Darbyshire 2000 The Galatians Settlement in Asia Minor

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

Source: Anatolian Studies , 2000, Vol. 50 (2000), pp. 75-97
Published by: British Institute at Ankara
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3643015
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.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Anatolian Studies
This content downloaded from

193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Galatian settlement in Asia Minor*
Gareth Darbyshire', Stephen Mitchell', Levent Vardar3

'G A Wainwright Fellow, Oriental Institute, Oxford, 2University of Wales, Swansea
3Department of Monuments and Museums, Ankara
Introduction diplomacy. Eventually their territories were absorbed

into the Roman empire by Augustus. Within this new
Until very recently almost everything of substance that
was known about the Galatians was derived from framework they developed as a subject people of the
historical, more specifically Greek and Roman, sources.
empire, who nevertheless preserved important aspects of
their former cultural identity, thanks above all to the
Modem perceptions of the Galatians have accordingly
not only been one-sided, but have also depended on survival of the Celtic language until late antiquity'.
outsiders' views and representations of a complex There are fundamental weaknesses in this traditional
culture. A stereotypical picture established itself in the reconstruction, which may be traced to excessive
modem literature, which itself was moulded by the dependence on the partisan and tendentious accounts of
preconceptions of ancient Greek observers. This view, the Classical writers. This is the main burden of the most
which will also provide a chronological framework for recent, and by far the fullest, study of the Galatians, by
an examination of Galatian culture, may be summarised Professor Karl Strobel (1996)2. Strobel's reappraisal of
broadly as follows: the Galatians were groups of Celtic- the evidence has established a new base-line, not only for
speaking peoples who arrived on the borders of the the study of the Galatians in Asia Minor, but also for that
Classical world, Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor, of Celtic society - if indeed the term has any meaning
around 281 BC (see fig 1). Warlike, barbarous and set at large (see, for example, Champion 1995); it provides a
upon raiding and plunder, they attacked cities and sanc-point of reference for the various aspects of the Galatian
tuaries in Greece, before crossing to Asia Minor where settlement which we consider in this paper. His
they conducted themselves in similar fashion until thereappraisal of the Galatians proceeds on three fronts.
various efforts of Hellenistic rulers forced them to settle Firstly, he analyses the distinct, but in both cases
in north central Anatolia, the region around Ankara (seemisleading, ways in which Hellenistic and Roman writers
fig 2). Thus marginalised, but not mastered, by the represented the Celts in general, and the Galatians in
Hellenistic kingdoms they remained a constant threat toparticular. These complex historiographical traditions
the more sophisticated communities of western Asiahave shaped the modem picture of the Galatians as a
Minor, at least until 189 BC when they suffered a majormarginal people: nomadic or at best unsettled; politically
defeat at the hands of a Roman army. The victims and primitive and barely, if at all, capable of state organi-
enemies of the Galatians saw them as a dangerous incar- sation; warlike and economically unsophisticated, relying
nation of barbarism. They were viewed as a threat to on raids and plundering, rather than organised systems of
Hellenistic civic culture precisely as the Persian agriculture and land-use to maintain their society's
'barbarian' had been stylised into the enemy par excel-livelihood3. Secondly, he bases his approach to the
lence of Classical Greece. Hellenistic kings saw analysis of Galatian society and culture on comparisons
themselves as protectors of civilisation against theand
newmethodologies developed in the study of Celtic
groups in Europe, as a means of escaping from the
menace, and victories over the Galatians led to them
being granted divine honours. Gradually, during the later
Hellenistic period, the rough edges of Celtic tribal
This standard view was most fully developed in Staehelin
culture were smoothed by exposure to Hellenisation andThe main outlines are not called into question by
1907.
Mitchell 1993: 11-58.
by the manipulations of Roman foreign politics and
2 A second volume is forthcoming. For an outline of this inter-
pretation, see Strobel 1991: 101-34.
3 For an important aspect of the Graeco-Roman tradition,
* This paper was prepared for a conference entitled 'Anatolia:
emphasising the differences between Hellenistic and Roman
Between the Near East and Europe' organised by Ian Hodder
and held at the British Academy in April 1998. characterisations of the Celts, see also Strobel 1994: 67-96.
75
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Anatolian Studies 2000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7-j 280
- > -
%..
( ~ 7iYf12iiO>
~ ~ Rome ~ ~ -
R --->> 2
'"-" _ ?? ' ---''
A_ _,~ -,
"'" _=--
_ - -1-- -N tL--t? .........i...
__:
---Delpii
Fig 1. Map I show
Fig 2. Map 2 show
76
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Darbyshire, Mitchell, Vardar
bondage imposed by the Classical historiography of the The appearance of the Galatians in Asia Minor is to
Celts. Thirdly, he has undertaken a reappraisal of the be seen retrospectively as the conclusive stage to the
geographical aspects of Galatian settlement in Asia migration and expansion of Celtic peoples from their
Minor4. This has led to two main conclusions, namely supposed homelands in the upper Danubian region
that greater emphasis than hitherto should be placed on during the fourth and third centuries BC (see again fig 1).
the extent of Galatian settlement north and northwest of The origins, nature and purpose of these movements are
Ankara, in the direction of Bithynia; and that the all controversial and much discussed. There is little
environment of the region stretching from the Sangariuscompelling evidence to support monocausal explanations
at Gordium through Ankara to the Halys was more such as drastic overpopulation, pressure from other
heavily wooded in antiquity, more comparable to the migrating peoples, regional famines, substantial
original areas of Celtic settlement in central Europe than ecological changes, the lure exercised by the wealthy
it appears today, and eminently suitable for the permanent cultural centres of the Classical Mediterranean, or
establishment of Celtic peoples. specific political and economic pressures. The
Linguistic evidence is crucial to our understanding of motivation for the migrations, which was doubtless
the Galatians although, as we shall indicate in our extremely complicated, thus remains obscure. The
conclusion, it must be used with caution. The name answers should lie, at least in part, in the nature of Celtic
Galatai is itself Celtic and was not merely a label attached
society itself, but there is a logical difficulty in going
to them by outside observers (so Renfrew 1996: 101-2),beyond this hypothesis. Our evidence for the nature of
these Celtic societies is entirely derived from obser-
but the term by which they chose to describe themselves.
The root gal- is identified in Old Irish with a bundle of
vations of, or inferences from, their activities, in
meanings and associations, including war-fever, bravery;
particular their behaviour during the period of migra-
smoke, cloud; steam; and the notion of 'being able', of tions. Yet this behaviour is the very thing which we need
'k6nnen' (Schmidt 1994). It was not a name applied to ato explain. Any explanation formulated on these lines
risks becoming a tautology.
tribal group as such, but was adopted to describe either the
warrior section of a single tribe or of several tribes, in Some of the difficulties and limitations of the
relation to certain forms of aggressive activity, during the
evidence may be illustrated by examining the case of the
period of Celtic expansion, migration and warfare fromTectosages, the one Galatian tribal group which is also
the fourth century BC onwards. Thus the three tribes whoknown by the same name in the Celtic West. Groups
settled in Asia Minor were named both by themselves called Tectosages are attested in three parts of the ancient
(Mitchell et al 1982: no 188)5 and by Graeco-Roman
world: in Galatia; in the Hercynian forest, that is roughly
observers the Galatai Tolistobogii, the Galatai Tectosagesin the region north of the upper Danube, where they are
and the Galatai Trocmi respectively, just as other Celtic
mentioned by Julius Caesar; and in southern Gaul, more
groups are attested outside Asia Minor as the Galatai especially in the region around Tolosa (Toulouse), where
Skirai, who threatened Olbia in the Crimea (Dittenberger they were probably the stronger of two groups of Volcae,
1915-24: 495 B 5-7), or the Galatai Scordisci (Fluss 1921). (the other being the Volcae Arecomici) which dominated
In this respect, as in several others, the Galatians may be southern France between the Rhone and the Pyrenees
compared with the Germanic 'barbarian' groupings of the (see Bannert 1978).
period of the Volkerwanderungen in late antiquity. The name of the larger group to which the Tectosages
Strobel, who rightly places great emphasis on such belonged, the Volcae, appears semantically comparable
parallels, draws attention to the very comparable terms to terms such as Galatai and Alamanni, denoting a
Franci, derived from a root meaning 'grasping' or broader unit than a tribal kin group. Indeed it is almost
'strenuous', and Alamanni, meaning, roughly, 'all impossible to resist the notion that it is etymologically
(warrior) men'. These were not designations of individual
related to the term Volk, simply 'the people' (Strobel
tribes, but applied to warrior bands assembled from 1996: 173, n 1)6. Our fullest source, Strabo, who was
smaller kinship-based groupings, and denoted their familiar with the Tectosages both in his native Asia
functions, capabilities and warrior aspirations (Strobel Minor and in southern France, about which he certainly
1996: 131-5). drew information from his predecessor Posidonius,
assumed that the group which eventually reached Asia
Minor had ultimately started from Gaul, and explains the
4 See also Strobel 1994: 29-65.
5 The funerary inscription set up for the son (and co-regent) of
the Galatian chieftain Deiotarus at his tumulus, in which both 6 Strobel cites Riibekeil (1992: 59ff) who indicates that the
father and son (also called Deiotarus) are called tetrarch of the etymology is unclear, but that the name was one adopted by the
Galatian Tolistobogii and Trocmi. Volcae for themselves (Selbstbenennung).
77
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
description of a highly sophisticated set of social

migration with a story that a section of the Tectosages
had been expelled as a result of internal disorder strucures, which were clearly cemented together by
(IV.1.13, 188, see XII.5.1, 567). This reconstruction is shared value systems. Certainly that would explain two
unanimously rejected by modem scholars, who suppose undeniable propositions concerning the migrating Celts
that the people's origin lay somewhere in central Germany of the fourth and third centuries BC: firstly, their
to the west of the Elbe. The basis for this belief is, on the sustained success at the expense of other populations of
one hand, Caesar's remark that the Volcae Tectosages Europe; and secondly, the permanent nature of the settle-
were to be found in his time circa Hercyniam silvam, ments which they established as a result of the migrations
(Gallic War VI.24. 1-4)7 and, on the other, on deductions in Asia Minor and elsewhere.
from the archaeologically attested cultures of Thiiringen It is beyond question that the ultimate goal of these
and northern Bavaria. The modem reconstruction of migratory movements was to acquire land for permanent
settlement. This is the aspect where the Classical
major migrations of the Volcae, including the Tectosagan
branch, both eastwards through Pannonia, where a tribe sources,
of which repeatedly emphasise the Galatian quest
Volcae Paludes (Marsh Volcae) is attested, to Galatia, and
for booty and plunder, are at their most misleading. This
southwest to southern France is entirely built on these
is not to deny that raids against richer communities were
commonplace occurrences during the periods of Celtic
suggestive, but fragile, foundations. Apart from the obser-
vations of ancient authors, whose reconstruction of the
migration, but these need to be seen within the context of
the overall rhythm of these movements. They belong to
Volcan migrations have been universally rejected, the only
the initial phases of conflict, in which warrior bands
substantive material evidence for connections between the
scattered groups is the appearance of a gold torc foundmade
in the first impact and exerted the initial pressures on
southern Pannonia, whose nearest parallels are types forces opposed to them. They were followed by the
discovered in Tectosagan territory in southern France major movements of tribal groups, accompanied by
(Strobel 1996: 179, n 80). The latest modern recon- diplomatic negotiations (more suo), which ended in the
struction may be close to the truth, but the argument on permanent or semi-permanent occupation of settlement
which it is based is very far from proven. Our under- areas. In fact the detailed, although fragmentary
standing of the Celtic migrations rests almost entirely historical record of the arrival of the Galatians in Asia
upon elaborate hypotheses. Minor provides one of the fullest records of these
Strobel's contribution here is to offer an hypothesis processes operating in a known historical context. First
concerning the structure of the earlier, migratory groups, came the initial conflicts in Macedonia and Greece
which in turn may explain their behavioural patterns. between 281 and 278. Then the Galatians were admitted
across the Bosphorus and the Hellespont, as a result of
The wide-ranging migratory movements of the fourth
an alliance struck with Nicomedes, king of Bithynia, who
century BC were carried forward by a mobile, noble
secured their help as allies against the Seleucids. In
warrior class with their followers, by clans and their
return for their service they were permitted to occupy
component parts or tribal sections, which joined up
land in the region southeast of Bithynia, that is in the
with the mobile warrior groups and members of the
direction of Ankara, and they continued to hold this for
leading kin-groups of a relatively large tribal
the rest of their history. The precise chronology and
aristocracy to form wandering bands. The traditional
nature of the Galatian takeover of the region remain
core, which gave the bands their identity, was formed
obscure, but it is reasonable to assume that the various
by these princely and noble kin-groups. These core
major groupings were settled in their newly acquired
groups, which provided or represented a line of kin
territory by the end of the 260s BC. How many Galatian
descent and a sense of identity, were the convergence
settlers were involved is unclear, but the historical
factors in the processes of tribe, and thereby, of
evidence suggests they may have been relatively few
ethnos formation and of their internal shaping, which
(Livy relates that Nicomedes enlisted 20,000, including
are presupposed during every phase of mobility and
non-combatants); however, these figures are open to
land acquisition. (Strobel 1996: 154-5)
question, and other Galatians could subsequently have
It will be clear that this reconstruction presupposes boosted the total. Whatever the case, it is clear that the
that the social and political groupings of Celtic peoples in indigenous resident population was neither exterminated
this period were the opposite of primitive. This is a nor driven away en masse (even if acts of violence may
have been a feature of the settlement process), and they
probably constituted the majority of the populace of the
7 Caesar opined that this group had also originated in Gaul west
new, Galatian polities (Strobel 1996: 186-264, with
of the Rhine. It is doubtful whether his comments refer to crucial emphasis on the ultimate goal of 'Landnahme';
conditions in his own day, the mid first century BC. Mitchell 1993: 13-20).
78
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Defining the region refers to a district of western Paphlagonia known as the

We are fortunate, given the Classical sources and a country of Gaezatorix; this territory, in the upper valley
number of place-names, that the general area of the of the Siberis (the modern Kirmir (Cayi), might corre-
Galatian settlement in north-central Anatolia can be spond to the territory of a Galatian noble, Gaezatorix,
broadly comprehended, and the general location ofwho
theis mentioned as a chieftain in 180 BC (Strobel 1994:
41-54).
three main tribes - the Tolistobogii, the Tectosages and Galatian lands were even more extensive after
the Trocmi can be discerned (see figs 2 and 3); the 63 BC, following Pompey's successful conclusion of
archaeological evidence alone would be woefully in- Rome's war against Mithridates VI of Pontus. In return
sufficient to reach this level of understanding. Never- for giving significant military assistance, the Galatian
theless, the documentary evidence provides only a roughrulers were well-rewarded by the Romans: Deiotarus
impression: the boundaries between (and within) the (tetrarch of the Tolistobogii) received lands in Pontus and
tribes are uncertain, as are those with neighbouring (later at least) Armenia Minor; Brogitarus (tetrarch of the
polities; and these boundaries changed over time. Trocmi) was given Mithridatium (a fortress in Pontus)
Whether any pre-existing boundaries survived in theand perhaps land in Armenia Minor; and both men
Galatian arrangements is unknown (Strobel 1994; received the title of king. Through his close relationship
Mitchell 1993: 51-8)8. with Rome, the last Galatian king, Amyntas, had, by 36
Strabo indicates that the Trocmi, the easternmost of
BC, acquired control of a huge area, including Pisidia,
the three tribes, were settled in the land adjoining the
Galatia, Lycaonia, Phrygia Paroreius and part of
territories of Pontus and Cappadocia; Tavium was one Pamphylia
of (Mitchell 1993: 31-41). Clearly, the Galatian
their strongholds. There is evidence to show that thepolities, despite suffering reverses, together constituted a
significant and increasingly important geo-political
Kizilirmak (the ancient river Halys) formed their western
border, although information in Pliny may indicate that entity
at which, correspondingly, the kingdoms of western
and central Asia Minor could not afford to underestimate.
some time they also held territory northwest of the river
in Paphlagonia. Their eastern frontier probably lay We shall focus our attention on the core-area of
somewhere to the east of modem Yozgat although how settlement (i.e. the region shown on fig 3). As
far is unclear. Strabo's account places the Tectosages in documented in the historical sources, it was here only
the area adjoining Greater Phrygia around the temple- that the Galatians established major polities in the third
state of Pessinus and the Orcaorci9; Ancyra was one of century BC; and these, undergoing changes, survived the
their fortifications. troubles of the later Hellenistic period- a timespan of
The evidence would indicate that their territory some two and a half centuries- to be incorporated into
extended from the Sangarius to the Halys, south of Tolis- the Roman empire. It is in this region that we would
tobogiian land. Probably during the second or first expect interactions, fusions and transformations of the
century BC, the Tectosages had also extended south into varied lifestyles of the resident groups to have been at
the Proseilemmene, 'the added land' including parts of their most intense and complex. The extant documentary
Lycaonia; and probably into parts of Pisidia. The Tolis- sources offer little in the way of information regarding
tobogii occupied northern and western Galatia: north of socio-economic and other cultural changes, develop-
Pessinus their territory stretched west across the ments and continuities within the region; rather, the brief
Sangarius, on either side of the Tembris (Tembrogius) information they do contain only indirectly reflects these
river (the modem Porsuk), to Phrygia Epictetus; their issues. It is archaeology which must provide the material
southern lands probably at some time included or for a fuller and more balanced understanding of these
bordered the (ile Dagl, since these prominent hills are matters.
likely to be the ancient Mount Olympus, the site of the
great defeat of the Tolistobogii at the hands of the Galatia and Bithynia lay along the Siberis river (the modem
Romans in 189 BC10; to the north their territory extended Kirmir Qayi), but for the Hellenistic period the boundaries
towards Bithynia and Paphlagonia11. In addition, Strabo between Galatia, Bithynia and Paphlagonia are unclear and
probably changed with circumstances. Indeed there is evidence
to suggest that Tolistobogiian territory extended west of the
8 In addition to the three main tribes, the names of other groups Siberis in the first century BC: if the fort (discussed below) at
appear in the Classical sources; see Mitchell 1993: 43. Tabanhoglu Kale on the Siberis is indeed the historically attested
9 Pessinus, on the west side of Mount Dindymus, within the treasury of the Tolistobogiian king Deiotarus, then it might seem
great bend of the Sangarius (the modem river Sakarya), was not inconceivable that such a repository of wealth would have been
constitutionally a part of Galatia in the Hellenistic period,located on the very edge of the polity. On the other hand, we
although increasingly it came under Galatian influence. should bear in mind evidence which indicates that certain pre-
10 See note 24 below. Roman Iron Age sanctuaries in Gaul lay on inter-tribal bound-
l l The northwestern boundary between the Roman provinces ofaries; for example, see Brunaux 1988: 3 (fig), 12.
79
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
~~~~............. ................ E, . ...
.
* . .! . . . . . . . . i i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . - . - E...... ....H .m
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
' ! 2
:b& . ? ? .... ........... ... ...... ce

::::~
~ . '......... ..........
~~~~. . . . . . . . J. . . . .......
?.,.......
. . . . .... ., . . . . . . .
a~ ~~,:ii!
: -/.: i:::~:::x,::::'.~ t
...... .... ..... "
:.~ ) \ ,~ f :.:e!~.. :.o o . . . .

7 . . .
: . . .
::::::::1
-V tCb'j5 Jv ,.. .... ; ; . :::::::::::::
' :::::::::::::::::X::: ::;:w:::::;:::;
... --.......................... . . . . . . .. . . .
o~~ ,V -~,,,
- -? ~~~~~~~~~........
~a
:5...~ 4MS ~,_,v )~'- _ '%t, <, ,
:":~~~~~~~~~~~........
. N< :yJs: ~r *::: . ~:::::'
'M'.
X > k a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~ . ./
m \5= ^<*\-- <- - o .............. . . . . . CL M
.7.. . Q/ ii !i .! .. ... . . .
80 (:: ' Ii s ( \.
r^ .. .iX*o
. . . . '. x
0
80
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Problems with the archaeological evidence of other artefacts, in particular metalwork, lend
To appreciate the cultural impact of the Galatian themselves to broad typological dating. Epigraphic
settlement and evaluate the longer-term processes ofevidence from the Hellenistic period in central Anatolia
change and continuity, we require detailed knowledge is
ofvirtually non-existent (Mitchell 1993: 86).
the pre-Galatian context as well as that of the Hellenistic
and later periods. Unfortunately, although a body ofSocial organisation
relevant archaeological data does exist it is small, We know almost nothing about the social structures
which existed in the region prior to the arrival of the
generally poorly characterised and poorly dated; a conse-
quence of piecemeal and sporadic archaeological work. Galatians (see, for example, Sekunda 1991).
As a result of earlier investigations by a few researchers
Nonetheless, the Classical writers indirectly indicate th
the Galatians imposed their own particular socio-
working in isolation, a number of relevant or potentially
relevant sites 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 development took place over time which
and Tolistobogii east of the Sakarya; but Trocmian remains poorly understood (for further details and refer-
country, east of the Kizilirmak has received far less ences, see Mitchell 1993: 24, 27-9, 35, 42-4, 46-7). The
attention. There has been virtually no excavation of impression provided by the documentary sources,
Hellenistic period sites in the region and the character of although probably correct in its broad outlines, is limited
immediately pre-Galatian settlement here is likewise and lacks detail. Only the highest echelons of the
obscure. The long-term excavation and survey projects at Galatian aristocracy were deemed worthy of note and
Gordium and Bogazk6y are obvious exceptions but these consequently we know next to nothing of the lower
sites are clearly more unusual settlement forms. Smaller- orders. Whether elements of pre-existing Anatolian
scale investigations have occurred at only a handful of social organisation were somehow assimilated into the
other relevant sites, yet such places are crucial to our Galatian structures, or whether the Galatians instituted a
broader understanding of socio-economic and other struc- complete and total rearrangement, is not obvious. The
tures. Nevertheless, the situation is at last being remedied archaeological evidence is insufficient to shed much light
by more widespread systematic archaeological investi- on these matters, although data from burials and settle-
gation so that the next decade or two should witness signif- ments is pertinent.
icant advances in our understanding: in particular, in the The character of Galatian socio-political organisation
modem province of Ankara the 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 co-
Vardar 1997); and to the north of the central plateau, in the existence of several chieftains is apparent from the
more mountainous country 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
improving our knowledge of the settlement record in bands, outlined earlier) and in addition, it seems likely
Cankin province (Matthews et 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
towards Bolu, adjoining Bithynia, has received hardly anyfollowing the disastrous effects of the Roman invasion in
attention and must be a focus of future work. The southern 189 BC. The fullest and most coherent picture of the
lands, extending to the area around Konya and the TaurusGalatian constitution is provided by Strabo who indicates
Mountains are also poorly understood. that formerly (before the mid first century BC) the three
A persistent major problem is the absence of a well-main tribes had shared the same form of organisation;
characterised ceramic framework (derived from each tribe being divided into four sections (tetrarchies).
The leader of each section was called a tetrarch, and
excavated material) which could provide a chronological
subordinate to each tetrarch there was a judge, one
scheme for sites in the region in Hellenistic, Roman and
military commander and two junior commanders. A
Byzantine times. A very small proportion of the known
council of the 12 tetrarchs, comprising three hundred
pottery can be assigned to one or other of these periods,
though not to finer chronological subdivisions (for members, met at a place called the Drynemetos. Here
example, Megarian bowls, black-glazed wares and fine murder cases were decided by the council, and all other
red-slipped wares, all paralleled in western Asia Minor, affairs were settled by the tetrarchs and judges. There is
can be dated to the third-first centuries BC)12. A numbernothing to demonstrate that this system of 12 tetrarchs
existed in the first phases of the Galatian settlement, and
12 Study and publication of the full range of Hellenistic potteryit is perhaps most likely (although not certain) that it
from Gordium should help. developed during the second century BC rather than
81
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
factors in establishing an individual's status and in struc-

earlier. Certainly the Greek title of tetrarch given to the
turing social relationships. Membership of a kin-group
leading figures implies a degree of Hellenisation of the
Galatian elite in the second century BC and this is alsowould provide an individual with an important form of
indicated by what is known about Ortiagon'3. Never-
identity. Clientage (which could exist amongst the
aristocracy as well as those of lower status) would have
theless, the fourfold division of each tribe, and the pan-
been an unequal relationship between social inferiors and
tribal council meeting, are features that are paralleled to
some extent by other historically attested forms of socio-those of higher status, whereby clients were obliged to
render produce, goods and services economic,
political organisation of the first century BC in parts of
western Europe. Despite increasing Hellenistic- military, political and other- in return for patronage and
Anatolian influence there can be no doubt that in its protection. The power of the ruling elite ultimately lay
in coercion and wealth (the basis of which remains to be
basics, at the elite level at least, the form of this Galatian
political constitution was 'Celtic'/European, not considered).
Anatolian. However, in view of our ignorance of its Galatian personal names, whose meanings can be
detailed character, it should not be assumed that in its approximately deciphered, allude indirectly to the insti-
other aspects it was directly comparable with other tutions and value systems of Galatian society. A random
(likewise poorly understood) societies in Europe. There group of examples illustrates this. Brikkon derives from
is historical evidence to indicate that these tetrarchies had the stem brigo-, meaning strength or worth; Tektomaros
a territorial basis, but their geographical aspects and can be translated 'rich in possessions'; Olorix means
social composition remain largely unknown. roughly 'mighty king'; the root bat-, found in several
The system of 12 tetrarchs was surely drastically personal names, implies the meaning of 'strike' or 'beat'.
altered in 86 BC, when Mithridates VI of Pontus Over a hundred such names are known and a preliminary
classification suggests that there were large groups of
murdered nearly all the leading figures at Pergamum.
names
Thereafter there was only one ruling tetrarch for each of which implied strength, power and personal
worth, others associated with warfare and victory, and
the three tribes. As a consequence of further political
changes in the later first century BC, the number others
of with landed possessions. They provide a valuable
ruling tetrarchs was reduced to two, and then onlyonomastic
one source of information by which the views of
(Deiotarus, followed by Castor and lastly by AmyntasClassical writers can be by-passed, and a direct approach
the Great). Some of these last Galatian rulers were made
also to ideas which the Galatians held about themselves
(Holder 1896-1910; Weissgerber 1931; Dressler 1967;
kings, but only by virtue of a kingdom (outside the core-
Schmidt 1994; Strobel 1996: 142-51; Staehelin 1907:
area of Galatian settlement) conferred upon them by
109-19).
Rome (see 'Defining the region' above). By the mid first
Given the dearth of evidence it is unclear how, in the
century BC it is clear from the documentary sources that
the Galatian elite was Hellenised to a considerable third century BC, the native resident population, and later
degree and had assimilated values and behaviour their descendants, were integrated into Galatian social
patterns
characteristic of other aristocracies and dynasties
organisation.
in Asia During the initial settlement phase it would
Minor. seem likely that many if not all members of the native
There can be no doubt that Galatian social organi-
ruling elite were reduced in power (if not driven into
exile or even killed), to make way for the incoming
sation was hierarchical in structure. Although changing
Galatian
over time, it seems likely to have always included severalaristocracy. It seems probable that the lower
ranks of Galatian society were mostly filled, at least in
grades of free and unfree, with corresponding variations
in status, honour, obligations and dues; amongst the the early period, by those of native Anatolian origin,
unfree, there is limited evidence for slaves. And despite most of whom, it can be suggested, were permitted to
Strabo's statement that the three tribes differed in no way remain in the region on terms of diminished status and
from each other, it seems possible that social forms could reduced rights. Nevertheless, a degree of upward social
have varied in their details across the region, as well as mobility may have been possible over time. Although
through time. Kinship and clientship, however difficult the historical evidence suggests that the Galatian ruling
to define clearly in this particular historical context, elite kept themselves distinct from their subjects (with
would presumably have been fundamentally important intermarriage being restricted to other dynastic families
in Anatolia), it seems likely that those of lower grades
(both of Galatian and native Anatolian descent) gradually
13 That the title of 'tetrarch' was used by the Galatians
became more thoroughly amalgamated through intermar-
themselves, at least by the mid first century BC if not signifi-
cantly earlier, is indicated by the funerary inscription to riage. It can be suggested that amongst the mixed
Deiotarus the Younger, mentioned above at note 5. populace, shared identities and value systems would
82
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
have developed over time - as a result of belonging to a ments that occurred in Galatian military equipment and
particular kin-group, tetrarchy or tribe, of a developing organisation remain rather obscure. Livy's account of
history of shared experiences and problems, (e.g. the the Roman invasion of Galatia in 189 BC (38.12-27), if
various wars of the later Hellenistic period), and a based on reliable sources, would indicate that arms and
common language14 and a process of ethnogenesis fighting methods characteristic of other 'Celtic' peoples
could have occurred. Indeed, the testimony of Livy may in Europe were being used in Galatia in the early second
be significant in this regard when he portrays the century. However, changes had occurred by the mid first
Galatians of 189 BC, albeit perjoratively through the century BC, at least within the Tolistobogiian polity, for
mouth of the Roman consul Manlius Vulso, as a hybrid the documentary evidence indicates that Deiotarus'
people- 'Gallogrecians', and 'Phrygians' bearing infantry were equipped, organised (and presumably
Gallic military equipment (Livy 38.17; Mitchell 1980:
trained) in Roman fashion: a reflection of the close and
1057-60; 1993: 47). 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 archaeological record demonstrates that elementscomprises
of items of adornment. A Roman copy of one of
'Middle La Tene' type material culture (i.e. of the same
the Pergamene monuments shows the distinctive, twisted-
form as a range of European artefactual styles of the third
metal La Tene type neck-ring (or 'torque') on a dying
and second centuries BC) were introduced to Asia Minor
Galatian warrior. 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 typological groups), are now
numerous, at least in part due to the lack of archaeological
known from Turkey (see fig 2). Virtually all of these are
work, and probably to the failure to report (and even to unknown or poorly defined contexts. Examples of
from
recognise the significance of) stray finds of such material.
the first group of fibulae, typologically very similar to
Most of the data are metalwork, the majority of which certain
have eastern European Middle La Tene specimens, are
been found outside the core-area of Galatian settlementdateable to the third and earlier second centuries BC; and
although future discoveries could change the spatial three
and of the rings are also dateable by their European
chronological distribution patterns significantly. parallels to the third century. These examples, widely
Accurate representations of Middle La Tene type
distributed in a number of regions lying well outside the
military equipment are found in the monumental victory
core-area of Galatian settlement, may well be a reflection
sculptures (or their later Roman copies) erected by of
theearlier Galatian raiding, mercenary activity, or localised
Pergamene state to mark successes scored againstsettlement
the (although other interpretations are possible).
Fibulae of the second typological group appear to be
Galatians in the later third century BC, and similar repre-
sentations occur on other monuments and small finds somewhat later variants, dateable to the later second and
from Turkey. All the main items of the Galatian panoply first centuries BC; these have been found within (and a
appear -shields, spears, helmets, chainmail, swords, little outside) the main settlement area of the Galatians
the carnyx (a form of discordant musical horn), and the shown on fig 3, including two from cist graves archaeo-
chariot (represented by some of its components). But logically excavated at Bogazk6y. In addition there is a La
actual examples are hardly known15, and the develop- Tene type twisted-gold limb-ring (or infant's neck-ring?)
from the western tumulus at Ta~oluk-Hidir?ihlar (see
section on burials below) which might date to the second
14 As noted in our conclusion, the Celtic language survived and
was predominant in the region for several centuries: those of century BC (Mitchell 1993: 54). Within the territory
native Anatolian descent presumably gradually assimilated the shown on fig 3, fibulae have been found at Bogazkoy,
Celtic tongue. Ku~saray, Karaca Koyii, and in the vicinity of Ankara; in
15 A late Hellenistic cist grave at Bogazk6y, from a cemetery
addition, an example in the museum at Eski?ehir may
described below, contained an iron short sword with its now-
have come from the environs of that city.
fragmentary iron scabbard and suspension rings, together with
an iron spearhead. The sword is much shorter than the known
swords deemed typical of Middle La Tene Europe; but this 16 Other evidence more recently published includes: a relief of
feature would accord with the short-length swords represented a (probably) Galatian shield on a temple at Limyra built in the
in the sculptures noted above. The spearhead is too damaged to 270s BC, for which see Borchhardt 1987: 106-8, abb. 7; and a
be typologically diagnostic but its remains are not inconsistent (probably) Galatian shield, sword and other items carved on the
with La Tene forms known from Europe. An unpublished lintel of a Hellenistic tower at Hangerli in Cilicia, for which see
broken iron cheek-piece from Gordium could be part of a Durugniil 1998: 13-19, abb 2, taf 54. For La Tene type swords
Galatian helmet but it may be earlier in date (McClellan 1975: see, for example, Pleiner 1993; de Navarro 1972. For La Tene
102-10. type spearheads, a useful starting point is Brunaux, Rapin 1988.
83
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
the presence of first century BC La Tene type fibulae

Together with La Tene style material culture, it is
clear from the limited available evidence that native could, for example, indicate the survival of traditional
Anatolian artefactual traditions continued through the
styles of Galatian clothing and symbolic practice, but
period, as shown for example by the ceramics (both they do not prove this- though there is nothing specific
locally produced and imported), and metalwork and from the chambered tombs to indicate that the ruling elite
other material from the Gordium excavations: indeed, no of the first century BC retained traditional Galatian
distinctive assemblage of La Tene type material has yet modes of appearance.
been found at the site. Furthermore, despite claims to the
contrary, the so-called 'Galatian' ware, found in Ritual and religion
Trocmian territory and dating from the second century The Galatians introduced their own distinctive belief-
BC, may be a local ceramic tradition owing little or systems, rituals and forms of sacred space to the region;
nothing to influences from La Tene Europe. In addition, but the character of these is hardly known. To what
finds from Gordium and the Galatian chambered tomb A extent these were assimilated by those of native
at Karalar (see 'burials' below) demonstrate that Anatolian descent is unclear; nor is it obvious as to how
Anatolian style fibulae continued to be used through long
the the various elements of these ritual traditions
remained distinctive, if altered -although by the later
later Hellenistic period (the context at Karalar indicating
that the fibula in question belonged to a member of Roman
the period there is little trace of them. Certainly,
through time the Galatian elite assimilated native
Galatian elite); and other artefacts from the chambered
religious
tombs indicate that the elite placed considerable value on forms, themselves poorly understood, but again
high quality metalwork and ceramics of Hellenistic/
the chronology and character of this process are rather
obscure. To what extent, and in what ways, the various
Anatolian styles. (For Gordium see Mitchell 1993: 54-5;
DeVries 1984; 1990; Sams 1995; Sams, Voigt 1989; different strands of belief and ritual merged or were
1994; 1996; 1997; Winter 1988. For Karalar fibula see syncretised in the Hellenistic period is hardly capable of
Ank 1934: levha 9, ?ekil 18. For Galatian ware see analysis given the available data.
Mitchell 1993: 51, 54; Miiller-Karpe 1988 argues for a Brief and indirect glimpses provided by the Classical
La Tene connection.) sources indicate the existence of forms of Galatian ritual
The Pergamene sculptures and other pictographic in Anatolia which find parallels in broadly contemporary
representations noted above, together with Livy's European contexts: for example, the ritual sacrifice of
account of Vulso's invasion, serve to underline the prisoners (in ca. 166 BC) and warrior nakedness (in 189
distinctive visual appearance of Galatian warrior males BC). In addition, the Galatian assembly at the
(including nakedness in combat, wild hair and Drynemetos, which we noted earlier, surely had a
religious, as well as politico-judicial character, even
moustaches) in the later third and earlier second centuries
though this is not made explicit by Strabo: it is indicated
BC. Despite the fact that these impressions (and similar
ones from Classical Europe) are those of 'outsiders' and
primarily by the term Drynemetos itself ('sacred grove of
to some degree idealised or stereotypical, situated in
oak trees'), but the interpretation also finds support from
propagandising contexts, they find corroboration notthe existence of a somewhat similar institution, a druidic
assembly, noted by Julius Caesar in first century BC
only in representations in European La Tene art but also
in Anatolia: a characteristically and unmistakeably Gaul. It is unknown whether or not the Galatian
Galatian male face, depicted in relief on a gold buckleDrynemetos, with its religious component, continued to
be used at all following the drastically sudden decline of
from the western tumulus at Ta~oluk-Hidir?ihlar, seems
likely to be an 'insider's' representation. Elements such
the system of 12 tetrarchs in the earlier first century BC.
as hairstyles, garb and the various ways specific types The
of presence of druids in Galatia cannot be ruled out,
despite the fact that they are not explicitly and reliably
artefacts were worn about the body, could have conveyed
attested for this region in the Classical sources (perhaps
various kinds of information or 'messages' regarding the
the judges or some of the other notables at the
social identity of the wearer (e.g. torques could have
Drvnemetos were druids?). In addition, it is possible
been symbols of divinity and high status). The continu-
(though by no means certain) that traditional forms of
ities and changes in such social practices as a result of the
Galatian settlement remain to be explored (they could be
Galatian augury may have survived into the first century
approached, for example, through burials althoughBC, perhaps being practised by King Deiotarus (Mitchell
unfortunately, as we shall see, such contexts are few).1993: 45, 47-50; and see Dunham (1995) for a useful
For how long, and to what extent, distinctive elements ofillustration of the difficulties in using the Classical
sources as an approach to the druids and other non-
traditional Galatian dress, hairstyles and symbolic use of
personal ornaments persisted in the region is uncertain Classical social institutions).
84
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
In addition, striking archaeological evidence from the Tavium (by the later first century BC). Archaeological
Gordium excavations - revealed only recently - appar- evidence for native Anatolian religion includes represen-
ently indicates the existence of distinctive forms of tations of Cybele from Gordium, dateable to the later
Galatian ritual introduced to Anatolia from Europe. This third/early second century BC (Mitchell 1993: 47-50;
evidence, dateable to the late third or earlier second DeVries 1990: 404-5).
century BC, includes: two human torsos, laid one over As a consequence of the paucity of archaeological
the other; a human skull with attached vertebrae, set information regarding cult sites and settlements, the
upright next to a dog skull, with a dog leg laid over themways in which sacred space was organised and struc-
both; a larger deposit with mixed equid, bovid and tured are obscure. Unfortunately Strabo gives no details
human remains; and three other humans, with broken of the form of the sacred place Drynemetos, and its
necks (Sams 1995). These burials are closely paralleled
location is unknown, although it could be suggested that
in several parts of later prehistoric Europe by a body ofit included some form of sacred enclosure, perhaps
evidence for ritual processes which involved the similar to examples known from later Iron Age Europe
dismemberment and 'structured deposition' of humans (Webster 1995). The character of the shrine at Tavium
and animals, as well as artefacts, at sanctuaries/sacred is likewise uncertain (Strabo 12.5.2). The dismembered
places and in a range of contexts on settlement sites. bodies at Gordium may well have been situated at some
Although the beliefs behind such rites are little under-kind of cult locus or sanctuary but the contextual details
stood, these were clearly not normative forms of burial of this part of the site remain to be defined and it is
and it is possible that the humans were, for example, unclear (as yet) whether there were any associated struc-
outcasts of some kind. The new discoveries at Gordium tural features. Natural features in the landscape were
underline how little we know about Galatian ritual and probably also religious foci. The ways in which
they suggest that other elements, similar to the evidenceritual/cosmological concepts influenced the spatial
found in several contemporary European contexts, mayarrangements and activities at settlements remains to be
yet be identified: for example, rituals involving theinvestigated.
structured deposition (as opposed to day-to-day 'refuse Later, in the time of the Roman province, there is
disposal') of artefacts and other material (metalwork,little to indicate that aspects of traditional Galatian rituals
ceramics, food/drink etc.) in features/structures at had survived in a recognisably distinct form, although we
settlements and sacred enclosures, and in natural must bear in mind that archaeological evidence from this
features in the landscape such as rivers and bogs/pools
period is again limited. Admittedly there is a little
(Brunaux 1988; Webster 1995; Wait 1995). Never- epigraphic material dating to the second and third
theless, broadly similar forms of activity involving
centuries AD which reveals local cults taking Celtic
artefact deposition (and that of humans and animals names, including those of Zeus Souolibrogenos (Mitchell
too?) may have formed a part of the region's traditional et al 1982: no 191) and Zeus Bussurigios (Mitchell et al
Anatolian culture: given the limited data available, we 1982: nos 203-4); however, despite the Celtic epithets
should consider this matter as open. Study of the there is nothing in the texts to indicate the survival of
artefactual material from Gordium in relation to their traditional Galatian cultic features as distinct from
archaeological contexts may help to clarify our under- familiar Anatolian patterns.
standing in this regard.
Unfortunately, native Anatolian religion and ritual in Burials
the region is also poorly defined in this period. TheAs well as the human remains from Gordium noted
Classical sources indicate that by the mid second centuryabove, a few formal burials are known from the region.
BC at the latest, the Galatian ruling classes had assimi- At least several of these clearly belonged to the social
lated at least some elements of the native religion, and elite and these bear no resemblance to European La Tene
this process developed over time. The most notable period burials. Indeed, it remains uncertain as to what
example is their continuing involvement in the cult of distinctive types of formal mortuary practice the
Cybele and her consort Attis, at Pessinus; other evidence Galatians introduced to the region from Europe. For the
includes the case of the Galatian aristocrat, Kamma, who majority of the populace of the Galatian polities, we have
was the hereditary priestess of Artemis (probably the no evidence for where and how their remains were
Hellenised mother goddess); and later, in the earlier firstdisposed. Doubtless the low level of information is
century AD, the aristocrat, Dyteutus, who was high priestpartly due to the paucity of archaeological investigation,
of the goddess Ma at Comana Pontica. Strabo also but it might also indicate that forms of mortuary practice
indicates that a monumental bronze statue of Zeus, withwhich were unlikely to leave readily identifiable
existed
a sacred precinct with the right of asylum, existed at in the archaeological record.
traces
85
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
By far the most impressive burials, in terms of their The distinctive architecture of these burials has no
architecture and the range and quality of grave goods,parallel in European La Tene contexts and virtually none
are those in stone chambered tombs beneath earthen of the extant grave goods of those within Galatia is of La
tumuli. These tombs are directly paralleled outside Tene form. Nonetheless, some of the finds from Karalar
Galatia by architecturally identical examples from and one of the two Ta~oluk-Hidir?ihlar tombs indicate
that these burials are indeed Galatian. We are most
Bithynia and Pontus, dateable broadly to the Hellenistic
period. Examples dateable to the fifth-third centuries fortunate that an inscription in Greek from tomb B at
BC from Thrace and the Bosporan Chora are also, Karalar identifies this particular tumulus as the resting
place of Deiotarus the Younger, who we know from
though less closely, related. Within the Galatian region,
three examples are known from Karalar, two from documentary evidence died between 43 and 41 BC
(Mitchell et al 1982: no 188)'7. A date in the second
Ta?oluk-Hidir,ihlar (ca. 8km south of Bolu), and two
from Gordium. Two tombs near Eski?ehir, at Igdir and century BC has been suggested for the burial in the west
Yalaclk, may also be Galatian, at the western limit of tumulus at Ta?oluk-Hidilr?hlar, which contained the gold
Galatian territory. In addition, an unpublished tomb at
buckle and La Tene type torque mentioned earlier; and it
seems likely that the two Gordium tombs date to the
(im?it near Karalar is either later Hellenistic or Roman
in date. The quadrangular-plan chambers are Galatian occupation rather than before the diabasis.
constructed from large ashlar blocks carefully cut
However
to it is impossible to date closely these other
shape and fitted together without the use of mortar; in at
burials'8.
least one case (Karalar tomb C), iron clamps were The funerary inscription of Deiotarus, together with
employed to hold the blocks together more securely. the sumptuary grave goods and costly architecture of the
The chambers were provided with a door. Although tombs, indicates that this class of burial belonged to the
these tombs and their parallels require more detailed Galatian aristocracy, and indeed it seems likely to have
synthetic study they can be readily classified into three been limited solely to members of the ruling families.
basic types according to the form of their roof These wealthy tombs of the first century BC and (most
construction. probably) earlier are evidence of marked social differen-
The first type has a corbelled roof and some of
tiation in Galatian society and they can be seen as a
these tombs have an antechamber and/or dromos physical expression of the elite's wider pretensions,
(Karalar tomb C, one of those at Gordium, contacts,
Igdlr, achievements and affiliations: the employment
Yalacik; and further afield, Tepecik, Gemlik,of
Kepsut,
this particular form of Anatolian burial architecture
Milas, Belevi, Mudanya and Pammukkale). The was a means by which the Galatian ruling class identifed
second type has a peaked roof and a dromos (Karalar itself as the peer of those who governed Bithynia and
tomb B and the east tumulus at Ta?oluk-H1dlr?ihlar; Pontus'9. It can be suggested that the form and siting of
also the dromos of the tomb noted below at Be?evler). these particular burials were intended to emphasise the
The third type has a barrel-vaulted roof and a dromos legitimacy and social distinction of the ruling lineage and
(Karalar tomb A and, outside Galatia, Kii9iicek, its control over the natural resources of the area: those at
Be?evler, Kanlibag and Ikiztepe). Of uncertain type

(owing to later damage and lack of full publication) is 17 Other material (none of La Tene type) associated with this
the other example from Gordium, the west tumulus at burial included the remains of purple cloth, a porphyry offering
table, glasswork and, in stone, a sculptured trophy and lion.
Ta?oluk-Hidir?lhlar and S(im?it. The significance of
18 All these tombs have been robbed. However material
the different types of chambered tomb, both within and
recovered from the westem tumulus at Ta?oluk-Hidirslhlar (and
outside Galatia, remains to be explored in detail: for found within a roughly-cut sarcophagus) included (in addition
example, the architectural variations could be related to the gold torque and buckle) gold bracelets, gold earrings, a
to differences in chronology or in factors such as the silver patera and silver Megarian bowl, and a bronze horsebit
age, sex, social rank or kinship of the deceased. Unfor- (not of La Tene type); ironwork (not recovered) was also noted.
From the Karalar tombs, finds included fine Hellenistic/
tunately, the majority of these tombs have been robbed
Anatolian painted ceramics and golden necklaces set with
prior to academic investigation, so details of the
precious stones as well as those mentioned at note 16 above.
arrangement of the corpses and the full complement19 At present, the distribution of these Galatian tombs appears
and arrangement of the grave goods are uncertain to be confined to the northwestern and western part of the
(Mitchell 1993: 55, n 123, 57, n 124, 125, 126; region, the territory occupied by the Tolistobogii (and Gaeza-
torix), which may indicate that this burial practice was a
Meri9boyu, Atasoy 1969; Memerci, Yagci 1991; Alkim
distinctly localised mortuary tradition within Galatia, reflecting
et al 1988: 204-6; Tsetskhladze 1998; information
the specific extra-regional contacts of this particular territory
regarding the rescue excavation of (im?it tomb was of course future discoveries might significantly
(although
kindly given by Dr Remzi Yagcl). widen the distribution within Galatia).
86
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Karalar, for example, are prominently visible and are obviously much less impressive than those in the
overlook the fertile plain of the Ova Cay as well as the chambered tombs described above, the expensive
Galatian elite residence at Karalar which is described character of some of the grave goods, and the probable
below; they indicate a focal point of the Tolistobogiian
presence of tumuli, may indicate that at least some are
polity20. The Anatolianisation of this Galatian elite is
the burials of a social elite (although not necessarily the
further indicated by the character of the grave goods
governing class), and again represent mortuary practices
(some of which may have been obtained through gift
restricted to a limited segment of the populace21. Again
it is uncertain whether these rites owed more to native
exchange with neighbouring elites outside the region);
and the historically-attested Hellenisation of the Tolisto-
Anatolian traditions or to those introduced to the region
bogiian ruling lineage is demonstrated in particular by
by the Galatians, although the burial with weapons is
the use of epigraphy and the Greek language for paralleled by 'warrior burials' in several parts of La Tene
Deiotarus the Younger's memorial. In addition the Europe22. In addition, given the lack of comparative data
employment in this inscription of the personalised royal
it is uncertain as to how extensive across the region were
these forms of burial; it is possible that, in their details at
epithet 'philoromaius' for the father, Deiotarus the Great,
is an indication both of the Hellenising influence on the
least, they represent a localised tradition (Mitchell 1993:
character of late Galatian kingship (use of Hellenistic- 54, n 101).
style royal titulature) and also a clear affirmation of the
king's allegiance to Rome (see Braund 1984: 105-6). It Settlements
is yet to be demonstated whether the mortuary rites of As a consequence of the generally low level of survey
these Galatian burials differed noticeably from those of and the lack of excavation in the region, our knowledge
other Anatolian polities, and retained something of the of settlements is poor and is strongly biased towards sites
traditional rituals of the Galatians. which are still physically prominent today. Nevertheless,
Two other types of burial are known, from the late the evidence from these sites indicates that at least some
Hellenistic cemetery at Bogazk6y in Trocmian territory: important elements of the pre-Galatian settlement pattern
extended inhumations in stone cist graves (some of these continued to function in the later Hellenistic period, even
most probably beneath small tumuli, as indicated by the though there may have been short-term disruptions
presence of a stone circle or kerb defining the area during the initial takeover of the region by the Galatians
around the cist); and interments of children in jars. in the third century BC; and this pattern might be
Where dateable the graves have been assigned to the first expected at other sites. To what extent the detailed
century BC but the chronological range of the cemetery character of occupation at these places changed as a
could be wider than this. The burials in jars represent an result of the Galatian takeover will only be revealed by
Anatolian tradition and the same may be true of the cist study of excavated data.
graves, though cists are also known from limited regions Three centres clearly of earlier importance
of later prehistoric Europe. The majority of burials lack (political/economic) which continued under the
grave goods (or at least items likely to leave visible Galatians (and which were important enough in the
archaeological traces) and none of the others was Hellenistic period to be mentioned by Classical writers)
lavishly equipped, only one or two items usually being
were Gordium, Tavium and Ancyra. Gordium had
present. The artefacts from the cists include silver
formerly been the regional capital of the Phrygian
armrings, coins, pottery and ironwork, the latter kingdom and subsequently a minor political centre of the
including a La Tene type fibula, and in another grave the Achaemenid empire; and there are indications of high
sword, scabbard and spearhead noted earlier. In order to status Phrygian activity at Ancyra. Ceramics from
elucidate the rites, symbolism and social significance ofTavium show that the place had a history extending well
these burials, further, synthetic study is required of the back into the Hittite period and earlier in the Bronze Age.
arrangement, age and sex of the bodies, and the form and
arrangement of the grave goods. Although these burials
21 Perhaps they are those of a particular kin-group or clan. The
burials may also reveal differences in the way various social
categories were represented in death: for example, the jar
20 We might speculate as to who else was buried in the eliteburials suggest that infants constituted a separate social
necropolis at Karalar/Blucium. It is possible, although of category requiring mortuary forms different to those of adults;
course uncertain, that the other two tombs contained the and other categories based on factors such as age and sex may
remains of Deiotarus the Great himself and his wife Berenice. be represented in the cist burials.
Their daughters, married out to members of other Galatian22 Burials with swords are not common in European Iron Age
ruling families, would presumably have been buried elsewhere.contexts and are often deemed to indicate the relatively high
See Mitchell 1993: 28 for stemma of the family of Deiotarus. rank of the deceased; see, for example, Wait 1995.
87
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
The Classical writers indicate that both Gordium and Knowledge of smaller settlements is virtually non-
Tavium were emporia in the Galatian period (a function
existent (doubtless due to their poor archaeological
which Gordium certainly, and Tavium most probably,
visibility combined with the lack of survey in the region),
possessed in earlier times), being sited at the intersection
yet without such evidence our understanding of Galatian
society will always remain extremely partial. Excava-
of main trans-regional routeways and engaged in inter-
regional trade/exchange; the extent of Ancyra's tions at Yalincak (a few kilometres southwest of Ancyra)
economic importance is unclear, but it certainly were of limited extent but revealed rectangular buildings
possessed a strategic location. The ongoing excavations
with stone footings (Tezcan 1971), identical to those
at Gordium are revealing evidence for manufacturing and
found at Gordium and many of the forts discussed below.
Activity continued from Hellenistic through Roman
other activities at the site, although the overall character
and extent of the Hellenistic settlement remain to be times, a pattern that might be expected at other small
sites.
defined; the evidence demonstrates that pre-existing
traditions of Anatolian architecture continued in the To what extent the Galatians were responsible for the
appearance of new settlement forms and architectural
Galatian period (rectangular-plan buildings with stone-
footed mudbrick walls and roofs of thatch or tile)23.styles
The is as yet uncertain, although it can be suggested
that their historically attested strongholds, to be
relevant archaeology at Tavium and Ancyra is hardly
known, but Strabo indicates that here the Galatians described
had in the following section, were a new and
strongholds (phrouria); and both sites continued in significant feature of the region's settlement patterns.
importance, for they became two of the three main
centres of the Roman province of Galatia, with Pessinus, Forts and elite centres
not Gordium, becoming the third centre (Gordium: Livy The accounts of Strabo and Livy indicate that from at
38.18.5, 18.11; Polybius 21.37.8; Strabo 12.5.3, 568; and least the early second century BC the Galatians
see Mitchell 1993: 54-5, n 110-14; DeVries 1990: 371- possessed a number of strongholds, and that at least some
406; Sams,Voigt 1984; 1989; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997. of these phrouria/castella were the fortified residences of
Tavium: Strabo 12.5.2; Mitchell 1976b; 1993: 51, n 98; the Galatian ruling elite in the first century BC. Unfor-
the resurgence of investigation at the site, recently insti- tunately, the form of these forts is hardly apparent from
tuted by Professor Strobel, should see significant results the written sources, and archaeological evidence for
in the years to come. Ancyra: Strabo 12.5.2, 567; Livy them is mostly poorly defined or non-existent, either
38.24.1; Polybius 21.39.1; Mitchell 1976a). because the location of the sites has not been confidently
A number of other hoyuks sited in open plains on identified or because the monuments have been
natural routeways, including Tolgeri, G61l, Cim?it and destroyed or obscured by later activity, and because ther
(erkez (see map), have yielded surface sherds which has been no excavation (e.g. the Galatian phrouria at
again indicate some form of continuity from earlier times Ancyra and Tavium).
into the Hellenistic period. But none of these large Nevertheless, at least three named sites can be
mounds has been excavated and their character and identified, with some confidence, with known
functions in different periods are uncertain. Anothermonuments. Two forts, Zengibar Kale and Tabanlioglu
settlement occupied in the Galatian period, Parnassus,Kale,
is are examples of sophisticated Hellenistic
mentioned by Polybius in the second century BC, workmanship (with well-laid ashlar blocks) and they
although as yet there is no relevant archaeological share markedly similar features: most notably the form of
material known from the site; perhaps it is an indicationtheir projecting polygonal towers (with drafted margins)
and their gates. There can be no reasonable doubt that
that other Roman towns in the region likewise had earlier
origins (Hild, Restle 1981). At the walled settlement ofZengibar Kale, near Bozklr in the Taurus region (well to
Kmik Hamamdere, surface sherds indicate activity in the south of the core-area of Galatian settlement shown
Hellenistic, as well as Roman and later times, but againon fig 3), is the site of Isaura, and that the long defensive
the history of the site is very poorly understood (Mitchellcircuit visible there (encircling the summit of a large,
et al 1982: 25-6). steep-sided hill) is that built by the Galatian king and
tetrarch Amyntas, and unfinished at the time of his death
in 25 BC (Strabo 12.6.3; Swoboda et al 1935: 120). The
23 Both the archaeological and historical sources indicate that
Hellenistic style defences at Tabanlioglu Kale in western
the importance of the site declined, apparently from early in the
Galatia (see fig 4; Mitchell 1974; Vardar, Vardar 1997:
second century BC and quite possibly directly after the Roman
254) are, so far as is known, unique to the core-area of
invasion of 189 BC. Although the reasons for this apparent
decline are not altogether clear, the site's pre-eminence as an Galatian territory. Much less extensive than those of
emporium was certainly later eclipsed by Pessinus. Zengibar, they comprise a short curtain wall cutting off
88
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
the neck of a steep-sided promontory created by a loop in the Galatian elite in the later first century BC, and it
the Girmir (ay. Given their location and their distinctive should not be expected that the form of other, especially
character, they seem most likely to be those of Peium, the earlier, Galatian strongholds would necessarily conform
site mentioned by Strabo and Cicero as being the to these.
'treasury' of king Deiotarus (Amyntas' predecessor); if Evidence for a rather different and earlier form of
Galatian fortification is provided by Livy. According to
this identification is correct, they could have been built in
the 50s BC. Another fortification south of the area his account of the Roman invasion of Galatia in 189 BC,
the Galatians abandoned their settlements and, acting in
shown on fig 3 and closer to Zengibar is Ba? Dag; this
has constructional features very similar to those ofconcert, retreated to two large and high places, Mount
Zengibar and the two are clearly of similar date. It may Olympus and Mount Magaba, to make their pan-tribal
have been built by a local dynast, Antipater of Derbe, or stand against the Romans; and they further strengthened
perhaps by Amyntas himself (Belke, Restle 1978-80). these naturally-defensive eminences with ditches and
In addition there can be little doubt that the small other defensive works, to afford protection not only to
Hellenistic period site on the Asar rock at Karalar (see the Galatian warriors but also to the thousands of non-
map) is the historically-attested Blucium (or Luceium), combatants seeking refuge there. Although the locations,
the fort or 'palace' of king Deiotarus - notably because and hence the defences, of both these sites remain to be
the tomb of his son overlooks it from the adjacent hilltop conclusively defined, it can be argued that these fortifi-
(see section on burials above). Although there is no clear cations were not representative of the Galatian phrourion
evidence for man-made defences, the fortified aspect of or castellum. Rather, they were a rapid, pan-tribal scale
the site is suggested by the topographical setting (a rocky response to a specific, externally induced, large-scale
prominence in a narrow side-valley of the Murted Ova). military crisis. It remains to be demonstrated whether or
The site has undoubtedly been robbed in later times and not these Galatian defences were at all similar to the
it is not unlikely that a defensive circuit originally ran impressive ditch-and-bank (glacis style) hillforts typical
around the rock (perhaps in some of the rock-cut beds at of several regions of later prehistoric Europe24.
the summit). Lower down the slope there are the remains In addition to the monuments noted above, there is a
of a monumental terrace made from clamped ashlar much larger group of sites known from the region, many of
blocks of well-cut andesite (brought to the site from them only recently discovered or recorded, which deserves
elsewhere). In addition, there is an extensive series of serious consideration in our survey of the Galatians.
rock-cut steps or terraces, together with an impressive Although their dates and specific functions remain
rock-cut shaft/cistern (probably Hellenistic uncertain in the absence of excavation, and although these
workmanship); and there are rock-cut slots forsites
the bear no direct resemblance to typical forms of
European
footings of rectangular buildings on/near the summit, as La Tene hillforts, nor to the forts of Zengibar and
well as the remains of rubble-footed buildings and enclo-
Tabanhoglu, they are good contenders for the Galatian
phrouria/castella
sures (which include later activity) further down the of the Classical writers. Hellenistic
pottery has been observed on the surface in several cases
slopes (Ank 1934; Mitchell 1974; 1993: 55-7; Mitchell
but nevertheless ceramics of other periods (including
et al 1982: 25; Saatqi 1987; 1988; Mitchell 1990: 130).
These monuments have nothing in common withByzantine
the and Roman) are also, if not better, known; but
'hillforts' well-known from many parts of La Tene
the danger of dating structures from a few unstratified
sherds is obvious. At some sites no chronologically
Europe. Their architectural features, in particular those
of Zengibar Kale and Tabanlioglu Kale, are a sign ofdiagnostic
the sherds have been noted at all (and the extensive
greatly increased Hellenisation of the Galatian elitespreads
of of collapsed wall fabric common to many of the
the later first century BC. The costliness of these
forts make recognition of such material difficult).
defences (and other features) can be interpreted as a
manifestation of the increased power-base of the last
24 For the two sites, see Livy 38.19. Their locations have
Galatian rulers, one of the most important and histori-
remained uncertain for many years. However, if we accept that
cally-attested contributory factors being that of Roman
Livy's account of the campaign is at all reliable in its details, it can
support, both financial and other. In addition, the rock-
be argued from a consideration of the general topography of the
cut steps and shaft at Karalar, if indeed of Hellenistic
region that the (ile Dagli (between Gordium and Ancyra) is in fact
Mount Olympus: its location and character fit Livy's description
date, could be evidence for the Galatian assimilation of
well-enough, and perhaps further investigation will produce
native Anatolian monumental (and ritual?) traditions.
details of the Galatian fortifications. The indentification of Mount
(For Anatolian rock-cut monuments, see, for example,
Magaba is as yet rather more uncertain, Elma Dagi, southeast of
Haspels 1971.) These sites illustrate types of fortified
Ankara, is one possibility. For broadly contemporary European
residence belonging to the most prominent members of
fortifications, see as a starting point, Ralston 1995.
89
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Tabanlioglu Kalel i I
(suggested reconstruction)
4- promontory
1
b
t
.... TII !!l ' I
Yenikayi
;;c-t -..-)
- 5-711" t' - 0-Tor, . 0

qagnik (BOyukkale)
Hisarlikaya
- river cliffs
0I
4
Dikmenkale Tallkale
0 50 metres
Ak9aoren ; ___!ii
(anilll
Fig 4. Comparative provisional plans offorts in Galatia
90
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
They are typically, though not always, sited on small- assumed: stretches of fortification wall 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 natural routeways (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, rarely more than 40-70m across, were clearly bastions are visible at Yenikayi and Giizelcekale, and
important local centres. We will provisionally label all some of the other sites could have possessed similar
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
settings and the character of their enclosure walls, Zengibar, Tabanlioglu and Karalar, and within the group
although it remains a possibility that some had no the quality varies considerably. Nevertheless, the
military purpose. At least 20 such forts are known fromamount of cutting and shaping of the blocks is generally
the heartland of Galatia, mostly to the west of the much greater than can be seen at the second group of
Kizilirmak, and five others have recently been recorded sites discussed below, with a real attempt to produce a
in Paphlagonia by the BIAA survey of Cankin province. degree of block-rectangularity (perhaps an effort to
The sparsity of examples to the east of the Kizilirmak is emulate finer quality Hellenistic style workmanship as
partly explained by the lack of fieldwork there. A found at Zengibar, Tabanlioglu and Karalar). As at
number of different types can be identified; for theKaralar, there are rock-cut features at some of the sites:
purposes of our brief summary they will be considered inat (anak9i it is clear that the fortification wall continued
two main groups25. onto the rocky outcrop of the hilltop in a rock-cut
The sites of Soman Hisar (Mitchell et al 1982: 25; bedding channel/shelf (also seen at Karalar), and similar
Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine pottery noted), beds are apparent at Yenikayl and Sirkeli, although in all
cases the stonework is no longer in situ; in addition, rock-
Canak91 (Vardar, Vardar 1997: 249-50; Mitchell et al
1982: 27; with Hellenistic and Roman pottery), Sirkelicut steps/terracing and sometimes other features,
(Mitchell et al 1982: 25; Hellenistic pottery noted), including the footings of buildings, and possible
Guiizelcekale (Vardar, Vardar 1997: 250; Mitchell et al
shrines/altars, are visible at (;anak9i, Sirkeli and Yara?li.
1982: 27; with Roman and medieval pottery; here as at Perhaps then, at least some of the forts in this group were
Tabanlioglu Kale, Byzantine defences sit on top of aroughly contemporary with, or somewhat earlier than,
the first century BC phrourion of Karalar/Blucium.
clearly earlier phase of fortification), Yenikayl (Vardar,
Vardar 1997: 257-8; with Hittite, Middle Phrygian, The second group of forts comprises enclosures with
Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine pottery), Ogulbey'rubble' walling, the stonework exhibiting only a
(Mitchell et al 1982: 27; Hellenistic pottery noted), and minimum of cutting and shaping. Although the remains
Yara?lh Kale (French, Mitchell 1973: 60-2; Hellenisticmight seem crude and primitive they are nevertheless
and Roman pottery noted) can be provisionally excellent examples of the drystone building technique,
considered as forming a reasonably coherent typologicalwith neatly-faced walls ca. 2-3m thick and probably origi-
group which shares a number of features in common with nally at least ca. 2-3m high (and it is likely that at least
the Galatian site at Karalar noted above. In addition it is some of them possessed mud-brick superstructures).
These walls usually stand at 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 later first centuryare sometimes accentuated by man-made scarping. Such
BC stronghold of the Galatian tetrarch, Castor, defences would seem to be very adequate security
mentioned by Strabo. The small hilltops on which these measures against small forces unaccustomed to techni-
forts are sited tend to possess prominent rock outcrops. cally-advanced siege warfare. Most of the enclosures are
Although not often readily visible (due in part to robbing seen to contain ranges of rectangular and sub-rectangular
and burial of the remains) the presence of man-made buildings (virtually identical to those found at Gordium
defences can usually be demonstrated or reasonably and Yalincak) and in many cases identical buildings can be
seen outside the enclosure (although not uncommonly
thought to be modem, these buildings seem far more
25 Relevant or potentially relevant forts of uncertain type (due likely, given their layout, to have been associated with the
to lack of evidence), which are not included in our discussion, life of the fort). Within this group of forts, several
but which are shown on fig 3, include Ancyra, Tavium, Basri,
and Baglum. A fort at Ku?saray, where a Galatian fibula was
supposedly found, requires further investigation. More detailed 26 With reference to Ogulbey/?Gorbeous, it is worth noting that
studies of the region's forts are being prepared by L and N Deiotarus pulled down the walls of Gorbeous (in ca. 43 BC),
Vardar and by G Darbyshire. according to Strabo (12.5.3, 568).
91
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
al 1998: site 74; Roman and Byzantine ceramics

different types are apparent according to the plan of the
defences. The simplest form comprises a single wall identified) and Gavur Kale (Matthews et al 1998: site 43;
enclosing a roughly circular or square area ca. 30-40m Byzantine pottery recorded), and the polygonal enclosures
across, with a single, simple entrance ca. 2-3m wide, for at Cicekhane Tepe (unpublished) and Yalakcukur6ren
example Karaviran (A?agi Karaoren) (Mitchell et al 1982: Kale (Matthew et al 1998: site 85; Roman and Byzantine
26; a smaller structure further down the hill could be pottery recorded); a smaller but similar sub-rectangular
another, smaller fortified residence; there are also fairly fort is known at G6kqeoren Kale Mevkii (Matthews et al
extensive traces of an extra-mural settlement) and Tahirler 1998: 195-206; Iron Age, Roman and Byzantine pottery
(unpublished); Saqak Kale (unpublished) may also be of was recorded but no Hellenistic material was identified).
this type. Similar but more complex are those sites with As well as D-shaped bastions, (anilli also has two rectan-
two very closely-spaced concentric circuit walls (usually gular versions flanking the entrance (see fig 4). The fort at
less than 10m apart), for example, Hisarlikaya (Mitchell et Girmec (Belke, Restle 1984: 169; French, Mitchell 1973:
al 1982: 26; Vardar, Vardar 1997: 247-8; Byzantine pottery 98) is yet another variant of similar size to these: backing
recorded) and Tizke (unpublished; although the walling at onto a cliff, a defensive wall (with only three bastions) was
Hisarlikaya and Tizke is delapidated by collapse/robbing needed on just one side (an inner wall here, presumably
there is little doubt that both forts possessed complete Byzantine, is mortared and different in character, probably
double wall-circuits originally). The inner wall almost representing a later refortification). It could be suggested
certainly stood higher than the outer, being further that at least a number of these forts date to the Galatian
upslope and (at Hisarlikaya) thicker (see fig 4). The form period, and these might be generally earlier than those of
of the 'Biiyiikkale' at Cagnik (Caglaylk) is also related the first group noted above, with no evidence for
(Mitchell et al 1982: 26-7; Vardar, Vardar 1997: 255-6; Hellenising influences in the style of fortification27.
Byzantine pottery recorded, and extensive traces of Of course, without excavation the significance of the
settlement enclosures on the plateau). Although it various types within these two undated groups remains
encloses a markedly bigger area (ca. 90m x 50m), is uncertain. Very little is known of the history of first
rectangular in plan, and has prominent man-made millennium BC/AD fortification in central Anatolia and
defences on two sides only, these differences are essen- sites of similar form may not have performed similar
functions, nor might they belong to the same chrono-
tially the product of the siting, for the fort lies on the edge
of a plateau backing onto a gorge of the Sakarya river,logical horizon; indeed, the range of forms outlined above
with naturally defensive cliffs on two sides of the fort'smay well represent a long span of time and belong to a
circuit (see fig 4). Other variants within this second groupvariety of different historical and socio-political contexts.
are characterised by the presence of D-shaped projectionsSome for example, might derive from late
Roman/Byzantine contexts (as presumably Aktepe,
or 'bastions' along the enclosure wall, apparently designed
mentioned in note 27); however, if the forts were indeed
for display as well as for defence. Of this series, one type
is similar to Karaviran but has two bastions flanking the
this late it is perhaps surprising that lime mortar was not
used in their wall construction. A date earlier in the
entrance, for example Afsar (unpublished). Another form
is represented by Dikmenkale (see fig 4; Vardar, Vardar
Roman period seems most unlikely since the defences are
1997: 246-7, Hellenistic pottery recorded; Mitchell et alnot of Roman military style and it is hardly feasible that
1982: 25) which comprises a small triangular enclosure the imperial authorities would have permitted the
with bastions grouped along one wall (two of them construction of private forts in the region. Some might be
standing on rock outcrops; a fourth bastion may well have earlier than the Galatian period: for example, the tyrsis
stood on the outcrop at the east apex of the triangle but nowas a type of fortified residence belonging to certain local
evidence survives). This fort, although small, is sited on potentates of the Achaemenid empire; however, very little
the most prominent hill in the area, with superb viewsis known of socio-political organisation in the region in the
giving it excellent strategic potential. Another form ofpre-Galatian period and no Achaemenid period pottery has
small enclosure is found at Ta?lhkale (see fig 4; Vardar, yet been identified at the sites (Sekunda 1991).
Vardar forthcoming), which is square in plan with comer-
bastions (only one is now clearly visible). Somewhat 27 Another fort with semi-circular bastions (these are not shown
larger than the majority (up to ca. 70m across), and with a on the published plan) sits on the summit of Aktepe. This site
more impressive series of bastions, are the sub-rectangular has previously been identified as Galatian (see Mitchell et al
1982: 27-8; Leonhardt 1915: 59, fig 17). However, the
enclosures at Akqa6ren (Vardar, Vardar 1997: 256;
defences have been built using mortar and they are clearly later
Byzantine pottery recorded), Camlli (Vardar, Vardar 1997:
than the Hellenistic period; in addition the fort is much larger
260-1; Middle Phrygian, Hellenistic, Roman and (ca. 180m x 40m) and more inaccesible than most of those we
Byzantine pottery recorded), Bozoglu Tepe (Matthews etbeen considering.
have
92
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Nevertheless, we know for certain that in the first ways to the particular conditions and resources of the
century BC the Galatian ruling elite did use fortified local environment. It might be significant that these forts
residences and, it can be suggested, they would have at present appear to be broadly confined to areas
needed defended centres from a much earlier date too, occupied, or potentially occupied, by the Galatians.
not least to provide protection from each other. Despite However, survey in other regions has been equally
the fact that the Galatian leaders were clearly capable of limited and these forms of fortification may yet prove to
large-scale, well-organised co-operation and co- have a much wider distribution (although even if this
ordination against a common enemy (as demonstrated,were proved to be the case it would not necessarily
for example, by Galatian activities in the Balkans and remove the possibility that at least a number of those in
western Asia Minor in the earlier third century, and byour region were Galatian). Provisionally, and to be tested
the pan-tribal resistance to the Romans in 189 BC), the
by excavation, it may be suggested that at least a number
documentary evidence indicates that aristocratic rivalryof them were Galatian elite strongholds (the
and divided loyalties were a notable and typical feature
phrouria/castella of the Classical writers) and a physical
of Galatian social organisation (as of other related, earlymanifestation of the new pattern of aristocratic control
European, societies). There seems little doubt that imposed upon the region by the Galatians.
mutual raiding, feuding, and the taking of land, animals To speculate further, those resident in and around the
and hostages would have been long-standing and legit-enclosures could have included, as well as the leader and
imate aristocratic activities. The historically attestedmembers of his kin-group, a military following, craft-
presence of a considerable number of Galatian leaders atworkers, and those neccessary for the daily functioning
any one time, especially in the third and second of the place. As well as residences, the structures present
centuries, was surely a recipe for internal troubles andwould
it have included storage facilities for food and
may be suggested that in this earlier period, as well asequipment,
in including the produce rendered to the lord by
the first century, at least some of the ruling chieftains social
or inferiors; and for storage of other forms of wealth
tetrarchs (perhaps also some of the subordinate elite) are
(see Deiotarus' treasury, Peium). The fort could have
likely to have possessed fortified residences. served as a court (see Deiotarus' 'palace', Blucium), and
We would expect to find remains of such forts in the
perhaps as a cult focus; it may also have been a centre for
region's archaeological record. Of course it is possible
limited exchange of goods, and perhaps a venue for
that some at least could have been built primarilyperiodic
of communal gatherings. Perhaps there were also
timber (assuming that suitable trees were in fact available
small settlements of a more general character associated
in the region), or have comprised small earthworks,
with some forts, as Strabo indicates for Gorbeous
which would leave less obvious archaeological traces.
(Strabo, 12.5.3). The physical character of the sites
Nevertheless, many broadly contemporary European
the elevated locations, the form of the defences
earthworks, even those of small size, are clearly visible
suggests they were designed to impress the populace and
in the landscape. But the types of fort outlined abovesymbolise the power and legitimacy of elite rule. The
would not appear to be out of place in the contextenclosures
of were sited so as to control access to the
Galatian elite rivalry: their generally small size indicates
natural resources of their environs, but also served to
that most at least were not designed to shelter large
segregate spatially the ruling elite from the lower orders
communities in times of trouble; the majority of these
of society, most of whom presumably resided in the
forts would probably have presented no serious obstacle
lower lying land.
to large, well-trained forces, such as those fielded by theHowever, it should also be noted that several of the
external enemies of the Galatians (faced with such major
chambered tombs discussed above (see 'Burials') are
threats, the Galatians used different tactics as shown for
apparently unassociated with forts, which may indicate
example by their response to the Roman invasion of 189 that the Galatian elite did not always possess fortified
BC). And their topographical settings suggest that they
centres.
were generally sited to control access to the natural

(land-use) resources in their environs. The fact that they Economy
bear no close resemblance to the better-known types of Given the limited amount of excavated material available
La Tene hillfort is no obstacle to this view, for as we have and the dearth of environmental and land-use data, we
seen, there is much in the archaeology of Galatia that know very little about the economies of the pre-Galatian
differs from the contemporary European material. The and Galatian polities. Presumably the imposition and
Galatians could have assimilated Anatolian or Balkan development of Galatian socio-political organisation
styles of fortification (still poorly understood) in the third
resulted in at least some alterations to pre-existing
century BC; and in any case, they had to adapt in some
economic structures: for example, in patterns of land and
93
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Phrygian contexts at Gordium). Despite the paucity of

property ownership, in the way work was organised, and
in the specific ways in which produce, goods and direct evidence, it may be suggested that cereal
services were rendered and consumed (presumably production, as well as stock-raising, would have been
through specifically-defined social relations of kinshipimportant in the later Hellenistic period, and that the
and clientage). But the extent to which pre-existing significance of plant husbandry in the Galatian
economic forms were integrated by the Galatians economies has been seriously underestimated in
remains uncertain. previous interpretations. Relevant in this regard are a
Nevertheless some general observations and sugges- number of unpublished iron agricultural implements
tions can be made. We indicated earlier that at least from Hellenistic Gordium, most notably share-tips for
some significant elements of the pre-Galatian ards or ploughs (McClellan 1975: 264-73). In addition,
the location of the known Galatian centres (as well as
settlement pattern continued into the later Hellenistic
the of
period, and this limited evidence points to a measure possible Galatian forts) strongly suggests that these
places were foci for local agricultural regimes. It is
broad continuity of certain pre-existing economic struc-
surely significant, for example, that the royal centre at
tures (and therefore of some elements of social structure
Karalar (like several other sites we have mentioned)
too?). The emporium at Gordium continued to function
(and as suggested earlier, Tavium too was probably an located in the Murted Ova, one of the most fertile
was
emporium in pre-Galatian times as well as in the plains in the region. In the drier southern plains (to the
Galatian period); indeed excavated evidence from the south of the area shown in fig 3) stock-raising, and
site demonstrates that at least some pre-Galatian sheep in particular, was probably predominant in the
Hellenistic period, as in later times: relevant here is
trade/exchange networks were not in the longer term
Strabo's statement that king Amyntas owned more than
destroyed by the Galatians, even if temporary disrup-
tions may have occurred during the initial settlement300 flocks (Strabo 12.6.1, 568; for land-use in the
phase; and specialised manufacturing activities Roman period see Mitchell 1993: 143ff). Other
continued here, for example, production of paintedresources in the region that were probably utilised
terracotta figurines. Imports of black-glazed potteryinclude timber (from the north), salt (from Tatta: Tiiz
(from southern and western Turkey and elsewhere), and Golii/the Salt Lake, and from the environs of the
imports of Rhodian and Thasian trade amphorae (with Kizilirmak/Halys river), metals and slaves. In addition,
their contents), continued into the Galatian period fromhistorically attested Galatian mercenary activity and
earlier times. However, some alterations to these raiding/booty-acquisition would have been important,
although not necessarily regular, sources of income.
networks may have occurred. For example, it has been
suggested that the noteable absence of Pergamene To survive, the Galatians had to adapt to the
black-glazed ware at the site could have been a result particular
of environmental characteristics of their new
the antipathy between the Galatians and the Pergamene homeland and it can be suggested that they made few (if
state (see Winter 1984). (For manufacturing at any) radical and deep-seated alterations to the basic
Gordium, see Mitchell 1993: 54-5; DeVries 1990; character of the pre-existing, and presumably well-
adapted, economies of the region. It can be suggested
Sams, Voigt 1984; 1989; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997.) At
that the wealth of the Galatian aristocratic elite, although
the other, unexcavated hoyiiks noted earlier (Tolgeri
etc.), surface finds of Hellenistic pottery are presentsupplemented
in by booty and tribute payments, was based
quantity and include high quality ceramics (e.g. primarily
fine upon control of settled, agro-pastoral regimes
and consumption of their produce, with households, kin-
red-slip wares): provisionally it could be suggested that
groups or communities producing a surplus of food and
in the Galatian period and before, these h6yiiks served
as local market centres for the collection and redistrib-
materials large enough to meet both their own needs and
ution of produce and supplied a range of goods and their obligations to their social superiors. The elite
services not obtainable at smaller sites. probably also excercised at least some measure of
Furthermore, it seems most likely that the basic control over trade/exchange networks and specialist
pattern of land use continued from pre-Galatian times. craft production (the chambered tombs at Gordium, and
The heartland of the Galatian settlement area comprises the historically attested phrourion at Tavium, could
hill-ranges interspersed with relatively fertile valleys indicate at least some element of elite control of the
and plains: in the Roman period as in modern times the economy at these emporia.). In addition, the last
principal products of this region comprised grain and Galatian kings (Deiotarus, Brogitarus, Amyntas)
wool, and there is evidence to suggest that this was also benefited greatly from Rome's gifts, subsidies and
the case in the pre-Galatian Iron Age (for example, grants of extensive tracts of land, in return for services
there is evidence for grain production/processing in rendered or promised.
94
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Conclusions central Anatolian culture were always present to provide

The Galatian communities established in the third the other significant component to the culture of the
century BC in north-central Anatolia constituted, Galatian communities, and to act as a modifying agent
on the former cultural identity of the Galatian settlers.
together, a new, significant and increasingly important
geo-political entity within Asia Minor. The permanent Although it is very uncertain whether anything signif-
nature of this Galatian settlement can hardly be attributedicant survived of pre-existing Anatolian social organi-
to a marginal, and politically, socially and economicallysation, important elements of the native settlement
pattern remained in place, and with these, pre-existing
unsophisticated people; on the contrary, the fact that their
polities survived to be incorporated into the Roman networks of trade/exchange, manufacturing traditions
empire would indicate the existence of highly developed and, most probably, patterns of land-use. And clearly in
social structures bound together by shared value systems. a number of respects, elements of Anatolian culture
The European Galatians successfully adapted to their came to exert an increasingly strong influence on the
new environment, changing it and being changed by it. cultural character of the Galatian communities, most
However, the historical significance of this settlement
obviously in aspects of religious belief and in mortuary
would be difficult to appreciate using the currently practices.
available archaeological evidence alone, without Another agent for modifying the former cultural
recourse to written sources. identity of the Galatians was the process of Helleni-
The chronology, nature and process of the transfor- sation. This had begun in the region before the arrival
mations in European Galatian and native Anatolian of the Galatians but it becomes most apparent by the
culture in the region are at present poorly understood;first century BC, though only significantly at the level of
and despite the undoubted potential of archaeology forthe ruling elite. It is manifest, for example, in the
providing a broader and more detailed perspective on military architecture of Zengibar Kale/Isaura and
cultural change and continuity, much of this cultural Tabanlioglu Kale/?Peium, and in the funerary
interaction will probably only ever be partially andinscription of Deiotarus the Younger at Karalar; and in
indirectly perceived through the archaeological and the occasional minting of silver coin by the last Galatian
historical record. rulers, Deiotarus, Brogitarus and Amyntas. Otherwise
The Galatians of central Anatolia retained at least there is little to indicate that Hellenisation had struck
elements of their former cultural identity, for it is clear
deeply into other areas of Galatian society and culture,
that the communities which they established remained, despite the fact that the Galatians came to be called
in at least a number of respects, unique and distinctive
'Gallograeci' by outsiders (see for example Mitchell
within Asia Minor through the Hellenistic period: most
1993: 85-6; from Gordium there is evidence that a
obviously in their use of a Celtic language, in aspectslimited
of number of the populace (members of an elite?)
their socio-political organisation, in elements of their
were more obviously Hellenised: see DeVries 1990:
material culture, and in certain ritual forms. And with404-5). Similarly, the increasing influence of Rome in
the Galatian settlement, new ideologies of (shared)
the region is only apparent at the elite level and in
social identity appeared and developed in the region,
related military matters: for example, in the Roman-
identities which could have ranged from the level of the
style organisation of Deiotarus' troops, and in
kin-group (and even finer subdivisions), through thatDeiotarus'
of affiliation to Rome as declared in the
tetrarchy and tribe, to a larger pan-tribal shared identi-
funerary inscription set up for his dead son.
fication which is manifest at the Drynemetos council Certainly later, in the time of the Roman province of
meeting and in combined, co-ordinated action against Galatia, many distinctive features of the former cultural
others outside the region. It should also be borne in identity of the Galatians appear to have blurred or disap-
mind that cultural forms could have varied in their peared altogether. The most obvious exception to this is
details across the region as well as over time, for thethe Celtic language, which persisted in the region for
several centuries.
Galatians were not one people but rather an assemblage
of several groups, presumably possessing their own In all attempts to define the nature of Galatian
particular cultural traditions and identities; and within
culture and its relationship to the Celtic cultures of
Anatolia the different tribes to some degree followed
Europe the linguistic evidence has been of central
their own separate historical paths and had differentimportance. The Galatians of Asia Minor spoke a form
connections outside the region. of Celtic in late antiquity which was recognisably very
Nevertheless, with the survival of the resident similar to the dialect spoken at the Gallic city of Trier.
indigenous population, the various forms of native
This observation, made by the Church Father St
95
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Jerome, is supported by the remarks of other ancientBibliography

writers and by the appearance of Celtic place and Alkim, U B, Alkim, H, Bilgi, 0 1988: Ikiztepe I. Ankara
personal names in inscriptions from Asia Minor Arik, R 0 1934: 'Karalar Hafriyati' Turk Tarih,
(Jerome, Commentary on Paul s Letter to the Galatians Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi 2: 102-67
2. 3; the other evidence is collected by Mitchell 1993:Bannert, H 1978: 'Volcae' in K Ziegler (ed), Paulys
50-1, 170-4; Strobel 1996: 139-42). The striking nature Realencyclopddie der classischen Altertumswis-
of this evidence has caused the survival and use of the senschaft Supplementband 15. Munich: 937-60
Celtic language to be given particular emphasis in Belke, K, Restle, M 1978-80: 'Die Festungsanlage auf
defining the 'Celticness' of the Galatians. Strobel, for dem Ba? Dag (Kara Dag); Eine hellenistische
example, comments that, Burg im zentralen Kleinasien' Jahreshefte des
Osterreichischen Archdologischen Institutes in
the Celticness of the three Galatian tribes of Asia
Wien 52: Beiblatt: 1-30
Minor is manifested primarily as a linguistic
1984: Galatien und Lykaonien (Tabula Imperii
category, which both sets them in contrast and binds
Byzantini 4). Wien
them to their environment. Within the framework of
Borchhardt, J 1987: 'Bericht der Grabungskampagne in
(their) ethnogenesis and acculturation, as also of their
Limyra 1985' Kazi Sonuqlarl Toplantisl 8 (2): 106-8
broader social and cultural development, it is of
Braund, D 1984: Rome and the Friendly King. London
fundamental importance (1996: 139).
Brunaux, J-L 1988: The Celtic Gauls. Gods, Rites and
Shared language use and observed similarities of Sanctuaries. London
material culture have always been key components in Brunaux, J-L, Rapin, A 1988: Gournay II. boucliers et
discussions of problems of ethnic identification among lances, depots et trophees. Paris
prehistoric or subhistoric peoples, and in particular in Champion, T C 1995: 'Power, politics and status' in M
the question of Celtic identity (Graves-Brown et al Green (ed), The Celtic World. London: 85-94
1996; Strobel 1996: 15-54). Nevertheless related Cunliffe, B 1997: The Ancient Celts. Oxford
DeVries, K 1984: 'Gordion 1982' Kazi Sonu?lari
language groups, similar material cultures and ethnicity,
however much they overlap with one another, remain Toplantisi 5: 265-8
distinct analytical categories (Strobel himself assumes- 1990: 'The Gordion excavation seasons of 1969-1973
substantial inter-cultural similarity between the central and subsequent research' American Journal of
European Celtic-speaking groups from the Early La Archaeology 94: 371-406
Tene period onwards (1996: 149-5 1). The privileging ofDittenberger, W 1915-24: Sylloge Inscriptionum
language as a defining criterion of ethnic and cultural Graecarum, 4 vols (3rd edition). Leipzig
identity needs to be treated with caution, for there is Dressier,
a W 1967: 'Galtisches' in W Meid (ed), Beitrdge
danger that another imbalance in the evidence available zur Indogermanistik und Keltologie. Julius Pokorny
to us, in this case the predominance of linguistic over zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Innsbruck 147-54
archaeological information, may cause too much stress Dunham, S B 1995: 'Caesar's perception of Gallic social
being placed on language at the expense of other structures' in B Arnold, D Blair Gibson (eds),
categories. The linguistic evidence for the Celticness of Celtic chiefdom, Celtic state. Cambridge: 110-115
the Galatians appears dominant in part because other Durugniil, S 1998: Tiirme und Siedlungen im Rauhen
categories of information, and in particular the material Kilikien (Asia Minor Studien 28). Bonn
culture, have hardly been examined. Fluss M 1921: 'Scordisci' in W Kroll, K Witte (eds),
Nevertheless, the situation is changing. The recent Paulys Realencyclopddie der classischen Altertum-
excavation and survey work outlined above is yielding swissenschaft 2al. Stuttgart: 831-5
significant new information and it is to be hoped that in French D, Mitchell, S (no date): Ankara 50 (Ankara
the years to come there will be more intensive and co- Tiirizmi, Eskieserleri ve Miizeleri Sevenler Demegi
ordinated archaeological investigation (and in particular, Yaymlan 5). Ankara
excavation), which will provide the material for a more Graves-Brown, P, Jones, S, Gamble, C (eds) 1996:
balanced and fuller assessment of the Galatian commu- Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The
nities of Asia Minor. Construction of European Communities. London
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-Celtischer Sprachsatz (3 vols).
Leipzig
96
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC
Leonhard, R 1915: Paphlagonia. Reisen und - 1996: 'Gordion 1995' Kazi Sonu9larl Toplantisi 18/1:
Forschungen im n6rdlichen Kleinasien. Berlin 475-97
Matthews, R, Pollard, T, Ramage, M 1998: 'Project -1997: 'Gordion, 1996' Kazi Sonu?larl Toplantisi 19/1:
Paphlagonia: regional survey in northern Anatolia' 681-701
in R Matthews (ed), Ancient Anatolia. London: Saatqi, T 1987: 'Karalar Kazisi 1986' Anadolu
195-206 Medeniyetleri Miizesi, 1986 Yilligl: 30-3
McClellan J A 1975: The Iron Objects from Gordion, a 'Karalar Kazi Raporu 1987', Anadolu Medeniyetleri
Typological and Functional Analysis (PhD thesis). Miizesi, 1987 Yilligl: 19-22
University of Pennsylvania Schmidt, K H 1994: 'Galatische Sprachreste' in E
Memerci, D, Yagci, R 1991: 'Yukan Bagdere, Yalacik Schwertheim (ed), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia
Tiimuluisii 1989 Kurtarma Kazisi' Miize Kurtarma Minor Studien 12). Bonn: 15-28
Kazilarl Semineri 1990: 163-76 Sekunda, N 1991: 'Achaemenid settlement in Caria,
Mericboyu, Y, Atasoy, S 1969: 'Izmit Kanlibag Lycia and Greater Phrygia' in H Sancisi-
Tuimiiliisii' Istanbul Arkeoloji Miizeleri Yillgi 15- Weerdenburg, A Kuhrt (eds), Achaemenid History
16: 67-95 VI. Leiden: 83-143
Mitchell, S 1974: 'Blucium and Peium: the Galatian fortsStaehelin, F 1907: Geschichte der kleinasiatischen
of King Deiotarus' Anatolian Studies 24: 61-75 Galater (2nd ed). Leipzig
1976a: 'Ancyra' in R Stillwell (ed), The Princeton Strobel, K 1991: 'Die Galater im hellenistischen
Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton: 54-5 Kleinasien: historische Aspekte einer keltischen
1976b: 'Tavium' in R Stillwell (ed), The Princeton Staatenbildung' in J Seibert (ed), Hellenistische
Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton: 887 Studien. Gedenkschrift fir H Bengtson. Miinchen:
1980: 'Population and the land in Roman Galatia' 101-34
Aufstieg und Niedergang der R6mischen Welt 2, - 1994: 'Keltensieg und Galatersieger' in E
7.2: 1053-81 Schwertheim (ed), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia
1990: 'Archaeology in Asia Minor 1985-1989' Minor Studien 12). Bonn: 67-96
Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and - 1994: 'Galatien und seine Grenzregionen. Zu Fragen
the British School at Athens: Archaeological der historischen Geographie Galatiens' in E
Reports for 1989-1990: 83-131 Schwertheim (ed), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia
1993: Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor Minor Studien 12). Bonn: 29-65
I. The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule. Oxford - 1996: Die Galater. Geschichte und Eigenart der
Mitchell, S, French, D, Greenhalgh J, 1982: Regional keltischen Staatenbildung auf dem Boden des
Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor 2. The hellenistischen Kleinasien Bd. I. Untersuchungen
Inscriptions of North Galatia. Oxford zur Geschichte und historischen Geographie des
Miiller-Karpe, A 1988: 'Neue galatische Funde aus hellenistischen und r6mischen Kleinasien 1. Berlin
Anatolien' tstanbuler Mitteilungen 38: 189-99 Swoboda, E, Keil, J, Knoll, F 1935: Denkmiiler aus
de Navarro, J M 1972: The Finds from the Site of La Lykaonien, Pisidien und Isaurien. Leipzig
Tene. I: Scabbards and the Swords Found in Them. Tezcan, B 1971: Yalincak. Ankara
London Tsetskhladze, G R 1998: 'Who built the Scythian and
Pleiner, R 1993: The Celtic Sword. Oxford Thracian royal and elite tombs?' Oxford Journal of
Ralston, I 1995: 'Fortifications and defence' in M Green Archaeology 17(1): 55-92
(ed), The Celtic World. London: 59-81 Vardar, L E, Vardar, N A 1997: 'Galatia B6olgesi
Renfrew, C 1996: 'Prehistory and the identity of Europe' Kaleleri/Yerleomeleri Yiizey Ara,tirmasl: Ankara Ili
in P Graves-Brown, S Jones, C Gamble (eds), 1996' Ara~tirma Sonu?larl Toplantisi 15/1: 245-79
Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Wait, G A 1995: 'Burial and the otherworld' in M Green
Construction of European Communities. London: (ed), The Celtic World. London: 489-511
125-37 Webster, J 1995: 'Sanctuaries and sacred places'in M
Riibekeil, L 1992: Suebica. V6lkernamen und Ethnos. Green (ed), The Celtic World. London: 445-64
Innsbruck Weissgerber, L 1931: 'Galatische Sprachreste' Natal-
Sams, G K 1995: 'Gordion archaeological activities, icium Johannes Geffcken. Vienna: 151-75
1994' Kazi Sonu9larl Toplantisi 17/1: 436-7 Winter, F A 1984: Late Classical and Hellenistic Pottery
Sams, G K, Voigt M M 1989: 'Work at Gordion in 1988' from Gordion: the Imported Black-Glazed Wares
Kazi Sonu?larl Toplantisi 11/2: 77-105 (PhD thesis). University of Pennsylvania
- 1994: 'Gordion archaeological activities, 1993' Kazi - 1988: 'Phrygian Gordion in the Hellenistic period'
Sonu?larl Toplantisi 16/1: 369-92 Source 7(3/4): 60-71
97
193.50.140.116 on Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:05:28 UTC34:56 UTC

Darbyshire 2000 The Galatians Settlement in Asia Minor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Darbyshire 2000 The Galatians Settlement in Asia Minor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor

Author(s): Gareth Darbyshire, Stephen Mitchell and Levent Vardar

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3643015

This content downloaded from

Gareth Darbyshire', Stephen Mitchell', Levent Vardar3

Introduction diplomacy. Eventually their territories were absorbed

Fig 1. Map I show

Fig 2. Map 2 show

description of a highly sophisticated set of social

Defining the region refers to a district of western Paphlagonia known as the

~~~~............. ................ E, . ...

:b& . ? ? .... ........... ... ...... ce

:.~ ) \ ,~ f :.:e!~.. :.o o . . . .

-V tCb'j5 Jv ,.. .... ; ; . :::::::::::::

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

. N< :yJs: ~r *::: . ~:::::'

m \5= ^<*\-- <- - o .............. . . . . . CL M

factors in establishing an individual's status and in struc-

the presence of first century BC La Tene type fibulae

Be?evler, Kanlibag and Ikiztepe). Of uncertain type

.... TII !!l ' I

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

Fig 4. Comparative provisional plans offorts in Galatia

al 1998: site 74; Roman and Byzantine ceramics

were generally sited to control access to the natural

Phrygian contexts at Gordium). Despite the paucity of

Conclusions central Anatolian culture were always present to provide

Jerome, is supported by the remarks of other ancientBibliography

You might also like