Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
The New Citadel at Gordion
Brendan Burke
The rebuilt or New Citadel at Gordion dates to the period after the great fire
destruction of the Early Phrygian level/YHSS 6A (FIG. 1). The fire is now dated to around 800
BC and the initial rebuilding shortly after that (Voigt 2005, 31). Excavations along the
southeastern edge of the mound have revealed the remains of two of the most impressive
New Citadel structures excavated by Rodney Young: Middle Phrygian Building A, and the
Late Phrygian Mosaic Building (Young 1951, 6-10; 1953, 9, 14-17; 1955, 1-2; 1965, 6-7; Mellink
1988, 228-9). As Sams (2005, 18) and Voigt (2005, 32-5) have recently highlighted,
throughout Phrygian times (Early, Middle, and Late) Gordion was composed of two mounds,
an eastern one which was extensively excavated by Young, and the less explored western
mound. The two mounds were divided by a large street which was filled in toward the end
of the fourth century creating the single flat-topped mound of today. Building A and the
Mosaic Building frame the southwestern edge of the Eastern Citadel.
Although excavations have not revealed any indications of Early Phrygian structures
lying below Building A, it is possible that the Early Phrygian citadel extended this far as well.
One major feature recognized fairly early on at Gordion is that the structures of the New
Citadel often reflect older, Early Phrygian buildings below (Young 1962b, 10; Edwards 1959,
264). In the 1952 campaign, in Early Phrygian strata, Young’s team excavated a wall 8 m
thick, located to northwest of Building A and below the Persian Gate building, which they
interpreted as part of an earlier fortification wall of the city (Young 1955, 11; pl. 6, fig. 23;
1962, 167-8). The full extent of this part of the earlier citadel fortifications has not yet been
1
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
determined although it continues in the direction of Building A and the Mosaic Building. (FIG
2) A probable date for this large wall is early 9th century/YHSS6B.
The part of the Eastern Citadel where Building A and the Mosaic Building are located is
significant for several reasons: the material excavated by Young dated to the Hellenistic,
Late Phrygian, and Middle Phrygian periods and provided important information for the
history and organization of the New Citadel after the Early Phrygian destruction level
(DeVries 1990). Over several centuries Phrygian culture at Gordion adopted certain Lydian,
Achaemenid, and Hellenistic features, showing that it was fertile ground for other cultural
influences to take root (Voigt and Young 1999).
Building A is one of the largest structures at Gordion, rivaling the Early Phrygian
Terrace and Clay Cut Buildings in scale, and it was in use for quite a long time. (FIG. 3) Built
by one of the predecessors of Midas some time in the first half of the eighth century BC, it
remained in use without major modifications until Gordion fell to the Achaemenids in the
mid-6th c BC (Mellink 1988, 228). At that point it was dramatically altered, losing the southern
two of its original six units with the construction of the Mosaic Building during Achaemenid
(Late Phrygian) times (FIG. 4). A heavily modified Building A and the Mosaic Building
continue in use until the late fourth century BC, perhaps coinciding with the building project
which filled in the street dividing the Eastern and Western mounds.
The Mosaic Building is a large complex of elaborate, highly decorated rooms and
courts most likely used for administration and political receptions, or possibly a site of cult
activity. The historical context in which the Mosaic Building is constructed is quite different
from the preceding Middle Phrygian period, when the Gordion citadel reached its largest
2
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
and most elaborate extent. By the sixth century Gordion is a part of the Achaemenid Empire
and no longer a center of political power in central Anatolia although it maintains strategic
importance and was well equipped with supplies (Briant 2002, 705-6). Architecturally,
however, the citadel is in decline, with many Middle Phrygian buildings going out of use
(Edwards 1959, 266; Voigt and Young 1999). The Mosaic Building is one of the few
impressive, decorated public structures that we know of on the Eastern mound and recent
fieldwork in the area has renewed focus on this unusual building.
Chronology
It is necessary to situate Building A and the Mosaic Building in their historical and
archaeological contexts relative to other well-known monuments at Gordion. Chronology at
the Phrygian capital has been established by relative sequencing of strata and monuments,
historical texts (Classical and Near Eastern), and comparanda with finds elsewhere. Three
long-held chronological markers at Gordion, established by Rodney Young based primarily
on his attempts to link archaeological remains to Classical historical sources, were the dates
for Tumulus MM (formerly thought to be early seventh century), the Early Phrygian
destruction level (formerly thought to be 696 or 676 BC), and the rebuilding of the citadel
(formerly thought to be late 7th c BC). Stratigraphic analysis, combined with radio-carbon
samples from the destruction level, and dendrochronology samples from the Destruction
Level and the great Tumulus MM have upended the traditional chronology. The Destruction
level is now placed near 800 BC; the rebuilding followed immediately after, and the
construction of Tumulus MM is completed around 740 BC (DeVries, forthcoming). Stylistic
3
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
developments in ceramics, metal (especially metal bowl and fibulae) and finds of Greek
imported ceramics also fit into the revised chronology much more satisfactorily (Sams, infra;
DeVries, forthcoming).
The chronological revisions impact the study of Building A and the Mosaic Building in
several ways. Not only should we now view Early Phrygian architecture within an historical
context over one hundred years earlier than previously believed, but the construction date
of the Middle Phrygian Eastern Citadel built over the destroyed Early Phrygian one also falls
back in time. If the rebuilding now begins just after the destruction, or, as M. Voigt and K
DeVries discuss in their paper (infra), just prior to the destruction event, the initial
construction date of Building A is probably soon after 800 BC.
Building A
Building A is located near the main citadel entry point. (FIG 5) This area seems to be the
primary entrance point to the Gordion citadel in both Early and Middle Phrygian times.
Blocks of limestone cut for the Early Phrygian gate are covered with a rubble fill by the
Middle Phrygian rebuilders, creating a platform for a new fortification wall and gate. The
Middle Phrygian entrance complex sits atop the leveling retaining wall, which has a rubble
core and a stepped, multi-color ashlar glacis, rising perhaps 20 meters or more above the
plain below (see Young 1956, 60-61 and Pl. 83, fig. 11 and 13). Today all that remains of the
Middle Phrygian entrance are the glacis, parts of the exposed rubble core, and a few
gypsum blocks of the gate itself toward the southwest, close to Building A. (FIG. 6)
4
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Constructed during the Middle Phrygian rebuilding, Building A was probably planned in
relation to the gate complex. Although Young excavated only two units of Building A
completely in the early seasons, he was able to reconstruct in plan this massive structure
with a total of six units, each with an anteroom and a main room behind. The reconstruction
of all six units is based on fragmentary cross-walls and foundations located to the south that
were used as foundations of the Achaemenid Mosaic Building, showing a building that was
approximately 78 m long. The individual units are separated by side walls that are 2.5 m
wide, which is rather massive for interior walls. Each unit is just over 10 meters wide and no
back wall was found in the earlier excavations to determine exactly how far back Building A
units went.
Not very many finds were recovered to suggest a function for Building A. Unlike the
Early Phrygian citadel, Middle Phrygian buildings and later structures were not suddenly
destroyed by a fire and sealed in a clay layer; they were used and reused for centuries, and
then heavily robbed, thus making it difficult to recognize their primary function. In the case
of Building A, the early excavators report finding pithoi and burnt grain on the floor,
indicating that at least part of this building was used for food storage. There are also some
indications for elite goods, including ivory described below. Nevertheless, since its walls are
quite massive, measuring approximately 2.5 m for each interior wall, a defensive use should
not be ruled out.
One comparison for the plan and construction of Building A is the fortification system
reported at the large citadel near the village of Hacıtuğrul, excavated by Burhan Tezcan
beginning in 1973 and sometimes referred to as Yenidoğan (Mellink 1973, 179-80; 1974, 117;
5
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
1975, 210; 1976, 272; 1977, 300; 1980, 508-9; 1982, 566; Tezcan 1981, 43-5; Sams and Temizsoy
200?, 56). This large Phrygian site is located about 20 km NW of Gordion on the north side of
the Polatlı-Ankara road and has a fortification system made up of ashlar masonry over a
rubble fill (FIG. 7). Cross walls run into the citadel, perpendicular to a massive main wall,
creating a series of bastions comparable to the units of Building A (photo). Hacıtuğrul shares
many similarities with Gordion fortifications, as Mellink notes in her annual reports. The
Middle Phrygian occupation at Hacıtuğrul continues in the 7th and 6th centuries, as at
Gordion, and Phrygian inscriptions and decorative terracotta revetments are found with
reused Middle Phrygian blocks (Mellink 1980, 509). There are also at least 3 tumuli located
near the citadel.
On the Gordion mound, the area to the southwest of Building A has been under
investigation by a team under my direction since 2001 when work began in what is known as
Operation 46.1 In this area were Hellenistic houses and other structures that made use of
stones robbed from earlier Phrygian buildings. Domestic structures with walls made of
plundered cut blocks and rough fieldstones dating to the Hellenistic period show continuous
modifications and reuse. Part of our field work made use of the excavation notebooks from
the first years of Young’s excavations, and in 2006 Operation 46 was extended to the east
to investigate Building A.
Recent field work focused specifically on unit 4 of Building A and did not consist of
primary excavation of undisturbed earth but was instead cleaning to determine old
excavation lines and cuts from the previous work in the 1950s (FIG. 8). Not surprisingly,
Work was sponsored by the 1984 Foundation and by Internal Research Grants
from the University of Victoria.
1
6
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
given the presence of reused Middle Phrygian blocks in the Hellenistic levels, the walls of the
fourth unit of Building A were heavily robbed of stone blocks. Prominent robber trenches
located 10.10 meters apart, fitting the known dimensions for Building A units, took out much
of the dividing side walls of the anteroom. Several surfaces built up against these walls
showed that Building A stood for several centuries and was continually modified over time.
There are some vexing questions since the earliest plans were drawn in the 1950s
concerning the overall form and dimensions of Building A. Early plans of the building show
only unit 1 of Building A with a central passageway between the anteroom and mainroom
(FIG. 9/10; Young 1955, fig. 3). Unit 2 is drawn as a solid wall, and, as it stands today, there is
little to indicate a cross passage into the mainroom. However, in the reconstructed plans of
all 6 units of Building A, the structure seems heavily influenced by the design of the Terrace
Building and Clay Cut which uniformly have a passageway between anteroom and
mainroom. Our cleaning in 2006 revealed the top of the crosswall between the anteroom
and mainroom of unit 4 and it also did not show evidence for a threshold. There was some
burning noted in the earlier excavation and traces of ash were still present when we cleaned
the top of the wall. It is possible that in a later use a passage way was constructed with
wooden elements and that these were subsequently burned. It does not seem that the
building was originally constructed with passageways through each of the 6 units.
Another major issue concerns the overall dimensions of Building A in terms of its
width, marked by a back wall. No wall was reported in the 1950s excavations, and the 1956
restored plan of the Persian level (Young 1956 Pl. 84, fig. 15) shows a back wall running to
the top of the glacis, making the main rooms improbably deep. In 2006, an extension of the
7
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
trench that cleared the robbed side-wall trench was excavated to see if we could find
evidence for a back wall. Fortunately, another heavily robbed wall was found running
perpendicular to the side wall; this proved to be the elusive back wall, which allows us to
make good estimates for the full dimensions of Building A, at about 12 m.
The robbed-out back wall also had a rubble foundation like the side walls, as well as
laid wooden timbers which are typical of Middle Phrygian construction (FIG. 11). Samples
were taken from nine juniper logs for radio-carbon and dendrochronology. Initial reports
from Sturt Manning of the Carline and Malcolm Wiener Laboratory of Dendrochronology at
Cornell indicate that only two samples provide secure dendrochronology dates. One sample
(GOR-204) has been securely placed within the Gordion sequence; the last ring of this
sample dated to 1513 in the relative Gordion dendrochronological sequence, giving the
sample’s final ring an absolute date of ca. 993 BCE. This is far too early for the construction
of Building A and since there was no bark preserved, this must be viewed as a terminus post
quem (see Appendix). One possibility is that the timbers were from an Early Phrygian
structure that was damaged in the great fire, and that they were reused as a foundation
course of the Middle Phrygian back wall.
A primary-use surface was uncovered inside the main room of the unit 4, and as this
stratum was followed, on it was uncovered small flecks of ivory, which, when conserved,
revealed itself as a beautiful sculpted plaque approximately 5 by 7 cm (FIG. 12). The carving
shows two rounded volutes with a fruited palmette growing in the middle. Bunches of small
fruits on three stems come out from both ends of the volutes. The palm tree itself has six
branches evenly divided by a small chevron design in the upper center, allowing three
8
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
curved palm branches with fruited ends to curve over on each side. The design, which
evokes qualities of fertility and abundance, was probably used as a decorative furniture
inlay. Although splintered, the full plaque can be restored and has good parallels with other
ivory finds from Tumulus D at Bayindir, near Elmalı, at the Urartian site of Altıntepe (Őzgűç
1969), and at Gordion itself (6670 BI 391 fd. June 14, 1961, City Mound – CW1, NB86, pp. 1956).2 This ivory, and others examples from Gordion, are North Syrian in style and date to the
mid-8th century, but some aspects of this example from Building A, such as the raised edges
on the branches and clustered bunches of fruit, also suggest connections with Anatolian
traditions, in particular Urartian. Its context, on the earliest floor of unit 4, provides a good
date for the primary use of Building A in the 8th century.
Building A is heavily modified in the sixth century BC along with the construction of the
Mosaic Building, presumably with the entrance of the Persians (Mellink 1988, 229). Units 5
and 6 are dismantled for the construction of the paved exterior court along the north side of
the Mosaic Building complex. Once both buildings go out of use, presumably by the
Hellenistic period, stone robbers make use of the large cut blocks used in their construction.
The side walls of units 1 and 2 extended toward the edge of the mound and lured stone
robbers all the way up until the time of Young’s excavation. With the excavation of Building
A in 1951, the exposed walls also showed that a great deal of subsidence had occurred along
the eastern side of Building A since antiquity. The side walls, in particular, curved down the
slope of the mound and were not very stable. As Young noted in 1955 (11), the subsidence
has implications for the geomorphology of this part of the mound; the fact that the
2
For Gordion ivory, see P. Sheftell 1974, Young 1960, 240.
9
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
anteroom cross-wall, running perpendicular, is fairly well preserved and seems not to have
subsided suggests that there may be a stretch of Early Phrygian wall below providing
support.
Probably dated to a later phase of Building A, perhaps the 4th century, is an unusual
deposit of vessels uncovered by the Young team (NB 32, Trench D, p. 46-7; trench N, p. 1345). The pots which are uniformly large, and were wheel-made but individually finished by
hand at the top, were found above the main room of unit 4 (FIG. 13 AND 14). These were
nick-named ‘flower pots’ by the excavators and were found upside down with holes in the
bottom. One is incised with an A, probably a potter’s mark, and some have streaks of
dripped paint from the rim down. One suggested use for the pots is the production of
cheese, based on the fact that the neck of the vessels was often damaged or weakened; the
weakened neck would have been caused when cheese acids would have concentrated in an
up-side down pot. The holes at the top of the vessel could have let gases escape. The pots
are anomalous at Gordion and more research needs to be done on them in the future.
Found near the flower pots and shown in early excavation photographs and plans was
a mud-lined pit that may be contemporary with the vessels (FIG 15). From excavation
photographs one can see orthostate blocks along the base of the pit walls and see that it is
embedded in rubble. It is possible that this is a later, Hellenistic cellar constructed after the
Mosaic Building goes out of use.
The Mosaic Building Complex
10
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Probably in the sixth century a major renovation project took place in the southeastern
sector of the Eastern Citadel mound, perhaps coinciding with the incorporation of Gordion
into the expanding Achaemenid Empire. From Xenophon we know that Cyrus the Younger
was at Gordion in 407 BC accompanied by Lacedaemonian ambassadors (Hell I.4.2). As
Briant describes it, although Gordion was no longer a Phrygian capital city, during the
Achaemenid period it took on major importance probably as a supplier of agricultural goods
(Briant 2002, 644). When the Spartan Agesilaus attacked Gordion under the Persian
Rathines/Ratanes in 396 BC, Gordion is described as a ‘fortress built on a hill and well
supplied (Hell. Oxry. 21.6).
During this period the two southernmost units of Building A were replaced and an
elaborately decorated Mosaic Building complex was constructed (FIG. 16). Much of this
striking building was uncovered in the early 1950s and today it is difficult to grasp how truly
splendid it once was (FIG. 17). The multi-room structure was entered through a court paved
with large cut andesite blocks. Within this pavement a stone ring was placed, presumably
used a planter in the courtyard. This area led the visitor on axis to a stepped entrance way
with columns on either side. Only one column base was found in situ with red paint still
preserved. Inside, the large wide anteroom was decorated with colorful small river stones
laid in meander patterns. This room could have been a holding area for visitors awaiting
entrance to the main chamber. This inner chamber was roughly square and also decorated
with a meander mosaic. Along the back wall, centrally placed, was a base which was set off
by dark glassy pebbles, suggesting that this served as a throne or cult room (Mellink 1988:
228).
11
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
The possibility that this rectangular base was a raised platform for a throne, around
which might have been a canopy should be explored further. This would follow general
iconographic patterns for an enthroned Great King, such as that shown on the eastern basrelief in the Treasury of Persepolis (Tilia 1972, Ch. III fig. 3; Paspalas 2005, fig. 1). In a robber
trench to the south and west of the central platform in the Mosaic Building was found an
impressive Achaemenid cylinder seal of agate showing a kingly worship scene (Dusinberre
2005, 51-54). Although it is not from a primary context this seal shows two bearded figures
with crowns and robes standing on sphinxes flanking a central figure, also wearing a crown,
emerging out of a winged disc. This group surrounds a fire altar which is directly above an
encircled crowned figure. Accompanying this complex iconography is an Aramaic inscription
dateable to the mid-5th c BC, identifying that this is the ‘Seal of Bn’ son of Ztw, (hyashana)’
(Dusinberre 2005, 52).
It is by no means certain that this seal is related to events that took place in the Mosaic
Building, but the heavy-handed Persian imagery suggested early on that this area may have
been the location for the Great King’s representative (Young 1955, 2; Mellink 1988, 228). It is
also possible that if there is indeed a throne room in the Mosaic Building, it could date to a
period after the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great. As Paspalas has
recently shown, an enthroned central figure would fit into many of the new courtly rituals of
the Macedonians in the east (Paspalas 2005).
The fill above and around the Mosaic Building revealed several examples of painted
architectural terracottas from elaborately roofed buildings, most of them likely used on the
Mosaic Building itself. These deposits have been thoroughly analyzed by Glendinning (1996).
12
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
In the recent cleaning of 2006 some newly recovered roof tiles have come to light, including
fragments of a Theseus and Minotaur scene, rampant lions, and floral-star patterns (FIG. 18).
These deposits are associated with a period after the Mosaic Building goes out of use. As
Young reports (NB 31, Friday May 9th, 1952): “The mosaic floor is covered by a mass of large
squared blocks which lie stacked and partly overlapping, …where they assume the position
of a shapeless tumble… They are all intermingled with broken roof tiles and I am inclined to
think that as they lie they were assembled by stone robbers, rather than fallen.”
Fortress Gordion
Middle Phrygian Building A was built on a large rubble glacis fronted with colored
ashlar blocks, which, together with the gate complex itself, created an impressive façade to
any visitor to the site. Beyond this facade to the south on the Gordion landscape, an outer
circuit wall and fortification system protected the Lower Town at Gordion (FIG. 19). This
system, centered on a fortress known as the Kuçuk Hőyűk, was excavated by Young’s team
in the 1950s and 60s (see Darbyshire, infra). The relationship between modified Building A,
the later Mosaic Building and the larger fortification walls of the Kuçuk Hőyűk will be the
subject of future inquiries as we understand more about the Middle and Late Phrygian
defenses. The chronology of the Kucuk Hőyűk is difficult to determine, yet it is a massive
complex – 14 m. high, with a siege platform. We know that there was an all-out military
siege of this structure: large numbers of arrow heads were found, some embedded deeply
in the mud brick, and two skeletons were also found in the collapse. Lydian pottery and
13
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Attic imports indicate a date of about 540 BC, perhaps coinciding with a known battle
between Cyrus the Great of Persia and Croesus of Lydia, who was defeated (Briant 2002).
To investigate the later history of Gordion and its fortifications, we need to
understand the later modifications to Building A and the Mosaic Building complex. Trying to
put this architecture into context, thoughts go to King Midas, familiar as both a figure of
Greek legend, epitomizing Eastern kingship, and also Midas as an historical figure of the late
8th century. Assyrian references to the Mushki ruler 'Mita' are probably the Semitic variant of
the Phrygian name 'Midas'. From these texts Midas emerges as an ambitious king who, early
in his reign, tried to oppose Assyrian influence in Asia Minor with the aid of alliances,
diplomatic moves, espionage, and minor skirmishes (Luckenbill 1927, 8; Postgate 1973). Mita
provided moral and economic support to disloyal Assyrian allies, including Pisiri of
Carchemish in 717 B.C. and the King of Tabal (Grayson 1991, 91-92). The relief from Ivriz
shows Warpalawas of Tyana standing before a fertility god wearing a Phrygian garment,
fastened with a Phrygian fibula, suggesting perhaps a close connection between the two
kingdoms.
Memory of King Midas is preserved in Greek legends and sometimes he is conflated
with aspects of Persian kingship. Herodotus credits Midas as the first foreign king to make a
dedication at Delphi and part of King Midas’ throne may have been found near the Treasury
of the Corinthians, if the suggestion by Keith DeVries regarding the ivory lion tamer is to be
accepted (DeVries 2002). DeVries suggested that, based on the style of carving and the
structure of the lion tamer ivory, that it was a fragment of east Greek or Phrygian furniture.
14
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
When I began recent excavations in the Southeastern sector my focus was to map
changes in material culture, with particular reference to ancient technologies in domestic
areas, and to understand how these changes relate to the larger historical events in central
Anatolia during the post-Early Phrygian era. What I have found is that public architecture in
the area, Building A and the Mosaic Building, also document remarkable change at Gordion
over time, during the reign of King Midas up until the conquest of Alexander the Great. The
paper here, and continuing work at Gordion, attempts to map developments in the
Southeastern sector, believing that relations between east vs. west, local and foreign, were
just as important in antiquity as they are today.
15
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
References:
Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire trans. by P. Daniels.
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
DeVries, K. 1980. “Greeks and Phrygians in the Early Iron Age,” in Idem (ed.), From Athens to
Gordion: The Papers of a Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Young, Philadelphia,
University Museum Papers 1, 33-50.
------. 1987. “Phrygian Gordion before Midas,” in A. Çilingiroğlu (ed.) Anatolian Iron Ages Izmir
6-12.
-----. 1988. “Gordion and Phrygia in the Sixth Century B.C.,” in O. Muscarella (ed.) Phrygian Art and
Archaeology, special issue of Source: Notes in the History of Art VII, no. 3 and 4, 51-9.
-----. 1990. “The Gordion Excavation Seasons of 1969-1973 and Subsequent Research.” AJA
94(3):371-406.
-----. 2002. “The Throne of Midas?” Paper read at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Archaeological
Institute of America, 3-6 January, Philadelphia.
-----. Forthcoming. “The Date of the Destruction Level at Gordion: Imports and the Local
Sequence”.
DeVries, K., P. Kuniholm, K. Sams, and M. Voigt. 2003. “New Dates for Iron Age Gordion,”
Antiquity Vol. 77.
Dusinberre, E. 2005. Gordion Seals and Sealings: Individuals and Society Gordion Special
Studies III. University Museum Monographs 124. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Museum.
Edwards, G. R. 1959. "Gordion Campaign of 1958: Preliminary Report" American Journal of
Archaeology 63: 263-268.
Glendinning, M. 1996. Phrygian Architectural Terracottas at Gordion Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Grayson, A. 1991. "Assyria: Tiglath-Pileser III - Sargon II." CAH III.2.
Körte, G. and Alfred Kőrte. 1904. Gordion: Ergebnisse der ausgrabung im Jahre 1900. Berlin:
Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer.
Luckenbill, D. 1927. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia.
Mellink, M. 1964. “A Votive Bird from Anatolia,” Expedition 6.2:28-32.
-----. 1965. "Mita, Mushki and Phrygians." Anadolu Araştırmaları 2:317-325.
-----. 1973. “Archaeology in Asia Minor,” AJA 77:169-93.
-----. 1974. “Archaeology in Asia Minor,” AJA 78:105-30.
-----. 1975. “Archaeology in Asia Minor,” AJA 79:201-22.
-----. 1976. “Archaeology in Asia Minor,” AJA 80:261-89.
-----. 1980. “Archaeology in Asia Minor,” AJA 84:501-18.
-----. 1982. “Archaeology in Asia Minor,” AJA 86:557-576.
-----. 1988. “The Persian Empire: Anatolia,” CAHIV (2nd ed.) 211-33.
Muscarella, O. 1989. "King Midas of Phrygia and the Greeks." Anatolia and the Ancient Near
East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, eds. K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink, and N.
Özgüç, 333-44.
Őzgűç, T. 1969. Altıntepe 2. Ankara.
16
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Paspalas, S. 2005. “Philip Arrhidaios at Court – An Ill-advised Persianism? Macedonian Royal
Display in the Wake of Alexander,” Klio 87(1): 72-101.
Postgate, J. 1973. "Assyrian texts and fragments," Iraq 35: 13-36.
Roller, L. 1983. “The Legend of Midas,” Classical Antiquity 2:299-313.
Sams, K. 1993. “Gordion and the Near East in the Early Phrygian Period,” in M. Mellink (ed.)
Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet
Özğüç 549-55.
-----. 1994. The Gordion Excavations, 1950-1973: Final Reports, Vol. IV: The Early Phrygian
Pottery. Philadelphia.
-----. 1995. “Midas of Gordion and the Anatolian Kingdom of Phrygia," in Jack M. Sasson et al.
(eds.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East Vol. II (New York) 1147-1159.
-----. 2005. “Explorations over a Century,” in L. Kealhofer (ed.) The Archaeology of Midas and
the Phrygians 10-21.
Sams, K. and M. Voigt. 1999. ‘Gordion Archaeological Activities, 1997,’ in Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı: 561-564.
Sams, K. and Temizsoy. 200?. Gordion Museum (guide) The Ministry of Culture, General
Directorate of Monuments and Museums.
Sheftel, P. 1974. The Ivory, Bone and Shell Objects from Gordion, from the Campaigns of
1950 through 1973 (University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. thesis).
Tezcan, B. 1981. “Yenidoğan, 1980” in II. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı: Ankara, 11-14 February
1980: 43-45.
Voigt, M. 2005. “Old Problems and New Solutions: Recent Excavations at Gordion,” in L.
Kealhofer (ed.) The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians 22-35.
Voigt, M. and R. Henrickson, 2000. “Formation of the Phrygian State: The Early Iron Age at
Gordion.” Anatolian Studies 37-54.
Voigt, M., K. DeVries, R. Henrickson, M. Lawall, B. Marsh, A. Gürsan-Salzman, and T. C.
Young, Jr. 1997. “Fieldwork at Gordion: 1993-1995,” Anatolica 23: 1-59.
Voigt, M. and T. C. Young, Jr. 1999. “From Phrygian capital to Achaemenid entrepot: Middle
and Late Phrygian Gordion,” in Iranica Antiqua 34:191-242. Neo-Assyrian, Median,
Achaemenian and other studies in honor of David Stronach. Vol. 2 ed. by R. Boucharlat,
J. Curtis, and E. Haerinck.
Winter, F. A. 1988. “Phrygian Gordion in the Hellenistic Period,” Source 7(3/4): 60-71
Young, R. 1955. "Gordion: Preliminary Report, 1953," AJA 59: 1-18.
-----. 1956. "The Campaign of 1955 at Gordion," AJA 60: 249-66.
-----. 1957. "Gordion 1956: Preliminary Report," AJA 61: 319-31.
-----. 1958. "The Gordion Campaign of 1957," AJA 62: 139-54.
-----. 1960. "Gordion Campaign of 1959," AJA 64: 227-44.
-----. 1962. "The 1961 Campaign at Gordion," AJA 66: 153-68.
-----. 1962b. "Gordion: Phrygian Construction and Architecture II," Expedition 4 (Summer
1962) 2-12
-----. 1964. "The 1963 Campaign at Gordion," AJA 68: 279-92.
-----. 1965. "Early Mosaics at Gordion," Expedition 7: 4-13.
-----. 1966. "The Gordion Campaign of 1965," AJA 70: 267-78.
-----. 1968. "The Gordion Campaign of 1967," AJA 72: 231-42.
17
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
18
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Fig. 1. New Citadel at Gordion with Building A, Mosaic Building, and recent excavation area
shown.
Fig. 2. 1969 plan of Early Phrygian level, showing curved stretch of fortification wall from earlier
citadel northwest of Early Phrygian gate, running toward area of Building A.
19
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Fig. 3. Plan of Building A, 2006.
Fig. 4 Plan of modified Building A and Achaemenid Mosaic Building.
20
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Fig. 5 View of Middle Phrygian gate in the distance, and Building A units 1 and 2 in the foreground.
Fig. 6 Middle Phrygian glacis
21
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Fig. 7. Hagıtűğrul/Yenidoğan fortification walls
Fig. 8 Unit 4 Building A with anteroom crosswall and robber trench.
22
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Fig. 9 1955 plan of Building A units 1 and 2
Fig. 10 1955 plan of Middle Phrygian level.
23
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Fig. 11 Backwall of Building A unit 4 with timber foundations. 2006
Fig. 12 Ivory plaque from unit 4, Building A
Fig. 13 Flower pots from unit 4, Building A. 1952.
24
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Fig. 14 Flower pot
Fig. 15 Hellenistic cellar north of Mosaic Building
Fig. 16 Mosaic Building complex plan
25
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
Fig. 17 Excavation of Mosaic Building 1952
Fig. 18 Architectural terracotta. 2005
Fig. 19 Gordion plan.
26
Brendan Burke
2/8/2016
27