The Identification of the Iron Age City on Kerkenes Dağ in Central Anatolia Author(S): G

The Identification of the Iron Age City on Kerkenes Dağ in Central Anatolia Author(s): G. D. Summers Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 81-94 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/545750 Accessed: 22/09/2009 14:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may 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 at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

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

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org THE IDENTIFICATIONOF THE IRON AGE CITY ON KERKENES DAC IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA*

G. D. SUMMERS, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Middle East Technical University, Ankara

IT is argued below that the huge Iron Age city on Kerkenes Dag (figs. 1-4)1 was an imperial foundation. This conclusion raises the question of who would have had reason to found a huge, new, skillfully designed, and heavily fortified city on a mountain top close to the center of Anatolia towards the end of the pre-Hellenistic Iron Age. Clearly, the city was unfinished and occupied only briefly. The founder chose the site for its natu- rally defensible position, and the architect used the features of the site to the best possible advantage. The particularlocation was chosen for a number of reasons: its situation close to important east-west and north-south routes connecting the Black Sea with the Medi- terraneanand Iran with the west, the relative abundanceof water which is peculiar to the granitic geology of the chosen site, and domination of the northernpart of the Cappado- cian plain. The city was founded out of necessity and displays an extraordinaryvision on the part of the founder. There can be no doubt that it was an "ideal city" laid out according to preconceived concepts of a plan that was to contain all the elements thought necessary for a new imperial center; these are: in no particularorder, royal, administrative,religious, military, and residential. On the other hand, it does not display the repetitive conformation to a standardplan that may be seen, for instance, in ImperialHittite gates or the rectilinear rigidity of new orthagonally planned Hellenistic cities. The obvious lack of any system of internaldefenses, such as a citadel wall, suggests that the intended population was not perceived as posing any threat, and it may thus be concluded that occupants were loyal sup- porters of the governing regime, not forcibly settled subject peoples. It is certainly clear that the foundation was intended to be permanent,not a temporaryexpedient.

* I am grateful to Malcolm Errington, David H. mers, "Kerkenes Dag 1993," XII. Arastlrma Sonuclart French,Crawford H. GreenewaltJr., Stephen Lumsden, Toplantisi:30 Mayls-3 Haziran 1994 Ankara (Ankara, and Elspeth McIntosh for discussing aspects of this 1995): 567-82; G. D. Summers, M. E. F. Summers, and its K. Ahmet, "The at Kerkenes paper1 during preparation. Regional Survey Dag: Kerkenes Dag is the object of a new survey. Pre- An Interim Report on the Seasons of 1993 and 1994," liminary reports are: G. D. Summers and M. E. F. Anatolian Studies 45 (1995): 43-68. The research has Summers, "The Mountain Top City on Kerkenes Dag been supported by the Middle East Technical Univer- (Yozgat) in Cappadocia:Kapadokya'da Kerkenes Dagi sity (Ankara), the British Institute of Archaeology in (Yozgat) Uzerinde Bir Tepe Kenti,"Arkeoloji ve Sanat Ankara,the British Academy, the National Geographic 62-63 (1994): 2-20 and cover pictures; G. D. Sum- Society, and the Leverhulme Trust. Generous support has also come from the Kapadokya Lodge Balloon Team; MNG, Inc.; MESA, A?; and Yibita?-Lafarge. [JNES 56 no. 2 (1997)] For the probable identification of Kerkenes Dag with ? 1997 by The University of Chicago. the Hittite sacred mount Daha, see 0. R. Gurney, "The All rights reserved. Hittite Name of Kerkenes Dag and Kusakll HoyUik" 0022-2968/97/5602-0001 $ 1.00. Anatolian Studies 45 (1995): 69-71. 81 00 I'O

V4?? ""7'4'; ""'' . . - - h:::??P;:?rl"?;:r r?? .rc: ???.;???:i ,..;? -?-.;? -.Dl- ??1";:_i :i ??,;

, f J__c/,:

/?.:,?r.: F~i::- 0l

v ::Z zkale RUM z: X I )i* ? ~? L,K*orkeo*8a Dag I-;t: ; ~~~ Ahsar Hoyiok :: p~~~

KUitepe-'p iZMiR H cJ~????z

--.iot.enaioo.Iboo0o

FIG. 1.-Map showing the location of Kerkenes Dag in relation to the major geographical features of Anatolia H

tTl0-i zItI trj

z OT 0

H z 0 tilC)

0 ztn 0' 03 zCC POm m;C

C)(

FIG. 2.-Photograph of the ancient city on the Kerkenes Dag from the Kapadokya Lodge hot air balloon, taken from the north in 1993. The line of the city defenses can be seen laid out along the mountain rim. The extramural temple at Karabas is at the bottom left between the two 00 streams. Some of the undated tumuli can be seen in the bottom left corner. L 84 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

FIG.3.-Map with contours at 5 m intervals, produced from stereo pairs of aerial photographs by MNG Eng., Inc. The height at the center right is crowned by a Byzantine castle. H

ztil

ti1

H z 0

0- z 0-

0 z

z tTI (A

FiG. 4.-Digital terrain models generated by Levent Topokta? from the digital data used to draw fig. 3. In 4a the north point of the city is on the left, in 4b at the bottom. O00 86 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

The date, based on pottery from the test excavations conducted by Erich Schmidt in 1928,2 is within the rather loose period known as Alishar V, i.e, somewhere between the seventh and the fourth centuries B.C. It seems inconceivable, however, that it could be a Persian foundation for three reasons: (1) it is totally unlike any other known Achaemenid city; (2) if it were Persian, it would surely have been the seat of a satrap, but it is not in the correct place for one of the satrapies according to any of the much-debatedreconstruc- tions of Achaemenid geography; and (3) none of the finds are indicative of the Persian period. At the same time, an eighth-century date would seem to be ruled out by the pottery. A date in the seventh century, while it cannot be disproved, would have no historical context. If an argument ex silentio is permissible, the likelihood is that construction and abandonmenttook place within the sixth century B.C. It is perhaps reasonable to assume that so great a city, the largest pre-Hellenistic site known on the Anatolian plateau, founded and abandoned or destroyed somewhere within this time range, or indeed earlier, would have found mention in the ancient texts. The more so, since, whatever the exact date, there is nothing of comparablestature known elsewhere on the Anatolian plateau. From among the ancient sources, there is only a single candidate and that is the city of Pteria mentioned by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus of Har- licanassus, "the father of history."The testimony of Herodotus is worth quoting in full: Croesus,when he has crossed[the Halys River]with his army,came in Cappadocianterritory, to whatis called Pteria.Pteria is the strongestpart of all thatcountry and lies in a line with the city of Sinope,on the EuxineSea. Therehe encamped,destroying the farmsof the Syriansand he cap- turedthe city of the Pteriansand madeslaves of the people, andhe capturedall the neighbouring towns;moreover he drovethe Syriansfrom their homes, though they had done him no mannerof harm.Cyrus, on his side, gatheredhis own army,and took on, as well, all the peoples who lived betweenhim and Croesus.(Before he set out to marchat all, he sent heraldsto the lonians and triedto makethem desert Croesus. But the lonianswould not listen to him.) So whenCyrus came and encampedover againstCroesus, then and therein thatland of Pteriathey foughtagainst one anotherwith mightand main. The battlewas fierce,and many fell on bothsides. At last they broke off at the onset of night,without either having the victory;so harddid the two armiesfight.3 It will be helpful to recount the well-known historical backgroundthat led up to the Battle of Pteria before examining the implications of this passage from Herodotus in detail. The most convenient starting point is perhaps the attack on the Neo-Assyrian capital Nimrud in 614 B.c. by the Medes and their subsequent alliance with the Babylonians. This was followed by the fall of Nineveh to the combined forces two years later. In 605 B.C. the Babylonian king Nabopolasser defeated the remnantsof the Assyrian army and their Egyp- tian allies at Carchemishand Hamath (modern Hama). The Neo-Assyrian Empire together with the wider spheres of interest was divided between the Medes and the Babylonians:the Mesopotamian part of the empire went to the Babylonians and the northernarena, from Harranto the Anatolian plateau, to the Medes. In the space of ten years (614-605 B.C.), the power of Assyria was broken and, after military defeat, the empire destroyed. The unlikely alliance between the Medes, newly emerging from east of the Zagros Mountains as a major power in the Near East, and the Neo-Babylonians, at the end of a three-thousand

2 3 E. F Schmidt, "Test Excavations in the City on Herod. 1.76, in D. Grene, trans., Herodotus: The Kerkenes Dagh," American Journal of Semitic Lan- History (Chicago, 1987). guages and Literatures 45 (1929): 83-92. THE IDENTIFICATIONOF THE IRON AGE CITY ON KERKENESDAG 87 year traditionof urbancivilization, fell into abeyance in the absence of a common enemy. Median strength was of sufficient magnitude for the Babylonians to have taken extensive defensive measures, including the construction of a huge wall, impressively faced with baked brick, to keep out the highly mobile and destructive menace. Sources for the following period of Median expansion are shadowy and much debated, the sources being Greek and Babylonian ratherthan Median and mostly somewhat later than events themselves.4By 590-589 B.C.the Medes were fighting the Lydians in central Anatolia, and thus the power of Urartuin the highlands of eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus must have been reduced to insignificance. Urartumay have been completely under Median domination, for Cyax- ares could hardly have campaigned towards the Halys River without being sure of security in the rear.5The war between the Medes and the Lydians, perhaps best understood as a series of annual campaigns with both protagonists fighting towards the practical limits im- posed by distance from their respective home bases, lasted into a sixth year when on the afternoon of 28 May 585 B.C. it seemingly came to an end. ... war subsequentlybroke out betweenthe two countriesand lastedfor five years,during which bothLydians and Medes won a numberof victories.One battle was foughtat night.But then,after five yearsof indecisivewarfare, a battletook place in whichthe armieshad alreadyengaged when day suddenlyturned into night.This changefrom daylight into darknesshad been foretoldto the Ioniansby Thalesof Miletus,who fixedthe datefor it for the yearin whichit did,in fact, takeplace. Boththe Lydiansand the Medesbroke off the engagementwhen they saw this darkeningof the day: they were more anxiousthan they had been to concludepeace, and a reconciliationwas brought aboutby Syennesisof Ciliciaand Labynetus of Babylon,who werethe menresponsible both for the pact to keep the peace and for the exchangeof marriagesbetween the two kingdoms.They per- suadedAlyattes to give his daughterAryenis to Astyages,son of Cyaxares-knowingthat treaties seldomremain intact without powerful sanctions.6 There have been numerous attemptsto reconcile this and other passages from Herodotus with the Neo-Babylonian sources,7but the date of the war and the terms of the treaty have not been questioned.8The problem of reconciling the date of the treaty with the death of Cyaxares and the accession of Astyages is not insurmountableif it can be assumed that Astyages was leading the Median forces in the west while his father was still on the throne in Ecbatana(the Median capital), a situation that has many parallels in the ancient world.9 That the Halys River formed the borderbetween the empires of the Lydians and the Medes is well attested.10Whatever the nature and intensity of the war itself there are two points worth making: firstly, that the Medes were capable of challenging Lydian power in Central Anatolia to such an extent that both Cilicia and far-flung Babylon saw it as being in their

4 P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of 8 But see G. Huxley, "A War between Astyages Babylon (New Haven, 1989), p. 199. Only the building and Alyattes," Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 4 inscriptions of Nabonidus are certainly contemporary (1965): 201-6, for later sources that may suggest with the events under discussion. that there were later hostilities between Astyages and 5 Urartu may have collapsed as early as 640 B.C., Alyattes. presumably under Scythian pressure. See, most re- 9 Ibid., p. 203, for an alternative view. cently, P. Zimansky, "An UrartianOzymandias," Bibli- 10 J. G. Pedley, Ancient Literary Sources on Sardis, cal Archaeologist 58 (1995): 38-39. HarvardArchaeological Explorationof Sardis 2 (Cam- 6 Herod. 1.74, in D. Grene, trans., Herodotus. bridge, Mass., 1972), p. 36, no. 107. For the possibility 7 Most recently, Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, that earlier the Halys River formed the eastern bound- passim. ary of Phrygia, see my article, "Grey Ware and the 88 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES own interests to secure peace between the warringfactions, and, secondly, the Medes could campaign on the Halys River without fear of serious attack from the rear. Leaving aside the question of later hostilities between Astyages and Alyattes, the next series of events relevant to the story begins with the overthrow of Astyages and the estab- lishment of the Achaemenid Empire by Cyrus the Great. By this time Alyattes was dead and his son Croesus, brother-in-lawof Astyages, was on the Lydian throne. Croesus saw the turmoil in the Iraniancourt as a time of dynastic weakness that provided him with an opportunity.Using the convenient, if not genuine, excuse of the murderof his brother-in- law, and having sent envoys to various oracular temples from which he received what he could only interpretas a favorable answer,11he took his forces across the Halys River and sacked Pteria as recounted in the passage from Herodotusquoted above. The story was one of the most famous in the Greek world. After the inconclusive battle between Croesus and Cyrus, Croesus retreatedto Sardis for the winter from where he summoned his allies in the naturalexpectation that Cyrus too would withdrawfor the winter and that the confron- tation would be renewed in the following spring.12Cyrus, however, had superior forces and, being a man of action and not about to let victory elude him, he went in immediate pursuit.13The oracle at Delphi had been correct. An empire was destroyed as a conse- quence of Croesus's action but not, as he had so confidently expected, that of the Persians but ratherhis own. It is the contention here that Pteria was the city on the Kerkenes Dag and that this identification fits remarkablywell with what little can be gleaned from both the ancient sources and the observable archaeological evidence. The location of the site fits well with that given by Herodotus, as has long been realized.14 It lies to the east of the Halys River and within Cappadocia. It is more or less due south of Sinope, and this is clearly what Herod- otus intended the reader to understand.The position of Sinope on the Black Sea would have been known to Herodotus himself and familiar to his readers, unlike the geography of the interior.15The city, as has been argued above, was a new imperial foundation and who better to have had the need of a strong base in such a position than Astyages, after the Battle of the Eclipse and the ensuing treaty,with a grandpalace in which he could play host to his new Lydian bride. The brief period of occupation would fit with the historical record: founded soon after 585 B.C. and destroyed by Croesus some forty years later (see below for the discussion of the exact date). The site would be consistent with the need of Astyages for a strong base east of the Halys River, and the lack of later occupation can easily be understood because once Cyrus had exerted control over Lydia, the very reason for a strong base east of the Halys River no longer existed. The argumentis, admittedly,circumstantial and lacks the proof of inscriptionsthat would clinch the proposed identification. But there are additional argumentsthat, while not proof

EasternLimits of Phrygia,"in A. Cilingirogluand D. H. 13 Cyrus perhaps chose the best of the alternatives French, eds., Anatolian Iron Ages 3: Proceedings of open to him. He would hardly have wanted to winter in the Third Iron Ages ColloquiumHeld at Van,6-12 Au- the highlands of the Anatolian plateau, and a returnto gust 1990, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara his Iranian homeland would have meant giving up his Monograph 16 (London, 1994), pp. 241-52. recent gains and risking having to cross the 11 Zagros For a detailed discussion of the relationship be- passes in winter. tween Croesus and the oracles, see C. D. Parke, "Croe- 14 S. Przeworski, "Die Lage von Pteria," Archiv sus and Delphi," Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies Orientdlnf 1 (1929): 312-15. 15 25 (1984): 209-32. Ibid., p. 313. Herodotus Pteria in 12 clearly places Herod. 1.77. Cappadocia,and thus it cannot have been in close prox- THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE IRON AGE CITY ON KERKENES DA8 89 in themselves, combine to make a strong case. Firstly, there is no good parallel for the city in Anatolia and no obvious precursor for its genesis. Secondly, the complexes are very spacious, hardly intended to contain a large and crowded population such as might be expected if it had been conceived and constructed as a refuge and haven for a local population; rather,it gives the impression of having been designed for a relatively small elite population. In other words, it was founded for a foreign, colonial, imperial community. Some hint of the correctness of this interpretationmay be extracted from the testimony of Herodotus quoted above. It is striking that Croesus treated the inhabitantsof Pteria differ- ently from the "Syrians" in the surroundingvillages who, in contrast to the Pterians, had done no wrong. It can thus be argued that the phraseology of Herodotus implies that the inhabitantsof Pteria were not the same as the ruralpopulation, an implication that can easily be understood if the occupants of the city were Medes and their allies: a foreign occu- pying power. The design and constructiontechniques of the defenses, the "palace"and the extramuraltemple at Karaba?,16have no exact parallel known in Anatolia and neither do the enclosures and other architecturalfeatures (figs. 5-7). If it is correct to assume that the elements of the city plan and the architecturewere the culmination of a well-established and long-standing tradition, an assumption that might be reinforced by the skill evident in the layout and execution, then Ecbatana with its legendary seven city walls might be expected to have provided the inspiration.17 Some elements of the site, such as the "palace" terrace and the skillful regulation of the water supply might be furtherhints of an eastern tradition.All this, of course, is speculation, and our knowledge of other sixth-centurycities in Anatolia is currently so sparse that it may be unwise to place too much weight on negative evidence. One furtheraspect of the ancient city may, with special pleading, be suggestive of an eastern connection. The altitude, ca. 1,400 m, is such that winters are both long and extremely cold, and the site is very exposed (unlike modern Anatolian cities at similar altitudes such as the nearby provincial center of Yozgat, which is somewhat protected by surrounding mountains). It is difficult to imagine the whole city population living through the winter out of choice and, incidentally, easy to see why the site did not attractlater urbandwellers. The idea of a seasonal city brings to mind the successive Achaemenid traditionof seasonal migration between summer and winter cities. If the population was indeed foreign, as has been argued above, it might be wondered where the winter residence was. Of this there is no evidence, but from Kerkenes frequent views of snow-capped Erciyas Dag rising above imity to the city of Sinope. Herodotusdoes not name a the equation better suited to Kerkenes. In a paper soon territoryto the north of Cappadocia,so that it is some- to be published, David French has convincingly argued times assumed by modem commentators that Cappa- that route of the Royal Road was in fact furtherto the docia extended as far as the Black Sea; but Herodotus south. I am most grateful to David French for showing did not mean to imply that Sinope was in Cappadocia. me his paper in advance of publication, for discussion This was long ago understoodby W. M. Ramsay, His- on roads and routes in general, and much else. torical Geography of Asia Minor (London, 1890), pp. 16 See G. D. Summerset al., "The KerkenesDag Sur- 28-33, although there is no basis for assuming that vey: An Interim Report,"Anatolian Studies 46 (1996): the Persian Royal Road ran to Pteria, which, according 201-34, pls. 23-40. to the hypothesis expounded here, was deserted after 17 For a Median city at Mespila (? modem Mosul) the destruction wrought by Croesus. Ramsay accepted with a "kindof palace" and stores for the satrap,and for the identification of Bogazkoy with Pteria proposed Median Nineveh, see J. Oates in J. Boardman,I. E. S. by Texier before it was realized that it was the capital Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger, eds., of the Hittite Empire. Hattusa is 50 km from Kerkenes The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, pt. 2 (Cam- as the crow flies, and its relative isolation makes many bridge, 1975), p. 90. of the suggestions proposed by Ramsay in support of c-1 0 z r 0

D 3

CO ir

FIG.5.-Low level photographtaken by remote control from a helium-filled blimp. The area, ca. 230 x 150 m, is just inside the angle in the northeastern stretch of city wall (extreme left in fig. 2), which, in its ruinous state, can be seen at top right. Remains of compounds and buildings, a street, and a small circular reservoir stand out. The outcropping bedrock provided a ready source of building stone. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE IRON AGE CITY ON KERKENES DAG 91

f:0

: : :: ::; :: : :::

: :::0 : 0

FIG.6.-A magnetic map, made by Lewis Somers of GEOSCAN, of an area inside the northwesternstretch of city wall where it bends towards the northernmostpoint of the city. Only one building level is apparent, and the clarity of the image is a result of the destructionby fire. Comparewith fig. 7 below. 92 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

FIG.7.-A plan drawn by Niliifer Baturayoglu from a combination of magnetic data, balloon photographs, ground observation, and a test trench dug in 1996. The hall with, apparently,three rows of columns has affinities with Iron Age architecturein western Iran. the summer haze over the Cappadocianplain are a constant reminderof the relative prox- imity of Kayseri. Otherpossible candidatesexist, however, to the northor even to the south of the Taurusmountains. Seasonal occupation,if it could be demonstrated,would not amount to proof of an eastern origin and there is a danger of circularity of argument,but the point is worthy of serious consideration. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE IRON AGE CITY ON KERKENES DAG 93

Although the argumentsset out above do not amountto proof, they culminate in a strong case. If the city on Kerkenes Dag cannot be identified with Pteria, the problem of who did build it remains. Further,the date would surely need to be revised, for it is most unlikely that the Medes would have allowed such a position of strength to have been established during the period when they were fighting the Lydians. If it had been constructedby some local power attemptingto assert independence,and destroyedrather than built by the Medes, the ambitiousness of the scheme is surprising and the failure of the Medes to take over rather than desert the site would need some explanation. The location of a major center so far to the north deserves comment, particularlyif the Persian Royal Road is further to the south.18From the Median point of view they would have wanted to keep as far north of the Babylonian threat as possible, and it can thus be surmised that their forces would have preferred to cross the Zagros by one of the more northerly passes and to have followed the modern route rather than to have risked con- frontation with Babylonian forces in northernMesopotamia. The Persian Royal Road, on the other hand, postdates the captureof Sardis and perhapsthe incorporationof Babylonia into the Achaemenid Empire. It may also be that the foothills of the Pontic mountainswere perceived as being more desirable than the hot, dry plains of the plateau and logistically easier in terms of water and supplies.19Under the Achaemenids, the cities of the southern Pontus became Iranianizedto the extent that eastern cults remained strong until they were overtaken by Christianity.In the seventh century A.D. the Sassanian Persians showed interest in the same area and followed similar routes as far westward as Ankara. It has been argued, admittedly on rather thin evidence, that the effect of these Persian raids was felt in the countryside around Kerkenes Dag.20It is likely that the attractionsof the northerly route were the same in the Sassanian period as they were some 1,300 years earlier. Two argumentsmay be put forwardagainst the identificationof the city on the Kerkenes Dag with Pteria: firstly, there is no (known) Median precedent for such a huge city and, secondly, that the Medes would not have had the power and organizational skills to con- ceive of and build on the scale of Kerkenes. To the first of these objections there is no good answer, although nothing is known about the physical city of Ecbatana, the Median capital.21Lack of precedent, however, is an argument that, at least on present knowledge, would apply to any hypothesis concerning the foundation of the city. Passargadae and Persepolis, not much later in time, are evidence of a cultural tradition that was capable of producing new and startling innovations. The second objection, like the first, is based on negative evidence. It has been seen that the Medes fought the Lydians on the Anatolian plateau for more than five years. Further, in 614 B.C., it was the Medes who attacked

18 D. H. French, forthcoming and n. 15 above, of Antiquity,"The English Historical Review 90 19 (1975): See my article, "Archaeological evidence for the 739, reprinted in idem, History and Archaeology of AchaemenidPeriod in EasternTurkey," Anatolian Stud- Byzantine Asia Minor (Aldershot, 1990), pp. 721-42. ies 43 (1993): 85-108, for the importanceof this route The argument is largely based on a small number of in the Achaemenid period and the possibility that Pon- coins from Alisar Hoyiik and a lack of late inscriptions. tic silver was one stimulus. It is futile, in the absence 21 B. Gentio, "The Medes: A Reassessment of the of evidence, to speculate on what importancethe Medes Archaeological Evidence," East and West 36 (1986): placed on contacts with the Greek colonies on the 38-62, has discussed the archaeological evidence. In Black Sea. any case, Hamadan is a very big mound and quite 20 C. Foss, "The Persians in Asia Minor at the End differentfrom the mountain-topcity on Kerkenes Dag. 94 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

Nineveh and Calah, capturedTarbisu, and destroyed Assur.22The "mighty enemy" against whom Nabopolassar built the "Median Wall" surely included the Medes, even if they did not comprise solely the Medes.23The strength of this wall, which ran from the Tigris to the Euphrates,is very impressive, and its construction would have involved very consider- able labor and expense. It was built against a threat that was perceived to be very real and may thus give an impression of the strength that the Medes were thought to be able to muster. In conclusion, it has been argued that the city on the Kerkenes Dag in Central Anatolia was the city of Pteria mentioned by Herodotus. Further,it has been suggested that this city was built by the Medes after the conclusion of their war with Lydia that ended in 585 B.C. and that the city was still incomplete when it was destroyed by Croesus in 545 B.C. The arguments adduced in favor of this identification include recent archaeological data that provide evidence for the "imperial"foundation, the short occupation, and the destruction, as well as the evidence of historical geography. Although the argumentscombine to make a strong case, the proof of inscriptions or of exact date has yet to be found. The identification has far-reachingconsequences for an understandingof the natureof Median expansion and control, and for the successive Achaemenid Empire.

ADDENDUM

1. In the summer of 1996 limited test trenches were dug under the auspices of the Yozgat Museum. The results fully substantiatethe argumentsset out here for a short-lived Iron Age city ultimately put to the torch. Evidence for wealthy aristocraticresidences (fig. 7) and "imperial stables" was recovered. Direct evidence for the identification of the city, however, remains elusive, and its equation with Pteria still rests on the arguments set out above. 2. Stephanos of Byzantium, as Przeworskinoted,24 lists both Pteria near Sinop and Pterion (alternatively Pteria), a city of the Medes. David French has suggested to me (personal communication,27 October 1996) that Stephanos was using an ancient source, now lost, and that, whether or not there were two Pterias, Stephanos's association of the name Pterion/Pteria with the Medes supports the identification of the Median city on the Kerkenes Dag with Herodotus'sPteria.

22 CambridgeAncient History, vol. 3, pt. 2, p. 179. at Habl as-Sar," 46 (1984): 125-29; J. A. Black 23 Iraq Ibid., pp. 238, 249 and R. D. Barnett, "Xenophon et al., "Hab as-Sahr 1983-85," NorthernAkkad Project and the Wall of Media,"Journal of Hellenic Studies 83 Reports 1 (1987): 3-46; and C. A. Baud et al., "Habl (1963): 1-26. For the identification of the "Median as-Sabr 1986, nouvelles fouilles,"Northern Akkad Proj- Wall" with the remains of an immense structure, see ect Reports 2 (1989): 23-70. R. G. Killick, "NorthernAkkad Projects: Excavations 24 Przeworski, "Die Lage von Pteria,"p. 315, n. 4.