Anatolian Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/ANK

Additional services for Anatolian Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Lampron—Castle of Armenian Cilicia

F. C. R. Robinson and P. C. Hughes

Anatolian Studies / Volume 19 / December 1969, pp 183 - 207

DOI: 10.2307/3642624, Published online: 23 December 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0066154600003112

How to cite this article:

F. C. R. Robinson and P. C. Hughes (1969). Lampron—Castle of Armenian Cilicia. Anatolian Studies, 19, pp
183-207 doi:10.2307/3642624

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ANK, IP address: 141.216.78.40 on 19 May 2015

 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA
By F. C. R. ROBINSON and P. C. HUGHES

IN THIS ARTICLE the historical importance of Lampron, and the architecture of the
castle as it stands at present, are described. The work was done during the summer
vacation of 1966.
For simplification of description in the text the longer axis of the castle is
assumed to run north-south. The scale that appears in some photographs is marked in
\ metre divisions, with an additional short length at the top.
THE PLACE OF LAMPRON IN THE HISTORY OF ARMENIAN CILICIA
" . . . tous les seigneurs de ce chateau se revoltent parce qu'ils le saventimprenable."
(Leo the Great of Cilician Armenia) 1
Thefiefwas the source of medieval military authority. The castle at the centre
of thefiefwas its focal point. From it the baron derived all his power. It was, in a
disturbed world, his insurance of safety. Much depended on its strength.
Lampron a was impregnable; 3 it represented a superb defensive position.
Lampron was remote. Lying deep in the Taurus mountains north of Tarsus on the
promontory of a spur running down from the Bulgar Dag, it could only be ap-
proached through narrow valleys. Lampron was the key to the Cilician Gates. It lay
less than a day's march from the easiest route from the Anatolian Plateau to Cilicia
and the Middle East—the path that armies from those of Cyrus the Younger and
Alexander to that of Ibrahim Pasha have taken.
Thus, those who held Lampron possessed a position of great strength and
potential strategic importance. They were safe from the tides of conquest that
swept over the Taurus mountains; their castle invited no idle siege yet at the
moment of their choice they could bar the Gates or take a hand in the politics of
the plain. Throughout the period of Armenian occupation the lords of Lampron
employed this position to great effect. Often in alliance with the powers north of the
Taurus they played the part of a counterweight to those who were attempting to
establish themselves in the Cilician Plain. This was a role they continued to fill
despite the ties of religion or family loyalty. More than anything else Lampron
invited independence.
As Cilician Armenia grew into a kingdom, the politics of the Armenian baronies
and their relations with the powers beyond the Taurus and Amanus developed a
distinct pattern. The baronies themselves were divided into two spheres of allegiance,
that of the Roupenids in the east who quickly dispensed with their early alliance with
Constantinople and taking an independent line maintained a loose friendship with
the holders of Antioch, and that of the Hethoumid lords of Lampron in the west
who remained staunch allies of the Emperor. Economic necessity forced the
Roupenids, whenever it was possible, to move out of the mountains into the plain in
order to command the trade route from the east which reached the Mediterranean at

1
Alishan, L. M., Leon le Magnifique premier roi de Sissouan ou de I'Armenocilicie traduit par Le P.
Georges Byan. p. 246. Quoted by Alishan but he does not give the reference in the chronicle.
2
Lampron : the name employed by the Armenian Chroniclers. In a French map of the
thirteenth century it is designated " Les Embruns ", the Arabs gave it the name " Namroun ",
which the town that grew up around it assumed, while recently the Turkish Government in their
language
3
purification programme have renamed the area " Cumliyaila ..".
Runciman, Sir S., History ofthe Crusades (Peregrine edition, 1965) Vol. I p. 196; also the opinion
of Guiragos the Royal Historian as quoted in Alishan L. M. op. cit. p. 264.
184 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Aias.4 This resulted in competition with the Byzantines who claimed to control the
plain. While the Roupenids were weak, they were forced to defend themselves against
Byzantine-Hethoumid expeditions into eastern Cilicia, but as they grew stronger and
the Byzantine ability to launch a campaign in Cilicia decreased, the Roupenids were
able to push the struggle into the Hethoumid lands and make a bid for the control
of the Cilician Gates.
In 1072 Oshin, head of the powerful Armenian family of the Hethoumids,
disappointed with the inability of the Byzantines to protect him against the advance
of the Seljuk Turks, fled west from his fortress near the village of Kantzag in the
county of Artsakh to Cilicia. Here Abu'lgharib, governor of Tarsus, gave him in the
name of the Emperor the fortress of Lampron. Samuel of Ani, a late twelfth-century
chronicler, claimed that he wrested it from the Saracens, but sources closer to the
time and to the Hethoumids speak of him merely as one of the faithful chieftains of
Abu'lgharib. 5 The Emperor had no objection to seeing the Armenians becoming a
buffer between him and the Turks; ' and confirmed Oshin, together with two other
Armenian leaders who had established themselves in the Taurus, Roupen and Kogh
Vasil, in their positions by bestowing on them the imperial title of " Sebastos " . '
Thus Lampron became the base of Hethoumid operations and one of a series of
Armenian fiefs established in the mountains that encircled the Cilician Plain.
There is some discussion as to who, and how powerful, the first baron of Lampron
was. Some historians consider that Oshin of Lampron was the same man as the
general Aspietes whose exploits Anna Comnena both eulogises and condemns.8
Oshin we find in 1097 taking advantage of the Turkish preoccupation with the
advance of the First Crusade to make a daring sally out of the mountains and capture
part of Adana, but as soon as Tancred appeared he lost heart and scuttled back to his
fortress.9 Later he is mentioned with his brother Pazouni and the Roupenid
Constantine as sending the Frankish generals all the provisions they needed.10
Aspietes, on the other hand, was grand enough to be created stratopedarch of all
Cilicia by the Emperor Alexius in order to fend off the threat from Tancred in
1108-9. His record was not good. He debauched himself in Mamistra for several
months and fled as soon as fighting became imminent leaving the key castle of the
Cilician Plain in Tancred's hands. 11 Laurent has convincingly shown that it is both
unlikely that the early career of Aspietes can be identified as that of Oshin and that
we really do not know enough of the latter to speak with any certainty.12 Therefore,
it seems more probable that the holders of Lampron had not gained the stature which
Aspietes' command implies, but were still petty barons, happy to rely on the strength
of their castle, and unlikely candidates for the control of all Cilicia.

4
Alishan, L. M . , Armeno—Veneto : Compendia Storico e Documenti delle Relazione degli Armeni cot
Veneziani (Venice, 1893), pp. 13-14 importance of Aias, and pp. 41-65 development of Venetian
relations with the court of Sis.
5
For further discussion and the sources see S. Der Nersessian " Cilician Armenia " in Setton,
K. M., The History of the Crusades (1962-5) yol. I I (1965), p. 633.
6
Tournebize, F., Histoire politique et religeuse de I'Armenie (Paris 1910) p. 169.
7
" Sebastos " is the equivalent of the Roman title " Augustus ". Gregory the Priest mentions
that Vasil was " Sebastos ", Dulaurier's footnote informs that this dignity was also bestowed on
Oshin and Roupen. Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, publ. Academie des Inscriptions et Belles
Lettres (Paris 1841-1906), Documents Armeniens ed. Dulaurier (1869-1906), Vol. I, p. 165. (Hence-
forth RHC. Arm.).
8
RHC. Arm., I, p. 33 fn. 2, and Runciman, Sir S., op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 53-4.
• Matthew of Edessa, see Laurent, J., " Les Arm6niens de Cilicie ", in Melanges Schlumberger
(Paris 1924), Vol. I, pp. 159-168.
10
Matthew of Edessa II, ii, in RHC. Arm., I, p. 33.
11
Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. E. A. S. Dawes (London, 1928) Book XII, ii, pp. 302-4.
12
Laurent, J., op. cit.
 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA 185
The small part played by the lords of Lampron over the next fifty years
confirms this view. This was a period of Roupenid-Byzantine rivalry for the control
of eastern Cilicia complicated, from time to time, by the activities of the Danishmend
Turks. In the late 1130s the Emperor John Comnenus decided to intervene in Syria.
En route he swept aside the Roupenid Armenians who, under Leo I, had filtered
down to the Cilician Plain and permeated as far west along the Mediterranean
littoral as Silifke. But the Byzantines could only control Cilicia so long as their
armies were there. And when Andronicus marched through Cilicia in 1151-2, it
was again necessary to winkle out the Roupenids from the strongholds of the plain.
This time, however, the Greeks were firmly defeated by Thoros I. 13 A defeat of this
nature could not long go unavenged and the Emperor Manuel Comnenus in the
last great series of campaigns by which the Greeks asserted themselves in Syria gained
swift recompense. The Roupenids, taken by surprise, were forced to flee to the
mountains giving up their strongholds without a fight (1158-9). But this reverse did
not prove a serious setback to the growth of Roupenid power. The plans of Manuel
Comnenus were too grandiose to concern himself overmuch, with the Armenians, and
their very greatness exacerbated the weakness in the Byzantine state that culminated
in the sack of Constantinople in 1204. The campaigns of 1158-9 were the last time
the Greeks asserted themselves in Cilicia. The disastrous Greek defeat by the Turks
at Myriocephalum in 1176 set the seal on the Roupenid claim to the Cilician Plain.14
The history of the Hethoumids in this period merely reflects the changes in
strategy involved in the growth of Roupenid power. They are not mentioned as
assisting in either the Greek expedition of 1137 or that of 1158-9, but in view of their
consistent record as Byzantine allies 15 it is unlikely that they did not send aid.
Certainly they were heavily involved in the Greek defeat of 1151-2; the Constable
Sempad lists several members of the Hethoumid family who were killed. The
chronicler goes on to give his explanation of the change in the pattern of Cilician
politics. Among those captured in the defeat of Andronicus was Hethoum the son
of Oshin II of Lampron. Part of the price of his release was to take in marriage the
daughter of Thoros. The French translation of the Armenian manuscript graphically
describes the results.
" Lefilsd'Oshin Hethoum, qui avait epouse la fille de Thoros, la detestait;
mais retenu, pendant la vie de son beau-pere, par la crainte qu'il lui inspirait, il
n'osait rien faire contre cette princesse. Lorsque celui-ci eut ferme les yeux, il la
chassa de son palais. Mleh, irrite de sa conduite, vint attaquer Lampron, et fit
beaucoup de mal aux assieges. II y avait en effet longtemps que les Roupeniens
et les Hethoumiens se voulaient du mal reciproquement; ce fut la une nouvelle
cause de discorde. Obeissant a ces sentiments de haine, Mleh fit beaucoup
souffrir les assieges, soit le fer a la main, soit par la famine." 16
This happened in 1171-2. It was the first Roupenid siege of Lampron. The castle
was not taken.
Thus the lords of Lampron nestled beneath the wing of Constantinople and
only challenged their Roupenid rivals within the context of a Byzantine invasion.
During the period of Byzantine decline these expeditions into eastern Cilicia became
less effective and Roupenid power grew. The latter set about ridding Cilicia of the

13
The Constable Sempad, Chronicle of the Kingdom of Little Armenia, in RHC. Arm., I, p. 619.
14
Runciman, Sir S., op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 211-12, 412-14.
16
The Constable Sempad, loc. cit.
14
ibid. p. 624.
186 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

last vestiges of Greek influence and in the last three decades of the twelfth century it
was the Hethoumid lords of Lampron who were on the defensive; their castle was
the major prize as the Roupenids moved eastwards seeking to insure their position
on the north-west frontier.
It was not long before the Roupenids reopened their attack on Lampron and
in 1182 Roupen III invested the fortress.17 Hethoum immediately called Bohemond
of Antioch, the rival of the Roupenids in the east, to his aid. Bohemond invited
Roupen to a banquet, set an ambush and threw him into prison at Antioch.18
But this strategem did not reduce the pressure on the Hethoumids, for Roupen's
brother Leo carried on the siege with as much determination as before.19 And it
was not until Leo realised that he could not capture the place by force of arms that
he desisted.20 For a short while the matter rested, but soon after he succeeded his
brother in 1186 Leo 21 again turned his attention towards " cet orgueilleux Chateau-
fort ". 22 On the pretext of marrying Philippa, daughter of Roupen, to Oshin, eldest
son of Hethoum, he drew as many of the Hethoumid family as possible to Tarsus,
seized them, and then occupied the fortress. Hethoum was forced to exchange his
fief for the monastery of Trazargh. 23 Therefore Lampron only changed hands by
treachery, and Leo had this thought uppermost in his mind when he bestowed it
upon a new owner, his mother Rita. According to the " Royal Historian Guiragos "
he gave it to her, " ecrivant le serment sous anatheme de ne plus rendre le chateau de
Lambroun a une prince quelconque, mais d'en faire la propriete du roi, car ajoute-t-il,
tous les seigneurs de ce chateau se revoltent parce qu'ils le savent imprenable." 24
The capture of Lampron laid the foundations to Leo's achievements. It paid off
many old scores against the Roupenid's most deadly enemy. It removed a source of
disaffection that could entice far greater powers into Cilicia. It gave him command
of the Cilician Gates. For the first time all the Cilician Armenians owed homage to
one man and this achievement in terms of power was symbolically celebrated by the
coronation of Leo as the first king of Armenian Cilicia at Tarsus in 1198. No greater
tribute could have been made to the fortifications of Lampron than that it alone, for
twenty years, should have stemmed the tide of Roupenid ambition and that it should
ultimately have compelled Leo to resort to treachery and then specifically swear
that it should remain in the hands of the King because it was impregnable.
But if the foundation to Leo's achievement was the capture of Lampron and
the elimination of Hethoumid power, his westernisation programme laid the basis for

17
Vahram of Edessa, Rhyming Chronicle of the Kings of Little Armenia, RHC. Arm., I, pp. 509-10.
18
It is not exactly clear from the sources why Bohemond treated Roupen thus. Vahram of
Edessa says that he acted as an ally of Hethoum and captured Roupen treacherously at a banquet,
Vahram of Edessa ibid., p. 509-10. The Constable Sempad claims that it was because of Roupen's
debauchery, Chronicle of the Kingdom of Little Armenia, quoted in Tournebize, F., op. cit., p. 183.
The Chronicle of Michael the Syrian makes no mention of the siege of Lampron or of Roupen's
supposed debauchery and says only that Bohemond laid an ambush for Roupen and imprisoned him:
Chronique de Michel le Grand, traduite par Victor Langlois (Venice, 1868), p. 349.
19
Vahram of Edessa, op. cit., p. 509—10.
20
A l i s h a n , L . M . , Leon le Magnifique . . . p . 263.
21
Leo I I , 1186-1219, first A r m e n i a n king in Cilicia, crowned with the approval of Innocent I I I
a n d Frederick Barbarossa a t Tarsus in 1198. Reigned in Cilician Armenia in its period of greatest
prosperity. D i d m u c h towards orientating his lands westwards; cast the old Armenian feudal system
in a mould copied from t h e F r a n k s ; latinised t h e Court, a n d established the authority of the Latin
Assizes of Antioch. Eulogised by Michael t h e Syrian, Chronique de Michel le Grand, op. cit.,
PP- 359-6o.
22
Alishan's own view. Alishan, L. M . , ibid. p . 263.
23
This story is told by Tournebize. Unfortunately he gives n o sources. Tournebize, F., op. cit.,
p. 206.
24
See note 1.
 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA 187

further discord which became apparent on his death in 1219. Leo had failed as many
a great king had before him in the duty of producing a son. He nominated his
youngest daughter Isabella as Queen. His death precipitated an unseemly scramble
for the Cilician throne. Within a few months the regent Adam of Baghras was
murdered at the instigation of the Hospitallers. In 1220 Raymond-Roupen of
Antioch with the support of Pope Honorius invaded Cilicia and captured Tarsus. At
this point the new regent Constantine, head of the junior branch of the Hethoumid
family, came forward as the representative of Armenian culture against the latinising
tendencies of the ruling dynasty. In 1221 Constantine destroyed the threat from
Raymond-Roupen and confirmed Isabella on the Cilician throne. In order to stave
off a threat from the Seljuk Sultan Kaikobad who had occupied the western Taurus
he allied the Armenian realm to Antioch by offering Isabella in marriage to
Bohemond of Antioch's son Philip. But when the Turkish threat had died away
Philip was found to possess unpleasant Latin tendencies. He was thrown into prison.
Bohemond's indignation was great but its natural course was cut short in mid flight
as he had to hurry back to defend his city which Constantine had persuaded Toghril
of Aleppo to attack. The unfortunate Philip was poisoned. Within two years
(1226) Constantine had placed his son Hethoum 25 on the Armenian throne as the
husband of Isabella, and for all his anti-Latinism had reconciled Armenia with
the west by sending loyal messages in the name of the young couple to the Pope and
the Emperor. Thus by cleverly channelling the reaction to the great changes of Leo's
reign and by employing a series of expedients that would not have disgraced Cesare
Borgia, Constantine had raised the Hethoumid star still higher than it stood before
the capture of Lampron and suitably avenged the treachery of the Roupenids. 26
The scene was now set for a new stage in the history of Lampron. In 1219
Constantine had given the castle to the senior branch of the Hethoumids in the form
of Constantine the son of Hethoum whom Leo had compelled to become a monk. 87
The events that followed demonstrated that even though the same family occupied
the Armenian throne at Sis the formidable strength of Lampron almost inevitably
fostered disloyalty.
Lampron in the charge of Constantine was far more independent than when it
had been occupied by the relatives of Leo. In 1231 Constantine signed a separate
treaty of peace with the Sultan Kaikobad. 28 In 1235 he fought with the Sultan
Kaikhosrou of Roum against Hethoum who had delivered the Sultan's wife, mother
and daughter to Batchou, a general of the Mongol Okkai Khan. This unholy
alliance of Moslem and Christian captured Tarsus but on the approach of the Baron
Constantine and his son the Constable Sempad a9 they retreated towards the Cilician
Gates and the affair came to an end.30 At least it was the end as far as the Sultan
26
Hethoum reigned 1226-1268. First of the Hethoumid family to become king. Patron of
letters and the arts. His contemporary Michael the Syrian claimed " il acquiert de plus en plus la
sagesse et la prudence " (Chronique de Michel le Grand, op. cit., p. 360-1.) With that of Leo his reign
marks the apogee of Armenian fortunes in Cilicia although difficulties became more and more pressing
towards the end.
26
Runciman, Sir S., op. cit., Vol. I l l , pp. 171-3.
27
RHC. Arm., I, Introduction, pp. cxviii-cxix.
28
Vincent de Beauvais, Speculum Historiale Lib. XXX, c. 145, quoted in Langlois V., Essai
historique et critique sur la constitution sociale etpoliticale de I'Armenie. Memoires de L' Academic Imperiale des
Sciences de St. Petersbourg, (i860), VII Serie, Tome III, No. 3.
28
Born 1208, died 1276. Author of the Chronicle of the kingdom of Little Armenia, Constable of
Barbaron, a castle close to Lampron. Foremost of the lay scholars of Cilicia, military commander,
historian, ambassador (1247 sent on an embassy to the Court of the Great Khan), translator of the
Assizes of Antioch and patron of the arts (1275 he commissioned copyists and miniaturists to produce
a very beautiful illustrated gospel—see Dournovo, L. A., Armenian Miniatures, Paris, 1961, pp. 94-9).
30
Tournebize, op. cit., p. 209.
188 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

was concerned but poor Gonstantine must have been given a hard time by his
cousins of Sis, for in January, 1237, Pope Gregory IX wrote letters to both the Baron
Constantine and his son Hethoum begging them to stop oppressing Constantine.31
But plainly they did not, for in 1250 the Lord of Lampron was captured and put to
death. 32
The Hethoumids as lords of the Cilician Plain had had to learn their lesson on
the rebellious potential of the family mountain stronghold in almost as rigorous a
manner as the Roupenids. But they learned their lesson well, for in spite of the
troubles of the Armenian kingdom in the late thirteenth century not once do the
chroniclers appear to record the fortress. It is mentioned for the last time in 1309—10
as the temporary prison of Henry II the Lusignan king of Cyprus.33 And we can only
assume that between 1337 and 1375 when the kingdom of Gilician Armenia was
conquered by the Turks and Egyptians,3* it must have been either captured,
surrendered or deserted.
Lampron was not only one of the foremost fortresses of Armenia, but also a
haven of the arts of peace. The Hethoumid Court outshone the rest of Armenia in
intellectual prodigality. The period of greatest disturbance in the history of the
castle was also that of its richest artistic flowering. Much of this achievement was
due to the Hethoumids themselves, all of whom either fostered interest or produced
work in their own right. Foremost among these was St. Nerses of Lampron (1153—98),
second son of Oshin II, thinker, biographer, linguist, ambassador and holy man
respected by the whole of the Latin Orient. His surviving work covers a wide range of
subjects,35 and the quality of his expression 36 points to a deep and sophisticated
mind very different from the gauche outpourings of some of the contemporary
chroniclers. His description of his feelings for the landscape around Lampron
displays a literary appreciation of the beauties of nature, uncommon in the middle
ages, while his letter addressed to Leo II to justify his attempts to latinise the church
is a masterly exposition of his point of view against those who were preparing against
him a " pyramide de calomnies ". It was not surprising that this man inspired much
work and gathered about him a body of writers " qui forme comme une aureole de
satellites gravissant autour du grand astre de Lambroun ". 3 7 Works of meditation
and biography were the most favoured and, as with the establishment of the
Armenian kingdom contacts with the outside world developed, Latin and Greek and
even Persian and Arabic were studied. Nor were the visual arts neglected. Disciples
of the great Cilician school of miniaturists must have come to Lampron, for in 1173
Nerses commissioned the " Prayer Book of Gregory of Narek ". 3 8 This is a formidable
record for one family, one court and one castle. It is unfortunate that the small
amount that remains extant, of what appears to have been a considerable corpus of
Cilician Armenian literature and art forbids us to make a more accurate evaluation
of the importance of work produced in and around Lampron.
Lampron was the home of the arts, of personalities and of power. For 200 years

31
18 January, 1237, Gregory IX to the Baron Constantine (letters of Gregory IX, I. x., letters
318,320—Raynaldi, i237,No.86) and i8January, 1237 Gregory IX to Hethoum (Bibl. Imp.M.S.L.
Duth., R. L. 56, 57.) Quoted in Langlois V., Essai historique et critique . . . , pp. 6-7.
82
Tournebize, F., op. cit., p. 209.
33
RHC. Arm., II, p. 937.
31
Runciman, Sir S., op. cit., Vol. Ill, p. 449.
35
For a list of these see Alishan, L. M., op. cit., Appendix C.
38
See " Reflexions sur les institutions de l'eglise et explication de la messe ", and " Lettre
adressee au roi Leon II ", in RHC. Arm., I, pp. 569 ff. and 579 ff.
87
For a list of those who followed Nerses, Alishan, L. M., op. cit., pp. 342-3.
88
D o u r n o v o , L . A . , Armenian Miniatures (Paris, 1961), p . 7 8 .
 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA 189

it played an important role in the history of Armenian Cilicia. Part of this role was
due to the remarkable talents of the family which held it, but part must be given to
the very strength of the fortress. The Hethoumids were always good candidates for
the part of over mighty subjects; Lampron made this ambition feasible and reason-
ably secure. It encouraged among the Armenians of Cilicia the growth of two foci
of power. Disappointment with the ruling dynasty was support for the lords of
Lampron. They were an ever present incentive to the ambitions of the great
ultramontane powers and represented the major obstacle to the unity and develop-
ment of the Armenian state.

THE CASTLE OF LAMPRON

Recent History of the Fabric of the Castle
Langlois 39 referred to Sieur Paul Lucas 40 as the earliest known European
visitor of recent times. Lucas talks of a castle called Nemrod but his description of its
environment fits so well that of Tilan Kale that it seems likely that Lucas rather than
risk a perilous journey into the Taurus sat comfortably in Tarsus and used the
garbled descriptions of nearby castles that he was able to buy from the inhabitants.
Langlois's own description is much more useful. It is quite plain that he found the
building in a much better state of repair than that in which it stands today. There is
no sign now of the " cinq arcades de la plus grande dimension " which dominated
the only route to the summit, nor of the " tours carrees ". Only the foundations
remain of the " fort belle tour octagonale. La salle basse . . . etait la chapelle du
chateau ". Also there seems to have been a building at least as impressive as the
apartments standing today, which he does not find worth mentioning; it was " un
edifice oblong construit en belles pierres de taille, lequel est divise dans sa largeur en
trois compartiments ". The only point at which we can verify Langlois's description
of the fabric with confidence is when he talks of " les numeros de repere, en lettres
armeniennes, graves sur beaucoup de pierres entrees dans sa construction " : these
can still be found in great quantities in the standing apartments.
It is plain therefore that the appearance of the castle has changed vastly over the
last 100 years. One cause has been its use as a quarry; the " hoja " of Kale Koy,
the village at the foot of the castle, said that 125 years ago stone had been taken from
apartments 5, 6 and 7 (see Fig. 3) to build his mosque. But this explanation throws
no light on the great heaps of rubble which littered the Upper Ward. According to
the villagers this was the work of French bombing during the Kemalist wars.
Destruction still goes on apace but it is at the hands of the local youths whose
favourite pastime seems to be to throw as much of the fabric off the summit as
possible.

Situation
The castle of Lampron lay 60 km. north of Tarsus amid the valleys that ran from
the watershed of the Taurus to the sea. It girdled a massive outcrop of rock that
jutted out from the end of a spur (see PI. XXII la) and enclosed an area running
approximately north-south 330 m. and east-west, at its widest point, 150 m. The
east face of the rock dropped sheer for about 50 m. to the talus, which fell steeply to
the bottom of a river valley. In the south the rock narrowed to a sharp edge like a
prow that rose about 27 m. from the talus—" gemi ", or ship, it was justly called by

88
Langlois, V., Voyage dans la Cilicie et dans les montagnes du Taurus (Paris, 1861).
40
Lucas, P., Voyage en Asie Mineure (Paris, 1712), Vol. I., pp. 353-6.
igo ANATOLIAN STUDIES

standing
apartments

A: main gateway
B: gate
C: postern gate
D: fighting platform
E: hypocaust
F: entrance to upper ward

• i standing wall

Cm evidence of wall
at ground level

10 o 10 20 3o 40 m.

Plan of the castle

 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA 191

the villagers. In the North, the stern of the ship, the rock fell steeply for about 27 m.
and the flat area beneath this was shut off from the rest of the spur by a dry rock-
hewn moat. Along the west face of the outcrop the rock was shaped in terraces each
falling sheer to the next, the lowest levelling into the talus which fell away to a second
river valley. It was up the side of these sheer faces, from terrace to terrace, that the
way to the summit was carved. This west face of the outcrop, although it represented
the one relatively " weak " point, provided the designers with an excellent oppor-
tunity to match their skill to the configurations of the rock and produce a strongly
fortified position with the minimum of construction.
For defensive purposes the castle appeared to have been divided into at least two
wards; the Upper Ward enclosing the summit of the outcrop, and the Lower Ward
the largest terrace on its west face.

THE LOWER WARD

The Lower Ward formed a terrace that ran the entire length of the castle along
the west face of the outcrop; it was, at its broadest, 30 m. wide and at its narrowest
4 • 2 m. In the south the ward merged with the sheer face of the rock without spoiling
the effect of the " prow ", while in the north it wrapped itself around the end of the
outcrop and ran into the spur (see PL XXVa). But the area north of the rock
outcrop was small, 45 m. by 30 m., and it had been shut off from the spur by a rock-
hewn moat. (See PI. XXIIIc).

Lower Curtain Wall

No part of the curtain, except at the entrance and the defences overlooking the
moat, stood above the present level of the ward. However, in many places closer
examination revealed foundations, while from the terrace below large areas of wall
generally of irregular stones built into the rock sometimes as much as 6 m. below the
level of the ward were visible. The wall, where evident from the ward, averaged
o • 6 m. wide, although more in areas of extra defensive importance, and closely
followed the sinuosities of the rock.
The curtain was pierced by two entrances, a postern gate and a main gate.
From the southernmost point of the ward to the postern gate no wall was visible
above the ground. It was, however, possible to see the point at which the wall met
the rock outcrop and two, possibly three, semicircular towers could be discerned from
above; the third tower, the one closest to the postern gate, was dangerous to
approach so that its existence could not be verified.
Between the postern gate and the main gate, the foundation of the wall was, for
most of its length, almost inapproachable from above, but its existence was con-
firmed from the terrace below. Just south of a further gate which bisected the ward
at its narrowest point the curtain became approachable. Here the stone was dressed
and a zig-zag had been introduced into the curtain to improve its command of the
path below approaching the main gate.
Between the main gate and the rock-hewn moat there was no evidence of
defences. There was no single edge to the terrace; it broke away in steep irregular
tiers, although invariably from the lowest tier there was a sharp drop to the terrace
below. Foundations could only be discovered again in the proximity of the defences
of the moat (see Fig. 1). These began about 30 m. south-west of the moat and,
overlooking the moat, for the first time, the ruined curtain stood above the level of
the ward, to a height in places of 2 • 5 m. Through it five embrasures opened on to
the channel, two of which could still be identified as being asymmetrical. At the west
IO.2 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

end of these defences a tower projected whose two embrasures commanded the moat
and its south wall. All the masonry of these defences was of poor quality, undressed
stone necessitating much mortar in construction; only the voussoirs were of better
dressed stone (see PI. XXV6), and also the small section of the curtain to the south-
west. If there was a tower at the east end of the defences all sign of it had disappeared,
and between here and where the east flank of the ward buried itself in the rock
outcrop there was no evidence of any fortification.

rocK tieian. iao«tt

• s.

FIG. I . Plan, at the present surface level, of the defences overlooking the rock-hewn moat.

Rock-hewn Moat
The purpose of this dry moat was to cut off the castle from the rest of the spur
on which it stood. At its east open end the moat was i6- 5 m. wide and at its west end
26 m. The north wall was 21m. long and 6 m. deep, the south, beneath the defences,
24 m. long and io*5 m. deep. The technique was a common one; it was used at the
Roupenid stronghold of the twelfth century, Anazarbus,41 and was at its most
impressive at Saone in the Latin Kingdom where the dimensions were 135 m. long,
18 m. wide and 27 m. deep.
The Postern Gate
This was the smaller of the two openings in the Lower Curtain. It was
approached by a series of narrow steps cut in the rock, rising 15 m. from the terrace
below. Carved in the rock to the north above these steps was an inscription in
Greek (see Fig. 2).

V
IT A O V T I A A O
tcoy
FIG. 2. Inscription carved in the rock above the steps leading to the postern gate.

41
Cf. M. Gough, " Anazarbus ", AS. I I (1952), 122-3.
 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA 193

The curtain by the gate had been widened from 66 cms. to 130 cms. and was
constructed of better dressed masonry than the average of the curtain. In the
southern upright the hole into which the drawbar of the gate fitted could be identi-
fied. It was possible that the gate took the form of a tower, but the condition of the
foundation permitted no more than conjecture.

Main Gateway
The path leading to the main gate began 30 m. north of the bottom of the postern
gate steps. The whole ascent, 105 m. long, was commanded from the lower curtain,
and near the gateway the rock beneath the curtain had been cut sheer to facilitate
defence. The path was narrow, in places not more than 1 • 5 m. wide and for the
first 21 m. of the ascent steps were cut in the rock. After the steps the path broadened
out (possibly at this point there had been a tower or gate in the curtain) and first the
foundations and later the ruins of a wall of once regular blocks to the west of the path
became visible; 30 m. before the gate this petered out.
Only the rubble and mortar core of the gate towers remained, although this was
not insignificant; one tower still rose to a height of 4 m. with a thickness of 1 -2 m.
In the western tower there was a drawhole still in good condition, but the part of the
opposite tower into which the bar should have fitted had fallen away. Behind the
west tower the positions of post holes and the way in which the rock had been cut
suggested that it had been backed by a large room. Immediately behind the
gateway the rock had been cut in a V-shape and there were several post holes. The
path through the gateway, 3 m. wide turned through a very sharp hairpin within a
narrow area. As soon as it emerged on to the ward from the complexes of defences
the path was commanded from a fighting platform carved out of the rock 9*5 m.
directly above the level of the ward (see PL XXI Va, taken from above the platform).
This platform was 18 m. long and 4-5 to 9 m. deep. At this point the cliff had
divided into two levels making command of the ward from the upper ward difficult;
this difficulty the designer had turned to his advantage by carving out the rock and
making defensive potential possibly even greater. The effect of the fighting platform
was increased by the positioning of a gateway 30 m. south of the main gate at the
narrowest point of the ward. Thus the besieger who carried either the main gate of
the lower ward or the rock-hewn moat was left, after the first impetus of the attack
had died away, bottled up in an extremely exposed position before an obstacle
against which he could only bring a few men at a time.

Entrance to the Upper Ward

The whole of the summit of the rock outcrop was enclosed to form the upper
ward. The eastern edge fell precipitously to the talus slope below while at the
northern and southern points and along the western edge the cliff dropped sheer to
the lower ward. Only at one point towards the south of this western flank did a
subsidiary terrace disturb the uniform picture. It was up the side of this terrace, in
two hairpin bends, that the way was carved to the summit.
A well-built wall enclosed the western side of the first leg of the entrance, but it
evidently no longer stretched its original length (see PL XXIVb). A gate-tower
at the beginning of the ascent must have fallen away, as only the dimly discernible
carved rock foundations and five post holes in the cliff 1 • 5 to 1 • 9 m. above the
present ground level, just north of the present entrance, remained. On entering the
passage, there 2 • 5 m. wide, there was immediately on the left a second series of six
post holes gouged out of the rock. There was also at this point an unusual accumu-
lation of rubble which suggests perhaps that the entrance was vaulted. Beyond this
194 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

point the cliff curved in and the way from there to the first hairpin bend was not more
than two metres wide—barely room for two armed men to pass. At the beginning
of this narrow section the remains of a small tower or buttress, i '5 m. wide, of well-
cut stone projected i m. from the outside wall. Opposite, the cliff with post holes and
a few blocks bore traces of fortification. Until the hairpin where the path opened on
to the subsidiary terrace the way had been carved through solid rock.
The existence of the subsidiary terrace both hindered the command of the lower
ward from the upper and presented the weakest point in its defences as here alone
were the cliffs scalable. It seems likely therefore that the whole of this terrace was
fortified and traces of fortification could be discovered along most of its length. The
southern part of the terrace, an area 48 m. long and 11 m. broad at its widest point,
seemed, if one can judge by the several sets of post holes and carved out recesses, to
have possessed at least three rooms backing on to the cliff, while traces of wall were
evident for a length of more than 25 m. along its western edge. The central leg of the
entrance path between the first and second hairpin bends ran along the centre section
of this subsidiary terrace for more than 15 m. Here the path was commanded by the
gate tower of the upper ward; there was foundation of wall on either side of the
path. North from the second turn of the path the terrace extended for a further 20 m.
There were tentative traces of fortification along its western edge while the wall to the
east had been cut sheer to make the defence of the upper ward more efficient.
Looking south at the bend of the second hairpin one faced the final gateway—the
gate tower of the upper ward (see PI. XXVIi). The tower on the west of the
path was representative of the finest masonry in the construction of the castle-
regular finely-coursed blocks with no mortar between the joints—and rivalled the
standing apartments. (In PI. XXVIi note the only corbel found on the castle).
To the south of this gate tower an abrupt change to coarser masonry could be seen
from the subsidiary terrace below. Perhaps this was the remnant of an earlier tower.
Paradoxically the east wall of the last stretch of the entrance path, and the east side
of the gate tower were built of most inferior stonework; the rock wall had been cut
away to fit flush with the wall it supported. Moving into the gate tower through the
entrance, little more than 2 m. wide, one entered a room 4*5 by 6-3 m. from which
the only exit was through an opening less than 2 m. wide into a second enclosed area
to the east. From this the only exit was towards the south of the castle.

THE UPPER WARD

In order to convey the shape of the ward, again the idea of a ship is helpful;
330 m. long and 100 m. wide the area came to a point at each end. The highest area
of the ward was towards the north falling perhaps 6 m. to the northern end and
12 to 15 m. to the south.
Much of the area was a mass of rubble. It housed, perhaps, either a large
population or the many administrative departments required in the government of a
large fief. From the heaped remains of stone apartments in the central and southern
sections of the upper ward few walls remained standing. It was also evident that rock
walls had been incorporated in the structures. It was only at the north end of the
ward, where a fine set of apartments was situated far from the remains of the others
and built, it would appear, much more strongly, that any buildings have remained
at all complete.

Defences of the Upper Ward

Little of these remained. The southern area of the ward was a slight depression
and at the edges, higher than the centre, the rock had in many places been
 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA 195

incorporated into the curtain wall. In places there was evidence that masonry had
strengthened weaker points and on the east side of the ward were the remains, falling
from the surface of the ward, of a single tower. Regular well-cut blocks were present
in a section of wall on the tower's vulnerable side.
Towards the centre and north of the ward its level rose above that of the sides
with no possibility of rock being used in the curtain wall. Here the weathering of the
rock had left both in the east and west a narrow terrace, averaging 6 to 10 m. wide,
running round the edge of the outcrop and following the irregularities caused by
gullying. This terrace was backed by a wall of natural rock rising generally 3 m.
to the fairly level top of the ward (see PI. XXVIIIa). In this wall 1 -5 to 2 m. above
the terrace was a second smaller terrace, hardly more than a ledge. It is possible
that these natural features were incorporated in the defences of the ward, or that
the second embryonic terrace was the work of man. The only signs of construction
were adjoining the standing apartments running for 30 m. along the west side of
the ward above a drop of 19 m. to the lower ward. This defence was of well-dressed
masonry and was probably the base of further apartments which have subsequently
fallen. In a single place the walling of a large gully was evident from the lower ward
below and elsewhere at this end of the castle four constructions of possible garderobes
were located.
Where the terrace opened out on to the southern area the line of the rock
crossing the ward was broken and confused in places, but with some evidence of
deliberately cut rock on the eastern side, it could be tentatively suggested that this
natural break was used to form a division of the upper ward into two areas.

The Standing Apartments

These, the only roofed buildings remaining on the castle, stood on the northern-
most part of the rock outcrop built on the terrace described above. The masonry was
the best on the castle and probably one of the finest examples of Armenian work.
Apartment 1 (see PL XXVIIa and Fig. 3) was a great barrel-vaulted hall,
5 • 5 m. wide and 18 • 5 m. from the entrance to the furthest point of the rounded end,
which fitted into a three-sided angular exterior shape. There were six embrasures:
one 1 -8 m. high situated above the doorway in the south wall (see PL XXVIIIi)
and four in the east wall which had no defensive function but whose object was to let
in light (see Fig. 4); in these the holes which held an iron grill were still visible. The
sixth embrasure in the north wall commanding the rock-cut moat (see PL XXVa)
was an arrow slit set at an angle in the curve of the wall. Between the two doorways
from this apartment to apartments 2 and 3 the lowest 1-5 m. of wall had been
carved from the rock backing the terrace, but otherwise in the rest of the apartment,
apart from the earth floor, every stone both inside and out had been very carefully
dressed. There was a profusion of mason's marks covering the walls, embrasures and
vaulted roof (see appendix). Unfortunately it is doubtful that this fine room will
exist much longer; the east wall was beginning to lean away from the vertical and at
the south end a gap was appearing between the wall and the vaulted roof.
Apartment 2, 6 • 6 m. high, was also barrel-vaulted but the condition of the stone
was not as good as in apartment 1, although it was still possible to discern many
mason's marks. The south wall of this apartment utilised the wall of the terrace to a
height of 3 • 6 m.; above this was open to the roof.
The walls of apartment 3 were constructed with less well finished stone, and the
vaulted roof itself was of a rubble mixture. A square chimney in the centre, 1 -55 m.
deep, from the ceiling 5-4 m. above the ground to the sky, was faced with regular
masonry. In the north wall of this apartment there was a fine example of an
 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

2. i o a * 4 m

FIG. 3. Plan of the apartments at the north end of the upper ward.
LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA 197

i i
3

—
I
;
—
Me I
-L

1
I 1

5-|?
I98 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

asymmetrical arrow slit (see Fig. 5), and it was only here that mason's marks were
found.
Apartment 4 was the most ruined of the standing buildings as the roof to the
south had fallen away. It was a rectangular barrel-vaulted room with a rounded
tower at its northern end presumably of solid stonework. The outer west wall was
2-2 m. thick (see PI. XXVIIi) which gave an excellent example of this type of
construction, stone facings with well-shaped stones without mortar, which was only
used to bind together the rubble core. The interior stonework was once of the quality
of apartments 1 and 2, but had been so weathered that, had there been any, not a
single mason's mark was to be found. The only apparent opening in the external
wall was an embrasure high up in the vaulting of the west wall. On the outer wall of
this apartment there were shields bearing heraldic symbols carved on to the stonework
(see Fig. 6).

FIG. 6. Heraldic symbols situated on the exterior of the west-facing wall of Apartment 4. There were also
two blank shields on the exterior of the north-facing wall of the same apartment.

Only the base of the west wall and the first two courses of the vaulting remained
of the fifth apartment. In the east wall of this apartment, separating it from apart-
ment 2, there was a small round aperture giving on to a small compartment in the
thickness of the wall. It was the only remaining example of Langlois' "petites ouver-
tures circulaires" in which torches were placed (see PI. XXVIIi and Fig. 7). Of
 LAMPRON— CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA 199
apartments 6 and 7 only the foundations remained with no loose rubble at all; the
local " hoja's " story provides an answer for the rest.
Two apartments 5 -4 by 7 • 5 m. and 8 • 1 m. square respectively were carved out
of the solid rock beginning 13-5 m. south of the entrance to apartment 1. They
were connected by a passage with the west side of the ward and appeared to complete
the complex of buildings at this end of the castle. Possibly they were storerooms or
servants' quarters.

100

FIG. 7. The doorway from Apartment 2 to Apartment 5 seen from the latter, with, set in the wall and opening
on to both apartments, the only example of Langlois' " petites ouvertures circulaires ".

In spite of the fact that Langlois makes no particular mention of these apart-
ments and, indeed, finds another building far more impressive, it is difficult to
believe that this fine complex of buildings, set in the most secure and inaccessible
area of the castle, was not the place where Constantine and perhaps Hethoum II,
lords of Lampron, held their greatest state.

The Ruins on the Upper Ward

From the heaped remains of stone apartments in the central and southern
sections of the upper ward a few features may be noted. On the west side, but a few
metres from the edge of the ward, a section of rock had been carved in a semicircle
to form what appeared to be a seat facing out across the land. Close to the entrance
to the ward a circular bowl-shaped stone o • 9 m. in diameter with a hollow centre of
o • 3 m. diameter was found lying on the ground. Apart from these items there was
little of detailed interest found in the remains.

THE HYPOCAUST OR " HAMAM "

Just south of the foot of the steps leading to the postern gate there were the
remains of several chambers of a hypocaust covering a surface area of 15 -6 by 7 m.
200 ANATOLIAN STUDIES
(see Fig. 8). Above the present ground level although much had fallen away there
was evidence of at least four chambers. Two shared a common standing rubble wall
and of a third chamber more remained. Its outer walls formed a quadrilateral
approximately 4 • 2 m. square, while the inner wall was circular with a diameter of
3 • 6 m. Archways, 1 • 5 m. from the present ground level, at their height, linked the
chamber to its neighbours. The ceiling curved inwards with, as it stood, a circular
area open to the sky. The rim of this was 3 • 6 m. from the ground, and was faced

1
1
1
1
1. o
—.
]

1
eh. concert-
1
z 1
*
1
L
1 1 I

FIG. 8. Plan, at present surface level, of the upper chambers of the hypocaust.

with more regular blocks—although not at all similar to those of the standing apart-
ments—than those in the rough stonework of the walls. The inside was lined with a
form of mortar and there was still evidence, in several corners, of the brick pipes
rising from the hypocaust below.
The chambers beneath the buildings were more impressive than those above, as
there had been less deterioration (see Fig. 9). There were three main underground
chambers roughly corresponding with those above. Two were in good condition and
reasonably free of rubble, but the third had but six pillars remaining to support a
fast collapsing roof. In the two chambers the pillars were spaced at fairly regular
intervals, an average of 0-45 m. apart, with an average thickness of 20 cm. They
 PLATE XXIII

(a) The outcrop from the east showing, in profile, the rock-hewn moat.

(b) The sheer rock walls on the east.

(c) The standing apartments seen from the base of the moat.

Lampron.
 PLATE XXIV

(a) The main gateway seen from the upper ward above the fighting platform.

(b) The enclosed path commencing the approach to the upper ward.
 PLATE XXV

(a) The command of the moat from the standing apartments.

(b) The west tower of the defences.

Defences of the moat.

(a) The approach from the lower ward showing the two (b) The gate tower.
hairpin bends.

The entrance to the upper ward.

 PLATE XXVII

(a) Apartment i—the hall.

Apartment 5 looking north towards apartment 4.

The standing apartments.

 PLATE XXVIII

(a) The upper ward with the Taurus mountains to the north.

(b) The south entrance to apartment i.

 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILIGIA 2OI

consisted of two blocks of stone placed on top of each other. The heights of the
chambers were o • 5 m., o • 7 m. and 1 m. There was evidence of red sandstone in the
roof and also some signs that there had been tiling.
The chambers were linked by tunnels, the most ruined one linked to another
smaller chamber by a rubble-filled tunnel. There was also a tunnel to the central
chamber which appeared to lead from a well 3 • 6 m. away in the cliff wall, from which
a trickle of water still flowed.

D • a D a D a
D a r- a a a D a
• 2a 1
• a D a a a
_ •
a • a • a a •
• D
1a a a. a

FIG. 9. Sketch plan of the underground chambers of the hypocaust.

Water Supply
The well supplying the hypocaust and a second supply 30 m. to the north on the
same terrace were the main evidence of water on the outcrop. The second supply
had been piped, recently, with a tap and a trough. There was some evidence of
water, flowing possibly in summer only, on the lower ward south of the entrance to
the upper ward, but on the upper ward itself there was no evidence of water or of
any form of well or drawing point.

CONCLUSIONS

As there is no documentary evidence relating to the construction of the castle

it is difficult to attribute the building to any particular period. From the available
evidence, however, some suggestions can be permitted.
There were three distinguishable types of stonework in the construction:
1. Masonry of regular small blocks bound together by a fair amount of mortar,
as in the exterior of the west wall of the first leg of the entrance to the upper
ward.
2. Masonry of coarse undrafted blocks of varying sizes bound together with
much mortar, as seen in the lower curtain wall and the defences overlooking
the dry moat.
202 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

3. Masonry of large rectangular drafted blocks, with smooth exterior surfaces

and little or no mortar in the joints, which, when employed in walls of
particular defensive importance, was backed by a rubble core. This type
of masonry was seen in parts of the lower curtain wall, the main gate and the
postern gate, much of the gate tower of the upper ward and all of the
standing apartments.

At one point in the lower curtain the second type of masonry was found beneath
some of the third type, and at another place the curtain appears to have been patched
with the third type. The second type of masonry could therefore not unreasonably be
regarded as an earlier type, but without more Byzantine models for direct comparison
the temptation must be resisted of connecting this masonry with the Greek inscription
and the knowledge that there was a pre-Armenian castle, in order to suggest that
work of this type was a remnant of Byzantine occupation.
The third type of masonry should be differentiated from that of well-coursed
stone blocks with drafted margins and bossed centres, which has been seen at Yilan
Kale, Tumlu, Gokvelioglu and Vahga, 42 appears in the small nearby castle of
Sinop and has been ascribed to the Armenians. Nevertheless the existence of
Armenian mason's marks conclusively proves that the third type of masonry is still
Armenian. Exactly when building took place, however, within a period of about 300
years of Armenian occupation is hard to say. Mason's marks and similar masonry
have also been seen at Anazarbus 4S and Silifke while there is a resemblance at the
island castle of Corycos (today Kiz Kalesi). Part of the Armenian construction at
Anazarbus is dated to 1188, Silifke was completely rebuilt between 1210 and the
early 1220's while Corycos was constructed between 1206 and 1251. Similar
masonry therefore was being employed between the 1180's and 1250's.
Turning to history, perhaps a few more hints can be gained. It is unlikely that
the petty barons Oshin I and Hethoum I would have been so dissatisfied with their
" Byzantine " inheritance as to indulge in major and expensive reconstruction, or
again that such important work would have been left until well past the time of the
castle's greatest importance. The late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, or the late
thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries are the least probable periods of major
construction. Also it is hard to imagine that during the period of Roupenid occu-
pation Leo II would have permitted additions and improvements to a fortress that he
himself declared to be dangerous in almost anybody's hands. But there is no reason
to dismiss this period completely. There are left after a process of tentative elimina-
tion, two periods, and these would seem the most likely eras of large-scale construc-
tion. First the time of the most severe Roupenid—Hethoumid rivalry culminating in
the two great sieges of Lampron of 1171-2 and 1182-3 when the fortifications must
have suffered some damage, and second, the reign of the rebellious Constantine
whose career if nothing else would have prompted close examination of the castle's
strength. In the former it is unlikely that the fortifications were not strengthened; in
the latter much work was carried out elsewhere in a similar building style. These are
the possibilities although bound by mere conjecture. More definite conclusions must
await the examination of more Armenian castles.

41
Cf. G. R. Youngs, "Three Cilician Castles", AS. XV, 115 (Tumlu), 119 (Gokvelioglu),
127 (Yilan),
41
and J. G. Dunbar, " The Castle of Vahga ", AS. XIV, 177.
M. Gough, AS. II, 121.
 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN GILICIA 203

APPENDIX 1
Mason's marks found in the Standing Apartments or on masonry taken from
them.
The drawings show approximately half the actual size, and the number that
appears beside each mark indicates the number of times that the mark appeared
in that section of the Apartments.

ROOM 1—THE BARREL VAULT. There were many marks in the west side of the
roof, generally in the courses two-thirds of the distance from the floor. The
quality of the carving varied.

N IX

ROOM 1—SOUTH ENTRANCE.

ROOM 1—DOORWAY FROM ROOM 1 TO ROOM 2.

ROOM 1—DOORWAY FROM ROOM 1 TO ROOM 3.

2O4 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

ROOM i—EMBRASURE i.

ROOM i—EMBRASURE 2.

ROOM 1—EMBRASURE 3. No mason's marks.

ROOM 1—EMBRASURE 4.

ROOM 1—EMBRASURE 5.

ROOM 2—THE BARREL VAULT.

I.

2.
 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA 205

ROOM3—THE ASYMMETRICAL EMBRASURE. Most marks were found in the

roof of the embrasure close to the loophole.

ROOM 4. Due to considerable water erosion identification of any mason's marks

was not possible.

ROOM 5. Three marks were found in that part of the barrel vault still standing.

ROOMS 5, 6, 7. The following marks were found on the mosque of Kale Koy, said
to be built with stones from these apartments.

3-
N

<> ••
W..
Some of the mason's marks are letters of the Armenian alphabet.1
1
Langlois, V., Voyage dans la Cilicie . . . op. cit.
206 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

APPENDIX 2
Carved crosses found on the castle.

(i) In the southernmost room of the southern

section of the subsidiary terrace.

(ii) In the rock doorway at the entrance to the

upper ward.

(iii) On a sandstone slab, lying on the upper ward,

that had possibly been used to face a wall.

APPENDIX 3
Pottery was found on the castle in great quantities. There were two main
types.
1. A coarse thick unglazed ware which was found all over the castle.
2. A glazed ware, more delicate than the first, in which the predominant colour
was a pale apple green ; some pieces were white with dashes of green, others green
with dashes of yellow, yellow-brown and a dark green monochrome. All the sherds
found were small, none larger than 5 cm. square and most were about J-i cm. thick.
All the pottery was decorated with thin lines engraved on the surface, which usually
took a darker shade of the colour of the pot. The decoration was on either side of
the vessel, the other side being a plain surface, sometimes of a different colour. There
were several types of abstract patterns : a series of concentric arcs (Fig. 1), tulip
shape (Fig. 2), a scroll pattern (Fig. 3) and one piece of " pie crust " rim (Fig. 4).

FIG. 1. FIG. 2. FIG. 3.

 LAMPRON—CASTLE OF ARMENIAN CILICIA 207

FIG. 4. FIG. 5.

Most of the sherds were found on the Lower Ward and the terrace beneath the
lower curtain. Similar examples were seen at Corycos and Silifke and have been
noticed at Tumlu, Gokvelioglu, and Yilan Kale. 1

APPENDIX 4
CURRENCY

One coin was found on the castle ; I pogh of Leo III (1269-89)—" enough to
buy a soldier his food for a day."

(Actual size)

Coins of the Armenian Kingdom were struck at Tarsus and Sis in gold, silver
and copper. But there was more Byzantine and Arabian currency in circulation
than Armenian.2

1
Youngs, G. R., "Three Cilician Castles," AS. XV, pp. 118, 125, 133. Further details in
his unpublished report of 1962.
1
Langlois, V . , Essai historique et critique . . . , p . 8 1 .
 ABBREVIATIONS
AASOR. Annual of American Schools of Oriental KAR. Keilschrifttexte cats Assur : religiosen Inhalts.
Research. KAV. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur : verschiedenen Inhalts.
AfO. Archie fur Orientforschung. KBo. Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi.
AJA. American Journal of Archaeology. KUB. Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi.
AJSL. American Journal of Semitic Languages and KIF. Kleinasiatische Forschungen.
Literatures. LAAA. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology
AJ. Antiquaries' Journal. Liverpool.
ANET. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts. MAMA. Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua.
Amuario Annuario delta Regia Scuola Italiana di Atene. MAOG. Mitteilungen der altorientalischen Gesell-
AOr. Archiv Orientahy. schaft.
APAW. Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie MDOG. Mitteilungen der deutschen Orientgesell-
der Wissenschaften. schaft.
AS. MIFAO. Memoires de l'lnstitut francais d'Archeo-
Anatolian Studies.
Ath. Mit. Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen logie Orientale.
MJ. Museum Journal, Philadelphia.
Institute, Athenische Abteilung. MVAG. Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-aegyptischen
BASOR.
Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Gesellschaft.
BCH. Research. OECT. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts.
Belleten Bulletin de Correspondence HelUnique. 0G1. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones
BGA. Tiirk Tarih Kurumu : Belleten. Selectae.
BIE. Bibliotheca Geograpkarum Arabicorum. OIC. Oriental Institute, Chicago, Communications.
BIFAO. Bulletin de Vlnstitut d'Egypte. OIP. Oriental Institute, Publications.
Bulletin de Vlnstitut franfais d'Archeologie OIS. Oriental Institute, Studies in Ancient Oriental
BSA. Orientale. Civilization.
BSOAS. Annual of the British School at Athens. OIAS. Oriental Institute, Assyriologieal Studies.
Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Orientalistische Literaturzcitung.
BSR. Studies. PEQ. Palestine Exploration Quarterly.
Papers of the British School at Rome. PIR. Prosopographia Imperil Romani.
BZ-
Byzantinische Zntschrift. PZ- Prdhistorische Zeitschrift.
CAH.
Cambridge Ancient History. QDAP. Quarterly of Dept. of Antiquities in Palestine.
CIA.
R. Rawlinson, Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
CIG. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum.
Asia.
CIL. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.
RArch. Revue archeologique.
CT. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
RAss. Revue d'Assyriologie.
CVA. Cuneiform Texts, British Museum.
RCEA. Repertoire Chronologique d'Epigraphie Arabe.
Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. RE. Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Realencyclopadie.
DTCFD. 'Apxau>XoyLKOv Aefalov. REI. Revue des Etudes Islamiques.
El. Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakiiltesi Dergisi. RHA. Revue Hittite et Asianique.
ESAR. Encyclopaedia of Islam. RLA. Realkxikon der Assyriologie.
Tenney Frank, Economic Survey of Ancient RLV. Ebert, M., ReallexUcon der Vorgeschichte.
E(f>. 'Ap% Rome.
ROL. Revue de V Orient Latin.
GAG. von Soden, Grundriss der Akkadischen
Grammatik. Rom. Mit. Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen
IEJ. Institute, Romische Abteilung.
Israel Exploration Journal.
SEG. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.
IG. Inscriptions Graecae.
SIG. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum.
IGR. Inscriptions Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes.
SS. Schmidt, H., Heinrich Schliemanns Sammlung
ILN. Illustrated London News.
trqjanischer AltertOmer.
ILS. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. TAD. Turk Arkeoloji Dergisi.
JA. Journal Asiatique. TAM. Tttuli Asiae Minoris.
JAOS. Journal of American Oriental Society. TCL. Textes Cuneiformes, Louvre.
Jdl. Jahrbuch des deutschen archaologischen TK. La Turquie Kemaliste.
Institute. TT. Tiirk Tarih, Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi.
JEA. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. UMBS. University Museum Babylonian Section,
JHS. Journal of Hellenic Studies.
JKF. Publications, Philadelphia.
Jahrbuch fur kleinasiatische Forschungen. VAB. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek.
JNES. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. VS.
JRAI. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmaler.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological WB. Wiener Beitrage zur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte
Institute.
JRAS. Asiens.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
JRG£M. Jahrbuch des romisch-germanischen Zentral- Wiener Zntschriflfur Kunde des Morgenlandes.
TOS.
museums, Mainz. rale Oriental Series.
JRIBA. ZA.
Journal of the Royal Institute of British Assyriologie.
ZDMG. ift der deutschen morgenlandischen
JRS. Architects. Gesellschaft.
Journal of Roman Studies.