'Belonging' to the Hellenistic World: The 'Galatian' Fortifications of Central Anatolia in the Local and Global Hellenistic-Roman Context

(1)

‘Belonging’ to the Hellenistic World

The ‘Galatian’ Fortifications of Central Anatolia in the

Local and Global Hellenistic-Roman Context

(2)

Cover photo: Tabanlioğlu Kalesi (‘Galatian’ and late Roman fortification) located in the central Anatolian plains (Marijn Mannien 2019)

(3)

‘Belonging’ to the Hellenistic world: The ‘Galatian’ Fortifications of Central Anatolia

in the Local and Global Hellenistic-Roman Context

Author: Marijn Mannien (S2152231) Course code: 4ARX-0910ARCH Supervisor: Prof. dr. M.J. Versluys

Specialisation: Classical & Mediterranean archaeology University of Leiden, Faculty of Archaeology

(4)

Acknowledgements

I would like to give my gratitude to all the people that helped me during this research. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. dr. M.J. Versluys for the support and the academic advice that helped me to establish this thesis. Moreover, I would like to thank the Netherlands Institute of Turkey (NIT) for allowing me to conduct four weeks of research in beautiful Turkey. I would specifically like to thank dr. Fokke Gerritsen and dr. Ülker Sözen of the NIT for the hospitality and support in this for me previously unknown country. Finally, I would like to thank L.W. Kruijer (MA) for the final and detailed feedback on this work.

(5)

This thesis will investigate three fortifications that were built by regional ‘Galatian’ dynasts in the first centuries BCE in central Anatolia. These strongholds are called Tabanlioğlu Kale, Zengibar Kale and Karalar (see fig. 1). The ‘Galatians’ were tribal groups of people that migrated from various parts of Western Europe to Asia Minor in the early third century BCE. They finally settled in the central Anatolian plains around 260 BCE (Mitchell 1993). The masonry of the fortresses is recognised as being built in a typical ‘Hellenistic’-style and thus it should have been built by “Greeks” (Mitchell 1973, 67;), or because of a unidirectional “Greek” influence (Darbyshire et

al. 2000, 88-91). Yet, Tabanlioğlu and Karalar are also considered to be “Celtic” in size

and location (Cunliffe 1997, 180). Hence, the problem is that the material stylistics and characteristics of the fortresses are linked to one homogeneous ethnic culture and associated identity. In this sense, they are related to one “Greek” or “Celtic” ethnic culture. This is problematic because in the Hellenistic period materials and associated styles did not represent one distinctive ethnic group. Instead, material styles should be understood as being the result of complex cultural relationships; they were often carefully chosen to represent or associate with (Versluys 2017, 185-190). These cultural relationships were the outcome of increased connectivity during the first millennium BCE. The Eurasian world became highly connected and distinctive material culture was shared among a variety of communities for different reasons. For example, ‘Greek’-styled coins could be found among different societies from North-Western Europe to Central Asia. However, they all had different identities and did not relate specifically to “Greece” or the Greeks (Thonemann 2015, 24-43). The three ‘Galatian’ fortifications will be used to understand the cultural interplay that appeared in central Anatolia during the second and first century BCE. In order to be able to identify this complexity, the globalisation theory will be used as a theoretical framework in this study. More specifically, the local-global relationship of

(8)

or identity. The sites will be related in a comparative approach to see if there is a ‘Galatian’ connection and to define their local characteristics. In this way, they represent the local ‘Galatian’ material culture. Hereafter, they will be compared to the wider global phenomena that are visible from a variety of fortifications throughout Asia Minor. The interrelationship between the local ‘Galatian’ and the global ‘Eurasian’ military monuments will help us to understand a segment of the complex cultural relationships of ‘Galatian’ society. This research will try to establish a paradigm shift in which the Galatians will be seen as part of the highly connected ancient Eurasian world and not as the barbarous warlike migrants from ‘Celtic’ Europe.

The upcoming chapter will first give a brief historical introduction to the ‘Galatians’. Who were these people? And how did they end up in Asia Minor? Hereafter, the scholarly debate and problems will be more comprehensively elucidated. Finally, the goals and questions of this research will be defined and explained in detail.

1.1 The ‘Galatians’ in Asia Minor

Around 281 BCE onwards different ‘Celtic’ tribal groups started migrating from various parts of Western Europe into the lands surrounding the Aegean Sea (Mitchell 1993). These movements entailed the so-called Tolistobogii, the Tectosages, and the Trocmi tribes. Altogether they are referred to as ‘Galatians’. The name is derived from the ‘Celtic’ word Galatai and was used to describe a warrior division within a single tribe or hostile actions of multiple tribes during the ‘expansion and migration period’ of the 4th_{century BCE onwards. Hereafter, the Graeco-Roman writers also started to} denote these tribes as Galatai (Darbyshire et al. 2000).Therefore, the term ‘Galatian’ – like other cultural labels – will be written between inverted commas. It is highly likely that these people were not part of one coherent ethnic-cultural group. Consequently, it is impossible to generalize these different tribes and other local communities that were mingling together. In contemporary scholarship, the term ‘Galatian’ is only used to refer to the ‘Celts’ in Asia Minor. This study will only use this

(9)

term to indicate the migrated ‘Celtic’ people and their descendants who were living at the central Anatolian plains. Notably because from the fourth century onwards North-Western European people that are referred to as ‘Celt’ can be found throughout the Hellenistic world as mercenaries, raiders and migrants (Cunliffe 2003). Besides, later in history other movements of ‘Celts’ towards Asia Minor occur, and these people had distinctively different habits, culture and political commitments than the ‘Galatians’ (Coşkun 2013).

The homeland of these migrating groups is believed to be located somewhere between the upper Rhine and Danube basin region (Darbyshire et al. 2000, 78). These people were, according to Livy, attracted by the fertile soil of Asia Minor (Livy, 38, 17, 51). However, this historical narrative needs to be taken into account with caution. Therefore, other hypotheses should be considered such as overpopulation, famine, environmental transition, pressure of other migrating tribes, attraction of Mediterranean (cultural) wealth, or other political and economic constrains (Darbyshire et al. 2000, 78).

Furthermore, it is important to remark that the ‘Celts’ were already familiar with the Mediterranean world. They were seen before as mercenaries fighting in the armies of Alexander the Great and other Spartan, Seleucid and Ptolemaic rulers (Cunliffe 1997; Mitchell 1993). However, from the early third century BCE onwards, Alexander’s Macedonian kingdom was weakened and disorganized because of losses during external wars against the Seleucids. For this reason, the Macedonian kingdom could not hold up anymore against the migrating hordes that were already pushing eastwards for over a century (Mitchell 1993). This resulted in the invasion of Macedonia and Greece between 281 – 278 BCE. After some years of onslaught, part of the ‘Celtic’ population - probably over 20.000 warriors, women and children (according to Livy, 38, 17, 53) - continued pushing towards Asia Minor. They crossed into Asia Minor as various bands; some via Byzantium at the Bosporus and others via the Hellespont. Afterwards, the ‘Celts’ jointed forces again at the border of ancient

(10)

reward of their aid they were offered land in the south-eastern regions of Bithynia. In these lands on the Western-Central plains of Anatolia they finally settled by the end of 260 BCE.

The ‘Galatians’ took control of the local community that was living here and introduced a new type of socio-political system (Darbyshire et al. 2000; Strobel 2009). Each of the three different tribes sustained their own autonomy in distinct geographical areas (Cunliffe 1997). The ‘Galatians’ maintained, for over two and a half centuries, many aspects of their ‘Celtic’ culturesuch as language, tribal hierarchy, legal system and rituals. This slowly changed after 63 BCE when the ‘Galatians’ joined forces with Pompey in Rome’s war against Mithridates VI of Pontus. After the victory, the ‘Galatians’ became a province within the Roman empire of Augustus (Darbyshire

et al. 2000). Although, the ‘Galatians’ upheld many aspects of their previous ‘Celtic’

culture, they were also part of the global Eurasian world (Strobel 2009).

1.2 The current debate and its problems

It is assumed by Darbyshire et al. (2000) that the ‘Galatians’ maintained their traditional ‘Celtic’ defence system for quite a period of time. He considers this based on Livy’s account on the war between Rome and the ‘Galatians’ in 189 BCE. During this war the ‘Galatians’ defended themselves from the Romans on Mount Olympus. Livy wrote about this event that “The very height of the position offered the Gauls

protection, but they also ran a ditch and other defense” (Livy 38, 18, 65). According

to Darbyshire et al. (2000), this is a system of defence that relates to the glacis style hillforts of prehistoric Europe (89). Nonetheless, there is no archaeological evidence to back this up. Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that other types of fortifications could have been prevailing. Eventually, during the later Hellenistic period it becomes more evident that the ‘Galatians’ were building stone fortifications. The historiographies of Strabo and Livy suggest that this took place around the early second century BCE (Strabo XII, 5; Livy 38, 18). Strabo wrote, for

(11)

example, about the Trocmi tribe: “They have tree walled garrisons: Tavium, the

emporium of the people in that part of the country, where are the colossal statue of Zeus in bronze and his sacred precinct, a place of refuge; and Mithridatium, which Pompey gave to Bogodiatarus, having separated it from the kingdom of Pontus; and third, Danala… (Strabo XII, 5, 2, 471). Unfortunately, there is almost no archaeological

data to support this dating sequence because ‘Galatian’ fortifications are practically never excavated, and they were often rebuilt during later periods. The relatively best studied ‘Galatian’ fortifications are the ones that will be covered in this thesis and are dated to the second and first century BCE.

However, the origin and cultural style of these so-called phouria or castella are still heavily debated. Galatian scholars Darbyshire et al. (2000) and Mitchell (1974; 1993) state that these fortresses are typically ‘Hellenistic’, and that they testify to an increased Hellenisation among the Galatian elite. For example, as Darbyshire et al. (2000) states:“These monuments have nothing in common with the ‘hillforts’ well-known from many parts of La Tène Europe. Their architectural features, in particular those of Zengibar Kale and Tabanlioğlu Kale, are a sign of the greatly increased Hellenisation of the Galatian elite of the later first century BC” (89). Moreover,

Mitchell (1974) argues that the ‘Hellenistic’-style material culture of Tabanlioğlu Kale implies that “Deiotarus used Greek architects to design and build his fort for him” (73). Likewise, he claimed that Zengibar Kale was “another example of sophisticated

Greek work undertaken on behalf of a powerful Galatian dynast” (73). On the other

hand, Cunliffe (1997) argues that the fortified sites were “Typical Celtic ‘hill forts’ in

size and location” (180).

This illustrates the main problem in this debate. Scholars are defining these fortresses as being static ethnical representations. They are linking material stylistics to one specific ethno-cultural identity. In this way the fortifications are labelled as something “Greek” or “Celtic” while other local and global influences are disregarded. In the Hellenistic period culture-styles such as “Greek” or “Roman”

(12)

often, therefore, these styles do not simply express cultural meaning but are used to make cultural meaning with” (187). It is visible from variety of contexts that in the

Hellenistic period styles functioned as active agents and not as passive categories (Versluys 2017). Homogeneous labelling cultures derives from the very origin of archaeology as a discipline. Especially in Europe during the 19th_{century, the research} aim of archaeology was to explore modern national origins in ethnic groups of the past. The outcome of this Romantic nationalist historiography and so-called

Kulturkreis concept was that contemporary cultures were interpreted as the

descendants of ancient ethnic groups (Dietler & Herbich 1998). This specific way of container thinking is also the outcome of the frameworks that are used to explain the process of Hellenisation that the ‘Galatians’ were part of.

Concepts such as acculturation and assimilation differentiate ethnic cultures as if they were part of modern nation-states (e.g. Galatians, Greeks, Romans, Celts etc). When homogeneously labelling these people and their cultures, the 19th_{and 20}th century’s colonial prejudices and stereotypes are kept intact. In this way, the ‘Galatians’ remain the homogeneous uncultivated barbarians while the ‘Greeks’ would dominate through their cultural superiority (Dietler 2005), just as it was at the beginning of Galatian scholarship (Ramsay, 1900). It also enlarges conventional dichotomies such as Roman-Native, Core-Periphery and Civilised-Barbarian.

Furthermore, it analyses cultural contact and adaption in a ‘Christopher Columbus

scenario’ (Versluys 2015, 145); explaining the process as if these people came in

contact for the first time with a new and distinct culture; in this case ‘Greek’ culture. Nevertheless, this is problematic since the Mediterranean world was highly connected from earlier times onwards (Pitts and Versluys 2015) and the ‘Celts’ were already part of a ‘big’ Hellenistic world for a long time (Thornemann 2016).

(13)

1.3 Research goals and questions

The goal of this research is to is to re-asses the ‘Galatian’ fortifications using a framework that understands material style as being part of complex cultural relationships and emphasises both on their local and global aspects. It will examine the local characteristics and material stylistics of ‘Galatian’ fortifications and interrelate them within the wider global Hellenistic-Roman contexts. It aims toward a paradigm shift in which ‘Galatians’ will be understood as belonging to the highly connected world and not just as the warlike, barbarous and plundering ‘Celtic’ migrants. Therefore, the fortifications will be investigated ‘in their own right’, without associating them to one ethnic culture. Hence, the fortifications will be used as case study in which they serve as evidence to explain and understand the interplay between local and global in Central Anatolia during the Hellenistic-Roman period. To achieve this goal, one main question and three sub-questions need to be answered:

What does the interplay between the local and global characteristics of the ‘Galatian’ fortifications reveal about the cultural relationships that appeared in central Anatolia during the Hellenistic-Roman period?

- What are the local characteristics of the ‘Galatian’ fortifications during the

Hellenistic-Roman period?

- What are the wider global developments the ‘Galatian’ fortifications were

part of during the Hellenistic-Roman period?

- How do the specific local and global characteristics of the ‘Galatian’

fortifications interrelate?

This research will explore three ‘Galatian’ fortifications. These strongholds are used as case studies. The strongholds are Tabanlioğlu Kale (ancient Peium), Zengibar

(14)

first centuries BCE. This study will first examine the characteristics and material stylistics of each of these fortifications. In combination with the literature study, it will describe and interpret the fortifications (and associated contexts) ‘in their own right’. Since it was possible to visit Tabanlioğlu Kalesi this thesis will use personal documentation imagery in combination with an earlier publication to investigate this site. Unfortunately, it was not possible to visit the other two sites – because of some legal issues – and therefore it will use imagery of othersin combination with previous publications to study these sites. The individual examination of these sites will result in an interpretative dataset that represents the local characteristics and material stylistics of these ‘Galatian’ forts. Hereafter, these fortifications will be related to each other, so the different and similar characteristics become evident. It will help to understand the common threats of ‘Galatian’ fortifications that might relate to wider

global developments. Based on existing historical and archaeological data these

fortifications will then be studied within the wider global ancient Hellenistic-Roman context. It will try to understand the global processes that took place in the ancient Eurasian world, especially with respect to the construction of fortifications. Finally, it will try to understand the broader interrelationship between the local and the global using the outcome of the previous questions.

The subsequent chapter will elaborate on the theoretical framework on which this research is based. It will elaborate on the ‘Globalisation’ theory as well as on the

Hellenisation and Hellenism debate. Moreover, it will enlighten the theoretical

approaches of the study of fortifications. In chapter three the methodological approach that this study implemented will be elucidated. In chapter four, a historical background of the ‘Galatians’ in Asia Minor followed by a critical historiography in which the wider research problem is further elucidated is provided. Chapter five will present the data, the individual fortresses, which are the central focus of this thesis. In chapter six the fortifications will first be compared to define their common characteristics and their individual differences, focussing on material style, techniques, architectural layout, location, size and functions. Furthermore, in this chapter these local characteristics will be compared with a wider development of

(15)

fortifications that occur throughout the Asia Minor. Finally, I will discuss the specific interplay between the local and global characteristics. Chapter seven will finally try to give an answer to the main research question by first answering each of the sub questions.

(16)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

This chapter will define, discuss and evaluate the theories that are relevant to this research. First, the globalisation theory will be explained, and it will shortly elaborate and evaluate on the Hellenisation debate. Hereafter, the notion of identity and belonging will be clarified. Finally, this chapter will try to understand military fortifications and the way they can be studied.

2.1 Globalisation theory

“The most common formulations surmise that the Roman world was diverse and multicultural, due to its immense connectivity. Nothing wrong with this standpoint, but it should be a point of departure instead of a conclusion” (Pitts and versluys 2015).

Evidence of a high degree of connectivity in the Roman-Hellenistic world is well-established. Archaeological traces supporting this can not only be found in the Mediterranean regions but also far beyond. For example, the multicultural cities like ancient Alexandria in current Egypt (Landvatter 2018) or AI Khanoum in modern Afghanistan (Martinez-Sève 2014). Another example is the ‘Greek’-style coins that are found across Eurasia; way beyond the fringes of the Mediterranean (Thorneman 2016). There are various causes for the increased connectivity during this period such as the creation of the Silk Roads and the Asian conquests of Alexander the Great (Frankopan 2015). The globalisation theory covers a variety of concepts such as, diversity, multiculturalism, trade, internationalism, diffusion, migration and so on. It is the general idea of ‘complex connectivity’ that is well established within this theoretical perspective. Connectivity is defined by Hodos (2016) as the “wide-scale

flow of ideas and knowledge alongside the sharing of cultural customs, civil society, practices and the environment. This may manifest itself through closer economic integration via increased movement of goods and services, capital and labour, and it

(17)

may be shaped by politics” (4). As becomes evident, connectivity could consist of so

many different elements that it should be called ‘complex’. Coming back to the quote of this introduction, it will use this theory as a starting point to investigate the complex cultural relationships of the ‘Galatians’ based on their fortifications.

2.1.1 The past and the present

“The past is not dead but continues to be brought to life through reference to the concerns and interests of the present” (Hingley 2014, 34).

Hingley (2014) explains that all cultural, religious, economic and political explanations of the Roman world are built upon historical and archaeological evidence that is interpreted in relation to contemporary interests. He noticed that because of the fragmentary data it is necessary to use theories of the present to interpret the past. The classical past is only understood because our current society recognizes similar values and aims within the historical and archaeological evidences (Hingley 2014). This is not something modern, but it already took place from the beginning of archaeology onwards. For example, in the 18th_{century the past was} interpreted in a more cosmopolitan and universal way(Pitts and Versluys 2015). This changed during the nineteenth and twentieth century in which archaeology became more based on imperial contexts (Hodos 2016). This so-called methodological nationalism focussed within archaeology on collecting and describing material culture; especially, on ethnic labelling and interpretation (Pitts and Versluys 2015). In this traditional scholarship academics used the colonial perspectives of their society in order to explain the past. Afterwards, during the past decades, this was then seen as a discourse and post-colonial scholarship arose in order to deconstruct these Eurocentric imperial ideas. The focus became more on the indigenous people and concepts such as Romanisation and Hellenisation were intensely criticised. Currently,

(18)

theory by various academics and it is also growing throughout popular media. It can be affirmed that the past and present are intensely interconnected (Hingley 2014). Therefore, in order to understand past (mis)interpretations and prevent own value judgement, it is important to recognise the underlaying values and beliefs of the period of time in which the archaeology was produced.

2.1.2 What is the Globalisation theory

Globalisation tend to be understood solely in relation to contemporary society. This is the modern idea that through new technologies in communications and transportations the world ‘shrinks’ and becomes easier accessible and thus also better connected (Hodos 2016). The popular discourse is that it is used as a buzzword to refer to modern phenomena such as corporate capitalism, consumerism, global warming, and global economy. It is seen as something “inevitable, unstable and

uncontrollable” that has a huge impact on our current global society (Pitts and

Versluys 2015, 10). However, globalisation cannot only be understood as a new phenomenon. It has to be understood as something that existed in the past and evolved already for centuries or even millennia (Pitts and Versluys 2015). In this sense, the ‘global’ part of the word does not necessarily have to be something ‘worldwide’. Although it is not described within the word itself, the most essential notion of ‘globalisation’ is complex connectivity (Knappett 2016). However, globalisation should not say that everything has to be connected, but that everything

could be connected. In this way there will not be just one core with accompanying

boundaries. It creates a positive shift in cultural scholarship since it excludes the influence of our modern-day nation-state thinking and other traditional 19th_{and 20}th century thoughts explained above. Histories are becoming more emergent and dynamic when thinking in terms of connectivity. In this way various cultures are analysed as ‘one single cultural container’ instead of separate labelled ethnicities (Knappett 2016). This creates a perspective that goes beyond container thinking (Versluys 2015). There is no general agreement on the definition of ‘globalisation’,

(19)

but the one that fits in the best in this thesis is the one of Pitts and Versluys (2015). According to them globalisation can be best described as “processes by which

localities and people become increasingly interconnected and interdependent” (11).

These processes entail, according to Hodos (2016) ideas and knowledge that are shared by cultural traditions, civil society, practices and the environment. It also consists of interrelations that form dense networks between various regions. Also, it generates social or political changes (Hodos 2016) and it encourages cultural diversity and social inequality (Pitts and Verluys 2014).

2.1.3 Local and global

The globalisation theory can consist of various components. Since there is not one unified theory, this paragraph will only briefly explain the notion that will be used in this thesis. It will focus on the interrelationship between the local and global. Often it is also denoted as ‘Glocalisation’. In its essence, this approach looks at material with a broader point of view instead of mainly focussing on a region or single province. It will accumulate more material from broader topographical areas that can be studied in order to understand the global processes (Laurence and Trifilò 2015). As Hodos (2016) clearly defined the concept: “Conceptually, glocalization emphasizes

the local responses to global engagement and focuses on the ways in which broadly shared ideas, goods and practices are modified and adapted locally to accord with local practice, customs, habits and beliefs” (6). In sum, it can be understood as the

local adaptation of global phenomena. In the case of this research, it is therefore important to understand how and why the global elements of the fortifications were integrated and how they functioned in their local context. Laurence and Trifilò (2014) argue that - in light of the Romanisation debate – “Roman” phenomena should not be understood as ‘Italian export’ but as something that was created and developed locally at the various region of the empire. For this research, it should however not

(20)

this way, the ‘local’ fortifications can be seen in a wider global context, out of which a variety of patterns can be discovered (Laurance and Trifilò 2015).

2.2 Hellenisation vs Hellenism

Within this research ‘Hellenistic’-styled material culture will be often encountered. Also, the material became a focal point of debate in Mediterranean archaeology. Therefore, it is important to elucidate the terminology and associated concepts that are related to this particular “Greek” looking material culture. There are mainly two nomenclatures in which the adaptation to ‘Hellenistic’-styled material culture is explained; as a process of Hellenisation or as Hellenism. Previous ‘Galatian’ scholars that came across “Greek” or “Hellenistic” styled material culture defined it as the result of the process of Hellenisation. Until now the adaptation to the Hellenistic material culture is in ‘Galatian’ scholarship always understood as the process of

Hellenisation. However, in this sense, the scholars – as mentioned in the introduction

– are denoting the culture-style with a specific period or ethno-cultural group. As Versluys (2017) explains, in this way Hellenisation is understood as the outcome of Greek colonisation throughout the Mediterranean world; as in being a result of the superiority of Greek culture. In sum, as “an acculturation process between (dominant)

Greeks and (passive) orientals” (Versluys 2017, 221). To give an example, Mitchell

(1993) argues that the socio-political system of tetrarchy was developed in central Anatolia because of the “civilizing influence of Pergamum and other kingdoms of Asia

Minor” (27). Nonetheless, as became clear from many case studies these processes

should be studied as Hellenism. This notion clarifies that the adaptation of Hellenistic (material) culture can be understood as “an active choice to demonstrate that they

mattered; that they knew how to play the rules of the game; as a display of their cultural competence” (Versluys 2017, 221). As a consequence of Hellenism, one major

remains: why did people deliberately adopt and use ‘Hellenistic’-styled material culture? A variety of explanations are given for different case studies at different topographical areas. For example, “in the Hellenistic world it served to overcome the

(21)

cultural dislocation of an elite that was educated in the Greek tradition in some contexts; in other contexts, it was a way of sharing the new life-style.” (Versluys,

2017, 212).

2.3 ‘Belonging’ in the Hellenistic world

This paragraph will shortly explain the notion of ‘belonging’ since this concept will be encountered during the discussion of this thesis.

In the above-mentioned paragraphs, it became clear that the Roman-Hellenistic world was highly connected and could be understood as ‘globalised’. This ancient globalised world is sometimes also expressed to be the ‘Hellenistic’ oikoumene (Ager and Faber 2013, 3). The increased connectivity and the associated cultural interplay should have entailed a certain degree of cultural transition or change. According to Ager and Faber (2013), people or states must have adjusted themselves differently to these cultural alterations. They argue that it could have caused “Tensions between

the individual and his or her community, and between the small, local community and the ‘Global’ community of the Hellenistic oikoumene would have been evident. For many, the broadening horizons in the Hellenistic period would have brought with them a crisis of identity, and a sense of being adrift in a world that had undergone a radical structural change” (3). Accordingly, these changes in identity should have had

a great impact on the notion of ‘belonging’.

In the conventional sense of the concept, ‘belonging’ could be understood as ‘being a member of the state’. In the early context of the Greek Polis, it implied the maintenance of specific civic traditions that expresses themselves through material culture. According to Ager and Faber (2013), the importance of citizenship or membership was during this time a way to display their degree of ‘Greekness’ (4). Because of the territorial expansion and colonisation of the Greeks (For example, in the case of Alexander the Great), this traditional notion of ‘belonging’ was spread to

(22)

could be still visible. For example, in the multicultural city of Alexandria, the notion of ‘belonging’ was still defined by ethnic and cultural links. Although ‘belonging’ differs in relation to the context (e.g. rulers, ethnic communities or individuals), it always should have entailed the process of conveying and advertising. The specific way in which ‘belonging’ was legitimized in the Hellenistic world was through the creation of awareness. This was accomplished in different ways, but an example (which was likely to have been the case in ‘Galatian’ society) was by “rejecting

traditional, culturally specific values of aesthetics and replacing them with new, cosmopolitan ones” (Ager and Faber 2013, 6). Nonetheless, this was just one example

of the many varied facets that are part the notion of ‘belonging’ in the Hellenistic world. It should be understood that the conceptualization of ‘belonging’ is multifaceted, unidirectional fluctuating and subjective (Ager and Faber 2013, 3-15).

2.4 Military monuments

This subchapter will define the theories, conception and approaches that are necessary to understand and analyse fortifications.

Both the construction and consumption of monuments are often related to the vibrant socio-economic and political processes of society, especially the construction and preservation of monuments comprise vast amounts of material and human supplies. Consequently, monumental fortifications are valuable in research frameworks that investigate societies and their underlying processes. Monumentality can be best understood as the correlation between a thing (the monument) and person (its experience with the monument) (Brysbaert et al. 2018, 21). Along these lines, fortifications – understood as military monuments – can be associated with ancient societies and accompanying cultures. Müth et al. (2015) points out that fortifications are an “important element of the built space of the ancient world with

much to tell us about the history, social structure and aspirations of societies” (3).

However, the interpretation of the interplay between the local and the fortresses is often seen as a challenging task. It should take into consideration many different

(23)

architectural, archaeological, historical and geographical aspects. For example, the construction process, historical contexts, function, semantics, the surrounding environment and other political and socioeconomic setting (Müth et al. 2015). Moreover, fortifications were at all times built in a certain regional context. Especially in the ancient Mediterranean world, there is almost no linear evolution in the development of fortifications through time. This makes it problematic to define any stronghold and its locale in a universal way. This pronounces once more that the ‘Galatian’ fortifications should be examined ‘in their own right’. Theoretical frameworks that explain homogeneous chronological developments in the wider Mediterranean world cannot be solely used as a core explanation. The ‘Galatian’ fortifications need to be analysed from a broader perspective that incorporates the many different facets that were mentioned above. Therefore, it is important to define a clear theoretical framework that can be used to study these monuments. However, it needs to be realised that it is not feasible – due to the constraints of time and absence of big archaeological datasets – to cover every single aspect and method that exist in the study of ancient fortifications. Therefore, this study will explicitly focus on the visual stylistics of the fortification and associated socio-cultural aspects. 2.4.1 Understanding material stylistics

The stylistics of monuments and artefacts often generate prejudices among archaeologists and historians. In archaeological and historical scholarship style is often interpreted in direct relation to culture. In this sense, style is a subjective and interpretative understanding which “refer[s] to sets of common characteristics

shared and displayed by large groups of artefacts over extended geographical ranges and/or periods of time” (Versluys 2017, 187). Such subjective definitions of style can

be very useful tools to interpret groups of objects, in multiple sites and through time However, this so-called ‘culture-style’ is often associated with a certain

(24)

ethno-However, there is another notion of style that needs to be taken into account. Style can also be “distinctive, formal features of expression and execution of an object; its

concrete, perceptible design” (Versluys 2017, 187). Both of these notions of style are

correlated in a complex way, especially during the Hellenistic-Roman period. This complexity of ‘culture-styles’ expresses itself in a way that they did not directly refer to ethno-cultural groups or a specific period but that they represented something different. Along these lines, cultural styles cannot be used in a passive way to classify distinctive cultures; but as an active notion, that was used to establish a specific vision or association. Therefore, it is important to emphasize explicitly on the social function of styles; the impact and agency style has (Versluys 2017, 185-190). In this research, the social function of the style(s) of the ‘Galatian’ fortifications should be considered. Therefore, the next subchapter will briefly explore the general functions that fortifications could have possessed since these wider functions could have been interrelated with the decision to employ a specific ‘culture-style’.

2.4.2 Functions of fortifications

A lot of times defence is the main purpose of a fortification. Nonetheless, there are also cases in which urbanistic, economic, religious or symbolic functions need to be taken into account. In various cases, aspects of representation or identity are underlying or even surpassing the defensive purpose of fortifications. For example, a stronghold could also have been used as a symbol in order to communicate a message to the people. Until now - apart from a few individual case studies - functions did not receive enough consideration in the scholarship of fortifications. The study of the function can be very helpful in case of this research because it can give the reason why these fortifications were erected (Müth 2016, 183-186). The most important reason strongholds were erected in the ancient world will be shortly enlightened below. However, it is important to keep in mind that the assessment of the semantics of fortifications could be to some degree subjective. However, it is the

(25)

only way to study and understand a fort beyond merely practical functions (Müth 2016, 191).

Since defence is the foremost function of a fortification it is important to elaborate upon its various research approaches. First of all, it is important to understand the process of poliorcetics. The establishment of a fortification is often directly interrelated with the development of siegecraft. Especially the layout, strategy, details and construction are closely linked to the enhancement of siegecraft of the specific area and period of time (Müth 2016, 186-187). For example, the correlation between the development in Macedon siege warfare between 334 and 301 BCE and the erection of the so-called Geländemauern (McNicoll 1997, 75-105). The individual socio-political, economic and topographical context of the site also needs to be taken into account since it could have had a significant influence on the various buildings and styles. It is essential to examine the kind of threat the defensive construction was facing. As well as the kind of building knowledge, financial means and human and material resources there were available (Müth 2016, 186-187).

Another important aspect, which could be regarded in combination with the defence function, is the urbanisation of a site. In order to examine this, it is important to recognize various urban related traits. This could be for instance a street grid of a town (in or outside the fort), the positioning of the gates, the layout of the wall and so on. Combining archaeological or architectural data in combination with already known historical knowledge will help to evaluate the urbanisation of a site (Müth 2016, 187).

The most important functions that should be examined – since they could have

been related to above-mentioned ‘culture-style’ – are the symbolic or social functions of fortresses. An important note to start with is that there are no rigid borders between the previously stated functions and the symbolic or social ones. Instead, there could be a lot of overlap; often symbolic and social functions have a secondary role. Like Müth (2016) state as an example: “deterring the enemy with a

(26)

judgement of the fort and all possible elements need to be considered. Evidence for symbolic functions can be found on various levels. For example, it could be visible in the overall strategic concept, its dimension or trace of a fortification. Additionally, other symbolism could be evident, for example, from the form or typology, material choice or architectural qualities of a fortification. Again, it needs to be examined in light of the wider socio-political context. With this in mind, the ‘receiver’ and ‘sender’ of symbolistic messages could be determined (Müth 2016, 187-191).

(27)

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter will shortly explain how this research was employed. Besides, it will point out some of its inherent limitations. To reveal part of the complex cultural relationships of which the ‘Galatians’ were part of, this study investigated the interplay between the local and global characteristics of three fortifications. These fortifications were Tabanlioğlu Kale, Zengibar Kale and Karalar (see fig. 1). These fortifications were used as case studies to represent a degree of the ‘Galatian’ material culture. They were chosen because all three had similar stylistic features and were dated to the same period in time (second to first century BCE). This was helpful to establish a coherent picture of the ‘Galatians’ and their cultural relations during the second and first century BCE. Moreover, with a mutual timeframe, it was more feasible to associate the fortifications with the global developments that took place in Asia Minor.

First of all, the local aspects needed to be exposed to answer the first sub-question: ‘What are the local characteristics of the ‘Galatian’ fortifications during the

Hellenistic-Roman period?’. The local was represented by above-mentioned case

studies. Each of the sites was separately studied to understand the individual characteristics of the fortresses. These characteristics focussed on material style, techniques, architectural layout, location, size and related function(s). Tabanlioğlu Kalesi could be better elaborated upon because it was possible to visit this site personally and document its various characteristics. Therefore, this case study combined the existing publications of Mitchell (1974) and Darbyshire et al. (2000) with own observations and documentations. Unfortunately, it was not possible to visit the other two fortifications because of some legal issues. In the case of Karalar, the Museum of Ancient Civilization of Ankara prohibited the entrance of the site. They explained that this a consequence of the current political situation in Turkey in combination with the many treasure hunters and gold diggers that destroyed the

(28)

and only planning to open the site for tourists in 2023 (www.sozcu.com.tr). Moreover, acquiring permission from the Turkish government would have taken too long for the time frame in which this thesis should have been finished. Therefore, Karalar and Zengibar Kale were studied based solely on the publications of Mitchell (1974), Darbyshire et al. (2000), Danelon & Forte (2018) and Doğanay 2014). The information from the publications was combined with online touristic imagery from the governmental website of Konya (in the case of Zengibar) and a drone video from Youtube (in the case of Karalar). After the individual data was gathered, the fortresses were discussed in relation to each other so the (un)common characteristics could be understood.

Secondly, the global developments related to the construction of fortifications needed to be exposed in order to be able to answer the second sub-question: ‘What

are the wider global developments the ‘Galatian’ fortifications were part of during the Hellenistic-Roman period?’. This could be investigated based on the earlier

conducted research of fortifications in Asia Minor by McNicoll (1997). A summary of the results of his study can be found in the literature review chapter of this thesis. After defining these wider developments, they were compared with the local characteristics of the ‘Galatian’ fortifications. This resulted in a discussion that could comprehend the global aspects of the local forts.

Thirdly, the interrelationships between the local and the global that appeared were more in-depth examined and discussed to see how and why exactly these connections were established. With the results of this discussion the third sub-question could be answered: ‘How do the specific local and global characteristics of

the ‘Galatian’ fortifications interrelate?’. Out of these results, the cultural

relationships of the ‘Galatian’ society became more evident.

Finally, by understanding the local-global interplay in relation to the wider archaeological and historical context of the ‘Galatians’ the main research question could be answered: ‘What does the interplay between the local and global

characteristics of the ‘Galatian’ fortifications reveal about the cultural relationships that appeared in central Anatolia during the Hellenistic-Roman period?’.

(29)

However, it is important to point out that there are also some inherent limitations in this research. First of all, two of the sites could not be personally visited. Without a personal site visit, it is difficult to comprehensively understand a site, its landscape and associated characteristics. Besides, the sites were relatively poor studied before and the touristic imagery does not show all the important aspects and details that are needed to get establish a clear picture. Moreover, it should be taken into consideration that this research only explores one minor segment of cultural interplay of a bigger and more complex ‘Galatian’ society. Therefore, this study should be regarded as a starting point for further research.

(30)

Chapter 4: Literature Review

This chapter will elucidate the wider historiographical, archaeological and historical context of the ‘Galatians’. The chapter is divided into two sub-chapters, ‘historiography’ and ‘archaeological and historical background’. The historiography will first elaborate upon the terminology that is used throughout this thesis. Afterwards, it expounds the classical bias that remains today in archaeological and historical Mediterranean scholarship. Through the description of this paradigm previous interpretations of the fortifications of the next chapter can be better understood. Moreover, it will help us to move beyond this paradigm and establish a more coherent picture of the cultural relations that took place in central Anatolia during the Hellenistic-Roman period. The archaeological and historical background will cover a variety themes that provides background information of the ‘Galatian’ society. First, the ‘Celtic’ migrations and their settlement in the Graeco-Roman world will be enlightened. Hereafter, a variety of aspects of ‘Galatian’ culture, such as, socio-political organisation, settlement structure, funerary practices, language, religious practices, Roman influence and fortifications will be described. Finally, it will elaborate shortly on the ‘Hellenistic’-styled fortifications of Asia Minor and ‘Celtic’ hillforts of prehistorical North-Western Europe.

4.1 Historiography

4.1.1 A clarification of the terminology

The ‘Celts’ – as we understand today – were the societies living in western and central Europe during the Iron Age, before the arrival of the Romans. Material evidence of this ‘Celtic’ culture is found from Britain to western Romania and from the European plains in northern France to the Po valley in Italy (Bogucki & Pam 2004). Since it is a very extensive area numerous cultural differences between these people

(31)

are visible. Various innovation and intensification core zones with connected peripheries can be clearly distinguished. Therefore, the usage of the term ‘Celtic’ is comprehensively debated (Cunliffe 1997). Roman historiographers writing about the ‘Celtic’ migrations from the third century BCE called these people Galli. Generally, the Greek sources, such as Polybius, called them Galatae. From the 1st_{century BCE,} both of these terms were interchangeably used with the Greek Keltoi and Latin

Celtae. Another assumed ‘Celtic’ group were the inhabitants of ancient France who

were called Gauls. This label is also often used to refer to the ‘Galatians’ of Asia Minor (Bogucki & Pam 2004). These people were living in the areas surrounding contemporary France during Caesar’s conquest. The term Galli and Galatae can be translated as ‘stranger’ or ‘enemy’. It was probably generally used term to distinguish the foreigners of the northern lands. Moreover, ideological motivations also must have played a role in the generalisation of these terms. For example, a victory over the ‘Galatians’ entailed probably more prestige than the defeat of the ‘Trocmi’ tribe which name was unknown among the Hellenized and Roman spectators (Coşkun 2013). However, these people were not part of one coherent ethnic-cultural group (Cunliffe 2003). Therefore, this study will place conventional labels such as ‘Celts’ and ‘Galatians’ between inverted commas. It is impossible to generalize these different cultures and groups, and it is not exactly known to what extent they were alike. In contemporary scholarship, the term ‘Galatian’ is only used to refer to the ‘Celts’ in Asia Minor (Coşkun 2013). This study will also only use this term to indicate the migrated ‘Celtic’ people and their descendants who were living on the central Anatolian plains. Notably because from the fourth century onwards the north-western European people that are referred to as ‘Celt’ can be found throughout the Hellenistic world as mercenaries, raiders and migrants (Cunliffe 2003). But also, because later in history other movements of ‘Celts’ towards Asia Minor occur, and these people had distinctively different habits, culture and political commitments than the ‘Galatians’ (Coşkun 2013).

(32)

4.1.2 The Mediterranean caricature

The ‘Celts’ were depicted by the Roman and Greek sources as a caricature. The image they sketched was a stereotype that entailed exaggeration and selectiveness. Nonetheless, it is important to elucidate these stereotypes and their developments to be able to move beyond the paradigm. Plato expounded during the fourth century BCE the ‘Celtic’ drunkenness and warlike nature. He probably reflected upon the ‘Celtic’ mercenaries that were hired in Greece by Dionysius of Syracuse (Cunliffe 2003). The fact that these were mercenaries – and thus not the best representatives of a culture – makes the statements of Plato biased. Moreover, Strabo wrote in his geography that the ‘Celts’ were “war-mad, and both high-spirited and quick for

battle, although otherwise simple and not ill-mannered” (Strabo IV, 4, 2, 237). This

statement is likewise highly biased towards the classical perspective. However, based on this literary evidence, it can be considered that these ‘Celts’ represented the ‘cultural other’. Other examples of the ‘Celtic’ narratives, written in the historiographies, include the ‘Celtic’ acceptance of homosexuality, their disgust of overweight, harsh childhoods and long hanging moustaches. This ‘Celtic’ paradigm depended on the agenda of the writer, which changed throughout time. This interesting alteration throughout history was defined by Cunliffe (1997). During the earlier periods, historians such as Plato, Aristotle and Ephorus merely depicted the ‘Celts’ as ‘others’ and ‘different’. This changed after the migrations, probably because of the conflict between the Greek and Roman world. Hereafter, the stereotypes enhanced. The ‘Celts’ became the great fearless warriors and the distinction between barbarous and civilized, order and chaos grew. A victory over these people would now in the eyes of the Hellenistic world be an enormous achievement. An example is the victory of Pergamon over the ‘Celts’. In the early years after the ‘Galatians’ settled in central Anatolia, they used to organize raiding parties in the adjoining lands; especially the wealthy Greek city-states were subject of their aggression. Pergamon could withstand these raids and thus its king Attalus I arranged the construction of sculptures that would commemorate this triumph. One of the statues is called ‘the

(33)

Dying Gaul’ (see fig. 2) and was a monument at the sanctuary of Athena (Cunliffe

1997, 6). Aforesaid Greek perspectives on the ‘Galatians’ are now formed into materiality. After the ‘Galatians’ stopped raiding in Anatolia (c. 160 BCE) and the ‘Celts’ of northern Italy were subjugated by the Roman and Latin colonies (c. 180 BCE) the ‘Celts’ were not anymore a threat for the Hellenistic-Roman world. This again caused a shift in the representation of the ‘Celts’. Henceforth, they were seen as ‘noble savages’ that were brave, honoured valour, showed great hospitality and were ruled by priests. Although they had different habits, they were believed to be good simple people. People that could benefit from political allegiances and other business ventures (Cunliffe 2003). When studying the histories and material culture of the ‘Galatians’ it is important to keep in mind that this perspective is highly biased towards the classical world. Therefore, it is time to move beyond this caricature and consequently try to objectively examine this complex society as part of the wider globalised world.

(34)

4.2 Archaeological and historical background

This subchapter intends to give the wider context of ‘Galatian’ society. This is necessary for a full understanding of the fortifications that will be studied in the next chapter. It will start with an explanation of the ‘Celtic’ migrations and the ‘Galatians’ in the Graeco-Roman world. Hereafter, a variety of aspects of the ‘Galatian’ society will be elaborated upon. These aspects are socio-political organisation, settlement structures, funerary practices, language, religion and Roman influence. Finally, this sub-chapter will discuss the ‘Hellenistic’-styled fortifications of Asia Minor, ‘Celtic’ fortifications of North-western Europe and the ‘Galatian’ fortifications in general to understand the context of the wider world concerning the construction of fortifications.

4.2.1 The ‘Celtic’ migrations

The ‘Celtic’ migration towards the southeast started in 280 BCE. It was the first time that information about the ‘Celts’ was written down which resulted in the above-mentioned classical bias. For example, an exaggerated description of the Greek victories was written down. Nonetheless, the general movement towards Asia Minor could be derived from it but we have to keep in mind that the migrating tribes moved unidirectional and erratic. Based on the historical sources, Mitchell (1993) defined that there were three major groups on the move. One group was commanded by Kerethrios and overran the Thracians and Triballi to the east. The second group, led by Brennos and Akichorios, went towards Paeonia. The third group with its chief named Bolgios pushed towards the Macedonians and Illyrians (see fig. 3). The latter fought and killed on his way Ptolomy (Karaunos) of Macedon. The ‘Celts’ that invaded Greece specifically, left the biggest mark upon history. They failed in their attempt on the attack of the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. Various stories

(35)

expose different endings. No ‘Celt’ was kept alive or some ‘Celts’ broke free from Brennos and made fortune on their own. Moreover, the group that voyaged towards Thrace were also defeated by Antigonus Gonatas at Lysimacheia. This caused a northward movement for these ‘Celts’ which resulted in the new kingdom of Tylis on the coastline of Byzantium. The overall number of migrating people is not exactly known. However, Mitchell (1993) believes that they probably comprised of 300,000 people on the move with 150,000 people still left on the northern fringes of Greece. Diodorus claimed that the population entailed soldiers, merchants and provisioners that were convoyed with circa two thousand wagons. Finally, two groups of ‘Celts’ led by Leonnorios and Luturios moved further towards Asia Minor. Because of a disagreement between the two chieftains, Luturios crossed via the Hellespont and Leonnorios passed through Byzantium. It is assumed by Mitchell (1993) that this happened during the winter of 278/7 BCE. At Byzantium both groups joined each other again and henceforth they helped out Nicomedes I of Bithynia who was in a war against his brother Zipoetas and the Seleucid kingdom led by Antiochus I. It is noteworthy to express here – in accordance with the previous paragraph – that in this sense they became for the first-time allies and not just mercenaries. After the defeat of Zipoetas, the ‘Celts’ divided Anatolia in 277 BCE into three ‘raiding areas’ (Mitchell 1993). The Trocmi could ransack the Hellespontine coast, the Tolistobogii Aeolis and Ionia and the Tectosages the Anatolian plains (Mitchell 1993).

(36)

Figure 3. The 'Celtic' migrations (Mitchell 1993)

4.2.2. Galatians in the Graeco-Roman world

After many years of nomadic onslaught in Asia Minor, the ‘Galatians’ finally settled around the middle of the third century BCE on the western-central Anatolian plains (Mitchel 1993). The ‘Galatians’ settled in parts of the former historical regions of Phrygia and Cappadocia. The territory of the ‘Galatians’ can be derived from the Classical sources; especially Strabo gives a clear description in his Geography (XII). According to his account, the Trocmi possessed territory near Pontus and Cappadocia. Also, they owned three walled strongholds named Tavium, Mitridatium and Danala. The Tectosages dominated the parts near Greater Phrygia in the vicinity of Pessinus and Orcaorci. Additionally, Strabo denotes that this tribe possessed the fortress of Ancyra. Finally, the Tolistobogii owned land near the Bithynians and Phrygians. They owned Blucium and Peïum, the fortresses that are dealt with in this thesis (Strabo, 12, 1-4, 469-471). However, the exact boundaries between and within the tribes are not totally clear. Probably, they were undefined and ever-changing.

(37)

The exact number of Galatians that migrated into Asia minor is still debated. Mitchell (1993) describes it as “a whole nation on the move” (15). According to Livy they probably entailed 10,000 soldiers and 10,000 non-combatants. However, since more movements were following the exact numbers are unknown (Mitchell 1993). Material culture related to the ‘Galatians’ in Asia Minor mostly resembles ‘Middle La Tène’ style elements. Unfortunately, the amount of data is scarce because of the deficiency of archaeological excavations and lack of reporting. The latter especially because the importance of these finds in a classical context is undervalued. Most of the materials that are collected derive from outside the centre regions of ‘Galatian’ settlement (Darbyshire et al. 2000). Nonetheless, from this period onwards the relatively small ‘Celtic’ migrant groups would be dominating the language and historical identity of the local population for over eight centuries. According to Mitchell (1993) is evident from the hierarchical socio-politically structures of the ‘Galatians’. In the meantime, the entire population appeared to have shared a ‘new’ Hellenistic value system. According to Livy (38,17,56-57), the Roman’s perceived the ‘Galatians’ as the Hellenized population of Asia Minor. The Roman consul Marcus Vulso even called them ‘Gallograeci’ during the war in 189 BCE. From the second century BCE onwards the ‘Galatians’ pretended to represent “Celts” but were perceived by the outside world as native Anatolian people that were acting “Greek”. Therefore, they were also denoted by the Romans as ‘Phrygians with Gallic weapons’ (Livy 38, 17, 57).

4.2.3 Socio-political organisation

The socio-political organisation of the ‘Galatian’ is exposed partially in the geography of Strabo. According to him, each of the tribes was divided into four fractions. These so-called tetrarchies had each their own tetrarch, judge, military commander and two junior commanders. The latter four were subordinated to the

(38)

‘Celtic’ term can be interpreted as a ‘sacred grove of oak trees’ and refers to the religious aspect that was intertwined in politics and justice (Mitchell 1993). The council led by the tetrarchs and judges was in charge of judging murder cases (Strabo 12, 1, 469). Nonetheless, this was probably not how the organisation looked like when the ‘Galatians’ first settled in Asia Minor (Darbyshire et al. 2000). According to Mitchell (1993) it is more likely that this constitutional system developed during the second century BC because of the “civilizing influence of Pergamum and the other

kingdoms of Asia Minor” (27). However, with regard to the theoretical framework of

‘Globalisation’ is was probably a more nuanced and multidirectional development. Strabo also illustrates a shift in societal organisation, he denotes that “in my time the

power has passed to three rulers, then to two, and then to one, Deïotarus and then to Amyntas, who succeeded him” (Strabo XII, 1, 469). This should, therefore, be after his

birth between 70 and 64 BCE (Mitchell 1993). Interestingly, both of these later rulers were according to Mitchell (1974) the ones that built Zengibar, Tabanlioğlu and Karalar. Parallel developments – a shift from loosely tribal organisations towards more central state constitutions - can be seen in southern Gaul and Spain. Mainly after the tribes came in contact with Roman society and the Greek city-states such as Massilia. Ultimately, despite which region, the outcome of these developments was the rise of powerful dynastic families in the ‘Celtic’ political system. These new elite families took over the authority which previously belonged to warrior chiefs that claimed authority based on their abilities. The first of these changes took place at the end of the second century BCE when Deiotarus inherited the power from his father Sinorix. This system of succession was aligned with the other aristocracies of Asia Minor and the Levant during this period of time (Mitchell 1993). Nonetheless, as is noticeable, these sources only give a rough idea of the social and political structure of the earlier phase of ‘Galatian’ society. Nothing is written about the lower ranks of society nor the bilateral influences the ‘Galatian’ society had with other Anatolian cultures. Also, the motive of the shift from twelve rulers towards one is unclear. The only archaeological data that can tell us something about the organisational part of Galatian society are the scarce burials and settlement (Darbyshire et al. 2000). This

(39)

evidence will be covered below. According to Darbyshire et al. (2000), it is certain that the title of ‘tetrarch’ implies a “degree of Hellenisation of the Galatian elite in

the second century BCE” (82). Nonetheless, this process - as we already discussed –

is unidirectional and inaccurate. These developments need to be seen as active adaptations that displayed the cultural competence of the ‘Galatian’ rulers (Versluys 2017, 221). Other facets of the ‘Galatian’ society such as the pan-tribal council meetings are associated with the socio-political organisation of ‘Western Europe’ during the first century BCE (Darbyshire et al. 2000). In Mitchell’s (1993) words the system is “decidedly Celtic” (27). Especially when compared to the Helvetii of the western Alps or the Cantii in south-eastern Britain. Nonetheless, as Darbyshire et al. (2000) rightly argues: “it should not be assumed that in its other aspects it was directly

comparable with other societies in Europe” (82), especially after some period of

settlement in Anatolia and the involvement of other global and local influences. One thing that surely can be proclaimed is that the tetrarchy was reformed after 86 BCE when Mithridates VI of Pontus killed all principal ‘Galatian’ figures in Pergamon. He called for the sixty leading men of Galatia but let just three of them live (Mitchell 1993). According to Mitchell (1993), this should be the direct cause of the transformation of ‘Galatian’ politics. However, the event probably only partially caused an alteration in politics. Another aspect that must have had an (in)direct influence was the increasing power of the Roman empire in Anatolian politics. They concerned of strong and rational leadership and entitled the tetrarch (the same terminology but now entailed the single leader of one of the tribes) as king (Mitchell 1993). More information about Rome’s interference in Asia Minor around this period will be dealt with in a subsequent paragraph of this chapter. The rest of the Galatian social organisation was hierarchal in form. Despite of the changes through time, it always contained free and unfree positions. This was related to status, obligations, honour and dues. Nonetheless, there is not much evidence for the usage of slaves. Identity was in Galatian society often interrelated with specific kin-groups. These

'Belonging' to the Hellenistic World: The 'Galatian' Fortifications of Central Anatolia in the Local and Global Hellenistic-Roman Context