Winifred Lamb was one of the founding members of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, and a pioneering excavator in Anatolia (Caton-Thompson 1964: 51). Lamb had acquired her excavating skills as a member of the British School at Athens, where she was admitted in 1920 after reading Classics at Newnham College, Cambridge and subsequent war service in Room 40 of the Admiralty (The Times [London] 18 September 1963; Woodward 1963; Barnett 1962–3; Annual Report of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 15 [1963] 2–3; Caton-Thompson 1964; Hood 1998: 70–5; Gill in preparation a, c; see also Ridgway 1996). During the early 1920s she excavated with members of the British School at Mycenae (Lamb 1919–21; Lamb, Wace 1921–3a-e), Sparta (Lamb 1926–7a-b; see also Hood 1998: 59–131) and in Macedonia (Heurtley 1939; Lamb 1940; see also Hood 1998: 144–49). Her interest in prehistory was also reflected in her creation of a prehistoric gallery at the Fitzwilliam Museum in the University of Cambridge, where she had been appointed Honorary Keeper of Greek and Roman antiquities in 1920 (Gill 1999a).

The archaeology of Early Bronze Age northeast Anatolia has often been characterised by the dominant presence of the so-called Karaz Ware, a black burnished ware often decorated in relief. In northeast Anatolia, this distinctive ceramic tradition is represented in the archaeological contexts of major excavated sites of the Erzurum plain: Karaz, Güzelova, Pulur, Büyüktepe, and Sos Höyük (Kosay, Turfan 1959; Kosay, Vary 1964; 1967; Sagona et al 1993; Sagona et al 1996). Nevertheless, it is not something unique to the sites of northeast Anatolia, but a widely occurring phenomenon at third millennium BC sites from Transcaucasia to Syria-Palestine under other names such as Kura-Araxes Ware, Early Transcaucasian Ware, or Khirbet Kerak Ware (Burney 1989: 45ff; Edens 1995: 53). Even though it is handmade, its quality, manufacture and distinctive relief decoration, and its widespread distribution in northeast Anatolia and surrounding regions, demonstrate that it had a cultural and economic value attached to it. The widespread use of this pottery may be explained as evidence of a movement of nomadic pastoral groups or traders who also brought their pots or potting techniques with them. Although the newcomers responsible for this phenomenon appear to be small in number, the intermixing of the older local Late Chalcolithic populations and newcomers seems to have led to local variations in this ware in different spatial and temporal contexts (Rothman, Kozbe 1997).

Schliemann's first campaign of excavation at Troy (1871–3) culminated in the discovery of ‘Priam's Treasure’. The find remains the largest and certainly the most controversial ever to have been made at Troy. In 1984 l argued that it was not a single find, as Schliemann reports, but a composite, comprising a core of pieces actually found on 31 May 1873 and a number of other pieces found earlier (Traill 1984 = 1993: 127–53). The article generated a considerable response and, apparently, some confusion. For instance, after demonstrating that Schliemann's story of Sophia's assistance at the discovery was a lie, I asked if there were adequate grounds for believing that he had actually found the pieces of ‘Priam's Treasure’ at Troy rather than, say, bought them from local dealers. I then indicated that the answer was ‘overwhelmingly in the affirmative’ and listed six specific reasons why we should believe this. I concluded: ‘These facts constitute a powerful argument that most, and probably all, of the pieces of ‘Priam's Treasure’ were in fact found in Early Bronze Age Troy’ (Traill 1984: 111 = 1993: 148–9). It would have been remarkable if after this I went on to argue, or even to suggest, that some of the pieces might be fakes. I did not. I have never suggested that any item of ‘Priam's Treasure’ is a fake. Yet critics have persistently represented me, either explicitly or implicitly, as holding this view, thereby muddying waters already murky and distracting attention from the real issues. It is hoped that this paper will refocus the debate on relevant topics.

A brief history of archaeological research at Gordion Piecing together documentary sources from areas to the east and west of Anatolia, historians agree that in the eighth century BC, central Anatolia was dominated by people who spoke an Indo-European language, Phrygian (Mellink 1991: 621; Muscarella 1995: 92 with refs). From historical sources we also know the location of the Phrygians' capital, Gordion: Quintus Curtius (Hist Alex III.1–2) states that the city lay on the Sangarios River ‘equally distant from the Pontic and Cilician Seas’. Using this description, Gustav and Augustus Körte travelled across Turkey more than a century ago looking for the physical remains of Gordion and Phrygia. They eventually focused on a mound lying adjacent to the Sangarios or modern Sakarya. The mound, now called Yassıhöyük, is large relative to others in the region, and lies in the proper geographical setting for ancient Gordion; a series of artificial mounds or tumuli scattered across nearby slopes provides additional evidence of the settlement's importance.

The city on the Kerkenes Dağ in central Anatolia is the largest pre-Hellenistic urban centre on the plateau (figs 1–2). It has plausibly been identified with a city of the Medes, called Pteria by Herodotus (1.76). If the identification is accepted, the city represents an expansion and imposition of Iranian power over the northern part of the central plateau. Kerkenes might thus provide evidence concerning the first sustained cultural, political and military contact between an Iranian imperial regime and Anatolian powers. Unique circumstances and developing technologies are providing an opportunity to map the city in great detail. The data base will enable analyses of the urban dynamics of an ancient city that, by combining Iranian, Anatolian and east Greek elements in centralised urban planning, were perhaps catalytic in the formation and development of the Achaemenid Empire.

Until very recently almost everything of substance that was known about the Galatians was derived from historical, more specifically Greek and Roman, sources. Modern 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 stereotypical picture established itself in the modern literature, which itself was moulded by the preconceptions of ancient Greek observers. This view, which will also provide a chronological framework for an examination of Galatian culture, may be summarised broadly as follows: the Galatians were groups of Celticspeaking peoples who arrived on the borders of the Classical world, Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor, around 281 BC (see fig 1). Warlike, barbarous and set upon raiding and plunder, they attacked cities 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 central Anatolia, the region around Ankara (see fig 2).

This article reviews progress in extensive survey work using satellite photographs along the course of the reservoir of the Birecik dam, completed in June 2000. Particular attention has been paid during field work to routes both along and across the river; here it is the east-west routes crossing the river which are examined in detail and in the context of the region's historical geography. The city of Zeugma, which has been the object of recent excavations, was the principal such crossing point but by no means the only one on the middle course of the Euphrates. A subsequent article will discuss north-south routes in the vicinity of the middle Euphrates and the question of its navigability.

The moment when the Ten Thousand sighted the Euxine is one of the most haunting scenes to come down to us from the ancient world. Retreating from Cunaxa near Babylon in 401 BC, Xenophon describes how the Greeks fought their way northwards across Kurdistan to scale the Pontic mountains, and reached the sea at the Greek city of Trapezus, already more than two centuries old. By linking Xenophon's famous account with Hadrian's inspection of his eastern frontier, their route across the mountains, and their triumphant viewpoint, can be determined with some certainty.

About 120 miles before the Greeks reached the Black Sea, the ruler of a large and prosperous city called Gymnias, probably the modern Bayburt, sent a guide to Xenophon.

Since 1968 Oinoanda in northern Lycia has been the scene of investigations by members of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. A major objective of the work has been the discovery and rediscovery of pieces of the Greek inscription set up, probably in the first half of the second century AD, by the Epicurean philosopher Diogenes. In 1997, with the generous permission and support of the Directorate-General of Monuments and Museums and with the welcome collaboration of Ibrahim Malkoç, Director of the Fethiye Museum, and his colleagues, excavation was possible for the first time. The season, though very short and on a very small scale, brought to light 10 new fragments of the inscription (see Smith 1998) — finds which raised the total of new fragments recovered since 1968 to 135 and the total of known fragments (88 were discovered late in the 19th century) to 223.

The following inscriptions provide evidence of the cult of Apollo at Oinoanda, a Graeco-Roman city of northern Lycia, and show that it included an oracle in the Roman Imperial period, and perhaps already in the Hellenistic period. The location of the sanctuary of Apollo cannot presently be identified.

The only significant occasion that Cremna emerges from the shadows of historical obscurity is during its siege by Roman forces in the third century AD. Our sole surviving source for this incident is the account related by Zosimus which, despite covering two generous paragraphs of text, remains a collage of anecdotal observations of limited application to the student of siege operations. Notwithstanding the weaknesses of the literary evidence, an archaeological survey conducted with the assistance of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara in the mid 1980s, revealed that substantial elements of the Roman siege system still survived in situ. The recently published account of this survey (Mitchell et al 1995) presents a number of interesting arguments concerning the tactical role of these siege works and their relationship to the local topography. In the course of more general research into Roman siege works, the author undertook a field inspection of the site in September 1997 and would suggest that certain aspects of the published analysis require further refinement. This paper is intended to address these outstanding issues. The helpful comments made by Professors S Mitchell and J J Wilkes and Dr J J Coulton in respect of an earlier draft, are gratefully acknowledged.

The British Institute excavations carried out during the 1950s at Beycesultan by the head-waters of the Meander near modern Çivril (figs 1-3) may not now be of great moment in scholarly enquiry. The overriding reason for this is, of course, that no epigraphic material of any description came to hand. The excavations are, however, of note in connection with the progress and development of field archaeology - its aims and methods. They must be about the last large-scale Middle East excavations planned and executed according to traditional ideas of work whereby what constituted material for the archaeological record was taken for granted, and was reckoned such that it could be controlled by one or two experienced men in charge: both during the field work and in its publication. In this fashion, the Beycesultan excavations were fortunate. They were under the joint control of Seton Lloyd and James Mellart (fig 4). At that stage Seton Lloyd had been active for 25 years in directing a variety of important excavations in the Middle East (both in Iraq and Turkey), and was, by training, a talented architect. James Mellart, on the other hand, had already crammed into three or four years of intensive excavation and surveying work the accumulated expertise and confidence to assess in a most penetrating way broad regional issues as manifested in objects (‘finds’). Indeed a great deal of what became standard practice in the later 1950s and 60s evolved from his example. This combination of talents and energies was thus a highly favourable one and carried the work through to a very successful conclusion.

This article is a preliminary case-study concerning the importance of flax/Linum and Eruca as oil plants in central Anatolia. Linseed oil (‘beziryaği’) was produced from both Linum and Eruca seeds, and this oil was used in Anatolian culinary culture, in addition to olive, sesame, cotton, poppy, sunflower, hazel, Cephalaria, safflower and hackberry oils. Linseed oil was also used in oil lamps, to oil wooden-wheeled carts and to rub on the skins of water-buffalo. Both linseed oil and flax seeds were widely used in folk medicine.

The production of linseed oil may have started thousands of years ago in central Anatolia. Both plants are native to Anatolia, and flax seeds have been found at several Neolithic sites. The earliest historical documents concerning linseed oil mills (‘bezirhane’) are Ottoman tax records from 1500–1. Until the 1970s there were still several oil mills in the Aksaray area producing linseed oil during the winter. The residue was used as fodder for draft animals.