crossed the front of the main building (as in the ziggurat at Ur). The gaps in the base of the third and probably fourth (and higher?) stages may show that a direct frontal stairway to the seventh stage was envisaged. This seems a better explanation than that a five staged ziggurat is shown imposed upon the ground-plan of an adjacent and larger building. The lower stages are certainly not the plan of any two-storied “temple of Anshar” or of a gate-building.

Three years after taking office as Director of our Institute Seton Lloyd was collaborating with the late Nuri Gökce, Director of the Archaeological Museum at Ankara, in the excavation of sites in the plain of Harran. One week's work at Sultantepe–now generally accepted as the site of an Assyrian city named Huzirina–proved memorable for the discovery of a small library of cuneiform tablets and especially of one particular tablet which introduced to Assyriology an entirely new genre: the Tale of the Poor Man of Nippur. It is fifteen years since this entertaining text was first translated in the volume in honour of the Institute's founder and first Director. In the intervening years significant contributions have been made, especially by V. Julow of Debrecen, Hungary, and J. Faragó of Cluj, Rumania, to the study of the tale in its comparative aspects. Some of these publications may not be easily accessible, and as the authors have had the kindness to send offprints to the present writer, it may be of interest, not least to the excavator of the tablet, to show in greater detail, in a volume in his honour, how the tale compares with similar tales from various times and places.

Professor Seton Lloyd's interest in all aspects of archaeology and his distinguished work both in Turkey and in the Diyala valley, Iraq, may justify the publication of this note on iron in Anatolia offered to him on the occasion of his 70th birthday. It was at Khafajah in 1931 that one of the earliest daggers with remains of a blade of terrestrial iron was discovered; the possible use of terrestrial rather than meteoric iron in Anatolia at the time of the Assyrian merchant colonies is discussed below.

The Kültepe text CCT 4 4a (lines 3, 23, 27, 38, 44) has been translated in the CAD (s.v. amūtu) and referred to by Garelli when discussing the meaning of the word amūtu and its Sumerian equivalent KÙ.AN.

Over twenty years have passed since the present writer first drew attention to the remarkable but completely forgotten archaeological discoveries made at the Urartian site of Toprak Kale, discoveries made in 1880 by Rassam and his associates, Dr. Raynolds and Captain Clayton, acting for the British Museum. I also summarised the results of the work in 1898 at the same site done by Lehmann (afterwards Lehmann-Haupt) and Belck; these finds are now all well-known. Since then, modern museum conservation work and study has resulted in several new achievements, such as in a fresh publication of the candelabrum at Hamburg Museum, the discovery and publication by Professor G. R. Meyer of a small silver pectoral at Berlin with a presentation scene and á detailed study by him also of the large bronze figure of a “eunuch” in the same museum. Professor Meyer also mentions a fine bronze palmette forming part of a wall panel of bronze plate made up of 17 fragments, also part of a bronze model building similar to that in the British Museum. Lastly, a brief preliminary report of the fruitful excavations of Professors Afif Erzen and Emin Bilgiç, in 1959–61, has been published. One of their most notable finds was another shield similar to those found by Rassam and Lehmann-Haupt with concentric friezes of lions and bulls and a dedicatory inscription of Rusas III.

If there is one aspect of life in the ancient Near East which may be taken as a common factor between lands and cities so far removed in space and time as Sumer and Urartu, Eridu and Van, it is irrigation. This is a subject crying out for more research, especially on the ground. Here too is a link between Seton Lloyd's excavations at Eridu and in the Diyala region, his publication of Sennacherib's acqueduct and his later interest in Urartu. The writer can claim first-hand knowledge only of the last. Without Seton Lloyd's encouragement in the Institute at Ankara and likewise during the weeks spent as an assistant during the first season's excavations at Beycesultan, the writer would scarcely have set out on his first archaeological survey in northern Anatolia, followed by that in the Pontic region of Tokat and Amasya (1955). These two surveys were but the prelude to those of 1956 and 1957 in eastern Anatolia. These, undertaken initially in the expectation of discovering mounds of the Bronze Age and earlier periods, became instead largely a revelation of the great number of Urartian sites, including numerous fortresses recognizable as such from their surface remains.

One of the many critical periods of Anatolian archaeology is that of Late Antiquity, when the long-established nexus of Graeco-Roman cities in the Eastern Mediterranean basin gave way to an order which looked increasingly to Constantinople. The refoundation of Byzantium on an imperial scale had occurred in the fourth century, but some two hundred years were to pass before the city was to achieve a metropolitan status which was unequivocal. The factors which determined its character and success have been, and still are, much disputed; but there can be no doubt that amongst them the part played by Anatolia in this formative stage of the Byzantine world was considerable.

And yet this period in Anatolia—the transition from the Classical to the Medieval—has attracted comparatively little attention amongst archaeologists, and basic work (survey, excavation and analysis) remains undone. A start has been made, but this must be followed up in earnest if the surface evidence, so vulnerable to modern agricultural and economic development, is to be recovered.

The subject of this paper, which I dedicate in gratitude and affection to Professor Seton Lloyd after twenty-three years of close association and friendship, was suggested to me by an article published by Professor Cyril Mango in the Festschrift of F. Dölger. This article, entitled “Isaurian Builders”, drew attention to the material contribution of Isaurians to early Christian architecture and, more generally, to the merited reputation of their rugged province as a home of skilled masons and builders. Most interesting, from the present writer's point of view, was Mango's belief that four famous Isaurian churches (at Alahan, Daǧ Pazarı, Meryemlik and Corycus), might all be dated fairly confidently to the last quarter of the fifth century, i.e. to the period of the Emperor Zeno.

Since it was my good fortune to begin working in Anatolia while Seton Lloyd was Director of the Ankara Institute, and to enjoy his friendly encouragement for several years, I am glad to have the opportunity of dedicating this article to him.

In June, 1958, the following inscription was discovered by the writer in Yazdamıköy, one of a group of villages near the ancient site of Isaura (Zengibar Kalesi), which is situated on a mountain crest some 10 km. east of Bozkır and the valley of the Çarşamba Çayı. Large quantities of material from the site have been recorded within these villages since Hamilton first visited the area in 1837. There can, therefore, be little doubt about the provenance of this particular block of limestone, slightly moulded at the top, broken bottom left and to right; H. 0·34, W. 0·93, Th. unknown (buried behind), letters 2·5 cm.

This article, which concerns six inscriptions from Galatia, is dedicated with gratitude to Seton Lloyd, whose wide-ranging scholarship, shrewd guidance and unstinted generosity provided a constant inspiration to those of us fortunate enough to have lived and worked in the Institute in its early days. I hope he will find it appropriate that the text brings together allusions to the traditional epigraphical links between the University of Aberdeen and Anatolia, and illustrations of the kindly attitudes of the Turkish village folk towards nomadic epigraphers.

Professor Seton Lloyd has since the time of his Directorship of the Institute been interested in the site of Comana of Cappadocia at Şar, and has often helped and encouraged my work there and elsewhere in Turkey. I am therefore glad to be able to offer him this brief supplement to the corpus of inscriptions of Comana which has already appeared in the pages of Anatolian Studies in 1968 and 1969.

After the season of excavation at Şar in 1968 conducted by Mrs. İnci Bayburtluoǧlu and myself, a depot of stone monuments was entrusted to the care of the former Muhtar, Bay Mustafa Yergök. In 1971, with the new Adana regional museum nearing completion it was decided to move this material to the museum so that Comana should be represented in the museum's collections.

The letter preserved in the British Museum Landsdowne MS 241, f 39.3a has not, so far as I know, been published verbatim. It is mentioned by Foster (1931, 278), in his edition of the letters and other writings brought together by John Sanderson, as follows:

It is the only item of correspondence between William Harborne and James Towerson to be preserved in Sanderson's collection; it was copied out for Sanderson by his apprentice, John Hanger (see Foster 1931, ix).

On the ridge above what was, until mid-1971, Robert College of Istanbul and is now the Bosphorus University, is a little cemetery containing, among others, a number of Bektashi tombs; it adjoins the site of a now vanished Bektashi tekke and is locally known as Evliyalar, ‘The Saints’. J. Kingsley Birge mentions and illustrates both cemetery and tekke in his The Bektashi Order of Dervishes. His illustration No. 23 “is of the plot where, according to tradition, Janissary-Bektashi skirmishers were buried after being killed in a raid just prior to the capture of Constantinople in 1453.” There is a marker on the plot, inscribed hādhā maqām shuhadā' sana 855, “This is the place of those who fell in 855/1451–2.”