Early Phrygian Drawings from Gordion and the Elements of Phrygian Artistic StyleAuthor(s): Lynn E. RollerSource: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 49, Anatolian Iron Ages 4. Proceedings of the Fourth AnatolianIron Ages Colloquium Held at Mersin, 19-23 May 1997 (1999), pp. 143-152Published by: British Institute at AnkaraStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3643069Accessed: 01/02/2010 17:05

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.jstor.org

Early Phrygian drawings from Gordion and the elements of Phrygian artistic style

Lynn E. Roller

University of California, Davis

The excavations of Young at Gordion (1950-73) made an immeasurable contribution to our understanding of the Iron Age in central Anatolia. Amidst the attention paid to his discoveries of rich burial tumuli and substantial

buildings within the elite quarter of the Gordion citadel

mound, a series of casual drawings incised on the exterior surface of one of these buildings, Megaron 2, has received less notice. Known informally as 'doodles', these drawings range from small cursory sketches to

larger complex pictures. They were noted in the Gordion

preliminary excavation reports for the 1956 and 1957 seasons and were the subject of a brief study in Archae-

ology in 19691, but their significance has never been fully assessed. Yet these drawings, while hardly great art, have the potential to offer much valuable information on

Phrygian interests and activities and on the Phrygians' sources of artistic inspiration in the late eighth century BC. For this reason I am undertaking a full review of all the stones with incised Phrygian drawings for publi- cation. My goal here is to discuss the technique and

subject matter of the drawings, and offer some sugges- tions about the artistic impetuses which lay behind them.

First, a few comments on the building itself.

Megaron 2, like most buildings on the citadel mound, is

a standard Anatolian megaron, although it differs from

other Gordion megara in having no front wall; its anteroom was separated from the courtyard only by a

light screen, probably of wood. Another unique feature is the series of pebble mosaics on the megaron's floors,

including a striking example with brightly colored

geometric designs in the interior room2. The megaron's side and back walls were constructed of stone blocks set

in a framework of horizontal and vertical timbers; the

outer and inner surfaces of each wall were made from

1 Young 1969. Preliminary publication in Young 1957: 323, figs 10-12; Young 1958: 142-3, fig 3. A discussion of these

drawings, but no illustrations, can be found in Young 1963. 2 For the location of Megaron 2 (marked M2), see the site plan of Gordion in Sams 1989: 451, fig 1; Sams 1994: 216, fig 20:1. On the mosaic, see Young 1957: pl 89, fig 7; 1963: 354, fig 6.

poros limestone blocks of varying size and shape, forming two parallel wall surfaces, two 'skins' as it were, filled with rubble in between. Shortly after the construction of the building, two small sheds were built behind it, and at a later point both sheds and the rear wall of the megaron were covered by the fill for a large terrace raised behind Megarons 1 through 4. Megaron 2, like the other buildings in the Gordion citadel mound, was

destroyed by fire, probably an intentional fire related to

military destruction, in the late eighth century BC. The extensive use of timber resulted in almost total collapse of the walls, and most blocks from the side walls were found jumbled together in a heap at the base of the

building. Only the rear wall and southeast comer,

protected by the fill of the terrace behind, remained

standing to a height of several courses. Incised drawings were found on the outer surfaces of both side walls, the back walls and the two small sheds, although the circum- stances of the building's destruction make it impossible to reconstruct the relationship of one incised block to another3.

The character of the scenes incised on the blocks is

quite variable. I use the word 'drawing' to describe

them, but in fact several different techniques can be noted. Some were scratched lightly into the stone, while others were cut more deeply4 (fig 1). A few were carved with a technique resembling relief, and at least one

appears to have been a preliminary attempt at high relief

sculpture5 (fig 2). Each drawing is complete on a single block; no drawing extends over the edge of one block

3 The two southernmost piers of the east wall of the building (on the site plan this appears to be the southwest comer, but is called southeast in the excavation reports) remained standing to a height of about 1.5m; a reconstructed drawing of this area

appears in Young 1958: pl 21, fig 3; 1969: 271 top. 4 In addition to the two stones shown here, figs 1-2, incised drawings are illustrated in Young 1957: pl 90, fig 10 (Gordion inventory number ST 268); 1969: 273 top (ST 839). 5 For examples of relief, see ST 313, Young 1957: pl 90, fig 11, and ST 845, here fig 2.

143

Anatolian Studies 1999

Fig 1. Stone illustrating dancer, Gordion Inventory Number ST 319

Fig 2. Stone illustrating man and lion, ST 845

144

Roller

onto another. All drawings were clearly of a very casual character: they were not framed or centered on the blocks, but incised at random. In several cases one figure overlaps with another on the same block. Fig 3 illustrates one example: here the head of a bird drawn in right profile shares a common line with the body of another bird; both are overlain by a lion facing right, which then merges into the outstretched wings of a bird in flight, with random lines across the whole. On another example, a bird shown in left profile was drawn on top of two warriors who face each other with drawn swords6. In a few cases we can see the lighter lines of preliminary sketches for a subject in addition to the more deeply incised lines of the final picture, as in one drawing of a dog with its tongue hanging from an open mouth7.

The subject matter of these drawings covers a wide range of material. Many are little more than random scratches, arcs, and lines with no discernable pattern, perhaps the marks of someone testing tools on the stones. Intentional geometric patterns are found as well. A large number of the incised stones, however, have figured subjects, including humans and animals. In some cases a single figure, or series of figures, appears alone, while others depict more complex narrative scenes.

Approximately 20 drawings depict human beings involved in a variety of actions. We see men engaged in hunting, as in one drawing which shows a hunter who has bagged a hare (fig 4), and in another example depicting an individual holding out a lure to retrieve a falcon8. Warfare is another subject recorded on several stones. Men attack their opponents with swords and with bows and arrows9. Other individuals appear to be engaged in athletic activity, including two pairs of boxers on one stone and a dancer on another10. We receive at least a

sketchy impression of Phrygian costume, a short kilt-like skirt, and also of the weaponry and armour of the Phrygian warrior, particularly the rounded helmet with high crest. One example depicts a figure wearing a more impressive costume, a long gown and a broad belt with an elaborate rectangular clasp covered with geometric

6 ST 268, Young 1969: 270, top left. 7 ST 255, Young 1969: 273, lower right. 8 ST 317, unpublished. I owe this suggestion to Stephanie Dalley. Note also ST 273, Young 1969: 275, top left, two raptors sitting; the right one appears to be perched on the leather guard of an outstretched hand, a subject indicative of falconry. 9 ST 268, Young 1969: 270, top left; ST 256, Young 1969: 273, right centre. 10 The boxers, ST 313, Young 1957: pl 90, fig 10; the dancer, ST 319, here fig 1.

designs (fig 5); this recalls the examples of elaborate belts found in Phrygian burial tumuli"1.

Among representations of animals, lions are the most common. The lions come in all sizes, from a few centimeters high to lions that cover an entire stone. They are usually shown alone, not hunting or otherwise inter- acting with another figure. Several different styles of lion appear, including a rounded lion head (fig 6, left), and two more angular lions (fig 8). In some cases a complete lion with huge paws and claws strides forward, his mouth open12. One unusual drawing depicts a suckling lioness'3.

The Phrygian artists were also fond of birds. We see birds in flight (figs 3, 5) and resting'4. In several drawings the bird's sharply curved beak and claws make it clear that these are birds of prey15. Domestic fowl such as chickens appear frequently too16. Although one can distinguish between predatory and non-predatory birds, the casual drawing style precludes identification of individual species.

A variety of other animals, both wild and tame, appear as well. We see two scenes with dogs, their mouths open and barking. These are clearly domesti- cated dogs wearing pointed collars for protection"7. Galloping horses add another vivid touch, as do goats (fig 6) and deer displaying magnificent antlersl8 (fig 7).

11 ST 441, here fig 5. For examples of Phrygian bronze belts, see Young et al 1981: Tumulus P, TumP 34-36, and MM, 170- 180. The belts from Tumulus MM have similar patterns on the end-plaques, although the clasps are round disks with circular designs. The Tumulus P belts are of a different design altogether, with a long clasp and semi-circular catch-plate. A similar long gown and belt can be seen on the figure of Urpalla, king of Tyana, on a relief at Ivriz, Burney 1977: 159, fig 128. The god Tarhundas, depicted at the left of this relief, also wears a broad belt with geometric designs, but a knee-length tunic. 12 Good examples can be seen on several blocks on the drawing of the restored wall from the southeastern comer of Megaron 2, Young 1958: pl 21, fig 3 (see also Young 1969: 271, top): on the lowest block on the left pier, the lowest stone on the right pier and on the block just above this. 13 ST 450, unpublished. 14 Young 1969: 275, top left; Mellink 1983: 358, Abb 2. 15 ST 265, Young 1969: 274, top right. Note also the bird with pronounced talons which overlays the house in ST 263a, Young 1957: pl 90, fig 12. 16 An example appears on the center section of ST 313, Young 1957: pl 90, fig 10. 17 ST 255, Young 1969: 273, lower right; ST 258, Young 1969: 274, top left. 18 ST 264, here fig 6; other examples of horses include ST 266, ST 436, unpublished. Young 1969: 274, bottom, illustrates a drawing of the right side of ST 264, but this drawing has several errors and should be used with caution.

145

Anatolian Studies 1999

Fig 3. Bird, lion and wingspread of bird, ST 262

Fig 4. Hunter holding bagged hare, mace, ST 315

146

f

:5 ___j

Roller

Fig 5. Human figure, birds in flight at left, ST 441

Fig 6. Stone with lion, horse, goat, bird, abstract patterns, ST 264

147

Anatolian Studies 1999

Also present are pictures of buildings19. These

consistently depict a tall narrow building with a gabled roof crowned by an akroterion with inward-curving horns. Some details on these drawings, such as the single entrance in the narrow end of a building and the form of

the akroterion, can be corroborated by the ground plans or architectural members of actual buildings at

Gordion20. Noteworthy also is the steeply sloping pitch of the roof, appropriate for a fairly lightweight roofing material such as reeds sealed with clay, the type of

roofing actually found in the excavation of the Gordion

megara21. The correspondences between drawings of

architectural structures and the remains of actual

buildings implies a high degree of accuracy in the

drawings, a fact which makes these scenes extremely valuable, since they provide information on the elevation

of the eighth century BC Phrygian megaron at Gordion, where none survives above ground level.

The incised drawings also include a number of

complex geometric patterns characteristic of Phrygian art, such as lozenge rows, mazes, and compass-drawn rosettes22. A further class of drawing is the type of non-

verbal mark frequently used as an identifying sign on

pottery and other media at Gordion over a period of

several centuries, including a star, concentric squares, and an X in square23.

Both the subject matter and style of these drawings

suggest that their creators drew their subject matter from

a wide range of sources. One, clearly, was the obser-

vation of the Gordion community and the world around

Gordion. Several of the drawings illustrate features of

19 ST 263a, b, Young 1957: pl 90, fig 12; see Mellink 1983: 357, Abb 1. This drawing is not entirely accurate and should be used with caution. A building also appears on another stone, ST 317, unpublished. 20 A stone akroterion with intumed horns was found in the level above Megaron 2; see Young 1956: pl 93, fig 41, and Sams 1994: fig 20:2, pl 20:3:4. 21 I owe this observation to Matthew Glendenning. On the roofing of Megaron 2, Young 1963: 352-3. 22

Lozenge patterns, ST 297; maze, ST 283; compass-drawn rosettes, ST 264, ST 434, ST 436, ST 439, ST 446, ST 450. For ST 264, see fig 6; all others are unpublished. 23 A star can be seen in ST 255, Young 1969: 273, lower right, and ST 265, Young 1969: 274, upper right. For an X in square, see the restored drawing in Young 1958: pl 21, fig 3 and Young 1969: 271, the lowest block on the right pier. Other examples include ST 291 (star), ST 266 and 290 (concentric squares), and ST 272, ST 290, ST 446 (X in square), all unpublished. For parallels with identification signs on Gordion pottery, see Roller 1987: nos 2A-1, 2A-9, 2A-27, 2A-28, 2A-31, 2A-51, 2A-56, 2A-64, 2A-70, 2A-97, 2A-210, 2A-211, 2A-213 (star); 2A-175 (concentric squares); 2A-58, 2A-68, 2A-146, (X in

square).

daily life on the Anatolian plateau. The dogs with spiked wolf collars recall similar dog collars used in rural Anatolia today. The drawings of running horses, bearded

billy-goats, and deer who display their antlers all record

a sense of animated activity drawn from real life. The architectural sketches suggest the physical appearance of the city, and thus presumably some of the depictions of human figures were also drawn from daily life, giving us

a precious glimpse of human activities in ancient

Phrygia, of which we have few artistic records. The

preoccupation of several drawings with warfare and

hunting suggests a similar preoccupation among Gordion's eighth century BC inhabitants.

Yet a close examination of the Megaron 2 drawings indicates that more was involved than mere casual

sketches of daily life. Several of the more complex compositions have strong stylistic affinities with Neo-

Hittite art. The general method of representing the

human figure, showing the head and legs in profile with

the torso drawn full front, derives from a Near Eastern;

probably Neo-Hittite model. The hairstyle, drawn back

into a bun at the nape of the neck, also connects the

Phrygian rendition of the human form with Neo-Hittite

art24.

There are parallels in subject matter also. An

example is furnished by the hunting scene depicting a

man who has bagged a hare (fig 4), strikingly similar to

a relief of a striding figure on an orthostat block from the

Iron Age levels at Ktiltepe25. The correspondences between the two figures' pose, costume with broad belt

and fringed skirt, and outstretched hand with hare are

similar enough to suggest that the Gordion artists may have used the Ktiltepe relief or a similar work as a model.

The two are not identical: the Kiiltepe figure is bearded

and wears a pointed cap with horns on it, indicating that

this is a divinity, while the Gordion figure is clean shaven

and has no headdress. The Kiiltepe figure carries a spear, while the Gordion figure carries a club or mace, and the

Kiiltepe figure holds both a hare below the hand and an

eagle above, while the Gordion figure carries only a hare.

The Gordion drawing, while surely taken from a Neo-

Hittite prototype, seems unlikely to convey the same

meaning of tutelary divinity as its Neo-Hittite prede- cessor. The Gordion scene depicting a fight between two

warriors furnishes another good example; this scene can

be compared with a Neo-Hittite orthostat relief from

24 This hairstyle appears on the small figure above the dog in ST 255, Young 1969: pl 273, lower right (the drawing erroneously omits this feature); see also ST 315, here fig 4. For

parallels, see Akurgal 1962: pl 129, relief from Zincirli; pl 133, relief from Sakqag6ozu; pl 138, relief from Mara,. 25

Ozgii 1971: 82, fig 7.

148

Roller

Fig 7. Stone with deer, human figure at lower left, bird at upper left, ST 435

Fig 8. Two lions, ST 444

149

Anatolian Studies 1999

Halaf, which also shows two figures attacking each other with swords26. Here too the parallel is not exact: the warrior at left on the Halaf relief places his left hand on his opponent's head, while in the Gordion scene the two figures are separate. There are many other details, however, that are very close; the hairstyle, round eye and nose of the right Gordion figure, and the long, claw-like fingers of the left Gordion figure are all found on the Halaf relief.

It is uncertain how closely the Gordion artist followed the formal spirit of the Neo-Hittite model. The intense atmosphere of themes such as fighting, hunting, and boxing, suggests that the artists were drawn to these subjects because such activities did take place in and around Gordion. The Phrygian artist may have borrowed Neo-Hittite schemata for representing figured scenes, but applied a different meaning to them.

Neo-Hittite sculpture also provides the closest parallels for several of the lions found among the Gordion drawings. The lion's heads in fig 8 can be compared with a stone lion from the Neo-Hittite levels at Malatya and a leonine sphinx from Karkamis27. The Gordion lions with huge claws which curl under also recall the leonine sphinx from Karkamis28.

In addition to influence from Neo-Hittite sculpture, the Megaron 2 drawings frequently reflect the style and subject matter of local Phrygian arts. Among the rare examples of monumental sculpture at Gordion are several fragmentary poros lion heads, found re-used in the post-Destruction rebuilding level; the stone, artistic style, and tool marks on the blocks suggest that these stone lions were part of the building program preceding the Destruction level29. The rounded face, incised lines, and protruding tongue of the Gordion stone lions show strong similarities to some of the incised lions, such as that illustrated in fig 6. Lions in the incised drawings also reflect forms found in other media of Phrygian art, such as the wooden figurines of lions from Tumulus P30. Furthermore, striking parallels can be noted with monumental Phrygian rock reliefs. For example, the

26 The Gordion scene, ST 268, Young 1969: 270, top left (again, the drawing published by Young is not fully accurate); the Halaf relief, Orthmann 1971: p1 lOc, T Halaf A3/49. 27 Akurgal 1962: pl 103 (Malatya relief), pl 110 (Karkamis relief). See also Orthmann 1971: pl la (lion from Ain Dara). 28 Akurgal 1962: pl 110. 29 Young 1956: pl 92, fig 42, two poros lions; another example in Young 1958: pl 21, fig 4, and Sams 1989: pl 129:1, 2. For the date, see Sams 1989: 452-3. 30 Compare ST 264, here fig 6, with TumP 109, a wooden figure of a lion and bull, Young et al 1981: pl 23, fig A, B; and ST 444, here fig 8, with TumP 107, a wooden lion, Young et al 1981: pl 22, fig C-F.

rounded face, nose and mane of the lion in fig 6 resembles the lion found on the rock facade known as

Yilanta?, in the Phrygian highlands31. Its square-faced counterpart appears here in fig 8 and in the Highlands relief Arslantas32.

Similarly, the drawings of complex geometric patterns often replicate the types of abstract patterns found in other media of Phrygian art, such as painted pottery and wooden objects. Examples include the compass-drawn rosette found on several stones, similar to the design on a wooden box from Tumulus P and on some of the inlaid wooden furniture from Tumulus MM33. In another instance, a chain of lozenges appears in a stone drawing, on wooden furniture, and on early Phrygian painted pottery34.

Thus these incised drawings have a mixed character. Some seem to be casual, rather crude scratchings, while others show the sophisticated style of a trained artist who was familiar with the conventions of Neo-Hittite and Phrygian monumental art, both abstract and figured art. Some of the more complex pieces may even be sketches for a more polished decoration in higher quality material, such as sculptural relief or wooden furniture.

This will be important as we come to examine what these drawings are and why they are situated on the outer walls of Megaron 2. Their informal nature and random placing on the wall blocks argues against their forming a program of intentional decoration on the building. All are found on a finished exterior surface, a circumstance which suggests that they were made after the blocks were cut and smoothed for the building's construction. Yet each drawing is separate and no drawing overlaps onto the edge of an adjoining block. This implies that the drawings were incised onto the blocks before the building was constructed. If so, they would certainly have been visible to the architects and builders, and one wonders why they were not removed or covered over. Yet a careful examination of the stones' surfaces reveals no trace of paint or plaster which would have hidden these drawings. Therefore it seems likely that the effect of these incised drawings on the exterior of an impressive

31Haspels 1971: figs 144, 148. 32 Haspels 1971: figs 130-132. 33 For examples of incised rosettes on stone, see n 22. The wooden box from Tumulus P is TumP 139, Young et al 1981: 60, fig 29. Rosettes appear in two pieces of wooden furniture from Tumulus MM, in two small medallions at the top of the curved members of the wooden screen, MM 378, Young et al 1981: 178, fig 104; and on an inlaid table, MM 388, Young et al 1981: figs 109, 111J. 34

Lozenges on stone, ST 297 (unpublished); on wooden furniture, MM 388, Young et al 1981: fig 110C; on pottery, Sams 1971: pl 4.

150

Roller

stone building would have been to deface the structure. Since they existed only on the sides and back of the

building, on walls which were closely aligned with other structures, the drawings would rarely have been seen, since there was no traffic around the back of the building35. Moreover, stone for construction was a valuable commodity in Gordion; it had to be brought from some distance away, and thus may have been too

precious to discard even when it was covered with casual drawings. It is even possible that the stones of Megaron 2 were re-used blocks from a stone building (or buildings) in an earlier level which had been dismantled36. Some of these buildings were decorated with relief sculpture37, and the Megaron 2 stones which

appear to be rough sketches of large sculptural reliefs

may have been trials for the same sculptural program. The function of Megaron 2 might seem to shed light

on the meaning and purpose of these drawings, but so far the use to which the building was put remains uncertain, although its unusual entrance and fine pebble mosaic indicate that it was a special building of some sort. It has been suggested that the megaron was a temple38, but the internal arrangements of the building have no provision for a cult statue, nor were any ritual objects found within the building. Indeed, the very existence of these casual

drawings on the megaron walls argues against its use as a temple. For now, we can only say that the building's size, design and placement in this quarter of the city imply that it served some important public function39.

Ultimately we are left with an enigma, a beautiful, carefully constructed building intentionally and openly covered with casually incised drawings and graffiti. Because the drawings appear on the sides and back of the

building, they may not have been too conspicuous, and

35 One must remember that the rear of the building was blocked off soon after its construction, first by two sheds, Houses X and Y, and then by the Terrace Building construction. Young 1963: 353-4; Young 1969: 270-1. 36 Sams 1994 discusses the earliest stone architecture at Gordion. 37 Sams 1989. 38 Mellink 1983: 357-9. 39 As a working hypothesis, I suggest that Megaron 2 may have been some kind of reception centre for visiting dignitaries who had dealings with the Phrygian king; its decoration and placement in the outer courtyard of the citadel might support this. Such a hypothesis remains very tentative, however, and needs further study.

that factor may have made their presence permissible. It is also possible that what we see here is another example of what has been called the 'playful' aspect of Phrygian art40. It may be that the boundary between public and private art in Gordion was much more fluid than we are accustomed to seeing, so that the Phrygian craftsmen of the eighth century BC could use blocks intended for a

public building as their private sketch book. Finally I would like to make some suggestions about

the artists who made these drawings. Young's hypothesis, that the drawings were the product of idle doodling done by individuals loitering around the building, seems impossible41. Many drawings were placed too inconveniently on the walls, while others, especially those done in relief, would have required time and professional tools, both not likely to be available to a casual doodler. Moreover, many of the drawings have the earmarks of sketches done by trained artists. The artists' motives for making these sketches were

undoubtedly varied: some were making a rough sketch for a more formal image, some may have been testing their tools and honing their skills on stone, and some may have been amusing themselves, drawing scenes from the world they saw around them which would not have been

permissible in formal public art. It does seem likely, however, that the drawings were done by individuals familiar with the artistic styles practiced in Gordion at that time. In general, the drawings imply an effort to use both indigenous and imported artistic traditions to create a distinctive style of expression. We may see here the

private interests and preliminary work of local artists of

eighth century BC Gordion, who have left us valuable information on the process of creating the artistic style of Iron Age Phrygia.

40 Simpson 1988: 38.

41 Young 1957: 323; 1969.

151

Anatolian Studies 1999

Bibliography Akurgal, E 1962: Art of the Hittites. New York Bumey, C 1977: The Ancient Near East. Ithaca Haspels, C H E 1971: The Highlands of Phrygia: Sites

and Monuments. Princeton Mellink, M J 1983: 'Comments on a cult relief of Kybele

from Gordion' in R M Boehmer, H Hauptmann (eds), Beitrdge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens:

Festschriftfiir K Bittel. Mainz am Rhein: 349-60 Orthmann, W 1971: Untersuchungen zur spdthethi-

tischen Kunst (Saarbriicker Beitrage zur Altertum- skunde 8). Bonn

Ozgtii, T 1971: Kiiltepe and its Vicinity in the Iron Age (Turkish Historical Society Publications, 5th series, no 29). Ankara

Roller, L E 1987: Gordion Special Studies I. Nonverbal Graffiti, Dipinti, and Stamps (University Museum Monograph 63). Philadelphia

Sams, G K 1971: The Phrygian Painted Pottery of Early Iron Age Gordion and its Anatolian Setting (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). Ann Arbor: University Microfilms

1989: 'Sculpted orthostates at Gordion' in K Emre, B Hrouda, M Mellink, N Ozgtiu (eds), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor of Tahsin Ozgiic. Ankara: 447-54

1994: 'Aspects of early Phrygian architecture at Gordion' in A ?(ilingiroglu, D H French (eds), Anatolian Iron Ages 3 (British Institute of Archae- ology at Ankara Monograph 16). Ankara: 211-20

Simpson, E 1988: 'The Phrygian artistic intellect' Source 7: 24-42

Young, R S 1956: 'The campaign of 1955 at Gordion: preliminary report' American Journal of Archae- ology 60: 249-66

1957: 'Gordion 1956: preliminary report' American Journal of Archaeology 61: 319-31

1958: 'The Gordion campaign of 1957: preliminary report' American Journal of Archaeology 62: 139- 54

1963: 'Gordion on the Royal Road' Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107: 353-4

1969: 'Doodling at Gordion' Archaeology 22: 270-5 Young, R S, DeVries, K, Kohler, E L, McClellan, J F,

Mellink, M J, Sams, G K 1981: The Gordion Excavations. Final Reports Volume I. Three Great Early Tumuli (University Museum Monograph 43). Philadelphia

152