The archaeological survey of Balboura in northern Lycia conducted between 1985 and 1990 under the direction of J. J. Coulton permitted the recording of a number of architectural monuments including two theatres. The first, located at the edge of the valley 200 metres south of the Roman town, was studied during the 1987 season and has been presented in a previous issue of Anatolian Studies as an unfinished monument of the late Roman period. The second theatre, situated on the steep southern slope of the acropolis hill some 70 metres above the floor of the gorge, was surveyed in the summer of 1990 and is the subject of this paper (Figs. 1, 2, 3).

The monument was first described—briefly and without drawings—by Spratt and Forbes who made a hurried survey of the city site in 1842. Peterson and Von Luschan came through in 1882 and later published without comment the first photograph showing the impressive levelling platform that supported the scene building. The only study in modern times has been that of de Bernardi Ferrero which appeared in the second volume of her monumental corpus of classical theatres in Asia Minor. Time apparently did not permit a thorough survey which is hardly surprising considering the enormous scope of her undertaking but her observations, as far as they go, are sound, and her photographs numerous and well chosen. De Bernardi Ferrero's graphic documentation is inadequate, however, especially as regards the original appearance of the stage building which, although almost thoroughly denuded, provides more surface clues than her drawings indicate. Her late Hellenistic designation for the building, which remains unexcavated and has produced no inscriptions, is, in any case, accepted here.

The site of Olbasa was first identified by the discovery of two Latin imperial inscriptions near the modern village of Belenli in 1842 and even today the surviving evidence from Olbasa (including as it does both texts and coins) still belongs chiefly to the imperial period. Olbasa's prominence then stemmed from the fact that it was “refounded” by Augustus as a military colony. Very little has been pieced together of the history and development of the city prior to the arrival of the Romans and the present inscription, therefore, represents a large advance on our knowledge of Olbasa in the Hellenistic period as well as contributing to our understanding of developments in the region at large.

Modern research on the area of south-western Asia Minor now known as Lycia and Pisidia has been greatly assisted by the work of George Bean and Alan Hall both of whom published major articles containing topographical discussions and many previously unknown inscriptions. The Pisidian Survey Project led by Stephen Mitchell has also contributed greatly to our historical understanding of the region in both the Hellenistic and Roman periods by the archaeological studies conducted at the cities of Antioch by Pisidia, Sagalassos, Cremna and Ariassos.

The inscription with which these notes are concerned relates to the institution of a musical festival at Oinoanda in northern Lycia by C. Iulius Demosthenes in the A.D. 120S. Carved on a block of limestone measuring 1·87 m. (height) × c. 1·05 m. (width) × 0·25 m. (depth), it was discovered in June 1967 by J. Borchhardt at Kemerarası, an ancient site below the hill of Oinoanda on its northern side, just across the river (the upper Xanthos or Seki Çay). The stone had been reused in the construction of a fountain, as was shown by the presence of two large holes containing the remains of lead water-pipes. The text informs us that the inscription was set up in the stoa in front of the provision market (ἀγορὰ βιωτική) given to the Oinoandans by Demosthenes, and, whilst the precise location of the market with the three stoas (of which two were one-storeyed, one two-storeyed) facing it has not been established, there is no doubt at all that it was in Oinoanda itself, and that the Demostheneia inscription, like at least three blocks of the inscription of the Epicurean philosopher Diogenes, was brought down to Kemerarası in late antiquity, perhaps when the hill-top site was abandoned after the failure of the water-supply system.

The votive reliefs presented here are previously unpublished. No. 3 was discovered by M. F. Smith in 1981, when he was participating in the epigraphical and topographical survey of Oinoanda conducted by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (B.I.A.A.) under the direction of the late Alan S. Hall. The fountain (if that is what it was) bearing four reliefs and inscriptions (no. 4) was also discovered by Smith, who recorded it in 1968 and 1972. The other reliefs (nos. 1 and 2) were seen almost a hundred years ago, in June 1895, by Rudolf Heberdey, whose notes, with a sketch of no. 2, are preserved in his Skizzenbuch Lykien III/1895 (referred to hereinafter as Heb.) in the archives of the Kleinasiatische Kommission of the Austrian Academy in Vienna. Inaccuracies and omissions in his records suggest that he did not view the reliefs in the most favourable of lights. The two were rediscovered and photographed by Smith in 1968 and re-examined and rephotographed by him in 1972 and 1981.

The pottery discussed here was collected by C. A. Burney during his survey in 1956 and in 1965. We would like to express our thanks to Charles Burney for valuable discussion and for encouraging publication of the material. We have also profited from discussion with Drs. Ayşe Gürsan-Salzman, Mitchell Rothman, and A. G. Sagona. The opinions expressed are, however, our own. Richard Bayliss prepared the illustrations.

The material from Tepeköy has not previously been published. Some of the other sherds appear in Russell's study (1980) and this has been indicated in the catalogue. All the sherds are stored in the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, each clearly marked.

The ceramic material discussed in the following paper was collected during a survey conducted by the Dept. of Archaeology and History of Art at Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey. The survey, under the direction of Doctors Ilknur Özgen and Marie-Henriette Gates, was undertaken in the summer of 1991 and covered the coastal area from the site of Yumurtalık, southeast of Misis and Misis Dağ, and continued along the coastal plain to include the site of Kinet Höyök, near Dörtyol north of the Iskenderun Plain (The Hatay). This entire region can be considered the eastern half of the Cilician coastal plain (Fig. 1).

The objectives of the survey were two-fold: to surface collect ceramic remains from mounds in the investigation area, and to conduct a geomorphological study of the plain and its relation to the surrounding topographical regions (alluvial plains to the east and west-foothills of the Amanus and Anti-Taurus to the north and northeast). A detailed report on the geomorphology of this region has been published by the geomorphologist who accompanied the survey team, Dr. Sancar Özaner, of the Maden Tetkik ve Araştırma Enstitüsü (Mineral and Research Exploration Institute).

The death of Prof. R. Martin Harrrison in September 1992 only a fortnight after the completion of a successful fifth season at Amorium was a serious blow and a sad loss to the Amorium Project. Without his drive and enthusiasm it was difficult at times, especially during the winter of 1992/93, to see how the excavations could be continued. It is, therefore, a major achievement in itself that work resumed in the following summer, and that a report on the findings can be presented here.

The sixth season of excavations at Amorium lasted from 26th July until 3rd September during which time digging was carried out at four separate locations (Fig. 1). A further six days were spent conducting a regional survey on behalf of the Ministry of Culture as part of a larger scheme to collate and register sites and antiquities throughout the whole of Turkey. The team comprised Dr. C. S. Lightfoot (Director), Dr. E. A. Ivison (Sub-Director and Byzantinist), Dr. M. H. Ballance (Epigrapher), K. L. Barker (Conservator), L. S. Bown (Ceramicist), Dr. M. A. V. Gill (Glass Specialist), P. M. Cox, S. Farid, N. Mestci, I. Sjöström-Welsby and R. E. Turnbull (Archaeologists), S. F. Young (Student Assistant) and O. Kızılkılıç (Accountant). Four students from the Department of Archaeology and History of Art at Bilkent University also took part in the excavations: they were Mercan Araydin, Deniz Atilla Mustafa Eren and Tuğba Tanyeri. The government representative was Mrs. Jale Dedeoğlu from the İzmir Archaeological Museum.

Professor John Cook died on 2 January 1994 at the age of eighty-five. His scrupulous and meticulously published field work in the western coastal regions of Turkey, in Caria, Ionia, Aeolis, and above all in the Troas, has made a fundamental contribution to our understanding of the East Greek world. Much historical research in the future will be built up on the foundations he laid. I hope that this present study, which is a product of the same methods of field research into the Classical sites of Asia Minor as he practised, will help to confirm the continuing value of these methods and serve as a fitting tribute to the memory of a great scholar.

The lion that forms the subject of this paper is exhibited in the garden of Amasya Museum. The inventory number is A.87.51. It was brought from the village of Gümüştepe in the region of Merzifon. Neither the circumstances of its discovery nor the exact findspot are known.

For over a century, the names “Schliemann” and “Troy” have been virtually synonymous, and the story of Schliemann's boyhood dream to discover Troy has gripped the imagination of millions. This romantic tale, though created for a different purpose, effectively obscures the fact that Schliemann would never have excavated Hissarlik—then the suspected site of Troy—had it not been for Frank Calvert, a man of whom, thanks in large part to Schliemann's misrepresentations, few people had ever heard. Only in recent years, when Schliemann's claims were finally examined impartially, has there been any appreciation of the debt Schliemann owed to Calvert, and of Calvert's own archaeological achievements. Today, Calvert's contributions to other fields of scientific study are beginning to be mentioned, but Calvert himself still remains virtually unknown.

Frank Calvert was a pivotal figure in the history of the Troad. He deserves recognition for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he prepared the ground for Schliemann and, by his generosity and constant assistance to Schliemann, enabled him to transform himself with such spectacular success from a businessman into an archaeologist.

During 1993 the excavations at Sagalassos continued for their fourth season from 3 July until 19 August. From 21 until 28 August a survey was carried out in the district immediately south and south-east of the excavation site. The work was directed by Professor Marc Waelkens (Dept. of Archaeology, Catholic University of Leuven). A total of 45 Turkish workmen and 62 scientists or students from various countries (Belgium, Turkey, Great Britain, Portugal, France, Austria and Greece) were involved in the project. The team included 25 archaeologists, 8 illustrators, 8 architect-restorers (supervised by T. Patricio and directed by Prof. K. Van Balen and Prof. F. Hueber), 4 cartographers (directed by Prof. F. Depuydt), 2 geomorphologists (Prof. E. Paulissen and K. Vandaele), 2 archaeozoologists from the Museum of Central Africa at Tervuren (Belgium), 6 conservators (directed by G. Hibler-Vandenbulcke), 1 photographer (P. Stuyven), 2 computer specialists and 4 people taking care of everyday logistics. The Turkish Antiquities Department was represented by Mrs. Nurhan Ülgen for the first and by Mrs. Aliye Yamancı for the second half of the season, whom we both thank for their much appreciated help and collaboration.

1993 was the second season of the five-year survey which it is planned will record five castles from the area of the Büyük and Küçük Menderes in western Turkey. Work at the site of Yılanlı kalesi was carried out between 20th March and 28th April. The team members were Dr. Mark Whittow (Director), Hugh Barnes (Surveyor), Katrina Batchelor, Kevin Chesters, Michael Harrington and Penelope Tunbridge. We are extremely grateful to the Department of Antiquities for granting us a permit to carry out this survey, to the Director and staff of the museum at Ödemiş. for their friendly help and encouragement, and to our Department representative, Ahmet Bayram Üner from the Türk İslam Eserleri Müzesi in Bursa, whose contribution to the success of this project can hardly be overestimated. Our warmest thanks too to the muhtar and villagers of Yılanlı köyü, above all to Nihat and Güller Girgin and family, for whose generosity and kindness we are extremely indebted.

The following article has to be conceived as one of my responses to a long standing and enigmatic question-mark which I have been carrying incessantly in mind since my first acquaintance with cuneiform writing and archaeology: Are there interactive implications between archaeological record and textual context in Hittite Anatolia at all? One might promptly and spontaneously expect that as a principle there must have been close relations between both sorts of data, since, first of all, they are mental and material products of the same people. Why are, then, the results gained from comparisons of archaeological and philological material disappearingly feeble considering that Hittitology is in a very lucky position in being supplied abundantly by both sorts of material? The temporary results gained from the comparative studies by other scholars as well as by myself were often disappointingly meagre. This is one of the reasons why I have frequently pointed out in a pessimistic way inconsistencies between archaeological objects and information supplied by the written sources in Hittite culture.

In the preceding article Professor Ahmet Ünal has announced his discovery of the long-sought textual evidence for the sword-swallower depicted on one of the relief blocks at Alaca Höyük. This figure was already recognized as a kind of “juggler” (bateleur) by Perrot and Chipiez in their prestigious first publication of these reliefs in 1887 and most writers have followed them, but John Garstang and others mistook the sword for a trumpet. It is good that this uncertainty has been finally dispelled.

In the same article Professor Ünal has made a similar claim for the other scene on the same block showing two men with a ladder, one standing half-way up, the other on the ground at its foot. He identifies them with the “ladder men” (LÚ.MEŠ GIŠ KUN5) mentioned in his texts 1 and 4 as taking part in a religious ritual which may be compared with the religious procession shown on the Alaca Höyük frieze, or with the “clown” (ALAN.ZU9) who is probably described as mounting a ladder or staircase (GIŠilaš) in his text 5 (part of another ritual, but fragmentary).

“I have seen Priam's Treasure … I have held these vessels in my own hands.” This claim by Yevgenii Sidorov, the Russian Minister of Culture, in an interview in Literaturnaya Gazeta on 25th August 1993, was the first official admission that Priam's Treasure, thought lost since 1945, is now in Russia. It helps us to complete the story of this famous find, from the day of its discovery to the present. Research by David Traill, Reinhard Witte, and myself has clarified the earliest parts. Correspondence published by Joachim Herrmann, Gustav Mahr and Leslie Fitton helps illuminate the late 1870s and the 1880s. For the turbulent years of World War II we have an important publication by Mechthilde Unverzagt and intensive research by Klaus Goldmann. And finally from Russia comes documentation unearthed by Konstantin Akinsha and Grigorii Kozlov. The full story can now be told, and that is what I should like to attempt in this paper. There remains, however, the question, to whom does the Treasure properly belong?—to which I hope the outline of an answer will emerge.