Galatians in Asia Minor

The Galatian Settlement in Asia MinorAuthor(s): Gareth Darbyshire, Stephen Mitchell, Levent VardarSource: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 50 (2000), pp. 75-97Published by: British Institute at AnkaraStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3643015Accessed: 08/09/2010 09:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3643015?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa

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 Until very recently almost everything of substance that was known about the Galatians was derived from historical, more specifically Greek and Roman, sources. Modem perceptions of the Galatians have accordingly not only been one-sided, but have also depended on outsiders' views and representations of a complex culture. A stereotypical picture established itself in the modem literature, which itself was moulded by the

preconceptions of ancient Greek observers. This view, which will also provide a chronological framework for an examination of Galatian culture, may be summarised

broadly as follows: the Galatians were groups of Celtic-

speaking peoples who arrived on the borders of the Classical world, Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor, around 281 BC (see fig 1). Warlike, barbarous and set

upon raiding and plunder, they attacked cities and sanctuaries in Greece, before crossing to Asia Minor where

they conducted themselves in similar fashion until the various efforts of Hellenistic rulers forced them to settle in north central Anatolia, the region around Ankara (see fig 2). Thus marginalised, but not mastered, by the Hellenistic kingdoms they remained a constant threat to the more sophisticated communities of western Asia

Minor, at least until 189 BC when they suffered a major defeat at the hands of a Roman army. The victims and enemies of the Galatians saw them as a dangerous incar- nation of barbarism. They were viewed as a threat to Hellenistic civic culture precisely as the Persian 'barbarian' had been stylised into the enemy par excel- lence of Classical Greece. Hellenistic kings saw themselves as protectors of civilisation against the new

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 culture were smoothed by exposure to Hellenisation and

by the manipulations of Roman foreign politics and

* This paper was prepared for a conference entitled 'Anatolia: Between the Near East and Europe' organised by Ian Hodder and held at the British Academy in April 1998.

diplomacy. Eventually their territories were absorbed into the Roman empire by Augustus. Within this new framework they developed as a subject people of the empire, who nevertheless preserved important aspects of their former cultural identity, thanks above all to the survival of the Celtic language until late antiquity'.

There are fundamental weaknesses in this traditional reconstruction, which may be traced to excessive dependence on the partisan and tendentious accounts of the Classical writers. This is the main burden of the most recent, and by far the fullest, study of the Galatians, by Professor Karl Strobel (1996)2. Strobel's reappraisal of the evidence has established a new base-line, not only for the study of the Galatians in Asia Minor, but also for that of Celtic society - if indeed the term has any meaning at large (see, for example, Champion 1995); it provides a point of reference for the various aspects of the Galatian settlement which we consider in this paper. His

reappraisal of the Galatians proceeds on three fronts. Firstly, he analyses the distinct, but in both cases misleading, ways in which Hellenistic and Roman writers represented the Celts in general, and the Galatians in

particular. These complex historiographical traditions have shaped the modem picture of the Galatians as a

marginal people: nomadic or at best unsettled; politically primitive and barely, if at all, capable of state organisation; warlike and economically unsophisticated, relying on raids and plundering, rather than organised systems of

agriculture and land-use to maintain their society's livelihood3. Secondly, he bases his approach to the

analysis of Galatian society and culture on comparisons and methodologies developed in the study of Celtic

groups in Europe, as a means of escaping from the

This standard view was most fully developed in Staehelin 1907. The main outlines are not called into question by Mitchell 1993: 11-58. 2 A second volume is forthcoming. For an outline of this interpretation, see Strobel 1991: 101-34. 3 For an important aspect of the Graeco-Roman tradition, emphasising the differences between Hellenistic and Roman characterisations of the Celts, see also Strobel 1994: 67-96.

75

Anatolian Studies 2000

280 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7-j

- > %.. 7iYf12iiO> - --->> 2 - ( ~ ~ ~ Rome ~ ~ R

---Delpii _,~ "'" _=--

-

-1-- -N tL--t? .........i...

'"-" _ ?? ' ---''

A_ -,

_ __:

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

Fig 2. Map 2 showing findspots of La Tene type metalwork in Turkey (after Miiller-Karpe 1998: fig 2)

76

Darbyshire, Mitchell, Vardar

bondage imposed by the Classical historiography of the Celts. Thirdly, he has undertaken a reappraisal of the geographical aspects of Galatian settlement in Asia Minor4. This has led to two main conclusions, namely that greater emphasis than hitherto should be placed on the extent of Galatian settlement north and northwest of Ankara, in the direction of Bithynia; and that the environment of the region stretching from the Sangarius at Gordium through Ankara to the Halys was more heavily wooded in antiquity, more comparable to the original areas of Celtic settlement in central Europe than it appears today, and eminently suitable for the permanent establishment of Celtic peoples.

Linguistic evidence is crucial to our understanding of the Galatians although, as we shall indicate in our conclusion, it must be used with caution. The name Galatai is itself Celtic and was not merely a label attached to them by outside observers (so Renfrew 1996: 101-2), but the term by which they chose to describe themselves. The root gal- is identified in Old Irish with a bundle of meanings and associations, including war-fever, bravery; smoke, cloud; steam; and the notion of 'being able', of 'k6nnen' (Schmidt 1994). It was not a name applied to a tribal group as such, but was adopted to describe either the warrior section of a single tribe or of several tribes, in relation to certain forms of aggressive activity, during the period of Celtic expansion, migration and warfare from the fourth century BC onwards. Thus the three tribes who settled in Asia Minor were named both by themselves (Mitchell et al 1982: no 188)5 and by Graeco-Roman observers the Galatai Tolistobogii, the Galatai Tectosages and the Galatai Trocmi respectively, just as other Celtic groups are attested outside Asia Minor as the Galatai Skirai, who threatened Olbia in the Crimea (Dittenberger 1915-24: 495 B 5-7), or the Galatai Scordisci (Fluss 1921). In this respect, as in several others, the Galatians may be compared with the Germanic 'barbarian' groupings of the period of the Volkerwanderungen in late antiquity. Strobel, who rightly places great emphasis on such parallels, draws attention to the very comparable terms Franci, derived from a root meaning 'grasping' or 'strenuous', and Alamanni, meaning, roughly, 'all (warrior) men'. These were not designations of individual tribes, but applied to warrior bands assembled from smaller kinship-based groupings, and denoted their

functions, capabilities and warrior aspirations (Strobel 1996: 131-5).

4 See also Strobel 1994: 29-65. 5 The funerary inscription set up for the son (and co-regent) of the Galatian chieftain Deiotarus at his tumulus, in which both father and son (also called Deiotarus) are called tetrarch of the Galatian Tolistobogii and Trocmi.

The appearance of the Galatians in Asia Minor is to be seen retrospectively as the conclusive stage to the migration and expansion of Celtic peoples from their supposed homelands in the upper Danubian region during the fourth and third centuries BC (see again fig 1). The origins, nature and purpose of these movements are all controversial and much discussed. There is little compelling evidence to support monocausal explanations such as drastic overpopulation, pressure from other migrating peoples, regional famines, substantial ecological changes, the lure exercised by the wealthy cultural centres of the Classical Mediterranean, or specific political and economic pressures. The motivation for the migrations, which was doubtless extremely complicated, thus remains obscure. The answers should lie, at least in part, in the nature of Celtic society itself, but there is a logical difficulty in going beyond this hypothesis. Our evidence for the nature of these Celtic societies is entirely derived from observations of, or inferences from, their activities, in particular their behaviour during the period of migrations. Yet this behaviour is the very thing which we need to explain. Any explanation formulated on these lines risks becoming a tautology.

Some of the difficulties and limitations of the evidence may be illustrated by examining the case of the Tectosages, the one Galatian tribal group which is also known by the same name in the Celtic West. Groups called Tectosages are attested in three parts of the ancient world: in Galatia; in the Hercynian forest, that is roughly in the region north of the upper Danube, where they are mentioned by Julius Caesar; and in southern Gaul, more especially in the region around Tolosa (Toulouse), where they were probably the stronger of two groups of Volcae, (the other being the Volcae Arecomici) which dominated southern France between the Rhone and the Pyrenees (see Bannert 1978).

The name of the larger group to which the Tectosages belonged, the Volcae, appears semantically comparable to terms such as Galatai and Alamanni, denoting a broader unit than a tribal kin group. Indeed it is almost impossible to resist the notion that it is etymologically related to the term Volk, simply 'the people' (Strobel 1996: 173, n 1)6. Our fullest source, Strabo, who was familiar with the Tectosages both in his native Asia Minor and in southern France, about which he certainly drew information from his predecessor Posidonius, assumed that the group which eventually reached Asia Minor had ultimately started from Gaul, and explains the

6 Strobel cites Riibekeil (1992: 59ff) who indicates that the etymology is unclear, but that the name was one adopted by the Volcae for themselves (Selbstbenennung).

77


migration with a story that a section of the Tectosages had been expelled as a result of internal disorder (IV.1.13, 188, see XII.5.1, 567). This reconstruction is

unanimously rejected by modem scholars, who suppose that the people's origin lay somewhere in central Germany to the west of the Elbe. The basis for this belief is, on the one hand, Caesar's remark that the Volcae Tectosages were to be found in his time circa Hercyniam silvam, (Gallic War VI.24. 1-4)7 and, on the other, on deductions from the archaeologically attested cultures of Thiiringen and northern Bavaria. The modem reconstruction of

major migrations of the Volcae, including the Tectosagan branch, both eastwards through Pannonia, where a tribe of Volcae Paludes (Marsh Volcae) is attested, to Galatia, and southwest to southern France is entirely built on these

suggestive, but fragile, foundations. Apart from the observations of ancient authors, whose reconstruction of the Volcan migrations have been universally rejected, the only substantive material evidence for connections between the scattered groups is the appearance of a gold torc found in southern Pannonia, whose nearest parallels are types discovered in Tectosagan territory in southern France

(Strobel 1996: 179, n 80). The latest modern reconstruction may be close to the truth, but the argument on which it is based is very far from proven. Our under-

standing of the Celtic migrations rests almost entirely upon elaborate hypotheses.

Strobel's contribution here is to offer an hypothesis concerning the structure of the earlier, migratory groups, which in turn may explain their behavioural patterns.

The wide-ranging migratory movements of the fourth

century BC were carried forward by a mobile, noble warrior class with their followers, by clans and their

component parts or tribal sections, which joined up with the mobile warrior groups and members of the

leading kin-groups of a relatively large tribal

aristocracy to form wandering bands. The traditional

core, which gave the bands their identity, was formed

by these princely and noble kin-groups. These core

groups, which provided or represented a line of kin descent and a sense of identity, were the convergence factors in the processes of tribe, and thereby, of ethnos formation and of their internal shaping, which are presupposed during every phase of mobility and land acquisition. (Strobel 1996: 154-5)

It will be clear that this reconstruction presupposes that the social and political groupings of Celtic peoples in this period were the opposite of primitive. This is a

7 Caesar opined that this group had also originated in Gaul west of the Rhine. It is doubtful whether his comments refer to conditions in his own day, the mid first century BC.

description of a highly sophisticated set of social strucures, which were clearly cemented together by shared value systems. Certainly that would explain two undeniable propositions concerning the migrating Celts of the fourth and third centuries BC: firstly, their sustained success at the expense of other populations of Europe; and secondly, the permanent nature of the settlements which they established as a result of the migrations in Asia Minor and elsewhere.

It is beyond question that the ultimate goal of these migratory movements was to acquire land for permanent settlement. This is the aspect where the Classical sources, which repeatedly emphasise the Galatian quest for booty and plunder, are at their most misleading. This is not to deny that raids against richer communities were

commonplace occurrences during the periods of Celtic

migration, but these need to be seen within the context of the overall rhythm of these movements. They belong to the initial phases of conflict, in which warrior bands made the first impact and exerted the initial pressures on forces opposed to them. They were followed by the

major movements of tribal groups, accompanied by diplomatic negotiations (more suo), which ended in the

permanent or semi-permanent occupation of settlement areas. In fact the detailed, although fragmentary historical record of the arrival of the Galatians in Asia Minor provides one of the fullest records of these

processes operating in a known historical context. First came the initial conflicts in Macedonia and Greece between 281 and 278. Then the Galatians were admitted across the Bosphorus and the Hellespont, as a result of an alliance struck with Nicomedes, king of Bithynia, who secured their help as allies against the Seleucids. In return for their service they were permitted to occupy land in the region southeast of Bithynia, that is in the direction of Ankara, and they continued to hold this for the rest of their history. The precise chronology and nature of the Galatian takeover of the region remain

obscure, but it is reasonable to assume that the various

major groupings were settled in their newly acquired territory by the end of the 260s BC. How many Galatian settlers were involved is unclear, but the historical evidence suggests they may have been relatively few

(Livy relates that Nicomedes enlisted 20,000, including non-combatants); however, these figures are open to

question, and other Galatians could subsequently have boosted the total. Whatever the case, it is clear that the

indigenous resident population was neither exterminated 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

new, Galatian polities (Strobel 1996: 186-264, with crucial emphasis on the ultimate goal of 'Landnahme'; Mitchell 1993: 13-20).

78


Defining the region We are fortunate, given the Classical sources and a number of place-names, that the general area of the Galatian settlement in north-central Anatolia can be broadly comprehended, and the general location of the three main tribes - the Tolistobogii, the Tectosages and the Trocmi can be discerned (see figs 2 and 3); the archaeological evidence alone would be woefully insufficient to reach this level of understanding. Never- theless, the documentary evidence provides only a rough impression: the boundaries between (and within) the tribes are uncertain, as are those with neighbouring polities; and these boundaries changed over time. Whether any pre-existing boundaries survived in the Galatian arrangements is unknown (Strobel 1994; Mitchell 1993: 51-8)8.

Strabo indicates that the Trocmi, the easternmost of the three tribes, were settled in the land adjoining the territories of Pontus and Cappadocia; Tavium was one of their strongholds. There is evidence to show that the Kizilirmak (the ancient river Halys) formed their western border, although information in Pliny may indicate that at some time they also held territory northwest of the river in Paphlagonia. Their eastern frontier probably lay somewhere to the east of modem Yozgat although how far is unclear. Strabo's account places the Tectosages in the area adjoining Greater Phrygia around the temple- state of Pessinus and the Orcaorci9; Ancyra was one of their fortifications.

The evidence would indicate that their territory extended from the Sangarius to the Halys, south of Tolis-

tobogiian land. Probably during the second or first

century BC, the Tectosages had also extended south into the Proseilemmene, 'the added land' including parts of Lycaonia; and probably into parts of Pisidia. The Tolis- tobogii occupied northern and western Galatia: north of Pessinus their territory stretched west across the

Sangarius, on either side of the Tembris (Tembrogius) river (the modem Porsuk), to Phrygia Epictetus; their southern lands probably at some time included or bordered the (ile Dagl, since these prominent hills are

likely to be the ancient Mount Olympus, the site of the

great defeat of the Tolistobogii at the hands of the Romans in 189 BC10; to the north their territory extended towards Bithynia and Paphlagonia11. In addition, Strabo

8 In addition to the three main tribes, the names of other groups appear in the Classical sources; see Mitchell 1993: 43. 9 Pessinus, on the west side of Mount Dindymus, within the great bend of the Sangarius (the modem river Sakarya), was not constitutionally a part of Galatia in the Hellenistic period, although increasingly it came under Galatian influence. 10 See note 24 below. l l The northwestern boundary between the Roman provinces of

refers to a district of western Paphlagonia known as the

country of Gaezatorix; this territory, in the upper valley of the Siberis (the modern Kirmir (Cayi), might corre- spond to the territory of a Galatian noble, Gaezatorix, who is mentioned as a chieftain in 180 BC (Strobel 1994: 41-54). Galatian lands were even more extensive after 63 BC, following Pompey's successful conclusion of Rome's war against Mithridates VI of Pontus. In return for giving significant military assistance, the Galatian rulers were well-rewarded by the Romans: Deiotarus (tetrarch of the Tolistobogii) received lands in Pontus and (later at least) Armenia Minor; Brogitarus (tetrarch of the Trocmi) was given Mithridatium (a fortress in Pontus) and perhaps land in Armenia Minor; and both men received the title of king. Through his close relationship with Rome, the last Galatian king, Amyntas, had, by 36 BC, acquired control of a huge area, including Pisidia, Galatia, Lycaonia, Phrygia Paroreius and part of Pamphylia (Mitchell 1993: 31-41). Clearly, the Galatian polities, despite suffering reverses, together constituted a significant and increasingly important geo-political entity which, correspondingly, the kingdoms of western and central Asia Minor could not afford to underestimate.

We shall focus our attention on the core-area of settlement (i.e. the region shown on fig 3). As documented in the historical sources, it was here only that the Galatians established major polities in the third century BC; and these, undergoing changes, survived the troubles of the later Hellenistic period- a timespan of some two and a half centuries- to be incorporated into the Roman empire. It is in this region that we would expect interactions, fusions and transformations of the varied lifestyles of the resident groups to have been at their most intense and complex. The extant documentary sources offer little in the way of information regarding socio-economic and other cultural changes, develop- ments and continuities within the region; rather, the brief information they do contain only indirectly reflects these issues. It is archaeology which must provide the material for a fuller and more balanced understanding of these matters.

Galatia and Bithynia lay along the Siberis river (the modem Kirmir Qayi), but for the Hellenistic period the boundaries 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 Siberis in the first century BC: if the fort (discussed below) at Tabanhoglu Kale on the Siberis is indeed the historically attested treasury of the Tolistobogiian king Deiotarus, then it might seem inconceivable that such a repository of wealth would have been located on the very edge of the polity. On the other hand, we should bear in mind evidence which indicates that certain pre- Roman Iron Age sanctuaries in Gaul lay on inter-tribal boundaries; for example, see Brunaux 1988: 3 (fig), 12.

79


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

.

...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , * . .! . . . . . . . . i i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - E...... ....H .m

::::~~~~~~~~~ ~~~.. ::: ::::::::::: t :{ :: :::: :::::: 3)

'

! 2 2 i i i i i l

;. . . . . . . . . . . ..

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

~~~~. . . . . . . . J. . . . .......

: 7 : ::::::::1

~ . '......... ..........

a~ ~~,:ii! /. i:::~:::x,::::'.~ t .o o . . . . . . . . . .

? . , . . . . . . .

. . . . .... ., . . . . . . . : - :

...... .... ..... "

:.~ ) \ ,~ f :.:e!~..i. ............. :. ......... -V

tCb'j5

Jv ,..

.... ; ; . :::::::::::::

...

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

~,,, ? ~~~~~~~~~........

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

:":~~~~~~~~~~~........

'M'.

o~~ ,V - - - ~a

:5...~ 4MS ~,_,v )~'- _ '%t, <, ,

m

\5= ^<*\-- <- - o

.............. . . . . . CL M

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

X

> k a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

~

.

./

\. . iX*o ' x .7.. . Q/

ii !i .! .. ... . . . ..

80 (:: ' Ii s ( r^ . . . . . . . 0

80


Problems with the archaeological evidence To appreciate the cultural impact of the Galatian settlement and evaluate the longer-term processes of change and continuity, we require detailed knowledge of the pre-Galatian context as well as that of the Hellenistic and later periods. Unfortunately, although a body of relevant archaeological data does exist it is small, generally poorly characterised and poorly dated; a consequence of piecemeal and sporadic archaeological work. As a result of earlier investigations by a few researchers working in isolation, a number of relevant or potentially relevant sites have been noted- in particular, forts. This work has focused mainly on the lands of the Tectosages and Tolistobogii east of the Sakarya; but Trocmian country, east of the Kizilirmak has received far less attention. There has been virtually no excavation of Hellenistic period sites in the region and the character of immediately pre-Galatian settlement here is likewise obscure. The long-term excavation and survey projects at Gordium and Bogazk6y are obvious exceptions but these sites are clearly more unusual settlement forms. Smaller- scale investigations have occurred at only a handful of other relevant sites, yet such places are crucial to our broader understanding of socio-economic and other structures. Nevertheless, the situation is at last being remedied by more widespread systematic archaeological investigation so that the next decade or two should witness significant advances in our understanding: in particular, in the modem province of Ankara the first extensive survey of forts in north Galatia is being conducted (see Vardar, Vardar 1997); and to the north of the central plateau, in the more mountainous country of Paphlagonia, the current survey directed by Roger Matthews of the BIAA is improving our knowledge of the settlement record in Cankin province (Matthews et al 1998). However, the historically important area of western Paphlagonia towards Bolu, adjoining Bithynia, has received hardly any attention and must be a focus of future work. The southern lands, extending to the area around Konya and the Taurus Mountains are also poorly understood.

A persistent major problem is the absence of a well- characterised ceramic framework (derived from excavated material) which could provide a chronological scheme for sites in the region in Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine times. A very small proportion of the known pottery can be assigned to one or other of these periods, though not to finer chronological subdivisions (for example, Megarian bowls, black-glazed wares and fine red-slipped wares, all paralleled in western Asia Minor, can be dated to the third-first centuries BC)12. A number

12 Study and publication of the full range of Hellenistic pottery from Gordium should help.

of other artefacts, in particular metalwork, lend themselves to broad typological dating. Epigraphic evidence from the Hellenistic period in central Anatolia is virtually non-existent (Mitchell 1993: 86).

Social organisation We know almost nothing about the social structures which existed in the region prior to the arrival of the Galatians (see, for example, Sekunda 1991). Nonetheless, the Classical writers indirectly indicate that the Galatians imposed their own particular socio- political organisation on the region, and a process of socio-political development took place over time which remains poorly understood (for further details and refer- ences, see Mitchell 1993: 24, 27-9, 35, 42-4, 46-7). The impression provided by the documentary sources, although probably correct in its broad outlines, is limited and lacks detail. Only the highest echelons of the Galatian aristocracy were deemed worthy of note and consequently we know next to nothing of the lower orders. Whether elements of pre-existing Anatolian social organisation were somehow assimilated into the Galatian structures, or whether the Galatians instituted a complete and total rearrangement, is not obvious. The archaeological evidence is insufficient to shed much light on these matters, although data from burials and settlements is pertinent.

The character of Galatian socio-political organisation in the region in the third century, and for much of the second century BC, remains extremely obscure; the co- existence of several chieftains is apparent from the Classical writers (of relevance here is Strobel's hypothetical reconstruction of the migration period bands, outlined earlier) and in addition, it seems likely enough that one prominent Tolistobogiian aristocrat, Ortiagon, was for a while sole ruler of the region following the disastrous effects of the Roman invasion in 189 BC. The fullest and most coherent picture of the Galatian constitution is provided by Strabo who indicates that formerly (before the mid first century BC) the three main tribes had shared the same form of organisation; each tribe being divided into four sections (tetrarchies). The leader of each section was called a tetrarch, and subordinate to each tetrarch there was a judge, one military commander and two junior commanders. A council of the 12 tetrarchs, comprising three hundred members, met at a place called the Drynemetos. Here murder cases were decided by the council, and all other affairs were settled by the tetrarchs and judges. There is nothing to demonstrate that this system of 12 tetrarchs existed in the first phases of the Galatian settlement, and it is perhaps most likely (although not certain) that it developed during the second century BC rather than

81


earlier. Certainly the Greek title of tetrarch given to the leading figures implies a degree of Hellenisation of the Galatian elite in the second century BC and this is also indicated by what is known about Ortiagon'3. Never- theless, the fourfold division of each tribe, and the pan- tribal council meeting, are features that are paralleled to some extent by other historically attested forms of socio- political organisation of the first century BC in parts of western Europe. Despite increasing Hellenistic- Anatolian influence there can be no doubt that in its basics, at the elite level at least, the form of this Galatian political constitution was 'Celtic'/European, not Anatolian. However, in view of our ignorance of its detailed character, it should not be assumed that in its other aspects it was directly comparable with other

(likewise poorly understood) societies in Europe. There is historical evidence to indicate that these tetrarchies had a territorial basis, but their geographical aspects and social composition remain largely unknown.

The system of 12 tetrarchs was surely drastically altered in 86 BC, when Mithridates VI of Pontus murdered nearly all the leading figures at Pergamum. Thereafter there was only one ruling tetrarch for each of the three tribes. As a consequence of further political changes in the later first century BC, the number of ruling tetrarchs was reduced to two, and then only one (Deiotarus, followed by Castor and lastly by Amyntas the Great). Some of these last Galatian rulers were also kings, but only by virtue of a kingdom (outside the core- area of Galatian settlement) conferred upon them by Rome (see 'Defining the region' above). By the mid first

century BC it is clear from the documentary sources that the Galatian elite was Hellenised to a considerable degree and had assimilated values and behaviour patterns characteristic of other aristocracies and dynasties in Asia Minor.

There can be no doubt that Galatian social organisation was hierarchical in structure. Although changing over time, it seems likely to have always included several grades of free and unfree, with corresponding variations in status, honour, obligations and dues; amongst the unfree, there is limited evidence for slaves. And despite Strabo's statement that the three tribes differed in no way from each other, it seems possible that social forms could have varied in their details across the region, as well as through time. Kinship and clientship, however difficult to define clearly in this particular historical context, would presumably have been fundamentally important

13 That the title of 'tetrarch' was used by the Galatians themselves, at least by the mid first century BC if not significantly earlier, is indicated by the funerary inscription to Deiotarus the Younger, mentioned above at note 5.

factors in establishing an individual's status and in struc- turing social relationships. Membership of a kin-group would provide an individual with an important form of identity. Clientage (which could exist amongst the aristocracy as well as those of lower status) would have been an unequal relationship between social inferiors and those of higher status, whereby clients were obliged to render produce, goods and services economic, military, political and other- in return for patronage and protection. The power of the ruling elite ultimately lay in coercion and wealth (the basis of which remains to be considered).

Galatian personal names, whose meanings can be

approximately deciphered, allude indirectly to the institutions and value systems of Galatian society. A random group of examples illustrates this. Brikkon derives from the stem brigo-, meaning strength or worth; Tektomaros can be translated 'rich in possessions'; Olorix means roughly 'mighty king'; the root bat-, found in several personal names, implies the meaning of 'strike' or 'beat'. Over a hundred such names are known and a preliminary classification suggests that there were large groups of names which implied strength, power and personal worth, others associated with warfare and victory, and others with landed possessions. They provide a valuable onomastic source of information by which the views of Classical writers can be by-passed, and a direct approach made to ideas which the Galatians held about themselves (Holder 1896-1910; Weissgerber 1931; Dressler 1967; Schmidt 1994; Strobel 1996: 142-51; Staehelin 1907:

109-19). Given the dearth of evidence it is unclear how, in the

third century BC, the native resident population, and later their descendants, were integrated into Galatian social organisation. During the initial settlement phase it would seem likely that many if not all members of the native

ruling elite were reduced in power (if not driven into exile or even killed), to make way for the incoming Galatian aristocracy. It seems probable that the lower ranks of Galatian society were mostly filled, at least in the early period, by those of native Anatolian origin, most of whom, it can be suggested, were permitted to remain in the region on terms of diminished status and reduced rights. Nevertheless, a degree of upward social mobility may have been possible over time. Although the historical evidence suggests that the Galatian ruling elite kept themselves distinct from their subjects (with 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 became more thoroughly amalgamated through intermarriage. It can be suggested that amongst the mixed populace, shared identities and value systems would

82


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

Material culture The archaeological record demonstrates that elements of 'Middle La Tene' type material culture (i.e. of the same form as a range of European artefactual styles of the third and second centuries BC) were introduced to Asia Minor by the Galatians, and certainly some of these elements continued into the first century BC. The data are not numerous, at least in part due to the lack of archaeological work, and probably to the failure to report (and even to recognise the significance of) stray finds of such material. Most of the data are metalwork, the majority of which have been found outside the core-area of Galatian settlement although future discoveries could change the spatial and chronological distribution patterns significantly.

Accurate representations of Middle La Tene type military equipment are found in the monumental victory sculptures (or their later Roman copies) erected by the Pergamene state to mark successes scored against the Galatians in the later third century BC, and similar representations occur on other monuments and small finds from Turkey. All the main items of the Galatian panoply appear -shields, spears, helmets, chainmail, swords, the carnyx (a form of discordant musical horn), and the chariot (represented by some of its components). But actual examples are hardly known15, and the develop-

14 As noted in our conclusion, the Celtic language survived and was predominant in the region for several centuries: those of native Anatolian descent presumably gradually assimilated the Celtic tongue. 15 A late Hellenistic cist grave at Bogazk6y, from a cemetery described below, contained an iron short sword with its now- 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 feature would accord with the short-length swords represented in the sculptures noted above. The spearhead is too damaged to be typologically diagnostic but its remains are not inconsistent with La Tene forms known from Europe. An unpublished broken iron cheek-piece from Gordium could be part of a Galatian helmet but it may be earlier in date (McClellan 1975: 102-10.

ments that occurred in Galatian military equipment and organisation remain rather obscure. Livy's account of the Roman invasion of Galatia in 189 BC (38.12-27), if based on reliable sources, would indicate that arms and fighting methods characteristic of other 'Celtic' peoples in Europe were being used in Galatia in the early second century. However, changes had occurred by the mid first century BC, at least within the Tolistobogiian polity, for the documentary evidence indicates that Deiotarus' infantry were equipped, organised (and presumably trained) in Roman fashion: a reflection of the close and special relationship that existed between the king and Rome (Mitchell 1993: 34, 45-6, 54).16

The other main category of La Tene type artefacts comprises items of adornment. A Roman copy of one of the Pergamene monuments shows the distinctive, twisted- metal La Tene type neck-ring (or 'torque') on a dying Galatian warrior. In addition, at least four La Tene style arm- or leg-rings, and over 20 La Tene style fibulae (which divide into two main typological groups), are now known from Turkey (see fig 2). Virtually all of these are from unknown or poorly defined contexts. Examples of the first group of fibulae, typologically very similar to certain eastern European Middle La Tene specimens, are dateable to the third and earlier second centuries BC; and three of the rings are also dateable by their European parallels to the third century. These examples, widely distributed in a number of regions lying well outside the core-area of Galatian settlement, may well be a reflection of earlier Galatian raiding, mercenary activity, or localised settlement (although other interpretations are possible). Fibulae of the second typological group appear to be somewhat later variants, dateable to the later second and first centuries BC; these have been found within (and a little outside) the main settlement area of the Galatians shown on fig 3, including two from cist graves archaeologically excavated at Bogazk6y. In addition there is a La 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 century BC (Mitchell 1993: 54). Within the territory shown on fig 3, fibulae have been found at Bogazkoy, Ku~saray, Karaca Koyii, and in the vicinity of Ankara; in addition, an example in the museum at Eski?ehir may have come from the environs of that city.

16 Other evidence more recently published includes: a relief of a (probably) Galatian shield on a temple at Limyra built in the 270s BC, for which see Borchhardt 1987: 106-8, abb. 7; and a (probably) Galatian shield, sword and other items carved on the lintel of a Hellenistic tower at Hangerli in Cilicia, for which see Durugniil 1998: 13-19, abb 2, taf 54. For La Tene type swords see, for example, Pleiner 1993; de Navarro 1972. For La Tene type spearheads, a useful starting point is Brunaux, Rapin 1988.

83


Together with La Tene style material culture, it is clear from the limited available evidence that native Anatolian artefactual traditions continued through the

period, as shown for example by the ceramics (both locally produced and imported), and metalwork and other material from the Gordium excavations: indeed, no distinctive assemblage of La Tene type material has yet been found at the site. Furthermore, despite claims to the

contrary, the so-called 'Galatian' ware, found in Trocmian territory and dating from the second century BC, may be a local ceramic tradition owing little or

nothing to influences from La Tene Europe. In addition, finds from Gordium and the Galatian chambered tomb A at Karalar (see 'burials' below) demonstrate that Anatolian style fibulae continued to be used through the later Hellenistic period (the context at Karalar indicating that the fibula in question belonged to a member of the Galatian elite); and other artefacts from the chambered tombs indicate that the elite placed considerable value on

high quality metalwork and ceramics of Hellenistic/ Anatolian styles. (For Gordium see Mitchell 1993: 54-5; DeVries 1984; 1990; Sams 1995; Sams, Voigt 1989; 1994; 1996; 1997; Winter 1988. For Karalar fibula see Ank 1934: levha 9, ?ekil 18. For Galatian ware see Mitchell 1993: 51, 54; Miiller-Karpe 1988 argues for a La Tene connection.)

The Pergamene sculptures and other pictographic representations noted above, together with Livy's account of Vulso's invasion, serve to underline the distinctive visual appearance of Galatian warrior males

(including nakedness in combat, wild hair and

moustaches) in the later third and earlier second centuries BC. Despite the fact that these impressions (and similar ones from Classical Europe) are those of 'outsiders' and to some degree idealised or stereotypical, situated in

propagandising contexts, they find corroboration not

only in representations in European La Tene art but also in Anatolia: a characteristically and unmistakeably Galatian male face, depicted in relief on a gold buckle from the western tumulus at Ta~oluk-Hidir?ihlar, seems

likely to be an 'insider's' representation. Elements such as hairstyles, garb and the various ways specific types of artefacts were worn about the body, could have conveyed various kinds of information or 'messages' regarding the social identity of the wearer (e.g. torques could have been symbols of divinity and high status). The continuities and changes in such social practices as a result of the Galatian settlement remain to be explored (they could be

approached, for example, through burials although unfortunately, as we shall see, such contexts are few). For how long, and to what extent, distinctive elements of traditional Galatian dress, hairstyles and symbolic use of personal ornaments persisted in the region is uncertain

the presence of first century BC La Tene type fibulae could, for example, indicate the survival of traditional styles of Galatian clothing and symbolic practice, but they do not prove this- though there is nothing specific from the chambered tombs to indicate that the ruling elite of the first century BC retained traditional Galatian modes of appearance.

Ritual and religion The Galatians introduced their own distinctive belief-

systems, rituals and forms of sacred space to the region; but the character of these is hardly known. To what extent these were assimilated by those of native Anatolian descent is unclear; nor is it obvious as to how

long the various elements of these ritual traditions remained distinctive, if altered -although by the later Roman period there is little trace of them. Certainly, through time the Galatian elite assimilated native

religious forms, themselves poorly understood, but again the chronology and character of this process are rather obscure. To what extent, and in what ways, the various different strands of belief and ritual merged or were

syncretised in the Hellenistic period is hardly capable of

analysis given the available data. Brief and indirect glimpses provided by the Classical

sources indicate the existence of forms of Galatian ritual in Anatolia which find parallels in broadly contemporary European contexts: for example, the ritual sacrifice of

prisoners (in ca. 166 BC) and warrior nakedness (in 189

BC). In addition, the Galatian assembly at the

Drynemetos, which we noted earlier, surely had a

religious, as well as politico-judicial character, even

though this is not made explicit by Strabo: it is indicated

primarily by the term Drynemetos itself ('sacred grove of oak trees'), but the interpretation also finds support from the existence of a somewhat similar institution, a druidic

assembly, noted by Julius Caesar in first century BC Gaul. It is unknown whether or not the Galatian

Drynemetos, with its religious component, continued to be used at all following the drastically sudden decline of the system of 12 tetrarchs in the earlier first century BC. The presence of druids in Galatia cannot be ruled out, despite the fact that they are not explicitly and reliably attested for this region in the Classical sources (perhaps the judges or some of the other notables at the Drvnemetos were druids?). In addition, it is possible (though by no means certain) that traditional forms of Galatian augury may have survived into the first century BC, perhaps being practised by King Deiotarus (Mitchell 1993: 45, 47-50; and see Dunham (1995) for a useful illustration of the difficulties in using the Classical sources as an approach to the druids and other non- Classical social institutions).

84


In addition, striking archaeological evidence from the Gordium excavations - revealed only recently - apparently indicates the existence of distinctive forms of Galatian ritual introduced to Anatolia from Europe. This evidence, dateable to the late third or earlier second century BC, includes: two human torsos, laid one over the other; a human skull with attached vertebrae, set upright next to a dog skull, with a dog leg laid over them both; a larger deposit with mixed equid, bovid and human remains; and three other humans, with broken necks (Sams 1995). These burials are closely paralleled in several parts of later prehistoric Europe by a body of evidence for ritual processes which involved the dismemberment and 'structured deposition' of humans and animals, as well as artefacts, at sanctuaries/sacred places and in a range of contexts on settlement sites. Although the beliefs behind such rites are little understood, these were clearly not normative forms of burial and it is possible that the humans were, for example, outcasts of some kind. The new discoveries at Gordium underline how little we know about Galatian ritual and they suggest that other elements, similar to the evidence found in several contemporary European contexts, may yet be identified: for example, rituals involving the structured deposition (as opposed to day-to-day 'refuse disposal') of artefacts and other material (metalwork, ceramics, food/drink etc.) in features/structures at settlements and sacred enclosures, and in natural features in the landscape such as rivers and bogs/pools (Brunaux 1988; Webster 1995; Wait 1995). Never- theless, broadly similar forms of activity involving artefact deposition (and that of humans and animals too?) may have formed a part of the region's traditional Anatolian culture: given the limited data available, we should consider this matter as open. Study of the artefactual material from Gordium in relation to their archaeological contexts may help to clarify our understanding in this regard.

Unfortunately, native Anatolian religion and ritual in the region is also poorly defined in this period. The Classical sources indicate that by the mid second century BC at the latest, the Galatian ruling classes had assimilated at least some elements of the native religion, and this process developed over time. The most notable example is their continuing involvement in the cult of Cybele and her consort Attis, at Pessinus; other evidence includes the case of the Galatian aristocrat, Kamma, who was the hereditary priestess of Artemis (probably the Hellenised mother goddess); and later, in the earlier first century AD, the aristocrat, Dyteutus, who was high priest of the goddess Ma at Comana Pontica. Strabo also indicates that a monumental bronze statue of Zeus, with a sacred precinct with the right of asylum, existed at

Tavium (by the later first century BC). Archaeological evidence for native Anatolian religion includes representations of Cybele from Gordium, dateable to the later third/early second century BC (Mitchell 1993: 47-50; DeVries 1990: 404-5).

As a consequence of the paucity of archaeological information regarding cult sites and settlements, the ways in which sacred space was organised and structured are obscure. Unfortunately Strabo gives no details of the form of the sacred place Drynemetos, and its location is unknown, although it could be suggested that it included some form of sacred enclosure, perhaps similar to examples known from later Iron Age Europe (Webster 1995). The character of the shrine at Tavium is likewise uncertain (Strabo 12.5.2). The dismembered bodies at Gordium may well have been situated at some kind of cult locus or sanctuary but the contextual details of this part of the site remain to be defined and it is unclear (as yet) whether there were any associated struc- tural features. Natural features in the landscape were probably also religious foci. The ways in which ritual/cosmological concepts influenced the spatial arrangements and activities at settlements remains to be investigated.

Later, in the time of the Roman province, there is little to indicate that aspects of traditional Galatian rituals had survived in a recognisably distinct form, although we must bear in mind that archaeological evidence from this period is again limited. Admittedly there is a little epigraphic material dating to the second and third centuries AD which reveals local cults taking Celtic names, including those of Zeus Souolibrogenos (Mitchell et al 1982: no 191) and Zeus Bussurigios (Mitchell et al 1982: nos 203-4); however, despite the Celtic epithets there is nothing in the texts to indicate the survival of traditional Galatian cultic features as distinct from familiar Anatolian patterns.

Burials As well as the human remains from Gordium noted above, a few formal burials are known from the region. At least several of these clearly belonged to the social elite and these bear no resemblance to European La Tene period burials. Indeed, it remains uncertain as to what distinctive types of formal mortuary practice the Galatians introduced to the region from Europe. For the majority of the populace of the Galatian polities, we have no evidence for where and how their remains were disposed. Doubtless the low level of information is partly due to the paucity of archaeological investigation, but it might also indicate that forms of mortuary practice existed which were unlikely to leave readily identifiable traces in the archaeological record.

85


By far the most impressive burials, in terms of their architecture and the range and quality of grave goods, are those in stone chambered tombs beneath earthen tumuli. These tombs are directly paralleled outside Galatia by architecturally identical examples from Bithynia and Pontus, dateable broadly to the Hellenistic period. Examples dateable to the fifth-third centuries BC from Thrace and the Bosporan Chora are also, though less closely, related. Within the Galatian region, three examples are known from Karalar, two from

Ta?oluk-Hidir,ihlar (ca. 8km south of Bolu), and two from Gordium. Two tombs near Eski?ehir, at Igdir and Yalaclk, may also be Galatian, at the western limit of Galatian territory. In addition, an unpublished tomb at

(im?it near Karalar is either later Hellenistic or Roman in date. The quadrangular-plan chambers are constructed from large ashlar blocks carefully cut to shape and fitted together without the use of mortar; in at least one case (Karalar tomb C), iron clamps were employed to hold the blocks together more securely. The chambers were provided with a door. Although these tombs and their parallels require more detailed synthetic study they can be readily classified into three basic types according to the form of their roof construction.

The first type has a corbelled roof and some of these tombs have an antechamber and/or dromos (Karalar tomb C, one of those at Gordium, Igdlr, Yalacik; and further afield, Tepecik, Gemlik, Kepsut, Milas, Belevi, Mudanya and Pammukkale). The second type has a peaked roof and a dromos (Karalar tomb B and the east tumulus at Ta?oluk-H1dlr?ihlar; also the dromos of the tomb noted below at Be?evler). The third type has a barrel-vaulted roof and a dromos (Karalar tomb A and, outside Galatia, Kii9iicek, Be?evler, Kanlibag and Ikiztepe). Of uncertain type (owing to later damage and lack of full publication) is the other example from Gordium, the west tumulus at

Ta?oluk-Hidir?lhlar and S(im?it. The significance of the different types of chambered tomb, both within and outside Galatia, remains to be explored in detail: for example, the architectural variations could be related to differences in chronology or in factors such as the age, sex, social rank or kinship of the deceased. Unfor- tunately, the majority of these tombs have been robbed prior to academic investigation, so details of the arrangement of the corpses and the full complement and arrangement of the grave goods are uncertain (Mitchell 1993: 55, n 123, 57, n 124, 125, 126; Meri9boyu, Atasoy 1969; Memerci, Yagci 1991; Alkim et al 1988: 204-6; Tsetskhladze 1998; information

regarding the rescue excavation of (im?it tomb was kindly given by Dr Remzi Yagcl).

The distinctive architecture of these burials has no parallel in European La Tene contexts and virtually none of the extant grave goods of those within Galatia is of La Tene form. Nonetheless, some of the finds from Karalar and one of the two Ta~oluk-Hidir?ihlar tombs indicate that these burials are indeed Galatian. We are most fortunate that an inscription in Greek from tomb B at Karalar identifies this particular tumulus as the resting place of Deiotarus the Younger, who we know from documentary evidence died between 43 and 41 BC (Mitchell et al 1982: no 188)'7. A date in the second century BC has been suggested for the burial in the west tumulus at Ta?oluk-Hidilr?hlar, which contained the gold buckle and La Tene type torque mentioned earlier; and it seems likely that the two Gordium tombs date to the Galatian occupation rather than before the diabasis. However it is impossible to date closely these other

burials'8. The funerary inscription of Deiotarus, together with

the sumptuary grave goods and costly architecture of the

tombs, indicates that this class of burial belonged to the Galatian aristocracy, and indeed it seems likely to have been limited solely to members of the ruling families. These wealthy tombs of the first century BC and (most probably) earlier are evidence of marked social differen- tiation in Galatian society and they can be seen as a physical expression of the elite's wider pretensions, contacts, achievements and affiliations: the employment of this particular form of Anatolian burial architecture was a means by which the Galatian ruling class identifed itself as the peer of those who governed Bithynia and Pontus'9. It can be suggested that the form and siting of these particular burials were intended to emphasise the

legitimacy and social distinction of the ruling lineage and its control over the natural resources of the area: those at

17 Other material (none of La Tene type) associated with this burial included the remains of purple cloth, a porphyry offering table, glasswork and, in stone, a sculptured trophy and lion. 18 All these tombs have been robbed. However material recovered from the westem tumulus at Ta?oluk-Hidirslhlar (and found within a roughly-cut sarcophagus) included (in addition to the gold torque and buckle) gold bracelets, gold earrings, a silver patera and silver Megarian bowl, and a bronze horsebit (not of La Tene type); ironwork (not recovered) was also noted. From the Karalar tombs, finds included fine Hellenistic/ Anatolian painted ceramics and golden necklaces set with precious stones as well as those mentioned at note 16 above. 19 At present, the distribution of these Galatian tombs appears to be confined to the northwestern and western part of the region, the territory occupied by the Tolistobogii (and Gaeza- torix), which may indicate that this burial practice was a distinctly localised mortuary tradition within Galatia, reflecting the specific extra-regional contacts of this particular territory (although of course future discoveries might significantly widen the distribution within Galatia).

86


Karalar, for example, are prominently visible and overlook the fertile plain of the Ova Cay as well as the Galatian elite residence at Karalar which is described below; they indicate a focal point of the Tolistobogiian polity20. The Anatolianisation of this Galatian elite is further indicated by the character of the grave goods (some of which may have been obtained through gift exchange with neighbouring elites outside the region); and the historically-attested Hellenisation of the Tolisto- bogiian ruling lineage is demonstrated in particular by the use of epigraphy and the Greek language for Deiotarus the Younger's memorial. In addition the employment in this inscription of the personalised royal epithet 'philoromaius' for the father, Deiotarus the Great, is an indication both of the Hellenising influence on the character of late Galatian kingship (use of Hellenistic- style royal titulature) and also a clear affirmation of the king's allegiance to Rome (see Braund 1984: 105-6). It is yet to be demonstated whether the mortuary rites of these Galatian burials differed noticeably from those of other Anatolian polities, and retained something of the traditional rituals of the Galatians.

Two other types of burial are known, from the late Hellenistic cemetery at Bogazk6y in Trocmian territory: extended inhumations in stone cist graves (some of these most probably beneath small tumuli, as indicated by the presence of a stone circle or kerb defining the area around the cist); and interments of children in jars. Where dateable the graves have been assigned to the first century BC but the chronological range of the cemetery could be wider than this. The burials in jars represent an Anatolian tradition and the same may be true of the cist graves, though cists are also known from limited regions of later prehistoric Europe. The majority of burials lack grave goods (or at least items likely to leave visible archaeological traces) and none of the others was lavishly equipped, only one or two items usually being present. The artefacts from the cists include silver armrings, coins, pottery and ironwork, the latter including a La Tene type fibula, and in another grave the sword, scabbard and spearhead noted earlier. In order to elucidate the rites, symbolism and social significance of these burials, further, synthetic study is required of the arrangement, age and sex of the bodies, and the form and arrangement of the grave goods. Although these burials

20 We might speculate as to who else was buried in the elite necropolis at Karalar/Blucium. It is possible, although of course uncertain, that the other two tombs contained the remains of Deiotarus the Great himself and his wife Berenice. Their daughters, married out to members of other Galatian ruling families, would presumably have been buried elsewhere. See Mitchell 1993: 28 for stemma of the family of Deiotarus.

are obviously much less impressive than those in the chambered tombs described above, the expensive character of some of the grave goods, and the probable presence of tumuli, may indicate that at least some are the burials of a social elite (although not necessarily the governing class), and again represent mortuary practices restricted to a limited segment of the populace21. Again it is uncertain whether these rites owed more to native Anatolian traditions or to those introduced to the region by the Galatians, although the burial with weapons is paralleled by 'warrior burials' in several parts of La Tene Europe22. In addition, given the lack of comparative data it is uncertain as to how extensive across the region were these forms of burial; it is possible that, in their details at least, they represent a localised tradition (Mitchell 1993: 54, n 101).

Settlements As a consequence of the generally low level of survey and the lack of excavation in the region, our knowledge of settlements is poor and is strongly biased towards sites which are still physically prominent today. Nevertheless, the evidence from these sites indicates that at least some important elements of the pre-Galatian settlement pattern continued to function in the later Hellenistic period, even though there may have been short-term disruptions during the initial takeover of the region by the Galatians in the third century BC; and this pattern might be expected at other sites. To what extent the detailed character of occupation at these places changed as a result of the Galatian takeover will only be revealed by study of excavated data.

Three centres clearly of earlier importance (political/economic) which continued under the Galatians (and which were important enough in the Hellenistic period to be mentioned by Classical writers) were Gordium, Tavium and Ancyra. Gordium had formerly been the regional capital of the Phrygian kingdom and subsequently a minor political centre of the Achaemenid empire; and there are indications of high status Phrygian activity at Ancyra. Ceramics from Tavium show that the place had a history extending well back into the Hittite period and earlier in the Bronze Age.

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 burials suggest that infants constituted a separate social category requiring mortuary forms different to those of adults; and other categories based on factors such as age and sex may be represented in the cist burials. 22 Burials with swords are not common in European Iron Age contexts and are often deemed to indicate the relatively high rank of the deceased; see, for example, Wait 1995.

87


The Classical writers indicate that both Gordium and Tavium were emporia in the Galatian period (a function which Gordium certainly, and Tavium most probably, possessed in earlier times), being sited at the intersection of main trans-regional routeways and engaged in inter- regional trade/exchange; the extent of Ancyra's economic importance is unclear, but it certainly possessed a strategic location. The ongoing excavations at Gordium are revealing evidence for manufacturing and other activities at the site, although the overall character and extent of the Hellenistic settlement remain to be defined; the evidence demonstrates that pre-existing traditions of Anatolian architecture continued in the Galatian period (rectangular-plan buildings with stone- footed mudbrick walls and roofs of thatch or tile)23. The relevant archaeology at Tavium and Ancyra is hardly known, but Strabo indicates that here the Galatians had strongholds (phrouria); and both sites continued in

importance, for they became two of the three main centres of the Roman province of Galatia, with Pessinus, not Gordium, becoming the third centre (Gordium: Livy 38.18.5, 18.11; Polybius 21.37.8; Strabo 12.5.3, 568; and see Mitchell 1993: 54-5, n 110-14; DeVries 1990: 371- 406; Sams,Voigt 1984; 1989; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997. Tavium: Strabo 12.5.2; Mitchell 1976b; 1993: 51, n 98; the resurgence of investigation at the site, recently instituted by Professor Strobel, should see significant results in the years to come. Ancyra: Strabo 12.5.2, 567; Livy 38.24.1; Polybius 21.39.1; Mitchell 1976a).

A number of other hoyuks sited in open plains on natural routeways, including Tolgeri, G61l, Cim?it and (erkez (see map), have yielded surface sherds which

again indicate some form of continuity from earlier times into the Hellenistic period. But none of these large mounds has been excavated and their character and functions in different periods are uncertain. Another settlement occupied in the Galatian period, Parnassus, is mentioned by Polybius in the second century BC, although as yet there is no relevant archaeological material known from the site; perhaps it is an indication that other Roman towns in the region likewise had earlier

origins (Hild, Restle 1981). At the walled settlement of Kmik Hamamdere, surface sherds indicate activity in Hellenistic, as well as Roman and later times, but again the history of the site is very poorly understood (Mitchell et al 1982: 25-6).

23 Both the archaeological and historical sources indicate that the importance of the site declined, apparently from early in the second century BC and quite possibly directly after the Roman invasion of 189 BC. Although the reasons for this apparent decline are not altogether clear, the site's pre-eminence as an emporium was certainly later eclipsed by Pessinus.

Knowledge of smaller settlements is virtually non- existent (doubtless due to their poor archaeological visibility combined with the lack of survey in the region), yet without such evidence our understanding of Galatian society will always remain extremely partial. Excava- tions at Yalincak (a few kilometres southwest of Ancyra) were of limited extent but revealed rectangular buildings with stone footings (Tezcan 1971), identical to those found at Gordium and many of the forts discussed below. Activity continued from Hellenistic through Roman times, a pattern that might be expected at other small sites.

To what extent the Galatians were responsible for the appearance of new settlement forms and architectural styles is as yet uncertain, although it can be suggested that their historically attested strongholds, to be described in the following section, were a new and significant feature of the region's settlement patterns.

Forts and elite centres The accounts of Strabo and Livy indicate that from at least the early second century BC the Galatians

possessed a number of strongholds, and that at least some of these phrouria/castella were the fortified residences of the Galatian ruling elite in the first century BC. Unfor-

tunately, the form of these forts is hardly apparent from the written sources, and archaeological evidence for them is mostly poorly defined or non-existent, either because the location of the sites has not been confidently identified or because the monuments have been

destroyed or obscured by later activity, and because there has been no excavation (e.g. the Galatian phrouria at

Ancyra and Tavium). Nevertheless, at least three named sites can be

identified, with some confidence, with known monuments. Two forts, Zengibar Kale and Tabanlioglu Kale, are examples of sophisticated Hellenistic

workmanship (with well-laid ashlar blocks) and they share markedly similar features: most notably the form of their projecting polygonal towers (with drafted margins) and their gates. There can be no reasonable doubt that Zengibar Kale, near Bozklr in the Taurus region (well to the south of the core-area of Galatian settlement shown on fig 3), is the site of Isaura, and that the long defensive circuit visible there (encircling the summit of a large, steep-sided hill) is that built by the Galatian king and tetrarch Amyntas, and unfinished at the time of his death in 25 BC (Strabo 12.6.3; Swoboda et al 1935: 120). The Hellenistic style defences at Tabanlioglu Kale in western Galatia (see fig 4; Mitchell 1974; Vardar, Vardar 1997: 254) are, so far as is known, unique to the core-area of Galatian territory. Much less extensive than those of Zengibar, they comprise a short curtain wall cutting off

88


the neck of a steep-sided promontory created by a loop in the Girmir (ay. Given their location and their distinctive

character, they seem most likely to be those of Peium, the site mentioned by Strabo and Cicero as being the

'treasury' of king Deiotarus (Amyntas' predecessor); if this identification is correct, they could have been built in the 50s BC. Another fortification south of the area shown on fig 3 and closer to Zengibar is Ba? Dag; this has constructional features very similar to those of

Zengibar and the two are clearly of similar date. It may have been built by a local dynast, Antipater of Derbe, or

perhaps by Amyntas himself (Belke, Restle 1978-80). In addition there can be little doubt that the small

Hellenistic period site on the Asar rock at Karalar (see map) is the historically-attested Blucium (or Luceium), the fort or 'palace' of king Deiotarus - notably because the tomb of his son overlooks it from the adjacent hilltop (see section on burials above). Although there is no clear evidence for man-made defences, the fortified aspect of the site is suggested by the topographical setting (a rocky prominence in a narrow side-valley of the Murted Ova). The site has undoubtedly been robbed in later times and it is not unlikely that a defensive circuit originally ran around the rock (perhaps in some of the rock-cut beds at the summit). Lower down the slope there are the remains of a monumental terrace made from clamped ashlar blocks of well-cut andesite (brought to the site from

elsewhere). In addition, there is an extensive series of rock-cut steps or terraces, together with an impressive rock-cut shaft/cistern (probably Hellenistic

workmanship); and there are rock-cut slots for the

footings of rectangular buildings on/near the summit, as well as the remains of rubble-footed buildings and enclosures (which include later activity) further down the

slopes (Ank 1934; Mitchell 1974; 1993: 55-7; Mitchell et al 1982: 25; Saatqi 1987; 1988; Mitchell 1990: 130).

These monuments have nothing in common with the 'hillforts' well-known from many parts of La Tene

Europe. Their architectural features, in particular those of Zengibar Kale and Tabanlioglu Kale, are a sign of the

greatly increased Hellenisation of the Galatian elite of the later first century BC. The costliness of these defences (and other features) can be interpreted as a manifestation of the increased power-base of the last Galatian rulers, one of the most important and histori-

cally-attested contributory factors being that of Roman

support, both financial and other. In addition, the rock- cut steps and shaft at Karalar, if indeed of Hellenistic

date, could be evidence for the Galatian assimilation of native Anatolian monumental (and ritual?) traditions. (For Anatolian rock-cut monuments, see, for example,

Haspels 1971.) These sites illustrate types of fortified residence belonging to the most prominent members of

the Galatian elite in the later first century BC, and it should not be expected that the form of other, especially earlier, Galatian strongholds would necessarily conform to these.

Evidence for a rather different and earlier form of Galatian fortification is provided by Livy. According to his account of the Roman invasion of Galatia in 189 BC, the Galatians abandoned their settlements and, acting in concert, retreated to two large and high places, Mount

Olympus and Mount Magaba, to make their pan-tribal stand against the Romans; and they further strengthened these naturally-defensive eminences with ditches and other defensive works, to afford protection not only to the Galatian warriors but also to the thousands of non- combatants seeking refuge there. Although the locations, and hence the defences, of both these sites remain to be

conclusively defined, it can be argued that these fortifications were not representative of the Galatian phrourion or castellum. Rather, they were a rapid, pan-tribal scale

response to a specific, externally induced, large-scale military crisis. It remains to be demonstrated whether or not these Galatian defences were at all similar to the

impressive ditch-and-bank (glacis style) hillforts typical of several regions of later prehistoric Europe24.

In addition to the monuments noted above, there is a much larger group of sites known from the region, many of them only recently discovered or recorded, which deserves serious consideration in our survey of the Galatians.

Although their dates and specific functions remain uncertain in the absence of excavation, and although these sites bear no direct resemblance to typical forms of

European La Tene hillforts, nor to the forts of Zengibar and

Tabanhoglu, they are good contenders for the Galatian

phrouria/castella of the Classical writers. Hellenistic

pottery has been observed on the surface in several cases but nevertheless ceramics of other periods (including Byzantine and Roman) are also, if not better, known; but the danger of dating structures from a few unstratified sherds is obvious. At some sites no chronologically diagnostic sherds have been noted at all (and the extensive

spreads of collapsed wall fabric common to many of the forts make recognition of such material difficult).

24 For the two sites, see Livy 38.19. Their locations have remained uncertain for many years. However, if we accept that Livy's account of the campaign is at all reliable in its details, it can be argued from a consideration of the general topography of the region that the (ile Dagli (between Gordium and Ancyra) is in fact Mount Olympus: its location and character fit Livy's description well-enough, and perhaps further investigation will produce details of the Galatian fortifications. The indentification of Mount Magaba is as yet rather more uncertain, Elma Dagi, southeast of Ankara, is one possibility. For broadly contemporary European fortifications, see as a starting point, Ralston 1995.

89


Tabanlioglu Kalel i I

(suggested reconstruction)

4- promontory 1 b

.... TII !!l ' Yenikayi

qagnik (BOyukkale)

Hisarlikaya

- river cliffs

4

Dikmenkale Tallkale

Ak9aoren (anilll

Fig 4. Comparative provisional plans offorts in Galatia

90

0 50 metres ; ___!ii

t

I

;;c -t -..-) - 5-711" t' - 0-Tor, . 0

0I


They are typically, though not always, sited on small- crowned, steep-sided hilltops (usually between ca. 1000 and 1400m asl) and the majority command relatively fertile areas and natural routeways (valleys and plains). Although unimpressive to the casual eye, these small enclosures, rarely more than 40-70m across, were clearly important local centres. We will provisionally label all these sites as 'forts', their military function being suggested or demonstrated by their topographical settings and the character of their enclosure walls, although it remains a possibility that some had no military purpose. At least 20 such forts are known from the heartland of Galatia, mostly to the west of the Kizilirmak, and five others have recently been recorded in Paphlagonia by the BIAA survey of Cankin province. The sparsity of examples to the east of the Kizilirmak is

partly explained by the lack of fieldwork there. A number of different types can be identified; for the

purposes of our brief summary they will be considered in two main groups25.

The sites of Soman Hisar (Mitchell et al 1982: 25; Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine pottery noted), Canak91 (Vardar, Vardar 1997: 249-50; Mitchell et al 1982: 27; with Hellenistic and Roman pottery), Sirkeli

(Mitchell et al 1982: 25; Hellenistic pottery noted), Guiizelcekale (Vardar, Vardar 1997: 250; Mitchell et al 1982: 27; with Roman and medieval pottery; here as at

Tabanlioglu Kale, Byzantine defences sit on top of a

clearly earlier phase of fortification), Yenikayl (Vardar, Vardar 1997: 257-8; with Hittite, Middle Phrygian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine pottery), Ogulbey (Mitchell et al 1982: 27; Hellenistic pottery noted), and

Yara?lh Kale (French, Mitchell 1973: 60-2; Hellenistic and Roman pottery noted) can be provisionally considered as forming a reasonably coherent typological group which shares a number of features in common with the Galatian site at Karalar noted above. In addition it is worth noting that the location of the hill near Ogulbey is a good match for that of Gorbeous, the later first century BC stronghold of the Galatian tetrarch, Castor, mentioned by Strabo. The small hilltops on which these forts are sited tend to possess prominent rock outcrops. Although not often readily visible (due in part to robbing and burial of the remains) the presence of man-made defences can usually be demonstrated or reasonably

25 Relevant or potentially relevant forts of uncertain type (due to lack of evidence), which are not included in our discussion, 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 studies of the region's forts are being prepared by L and N Vardar and by G Darbyshire.

assumed: stretches of fortification wall can be discerned (or were formerly visible) at Soman Hisar, (anak9i, Giizelcekale, and Yenikayi (see fig 4); traces of what may be the remains of fortifications can be seen at

Ogulbey, Sirkeli and Yara?h26. Angular projections or bastions are visible at Yenikayi and Giizelcekale, and some of the other sites could have possessed similar elaborations. Where observable, the quality of the stonework is noticeably lower than that found at Zengibar, Tabanlioglu and Karalar, and within the group the quality varies considerably. Nevertheless, the amount of cutting and shaping of the blocks is generally much greater than can be seen at the second group of sites discussed below, with a real attempt to produce a degree of block-rectangularity (perhaps an effort to emulate finer quality Hellenistic style workmanship as found at Zengibar, Tabanlioglu and Karalar). As at Karalar, there are rock-cut features at some of the sites: at (anak9i it is clear that the fortification wall continued onto the rocky outcrop of the hilltop in a rock-cut bedding channel/shelf (also seen at Karalar), and similar beds are apparent at Yenikayl and Sirkeli, although in all cases the stonework is no longer in situ; in addition, rock- cut steps/terracing and sometimes other features, including the footings of buildings, and possible shrines/altars, are visible at (;anak9i, Sirkeli and Yara?li. Perhaps then, at least some of the forts in this group were

roughly contemporary with, or somewhat earlier than, the first century BC phrourion of Karalar/Blucium.

The second group of forts comprises enclosures with 'rubble' walling, the stonework exhibiting only a minimum of cutting and shaping. Although the remains might seem crude and primitive they are nevertheless excellent examples of the drystone building technique, with neatly-faced walls ca. 2-3m thick and probably originally at least ca. 2-3m high (and it is likely that at least some of them possessed mud-brick superstructures). These walls usually stand at the top of steep slopes which are sometimes accentuated by man-made scarping. Such defences would seem to be very adequate security measures against small forces unaccustomed to techni-

cally-advanced siege warfare. Most of the enclosures are seen to contain ranges of rectangular and sub-rectangular buildings (virtually identical to those found at Gordium 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

likely, given their layout, to have been associated with the life of the fort). Within this group of forts, several

26 With reference to Ogulbey/?Gorbeous, it is worth noting that Deiotarus pulled down the walls of Gorbeous (in ca. 43 BC), according to Strabo (12.5.3, 568).

91


different types are apparent according to the plan of the defences. The simplest form comprises a single wall enclosing a roughly circular or square area ca. 30-40m across, with a single, simple entrance ca. 2-3m wide, for example Karaviran (A?agi Karaoren) (Mitchell et al 1982: 26; a smaller structure further down the hill could be another, smaller fortified residence; there are also fairly extensive traces of an extra-mural settlement) and Tahirler (unpublished); Saqak Kale (unpublished) may also be of this type. Similar but more complex are those sites with two very closely-spaced concentric circuit walls (usually less than 10m apart), for example, Hisarlikaya (Mitchell et al 1982: 26; Vardar, Vardar 1997: 247-8; Byzantine pottery recorded) and Tizke (unpublished; although the walling at Hisarlikaya and Tizke is delapidated by collapse/robbing there is little doubt that both forts possessed complete double wall-circuits originally). The inner wall almost certainly stood higher than the outer, being further upslope and (at Hisarlikaya) thicker (see fig 4). The form of the 'Biiyiikkale' at Cagnik (Caglaylk) is also related (Mitchell et al 1982: 26-7; Vardar, Vardar 1997: 255-6; Byzantine pottery recorded, and extensive traces of settlement enclosures on the plateau). Although it encloses a markedly bigger area (ca. 90m x 50m), is rectangular in plan, and has prominent man-made defences on two sides only, these differences are essen- tially the product of the siting, for the fort lies on the edge of a plateau backing onto a gorge of the Sakarya river, with naturally defensive cliffs on two sides of the fort's circuit (see fig 4). Other variants within this second group are characterised by the presence of D-shaped projections or 'bastions' along the enclosure wall, apparently designed for display as well as for defence. Of this series, one type is similar to Karaviran but has two bastions flanking the entrance, for example Afsar (unpublished). Another form is represented by Dikmenkale (see fig 4; Vardar, Vardar 1997: 246-7, Hellenistic pottery recorded; Mitchell et al 1982: 25) which comprises a small triangular enclosure with bastions grouped along one wall (two of them standing on rock outcrops; a fourth bastion may well have stood on the outcrop at the east apex of the triangle but no evidence survives). This fort, although small, is sited on the most prominent hill in the area, with superb views giving it excellent strategic potential. Another form of small enclosure is found at Ta?lhkale (see fig 4; Vardar, Vardar forthcoming), which is square in plan with comer- bastions (only one is now clearly visible). Somewhat larger than the majority (up to ca. 70m across), and with a more impressive series of bastions, are the sub-rectangular enclosures at Akqa6ren (Vardar, Vardar 1997: 256; Byzantine pottery recorded), Camlli (Vardar, Vardar 1997: 260-1; Middle Phrygian, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine pottery recorded), Bozoglu Tepe (Matthews et

al 1998: site 74; Roman and Byzantine ceramics identified) and Gavur Kale (Matthews et al 1998: site 43; Byzantine pottery recorded), and the polygonal enclosures at Cicekhane Tepe (unpublished) and Yalakcukur6ren Kale (Matthew et al 1998: site 85; Roman and Byzantine pottery recorded); a smaller but similar sub-rectangular fort is known at G6kqeoren Kale Mevkii (Matthews et al 1998: 195-206; Iron Age, Roman and Byzantine pottery was recorded but no Hellenistic material was identified). As well as D-shaped bastions, (anilli also has two rectangular versions flanking the entrance (see fig 4). The fort at Girmec (Belke, Restle 1984: 169; French, Mitchell 1973: 98) is yet another variant of similar size to these: backing onto a cliff, a defensive wall (with only three bastions) was needed on just one side (an inner wall here, presumably Byzantine, is mortared and different in character, probably representing a later refortification). It could be suggested that at least a number of these forts date to the Galatian period, and these might be generally earlier than those of the first group noted above, with no evidence for Hellenising influences in the style of fortification27.

Of course, without excavation the significance of the various types within these two undated groups remains uncertain. Very little is known of the history of first millennium BC/AD fortification in central Anatolia and sites of similar form may not have performed similar functions, nor might they belong to the same chronological horizon; indeed, the range of forms outlined above may well represent a long span of time and belong to a variety of different historical and socio-political contexts. Some for example, might derive from late Roman/Byzantine contexts (as presumably Aktepe, mentioned in note 27); however, if the forts were indeed this late it is perhaps surprising that lime mortar was not used in their wall construction. A date earlier in the Roman period seems most unlikely since the defences are not of Roman military style and it is hardly feasible that the imperial authorities would have permitted the construction of private forts in the region. Some might be earlier than the Galatian period: for example, the tyrsis was a type of fortified residence belonging to certain local potentates of the Achaemenid empire; however, very little is known of socio-political organisation in the region in the pre-Galatian period and no Achaemenid period pottery has yet been identified at the sites (Sekunda 1991).

27 Another fort with semi-circular bastions (these are not shown on the published plan) sits on the summit of Aktepe. This site has previously been identified as Galatian (see Mitchell et al 1982: 27-8; Leonhardt 1915: 59, fig 17). However, the defences have been built using mortar and they are clearly later than the Hellenistic period; in addition the fort is much larger (ca. 180m x 40m) and more inaccesible than most of those we have been considering.

92


Nevertheless, we know for certain that in the first century BC the Galatian ruling elite did use fortified residences and, it can be suggested, they would have needed defended centres from a much earlier date too, not least to provide protection from each other. Despite the fact that the Galatian leaders were clearly capable of large-scale, well-organised co-operation and co- ordination against a common enemy (as demonstrated, for example, by Galatian activities in the Balkans and western Asia Minor in the earlier third century, and by the pan-tribal resistance to the Romans in 189 BC), the documentary evidence indicates that aristocratic rivalry and divided loyalties were a notable and typical feature of Galatian social organisation (as of other related, early European, societies). There seems little doubt that mutual raiding, feuding, and the taking of land, animals and hostages would have been long-standing and legit- imate aristocratic activities. The historically attested presence of a considerable number of Galatian leaders at any one time, especially in the third and second centuries, was surely a recipe for internal troubles and it may be suggested that in this earlier period, as well as in the first century, at least some of the ruling chieftains or tetrarchs (perhaps also some of the subordinate elite) are likely to have possessed fortified residences.

We would expect to find remains of such forts in the region's archaeological record. Of course it is possible that some at least could have been built primarily of timber (assuming that suitable trees were in fact available in the region), or have comprised small earthworks, which would leave less obvious archaeological traces. Nevertheless, many broadly contemporary European earthworks, even those of small size, are clearly visible in the landscape. But the types of fort outlined above would not appear to be out of place in the context of Galatian elite rivalry: their generally small size indicates that most at least were not designed to shelter large communities in times of trouble; the majority of these forts would probably have presented no serious obstacle to large, well-trained forces, such as those fielded by the external enemies of the Galatians (faced with such major threats, the Galatians used different tactics as shown for example by their response to the Roman invasion of 189 BC). And their topographical settings suggest that they were generally sited to control access to the natural (land-use) resources in their environs. The fact that they bear no close resemblance to the better-known types of La Tene hillfort is no obstacle to this view, for as we have seen, there is much in the archaeology of Galatia that differs from the contemporary European material. The Galatians could have assimilated Anatolian or Balkan styles of fortification (still poorly understood) in the third century BC; and in any case, they had to adapt in some

ways to the particular conditions and resources of the local environment. It might be significant that these forts at present appear to be broadly confined to areas occupied, or potentially occupied, by the Galatians. However, survey in other regions has been equally limited and these forms of fortification may yet prove to have a much wider distribution (although even if this were proved to be the case it would not necessarily remove the possibility that at least a number of those in our region were Galatian). Provisionally, and to be tested by excavation, it may be suggested that at least a number of them were Galatian elite strongholds (the phrouria/castella of the Classical writers) and a physical manifestation of the new pattern of aristocratic control imposed upon the region by the Galatians.

To speculate further, those resident in and around the enclosures could have included, as well as the leader and members of his kin-group, a military following, craft- workers, and those neccessary for the daily functioning of the place. As well as residences, the structures present would have included storage facilities for food and equipment, including the produce rendered to the lord by social inferiors; and for storage of other forms of wealth (see Deiotarus' treasury, Peium). The fort could have served as a court (see Deiotarus' 'palace', Blucium), and perhaps as a cult focus; it may also have been a centre for limited exchange of goods, and perhaps a venue for periodic communal gatherings. Perhaps there were also small settlements of a more general character associated with some forts, as Strabo indicates for Gorbeous (Strabo, 12.5.3). The physical character of the sites the elevated locations, the form of the defences suggests they were designed to impress the populace and symbolise the power and legitimacy of elite rule. The enclosures were sited so as to control access to the natural resources of their environs, but also served to segregate spatially the ruling elite from the lower orders of society, most of whom presumably resided in the lower lying land.

However, it should also be noted that several of the chambered tombs discussed above (see 'Burials') are apparently unassociated with forts, which may indicate that the Galatian elite did not always possess fortified centres.

Economy Given the limited amount of excavated material available and the dearth of environmental and land-use data, we know very little about the economies of the pre-Galatian and Galatian polities. Presumably the imposition and development of Galatian socio-political organisation resulted in at least some alterations to pre-existing economic structures: for example, in patterns of land and

93


property ownership, in the way work was organised, and in the specific ways in which produce, goods and services were rendered and consumed (presumably through specifically-defined social relations of kinship and clientage). But the extent to which pre-existing economic forms were integrated by the Galatians remains uncertain.

Nevertheless some general observations and sugges- tions can be made. We indicated earlier that at least some significant elements of the pre-Galatian settlement pattern continued into the later Hellenistic

period, and this limited evidence points to a measure of broad continuity of certain pre-existing economic structures (and therefore of some elements of social structure

too?). The emporium at Gordium continued to function

(and as suggested earlier, Tavium too was probably an

emporium in pre-Galatian times as well as in the Galatian period); indeed excavated evidence from the site demonstrates that at least some pre-Galatian trade/exchange networks were not in the longer term

destroyed by the Galatians, even if temporary disruptions may have occurred during the initial settlement

phase; and specialised manufacturing activities continued here, for example, production of painted terracotta figurines. Imports of black-glazed pottery (from southern and western Turkey and elsewhere), and

imports of Rhodian and Thasian trade amphorae (with their contents), continued into the Galatian period from earlier times. However, some alterations to these networks may have occurred. For example, it has been

suggested that the noteable absence of Pergamene black-glazed ware at the site could have been a result of the antipathy between the Galatians and the Pergamene state (see Winter 1984). (For manufacturing at

Gordium, see Mitchell 1993: 54-5; DeVries 1990; Sams, Voigt 1984; 1989; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997.) At the other, unexcavated hoyiiks noted earlier (Tolgeri etc.), surface finds of Hellenistic pottery are present in

quantity and include high quality ceramics (e.g. fine

red-slip wares): provisionally it could be suggested that in the Galatian period and before, these h6yiiks served as local market centres for the collection and redistrib- ution of produce and supplied a range of goods and services not obtainable at smaller sites.

Furthermore, it seems most likely that the basic

pattern of land use continued from pre-Galatian times. The heartland of the Galatian settlement area comprises hill-ranges interspersed with relatively fertile valleys and plains: in the Roman period as in modern times the

principal products of this region comprised grain and wool, and there is evidence to suggest that this was also the case in the pre-Galatian Iron Age (for example, there is evidence for grain production/processing in

Phrygian contexts at Gordium). Despite the paucity of direct evidence, it may be suggested that cereal

production, as well as stock-raising, would have been

important in the later Hellenistic period, and that the

significance of plant husbandry in the Galatian economies has been seriously underestimated in

previous interpretations. Relevant in this regard are a number of unpublished iron agricultural implements from Hellenistic Gordium, most notably share-tips for ards or ploughs (McClellan 1975: 264-73). In addition, the location of the known Galatian centres (as well as the possible Galatian forts) strongly suggests that these

places were foci for local agricultural regimes. It is

surely significant, for example, that the royal centre at Karalar (like several other sites we have mentioned) was located in the Murted Ova, one of the most fertile

plains in the region. In the drier southern plains (to the south of the area shown in fig 3) stock-raising, and

sheep in particular, was probably predominant in the Hellenistic period, as in later times: relevant here is Strabo's statement that king Amyntas owned more than 300 flocks (Strabo 12.6.1, 568; for land-use in the Roman period see Mitchell 1993: 143ff). Other resources in the region that were probably utilised include timber (from the north), salt (from Tatta: Tiiz Golii/the Salt Lake, and from the environs of the

Kizilirmak/Halys river), metals and slaves. In addition, historically attested Galatian mercenary activity and

raiding/booty-acquisition would have been important, although not necessarily regular, sources of income.

To survive, the Galatians had to adapt to the

particular environmental characteristics of their new homeland and it can be suggested that they made few (if any) radical and deep-seated alterations to the basic character of the pre-existing, and presumably well-

adapted, economies of the region. It can be suggested that the wealth of the Galatian aristocratic elite, although supplemented by booty and tribute payments, was based

primarily upon control of settled, agro-pastoral regimes and consumption of their produce, with households, kin-

groups or communities producing a surplus of food and materials large enough to meet both their own needs and their obligations to their social superiors. The elite

probably also excercised at least some measure of control over trade/exchange networks and specialist craft production (the chambered tombs at Gordium, and the historically attested phrourion at Tavium, could indicate at least some element of elite control of the

economy at these emporia.). In addition, the last Galatian kings (Deiotarus, Brogitarus, Amyntas) benefited greatly from Rome's gifts, subsidies and

grants of extensive tracts of land, in return for services rendered or promised.

94


Conclusions The Galatian communities established in the third century BC in north-central Anatolia constituted, together, a new, significant and increasingly important geo-political entity within Asia Minor. The permanent nature of this Galatian settlement can hardly be attributed to a marginal, and politically, socially and economically unsophisticated people; on the contrary, the fact that their polities survived to be incorporated into the Roman empire would indicate the existence of highly developed social structures bound together by shared value systems. The European Galatians successfully adapted to their new environment, changing it and being changed by it. However, the historical significance of this settlement would be difficult to appreciate using the currently available archaeological evidence alone, without recourse to written sources.

The chronology, nature and process of the transformations in European Galatian and native Anatolian culture in the region are at present poorly understood; and despite the undoubted potential of archaeology for providing a broader and more detailed perspective on cultural change and continuity, much of this cultural interaction will probably only ever be partially and indirectly perceived through the archaeological and historical record.

The Galatians of central Anatolia retained at least elements of their former cultural identity, for it is clear that the communities which they established remained, in at least a number of respects, unique and distinctive within Asia Minor through the Hellenistic period: most obviously in their use of a Celtic language, in aspects of their socio-political organisation, in elements of their material culture, and in certain ritual forms. And with the Galatian settlement, new ideologies of (shared) social identity appeared and developed in the region, identities which could have ranged from the level of the kin-group (and even finer subdivisions), through that of tetrarchy and tribe, to a larger pan-tribal shared identification which is manifest at the Drynemetos council meeting and in combined, co-ordinated action against others outside the region. It should also be borne in mind that cultural forms could have varied in their details across the region as well as over time, for the Galatians were not one people but rather an assemblage of several groups, presumably possessing their own particular cultural traditions and identities; and within Anatolia the different tribes to some degree followed their own separate historical paths and had different connections outside the region.

Nevertheless, with the survival of the resident

indigenous population, the various forms of native

central Anatolian culture were always present to provide the other significant component to the culture of the Galatian communities, and to act as a modifying agent on the former cultural identity of the Galatian settlers. Although it is very uncertain whether anything significant survived of pre-existing Anatolian social organisation, important elements of the native settlement pattern remained in place, and with these, pre-existing networks of trade/exchange, manufacturing traditions and, most probably, patterns of land-use. And clearly in a number of respects, elements of Anatolian culture came to exert an increasingly strong influence on the cultural character of the Galatian communities, most obviously in aspects of religious belief and in mortuary practices.

Another agent for modifying the former cultural identity of the Galatians was the process of Helleni- sation. This had begun in the region before the arrival of the Galatians but it becomes most apparent by the first century BC, though only significantly at the level of the ruling elite. It is manifest, for example, in the military architecture of Zengibar Kale/Isaura and Tabanlioglu Kale/?Peium, and in the funerary inscription of Deiotarus the Younger at Karalar; and in the occasional minting of silver coin by the last Galatian rulers, Deiotarus, Brogitarus and Amyntas. Otherwise there is little to indicate that Hellenisation had struck deeply into other areas of Galatian society and culture, despite the fact that the Galatians came to be called 'Gallograeci' by outsiders (see for example Mitchell 1993: 85-6; from Gordium there is evidence that a limited number of the populace (members of an elite?) were more obviously Hellenised: see DeVries 1990: 404-5). Similarly, the increasing influence of Rome in the region is only apparent at the elite level and in related military matters: for example, in the Roman- style organisation of Deiotarus' troops, and in Deiotarus' affiliation to Rome as declared in the funerary inscription set up for his dead son.

Certainly later, in the time of the Roman province of Galatia, many distinctive features of the former cultural identity of the Galatians appear to have blurred or disap- peared altogether. The most obvious exception to this is the Celtic language, which persisted in the region for several centuries.

In all attempts to define the nature of Galatian culture and its relationship to the Celtic cultures of Europe the linguistic evidence has been of central importance. The Galatians of Asia Minor spoke a form of Celtic in late antiquity which was recognisably very similar to the dialect spoken at the Gallic city of Trier. This observation, made by the Church Father St

95


Jerome, is supported by the remarks of other ancient writers and by the appearance of Celtic place and

personal names in inscriptions from Asia Minor

(Jerome, Commentary on Paul s Letter to the Galatians 2. 3; the other evidence is collected by Mitchell 1993: 50-1, 170-4; Strobel 1996: 139-42). The striking nature of this evidence has caused the survival and use of the Celtic language to be given particular emphasis in

defining the 'Celticness' of the Galatians. Strobel, for

example, comments that,

the Celticness of the three Galatian tribes of Asia Minor is manifested primarily as a linguistic category, which both sets them in contrast and binds them to their environment. Within the framework of

(their) ethnogenesis and acculturation, as also of their broader social and cultural development, it is of fundamental importance (1996: 139).

Shared language use and observed similarities of material culture have always been key components in discussions of problems of ethnic identification among prehistoric or subhistoric peoples, and in particular in the question of Celtic identity (Graves-Brown et al

1996; Strobel 1996: 15-54). Nevertheless related

language groups, similar material cultures and ethnicity, however much they overlap with one another, remain distinct analytical categories (Strobel himself assumes substantial inter-cultural similarity between the central

European Celtic-speaking groups from the Early La Tene period onwards (1996: 149-5 1). The privileging of

language as a defining criterion of ethnic and cultural

identity needs to be treated with caution, for there is a

danger that another imbalance in the evidence available to us, in this case the predominance of linguistic over

archaeological information, may cause too much stress

being placed on language at the expense of other

categories. The linguistic evidence for the Celticness of the Galatians appears dominant in part because other

categories of information, and in particular the material

culture, have hardly been examined. Nevertheless, the situation is changing. The recent

excavation and survey work outlined above is yielding significant new information and it is to be hoped that in the years to come there will be more intensive and co- ordinated archaeological investigation (and in particular, excavation), which will provide the material for a more balanced and fuller assessment of the Galatian communities of Asia Minor.

Bibliography Alkim, U B, Alkim, H, Bilgi, 0 1988: Ikiztepe I. Ankara Arik, R 0 1934: 'Karalar Hafriyati' Turk Tarih,

Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi 2: 102-67 Bannert, H 1978: 'Volcae' in K Ziegler (ed), Paulys

Realencyclopddie der classischen Altertumswis- senschaft Supplementband 15. Munich: 937-60

Belke, K, Restle, M 1978-80: 'Die Festungsanlage auf dem Ba? Dag (Kara Dag); Eine hellenistische

Burg im zentralen Kleinasien' Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Institutes in Wien 52: Beiblatt: 1-30

1984: Galatien und Lykaonien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4). Wien

Borchhardt, J 1987: 'Bericht der Grabungskampagne in

Limyra 1985' Kazi Sonuqlarl Toplantisl 8 (2): 106-8 Braund, D 1984: Rome and the Friendly King. London Brunaux, J-L 1988: The Celtic Gauls. Gods, Rites and

Sanctuaries. London

Brunaux, J-L, Rapin, A 1988: Gournay II. boucliers et

lances, depots et trophees. Paris

Champion, T C 1995: 'Power, politics and status' in M Green (ed), The Celtic World. London: 85-94

Cunliffe, B 1997: The Ancient Celts. Oxford DeVries, K 1984: 'Gordion 1982' Kazi Sonu?lari

Toplantisi 5: 265-8 - 1990: 'The Gordion excavation seasons of 1969-1973

and subsequent research' American Journal of Archaeology 94: 371-406

Dittenberger, W 1915-24: Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 4 vols (3rd edition). Leipzig

Dressier, W 1967: 'Galtisches' in W Meid (ed), Beitrdge zur Indogermanistik und Keltologie. Julius Pokorny zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Innsbruck 147-54

Dunham, S B 1995: 'Caesar's perception of Gallic social structures' in B Arnold, D Blair Gibson (eds), Celtic chiefdom, Celtic state. Cambridge: 110-115

Durugniil, S 1998: Tiirme und Siedlungen im Rauhen Kilikien (Asia Minor Studien 28). Bonn

Fluss M 1921: 'Scordisci' in W Kroll, K Witte (eds), Paulys Realencyclopddie der classischen Altertum-

swissenschaft 2al. Stuttgart: 831-5 French D, Mitchell, S (no date): Ankara 50 (Ankara

Tiirizmi, Eskieserleri ve Miizeleri Sevenler Demegi Yaymlan 5). Ankara

Graves-Brown, P, Jones, S, Gamble, C (eds) 1996: Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The 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


Leonhard, R 1915: Paphlagonia. Reisen und

Forschungen im n6rdlichen Kleinasien. Berlin Matthews, R, Pollard, T, Ramage, M 1998: 'Project

Paphlagonia: regional survey in northern Anatolia' in R Matthews (ed), Ancient Anatolia. London: 195-206

McClellan J A 1975: The Iron Objects from Gordion, a

Typological and Functional Analysis (PhD thesis). University of Pennsylvania

Memerci, D, Yagci, R 1991: 'Yukan Bagdere, Yalacik Tiimuluisii 1989 Kurtarma Kazisi' Miize Kurtarma Kazilarl Semineri 1990: 163-76

Mericboyu, Y, Atasoy, S 1969: 'Izmit Kanlibag Tuimiiliisii' Istanbul Arkeoloji Miizeleri Yillgi 15- 16: 67-95

Mitchell, S 1974: 'Blucium and Peium: the Galatian forts of King Deiotarus' Anatolian Studies 24: 61-75

1976a: 'Ancyra' in R Stillwell (ed), The Princeton

Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton: 54-5 1976b: 'Tavium' in R Stillwell (ed), The Princeton

Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton: 887 1980: 'Population and the land in Roman Galatia'

Aufstieg und Niedergang der R6mischen Welt 2, 7.2: 1053-81

1990: 'Archaeology in Asia Minor 1985-1989'

Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and the British School at Athens: Archaeological Reports for 1989-1990: 83-131

1993: Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor I. The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule. Oxford

Mitchell, S, French, D, Greenhalgh J, 1982: Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor 2. The

Inscriptions of North Galatia. Oxford

Miiller-Karpe, A 1988: 'Neue galatische Funde aus Anatolien' tstanbuler Mitteilungen 38: 189-99

de Navarro, J M 1972: The Finds from the Site of La Tene. I: Scabbards and the Swords Found in Them. London

Pleiner, R 1993: The Celtic Sword. Oxford

Ralston, I 1995: 'Fortifications and defence' in M Green

(ed), The Celtic World. London: 59-81

Renfrew, C 1996: 'Prehistory and the identity of Europe' in P Graves-Brown, S Jones, C Gamble (eds), Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities. London: 125-37

Riibekeil, L 1992: Suebica. V6lkernamen und Ethnos. Innsbruck

Sams, G K 1995: 'Gordion archaeological activities, 1994' Kazi Sonu9larl Toplantisi 17/1: 436-7

Sams, G K, Voigt M M 1989: 'Work at Gordion in 1988' Kazi Sonu?larl Toplantisi 11/2: 77-105

- 1994: 'Gordion archaeological activities, 1993' Kazi

Sonu?larl Toplantisi 16/1: 369-92

- 1996: 'Gordion 1995' Kazi Sonu9larl Toplantisi 18/1: 475-97

-1997: 'Gordion, 1996' Kazi Sonu?larl Toplantisi 19/1: 681-701

Saatqi, T 1987: 'Karalar Kazisi 1986' Anadolu Medeniyetleri Miizesi, 1986 Yilligl: 30-3

'Karalar Kazi Raporu 1987', Anadolu Medeniyetleri Miizesi, 1987 Yilligl: 19-22

Schmidt, K H 1994: 'Galatische Sprachreste' in E Schwertheim (ed), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12). Bonn: 15-28

Sekunda, N 1991: 'Achaemenid settlement in Caria, Lycia and Greater Phrygia' in H Sancisi-

Weerdenburg, A Kuhrt (eds), Achaemenid History VI. Leiden: 83-143

Staehelin, F 1907: Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater (2nd ed). Leipzig

Strobel, K 1991: 'Die Galater im hellenistischen Kleinasien: historische Aspekte einer keltischen

Staatenbildung' in J Seibert (ed), Hellenistische Studien. Gedenkschrift fir H Bengtson. Miinchen: 101-34

- 1994: 'Keltensieg und Galatersieger' in E Schwertheim (ed), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12). Bonn: 67-96

- 1994: 'Galatien und seine Grenzregionen. Zu Fragen der historischen Geographie Galatiens' in E Schwertheim (ed), Forschungen in Galatien (Asia Minor Studien 12). Bonn: 29-65

- 1996: Die Galater. Geschichte und Eigenart der keltischen Staatenbildung auf dem Boden des hellenistischen Kleinasien Bd. I. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und historischen Geographie des hellenistischen und r6mischen Kleinasien 1. Berlin

Swoboda, E, Keil, J, Knoll, F 1935: Denkmiiler aus

Lykaonien, Pisidien und Isaurien. Leipzig Tezcan, B 1971: Yalincak. Ankara Tsetskhladze, G R 1998: 'Who built the Scythian and

Thracian royal and elite tombs?' Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17(1): 55-92

Vardar, L E, Vardar, N A 1997: 'Galatia B6olgesi

Kaleleri/Yerleomeleri Yiizey Ara,tirmasl: Ankara Ili 1996' Ara~tirma Sonu?larl Toplantisi 15/1: 245-79

Wait, G A 1995: 'Burial and the otherworld' in M Green

(ed), The Celtic World. London: 489-511

Webster, J 1995: 'Sanctuaries and sacred places'in M Green (ed), The Celtic World. London: 445-64

Weissgerber, L 1931: 'Galatische Sprachreste' Natal- icium Johannes Geffcken. Vienna: 151-75

Winter, F A 1984: Late Classical and Hellenistic Pottery from Gordion: the Imported Black-Glazed Wares

(PhD thesis). University of Pennsylvania - 1988: 'Phrygian Gordion in the Hellenistic period'

Source 7(3/4): 60-71

97

Date post:	29-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	templecloud1
View:	66 times
Download:	7 times

Galatians in Asia Minor

Documents