University of Cincinnati

Date: 2/8/2011

I, Alison L. Fields , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Classics.

It is entitled: The Late Phrygian Citadel of , Turkey: A Preliminary Study

Student's name: Alison L. Fields

This work and its defense approved by:

Committee chair: Kathleen Lynch, PhD

Committee member: Steven Ellis, PhD

Committee member: Gisela Walberg, PhD

1366

Last Printed:3/8/2011 Document Of Defense Form

The Late Phrygian Citadel of Gordion, Turkey: A Preliminary Study

A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences

2011

by

Alison L. Fields B.A. New York University, 2008

Committee Chair: Kathleen M. Lynch, Ph.D

Abstract

Intensive archaeological research at the site of Gordion, Turkey, the ancient cultural and political capital of the , has now reached its sixtieth consecutive year. Large-scale excavations carried out in 1950-1973 under the directorship of Rodney S. Young, in particular, have contributed greatly to our knowledge of Phrygian culture and the history of Gordion.

However, Young’s culture-historic approach caused greater scholarly interest of the time periods in which the Phrygian empire was at the peak of its cultural influence, predominantly from the

10th-8th centuries B.C.E. Less attention has therefore been paid to the period in which the site was under Achaemenid rule, the Late Phrygian period (ca. 550-330 B.C.E), as this period represents a decline of Phrygian culture and political dominance.

This study seeks to contribute to filling this chronological gap in our knowledge by examining changes in the topography and cultural climate during one of the site’s most complex and interesting periods. As such, this thesis stands as the first in-depth, comprehensive study of the archaeological record of the Late Phrygian period citadel at Gordion. Particular interest was placed on dating the destruction of the traditional, monumental Middle Phrygian (ca. 800-550

B.C.E) structures that is known to have occurred during this period and the subsequent rebuilding program. The gradual, ad hoc replacement of the monumental structures on the citadel with modest industrial and domestic buildings signals a dramatic change in Gordion’s administrative system and the absence of central authority by the mid-4th century B.C.E.

ii

© 2010 Alison L. Fields

iii Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I wish to extend my deepest gratitude to my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Kathleen Lynch, who granted me the opportunity to serve as her research assistant at

Gordion in 2009. This project came to fruition thanks to the countless hours she sacrificed for discussion, her ever-inspiring mastery of ceramics, her extraordinary attention to detail throughout the editing process, and her shared good humor. The knowledge she has passed on to me (the most important of which, she would argue, being knitting) is invaluable. Please note that all discussions of Greek imported pottery in this thesis, including identification of shapes and dating, were made in consultation with Kathleen Lynch and reference her forthcoming study of the imported pottery at Gordion.

Thanks must also be given to Dr. C. Brian Rose, who (for better or for worse) entrusted this project to me, and to Dr. Kenneth Sams and Dr. Mary M. Voigt for continuously unveiling for me the “Mysteries of Gordion.” Your combined support during the data-collection phase of this project is greatly appreciated.

I must also acknowledge the support I have received from Dr. Steven Ellis. I thank him for acting as a second reader on such short notice. His comments have greatly improved the methodology section of this thesis, and his insight and experience with legacy data will continue to benefit my work on this project in the future.

I also wish to thank the faculty of the Department of Classics at the University of

Cincinnati, first, for granting me admission to the best Classics department in the world, and second, for awarding me a Louise Semple Taft Fellowship and a Marian and Dorothy Rawson

Fellowship for Archaeology. I am most fortunate to be able to study whatever fascinates me by means of this financial support. Thanks should also be placed to the Burnam Classics Library,

iv the resources of which are unparalleled, and to the library staff, namely David Ball, Michael

Braunlin, and Jacquelene W. Riley for their research assistance.

I also wish to thank Bice Peruzzi and Signe Barfoed, who served as Dr. Lynch’s research assistants at Gordion in years past and who contributed in the photographing of the imported pottery discussed in this thesis.

Furthermore, throughout the thesis-writing process, I have been most fortunate to share the friendship of Sarah Lima. I cherish her mentorship in the field and companionship on the track above most things. And to the Cincinnati Rollergirls: I thank each of you for willingly allowing me to take out my thesis frustrations on you. You all inspire me and make me stronger.

Last, but certainly not least, I owe an outrageous amount of gratitude to my partner,

Emily Joy. I could not have survived this without your love and support. I am so lucky to have found you.

v Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

Chapter One: Introduction 1 Gordion: Discovery and Excavation 3 Gordion: The History 6

Chapter Two: Project Objectives, Methodology, and Challenges 21 Project Objectives 21 Methodology 25 Project Challenges 31

Chapter Three: The Outer Gate-Court 37 Building C 38 The Painted House 43 Building G 47 Building E 50 Buildings D and F 54

Chapter Four: The Inner Gate-Court 57 Building H 57 Building M 63 Buildings O and Q 67 NCT Building and Building X 71 The Yellow House 74

Chapter Five: Conclusions 76 Analysis 76 Conclusions 80

Bibliography 85

vi List of Tables

Table 1. The Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence (YHSS). After Voigt 2009.

vii List of Figures

Fig. 1. View of Gordion from the excavation house. Citadel mound at right, Küçük Höyük at center, sheep pasturing in the foreground. Author. Fig. 2. Map of Asia Minor, including major land routes and Persian Royal Road. French 1998, fig. 3, after Levick 1967. Fig. 3. Wooden serving stand (W 82), from Tumulus MM, after cleaning and restoration. DeVries 1990, p. 389, fig. 23.

Fig. 4. Alabaster figure (S 100), probably Kybele (Matar), from fill of robbed-out wall of Building X. DeVries 1990, p. 398, fig. 37.

Fig. 5. Phrygian tumuli in modern Anatolian landscape. Author. Fig. 6. Modern entrance to the Mound (Tumulus MM). Author.

Fig. 7. Plan of Early Phrygian Citadel (Eastern Mound), ca. 850 B.C.E. Stewart 2010, fig. 12.

Fig. 8. Plan of Middle Phrygian citadel (Eastern Mound), ca. 500 B.C.E., showing Inner and Outer Gate-Courts and Enclosure Wall. After Stewart 2010, fig. 15. Fig. 9. Map of the occupational zones at Gordion, showing trenches opened during Voigt's excavations. Voigt and Henrickson 2000, fig. 1. Fig. 10. Plan of Achaemenid Mosaic Building and adjacent Late Phrygian Building A. Burke (forthcoming).

Fig. 11. Piet de Jong’s reconstruction of “Orpheus and Eurydice” wall painting from the Painted House. Rose (forthcoming).

Fig. 12. Plan of Gordion’s trenches, with shading indicating the trenches examined by the author. After Stewart 2010, fig. 6.

Fig. 13. Plan of Building C (Phase 1) with central hearth in cella. Young 1955, p. 7, fig. 11.

Fig. 14. South foundations of Building C, the Phase 2 wall partially overlying the Phase 1 wall. Young 1955, pl. 3, fig. 13.

Fig. 15. Inner face of northeast foundation of Building C, showing beam holes under the masonry of Phase 2 building. Young 1955, pl. 3, fig. 14.

Fig. 16. Attic black-glazed Acrocup (P 1665), ca. 475-450 B.C.E. Found in layer pre-dating Building C, Phase 2. Lynch (forthcoming).

viii Fig. 17. Proposed plan of Late Phrygian buildings overlying Middle Phrygian Buildings C and G and the Outer Gate-Court enclosure wall. Possible 5th century B.C.E. buildings in dark gray, 4th century B.C.E. buildings in light gray. After Stewart 2010, fig. 15.

Fig. 18. Painted House after excavation, looking south; preserved floor in foreground, Building C in background, Building G at lower right. Young 1956, pl. 85, fig. 16.

Fig. 19. Deposit of broken plaster overlying the floor of Painted House during excavation. Above, the stone socle of the bronze foundry. Young 1955, pl. 4, fig. 15.

Fig. 20. Plan of Building E (Hearth Building), Phase 1. Young 1955, p. 4, fig. 6.

Fig. 21. Pebble bedding of hearth in Building E (Hearth Building), Phase 2a. Young 1955, pl. 2, fig. 8.

Fig. 22. Northwest corner of Building E (Hearth Building), Phase 2a, showing foundation of beams. Young 1955, pl. 2, fig. 7.

Figs. 23a-23b. Ivory stamp-seal in the shape of an owl (BI 218), found embedded in the floor of Building E (Hearth Building), Phase 2a. Young 1955, pl. 2, fig. 9.

Fig. 24. Stone coping of hearth and paved floor (top) of Building E (Hearth Building), Phase 2c. Young 1955, pl. 3, fig. 10.

Fig. 25. Plan of Outer Gate-Court showing Phase 1 plans of Buildings D and F. Young 1962, pl. 42, fig. 4.

Fig. 26. Plan of Outer Gate-Court showing Phase 2 plans of Buildings D and F. Young 1956, pl. 84, fig. 15.

Fig. 27. Plans of Building H, Building M, and enclosure wall. Young 1959, pl. 66, fig. 11.

Figs. 28a-28b. Attic black-figured skyphos (P1729b-e). Found under patch of hard-packed earth, Layer 6, Trench MW. Lynch (forthcoming). Fig. 29. Attic black-glazed stemless cup (P 5421a,b + P 843d). P 843d: two joining fragments at right. From brick-lined pit west of (behind) Building H, Trench MW. Lynch (forthcoming). Fig. 30. Approximate location of Late Phrygian structures overlying Buildings M and H and the enclosure wall. Author.

Fig. 31a. Attic red-figured krater (P 1813a), ca. 475-450 B.C.E. Found on floor of “Floor S House,” Trench MW-2. Lynch (forthcoming). Fig. 31b. Attic red-figured krater (P 1813a), ca. 475-450 B.C.E. View of the interior, showing scraping marks. Lynch (forthcoming).

ix Fig. 32. Attic black-figured hydria (P 2074), ca. 575 B.C.E. Found on floor of Building M. Lynch (forthcoming). Fig. 33. A pot hoard from Building M. Young 1959, pl. 65, fig. 9.

Fig. 34. Attic red-figured oinochoe (P 3242a), ca. 500-475 B.C.E. Found in "Pit C" northwest of Building O. Lynch (forthcoming). Fig. 35. Attic white-ground patterned lekythos (P 2496), ca. 475-450 B.C.E. Found under Floor 4 (=Floor 3 in Trench PN). Lynch (forthcoming). Fig. 36. Detail of Buildings NCT, P, V, X (Phase 2), Y, and Z and the circuit wall beyond. DeVries 1990, p. 397, fig. 35.

Fig. 37. Black-figure lekythos (P 3916), ca. 475 B.C.E., found under pebble floor of Building X, Phase 2. Lynch (forthcoming).

Fig. 38. At left, possible plan of “Floor S House;” at right, plan of Yellow House north of pylon. (Caption reads “Level V” in preliminary report.) Young 1958, pl. 66, fig. 13.

Fig. 39. Handle fragment of Attic kylix (P 2094), ca. 475 B.C.E., found under floor of Yellow House. Lynch (forthcoming).

x

Chapter One Introduction and Historiography

Exploration of Gordion, the ancient capital of the Phrygians and legendary home of King

Midas, has now reached its 60th consecutive year. Despite the longevity of research at the site, the “Mysteries of Gordion” (a phrase affectionately coined by the author) continue to unveil themselves and entice researchers from numerous disciplines. Gordion, which stands as the type-site for Phrygian civilization, is of great interest to archaeologists and historians, due to the fact that it was continuously occupied from the Early Bronze Age through the Roman period, with only one observable hiatus in the 2nd-1st centuries B.C.E. Gordion thus has the potential to illustrate how material culture changes over time in conjunction with the site’s ever-changing cultural occupations.

Unfortunately, this potential is not yet attainable, as certain periods of Gordion’s history are less intensively studied. Due to the fact that Gordion is known historically to have been the capital of the Phrygians, previous scholarship has focused predominantly on the time periods in which this ancient civilization was at the peak of its cultural influence, predominantly from the

10th-8th centuries B.C.E. While these studies have contributed greatly to our understanding of

Phrygian history and culture, the periods in which Gordion’s prominence began to decline—the

Late Phrygian (ca. 550-330 B.C.E.) and the Hellenistic periods (ca. 330-100 B.C.E.)—are not as well understood. While recent scholarship has begun to rectify this imbalance for the Hellenistic period of the city, no systematic study of the Middle-Late Phrygian period citadel yet exists.

This study therefore seeks to contribute to filling this chronological gap in our knowledge by examining changes in the topography and cultural climate during one of the site’s most complex

1 and interesting periods. As such, this thesis stands as the first in-depth, comprehensive study of the archaeological record of the Late Phrygian period citadel at Gordion.

The primary goal of this thesis is to provide a preliminary overview of the topographical changes that occurred on the citadel mound during the 6th-4th centuries B.C.E. More specifically, this study seeks to date and describe as well as possible the destruction of the traditional, monumental Middle-Late Phrygian structures that is known to have occurred during this period, as this destruction signals a dramatic change in Gordion’s administrative system and the decline of ’s political dominance. This study also provides the first comprehensive analysis of the chronology and character of the topography of the citadel after the aforementioned destruction of the Middle-Late Phrygian monumental buildings. It is also hoped that an analysis of these architectural changes will illuminate aspects of Persian presence at the site, as the date range for the Late Phrygian period (ca. 550-330 B.C.E) designates the period in which the site was under Persian/Achaemenid rule.

In this initial chapter, I will introduce the site of Gordion, providing an account of the settlement’s history. As a site that has been in modern consciousness for over 100 years and intensively excavated and studied for 60, it will also be necessary to recount the history of excavations and scholarship at Gordion. This will give insight into the current state of scholarship, illuminating both its shortcomings and the potential for further avenues of study.

The following section will also provide the opportunity to familiarize the reader with the nomenclature of the chronological periods of the site as determined by Gordion archaeologists.

2 Gordion: Discovery and Excavation

The ancient citadel of Gordion was discovered in 1893 by German Classicist, Alfred

Körte, with the help of ancient literary references regarding the location of the city (Fig. 1).1

Körte and his brother, Gustav Körte, returned in 1900 to conduct a three month-long excavation season, which involved the excavation of several trenches in the southwest sector of the citadel mound and five burial tumuli (Tumuli K, I-V).2 Excavations at the site would not resume until

1950, when Rodney S. Young was appointed director for the Gordion Project under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania. Young’s primary research interest was to investigate the lesser-known culture of the Phrygians, and therefore he focused his energy on the excavation of the strata related to their periods of power. During Young’s 17 season-long tenure at Gordion, the excavations of greatest interest to the present study, he unearthed a portion of the citadel mound, some of the city’s lower town and fortifications, and thirty tumuli—including the famous

Midas Mound (Tumulus MM).3 Still relevant to current scholarship is Young’s establishment of a chronological sequence based on periods (Early, Middle, and Late Phrygian). Although several of his chronological assumptions have since been revised, the nomenclature continues to be used.

Due to Young’s unexpected death in 1974, systematic excavations were put on hold, though small-scale explorations of the mound and studies of excavated material continued under

1 Arr. Anab. 1.29.5; Curt. 3.1.12; Strab. 12.5.3; Livy 38.18.11–12. 2 Körte 1897; Körte and Körte 1901, 1904. 3 A final report of the results of the Young excavations on the citadel mound was never published, but preliminary reports of each season were published annually. See Young 1950, 1951a, 1951b, 1953a, 1953b, 1954, 1955a, 1956a, 1956b, 1956c, 1957a, 1957b, 1957c, 1958a, 1958b, 1958c, 1960a, 1960b, 1960c, 1962a, 1962b, 1964a, 1964b, 1964c, 1966, 1968a, 1968b, 1974; Young and Edwards 1952; Edwards 1959a, 1959b, 1963a, 1963b. For the Midas Mound excavations specifically, see Gordion Notebooks 63 and 70 (1957).

3 the directorship of Keith DeVries.4 In 1988, Mary M. Voigt was appointed Director of

Excavations; simultaneously, G. Kenneth Sams was appointed Project Director, and both continue to serve in these positions. Voigt conducted excavations from 1988 to 2006, seeking to clarify matters of stratigraphy divorced from Young’s cultural biases.5 The result was a new chronological sequence: the Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence (YHSS). In keeping with current Gordion scholarship, the two chronological designations will be used simultaneously

(Table 1).

Although the material discussed in this thesis is limited to that which was excavated during Young’s directorship (1950-1973), the results and subsequent research deriving from

Voigt’s excavations directly influence this study. The most recent and significant achievement made by Voigt’s research is the reevaluation of Gordion’s chronology, especially involving the date of the citadel’s destruction in the Early Phrygian Period/YHSS 6.6 Young, being a

Classicist by training, referred to textual sources extensively, and he made his interpretations with preconceived notions about how historically documented events would translate to the archaeological evidence. For example, literary sources including Assyrian records and a passage from Strabo (1.3.21) claim that the Kimmerians invaded Phrygia ca. 700 B.C.E. This caused

Young to make several assumptions: 1) that the earliest monumental building program (Early

Phrygian period/YHSS 6) on the citadel reflected the height of prosperity for the Phrygian state during the rule of King Midas, ca. 717-709 B.C.E.; 2) that the destruction of these buildings

4 DeVries 1990 provides the results of the 1969-1973 excavations and a summary of the current interpretation of excavation evidence derived from the research conducted 1973-1990. 5 Yearly reports are published in Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı. See also Voigt 1994; Voigt et al. 1997. 6 Voigt 2005, 2009.

4 occurred toward the end of eighth century B.C.E. at the hands of the Kimmerians; 3) that the citadel was rebuilt by the Persians after Cyrus the Great invaded Gordion in 546 B.C.E.

Emerging inconsistencies in Young’s interpretation of the Destruction Level have now led to a re-analysis of Young-excavated material and reports. By restudying the field notebooks of Young’s excavators, Voigt and DeVries realized that plans to rebuild the citadel were already underway when the destructive fire spread across the citadel.7 Furthermore, a stratigraphic sounding carried out in 1988-1989 revealed that the rebuilding of the citadel (Middle Phrygian period/YHSS 5) began almost immediately after the destruction of the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6 citadel, further disproving the interpretation provided by Young, who saw a ca. 100 year hiatus between the destruction of the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6 citadel and the construction of the Middle

Phrygian/YHSS 5 citadel.

Further evidence for an almost immediate rebuilding of the citadel after the destruction was the fact that the subsequent Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 plan of the citadel included a near reduplication of Early Phrygian/YHSS 6 citadel plan. Not only does this suggest that the layout of the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6 citadel was in the recent memory of the architects and builders involved in the rebuilding project, but also a cultural and political continuity between the two chronological periods. Following Voigt, “If the Phrygians’ political power had been destroyed by a Kimmerian raid in the early 7th century, who were the rulers that were able to mobilize vast amounts of labor to begin reconstruction, and why were historical sources silent on the large and prosperous city that we had documented archaeologically?”8 Finally, a dendrochronology sample of wood remains from the destruction level of the Early Phrygian citadel provided a date

7 Voigt (forthcoming); 2009, p. 227; “The Unfinished Project” in DeVries 1990, pp. 387-388, fig. 22. 8 Voigt 2005, p. 31.

5 much earlier than expected—ca. 861 B.C.E.9 The combined evidence now confirms a date of ca.

800 B.C.E. for the Destruction Level separating the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6 and Middle

Phrygian/YHSS 5 citadels. The Middle Phrygian/YHSS 5 citadel was therefore the more likely home of King Midas, rather than the Early Phrygian/YHSS 6 citadel, as Young had originally presumed. As such, the new chronology at Gordion cautions against using historical sources to explain changes in material culture, and encourages skepticism of Young’s interpretive methodology.

Gordion: The History

The citadel of Gordion is situated in the Phrygian plateau of central Anatolia, about 80 km southwest of Ankara (Fig. 2). The settlement, stretching over two km (1.24 mi) and 400 hectares (988 acres), shows signs of habitation from as early as ca. 2500 B.C.E., continuing throughout the Bronze Age, but was not intensively occupied until the migration of the peoples who came to be known as Phrygians, perhaps in the 12th century B.C.E.10 Around the year 1200

B.C.E., the Hittite empire, which had a great influence over central Anatolia, collapsed, consequently marking the destruction or abandonment of many settlements.11 The subsequent period at Gordion, identified as the Early Iron Age/YHSS 7, ca. 1200-950 B.C.E., shows strong discontinuities with the Late Bronze Age, particularly in respect to building and ceramic technology.

Voigt and Henrickson claim that the change in the material culture of the Early Iron Age

“[does] not support a gradual transition from the Late Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age.

9 Voigt 2005, p. 30. 10 Darbyshire and Pizzorno 2009, p. 14. 11 On Bronze Age Gordion and its relationship to the Hittite empire, see Gunter 1991; Voigt and Henrickson 2000, pp. 41-42.

6 Instead, the archaeological evidence strongly suggests a population change at this time, rather than simply a shift in economic organization.”12 Ancient literary sources, an analysis of

Phrygian script, as well as cultural parallels between the Early Iron Age material culture at

Gordion and contemporary Thrace, combine to propose that these migrant settlers—the

Phrygians—originated in the southeastern Balkans.13

Unfortunately, very little is known about the Phrygians despite 60 years of archaeological research at their capital city of Gordion. This is due primarily to the fact that the Phrygians themselves produced no written history, leaving behind only inscriptions predominantly of a dedicatory nature.14 We therefore must rely foremost on the archaeological remains and second

(with great scrutiny) on later Greek and Roman authors’ references to the Phrygians in order to reconstruct aspects of Phrygian culture.

Although we do not know the full extent of the Phrygian empire, archaeological and epigraphical evidence suggests a sphere of influence reaching Çorum, Tokat, and Kirsehir in the east, Samsun in the north, Nigde and Konya in the south, and Burdur and Elmali in the west (Fig.

2).15 The Lydian empire served as the border to the southwest, and the Assyrian empire to the east. Due to the extensive excavations at Gordion, Phrygia’s cultural and political capital, archaeologists have been able to identify other Phrygian sites in Anatolia which feature similar monumental architecture as well as Phrygian pottery and inscriptions.16 The sanctuary of

12 Voigt and Henrickson 1998, p. 101; 2000, p. 46. 13 Sams 1994, pp. 20-21, 124, 176; Voigt and Henrickson 2000, pp. 42-46. Later Greek and Latin sources also claim that the Phrygians migrated from the Balkan regions after the fall of the Hittite empire (Hdt. VII.73; Strab. XIV.5.29; Xanthus FGrH 765 F 14). 14 On Phrygian script, see Brixhe and Lejeune 1984. 15 Sivas 2007, p. 11. 16 Gordion was termed Phrygia’s “capital” by Young in his first preliminary report based on the Greek and Latin references to the site, and the term has henceforth been adopted in Gordion scholarship; however, the ancient sources do not identify Gordion as a capital, per se. The size

7 Dümrek, ca. 33 km north of Gordion, was one of the earliest Phrygian sanctuaries in the region, as pottery from the site dates from the Early Bronze Age to the Early Hellenistic period.17 The site of Kerkenes, ca. 250 km east of Gordion, contains a monumental gateway and palatial complex similar to that at Gordion, dating the late 7th-early 6th century B.C.E.18 Additionally,

“Midas City,” which probably dates from the Middle Phrygian period/YHSS 5 to the end of the

Late Phrygian period/YHSS 4, has a large number of religious/rock-cut monuments, including the so-called Midas Monument.19 This rock-cut façade mimicking a Phrygian megaron includes a Phrygian dedication to King Midas, himself.

Historical references to Phrygians by Greek and Roman authors indicate that the

Phrygians were generally viewed as peaceful, with a great love for music and dance.20 They were skilled and dedicated craftsmen, which is evident from the archaeological remains of textiles, hand-carved wooden furniture, metalwork, and stone architecture (Fig. 3). Little is known for certain regarding Phrygian religion, despite a rather large corpus of dedicatory inscriptions and rock-cut monuments that seem to have served a religious or ritual function.21

One deity is identifiable in Phrygian imagery—the goddess Mater, or the “Great Mother”— though it is unclear whether the goddess was the sole deity recognized in Phrygian religion.22

of the settlement, as well as its frequent association with historical Phrygian leaders in literature, does suggest the site was a cultural and political center of Phrygia. As for the identification of other Phrygian sites in the region, one should note that a synthetic account of known Phrygian archaeological sites has not yet been completed, thereby making it difficult to characterize Phrygian settlement patterns. 17 Grave, Kealhofer, and Marsh 2005. 18 Draycott and Summers 2008. 19 Haspels 1971, pp. 139-146. W. M. Ramsay, who “discovered” the site, named it “Midas City” after the dedicatory inscription on the Midas Monument. The ancient name of the city is unknown. 20 Sivas 2007, pp. 12-14. 21 Berndt-Ersöz 2006. 22 For Phrygian religion and the goddess Mater, see Roller 1999.

8 Iconography of Mater often shows her standing fully frontal, heavily draped and crowned, holding an open vessel and a bird of prey (Fig. 4).23 Slowly throughout the Hellenistic period, however, the cult of Matar at Gordion becomes subsumed under a more Hellenized version of this deity—Kybele—and new iconographical representations of the goddess appear.24

Despite contemporary trends in North Syria, Phrygian leaders were apparently uninterested in cultivating an iconography of power, as no portraits of any of Gordion’s kings have been found at Gordion. Instead, Phrygian leaders sought to display their prominence in their funerary monuments. Their burial chambers were covered with monumental man-made earth mounds, or tumuli, which are still visible today in the landscape of central Anatolia (Fig.

5). This method of burial lasted from the Early Phrygian period through the Hellenistic period.25

The largest and most notable—the so-called “Midas Mound” (Tumulus MM)—stands ca. 53 m. tall even after thousands of years of erosion and is visible from all areas of the ancient city (Fig.

6).26 The sheer amount of manpower and time it would have taken to organize and execute the creation of these burial tumuli speaks to the power and influence Phrygian leaders had over the inhabitants of their city, yet also to a common cultural objective.

Gordion’s strategic position along major Anatolian land routes and the fork of the

Sakarya River no doubt contributed to the settlers’ migration toward this particular site and its

23 Roller 1999, pp. 71-72. 24 Stewart 2010, pp. 87-88. 25 “Tumuli at Gordion,” Digital Gordion, accessed November 4, 2010. http://sites.museum.upenn.edu/gordion/history/ironage?start=3. 26 DeVries 2008, pp. 33-34. The tumulus was originally identified as the Midas Mound under the belief that it was the burial chamber of King Midas, though recent dendrochronological studies suggest a date ca. 740 B.C.E., making it a more appropriate resting place for Gordias, Midas’s father.

9 growth.27 A sedimentation analysis of the Sakarya watershed has shown that the area was historically more conducive to settlement than other parts of central Anatolia; a steady increase in human occupation and exploitation of the land from the Bronze Age (ca. 1600-1200 B.C.E.), and especially in the Middle Phrygian period (ca. 800-540 B.C.E.), consequently increased the river’s sedimentation rate, effectively changing the course of the river and burying part of

Gordion’s lower town.28

The Early Phrygian Period/YHSS 6, ca. 950-800 B.C.E., at Gordion signifies both the formation and growth of the Phrygian state. The appearance of Phrygian inscriptions throughout central Anatolia during this period provides evidence for increasing political complexity and

Phrygian influence in the 9th century B.C.E.29 On the citadel mound of Gordion, monumental architecture appears for the first time through a gradual large-scale building program. The topography of the citadel was divided into two separate areas by means of a major thoroughfare.

This street was regularized to an elevation ca. 2 m. below the surface level of the two areas, essentially divided the citadel into an “Eastern Mound” and a “Western Mound.”30 The Western

Mound was somewhat smaller and served as the domestic quarters of the citadel. The Eastern

Mound was appropriated for elite architecture and industry (Fig. 7).31 New structures in the

Early Phrygian Period included fortification walls and a monumental gateway, which was constructed on the southeast side of the mound. This gate led into the elite quarter of the city, which was composed of two sequential open spaces, courts, with megaron-style structures,

27 Remains of an ancient Roman highway, which very likely took the course of an earlier ancient road, were excavated in 1961, Young 1963, pp. 348-349. It has been suggested that this highway also represents a branch of the Persian Royal Road, French 1998. 28 Marsh (forthcoming). 29 On the Phrygian script and attested inscriptions, see Brixhe 1984; Roller 1987, 1989. 30 Voigt et al. 1997, pp. 4-6. 31 Young’s excavations focused on the Eastern Mound.

10 similar in plan to those attested elsewhere in the Bronze Age Aegean, with a smaller vestibule, or pronaos, leading into a larger main room, or cella. 32 A “Terrace Complex” of elevated multi- room buildings was segregated from the elite quarter by a partition wall, and functioned as the industrial center of the citadel, with evidence for textile and grain production.33

The recent re-analysis of the chronology of the site now allows us to state that the

Phrygians were highly advanced in their construction techniques. C. Brian Rose observes that the site features the earliest known construction of megara in the Near East, now dated to the 10th century B.C.E.; additionally, the megara contain the earliest attested pebble mosaics, dated to the

9th century B.C.E.34 The Early Phrygian period inhabitants also had designs for an ambitious reconstruction of the citadel, which included raising the elevation of the mound ca. 4-5 m.35

Work for this impressive new citadel, however, was put on an unexpected hold, as a fire of unknown cause destroyed the site ca. 830-800 B.C.E.

Although no human remains have been found preserved in the destruction level, the fire on the citadel must have occurred suddenly, since the contents of many buildings were left in situ. Some of the buildings were never cleared of their charred contents before builders covered the citadel with a thick layer of sterile clay (often referred to by Gordion researchers as the “Clay

Layer”).36 The Clay Layer completely buried the destruction and provided a fresh slate by which to create a new, more elevated citadel. The sudden, massive destruction, combined with the subsequent rebuilding program, effectively preserved the Early Phrygian citadel in time, thereby becoming the Pompeii of ancient Phrygia.

32 Voigt 2005, pp. 24-25, figs. 3-2, 3-3. 33 DeVries 1990, pp. 385-386; Burke 2005. 34 Rose (forthcoming). 35 Voigt (forthcoming). 36 Stewart 2010, p. 31.

11 The construction of the new citadel marks the beginning of the Middle Phrygian

Period/YHSS 5, ca. 800-550 B.C.E. Evidence suggests that the political power and wealth of

Phrygia was maintained enough to rebuild the citadel completely within a few decades. Of great interest is the fact that the plan of the structures on the new Middle Phrygian citadel largely mimicked the plan from the Early Phrygian citadel, which suggests a continuation of Phrygian power, the maintenance of the pre-destruction social and political system, and the memory of a recent past (Fig. 8). Elite quarters, comprised of two court complexes, continued to be segregated from the industrial and domestic quarters in the west by a partition wall and major thoroughfare.37 There is an observable difference between the two phases of the citadel, however, in terms of architecture and spatial distribution: the Middle Phrygian structures are all freestanding, as opposed to many of the Early Phrygian structures (particularly those in the

Terrace Complex) which often shared walls. Rose proposes that the change was a preventative measure to avoid the spread of another fire.38 Archaeological analysis of land use and occupation patterns shows a growth in population and an expansion of the settlement in areas below the citadel during the Middle Phrygian period/YHSS 5.39 A Lower Town, lying below the citadel to the south (with an area of about 254,400 m2) was extensively fortified and included both public and private structures (Fig. 9).40 In conjunction with the construction of the fortification circuit was the construction of a small defensive mound to the southeast of the citadel, identified as Küçük Höyük, or “Little Mound.”41

37 Voigt and Young 1999, pp. 206-207, 210. 38 Rose (forthcoming). 39 Voigt and Young 1999, p. 220. 40 Voigt and Young 1999, pp. 211-212, 220. 41 Sams 2005, pp. 19-20.

12 The Middle Phrygian Period/YHSS 5 marks the cultural and political height of the

Phrygians, who had by this point witnessed their power expand from a local polity to a vast central Anatolian empire. However, it is difficult to discuss a cultural or political history of the

Phrygians during their rise to power, since, as mentioned previously, no formal Phrygian-written history has survived. Though we may speak of a Phrygian “empire” or “state,” we do not know if the Phrygians viewed themselves within this context, nor do we have evidence for a proactive expansion of territory on the part of Phrygian leaders. We do suppose, however, that the state was governed by monarchy at least by the 8th century B.C.E., as historical references identify and describe two Phrygian kings: the legendary Gordias and Midas. The only contemporary accounts of their kingships are found in Assyrian records, notably in the written correspondence of King Sargon II.42 Other sources are historical accounts provided by later Greek and Roman authors. These records provide a chronological baseline for the lives of Gordias and his son,

Midas, who reigned in the second half of the 8th century B.C.E. Unfortunately, there are no historical references for the Phrygian political structure after the death of King Midas, nor do we have references to any other prominent Phrygian leaders. It is unclear whether the death of

Midas marks the end of a monarchical form of government at Gordion or whether the literary record provides a mere snapshot of Phrygian kingship.

Considerably more attention is given to Midas in historical accounts due to his remarkable personality, wealth, and influence. We therefore have a greater sense about the nature of Phrygian political and social organizations and the extent of Phrygian influence during his rule than we do for any other period. There is evidence that Midas actively sought relationships with other empires/cultures, specifically with Greece. The earliest Greek imported

42 These sources are gathered and discussed by Hawkins 1994.

13 pottery at Gordion is in fact a fragment of a Corinthian Late Geometric kotyle (P 3696) which dates to 735-720 BC—contemporary with the attested date in which King Midas began his reign

(ca. 723 B.C.E.).43 References to the Phrygians, King Midas, and his wealth start to appear in

Greek literature from as early as the mid-7th century BC.44

We also know from epigraphical and literary evidence that the Greeks were knowledgeable about Phrygian culture, and that Phrygians were well represented among the slave and metic populations of Attica (Xen. Por. 2.3).45 Perhaps more telling is the popularity of

King Midas episodes in Greek vase painting—the earliest being a black-figured cup by Kleitias and Ergotimos, ca. 570-560, which illustrates King Midas and his soldiers luring the satyr

Silenos with wine.46 Although the vessel dates to about 150 years after Midas’s reign, it proves that the Greeks had a long-standing familiarity and fascination with Phrygian culture.

Greek sources confirm that Midas took a great interest in Greek culture, as well.

Herodotus (1.14) claims that Midas dedicated a wooden and ivory throne to Apollo at Delphi

(the first non-Greek to do so), and that it was stored in the Corinthian Treasury. Surprisingly, a portion of this throne may have survived, as excavations near the treasury unearthed a wooden

43 DeVries 2005, p. 37. The dates for Midas’s reign follow those proposed in a recent study by Berndt-Ersöz 2008. 44 Notably from Homer (Il. III.184-190), who allies the Phrygians with the Trojans in the Iliad, and the poet Tyrtaeus (frg. 9.1-6), who makes first mention of Midas and associates him with excessive wealth. For the literary references for Midas, specifically, see Vassileva 2008. 45 DeVries 2000, pp. 339-341. The slave population of Athens (~30%) was admittedly calculated from 5th-4th century B.C.E. literary and epigraphic evidence—two centuries later than the rule of King Midas, Miller 1997, pp. 82-84. The epigraphical evidence for Phrygian presence in Greece comes predominantly from grave stelai in Attica, Bäbler 1998, pp. 250-260, nos. 69, 71, 75-76, 79, 81-84. 46 Berlin 3151, from Aegina; ABV 79-80; Para 30; Add2 22; DeVries 2000, p. 343, fig. 13.1.

14 and ivory statuette from the 8th century B.C.E.47 Furthermore, Pollux (9.83) says that Midas married a Greek princess from Kyme.

Ancient literary sources tell us that Midas committed suicide by drinking bull’s blood, sometime perhaps in the beginning of the 7th century B.C.E.48 Although these sources do not describe the effect Midas’s death had on the political or economic structure of Gordion, it is assumed that the city became weak and susceptible to foreign powers. According to a passage in

Strabo (1.3.21), a group of nomadic peoples called Kimmerians might have invaded Gordion ca.

700 B.C.E., though we do not have a firm date for the invasion or clear signs of destruction on the citadel.49 Archaeological evidence suggests that the citadel was taken over by the Lydians in the mid-7th century BC, perhaps under the direction of King Gyges, the founder of the Lydian

Mermnad dynasty.50 A concentration of Lydian pottery found during the Küçük Höyük excavations, suggests that the Lydians established a garrison there.51 Herodotus (1.28) claims that Phrygia was under Lydian control at least during the rule of King , the successor of

Gyges.

In this context, we could perhaps see the construction of the garrison on Küçük Höyük as a defense mechanism against the emerging threat of the Persian empire.52 In 546 B.C.E., Cyrus the Great and his army of Persians eventually invaded the city.53 The introduction of this new cultural presence marks the beginning of the Late Phrygian period/YHSS 4 at Gordion, ca. 550-

47 DeVries and Rose (forthcoming). 48 Berndt-Ersöz 2008, pp. 25-26, provides a summary and analysis of the literary sources. 49 Berndt-Ersöz 2008, pp. 22-29. However, recent excavations of a Middle Phrygian settlement and cemetery northeast of the citadel might show signs of destruction dating to ca. 700 B.C.E., Anderson (forthcoming). 50 Sams 1979, p. 6. 51 Young 1958, pp. 140-141. 52 Excavations of the garrison revealed extensive burning and hundreds of arrowheads dating to the mid-6th century B.C.E., Young 1957, p. 324. 53 Sams 1979, p. 6.

15 330 B.C.E. As mentioned previously, this period represents one of the most challenging and complex periods at Gordion, due in part to the continuous rebuilding of the citadel by the Late

Phrygian and later Hellenistic inhabitants. The period marks the beginning of a gradual break from Early-Middle Phrygian traditions in respect to architectural styles, building techniques, and the topography and function of the citadel. While the gritty details of these changes will be provided in subsequent chapters, it will be useful to present here an overview of the Late

Phrygian material that has previously been studied and some assumptions that have been made regarding the Late Phrygian period/YHSS 4 in Gordion scholarship.

Due to the extensive conquests of Cyrus the Great in the mid-5th century B.C.E., the

Persian empire had the largest geographical expanse of any ruling power in the Mediterranean region at the time, 54 The empire stretched from the shores of Turkey to the Levant, and, at times, to Egypt. The term “Achaemenid” refers to the royal clan of Persians who served as the administrators of the empire, and sometimes as satraps (or governors) in regional satrapies

(provincial capitals).55

With the Persian sack of the city came the inclusion of Gordion within the scope of the

Persian empire. Although Gordion did not function as an Achaemenid capital, architectural evidence at Gordion suggests the site may have been home to a Persian satrap (provincial governor), if not a greater population of Persian peoples, and that some Persian political and religious affairs were carried out on the citadel (see descriptions of Mosaic Building and Painted

House, below). The immediate political disruption and new cultural presence did not negatively effect the city, however, as the site shows no sign of depopulation or a decrease in wealth.56

54 Kuhrt 2007, p. 1. 55 Kuhrt 2007, p. 1. 56 Voigt and Young 1999, pp. 235-236.

16 Initially, Late Phrygian Gordion showed certain cultural continuities with the Middle

Phrygian period/YHSS 5 in maintaining architectural traditions and the organization of the space on the citadel, but the Late Phrygian period as a whole marks a change (or even decline) in

Phrygian culture and influence. The Late Phrygian period/YHSS 4, which spanned ca. 200 years, included the continued cultural influence of the Lydians (at least initially), as well as the introduction of Achaemenid cultural influence; therefore, it is difficult to identify a dominant cultural presence at Gordion at any specific point during the period. Only two monumental buildings have been identified with certainty as being new constructions within the Late

Phrygian period/YHSS 4: the Mosaic Building and the Painted House. Both show a clear break from traditional Early-Middle Phrygian megara-style structures, and have been identified as evidence for Achaemenid cultural and political presence. The first, the Mosaic Building, was constructed on the Eastern Mound as an addition to the Middle Phrygian “Building A” (Fig.

10).57 The building featured elaborate polychrome mosaics and a colonnaded court. Several of the column bases were discovered in situ, with their vivid paint still preserved. This large and impressive building has been interpreted as the palatial headquarters for the Persian representative(s), and possibly the location of cult practice. The construction of palace structures elsewhere in newly acquired lands of the Persian empire lends credence to this hypothesis.58 The second Late Phrygian structure is the Painted House, a comparatively small and partially subterranean building constructed between Buildings C and G within the Outer Gate-Court

(designated as “PH” on plan, Fig. 8).59 The building is so named based on the recovery of its large polychrome wall paintings that illustrate a procession, predominantly of women (Fig. 11).

57 Young 1953, pp. 9-14; DeVries 1990, p. 392; Burke (forthcoming). 58 Kuhrt 2007, p. 470. 59 Cf. Chapter 3, “The Painted House.”

17 The iconography and fine craftsmanship of the paintings, combined with architectural features of the structure, suggest the space was dedicated to some sort of cult practice or ritual. As the following chapters will show, the preexisting Middle Phrygian buildings continued to be used for some time, though it is unclear whether the function of the buildings remained unchanged after

Persian occupation.

As for material culture from the Late Phrygian Period, there is an increase in imported commodities, especially from Greece, in comparison to the Middle Phrygian period. While

Greek finewares began to be imported at Gordion in the late 8th century B.C.E., there is certainly an influx of imports in the 6th century B.C.E., with the majority dating to the 5th and 4th centuries

B.C.E.60 It is tempting to see the Persians’ presence at Gordion as a motivating factor behind the importation of this commodity.

As mentioned previously, the large citadel mound of Gordion sits strategically at the crossroads of major trading routes. With to the southwest, the Black Sea to the north, and

Assyria to the east, Gordion—although an inland site—was in a position to communicate and trade on an international scale. In addition, the imports in the Late Phrygian period/YHSS 4 represent a wide variety of shapes and decoration, and many show great craftsmanship and delicacy. This quality, combined with the forethought and precautions tradesmen must have undertaken to transport them so great a distance proves that this commodity was valued. That these pieces were of continued importance to the Gordion residents is evident in their consistent importation throughout the course of the Middle and Late Phrygian periods, ca. 400 years.

60 DeVries 1997, pp. 447, 450. Other Phrygian sites, notably the larger cities Daskyleion and Kelainai, also imported Attic fineware in the Late Phrygian period. For Daskyleion see Tuna- Nörling 2001; the pottery from Kelainai awaits publication.

18 Further evidence is provided in the sudden appearance of Phrygian imitations of Greek black- glazed pottery in the second half of the 5th and the 4th centuries BC.61

This digression concerning Greek imported pottery is a purposeful one, as this material functions as the primary dating tool in this thesis. Since no stylistic chronology for locally produced contemporary pottery yet exists, and other small finds have yet to be published, Greek imported pottery continues to be the most reliable source for cross-dating the stratigraphy. This methodology of course introduces new challenges and caveats, which are explained in detail in the following chapter.

During the 4th century B.C.E., Gordion was subjected to several attacks, and the site might have suffered from an earthquake in the late 5th or early 4th century B.C.E. We have reference to a Spartan raid under the command of Agesilaos in 395 B.C.E., though it is unclear how and to what extent this might have affected the citadel (Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 1.4, 21.6).

The year 334 B.C.E. marks the end of the Late Phrygian/YHSS 4 chronological sequence at

Gordion and the beginning of the Hellenistic/YHSS 3 period. It is at this time that Alexander is said to have arrived at Gordion in order to secure strategically the north passage to the

Hellespont.62 It is at this time that Alexander legendarily cut the in hopes of fulfilling the prophecy to become King of Asia.

Although the city continued to prosper under Macedonian rule, the Hellenistic period at

Gordion/YHSS 3, ca. 330-100 B.C.E., marks a great change in the character of material culture at Gordion. The citadel mound was completely rebuilt, epigraphic texts in Phrygian script appear less frequently, being replaced by Greek inscriptions,63 and Greek cults were introduced.64

61 DeVries 1997, p. 453, n. 20. 62 Stewart 2010, pp. 55-61, provides a historical overview of the Hellenistic period at Gordion. 63 Roller 1987, p. 103.

19 In the mid 3rd century B.C.E., another group of foreigners—the Gauls—settled in Phrygia, though their presence is not easily detected in the archaeological record.65 Then, in 189 B.C.E., the Roman consul Gnaeus Manlius Vulso stormed the citadel, partially destroying the city with fire and causing Gordion’s inhabitants to flee to Mount Olympus in the east.66 This date marks the end of the Hellenistic/YHSS 3 period at Gordion. Although the site was occupied intermittingly throughout the Roman/YHSS2 (1st century B.C.E. - 4th century C.E) and

Medieval/YHSS1 (10th - 15th centuries C.E.) periods, the city would never again return to its former glory.

With the complex history of Gordion and its cultural influences in our minds, let us turn now to an in-depth investigation of the Late Phrygian period. In the following chapter, I will provide my research objectives and methodology, discussing in detail the unique challenges one faces in studying the Late Phrygian period at Gordion. In Chapters 3 and 4, I will provide the bulk of my data, looking closely at the archaeology from the time period in question. Finally, in

Chapter 5, I will present the conclusions of my study, situating my findings within a broader context, both chronologically and geographically.

64 Winter 1984; Sams 2005, pp. 13-14. 65 Darbyshire et al. 2000; Stewart 2010, pp. 58-59. 66 Livy 38.18.11-13; Sams 2005, p. 13.

20 Chapter Two Project Objectives, Challenges, and Methodology

Project Objectives

In the summer of 2009, I had the opportunity to work at Gordion assisting Kathleen

Lynch, who is publishing the Greek imported fineware pottery from the Archaic and Classical periods. At the end of that summer, we determined that a worthy thesis topic would be to identify and analyze the archaeological contexts of the imported pottery in order to observe patterns in deposition. However, this objective was made difficult because the (later) Late

Phrygian and Hellenistic inhabitants of Gordion were serial pillagers, sometimes digging pits for meters in search of construction materials. Their activities more or less destroyed the bulk of

Late Phrygian architecture, and inhibit greatly a thorough understanding of the stratigraphy in these areas.

The depositional patterns of the Greek imports presented only a fraction of the overall challenges in studying Late Phrygian period material. The archaeological remains of the Late

Phrygian citadel excavated under Young have never received a comprehensive analysis.

Furthermore, no final publication of the architecture from any period exists—not even for the preceding Early and Middle Phrygian periods. Although the general historical framework for the

Late Phrygian period was known, the detailed chronology of specific areas or buildings on the citadel was not. Therefore, without a clear understanding of the architectural, social, or cultural changes that occurred after Persian control, it was impossible to study the contexts of the Greek imported pottery.

Before one could attempt to situate artifacts back into the archaeological record, a complete analysis of the Late Phrygian stratigraphy and building processes were necessary. The

21 objective of this thesis is therefore to provide a systematic account of the changes in the topography of the citadel of Gordion during the Late Phrygian period, 6th-4th centuries B.C.E.

While sixty years of research and excavation at Gordion have contributed greatly to our understanding of how the citadel developed during the Early and Middle Phrygian periods, the

Late Phrygian period has yet to receive the same attention.

Perhaps the greatest impediment to understanding this period is the fact that no architectural phase plan was completed for the Late Phrygian period—neither during excavation nor in subsequent study seasons. Currently, phase plans of the citadel only exist for the Early and Middle Phrygian periods. Only two buildings from the Late Phrygian period have been added to the overall site plan: the Mosaic Building and the Painted House, which have been dated to the late 6th and early 5th centuries B.C.E., respectively.67 Yet, this study will show that the Late Phrygian period was, in fact, one of the most active building periods on the citadel.

An examination of the stratigraphy and building projects of the Late Phrygian period, and the 4th century B.C.E. in particular, contributes to filling a gap in our knowledge of ancient

Gordion. Since there are few historical references to Gordion during this period, an analysis of the archaeological data from Late Phrygian Gordion has the potential to provide a more detailed historical framework. On a broader scale, an understanding of this period in which the site was incorporated into the Persian empire could illuminate aspects of Achaemenid occupational patterns and the degree to which, if any, this occupation impacted the physical, social, and/or political environment of the city.

Some general observations about the Late Phrygian period have been made in preliminary reports, but these are often in relation to individual buildings, and no comprehensive

67 Cf. Darbyshire and Pizzorno (forthcoming).

22 study of Late Phrygian building activities has been undertaken. Furthermore, observations of

Late Phrygian architectural changes or developments are predominantly concerned with the fate of Middle Phrygian buildings—that is, the megara associated with the 8th century B.C.E. rebuilt citadel. This is due to the fact that the Middle Phrygian megara continued to be used into the

Late Phrygian period. In the discussions of some individual buildings, the preliminary reports mention Late Phrygian rebuilding phases for certain Middle Phrygian megara (notably, Buildings

C, D, E, and F), yet there has been no comprehensive study of the chronology of these events and their possible correlation.68 In addition, Young often refers to a supposed 5th century B.C.E. earthquake to account for the destruction of a number of Middle Phrygian buildings, particularly those located within in the Outer Gate-Court.69 Later, DeVries pushed the date of this

“earthquake” to the 4th century B.C.E., to account for the destruction of Middle Phrygian buildings excavated in the Inner Gate-Court, notably Buildings X and U.70 This study will also consider whether there is evidence for site-wide earthquake destruction at the cause of an earthquake, and if so, when it occurred.

68 Young 1955, pp. 4-8, 1956, p. 255. 69 Young mentions an early 5th century B.C.E. earthquake as early as 1953 in reference to the destruction of Building A and the repair of the neighboring Gate Building. Young makes the assumption that these buildings were destroyed by natural causes due to preconceived notions regarding Gordion history, as he states, “Indeed it is hard to think of an occasion for a sack at this relatively peaceful era in the history of the Persian Empire.” However, as mentioned in Chapter One, we have no written history of Gordion produced by the Phrygians, themselves, and therefore rely only on outside sources (few of which are contemporary), Young 1953, p. 17. 70 DeVries believes the destruction of the monumental megara are due to an earthquake based on the absence of fire in their destruction layers, though an alternative interpretation would associate the destruction with the raid made by Agesilaos in 395 B.C.E. The date for the destruction is derived from the stylistic dating of context pottery found in association with the destruction level of Building U, as well as a hoard of sigloi, ca. 420-375 B.C.E., found stashed in the destruction level of Building K. DeVries 1990, p. 400. For the hoard, see Gordion Notebook 46, pp. 141, 144-145.

23 This study also considers the building activity immediately following the destruction of the Middle Phrygian buildings. Evidence provided in the preliminary reports suggests that progressively throughout the 4th century B.C.E. the citadel was transformed by new building projects that reused the remains of the Middle-Late Phrygian megara. For example, the preliminary report for the 1953 season mentions a 4th century B.C.E. bronze foundry that was constructed partially overlying the Painted House and Buildings C and G, and there is similar evidence for an ironworking complex nearby.71 What could account for a change such as this, which would have effectively converted the Outer Gate-Court from an administrative/ritual/elite quarter to a manufacturing quarter? Is there more evidence for 4th century B.C.E. manufacturing activity in addition to these two buildings? In sum, what was the character of the 4th century

B.C.E. citadel at Gordion, and how do these topographical changes reflect the contemporary social, economic, or political climate of the city?

It is with these questions that I approach the Late Phrygian period material at Gordion. It is hoped that the study will extend beyond a mere description of buildings and stratigraphy by situating them within a broader cultural and historical context. It should be noted, however, that the very nature of legacy data presents a great challenge to this study due to the large temporal gap between the time of excavation and the time of reanalysis and interpretation. Furthermore, the methodologies employed during Young’s excavations at Gordion directly affect how the data can be interpreted. Thus, in the remainder of this chapter, I will set forth my procedure for studying and interpreting the Late Phrygian stratigraphy from the areas excavated under the directorship of Young and explain how Young’s method of excavation informs my own approach to the material.

71 Young 1955, pp. 3, 10; Sams and Voigt 1990, p. 79; Voigt and Young 1999, pp. 220, 224.

24

Methodology

As the scope of this thesis expanded, it became necessary to self-impose limitations due to the temporal constraints of a Master’s thesis project. As such, this thesis will focus only on the two court complexes of the citadel, the Outer Gate-Court and the Inner-Gate Court, respectively, and stands only as a preliminary study of the Late Phrygian period at Gordion (Fig.

8).72 A concentration on this sector of the citadel seemed logical due to the fact that almost all of the Middle Phrygian buildings in this area are megara, suggesting that they were constructed with the intention of architectural (and perhaps functional) unity. It has long been assumed that the courts represent the elite, administrative, and/or religious quarter of the city, and the segregation of the courts from the Terrace Complex by an enclosure wall further demarcates the court complexes as socially and/or functionally distinct. This area of the citadel therefore offers itself as a confined unit of relative uniformity, which will allow me to make observations about changes in its infrastructure with greater specificity. Furthermore, it should be noted that the goal of this project is not to create a Late Phrygian phase plan, but rather to help move towards this goal by assigning a relative date for the destruction of the Middle Phrygian megara and by identifying subsequent Late Phrygian constructions.

The primary source for the study of Late Phrygian strata is the corpus of Gordion field notebooks from the Young excavations, which have been scanned digitally (henceforth,

“Gordion Notebooks”). Each notebook contains the daily excavation log of a specific trench (or trenches) handwritten by the trench supervisor. Although the methods of each excavator varied

(sometimes significantly), each notebook followed similar guidelines, which included a

72 All of the buildings discussed in this thesis were excavated under the directorship of Young.

25 description of daily excavated areas, features, and finds. The most exemplary notebooks periodically included trench plans or sketches and appendices of context pottery from each stratigraphic layer, although these were by no means standard practice.73

My strategy for extracting information on the Late Phrygian period from the Gordion

Notebooks was guided by a directive of reason: to go from the known, to the unknown. I therefore used the plan of the Middle Phrygian citadel as my starting point, due to the fact that 1) this is the latest complete phase plan of the citadel, and 2) the Middle Phrygian period directly precedes the period in examination. Since most Middle Phrygian structures continued to function during some part of the Late Phrygian period, it seemed logical to start from the Middle

Phrygian phase plan in order to trace architectural changes on the citadel from the time of

Persian conquest in 546 B.C.E. through to the date of Alexander’s conquest in 334 B.C.E.

My procedure involved choosing a Middle Phrygian building, identifying which trenches revealed the remains of this building, and identifying the associated excavation notebooks. I then read the excavation notebooks several times (with great patience and precision) in order to familiarize myself with the handwriting and techniques of each excavator. My first objective was to identify the section of the notebook pertaining to the excavation of the Middle Phrygian building in question, which was sometimes quite difficult, since the name of the building in the

73 Photographs and architects’ plans, are stored (but not catalogued) at the Gordion Archives at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and were not accessed for this study. However, it is unclear to what extent these records might have influenced my interpretation of the data as the excavators rarely mention photograph or plan reference numbers in the excavation notebooks, thereby making it impossible to speculate about the potential utility of these sources. Indeed, these records may appear at the same level of inconsistency as the recording methods in the Gordion Notebooks. It is hoped that future study of this subject might allow for travel to the Gordion Archives.

26 notebooks sometimes differed from the final identification given in preliminary reports.74 After locating the section of the notebook describing the excavation of the Middle Phrygian building’s remains, I then traced the excavation backwards in order to reconstruct the chronology of events from the construction of the Middle Phrygian building, to its destruction during the Late

Phrygian period, and finally, to the following (overlying) building phase.

The remains of each Middle Phrygian megaron were excavated in multiple trenches, sometimes as many as sixteen.75 Therefore, after each notebook was read individually, all pertinent notebooks for a particular building were read in reference to the each other in order to make stratigraphic connections between trenches. Multiple notebooks were also referenced in tandem in order to understand spatial relationships between contemporary Middle Phrygian buildings, as well as the relationship between Middle Phrygian buildings and overlying structures. It was, at times, most difficult to make stratigraphic connections between trenches in respect to the Late Phrygian constructions (i.e., those overlying the Middle Phrygian megara), due to either varying inconsistencies in respect to recording and excavation techniques or to the poor preservation of the archaeological record.76

This procedure was performed on all Middle Phrygian buildings of the Inner and Outer

Gate-Courts, save for Buildings V, Z, and Y, which have only been partially excavated. I considered one open space associated with the Yellow House (see Chapter 4), due to the fact that there was a description of the Yellow House in the 1958 season preliminary report which suggested it was a purely 5th century B.C.E. building (that is, with no Middle Phrygian

74 For example, Building D was referred to as the “Building E” in Gordion Notebook 50; Building F was referred to as the “Dahl Building” in Gordion Notebook 56; the enclosure wall was referred to as “Building B” in multiple notebooks. 75 Cf. Chapter 4, “Buildings O and Q.” 76 For example, it was impossible to identify the expected continuation of “Floor S House” (Gordion Notebook 67, p. 144) in Trench NCT-A11 to the southeast.

27 predecessor). In so doing, I was able to generate a schematic phase plan of the Middle to Late

Phrygian constructions for each trench in this study. Future studies of the Late Phrygian citadel would warrant a thorough investigation of the spaces that were free of architecture on the Middle

Phrygian phase plan in order to identify when or if these open spaces were embellished with architecture during the Late Phrygian period.

Although this thesis is no longer concerned primarily with the ceramic record, the Greek imported pottery still features prominently as a source for dating. As such, it helps to fulfill one of my principle research objectives in providing a date at which the Middle Phrygian megara were put out of use, and when subsequent building began. As explained in the introduction,

Greek imported pottery was a popular commodity during the Late Phrygian period at Gordion, and sherds were found in nearly all of the trenches excavated under Young. As suspected, a great majority of these sherds were found in residual contexts due to the continuous rebuilding of the citadel, and some fills contained pottery with a broad date range of 5th century B.C.E-2nd century B.C.E. Furthermore, very few pieces were found in construction trenches by which to date associated architecture. Having been redeposited in highly disturbed fill layers, the majority of the imported pottery offers little help in dating the associated stratigraphy.

Yet, there are occasions in which almost complete vessels were found in primary (or close to primary) contexts.77 These vessels, although few in number, are the most reliable source for dating. When possible, this study also incorporates evidence of pottery that was found in close to primary or secondary deposits—for example, in fill layers that appear to be undisturbed by later pillagers. The disturbance level is determined by examining the stylistic dating of the pottery found in the fill. If the date range is unusually large (with pottery from both the Archaic

77 For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that vessels found in a nearly complete state were deposited at a time not long after their period of use.

28 and Hellenistic periods, for example) the fill is too highly disturbed to be utilized. If, however, the fill contained pottery predominantly dating to the second half of the 5th century, for example, the fill can be dated as such and used to cross-date associated stratigraphy.

The Greek imported pottery remains the most reliable source for dating at Gordion. This is due in part to the well-defined stylistic dating of this body of material, but also because no other finds from the Middle-Late Phrygian periods have been published, or are able to be dated stylistically with the same precision (this includes local Phrygian pottery, ivory, glass, bronze, and iron). Coins are rarely found in Middle-Late Phrygian contexts. I therefore had to create a standard by which to utilize the dating capability of the pottery to the highest degree of accuracy in spite of the highly disturbed stratigraphy and poor descriptions in the notebooks. This standard comprised several assumptions regarding depositional patterns, which guided my interpretation of the stratigraphy. For example, the presence of Hellenistic pottery or coinage in

Late Phrygian excavation contexts (typically fills) signals that the context was disturbed in the

Hellenistic period. In such contexts where Late Phrygian and Hellenistic period material is mixed it is impossible to provide an accurate date for associated architectural phases.

Alternatively, a context that is within proper Late Phrygian elevations and free of Hellenistic material is presumed to be undisturbed and pre-Hellenistic, and in these cases the excavated material is suitable for dating stratigraphy.

A tool informing my research questions is an electronic database, which stores detailed information about each inventoried fragment of Greek imported pottery of the Classical and

Archaic periods from the Young excavations. Each entry includes an identification of the shape, description of the figural decoration, and a date proposed by Kathleen Lynch, as well as photographs by Signe Barfoed, Bea Peruzzi, and the author. The database also includes each

29 sherd’s excavation context and Gordion Notebook reference, which was recorded and entered into the database in the summer of 2009 from hard copy index cards that are currently stored in the Gordion excavation house. This was most helpful for the current study, as it allowed me to perform notebook or trench-based searches of datable material in specific contexts. However, the context information is unfortunately varied, and at times no information is known regarding the sherd’s findspot, or even year of excavation (see section below, “Project Challenges”). In the best circumstances, the context data of each sherd includes the name of the trench in which it was excavated, details about its findspot (layer, associated feature, etc.), the excavation notebook reference, and the date it was excavated.

There is a distinction between the terms “inventoried pottery” and “context pottery” for the purposes of this thesis. The “inventoried pottery” represents the corpus of Greek imports which are currently stored at the Gordion Museum. A smaller portion remain in the excavation storage facility, the Çanak Palas (or, “Pottery Palace”). These sherds were removed from their original excavation context assemblage and assigned an inventory number (“P ----”) in order to facilitate the study of this body of material. However, certain Greek imports (typically 4th century B.C.E. black-glazed wares) were not removed from their excavation context assemblage for inventory and remain in the Çanak Palas. The context cards (discussed above) were notably only created for inventoried pottery pieces (i.e., those stored in the Gordion Museum); therefore, the aforementioned database does not always provide reference to all of the imported pottery from certain contexts. The existence of uninventoried pottery could only be determined by reading the excavation notebooks and examining each trench’s associated context pottery stored in the Çanak Palas. The context pottery sometimes proved to be informative for contexts lacking inventoried pieces, though not all context assemblages contained fragments of Greek imports or

30 any other securely datable object. Thus, whenever possible, the inventoried pottery and context pottery were analyzed simultaneously to determine a relative date for an archaeological context.

To provide a sense of scale, this study includes a thorough analysis of over 70 trenches opened under the directorship of Young (Fig. 12).78 From 1950 to 1971, a span of over 20 years, the Gordion Project was constantly evolving with numerous new trench supervisors, new methods, and new research interests. It will therefore be important in the following section to provide a brief historiography and description of the excavation methods employed by Young, as they present unique challenges for the current study and directly inform my own methodological decisions. Furthermore, a description of the project challenges will explain why Late Phrygian

Gordion has received little attention in recent scholarship, and will help contextualize the significance of the current study within the corpus of Gordion research.

Project Challenges

The challenges in studying the Late Phrygian period at Gordion are twofold, in that they are a consequence of actions by both the modern investigators and the ancient inhabitants of

Gordion itself. After the public buildings of the Middle Phrygian citadel were put out of use,

Late Phrygian builders dismantled them for construction materials, often looting the structure down to its rubble foundations. Later, Hellenistic builders subjected the citadel to the same treatment, causing much of the intervening stratigraphy to contain a mix of materials with intended-use dates spanning several centuries. This left the Middle Phrygian citadel littered with waste pits and robbing trenches formed by the hands of both the Late Phrygian and Hellenistic inhabitants and, effectively, stripped of well-defined material culture. As a result, we are unable

78 The trench plan provides only an approximate location for the Gordion trenches, due to the fact that no accurate mapping system was referenced during excavation.

31 to date building activities with precision. (There are, as mentioned previously, no Harris matrices or phase plans of this period either on a micro, trench-based scale or on a macro, site- wide scale.) This study will show that despite challenges in depositional patterns and shortcomings in recording techniques, a general stratigraphic sequence can be recovered from legacy data through a careful (re)analysis.

Similarly, we lack complete building assemblages for the Middle and Late Phrygian periods as the buildings were not left in their destroyed state, but cleared of their contents and pillaged for construction materials in antiquity, unlike the buildings of the Early Phrygian citadel. Thus, in the absence of consistent, undisturbed contexts and building assemblages, our ability to interpret social or political change on the citadel relies primarily on site-wide syntheses of the architectural evidence and of material culture. These complexities imposed on the archaeological record by the Late Phrygian and Hellenistic builders have limited and deterred the study of Middle and Late Phrygian periods.

The methodologies adopted by modern investigators of Gordion have created additional obstacles. These exist on a micro, trench-based scale and a macro, project-wide scale. First, it should be noted that from the outset, Young’s (and by extension, the Gordion Project’s) primary research objective was to recover the lost civilization of the Phrygians.79 Thus, when in the first season of excavations Young discovered that habitation on the western side of the mound extended to the Roman and Medieval periods, but that habitation and on the eastern mound only extended to the Hellenistic period, exploration on the western side of the mound was abandoned

79 In the excavation’s first preliminary report, Young states, “The problems on which light may be shed by excavation at Gordion, then, concern the origin and culture of the Phrygians, their impact on the Hittite Empire, their role as transmitters of Hittite culture, and their influence on the Greeks during the early formative period of Greek culture.” Young 1950, p. 4.

32 completely so that he might reach Phrygian habitation levels as soon as possible.80 After the discovery of monumental Early Phrygian buildings on the eastern citadel, which had been preserved by their destruction, large-scale excavations continued to be carried out in this area, and the western half mound remained largely unexplored.

As such, we know far more about the eastern side of the citadel than we do about the western side; yet, even in the areas that did receive attention in the Young excavations, there are gaps in our knowledge. Driven to reach the Early Phrygian layer, Young and certain excavators

(perhaps by the encouragement of Young) described the Middle-Late Phrygian layers with cursory detail. This is due to the fact that Young originally believed that the spectacular, well- preserved Early Phrygian strata was the sole citadel of the Phrygians and home to the legendary

King Midas, and that Middle Phrygian citadel was constructed under Persian rule. Young’s attention toward the Early Phrygian citadel is further illustrated in a number of Gordion

Notebooks, where upon reaching the destruction level Young often took over the supervision of the trench.

Furthermore, it appears that there was no official procedure prescribed for trench supervisors regarding the method of excavation and recording. While some excavators included numerous trench plans, pottery drawings, and interpretations of sequential events in their notebooks, others included none. It was also at the excavator’s discretion whether to keep context pottery, especially in the later years of Young’s directorship, as more and more emphasis was placed on recovering the Early Phrygian citadel. Notably, there was no context pottery kept for any of the trenches overlying Buildings O and Q. On some occasions, the excavator preserves only a representative sample of the whole context assemblage. In addition, excavators

80 Young 1951; Sams 2005, p. 13.

33 rarely (if at all) recorded the degree of contamination for archaeological contexts, and trench- based Harris matrices, stratigraphic sections, or other phase plans were never produced. There is no record of final trench-based reports or summaries by the excavators, causing one to rely on the preliminary reports for a final interpretation of excavations, although these descriptions are often cursory and focused on particular buildings and time periods. Finally, trenches were excavated by laborers (sometimes in large number), which must have made consistent supervision difficult.

Trenches were also opened up in expectation of Early Phrygian remains. As a consequence, Late Phrygian structures were sometimes not fully excavated, or several years would pass between the excavation of one part of a structure and another. The ramifications of this excavation bias are evident in the notebooks, where there is often little to no communication between neighboring trenches. Therefore, what the excavator identifies as Layer 4 of one trench, for example, could be identified as Layer 6 in the neighboring trench. Elevations were also rarely recorded, creating further difficulty in cross-trench analyses.

Finally, and perhaps most regrettably, Gordion excavations have shown great inconsistency and inaccuracy in site-wide mapping attempts. Although attempts were made to execute a formal grid layout of the citadel, it was never actualized and rarely referred to. This is due, in part, to the continuous turnover of architects in residence and the consistent use of faulty mapping equipment on site. Architecture, features, and finds recovered in excavations, then, are essentially floating in space, with no fixed point of reference by which to contextualize them other than their description in the excavation notebooks (if documented at all). Therefore, in attempting to understand the spatial relationship between Middle and Late Phrygian architecture,

34 or contemporary Late Phrygian architecture, I must rely only on the trench plans provided by the excavators, which appear inconsistently, infrequently, and with varying degrees of accuracy.

A further source of confusion in respect to mapping, particularly in the plans provided in the excavation notebooks, is the Gordion excavations’ treatment of the cardinal directions.81

During Young’s excavations, he arbitrarily designated a “notebook north” to facilitate discussing the orientation of the Phrygian megara. So, while a megaron might actually lie on a northeast- southwest axis, “notebook north” corresponds roughly to true northeast, conveniently allowing one to place the megara on a north-south orientation (rather than the more cumbersome northeast-southwest). One could then speak of a north, south, east, and west side of the building.

The problem with this method, however, is that excavators were sometimes inconsistent in their use of “notebook north,” at times using magnetic north for trench plans, and on many occasions, no reference to a cardinal direction was included at all. To further complicate matters, Voigt’s excavations employed a different cardinal direction system whereby true northwest (Young’s west) was identified as “dig north.” All of Voigt’s published plans, however, do show magnetic north as a reference.

Since 2007, however, great strides have been made by the Digital Gordion Project at the

University of Pennsylvania in establishing an accurate mapping system and site plan. Martin

Wells is currently working on a Hellenistic period phase plan using a methodology similar to my own. Future archaeological research at Gordion will no doubt benefit from these endeavors. It is hoped that a continuous interest in reformulating the spatial relationship of architecture excavated by Young, combined with the analysis in this thesis of the Late Phrygian stratigraphy,

81 A historiography and future scope of mapping at Gordion is recounted fully by Darbyshire and Pizzarno (forthcoming).

35 will stimulate further interest in the Late Phrygian period at Gordion and bring future researchers one step closer to actualizing a Late Phrygian phase plan.

36 Chapter 3 The Outer Gate-Court

When the citadel of Gordion was rebuilt in the 8th century B.C.E. following the massive destruction of the Early Phrygian citadel, five buildings were constructed within the Outer Gate-

Court: Buildings C, G, D, E, and F (Fig. 8). This area was demarcated or encircled by an enclosure wall, which extended from the monumental Gate Building. Five of these Middle

Phrygian buildings follow a standard megaron-style plan, being of well-built, monumental proportions with a small pronaos or vestibule leading into a large main chamber or cella. The cella often contained a central hearth. Some of the megara of the Early Phrygian citadel showed evidence for a second story in their construction, though the poor state of preservation for the

Middle Phrygian megara prevent us from determining whether they continued in this tradition; they are, in general, slightly smaller than their Early Phrygian predecessors. The size, construction, and prominent location of these megara suggests that they were originally public buildings like their Early Phrygian predecessors—perhaps having a religious or administrative function—but again, the poor preservation and the absence of original contents prevents us from prescribing them a particular function. Furthermore, although all of these buildings continued to be used during part of the Late Phrygian period, it is unclear whether they were repurposed for an alternative function after Persian occupation of the site. Only one building from the Outer

Gate-Court has thus far has been identified as a new Late Phrygian construction—the Painted

House.

37 Building C82

During the Middle Phrygian period, Building C was the first building one would encounter to the left upon entering the monumental stone gates into the citadel of Gordion (Fig.

8). Building C was one of the first Middle Phrygian megara excavated by Young, so it was granted considerably more detail in the pertinent excavation notebooks. Young also provided comparatively more information about Building C in the Preliminary Reports—particularly concerning the building’s chronology. It apparently had at least three phases; however, for the purposes of this thesis, the first two building phases will be combined and referred to as Phase 1 since they both occurred during the Middle Phrygian period. The subsequent building phase is therefore Phase 2.83

Phase 1a of Building C dates to some time in the 8th century B.C.E., as the first foundations of the building rest on the clay layer associated with the rebuilt citadel. The earliest surface level inside the structure is identified by the excavator as a “white working floor”— perhaps the subsurface of a floor that has since been destroyed or removed.84 Then, between the

82 The remains of Building C were excavated in 1953, 1955, and 1957 in trenches NCT-A2, NCT-A3, ET-V2 (under Mabel’s House, Roger’s Basement, S. of Roger’s Basement, Roger’s Extension) and Trench Q-1; Gordion Notebooks 39, 44, 54, 60, 61, 70, 78, and 80; Preliminary Reports: Young 1955, pp. 6-8, 1956, pp. 254-255, 1960, p. 233. 83 As many of the Middle Phrygian megara underwent a renovation in the Late Phrygian period, I have adopted a standard identification system to clarify otherwise ambiguous terminology. Thus, for the purpose of this thesis, the original, Middle Phrygian building is identified as Phase 1, and the Late Phrygian renovation of the building is Phase 2. However, phases of different buildings are not necessarily contemporary (i.e., Phase 2 of Building C may not be contemporary with Phase 2 of building E). The identification of “Phase 2” is meant only to signal the time in which an individual building underwent Late Phrygian period alterations. 84 The Gordion excavators commonly identify the earliest phase surfaces of the Middle Phrygian megara as “working floors,” though this identification is admittedly vague. Voigt (pers. comm.) speculates that these “working floors” served as a subsurface to wooden flooring. This is an attractive solution, since fine wooden floors have been preserved in the Middle Phrygian tumuli (notably Tumulus MM); it is probable that the Phrygians would employ this construction technique on the citadel, as well.

38 7th and 5th centuries B.C.E., Building C was renovated (Phase 1b); the original floor was removed and a thick layer of clay was laid down (the large date range is due to the absence of datable material between these two floor layers). Imbedded on top of this clay layer were several large pieces of pebble mosaic, which had possibly covered the entire surface before the building’s subsequent renovation. The sole feature found in conjunction with this flooring is a centralized hearth made of hard-baked clay that might have originally included a metal curbing (Fig. 13).85

At some point in the second half of the 5th century B.C.E., the superstructure of Building

C was rebuilt (Phase 2), remaining on the same orientation but expanding slightly on three sides; the foundations for the southeast wall were the only foundations reused in the new construction

(Fig. 14).86 However, while the new Building C was constructed in the same location as its predecessor, the building materials were not recycled.87 The foundations and lower walls of the original building were uniformly constructed with poros limestone blocks, but the foundations of the new building were constructed of mixed stone types.88 Furthermore, the Phase 2 foundations introduced a new construction technique: the combined use of stone and lateral wooden beams

85 Young 1955, p. 7. Young also compares the style of this hearth to the second phase hearth in Building E. 86 As we shall see, this type of construction is common on the rebuilt citadel; it was notably employed during Phase 2 of Buildings C, D, and F. 87 This is one of the ongoing unsolved mysteries of the Late Phrygian period rebuilding: Where did all of the construction materials go? With the dismantling of the massive Middle Phrygian enclosure wall and the megara, combined with the near immediate rebuilding of the area, one would assume that these massive stones could not have traveled far. Some of the excavators observed that Late Phrygian architecture contained stones from the Middle Phrygian megara, but the majority of these new buildings appear to be of mixed-stone construction and comparatively modest. Were the blocks distributed so as to create more numerous, compacted buildings? Or were they exported to another (as yet unexcavated) area of the citadel? 88 Young believed the upper walls of both buildings were constructed with mud brick, but he does not explain why. Is it due to the absence of stone construction material in the archaeological record? If so, one could argue that these materials could very well have been robbed in antiquity. There is not enough evidence to prove one way or the other. Young 1955, pp. 6, 8.

39 (Fig. 15). The clay floor of Phase 1 was covered with a bed of rubble to support a new yellow clay floor. There was no evidence found for a centralized hearth inside the building during

Phase 2, so it is unclear whether the new building served a similar function as its predecessor, although the interior of the new building was so badly disturbed by later pits that such a feature may not have been readily identifiable.

The date for the enlargement/Phase 2 of Building C is derived from an Attic black- glazed Acrocup (P 1665, Fig. 16), c. 475-450 B.C.E., found just southwest of the building.89 The deposition of the cup must predate Phase 2 of Building C since the fill layer in which it was found was cut in order to create a footing trench for the new building. The quality of preservation of the cup suggests that it was deposited after a short period of use. Pottery from the rubble fill layer between the clay floor of Phase 1 and Phase 2 is unfortunately inconclusive in respect to dating, thus leaving us only with the Acrocup to reconstruct the chronology of the building. Given the absence of other comparable data, then, we can propose a tentative mid-5th century B.C.E. date for the enlargement of Building C.

It is interesting that in the preliminary reports on the excavation of Building C there is no mention of the fact that accompanying the enlargement/Phase 2 of the building was the construction of an annex on the southwest side (Fig. 17). A sketch of the annex was provided in the excavation notebook, however.90 This addition holds particular significance due to the fact that it overlies a section of the Middle Phrygian enclosure wall which runs southeast-northwest and lies just southwest of Building C. The dismantling of the enclosure wall itself would have

89 Cf. Agora XII, p. 96, no. 443, pl. 20 (ca. 450 B.C.E). (This specific type of Acrocup was produced only from the early 5th century B.C.E. to 450 B.C.E.) Gordion Notebook 44, p. 53. 90 Gordion Notebook 44, p. 40.

40 been a massive undertaking, as it measured ca. 2.50 m in thickness.91 Furthermore, the destruction of the Middle Phrygian enclosure wall to accommodate the construction of this annex would have effectively broken with the spatial tradition of the Early and Middle Phrygian citadels, where the buildings in the Outer Gate-Court were clearly segregated from the buildings located in the Terrace Complex.

Indeed, it is possible that the annex to Building C even predates the enlargement, since the excavator claims that the foundations of the annex lay on a floor (4c) that had been cut through for the footing trench of the enlargement; however, the section of the annex walls that would have abutted Building C have since been robbed, and it is impossible to determine the exact sequence of events. In any case, the aforementioned Acrocup was deposited in a fill layer

(5) that precedes both the annex and the enlargement/Phase 2 of Building C, thus simultaneously dating the destruction of the enclosure wall (this section, at least) and the enlargement to the mid-5th century B.C.E.

Although the Acrocup is the only fixed point in the chronology of Building C, there is significantly more datable evidence directly succeeding the final destruction of Building C.

Pottery from this subsequent phase assists in dating the destruction of Building C as well as changes in the architectural topography of the citadel in the 4th century B.C.E. Immediately after the destruction of Building C, the monumental building was dismantled and a number of smaller structures were built ca. 30-40 cm. over the foundations.92 Although there are signs of burning

(ashy fills) in some areas, this layer is not consistent throughout the area of Building C, so it is not altogether clear whether the megaron was intentionally or accidentally destroyed/dismantled.

91 Young 1956, pp. 252-254. 92 As we shall see upon further discussion of the Late Phrygian period constructions, the fill between the dismantled megara, or the “good white floor/court pavement,” and the subsequent buildings is consistently ca. 30-40 cm.

41 Based on the dating of the context pottery, the dismantling period of Building C perhaps dates to the end of the 5th or early 4th century B.C.E., though the evidence is regrettably meager.93

The subsequent buildings in the area include a large foundry, which partly covered the remains of Building C, as well as the Painted House and Building G (Fig. 17).94 The function of the building was identified as such due to the large quantity of bronze pouring crucibles found in the area. Pottery from the floor and overlying fill suggests the foundry was in use throughout the

4th century B.C.E., with its destruction perhaps at the end of the century.95 The imported pottery is consistently pre-Hellenistic in this phase. Another building of unknown function was constructed just south of the remains of Building C, referred to by the excavators as “Roger’s

Basement.” In analyzing the architecture of these two buildings, the excavators noticed that each structure included reused blocks from Building C; the contractors of the foundry apparently even recycled the latest phase “yellow floor” from the megaron.96 It is therefore possible that the construction of the foundry and Roger’s Basement are contemporary, but without further datable material, we are left to speculation.

In concluding the discussion of Building C and the surrounding area, it is clear that from

Phase 2 (mid-5th century B.C.E.) through to the destruction of the megaron and the subsequent

93 Cf. Agora XII, p. 259, nos. 346 and 348, pl. 16, (ca. 420-400 B.C.E.); Trench NCT-A3, Context Bag 3A, “Fill below floor 6 over Building C wall,” includes a fragment of a late 5th century B.C.E. Attic Type A skyphos, but this is the only datable piece from this layer. 94 Young 1955, pp. 8, 10. 95 Context Bag: “NCT-A3, Bag 1B”; A “fill” is to be distinguished from a “deposit” in that a deposit can be associated with a particular feature or event in a relatively closed and undisturbed context. A fill is the result of destruction and rebuilding phases and is typically a means by which to level an area. Fills typically contain materials which represent a larger date range than materials found in a closed, undisturbed context, but a relative date for a fill can be proposed by identifying the latest datable material. 96 The northwest wall of Roger’s Basement rests on the third course of the southeast wall of second-phase Building C, Gordion Notebook 39, p. 17. Reused stones and floor in the foundry, Gordion Notebook 39, pp. 121, 133; Gordion Notebook 53, p. 59.

42 construction of the foundry (4th century B.C.E.), the Outer Gate-Court underwent a dramatic reorganization of the architectural topography and function of space in a short period of time.

These architectural changes reflect a shift in the ideology of the inhabitants or administration of

Gordion at the time, as the prominent megara, such as Building C, and their demarcated areas, seem to have lost their cultural significance, thereby breaking over 400 years of tradition as established in the layout of the Early and Middle Phrygian citadels. To reiterate, excavations in the area of Building C revealed two major indicators of this change: first, in the mid-5th century

B.C.E., the aforementioned removal of the Middle Phrygian enclosure wall southwest of

Building C, which had previously segregated the Terrace Complex from the Outer Gate-Court, and second, the construction of a foundry directly overlying part of Building C and the neighboring Painted House and Building G.

The Painted House97

As mentioned in the introduction, the Painted House is the only building in the Outer

Gate-Court that has been identified as a Late Phrygian construction and recorded on Gordion site plans, even though it is not the only Late Phrygian construction activity in this area, as evidenced previously by the date of the enlargement/Phase 2 of Building C and its annex. Indeed, it is one of only two Late Phrygian buildings that has been recorded on a Gordion site plan.98 The unique place of the Painted House in Late Phrygian history is due predominantly to the building’s

97 The remains of the Painted House were excavated in 1953 and 1955 in trenches NCT-A3, NCT-A4, and NCT-A5; Gordion Notebooks 53 and 61; Preliminary Reports: Young 1955, pp. 8- 10; Young 1956, pp. 255-256. 98 The other building is the so-called Mosaic Building, which was excavated in the Southeast Trench area. Regrettably, a discussion of this section of the citadel extends beyond the scope of this thesis.

43 unique state of preservation, its unprecedented architectural form, and the attention Young gave to it in publications.

The Painted House was a comparatively small, one-roomed structure, ca. 4.50 m. x 3.75 m. Its southeast wall abutted the northwest wall of the enlarged/Phase 2 Building C, and its northwest wall abutted to the southeast wall of Building G. The building was partially subterranean, with a blue plaster floor ca. 1 m. below the Phase 2 floors of both Buildings C and

G (Fig. 18). In contrast to its neighbors, Buildings C and G, the entrance to the Painted House faced southwest, away from the open court. It was accessed via a small stairwell, the vestibule of which was decorated with a clay-peg mosaic. The element which makes this building noteworthy, however, and that which gives the building its name, is the exquisite paintings, East

Greek in style, that decorated the plaster walls of the inner chamber (Fig. 11). The remains of the building were remarkably undisturbed, and enough fragments of the painting were recovered to allow for a reconstruction of the iconography (Fig. 19). The main scene features a procession of elaborately dressed men and women holding jugs and reeds. The addition of other figures, which might be reclining, suggests an overall scene of ritual drinking and/or dining.99 A stylistic comparison with similar paintings from tombs in Lycia have led to the suggested date of ca. 500-

490 B.C.E. for the Painted House.100

However, a close analysis of the excavation notebooks and the dating of ceramics call to question the preconceived chronology of the Painted House and the surrounding area. More specifically, the evidence for the chronology of Building C as provided by the Attic black-glazed

Acrocup (P 1665), ca. 475-450 B.C.E., is inconsistent with the dates that have been proposed for

99 Mellink 1980, pp. 92-93. 100 Voigt and Young 1999, p. 221, n. 20; Mellink 1980, p. 94, provides an earlier date, ca. 525- 500 B.C.E.

44 the wall paintings of the Painted House. The excavator of the Acrocup confirmed that it was found in a clay layer predating the enlargement/Phase 2 of Building C.101 The excavator made this assertion based on the fact that this clay layer in which the Acrocup was found was cut by the footing trench for the new foundations of Building C. The construction of the Painted House, however, must post-date the enlargement/Phase 2 of Building C, since the southeast wall of the

Painted House was built against the new northwest foundation of Phase 2 Building C.102

Similarly, the northwest wall of the Painted House was built against the southeast foundation of

Building G (see below). If the Acrocup indeed dates the enlargement/Phase 2 of Building C to the mid-5th century B.C.E. or later, then the Painted House must date to the mid-5th century or later, since the Painted House must postdate the enlargement/Phase 2 of Building C.103

However, as mentioned previously, the wall paintings from the Painted House have been dated stylistically to ca. 500-490 B.C.E., thus causing an inconsistency in the chronology of events in this area. There are three possibilities: 1) the excavator of the Acrocup and the area south of Building C misinterpreted the stratigraphy, and the layer in which the Acrocup was found was actually not cut by the footing trench for Phase 2 Building C, but rather dates the final destruction of Building C; 2) the stylistic chronology of the wall paintings from the Painted

House are incorrect, and should be adjusted to match a mid-5th century construction date based on the date of the Acrocup; 3) the wall paintings were composed as suggested, ca. 500-490

B.C.E., and were removed from their original location to decorate the Painted House after its construction, ca. 450 B.C.E.

101 Gordion Notebook 44, pp. 53-54. 102 Gordion Notebook 53, p. 65. 103 As the Acrocup date functions as a terminus post quem, it could have been deposited at any time after ca. 475 B.C.E.

45 In any case, the construction of the Painted House signals a clear break in Early-Middle

Phrygian architectural techniques as the Painted House finds no parallels in earlier or contemporary buildings at Gordion. All of the Middle Phrygian public buildings (save for

Building E, below) on the citadel are nearly identical in plan, but the Painted House, with its subterranean construction, decoration, and orientation, signals a deliberate shift in character of the Outer Gate-Court. For these reasons, the Painted House is believed to represent the cultural, or perhaps religious, presence of the Achaemenids at Gordion, despite the absence of architectural parallels elsewhere in the Persian empire.104

Furthermore, an analysis of the iconography of the wall paintings of the Painted House, combined with its seemingly “hidden” or “restricted” entrance behind Buildings C and G, has led to the interpretation that the unit served as the location for elite ritual or cult practice.105 The figural decoration in fact might mirror the function of the space: the wall paintings depict elaborately dressed men and women carrying offerings and reclining with drinking vessels in hand, and fragments of wooden furniture among the fragments of the painting may indicate the space was used, at times, for ritual dining.106

However, my analysis of the stratigraphy in the area of the Painted House and Buildings

C and G calls to question the preconceived notion that the entrance to the building was hidden or restricted. As described in the previous section about Building C, during the 5th century

B.C.E.—contemporary with the use period for the Painted House—an annex was constructed to

104 Implied in Mellink 1980. Mellink’s article deals primarily with the iconography of the wall paintings; the Painted House has not been fully published. 105 “Achaemenid Gordion,” accessed November 4, 2010, http://sites.museum.upenn.edu/gordion/history/achaemenid. No synthesis of recent developments or interpretations by Gordion scholars exists in reference to the Painted House; therefore, although it is not a final publication, this website provides the most current ideas regarding the function of the building. 106 Mellink 1980, p. 93.

46 the southwest of Building C (Fig. 17). This annex was situated over the course of the Outer

Gate-Court enclosure wall, effectively putting it out of use and desegregating the Outer Gate-

Court from the Terrace Complex area. Further evidence that this entire northwest-southeast segment of the Outer and Inner Gate-Court enclosure wall was put out of use in the 5th century

B.C.E. are provided in the sections below relating to Buildings G and H. It is therefore likely that during at least part, if not all, of the use-period for the Painted House, the entrance to the building was not hidden, but rather open to the area to the southwest. The implications for the removal of the enclosure wall and the orientation of the Painted House will be returned to in the concluding chapter.

Building G107

Building G was constructed ca. 10 m. northwest of Building C and follows the same orientation (northeast-southwest). The original buildings are more or less contemporary, due to the fact that both buildings were built upon the thick layer of clay that separates the destroyed

Early Phrygian citadel from the new, 8th century B.C.E. citadel. The plan of Building G also appears to be similar if not identical to Building C—a megaron-style structure with a small pronaos or vestibule leading into a large main chamber or cella. However, Building G was plundered down to its rubble foundations, making it impossible to determine its actual dimensions and whether a central hearth was also included in its original plan. Consequently, the function of Building G is unknown, but its monumental size and its prominent location within the enclosed Middle Phrygian Outer-Gate Court suggest that it was constructed for public, administrative, and/or religious purposes.

107 The remains of Building G were excavated in 1955 and 1956 in Trenches NCT-A5-9, DC2, 4, 6; Gordion Notebooks 44, 53, 54, 59, and 61; Preliminary Reports: Young 1956, pp. 255, 261; Young 1957, p. 320.

47 Just as Building C, Building G underwent a renovation, except instead of being enlarged the building was made smaller (Phase 2). The southeast wall remained in situ (similar to

Building C), but the northeast, northwest, and southwest walls were dismantled and the width of the building was reduced ca. 1 m.108 The Phase 2 walls were constructed with mixed stones, but the southeast wall was kept in its original homogeneous form.109 Due to the lack of datable evidence and the degree of disturbance in the area it is impossible to determine an exact date for this reconstruction, although it is possible that the remodeling of both Building C and G, and perhaps also the construction of the Painted House, were part of the same building project.

Perhaps contemporary with or directly succeeding Phase 2 of Building G was the addition of small rooms, constructed of rubble, between the northwest wall of Building G and the

Outer-Gate Court enclosure wall located ca. 10 m. northwest of it (Fig. 17).110 This building, seemingly comprised of two rooms, did not utilize the existing walls of Building G and the enclosure wall as part of their construction; instead, the northwest wall of the rubble building was constructed abutting the southeast face of the enclosure wall and the southeast wall of the rubble building was constructed ca. 50 cm. from the northwest wall of Building G. The construction of a small building within an enclosed space is methodologically similar to the construction of the Painted House, which, as discussed previously, was built in the space between Buildings C and G. Although there is no imported pottery from this area to provide a precise date, the excavator does note that there are no black-glazed imports from this layer (in contrast to the overlying layer), and therefore makes an argument in absentia for a pre-

108 Gordion Notebook 53, pp. 100-101. 109 Gordion Notebook 53, p. 101. 110 Gordion Notebook 59, pp. 37-41.

48 Hellenistic, 4th century B.C.E. date.111 Pottery from the destruction of both the rubble building and Building G, coming from waste pits and robbed wall trenches, are all of 4th century

B.C.E./pre-Hellenistic date.112 The 4th century B.C.E. foundry, which overlies both Building C and the Painted House, also partially overlies Building G.

Interestingly, while the northwestern extent of the Outer-Gate Court enclosure wall was left in situ at least until the end of the 4th century B.C.E., the southwest extent appears to have gone out of use during the 5th century B.C.E., simultaneous with the construction of the rubble building abutting Building G (Fig. 17). Just southwest of the rubble building, near the west corner of Building G, a rubble wall was constructed running northwest-southeast, both cutting and overlying the Outer Gate-Court enclosure wall.113 In the subsequent excavation season, the extension of this rubble wall was picked up in an adjoining trench to the northwest, Trench NCT-

10. Pottery from that context dated predominantly to the first half of the 5th century B.C.E.114

Furthermore, another structure was built slightly southwest of Building G, also overlying the Outer-Gate Court enclosure wall. According to the excavator, the floor level of this building was at the same level as the floor of Building G, although it might not be contemporary. The walls of this building apparently cut through the preceding layer (fill after the destruction of

Building G?), making it partially (if not completely) subterranean and a much later construction—perhaps 4th century B.C.E.

111 Gordion Notebook 59, pp. 37, 41. 112 Context Bags: Y55 (NCT-A6), Bag 4, “Bldg. G, fill in trenches of E. & N. walls”; NCT-A7, Bag 8, “plundered west wall trench of Building G”; Y56 (NCT-A9), Bag 23, “S. room, pits through floor 5”; Y56 (NCT-A9), Bag 24, “middle part, layer 5”; Y56 (NCT-A9), Bag 31, “north pit and wall trench”; Y56 (NCT-A9), Bag 32, “pit through floor 5”. 113 Gordion Notebook 59, pp. 97-98. 114 See section on Building H in Chapter 4.

49 In concluding this section regarding the southwestern half of the Outer-Gate Court area, several observations can be made. First, at some point in the 8th century B.C.E., Building C and

G were constructed as a part of the major rebuilding plan of the Middle Phrygian citadel. Then, in the 5th century B.C.E., several changes took place. Building C was reconstructed on a larger scale, Building G was minimized, and the Painted House was constructed between them (perhaps ca. 475-450 B.C.E.?). Shortly thereafter, the southwestern Outer Gate-Court enclosure wall was

(at least partially) dismantled, as three structures were built overlying its foundations: 1) the southwestern annex of Building C; 2) the building overlying the intersection of the southwestern and northwestern enclosure wall (both 1 and 2 probably 5th century B.C.E.); 3) the “cellar” southwest of Building G (probably 4th century B.C.E.). A rubble building was constructed between Building G and the Outer Gate-Court enclosure wall to the northwest, which was kept in situ at least until the end of the 4th century B.C.E. Finally, at some point in the mid-late 4th century B.C.E., all of the aforementioned buildings were destroyed or dismantled, and the remains of Buildings C, G, and the Painted House were buried by the construction of a foundry.

Building E115

Building E, also referred to as the “Hearth Building,” was constructed as part of the

Middle Phrygian rebuilding program in the 8th century B.C.E., as it rests directly on the clay layer that covers the destroyed Early Phrygian citadel (Fig. 8). Building E is located just northeast of the Gate Building, within an alcove formed by the northeast wall of the Gate

Building and the Outer Gate-Court enclosure wall. Like Building C, Building E was one of the

115 The remains of Building E were excavated in 1953 in trenches ETC-1 and ETC-2; Gordion Notebook 40 and 86; Preliminary Reports: Young 1955, pp. 4-6 (referred to as the “Hearth Building”).

50 first Middle Phrygian buildings excavated by Young, so it received considerably more attention in the pertinent excavation notebooks and preliminary reports, particularly concerning its chronology.

Excavation of the building revealed four construction phases (here referred to as Phases

1a, 2a, 2b, and 2c).116 Phase 1a, which dates to the 8th century B.C.E. (the date for the rebuilt

Middle Phrygian citadel), consisted of a square, one-room structure, 5.40 m. x 5.60 m., with an entrance perhaps on its western side (Fig. 20).117 The walls of this phase were of stone, and the floor was of hard-packed earth. A hearth, ca. 60 cm. in diameter and situated in the center of the room, gives the building its name. The roof of the building, therefore, must have been open for ventilation, and the remains of four postholes suggest the building was at least partially roofed around the perimeter of the walls.118

In Phase 2a of Building E, the building was expanded slightly, measuring 5 m. x 6.10.119

A clay hearth was also recovered from the center of the building (Fig. 21). The walls were carefully built of stone on top of a wooden beam bedding (Fig. 22). This is the same technique employed in the Phase 2 construction of Building C, as well as Buildings D and F (see below).

Young mentions the similarity between the Phase 2 constructions of Buildings C and E in the preliminary report, and it is tempting to see them as contemporary.120 Unfortunately, there is only one datable object from this phase of Building E—an owl-shaped ivory stamp-seal (BI 218,

116 Phase 1 designates a Middle Phrygian construction; Phase 2 designates a Late Phrygian construction. 117 Young 1955, p. 4. Young also suggests an entrance on the eastern side, due to the fact that (in each phase) the exterior space to the east contained well-preserved paving. 118 Gordion Notebook 40, pp. 121ff (plan on p. 122). 119 Gordion Notebook 40, pp. 93ff. 120 Young 1955, p. 7.

51 Figs. 23a-23b).121 Young dates the owl to ca. 525 B.C.E., though a broader 6th century B.C.E. date is perhaps more suitable.122 If we accept a 6th century B.C.E. date for the second phase of

Building E, and presume that the enlargement of Building C is contemporary (based on the similar construction techniques), then we may provide further clarification for the chronology of

Building C and the Painted House: Building C could therefore have been enlarged in the second half of the 6th century B.C.E., followed by the construction of the Painted House, the paintings of which date stylistically to the beginning of the 5th century B.C.E.123 Such a reading would disregard the excavator’s interpretation of the find-spot of the Acrocup in the footing trench of

Phase 2 Building C (see above).

Phase 2a of Building E utilizes the same footprint but was elevated by ca. 70 cm. of fill.

The floor is composed of egg-sized pebbles. No hearth construction was found in this phase, although a space in the center of the room showed evidence for burning. There was no datable material found embedded in the floor of this phase of Building E, but pottery from the fill between this level and Phase 2c provide a relative date for its period of use. In all of the contexts underlying the Phase 2c floor, or within construction trenches of the Phase 2c building, none of the Greek imports post-date 450 B.C.E., which suggests that Phase 2b of the building was in use

121 Gordion Notebook 40, p. 107 122 Young 1955, p. 5; G. K. Sams (pers. comm.). 123 There is one further observation regarding the construction technique of this phase of Building E. The beams of the wooden beam bedding were laid more closely parallel to each other than in the construction of Building C (note, in particular, the excavator’s plan in Gordion Notebook 40, p. 94). Though the beams could simply have served as additional foundation support, an alternative interpretation could be that the floor of Phase 2a was actually comprised of wood. With the construction of wooden buildings and floors in contemporary (and earlier) tumuli (notably Tumulus MM), it is surprising that we have not found this technique employed on the citadel. Perhaps this is evidence for such a construction.

52 during the first half of the 5th century B.C.E. and was put out of use some time in the second half of the 5th century B.C.E.124

In the final phase, Phase 2c, of Building E, the unit was expanded eastward and additional rooms (perhaps a porch) were added on.125 In the excavation notebook, this construction is referred to as the “paved unit,” due to the fact that the floor was composed of a stone slab paving over clay.126 Phase 2c still featured a central hearth, which was constructed with two large pieces of a red stone coping, 2.25 m. x 2.15 m. (combined) joined by iron bands

(Fig. 24). Pottery from the habitation level and destruction fill of this phase is mixed 5th-4th centuries B.C.E., but all pre-Hellenistic.127 After the destruction of Phase 2c, Building E was no longer renovated as a single-room hearth building but rather transformed into a multi-room house complete with a storage cellar. The house probably dates to the 4th century B.C.E., based on the appearance of a 4th century B.C.E. Lydion in the house’s cellar.128 The construction of this house on the site of the former Hearth Building—a site that was apparently maintained for several centuries by Gordion’s inhabitants—marks a break in the traditional function of this sector of the Outer Gate-Court in the mid 5th-4th centuries B.C.E.

124 Inventoried pieces include fragments of an Attic black-figured skyphos (P 4808, cf. Agora XXII, p. 285, nos. 1529-1530 (ca. 425-400 B.C.E.); an Attic black-glazed alabastron (P 4812) cf. Agora XXIII, p. 253, no. 1257, pl. 88 (ca. 560); an Attic intentional red stemless cup (P 4811), Agora XII, p. 267, nos. 452-455, pl. 21, fig. 5 (ca. 475-450 B.C.E). Context bags: Trench ET- C2, Bags 16, 26, 31, and 32. 125 Young 1955, p. 5. 126 Gordion Notebook 40, p. 54 ff. 127 Trench ET-C2, Bags 7, 10, 11, 16, 19 128 Voigt 2009, p. 233.

53 Buildings D and F129

Building D and Building F are being treated in the same section, due to the fact that the only conclusive data regarding their chronology derive from the excavation of the small space between these two buildings. This area of the Outer Gate-Court is unfortunately one of the most disturbed parts of the citadel, and in addition, the method of excavation and record keeping in this area was not as precise or informative as those previously discussed. Of the twelve trenches that revealed the remains of these two buildings, only three retained the context pottery; yet, from each of these three trenches, only a small sample of pottery was kept, and the contents of the bags are therefore not fully representative of the trench’s complete pottery assemblage. One excavator even admits to disposing of all context pottery from a specific layer (notably, the fill overlying the floor of Building D) after deeming it “not worth saving.”130 As a result, much of the stratigraphy and chronology of this area is left to speculation.

The most useful information in fact derives from the preliminary reports of the seasons in which Buildings D and F were excavated, as they provide actual state plans and restored plans of each of the buildings’ phases.131 The excavation notebooks do not provide an illustration or analysis of the plans of each building in its entirety. Just as Buildings C and G, Buildings D and

F had two phases: Phase 1 was part of the major building plan of the rebuilt Middle Phrygian citadel in the 8th century B.C.E., as both buildings were built on top of the clay layer that separates the two citadels (Fig. 25). Originally, it appears that Building D and Building F were

129 The remains of Building D were excavated in 1955 and 1961 in trenches ET-C3, ET-C4, ET- C4X, CW1, and ET-O13; Gordion Notebooks 50, 56, and 86; Preliminary Reports: Young 1956, p. 255, Young 1962, p. 156. The remains of Building F were excavated in 1955, 1961, and 1963 in trenches ET-O8, ET-O9, ET-O10, ET-O11, ET-O12, ET-O13, ET-A1, and NCT-S; Gordion Notebooks 51, 56, 86, 96, and 107; Preliminary Reports: Young 1956, p. 255, Young 1962, p. 156. 130 Gordion Notebook 50, p. 39. 131 Young 1956, p. 255; Young 1962, p. 156.

54 both megaron-style structures, with a small vestibule or entryway on the southwestern side of the buildings that led into a large cella or chamber. However, the southwestern half of Building F

(the proposed entryway) was in such poor state of preservation that its dimensions were unable to be determined. Building D, though still a megaron, is slightly smaller than Building F.

Both buildings underwent a renovation very similar to that of Building C. The superstructures of the Phase 2 buildings were dismantled and covered with a layer of clay, and new buildings were constructed (Fig. 26). Both of the Phase 2 structures notably were constructed upon foundations which contained lateral wooden beams, identical to the Phase 2 construction of Building C. The only evidence we have for the dating of these renovations comes from the excavation of a small area between the two buildings. A waste pit underlying the foundations of the second phase Building D was said by the excavator to contain a 5th century

B.C.E. roof tile, although this evidence is regrettably tenuous.132 However, the parallels in construction techniques, and the impetus for their reconstructions, suggests that the new buildings were more or less contemporary with the renovation of Building C. This would place the Phase 2 constructions of Buildings D and F either at the end of the 6th century or beginning of the 5th century B.C.E., depending on whether one dates the Phase 2 construction of Building C in relation to the Painted House or the Acrocup, respectively.

At some point, perhaps in the 4th century B.C.E., both Buildings D and E were dismantled

(the area shows no sign of destruction). The remains were covered by the construction of several structures that might be private houses.133 This event marks a clear change in the function of this area, as the space originally appropriated for monumental (and presumably public) structures

132 Gordion Notebook 86, pp. 4-8. 133 Level 3 in ET-O12, “Level 2 House” in Trenches ET-O13 and ETO-14, Gordion Notebook 56, pp. 7-9, 69-71.

55 was given over to private, modest buildings. However, it is unclear whether these overlying structures date to the (later) Late Phrygian period (4th century B.C.E.) or the Hellenistic period.

In concluding this discussion of the buildings in the northeastern half of the Outer Gate-

Court, we can make several observations. First, and regrettably, there is little datable evidence from this half of the citadel in comparison to the southern half. This is predominantly due to the relative absence of Greek imports from this area. It is not clear whether the paucity of Greek pottery from the trenches overlying Buildings D, E, and F is coincidental or indicative of an alternative function. All three buildings underwent a reconstruction, perhaps in the late 6th or 5th centuries B.C.E., whereby the building plans were slightly altered and reconstructed utilizing a wooden beam bedding similar to Building C. Building E underwent an additional renovation and embellishment, perhaps in the 5th century B.C.E. Then, in the 4th century, Building E was put out of use after about four centuries of use as a hearth building, and similarly, Buildings D and E were dismantled. The construction of non-monumental buildings, possibly domestic in function, over the remains of these long-lived Outer Gate-Court structures, signals a clear break in traditional architectural and spatial patterns at Gordion, and is perhaps indicative of a change in administration. This topic will be returned to in the concluding chapter of this thesis.

56 Chapter 4 The Inner Gate-Court

This chapter discusses the Late Phrygian period within the Inner Gate-Court, the area north and northeast of the Outer Gate-Court and the enclosure wall. This area includes many megaron-style structures similar in plan to those discussed in Chapter 3: Buildings H, M, O, Q,

NCT, and X (Fig. 8). A later construction in the Inner Gate-Court of a different architectural style is the Yellow House. Buildings H, M, O, and Q face onto the Inner Gate-Court, while

Buildings NCT and X face onto a road which runs from the court in a northeastern direction.

Although the area east of Building Q and Building X has not been fully excavated, test trenches east of Building X have revealed the remains of three more structures, Buildings V, Z, and Y, as well as the eastern city wall. The fact that Buildings O and Q have a similar orientation to

Buildings NCT and X suggests that a line of megara continued along this axis, too, opposite

NCT, X, V, Z, and Y.

Building H134

Building H is the first building one would encounter after crossing through the pylon of the Outer Gate-Court enclosure wall, situated on the left (west side) of the street (Fig. 27). The building has a northeast-southwest orientation, with its entryway at the northeast, facing the court. The plan and style of Building H is typical of buildings in the Inner and Outer Gate-

Courts: it is a megaron-style structure, with a pronaos entryway and a main room, or cella. The pronaos of Building H was also decorated with a pebble mosaic, a common decorative feature

134 The remains of Building H were excavated from 1955-1957 in trenches MN, MN-W, NCT- A8, NCT-A11, MW, and MW-2 (Gordion Notebooks 53, 60, 66, and 67); Preliminary Report: Young 1958, pp. 141-142.

57 for Phrygian megara.135 Building H is also representative of the body of Middle Phrygian megara of the Inner Gate-Court area in the state of its preservation. Upon excavation, no trace of the building’s superstructure survived, having been plundered for construction material by later inhabitants. Only the rubble foundations of the structure remained embedded in the deep clay that separates the burned Early Phrygian citadel from the rebuilt citadel. In contrast to Buildings

C, G, D, and F of in Outer Gate-Court, Building H shows no signs of renovation; therefore, in this section, Phase 2 refers to the rebuilding phase after the destruction of Building H.

The chronological evidence provided by the Greek imports from the trenches overlying the remains of Building H suggests that the destruction of the building occurred sometime in the first half of 5th century B.C.E. A nearly complete Attic black-figured skyphos (P 1729; Figs.

28a-28b) dated to ca. 475 B.C.E. was found under a patch of hard-packed earth in between the southwest (back) wall of Building H and the Middle Phrygian, Inner Gate-Court enclosure wall running northwest-southeast behind it.136 The excavator attributes this hard-packed earth floor to the rebuilding phase of the area (Phase 2), after the destruction of Building H.137 The exceptional quality of preservation of the vessel suggests that it was excavated in a close to primary context, meaning that it was deposited as fill in this space not long after its period of use. As the vessel was found in a surface corresponding with the subsequent rebuilding of the area after the destruction of Building H, it provides a terminus post quem of 475 B.C.E. for Phase 2 of the area, with the probability that it occurred sometime in the second half of the 5th century B.C.E.

135 The remains of a pebble mosaic floor were also found in the pronaos of the neighboring Building M (see section below). Precedents for this architectural feature have been found in the megara of the Early Phrygian period, notably Megara 1, 2, 9 and 12. Young 1958, p. 143, 1964, pp. 288-290; DeVries 1980, p. 37; Salzmann 1982, pp. 6-8, 78, 93-94, nos. 46-56. 136 Cf. Agora XXIII, p. 286, no. 1541, pl. 104 (ca. 480-470 B.C.E.); The enclosure wall is referred to as “Wall 13” in Gordion Notebook 67, p. 38. 137 Gordion Notebook 67, pp. 38, 45.

58 Additionally, a fragment of an Attic intentional red stemless cup (P 843d; Fig. 29), ca.

475-450 B.C.E., was recovered from a brick-lined pit, which may in fact have been contemporaneous and associated with Building H.138 The pit is located behind the building on the west corner of the back wall and is ca. 1.40 m. in diameter.139 It was obviously carefully constructed in the shape of a regular circle, and it is doubtful that this was created as a mere refuse pit during Phase 2, as it is typical of Late Phrygian builders to cut waste pits into the earth rather than construct them with building materials. In any case, the deposition of the black- glazed cup, as well as the black-figured skyphos, should be associated with the destruction of

Building H (end of Phase 1), or Phase 2 at the latest, during the second half of the 5th century

B.C.E.

Further ceramic evidence suggests that Phase 2 began almost immediately after the destruction of Building H/Phase 1. The remains of a “house” associated with what the excavator called “Floor S” (henceforth, “Floor S House”), were found in the Phase 2 surface level in

Trench MW-2 (Fig. 30).140 This house is ca. 10 m. long on the west; its eastern extent was not able to be determined due to the fact that it was greatly disturbed by pits. It was constructed between Building H and Building I (to the southwest of H), overlying the remains of the northwest-southeast Inner Gate-Court enclosure wall, which had been robbed out for building material at sometime prior to the house’s construction. On and in Floor S was found many fragments of an Attic red-figured krater (P 1813a, Fig. 31a), which dates to 450 B.C.E. at the

138 Cf. Agora XII, p. 267, nos. 452-455, pl. 21, fig. 5, (ca. 480-460 B.C.E.) 139 Gordion Notebook 67, pp. 39-40. 140 Gordion Notebook 67, p. 144.

59 latest.141 As a result, this date now serves as a terminus post quem for the destruction of the

“Floor S House,” although the number of scraping marks on the interior of the krater suggests that it was used for a long period of time before its deposition (Fig. 31b).

It is clear that the destruction of the “Floor S House” postdates the destruction/dismantling of the northwest-southeast Inner Gate-Court enclosure wall, since the line of the wall runs underneath the house. Consequently, this placement confirms that the

“Floor S House” postdates Building H. Evidence to suggest a drastic change in the topography of the citadel and an almost immediate rebuilding phase following the demolition of the east- west enclosure wall and Building H derives from a study of the stratigraphy underneath the

“Floor S House.” Since the “Floor S House” overlies the remains of the east-west enclosure wall, and also overlies two previously segregated spaces: the Inner Gate-Court and the Terrace

Complex, the latter of which is known to have been the location for the city’s craft production during the Early Phrygian period, and probably continuously through the Middle Phrygian period.142 The southwest half of the “Floor S House” (within the former Terrace Complex area) lies on top of clay, while the northeastern half (within the Inner Gate-Court) lies on top of a soft fill. Perhaps this soft fill was deposited immediately following the destruction of the enclosure wall as a means by which to level the previously segregated spaces (or rather, to raise the elevation of the Inner Gate-Court area to the level of the Terrace Complex area). This deposit of fill, in addition to the demolition of the enclosure wall, would have changed the topography of the citadel, effectively desegregating the two spaces, and perhaps, consequentially, altering the

141 Cf. Agora XXX, p. 163, no. 190, pl. 28 (ca. 490-480 B.C.E.); Additional fragments of P 1813 were found nearby: Trench NCT-A11, Layer 5, Pit 2, Gordion Notebook 60, p. 58; Trench MW, context bag titled, “Layer 6 Pits” (no reference in notebook). 142 DeVries 1990, pp. 385-386; Burke 2005.

60 areas’ functions. Yet, without the documentation of elevations in the excavation notebooks, it is impossible to make these claims with certainty.

Architectural features and finds from Phase 2 suggest the area was used for craft production of some sort, perhaps extending the area of production from the previously segregated Terrace Complex. In Trench NCT-A11, which includes the south corner and southeast wall of Building H, several new structures were built in Phase 2, notably in alignment with (and perhaps even utilizing) the foundation course of Building H.143 Several rooms contained large pithoi sunken into their floors (the bases of the pithoi were resting on the floor layer associated with the foundations of Building H).144 Another room contained a cistern construction. Small finds from the area included other large storage vessels, a large sieve, small utilitarian bowls, knife blades, pumice stones, and unfinished alabaster vessels.145 The architectural features, combined with the finds from the area, suggest that these buildings serviced craft production—perhaps the manufacturing of stone vessels.

More construction activity contemporary with “Floor S House” and the possible stone- working facility occurred in the area between Building H and the enclosure wall to the southeast, though these areas are poorly preserved. A long wall, identified by the excavator as “Wall X,” and a short perpendicular wall are perhaps the remains of a larger room or complex.146 The wall runs nearly parallel to the enclosure wall, indicating that the segment of the enclosure wall was still in use after the destruction of Building H and during the construction of the “Wall X” building. The southwestern half of the same segment of the enclosure wall does not seem to have been preserved, however, as a rectangular structure with the remains of a wooden beam

143 Gordion Notebook 60, pp. 40-99. 144 Cf. plan, Gordion Notebook 60, p. 79. 145 Context Bag: “NCT-A11, Layer 5.” 146 Gordion Notebook 60, pp. 18-23.

61 bedding and columns was constructed over the remains of the enclosure (“Room with Columns,”

Fig. 30).147 The same building was picked up during the excavation of Building G (see section, above).

In the fill overlying Building H the imports are of Late Archaic-Early Classical date, with an average date of 500-475 B.C.E. Yet, in some parts of the trench (NCT-A11, in particular) the

Late Archaic-Classical imports are found alongside distinctively Hellenistic material. In other words, there appears to be a chronological absence of imports in this area during the 4th century

B.C.E., which is unique in comparison to areas elsewhere throughout the Inner and Outer Gate-

Courts. Perhaps this is due to the sequence of later construction periods following the destruction/dismantling of Building H. It is possible that these early vessels correspond with

Phase 2—some being deposited as fill during the dismantling of Building H and others being used within Phase 2 buildings. Upon the destruction of Phase 2 buildings, which probably happened sometime during the Hellenistic period, the area was vastly disturbed, thereby mixing

Hellenistic vessels with the earlier Archaic and Classical imports. This would explain the appearance of numerous unguentaria in Phase 2 strata, as well as the inclusion of Late Archaic-

Classical fragments in Hellenistic strata.

Returning to matters of chronology, the evidence provided by the remains of Greek imported pottery from the area of Building H suggests several changes took place during the 5th century B.C.E. First came the destruction or demolition of both Building H and the stretch of the

Middle Phrygian Inner Gate-Court enclosure wall behind it, which had been separating the

Terrace Complex from the elite Inner Gate-Court area. Second came the pillaging of Building H for materials and an almost immediate new construction phase, Phase 2, which included

147 Gordion Notebook 59, pp. 97-98; Gordion Notebook 60, pp. 31, 35.

62 numerous modest structures—perhaps a combination of households and production centers. The near-complete remains of the Attic black-figured skyphos (P 1729) within a hard-packed surface created during the construction of Phase 2 buildings suggests that the vessel was deposited there not long after its creation/importation, perhaps in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of the 5th century B.C.E.

It is possible that the destruction of Building H occurred in the first quarter of the 5th century B.C.E. The excavator of Trench NCT-A11 claims that the period of disuse before the new construction must have been short based on the stratigraphic relationship between Building

H’s foundations and these later structures.148 Furthermore, the remains of the Attic red-figured krater (P 1813a) found on the floor of the “Floor S House,” seemingly one of the first constructions of the rebuilding period, provides a terminus ante quem for the construction of this building to ca. 450, and gives further evidence that the rebuilding took place ca. 450 B.C.E., thus the destruction of Building H happened not long prior. Unfortunately, with a lack of secure archaeological contexts and other narrowly datable material, it is impossible to arrive at a more exact chronological sequence.

Building M149

Building M is of a similar plan and orientation as Building H, although slightly smaller, measuring 20.50 m. in length and 12.65 m. in width (Fig. 27). As is the case with the majority of these Middle Phrygian buildings, the superstructure of the building had been pillaged for later rebuilding, and even the foundations were not well-preserved in some areas. A pebble mosaic floor with geometric patterns was found in the northern half of the pronaos; in the cella, a red-

148 Gordion Notebook 66, pp. 97-98. 149 The remains of Building M were excavated 1958-1959 in trenches EML-2, EML-3, and EML-4; Gordion Notebooks 74 and 78; Preliminary Reports: Young 1959, pp. 265-266, 1960, p. 233.

63 brown clay surface, uneven and disturbed in some areas due to later construction of the site, was the only floor found associated with the building’s period of use.150 Lying directly upon this clay floor along the south wall of the cella was an Attic black-figured hydria (P 2074, Fig. 32), which dates to ca. 575 B.C.E.151 The vessel, apparently discovered in situ, had been crushed by fallen building debris during the destruction (or dismantling) of Building M. The building had obviously been destroyed by fire, as some areas were covered by a thick layer of ash and burnt roof thatching.

Additionally, over fifty complete Phrygian vessels were recovered from the floor of

Building M—a remarkable number for any of the Middle Phrygian megaron-type structures in the rebuilt citadel, since they were all destroyed and pillaged down their foundations for building material. The preservation of these vessels is due in part to the nature of their deposition—they were carefully placed in pits, which were cut into the floor of the building, sometimes reaching the underlying clay level that separates the Early Phrygian and Middle Phrygian citadels. There were four of these so-called “pot hoards” found deposited along the north and south walls of the cella (Fig. 33). The largest, Pot-Hoard 3, was lined with stone slabs and contained a minimum of 25 vessels, including a pithos (P 2082) inscribed “BENAΓONOS” in large Phrygian letters

(presumably designating the owner of the vessel and its contents). The excavator speculated that all of the pots were for storage purposes, given the fact that the majority of them were large, open-mouthed vessels of coarse fabric; however, smaller serving vessels and finewares were also

150 DeVries questions on two occasions whether this was the actual floor of Building M, though he does not state why he has these reservations. Without evidence to disprove the information provided by the excavation notebook, I can only make my own judgment about the methodology of the excavator. Regardless, the excellent preservation of the vessel suggests that it was found in a primary context, or at least one close to it. DeVries 1988, p. 51, n. 7; 2005, p. 47. 151 Cf. Agora XXIII, p. 181, no. 623, pl. 59 (ca. 475-450 B.C.E.); Gordion Notebook 74, p. 125.

64 present in the hoards.152 Given the fact that the building was later pillaged down to its foundations for building material, it is surprising that there was no effort to recover these goods.153

Young proposed a late 6th century B.C.E. date for the destruction, possibly in relation to the date of the hydria, which Young identifies as an amphora and dates to 560-550 B.C.E. 154

Young used the dating of the vessel as a terminus post quem for the construction of the building, and, since no later floor layer was assigned to the structure, he assumed that the building had a short lifespan beginning around the proposed dating of the hydria, ca. 550 B.C.E. However, one cannot be certain that the hydria was contemporaneous with the structure or the pot hoards, given the absence of other securely datable material. The local Phrygian pottery from below the clay floor of Building M has broadly been dated to the late 7th – 6th centuries B.C.E., but the layers seemingly contemporaneous with our hydria and the overlying destruction layer are inconclusive.155 From the layer directly overlying the clay floor, which consisted of an ashy fill mixed with burnt thatch and roof tiles, imported material dates predominantly from the late 5th-4th centuries B.C.E. (pre-Hellenistic), which seems to suggest that the destruction happened later than Young proposed, perhaps in the first part of the 4th century B.C.E. Yet, the fills overlying the remains of Building M could have also been vastly disturbed by later 4th century B.C.E. or

Hellenistic pillagers in search for building materials.156 The excavator of the area unfortunately

152 EML-3 Context Bag 26; Gordion Notebook 74, p. 144. 153 Only one other megaron, Building X, contained materials in its destruction layer that could readily be associated with use of the building. All other megara were stripped of all objects, leaving no closed contexts by which to make observations about the buildings’ functions. 154 Young 1959, p. 265. 155 Dating of the context pottery proposed by Sams (pers. comm.); EML-3 Context Bag 27; Gordion Notebook 74, pp. 142-143. 156 EML-2 Context Bag 46; EML-3 Context Bag 15, 18, 23; Gordion Notebook 74, pp. 94, 124- 126, 136.

65 does not identify the degree of contamination from these fills, nor offers a proposed date for the strata.

It is possible, however, to determine a terminus ante quem for Building M’s destruction based on the stratigraphy of later buildings. The remains of a structure, which the excavator calls

“Room A-B,” partially overlie Building M on the southeast side. As far as can be discerned from the description and plans in the excavation notebook, “Room A-B” is a one-room structure oriented north-south with a kiln, large oven, or hearth construction against its east wall (Fig. 30).

Only the west, south, and east walls (labeled I, H, and L by the excavator) were preserved; an analysis of these walls led the excavator to propose that the stones for their construction were robbed from Building M.157 Pottery from underneath the earliest identified floor and the west wall (I) of this structure dates to the second half of the 4th century B.C.E.158 The destruction of

Building M therefore must have occurred sometime between the late 6th century and the mid-4th century, a regrettably broad date range.

The interpretation of the date of Building M’s destruction directly affects the way in which we are to read the use context for our Attic hydria (ca. 575 B.C.E.). If we assume the hydria was put out of use not long after its creation (based on the high quality preservation of the vessel), then we can assume a mid 6th century B.C.E. date for the destruction of Building M.

Yet, if we accept a destruction of Building M at a later date, sometime between the late 5th-mid-

4th centuries B.C.E. (based on the date range of the overlying context pottery and Room A-B) then it will be necessary to explain the fact that the hydria was around two hundred years old by the time of its destruction. A third and final interpretation of the destruction date can be offered

157 Gordion Notebook 74, p. 98. 158 EML-2, Context Bag 32 and 47 (under floor at. 9.65); EML-3, Context Bag 23 (under Wall I). Gordion Notebook 74, pp. 93-94, 96, 126-128.

66 by comparing the Building M with the other Gate-Court megara. All of the megara in the Outer

Gate-Court underwent a destruction/dismantling and reconstruction either in the late 6th or early

5th century B.C.E. The destruction of the neighboring Building H, discussed above, also seems to date to the same period. Perhaps we can identify a citadel-wide destruction during the late 6th or early 5th century B.C.E. in which Building M is part. This subject will be returned to in the concluding chapter.

Buildings O and Q159

Building O is another Middle Phrygian megaron, situated ca. 12 meters to the north of

Building M (Fig. 8). It has a different orientation, however, lying on a northwest-southeast axis, with its entryway at the south. Just as Building M, Building O was plundered by Late Phrygian inhabitants down to its foundations and the area was vastly disturbed by pits. These factors, in effect, present a great challenge to the reconstruction of this area’s stratigraphy.

More frustrating than the building’s poor preservation, however, is the method of excavation in this area. The excavators’ primary objective was the recovery of the Early

Phrygian remains—more specifically, Megaron 4, the northern neighbor of Megaron 3. In order to determine the dimensions of this structure, a few trenches were opened as a northern continuation of trench EML-4, so that the excavators could use the remains of Megaron 3 as a reference point. As excavations proceeded from 1961 to 1965, small trenches (comparatively, for Young’s excavations) were opened northward, continuously testing for Early Phrygian buildings, and taking little consideration of the remains on the Middle Phrygian rebuilt citadel.

159 The remains of Buildings O and Q were excavated from 1961 to 1965 in Trenches PP, PPN, PPPN, PPPS, QA, Q-O1, Q-O2, Q-O3, M4W4, M5A, M5B, M5C, M5D, M5E, M5F, M5G, M5H, and M5J; Gordion Notebooks 88, 103, 106, 114, 116, 119, 121, and 123; Preliminary reports: Young 1962, p. 155, 1964, p. 282, 1966, p. 269.

67 Building O was therefore excavated over a span of five years and sixteen trenches (compared to the previously discussed Building M, which was excavated in one and a half seasons and three trenches).

The manner of excavations here was also inconsistent; for example, “Level 4” in one trench could equal “Level 6” in the neighboring trench. Furthermore, out of these sixteen trenches, only a few fragments of imported pottery were inventoried and not a single piece of context pottery was kept from the levels associated with Building O and later phases (one wonders how many imported pieces were discarded from this area). I therefore rely solely on the descriptions provided by the excavators and the meager number of inventoried sherds to reconstruct the sequence of events pertaining to Building O and its destruction.

The discussion of Building Q has been added to this section, due to the fact that only minimal information can be provided. It lies ca. 4-5 m. to the east of Building O and seems to exhibit the same plan and orientation. A segment of the building’s west wall and the southwest portion of its interior are all that has been excavated, and thus far no imported finewares have been found. However, the trenches associated with Building Q (PPPN, O-Q3, O-Q2, and O-Q1) extend to reveal the eastern wall of Building O and thereby provide further evidence of this structure.

Due to the high level of disturbance and pillaging in this area during later periods, no fragments of Greek imports were found in situ. However, the stratigraphic location of several pieces can facilitate reconstruction of a chronology of events in this area. As mentioned previously, the structure of Building O was plundered in antiquity for subsequent rebuilding, and the floor was disturbed by numerous pits—so much so, that it is not entirely clear whether the building had a cross-wall to demarcate a proper pronaos and cella, as found in neighboring

68 buildings.160 Finds from the fills directly overlying the earliest extant floor of Building O yielded a fragment of an Attic black-figured cup (P 5053), ca. 500-475 B.C.E.; a fragment of a red- figured bell krater (P 4918), ca. 475-400 B.C.E.; and two joining fragments of an Attic black- glazed stemless cup (P 2968a,b), ca. 450-425 B.C.E. It therefore seems probable that the destruction of Building O occurred some time at the end of the 5th century or early 4th century

B.C.E., with the dismantling and subsequent rebuilding extending into the 4th century B.C.E.

Finds from the area around the outside perimeter of Building O also suggest that the destruction occurred at the end of the 5th or early 4th centuries B.C.E. As is consistent for these

Middle Phrygian megara, Building O was built directly on top of the deep clay layer that blankets the destroyed Early Phrygian city. The earliest surface from this part of the Middle

Phrygian citadel is frequently described by the excavators as a “good white floor,” or “well- preserved packed lime,” which lies directly over the same clay.161 This surface (which should perhaps be referred to as paving, since it is exposed to the elements) is therefore to be associated with the first phase of use for Building O (and Q).

The paving is found consistently around the perimeter of Building O, having been cut into for the creation of numerous waste pits after the building’s destruction. A significant number of roof tiles were recovered from these pits. Frequently they contained layers of ash, but also material that did not seem to be affected by fire. (Perhaps the pits were first used to burn organic materials, and subsequently filled with building debris; it is not clear whether Building O was destroyed by fire, since none of the excavators identified ashy fills within the building or

160 The excavator identifies two stones that could have functioned as this cross-wall, and provides a “probable restoration” in Gordion Notebook 106, p. 103. However, in the plan provided in Gordion Notebook 116, pocket 1, Building O has no cross-wall. 161 The same paving was notably found in association with the nearby Buildings M (Gordion Notebook 74) and H (Gordion Notebook 72).

69 mentioned signs of burning on the extant architecture.) The most interesting pit of this type (“Pit

C”) was found in trench M5H, just outside of Building O in the northwest.162 From this ashy pit, which contained “many bone fragments including a human jawbone (!),” was found a fragment of a fine Attic red-figured oinochoe (P 3242, Fig. 34) depicting a youth playing the lyre.163 The piece dates to the first quarter of the 5th century B.C.E., but the inclusion of a black-glazed fishplate brings the dating of the pit down to the 4th century B.C.E.164

As mentioned above, due to the size of the trenches and the nature of excavation in the area overlying Building O, it is a great challenge to reconstruct the stratigraphy of later construction here, but the area just south of Buildings O and Q (Trenches P, PP, PN, and PPN) presents a more coherent sequence of events.165 The earliest building in this area (save for two cellars, see below) is found in “Layer 4.”166 This is the level succeeding the destruction of

Building O, as the foundation trench for the east side of the building was found in Layer 5.167 The stone-paved floor attributed to this layer (Floor 4) extends eastward into Trench PN.168

Associated with Floor 4 is a modest structure, which the excavator describes as being made “of rubble, but including some sizable squared blocks, evidently reused from some more pretentious earlier structure” (Building O and/or Q?).169 The remains of an oven or hearth, a deposit of ash, and a pit full of coarsewares and animal bones suggests that the space was kitchen or eatery of

162 Gordion Notebook 119, pp. 51-54. 163 DeVries 1997, pp. 447-448, fig. 4. 164 The fishplate is not inventoried, but is listed in the contents of Pit C by the excavator. No context pottery from this trench was kept. Gordion Notebook 119, p. 54. 165 This area was excavated in 1961 and 1962; Gordion Notebooks 88 and 103. 166 Gordion Notebook 88, pp. 20-24. 167 Gordion Notebook 88, p. 31. 168 Gordion Notebook 88, p. 64. Floor 4 of Trench PP is equivalent to Floor 3 of Trench PN. 169 Gordion Notebook 88, p. 21.

70 some sort.170 That such a simple structure would replace the monumental buildings of the

Middle Phrygian citadel provides evidence for a reorganization of space after the destruction of the megara in this area.

The excavator claims that the pottery from Layer 4 should be dated to the 4th century

B.C.E., or perhaps the late 5th century B.C.E.171 However, our most conclusive evidence for the date of this structure comes from beneath the stone-paved Floor 4, under which were the almost complete remains of an Attic white-ground patterned lekythos (P 2496, Fig. 35), save for the neck and mouth.172 This vessel, which dates to ca. 475-450 B.C.E., thus provides a terminus ante quem for the construction of the Level 4 building, and, consequently, a terminus post quem for the destruction of Buildings O and Q. The combined evidence from the deposition of our securely datable Greek imports from the area encompassing the Middle Phrygian Buildings O and Q suggests that the megara were put out of use and the space was expropriated for more modest structures in the late 5th – early 4th centuries B.C.E.

NCT Building & Building X173

A summary of the archaeological data from the excavations of the NCT Building will be added to the discussion of Building X due to the fact that the pertinent information on the NCT

Building is too minimal to warrant its own section. The NCT Building and Building X also

170 Gordion Notebook 88, pp. 23-24. 171 Gordion Notebook 88, p. 20. Again, no context pottery was kept from these trenches, so we therefore rely on the descriptions provided by the excavators. 172 Haspels 1936, pp. 181-182, pl. 52; Gordion Notebook 88, p. 69. Floor 4 of Trench PP is equivalent to Floor 3 of Trench PN. 173 The remains of the NCT Building were excavated in 1950-1951 in Trench NCT; Gordion Notebooks 5 and 10; Preliminary Report: Young 1953, pp. 24-25. The remains of Building X were excavated in 1969 and 1971 in Trench PBX-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and PBX-E; Gordion Notebooks 142 and 150; Preliminary Report: DeVries 1990, pp. 396-398, fig. 35.

71 neighbor each other, thus making a combined discussion appropriate. The NCT Building is located just northeast of the enclosure wall pylon which leads into the Inner Gate-Court area

(Fig. 36). It lies roughly on a northwest-southeast orientation, with the entrance at the northwest.

The building thus services the northeast-southwest street segment that runs perpendicular to the street passing through the enclosure gate pylon.

The NCT Building was the first Middle Phrygian megaron-style structure excavated by

Young. Its remains were discovered in one of the deep sondages of the 1950 season. The construction of the building can probably be dated to the 8th century B.C.E., as its foundations were constructed upon the deep clay layer that separates the Early Phrygian citadel from the rebuilt Middle Phrygian citadel. However, the building was heavily plundered down to its foundations by later (4th century B.C.E.? Hellenistic?) inhabitants, and remains of the superstructure were found only in the south corner. Unfortunately, this plundering has prevented a chronological reconstruction of the destruction/dismantling of the NCT Building and later overlying structures.174

Building X lies ca. 15 m. northeast of the NCT Building and follows the same orientation. It was also constructed sometime in the 8th century B.C.E., as its foundations rest on the clay layer that covers the Early Phrygian citadel. Although Building X was also badly plundered, enough of its superstructure remained to reconstruct the chronology of events in this area. The Phase 1 plan of Building X was initially conceived as a megaron-style building, similar to the majority of the Middle Phrygian buildings within the Inner and Outer Gate-Courts, but comparatively smaller. However, at some point in the mid-5th century, the building was partly destroyed/dismantled and rebuilt according to a similar but altered plan. The Phase 2, 5th

174 In other words, all pre-Hellenistic Greek imports from the NCT Building excavations are residual; furthermore, the area has comparatively few figured imports as a whole.

72 century B.C.E., building retained the plan of the Phase 1 megaron, but added a “mirror” megaron to the southeast of the original cella (Fig. 36). The sequence of rooms of the new Building X was then vestibule-cella-cella-vestibule. A mid-5th century B.C.E. date for Phase 2 is suggested based on the find of a nearly complete black-figured lekythos (P 3916, Fig. 37), ca. 475 B.C.E., found beneath a pebble floor, which the excavator identifies as the latest phase floor of the building.175 Although no floor survives from the southeast addition of Building X (the “south megaron”), it is assumed that this pebble floor covered the entire surface of the Phase 2 building, and that it was laid down in the 5th century B.C.E., contemporary with the building’s reconstruction/expansion.176

The alteration of the plan of Building X could provide evidence for an even greater alteration of the topography of the citadel. This information is provided by the excavation of the area southeast of Building X, between the expanded 5th century building and Building P.177

Building P is also a megaron-style structure, with a small entryway or vestibule leading into a larger main room or cella. The building lies on a northwest-southeast orientation with its entrance at the northwest. Excavation of the area northwest of the building, between Buildings P and X, revealed a number of connecting paving stones, which suggests that the two buildings were associated with one another.178 Indeed, an embellishment of the area northwest of (and in alignment with) Building P could be the impetus for the change in plan of Building X, especially if the extension of X included the addition of a southern entrance. The possibility of another line

175 Cf. Agora XXIII, pp. 245-251, nos. 1182-1237, pl. 87 (ca. 490-470 B.C.E.); Gordion Notebook 142, pp. 141. 176 DeVries 1990, pp. 396-397. 177 Building P was excavated in 1961, 1969, and 1971 in trenches NE-1, PBP-N1, 2, 3, and PBP- W1, 2; Gordion Notebooks 96, 143, 147, and 150; Preliminary Reports: Young 1962, p. 155; DeVries 1990, pp. 396-397, 400, fig. 35. 178 DeVries 1990, p. 396.

73 of megara northeast of Building P, parallel to Buildings NCT, X, V, Z, and Y, has already been suggested in the 1960-1973 seasons’ preliminary report.179

Yellow House180

The so-called Yellow House is one of the most interesting of all the Inner-Gate Court buildings from the Late Phrygian period due to the information it provides about topographical changes on the citadel. It does not appear on any current state plans of the site, though a detailed plan of the building was published in the preliminary report for the 1958 season (Fig. 38).181 The mud brick building gets its name from the thick layer of yellow plaster that covered its interior walls. Based on architectural analysis, it is clear that the building originally contained multiple rooms, probably to the north of the main room, but the building’s actual dimensions were either not recoverable or not excavated.182 Excavations revealed a large, square one-room structure with a central hearth construction that showed considerable burning. Additionally, a pit construction was found filled with carefully selected rounded stones in the northwest corner of the unit, which led the excavators to suggest the space was used for a specific ritual activity (perhaps bathing).183

The evidence provided toward interpreting the function of the Yellow House is admittedly slim, however, and it is possible that the building had no ritual or religious connections.

The significance of the Yellow House pertains to its placement. It was constructed just northwest of the pylon, effectively blocking access from the Outer Gate-Court to the Inner Gate-

179 DeVries 1990, p. 396. 180 The remains of the Yellow House were excavated in 1958 in Trench MN, Extension 2-3; Gordion Notebook 72, pp. 71-87; Preliminary Report: Edwards 1959, pp. 266, pl. 66, fig. 13. 181 In fact, the only 5th century B.C.E. buildings that have been included in Gordion site plans are the Painted House and the Mosaic Building (the latter not discussed in this thesis). 182 Edwards 1959, p. 266. 183 Gordion Notebook 72, p. 72; Edwards 1959, p. 266.

74 Court. Excavations beneath the floor of the building revealed a handle fragment from an Attic kylix (P 2094), dated to ca. 475 B.C.E., thereby providing a terminus post quem for the construction of the Yellow House (Fig. 39).184 There are no constructions between the layer associated with the nearby Building H and the Yellow House; the floor level of the Yellow

House is ca. 30 cm. above the Inner Gate-Court pavement. This is consistent with the elevations of the other buildings, particularly, “Floor S House” overlying Building H (Fig. 38).185

Therefore, we can view the construction of the Yellow House as contemporary with other attested buildings to the south, which mark a topographical change of this area in the second quarter of the 5th century B.C.E.

184 Cf. Agora XII, p. 265, nos. 416-419, pl. 20 (ca. 525-475 B.C.E). 185 Level 6 in Gordion Notebooks 60 and 67 (“Floor S House”) is equivalent to Level 5 in Gordion Notebook 72 (Yellow House).

75 Chapter 5 Analysis & Conclusions

Analysis

In comparing the chronology of the two Gate-Courts, we see a clear difference in respect to building activity and function after what appears to be a site-wide destruction in the late 6th or early 5th century B.C.E. All of the Phase 1 (original, Middle Phrygian) megara were destroyed or dismantled by the mid-5th century B.C.E., but only the megara in the Outer Gate-Court were systematically rebuilt under what appears to be a well-organized building program (all of the

Phase 2 megara employ the same construction techniques). In the Inner Gate-Court, Building X was renovated or rebuilt and the open area east of the building was embellished, but it is unclear whether this was unique to the Inner Gate-Court or whether other megara to the northeast (not yet fully excavated) underwent a similar renovation. Buildings H, M, O, Q, and possibly NCT, however, were not rebuilt but rather put out of use at this time. It is at this point that the Inner

Gate-Court ceased to function as the elite quarter of the citadel. Almost immediately, access to this area from the Outer Gate-Court was blocked by the construction of the Yellow House just west of the pylon.

Perhaps the most interesting development on the citadel in the Late Phrygian period involves the dismantling of the Inner and Outer Gate-Court enclosure wall. The trenches opened during the excavation of Buildings C, G, and H revealed that at some point in the 5th century, the northwest-southeast extension of the enclosure—that is, the partition wall between the Court complexes and the Terrace Complex—was dismantled. In the Outer Gate-Court, an annex to

Building C was built overlying the former line of the enclosure wall. In the Inner Gate-Court area, at least one (the “Floor S House”) and perhaps two structures of unknown function

76 (domestic?) were constructed over the former line of the enclosure wall. The latter structure, which was excavated in Trench NCT-A10, was situated over the area where the northeast- southwest section of the enclosure wall (separating the Inner and Outer Gate-Courts) once met the northwest-southeast section (separating the Courts from the Terrace Complex).

However, the entire enclosure wall construction does not appear to have been put out of use at the same time. More specifically, it appears that a segment of the enclosure wall which separates the Inner and Outer Gate-Courts (between Buildings G and H) remained in situ for the majority of the 5th century B.C.E. A small rubble building (or buildings?) was constructed in the space between Building G and the enclosure wall; “Wall X House,” seemingly contemporary with “Floor S House” and the “Yellow House” was constructed adjacent to the other side of the wall. Furthermore, the pylon was seemingly still standing despite the construction of the Yellow

House, which blocked access through the gate. Why was this segment of the enclosure wall not removed together with the northwest-southeast segment?

The analysis of the Late Phrygian building program undertaken in this thesis, I believe, offers a probable explanation: throughout the course of the 5th century B.C.E., the Inner and

Outer Gate-Courts of the Middle Phrygian citadel ceased to function as the political/administrative center. The focus perhaps shifted to the western side of the mound.

Evidence for this is provided by several major building projects. First, the construction of the

Mosaic Building, arguably the administrative or ritual center for the Achaemenid representative at Gordion, was constructed in the southwest sector of the citadel.186 Perhaps in connection with this project was the dismantling of the Outer Gate-Court enclosure wall and the construction of the Painted House. The fact that the entrance to the Painted House opens to the southwest rather

186 Young 1953a, pp. 9-14; Burke (forthcoming).

77 than to the northeast (as its neighbors, Buildings C and G), strengthens the argument that architectural focal points on the citadel were shifting in the 5th century B.C.E. to the southwestern half of the citadel.

The second half of the 5th century B.C.E. and the early 4th century B.C.E. marks an even greater shift, however, as the citadel is given over to industries, perhaps mixed with domestic structures.187 Gone are the monumental public buildings of the Middle Phrygian citadel, as well as the short-lived Painted House. The remains of the Painted House and parts of Buildings C and

G are covered with bronze foundry in the 4th century B.C.E. Building H is covered by what may be a stone working facility in the late 5th or early 4th century B.C.E. A 4th century B.C.E. structure overlying Building M contains a kiln or large oven.

The varying dates for the context pottery underlying the new Late Phrygian constructions of the Inner and Outer Gate-Courts indicate that they were not a part of a contemporary building program (such as we see for the 5th century B.C.E. rebuilding of megara in the Outer Gate-

Court), but rather ad hoc, opportunistic establishments. This trend begins in the Inner Gate-

Court in the 5th century, with the final destruction of Buildings M, H, O, and Q, and then extends to the Outer Gate-Court in the 4th century with the final destruction (dismantling?) of Buildings

C, D, E, F, G, and the Painted House.

In concluding my analysis of the Late Phrygian stratigraphy, I would like to return the question posed in Chapter 2 of whether we see evidence for an earthquake on the citadel in the

5th or 4th centuries B.C.E. If an earthquake affected the architecture of the mound, it most likely occurred in the late 6th or early 5th century B.C.E. The earthquake could then be placed between

187 This observation is in agreement with the few Late Phrygian structures more recently excavated by Voigt on the Western Mound (Voigt and Young, Jr. 1999, pp. 235-236). Future studies of the Late Phrygian period at Gordion will benefit from a synthetic study of both Young and Voigt excavations.

78 what has been identified as Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Gate-Court megara. This explanation is attractive if one considers the manner in which the Outer Gate-Court megara were rebuilt. First, as the construction of Building C illustrated, the Phase 2 superstructure was not built with homogeneous materials, as the Phase 1 superstructure. Perhaps the earthquake caused severe damage to the Phase 1 superstructure of the megara, thereby calling for new construction materials. The change in construction technique to timber-enforced foundations (Buildings C, D,

E, and F) could then be seen as a preventative architectural strategy to withstand future seismic shocks.

As for the final destruction of the megara, I would argue that their dismantling was not induced by a natural disaster, but rather by an overturn or dramatic reordering of the political or administrative system. In order to justify the dismantling of monumental, elite structures, which had been a visual presence on the citadel for almost four centuries, one must imagine an absence of control on the part of the contemporary Gordion administration. In the absence of a visible destruction (layers of burned fill, reeds, etc.), one cannot convincingly argue that the citadel suffered an attack or disaster. Rather, it seems more likely that the megara were simply abandoned and left to be plundered by the inhabitants of the city.

The ad hoc, opportunistic nature of the constructions overlying the monumental megara further suggest an absence of central authority, as the 4th century B.C.E. citadel shows no sign of spatial regulation or uniformity. The topography of the Early and Middle Phrygian citadels, in contrast, speak clearly to a powerful, central authority in the organization and segregation of space, and the monumentality and uniformity of the elite quarter structures. In this way, the architecture of the citadel reflected the power and wealth of the capital of Phrygia in its ability to motivate manpower. By the 4th century B.C.E., however, the concept of an architecture of power

79 was altogether absent on the citadel. This change in topography was not sudden, but rather a gradual development throughout the course of the 200 year Persian occupation of the site.

Conclusions

A greater understanding of the changing topography of the Late Phrygian citadel can perhaps be reached by situating the archaeological evidence into a historical framework. Since the Late Phrygian period is distinguished as being the period of Persian control and occupation of the site, one of my preliminary research goals was to identify whether or not we could detect an Achaemenid political or cultural presence. Yet, it appears that the question remains unanswered. While we see clear breaks in architectural and administrative traditions on the citadel, it does not immediately coincide with Cyrus the Great’s capture of the city, but rather happens gradually throughout the course of the 5th and 4th centuries. Remarkable is the fact that the general layout and structures of the Middle Phrygian citadel remained unchanged for at least a century, despite the new political setup. In fact, after a site-wide destruction probably in the late 6th or early 5th century B.C.E., the original Middle Phrygian megara of the Outer Gate-Court

(and Building X of the Inner Gate-Court) were rebuilt according to tradition.

Studies of Achaemenid imperialism indicate that the near undetectable presence of

Persian political dominance at Gordion is perhaps to be expected. In fact, Persian emperors

(Darius I, in particular), were concerned with maintaining peace with local elites and readily adapted to local traditions and customs.188 Yet, the new constructions of the Mosaic Building, the Painted House, and the Yellow House—unique from all other known Phrygian structures in respect to architectural techniques, plan, and decoration—do suggest that the Achaemenids had

188 Briant 2002, p. 79; For ancient sources, see Lecoq 1997: Hdt. 3.38; DB 1.17-20, 4.70, 4.88- 92; DNa esp. 15-47; Dusinberre 2003, p. 1.

80 some effect on the city, whether it be by the importation of ideas or the migration of Persian peoples, themselves.

Aspects of Persian imperial ideology at Gordion can perhaps be highlighted by comparing it with the archaeological evidence from Sardis in the neighboring empire of Lydia.

Elspeth Dusinberre’s study of the Achaemenid period shows that the Persians were particularly sympathetic to the local customs of the various people who encompassed their empire. The imposition of Persian imperial ideology can be detected at Sardis, however, by the expropriation of the Lydian King Croesus’ palace for the seat of the Persian administration.189 This was a common activity during Persian imperial expansion.190 A religious monument was remodeled, as well—the altar to Kybele—perhaps to suit Achaemenid cult practice.191 Additionally, during the

Persian period, an altar to Artemis was constructed, renovations were made to the site’s fortifications, public fountains were maintained, and Achaemenid pottery and iconography infiltrated the material record.192

Overall, Sardis saw few new public building projects during the Achaemenid period.

This is very similar to Gordion, as we only have evidence for two constructions of elite, public buildings immediately following Persian occupation: the Mosaic Building, the Painted House.

The elaborate renovation to Building E in Phase 2b might also represent a renovation similar to that seen in the altar of Kybele at Sardis, as the building continued to serve the same function

(with a central hearth), while at the same time undergoing alterations in its plan. With the relatively few Achaemenid building projects at both Sardis and Gordion, it seems that the

Persian administration was content to utilize the majority of preexisting architecture, adding only

189 Dusinberre 2003, pp. 73-75. 190 Kuhrt 1995, p. 691. 191 Dusinberre 2003, pp. 64-68. 192 Dusinberre 2003, pp. 46-77.

81 relatively small religious monuments and (when needed) an administrative palace (the Mosaic

Building). This pattern of behavior can perhaps be seen as a Persian imperial strategy by which to assimilate local practices and create alliances with local elites, who were appointed to serve alongside the satrap in various political or administrative capacities.193 Following this interpretation, the rebuilding of the Outer Gate-Court megara could be seen as an Achaemenid service to the city, symbolic of their interest in maintaining traditional Phrygian expressions of power and activities.

In respect to material culture and iconography, excavations at Gordion have revealed significantly fewer goods than at Sardis. Galya Toteva’s study of the local pottery production at

Gordion in the 4th century shows that Achaemenid vessels represent only one fifth of the vessels from the contexts she analyzes.194 It is possible that the lack of Achaemenid material culture at

Gordion is due to its secondary political role, as it did not serve as a regional capital (as Sardis).

Yet, without a comprehensive study of the archaeological record of the Achaemenid periods at other sites in Anatolia, it is difficult to make assumptions or generalizations about imperial settlement patterns.

Dusinberre states, “At Sardis in the Achaemenid period, acculturation [of Persian culture] did not mean the simple taking on of external attributes by a pre-existing culture. Rather, it meant the development of a new culture, a new context in which new forms might develop.”195

We can perhaps view the Late Phrygian period at Gordion in a similar way, for, throughout the course of the period, we see an increasing infiltration of non-traditional architectural forms and new concepts of space on the citadel. A possible tension between Phrygian tradition and Persian

193 Briant 2002, p. 79. 194 Toteva 2007, p. 161. 195 Dusinberre 2003, p. 29.

82 influence is most clear in the 5th century B.C.E., at which time the megara in the Inner Gate-

Court ceased to function and the megara in the Outer Gate-Court were maintained. With the demolition of the megara of the Inner Gate-Court came the introduction of unprecedented architectural forms, signaling a break in traditional ideas of architectural aesthetics and techniques.

One final question remains as to what prompted the final abandonment of the monumental megara of the citadel at Gordion, perhaps in the late 5th or beginning of the early 4th century B.C.E. As mentioned previously, I see their abandonment is indicative of a political reorganization in the city. The pillaging of the megara down to their foundations for building materials, as well as the ad hoc nature of the subsequent building period, suggests the absence of central authority. The desegregation of space between the Terrace Complex and the Gate-Courts that coincided with the removal of the enclosure wall effectively eliminated an elite quarter on the citadel. Such an activity warrants explanation, but is regrettably hard to get at by looking at the archaeology, alone.

As for historical source of the period, there is evidence that the Achaemenid governing bodies at Gordion may have been transferred elsewhere in the empire, perhaps Egypt. At some point between 401 and 399 B.C.E., Egypt seceded from the Persian Empire.196 At least from the

380’s B.C.E., the Persians made armed attempts to reconquer Egypt, and finally succeeded in

343/2 B.C.E. under Artaxerxes III.197 Diodorus Siculus (XV, 38.1) claims that the Persian king

Artaxerxes III had recruited a sizeable mercenary force for an attack in 375/4 B.C.E. On an earlier occasion, around the end of the 5th century B.C.E., Artaxerxes II summoned troops from

196 Manetho, FGrH 609 F3c; cf. Kuhrt 2007, p. 390, no. 57. 197 Diodorus Siculus, XVI, 46.4-7, 51; cf. Kuhrt 2007, p. 413, no. 77.

83 the “Upper Satrapies” for his definitive battle for the throne against Cyrus the Great.198 It is not clear what the geographical boundaries of the “Upper Satrapies” were, but the region seems to have included central Asia.199 Perhaps Gordion was included in this region, and a number of

Persian leaders and/or inhabitants were recruited for war. At any rate, the continuous uprisings throughout the course of the 4th century B.C.E. would have offered many occasions for Persian administrators stationed at Gordion to be reappointed elsewhere in the empire as needed.

Alternatively, it could be argued that the inhabitants of Gordion no longer held allegiance to the

Persian administrative system, although without evidence for mass destruction on the citadel this option seems less likely. Whatever the case may be, the Courts apparently became free of political control, and subjected to the spatial and commercial needs of the people.

As explained in the Chapter 2, this thesis stands only as a preliminary study of the Late

Phrygian period citadel at Gordion. Despite the shortcomings and the unique challenges posed by studying legacy data, the conclusions drawn from a thorough analysis of the stratigraphy and finds described in the excavation notebooks proves that lemonade can still be made out of the lemons that Late Phrygian Gordion left for us. It is hoped that the chronological sequencing I have provided for this period will facilitate future studies of all aspects of this period.

198 Diodorus Siculus, XIV, 22.1-2; cf. Kuhrt 2007, p. 363, no. 21(i). 199 Briant 1990, pp. 48-51.

84 Bibliography

Agora = The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton.

XII = B. A. Sparks and L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries B.C., 1970.

XXIII = M. B. Moore and M. Z. Pease Philippides, Attic Black-Figured Pottery, 1986.

XXX = M. B. Moore, Attic Red-Figured and White-Ground Pottery, 1997.

Anderson, G. E. Forthcoming. “Middle Phrygian Houses and the Common Cemetery at Gordion,” in The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, April 22, 2007, ed. C. B. Rose.

Bäbler, B. 1998. Fleissige Thrakerinnen und wehrhafte Skythen: Nichtgriechen im klassischen Athen und ihre archäologische Hinterlassenschaft, Stuttgart.

Berndt-Ersöz, S. 2006. Phrygian Rock-Cut Shrines: Structure, Function, and Cult Practice, Leiden and Boston.

Berndt-Ersöz, S. 2008. “The Chronology and Historical Context of Midas.” Historia 57, pp. 1- 37.

Briant, P. 1990. “The Seleucid Kingdom, the Achaemenid Empire and the History of the Near East in the First Millennium B.C.,” in Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom (Studies in Hellenic Civilization 1), eds. P. Bilde et al., Aarhus, pp. 40-65. Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake.

Brixhe, C., and M. Lejeune. 1984. Corpus des Inscriptions paléo-phrygiennes, Paris.

Burke, B. 2005. “Textile Production at Gordion and the Phrygian Economy,” in The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, Philadelphia, pp. 69-81.

Burke, B. Forthcoming. “The Rebuilt Citadel at Gordion,” in The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, April 22, 2007, ed. C. B. Rose.

Darbyshire, G., and G. H. Pizzorno. 2009. “Building Digital Gordion,” Expedition 51, pp. 23–30.

Darbyshire, G., and G. H. Pizzorno. Forthcoming. “Mapping Gordion,” in The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, April 22, 2007, ed. C. B. Rose.

85

Darbyshire, G., S. Mitchell, and L. Vardar. 2000. “The Galatian Settlement in Asia Minor,” AnatSt 50, pp. 75–97.

DeVries, K. 1980. "Greeks and Phrygians in the Early Iron Age,” in From Athens to Gordion: The Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young, ed. K. DeVries, Philadelphia, pp. 33–50.

DeVries, K. 1988. “Gordion and Phrygia in the Sixth Century B.C.E.,” in Source: Notes in the History of Art 8: Phrygian Art and Archaeology, ed. O. W. Muscarella, New York, pp. 51–59.

DeVries, K. 1990. “The Gordion Excavation Seasons of 1969–1973 and Subsequent Research.” AJA 94, pp. 371–406.

DeVries, K. 1997. “The Attic Pottery from Gordion,” in Athenian Potters and Painters: The Conference Proceedings, eds. J. H. Oakley, W. D. E. Coulson, and O. Palagia, Oxford, pp. 447– 455.

DeVries, K. 2005. “Greek Pottery and Gordion Chronology,” in The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, Philadelphia, pp. 36–55.

DeVries, K. 2008. “The Age of Midas at Gordion and Beyond.” ANES 45, pp. 30-64.

DeVries, K., and C. B. Rose. Forthcoming. “The Throne of Midas?” in The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, April 22, 2007, ed. C. B. Rose.

Digital Gordion. “Achaemenid Gordion.” Accessed November 4, 2010. http://sites.museum.upenn.edu/gordion/history/achaemenid.

Draycott, C. and G. Summers. 2008. Sculpture and Inscriptions from the Monumental Entrance to the Palatial Complex at Kerkenes Dağ, Turkey, Chicago.

Dusinberre, E. R. M. 2003. Aspects of Empire in Achaemenid Sardis, Cambridge.

Edwards, G. R. 1959a. “The Gordion Campaign of 1958: Preliminary Report,” AJA 63, pp. 263– 268.

Edwards, G. R. 1959b. “Gordion Report, 1958,” TürkArkDerg 9, pp. 12–13.

Edwards, G. R. 1963a. “Gordion,” AnatSt 13, pp. 19–20.

Edwards, G. R. 1963b. “Gordion: 1962,” Expedition 5, pp. 42–48.

French, D. 1998. “Pre- and Early-Roman Roads of Asia Minor: The Persian Royal Road,” Iran 36, pp. 15–43.

86

Grave, P., L. Kealhofer and B. Marsh. 2005. “Ceramic Compositional Analysis and the Phrygian Sanctuary at Dümrek,” in The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians, ed. L. Kealhofer, Philadelphia, pp. 149-160.

Gunter, A. C. 1991. The Gordion Excavations Final Reports 3: The Bronze Age, Philadelphia.

Haspels, C. H. E. 1936. Attic Black-Figured Lekythoi, Paris.

Haspels, C. H. E. 1971. The Highlands of Phrygia: Sites and Monument, Princeton.

Hawkins, J. D. 1994. “Mita,” Reallexicon der Assyriologie 8, pp. 271–273.

Henrickson, R. C., and M. M. Voigt. 1998. “The Early Iron Age at Gordion: The Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence,” in Thracians and Phrygians: Problems of Parallelism. Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History, and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia (Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 2-6 June 1995), eds. Y. Tuna- Nörling, Z. Aktüre, and M. Lynch, Ankara, pp. 79-107.

Henrickson, R. C. and M. M. Voigt. 2000. “Formation of the Phrygian State: The Early Iron Age at Gordion,” AnatSt 20, pp. 37–54.

Körte, A. 1897. "Kleinasiatische Studien II. Gordion und der Zug des Manlius gegen die Galater,” AM 22, pp. 1-51.

Körte, A., and G. Körte. 1901. “Gordion,” AA 1, pp. 1–11.

Körte, A., and G. Körte. 1904. Gordion: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung im Jahre 1900, Berlin.

Kuhrt, A. 2007. The Persian Empire, London.

Kuhrt, A. 1995. The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 B.C., Cambridge.

Lecoq, P. 1997. Les inscriptions de la perse achéménide: traduit du vieux perse, de l’élamite, du babylonien et de l’araméene, présenté et annoté par Pierre Lecoq, Paris.

Lynch, K. M. Forthcoming. The Gordion Excavations Final Reports: Imported Pottery at Gordion, Philadelphia.

Marsh, B. Forthcoming. “Reading Gordion Settlement History from Stream Sedimentation,” in The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, April 22, 2007, ed. C. B. Rose.

Mellink, M. J. 1980. “Archaic Wall Paintings from Gordion,” in From Athens to Gordion: The Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young, ed. K. DeVries, Philadelphia, pp. 91–98.

87

Miller, N. F. 1997. “Farming and Herding along the Euphrates: Environmental Constraint and Cultural Choice (Fourth to Second Millennia B.C.E.),” MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 14, pp. 123–32.

Roller, L. E. 1987. “Hellenistic Epigraphic Texts from Gordion,” AnatSt 37, pp. 103–133.

Roller, L. E. 1999. In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian , Berkeley.

Rose, C. B. Forthcoming. “Introduction: The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion,” in The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, April 22, 2007, ed. C. B. Rose.

Salzmann, D. 1982. Untersuchungen zu den antiken Kieselmosaiken, Berlin.

Sams, G. K. 1979. “Imports at Gordion: Lydian and Persian Periods,” Expedition 21, pp. 6–17.

Sams, G. K. 1994. The Gordion Excavations Final Reports 4: The Early Phrygian Pottery, Philadelphia.

Sams, G. K. 2005. “Gordion: Explorations over a Century,” in The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, Philadelphia, pp. 10–21.

Sivas. T. T. 2007. “Phrygians and the Phrygian Civilization,” in The Mysterious Civilization of the Phrygians, ed. H. Sivas, Istanbul, pp. 9-14.

Stewart, S. M. 2010. “Gordion After the Knot: Hellenistic Pottery and Culture” (diss. Univ. of Cincinnati).

Toteva, G. D. 2007. “Local Cultures of Late Achaemenid Anatolia” (diss. Univ. of Minnesota).

Tuna-Nörling, Y. 2001. Attische Keramik aus Daskyleion (Daskyleion I), Izmir.

Vassileva, M. 2008. “King Midas in Southeastern Anatolia,” in Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction, September 17–19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, eds. B. J. Bachvarova, and I. C. Rutherford, Oakville, pp. 165–171.

Voigt, M. M. 1994. “Excavations at Gordion 1988–89: The Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence,” in Anatolian Iron Ages 3: The Proceedings of the Third Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van, 6-12 August 1990, eds. A. Çilingiroğlu and D. H. French, Ankara, pp. 265–293.

Voigt, M. M. 2005. “Old Problems and New Solutions: Recent Excavations at Gordion,” in The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, ed. L. Kealhofer, Philadelphia, pp. 22–35.

88 Voigt, M. M. 2007. “The Middle Phrygian Occupation at Gordion,” in Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Eskişehir, 16-20 August 2004 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Suppl. 20), eds. A. Çilingiroglu and A. Sagona, Leuven, pp. 311–333.

Voigt, M. M. 2009 “The Chronology of Phrygian Gordion,” in Tree Rings, Kings and Old World Archaeology, eds. S. Manning and M. J. Bruce, Ithaca, pp. 219-237.

Voigt, M. M. Forthcoming. “The Unfinished Project of the Gordion Early Phrygian Destruction Level,” in The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion. Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, April 22, 2007, ed. C. B. Rose.

Voigt, M. M., K. DeVries, R. C. Henrickson, M. Lawall, B. Marsh, A. Gürsan-Salzmann, and T. C. Young. 1997. “Fieldwork at Gordion: 1993–1995,” Anatolica 23, pp. 1–38.

Voigt, M. M., and T. C. Young, Jr. 1999. “From Phrygian Capital to Achaemenid Entrepot: Middle and Late Phrygian Gordion,” IrAnt 34, pp. 191–241.

Winter, F. A. 1984. “Late Classical and Hellenistic Pottery from Gordion” (diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia).

Young, R. S. 1950. “Excavations at Yassıhüyük-Gordion, 1950,” Archaeology 3, pp. 196–201.

Young, R. S. 1951a. “Gordion–1950,” UPMB 16, pp. 2–19.

Young, R. S. 1951b. “Gordion,” AnatSt 1, pp. 11-14.

Young, R. S. 1953a. “Progress at Gordion, 1951–1952,” UPMB 17, pp. 2–39.

Young, R. S. 1953b. “Making History at Gordion,” Archaeology 6, pp. 159–166.

Young, R. S. 1954. “Gordion,” AnatSt 4, p. 16.

Young, R. S. 1955a. “Gordion: Preliminary Report, 1953,” AJA 59, pp. 1–18.

Young, R. S. 1956a. “The Campaign of 1955 at Gordion: Preliminary Report,” AJA 60, pp. 249– 266.

Young, R. S. 1956b. “Discoveries at Gordion 1956,” Archaeology 9, pp. 263–267.

Young, R. S. 1956c. “Gordion,” AnatSt 6, pp. 17–23.

Young, R. S. 1957a. “Gordion 1956: Preliminary Report,” AJA 61, pp. 319–331.

89 Young, R. S. 1957b. “Gordion,” AnatSt 7, pp. 15–18.

Young, R. S. 1957c. “Gordion Excavations, 1956,” TürkArkDerg 7, pp. 26–38.

Young, R. S. 1958a. “The Gordion Campaign of 1957: Preliminary Report,” AJA 62, pp. 139– 154.

Young, R. S. 1958b. “Gordion Report, 1957,” TürkArkDerg 8, pp. 33–44.

Young, R. S. 1958c. “Gordion,” AnatSt 8, pp. 17–22.

Young, R. S. 1960a. “The Gordion Campaign of 1959: Preliminary Report,” AJA 64, pp. 227– 243.

Young, R. S. 1960b. “Gordion,” AnatSt 10, pp. 17–18.

Young, R. S. 1960c. “Gordion 1959,” TürkArkDerg 10, pp. 60–63.

Young, R. S. 1962a. “The 1961 Campaign at Gordion,” AJA 66, pp. 153–168.

Young, R. S. 1962b. “Gordion,” AnatSt 12, pp. 17–22.

Young, R. S. 1963. “Gordion on the Royal Road,” PAPS 107, pp. 348–364.

Young, R. S. 1964a. “The 1963 Campaign at Gordion,” AJA 6, pp. 279–292.

Young, R. S. 1964b. “The Archaeological World: The 1963 Season, Gordion,” CW 57, pp. 164– 165.

Young, R. S. 1964c. “Excavation of Early Phrygian, Hittite and Earlier Levels at Gordion,” Yearbook of the American Philological Society, pp. 636–639.

Young, R. S. 1966. “The Gordion Campaign of 1965,” AJA 70, pp. 267–278.

Young, R. S. 1968a. “The Gordion Campaign of 1967,” AJA 72, pp. 231–241.

Young, R. S. 1968b. “Operation Gordion,” Expedition 11, pp. 16–19.

Young, R. S. 1974. “Gordion, 1973,” AnatSt 24, pp. 31–32.

Young, R. S., and G. R. Edwards. 1952. “Gordion,” AnatSt 2, pp. 20–22.

90

Tables and Figures

91

YHSS Phase Young’s Period Designations Approximate Dates 0 Modern 1920s 1 Medieval 10th-15th centuries AD 2 Roman 1st century BC—4th century AD 3A Later Hellenistic Ca. 260-100 BC 3B Early Hellenistic Ca. 330—ca. 260 BC 4 Late Phrygian Ca. 540—ca. 330 BC 5 Middle Phrygian After 800—ca. 540 BC 6A-B Early Phrygian 900—800 BC 7 Early Iron Age 1100—900 BC 9-8 Late Bronze Age 1400—1200 BC 10 Middle Bronze Age 1600—1400 BC

Table 1. The Yassıhöyük Stratigraphic Sequence (YHSS). After Voigt 2009.

Fig. 1. View of Gordion from the excavation house. Citadel mound at right, Küçük Höyük at center, sheep pasturing in the foreground. Author.

Fig. 2. Map of Asia Minor, including major land routes and Persian Royal Road. French 1998, fig. 3, after Levick 1967.

Fig. 3. Wooden serving stand (W 82), from Tumulus MM, after cleaning and restoration. DeVries 1990, p. 389, fig. 23.

Fig. 4. Alabaster figure (S 100), probably Kybele (Matar), from fill of robbed-out wall of Building X. DeVries 1990, p. 398, fig. 37.

Fig. 5. Phrygian tumuli in modern Anatolian landscape. Author.

Fig. 6. Modern entrance to the Midas Mound (Tumulus MM). Author.

Fig. 7. Plan of Early Phrygian Citadel (Eastern Mound), ca. 800 B.C.E. Stewart 2010, fig. 12.

Fig. 8. Plan of Middle Phrygian citadel (Eastern Mound), ca. 500 B.C.E., showing Inner and Outer Gate-Courts and Enclosure Wall. After Stewart 2010, fig. 15.

Fig. 9. Map of the occupational zones at Gordion, showing trenches opened during Voigt's excavations. Voigt and Henrickson 2000, fig. 1.

Fig. 10. Plan of Achaemenid Mosaic Building and adjacent Late Phrygian Building A. Burke (forthcoming).

Fig. 11. Piet de Jong’s reconstruction of “Orpheus and Eurydice” wall painting from the Painted House. Rose (forthcoming).

Fig. 12. Plan of Gordion’s trenches, with shading indicating the trenches examined by the author. After Stewart 2010, fig. 6.

Fig. 13. Plan of Building C (Phase 1) with central hearth in cella. Young 1955, p. 7, fig. 11.

Fig. 14. South foundations of Building C, the Phase 2 wall partially overlying the Phase 1 wall. Young 1955, pl. 3, fig. 13.

Fig. 15. Inner face of northeast foundation of Building C, showing beam holes under the masonry of Phase 2 building. Young 1955, pl. 3, fig. 14.

Fig. 16. Attic black-glazed Acrocup (P 1665), ca. 475-450 B.C.E. Found in layer pre-dating Building C, Phase 2. Lynch (forthcoming).

Fig. 17. Proposed plan of Late Phrygian buildings overlying Middle Phrygian Buildings C and G and the Outer Gate-Court enclosure wall. Possible 5th century B.C.E. buildings in dark gray, 4th century B.C.E. buildings in light gray. After Stewart 2010, fig. 15.

Fig. 18. Painted House after excavation, looking south; preserved floor in foreground, Building C in background, Building G at lower right. Young 1956, pl. 85, fig. 16.

Fig. 19. Deposit of broken plaster overlying the floor of Painted House during excavation. Above, the stone socle of the bronze foundry. Young 1955, pl. 4, fig. 15.

Fig. 20. Plan of Building E (Hearth Building), Phase 1. Young 1955, p. 4, fig. 6.

Fig. 21. Pebble bedding of hearth in Building E (Hearth Building), Phase 2a. Young 1955, pl. 2, fig. 8.

Fig. 22. Northwest corner of Building E (Hearth Building), Phase 2a, showing foundation of beams. Young 1955, pl. 2, fig. 7.

Figs. 23a-23b. Ivory stamp-seal in the shape of an owl (BI 218), found embedded in the floor of Building E (Hearth Building), Phase 2a. Young 1955, pl. 2, fig. 9.

Fig. 24. Stone coping of hearth and paved floor (top) of Building E (Hearth Building), Phase 2c. Young 1955, pl. 3, fig. 10.

Fig. 25. Plan of Outer Gate-Court showing Phase 1 plans of Buildings D and F. Young 1962, pl. 42, fig. 4.

Fig. 26. Plan of Outer Gate-Court showing Phase 2 plans of Buildings D and F. Young 1956, pl. 84, fig. 15.

Fig. 27. Plans of Building H, Building M, and enclosure wall. Young 1959, pl. 66, fig. 11.

Figs. 28a-28b. Attic black-figured skyphos (P1729b-e). Found under patch of hard-packed earth, Layer 6, Trench MW. Lynch (forthcoming).

Fig. 29. Attic black-glazed stemless cup (P 5421a,b + P 843d). P 843d: two joining fragments at right. From brick-lined pit west of (behind) Building H, Trench MW. Lynch (forthcoming).

Fig. 30. Approximate location of Late Phrygian structures overlying Buildings M and H and the enclosure wall.

Fig. 31a. Attic red-figured krater (P 1813a), ca. 475-450 B.C.E. Found on floor of “Floor S House,” Trench MW-2. Lynch (forthcoming).

Fig. 31b. Attic red-figured krater (P 1813a), ca. 475-450 B.C.E. View of the interior, showing scraping marks. Lynch (forthcoming). Fig. 32. Attic black-figured hydria (P 2074), ca. 575 B.C.E. Found on floor of Building M. Lynch (forthcoming).

Fig. 33. A pot hoard from Building M. Young 1959, pl. 65, fig. 9.

Fig. 34. Attic red-figured oinochoe (P 3242a), ca. 500-475 B.C.E. Found in "Pit C" northwest

of Building O. Lynch (forthcoming).

Fig. 35. Attic white-ground patterned lekythos (P 2496), ca. 475-450 B.C.E. Found under Floor 4 (=Floor 3 in Trench PN). Lynch (forthcoming).

Fig. 36. Detail of Buildings NCT, P, V, X (Phase 2), Y, and Z and the circuit wall beyond. DeVries 1990, p. 397, fig. 35.

Fig. 37. Black-figure lekythos (P 3916), ca. 475 B.C.E., found under pebble floor of Building X, Phase 2. Lynch (forthcoming).

Fig. 38. At left, possible plan of “Floor S House”; at right, plan of Yellow House north of pylon. (Caption reads “Level V” in preliminary report.) Young 1958, pl. 66, fig. 13.

Fig. 39. Handle fragment of Attic kylix (P 2094), ca. 475 B.C.E., found under floor of Yellow House. Lynch (forthcoming).