The End of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Aegean Author(s): James Mellaart Source: American

Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1958), pp. 9-33 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: . Accessed: 11/01/2011 16:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.











Bronze Age in most of Anatolia and the Aegean, but in Cilicia the Middle Bronze Age begins c.2zoo, in Crete MM I begins between 2I00 and 2000 and Kiiltepe II, beginning c.2ooo, might perhaps already be considered as Middle, rather than late Early Bronze Age. 2 The distribution of these East Anatolian Early Bronze Age cultures has become much better known as the result of an extensive field-survey, undertaken by C. A. Burney in Eastern Anatolia during the summer of 1956, in which he covered most of the country between Sivas and the Persian frontier.

The purpose this paperis to reviewthe archaeof ological evidence for the period during which Hittites and Greeksare generallysupposedto have enteredtheir historical homes. In the last ten years,much new evidencehas been partlyin excavations, partlythe result forthcoming, of a systematic of pre-classical in Anasites survey undertaken membersof the BritishInstitolia, by tute of Archaeology Ankara.This has enabledus THE GEOGRAPHICALDISTRIBUTION OF EARLY BRONZE AGE at to constructa relativechronologyof Anatolia, to SITES, DESTROYED OR DESERTED AROUND 1900 B.C. (pl. I, which absolute dates can be assigned through a map i) new synchronismwith Mesopotamia,found at Placed on a map, destroyedor desertedEarly Kiiltepe near Kayseri. The chronologicalback- Bronze geographical Age sites form an interesting in groundis treated detailby the writerin an article, pattern, clustering thickest on either side of the entitled "Anatolianchronologyin the Early and Middle Bronze Age," appearing in Anatolian natural route leading from the Caucasusto the Studies 7 (0957), to which the readeris referred. NorthernAegean. Although NortheasternAnatolia, Colchis and For reasonsexplainedthere, the writer adheresto known archaeothe so-calledhigh chronology,that advocatedby Georgia are still very imperfectly logically, there is already ample evidence for a A. Goetze, B. Landsberger and K. Balkan,which breakbetweenthe local Early and Middle Bronze Hammurabiof Babylon c.1850B.c. places The tentativenatureof many of the conclusions Age cultures.As these culturesare all closely rereachedhere hardly needs emphasizing,but they lated, being membersof one great East Anatolian seem to be consistentwith the archaeological evi- family,2at least during the Early BronzeAge, the date for the end of that culture can be fairly apdence now available. fixed within the twentiethcenturyB.c. proximately At the end of the EarlyBronzeAge, c.1900B.c.,' on the evidenceof the latest potteryfrom Karaz a fairnumberof important sitesin Central Anatolia Hiiyiik3 near Erzerum, which resemblesthat of weredestroyed fire and moreweredeserted. II The Kiiltepe (c.2000-1900 B.C.).4 Middle Bronze Age by is same phenomenon in lackingat everyEarlyBronze may be observed Easternand pottery significantly NorthwesternAnatoliaand therecan be no doubt Age site excavated, at Nidhznem Gomi in Cole.g. that some kind of upheavaltook place throughout chis,5Beshtashen6 Osni' in the Trialetidistrict and the country.Acrossthe Aegean, the contemporary of WesternGeorgiaand, among the many sites in 1 1900 B.C. is the approximate date for the end of the Middle aFor Karaz see the report on a sounding; Dr. Hamit Z.
Kogay in III Ti'rk Tarih Kongresi (Ankara 1948) 165ff. Karaz Sondaji and figs. I-2o; Anatolian Studies 4 (I954) 21ff. 4 T. and N. Ozgiig, Ausgrabungen in Kiiltepe 1948 (Ankara I950) figs. 289-300, 305, 468-469. 5 B. A. Kuftin, Materials for the archaeology of Colchis, II (Tiflis 1950) (Russian) I3Iff, figs. 34ff, pl. 43. 6 B. A. Kuftin, Excavationsin Trialeti (Tiflis i941) (Russian); Antiquity 67 (I943) 129ff, figs. I-8 "chalcolithic." 7B. A. Kuftin, Arkh. Razkopki 1947 goda v Tsalkinskom Raione (Tiflis 1948) (Russian) 26ff.

on Early Helladicsettlements the Greekmainland a conflagration catastrophic of ended in nature, whereasthe Cyclades,Creteand most of Southern It Anatolia appearto have escapeddestruction. is very likely that the events in Anatolia and the distriand Aegeanare interrelated the geographical or bution of destroyed desertedEarly BronzeAge sites providessuggestiveevidencefor the direction came. from which these disturbances

24 The latest pottery in the Yortan cemeteries is of Troy V type and a study of metal types from the robbed cemetery of Bayinderk6y near Balikesir leads to the same result. the last E. See AOF 15 (i95i) 20f. (level ii)1' and not reoccupied for half a century. Observationson the chronological problems of the karum Kanesh (Ankara 1955) 41. 226. except Azat Hiiyuik. fig. the knowledge of which is almost entirely drawn from its cemeteries. the only one excavated. J. B. M. In each case there is reason to think that its sudden end came somewhere about 1900 search eliminates some of the sites from our list. in either case associated with pottery of the end of the E. under "Royal Graves at Alaca. 11 Information kindly supplied by C. Le Tumulus dit de Protisilas (Paris 1926). The pottery from this region shows close resemblances to that of the Inegal.A. The materials from her excavation and from a previous sounding made by L. Bittel and H. x-xv. and even if future re- . (Troy V type) and the neighbouring site of Tepecik appears to have been deserted after the end of this period. the prosperous Assyrian karum or trading settlement below the walls of the great city of Kanesh (now Kiiltepe near Kayseri) was reduced to ashes c. In Central Anatolia. and K.B. it will undoubtedly add others.B. west of Kiitahya. best known from Karaz near Erzerum and Geoy Tepe9 near Urmia. W. Troy V was not destroyed by fire. all show destruction layers attributable to the end of the Early Bronze Age. 25 C. Otto. figs. 1948 (London 1951) 34ff. 12Belleten 11 (1947) 660. which should probably be located here.. Mellink.24 In the Troad. For surveys in this area see also IstanbulerForschungen 6 (1955) 75ff and AnatStud 6 (1956) 179ff. who surveyed the region in 1955. 668. 17 Own observation. are littered with burnt bricks of the destroyed city walls. accompanied by C.None of these contained any pottery later than the end of the E.'9 Polatli20and Gordion are burnt. Etiyokufu Hafriyati (Ankara I940). the destruction layers of the great mound of Acemk6y near Aksaray indicate a conflagration about 1900oo or a little later. B. Kansu. now famous as the centre of the Yortan culture."5 Among the many sites in the Kirsehir basin. Pulur Hiiyiik`o near Baiburt. A Hittite Cemetery at Gordion (1956) 51.B. was burnt. In the hill country between the Halys and the Sangarius. in Persian Adharbaijan. but the site is not reoccupied in the Middle Bronze Age. culture." 16 Information kindly supplied by the excavator Miss Halet Qambel.A. Yenigehir and Iznik area.A. Delaporte are still unpublished. on the other. Within the great bend of the Sangarius. 1955.I7 B. 13 K. 27 AA (1937) 17I. 22 Demirci Hiiyiik itself was deserted after the end of the E.23 Between this region and the Troad lies the Balikesir plain. Troy II.B. pl. widespread destruction occurs. and Etiyokusu. 23 Own observation during a survey of this region. xIv. and not reoccupied.C. Excavations in Azarbaijan." 15 ibid. in Nov. on the one hand. the destruction may be the result of Anita of Kussara'sconquest of Purushattum.B. Burney. Blegen et al. 222) and Karaa'aqtepe. p. Burton Brown. settlement of Poliochni is said to have been destroyed by earthquake.. and at 8 Ankara Universite Dil Tarih Cografya Fakiiltesi Dergisi II (1953) 2o0ff.the so-called mound of Protesilaos on the Thracian Chersonese are deserted.c.'8 Bitik.900oo B. If a little later. if not deserted earlier. For these see the article by D. Has Hilyjik. published in IstForsch 6 (1955) 53ff. 7-12. 20 AnatStud I (I951) 57. pl.8 All these sites shared an East Anatolian E..22Further westward still.c. map iii.A. 2. Bittel.27 We have now rather laboriously traced a long line of burnt or deserted sites. Kleinasiatische Studien (Istanbul 1942) 193 and footnote 239. and that of Beycesultanin the upper Maeander valley. Esq." but the destruction of Alaca Hiiyiik V is definitely earlier. Stronach in AnatStud 7 (1957). Burney. Karao'lan. The contemporary city of Alishar Hiiyiik.26 On Lemnos. is AA 54 (1954) 221. 59. the Kars district of Northeastern Anatolia which produced Early Bronze Age wares. Further westward along the road from Erzerum to Sivas. A. the latest level of which is of Troy V date (Troy II. Cerkes and several other sites21 are deserted. the plain of Eskisehir was studded with Early Bronze Age villages of the Demirci Hiiyiik culture. Kiiltepe near Hafik" and Maltepel2 near Sivas. A. only Azat Hiiyiik seems to have been occupied into the Middle Bronze Age. pl. but the next period shows a change of culture"2and two other sites.c. 9 T. Demirci Hiiyiik (Berlin 1940). the two large mounds of K6priioren and Tavsanli. K. III-vIl. 14 See my article in AnatStud 7 (1957) under "Alishar. Demangel. Balkan. 26 No Troy VI material appears to have been found either at Kumtepe. Its publication will have to wait until the excavations at the latter site are finished. Turkish Thrace (also called Turkey in Europe) and the coastal province between the latter and Macedonia (Greek Thrace) are blanks on the 21S.A.A. 45.see R.'" and south of the river Halys. suffered the same fate (level i i Tb). if not deserted much earlier.10 JAMES MELLAART least half the number were deserted after [AJA 62 1900ooB. A. another trading centre. Kumtepe II and Karaagagtepe. On the evidence of the pottery collected all those sites appear to have been deserted after the end of the E. 19 Belleten 8 (1944) 353. p. 10 Ankara Universite Dil Tarih Cografya Dergisi 3 Fakuiiltesi (1945) 502.B. which demonstrate some disturbance in the northern half of Anatolia at the end of the Early Bronze Age.

which after overrunning the great centres of Early Helladic culture on the east coast. 39 Information kindly supplied by the excavator. To these sites we may probably add Kusura.c.P. illustrations pp. 81 and ref.39Beycesultan.33 This thorough devastation of Central Greece and the Peloponnese was followed by the arrival of a new culture.) to c. 35 PrehistoricMacedonia. into a local M. Bulgaria and 28 Fouilles et RecherchesI (Sofia 1948) 62. 36 Cyclades." RE (1955) abbreviatedhere as PKG. Synoro. which destroyed Mycenaean civilization at the end of the Bronze Age. Greece are unlikely to be a coincidence and unrelated. Fortunately we are not reduced to guessing. Theoretically. Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos. Heurtley.B. Lerna is the only site excavated.900oo." Larisa.c. Kophovouni. 34 Earthquakesare of a regional nature. 137ff."). 81 F. However." Others still show gaps in the occupation.B. Esq. to a more local and Northern Middle Bronze Age. Northwest Anatolian in character. Many other sites are deserted. PKG p. Cook. Ayios Gerasimos. 25 (I956) 173. Korakou.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 11 archaeological map. where the Cilician Middle Bronze Age 38 J. crossed the Aegean. Destruction layers of the end of the Early Helladic III period c.40none of which shows the slightest trace of any disturbance c."3Bayrakli. 1. archaeological probability excludes a movement starting from the west coast of Greece.g.4" Sizma42 and Kara Hiiyiik (Konya). footnote i. have been found at Orchomenos.34 more so as adjacent regions appear to have escaped destruction. Asine. seems to have taken place peacefully. Schachermeyr.3 Consequently there is no real break in the various cultures of those regions.p."Priihistorische Kulturen Griechenlands. Palaiopyrgos. except for one or two sites in the Chalcidice. AnatStud 6 (1956) 124.29In Thessaly also. etc. which on the new Beycesultan evidence can be equated with the Troy V. 43 The transition from Early to Middle Bronze Age appears to be gradual here and uninterrupted. 111. this migration or rather series of migrations could have come either from the east or from the west. "CulturalBackground . 1451 and Crete. was hit by a catastropheof such magnitude that it invites comparison with a similar one. the so-called Dorian invasion.2ioo. apparently unaffected by the momentous changes taking place further south. "SHesperia 24 (1955) 49. Schefold. PrehistoricMacedonia. This was fully confirmed by the 40o 1956 excavations. for a series of what may be called "refugee cultures" are found in Anatolia."' At Mersin and Tarsus. 1452-53. In Anatolia.8 and the sudden desertion of those sites added to the complete absence of a Middle Bronze Age certainly indicates some catastrophe. a conclusion which finds support in the fact that in Anatolia the disturbances follow the line of the main natural road from the Caucasus to the northern Aegean. 42 Own observationsat the site. Zygouries. e. beginning c. 41 Archaeologia have ushered in the transitional period. and they can hardly be interpreted as the the result of local wars or earthquakes. Malthi and Asea. Only one satisfactory explanation can be offered in these circumstances and that is one of migration. Larisa am Hermos. the latest excavations at Gremnos near Larisa show a peaceful development of a local E. I453. rebuilding on a reduced scale or a shift in position of the new Middle Helladic settlement. Esero. which. invaded Northern Anatolia and Bulgaria without touching Thessaly and Macedonia and finally ended up in the shadow of the Caucasusmountains. these approximately contemporary disturbances in Northern Anatolia. Makrovouni. 29 W. 204-07. Salcutza. Bulgarian scholars date the end of their Early Bronze Age (Yunacite... the transition from an Early Bronze Age.32So far. Lamb.. 129.35or the Cyclades and Crete. Beycesultan VII-VI period. the position is the same: south of the belt of disturbance the development from Early to Middle Bronze Age is uninterruptedat Thermi. Hagios Kosmas.1900oo B." and "Effect of Hittite Invasion . it is generally agreed. Boehlau and K. Yiriza. where the transition from Early to Middle Bronze Age appears to have taken place without any interruption. M.I9oo B. p. Apesokari. 13. 2 PKG. 4. In Macedonia. p.PKG p. etc. on the other hand. J. 123. 30 AA (1955) 206. had no connection whatsoever with its predecessor. 87 (1937) 228-29. Eutresis. with incised spirals and maeanders. Raphina. but in Bulgaria there is evidence that the disturbance in Northern Anatolia made itself felt there also. p. Tiryns. of course. 8 W. which in each case fled from invaders coming from the East (infra.. A. 1490."3 Mainland Greece from Boeotia to the Peloponnese. Moreover. AREAS UNAFFECTED BY THE MIGRATIONS The invasion which brought to an end the flourishing Early Helladic civilization of Central and Southern Greece did not touch either Thessaly and Macedonia. on the other hand. 91f.. the destruction is said to .

introduced into the Ankara-region after the end of the Early Bronze Age (Polatli III). refugees from further east conquered the area.Further west. Polatli II. 50 Pottery of Kiiltepe Ib type. Goldman. The second millennium pottery is again eastern in derivation. p. To use this evidence for dating the Troy V period before the Cappadocianware would be a fallacy.if we may judge by the amount of destruction in this region.C. Finely incised black wares are the characteristic product of these cultures.12 JAMES MELLAART begins C. One may add that there are also no traces of disturbance at this date in Cyprus.B."4 a result of the invasion. in the Araxes valley around the lakes of Urmia and Van. lies a newly discovered painted pottery culture in the region of Elazig. Hitt. probably Alishar and Acemk6y Hiiyiik near Aksaray." perhaps after fierce resistance.a series of different cultures is found in Anatolia. Esq. the centre of an extremely localized painted ware. the Araxes valley and the Urmia region. fasc. where it is wrongly dated. Excavationsin Trialeti. Kiiltepe near Kayseri. Excavations in Azerbaijan.C. which appear to have borne the brunt of the invasion. North Mesopotamia. as far as we know. 430 (surface finds).A.2Ioo B.c.g. such as are common e. For the ware see Rev." seems to have been confined to a rather limited area between Kayseri. It is this culture. was. Hittites. 55 Cappadocianware was also found at Karaoilan. but since they are irrelevant to the main argument. in Anatolia.C. during a survey in 1956. A. or rather a poor variant of it. 13: -8.e. 4 (1931) pl. was completely As western.. sites. fasc. Other E. See AOF i6 (1952) 152. (Barrows XIII. though extensive areas of both Anatolia and the Aegean were affected by the migrations at the end of the Early Bronze Age. I31ff.46 known only from a group of barrows between Tiflis and the Turkish frontier. spread all over Central Anatolia [AJA 62 ently untouched and continued well into the second millennium B. How this affects the traditional picture of the simultaneous arrival of the three Indo-European speaking peoples. Tarsus II. 62 and see my article in AnatStud 7 (I957). the painted ware ("Cappadocian or Alishar III"). now in its third and last phase and the related socalled E. 51 Kiiltepe. cultures existed north of the Yozgat-Kirsehir area. and Polatli. THE CULTURAL BACKGROUND ANATOLIA OF IMMEDIATELY BEFORE MIGRATIONS THE In the twentieth century B." provides a pointer to the direction from which the thrust into Central Anatolia came. The distribution of this ware is confined to the Sivas region. 52AnatStud I (i951) 48ff.47but these were appar4 H. I. already rare at Kiiltepe. Maltepe near Sivas.1900 B. . Nor have we found any regions with numbers of E. will be discussed in detail below. Kuftin. one enters a territory where eastern and western influences met. West Anatolian influences were predominant. North Syria. and it had developed a culture which should be regarded as the ancestor of the so-called Hittite culture of second millennium Central Anatolia.A. note 45 supra and AOF 15 (1940). 65 There is eastern Alishar chalcolithic in the region (Karaoilan) followed by a western ribbed and fluted ware in the E. situated at its western end.49 was destroyed by the invaders. in the Eskigehir plain. Further east. Belleten 3 (i939) pl. may still have been in use in the Kirsehir basin. we may be excused for omitting them here.B. 49 See note 12. cx-cxv bis. probably the richest city in Anatolia. deserted c. but the Phrygian grey ware is western.44 there is no interruption about 1900B. Crossing the western bend of the river Halys. Siiyiigiizel and Sofular OIP 30. 4. To the eastern group belong the Karaz culture."3 At the period under discussion. pl. It is clearly dependent on that of Kiiltepe II. map xvii. 48 The distribution of this type of pottery has been defined by C. 45 There appears to be no break between the Geoy Tepe D and C pottery phases. Before attempting to identify the invaders. AnatStud I (1950) 46. contemporary painted pottery cultures flourished. The western group of cultures was remarkably in the second half of the 19th century B. and which. which for convenience we may divide into a western and an eastern group.A. Iox-o5. XXIV) Antiquity 67 (i943) 132.4 On the other hand.A.45 It appears therefore that. Hittite et Asianique. et Asianique V. 10-14. which. as it lay on the line of their march westward. and centre of the important Cappadociantrade with Assyria. the cultural background of Anatolia on the eve of the invasion must be briefly sketched. figs. disappeared along the invaders' route. but again south of the invaders' route. 34 (I939) pls. Burton Brown." Further west.C. which suffered the same fate.c. the wave of devastation was far from universal. 54i. LII (painted pot) and Qerkes. 47 Rev. usually referred to as "Kiiltepe II. T.during our extensive surveys in Southern Anatolia.B. Luwians and Palaites. Burney. A.B. 9-11. Aksaray and Alishar. XIX. Malatya and Divriki. 46 B.50This culture. on the eve of its destruction. fig. of Trialeti..

cit."6though the new painted pottery introduced by newcomers from the east was rapidly gaining popularity. i7. onwards. It is interesting that as late as the developed M. 709f. Horse bones are reported from Mikhalits The complete absence of any material culture attributable to the newcomers inevitably suggests that they were culturally far inferior to the people among whom they settled. pp. Bittel from the archaeologicalrecord between the West Anatolian-Aegean group and the Eastern cultures. Antiquity 67 (I943) I34. in Cilicia is emphasized by H. not only in pottery. CULTURE AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE INVADERS and horse heads on Kiiltepe II pottery antedate the migration. 9.x9oo and in the remains of a palace of this period. no bones of horses have yet been recorded from this or the immediately succeeding periods in Central Anatolia. but the absence of a great and lasting cultural break in Central Anatolia at this time does not suggest that the migration had as disastrous an effect on the old population as that of the Middle Helladic invaders in Greece. I-3.. But for the destruction and disturbance caused by their migration. 63 Compare the Aegean migration which destroyed the Bronze Age cultures in Anatolia. 5-7. Ankara (unpublished ?) and the possibly slightly later Alishar ones in OIP 29.g. 6. it included Cilicia. op. Language 29 (I953) 263ff. Exceptions are intramural burial at Hanay Tepe in the Troad. pl. Schliemann."1 where they occur from the very beginning of the sixth citadel. does not appear to have changed this custom. but more important still. 216. roughly the twenty-first century. 19-20 etc.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 13 more homogeneous than its eastern equivalent by the twentieth century B. Demirci Hiiyiik. though perhaps not by very long. Warsama. which we have called Ic."5 One of these is a letter sent to the king of Kanesh by Anum-hurpi. Ilios."6 This rather suggests that the city of Kanesh itself escaped destruction c. 20th century B. 6. and their importance will be discussed later on in this paper.. has any material evidence been found which might throw light on the culture of the invaders. .A.I75o-I5oo .g. in Trialeti. 235c. So far not a single weapon. which B. east of Samsun. Intramural burial is the rule in the eastern group. So far.e. the fundamental difference of population inferred by K. son of Inar. It extended all over Western Anatolia and until 2100 B.c."9 Even the change of culture in Cilicia c. which is archaeologically much better known. on the other hand. i. and and other sites of the Veselinovo culture. intermediate between karum II and Ib. p. iof. Troy IV-V shapes can however easily be recognized. 19If. The adaptation of the oxcart to the horse is not necessarilya Europeaninvention. fig. i. 1-3. 60 e. house-plans etc. p.62 Nowhere in Eastern or Central Anatolia. e. the deity on the horse (JKF 2 [19521 12ff). a solidwheeled oxcart with the remains of the oxen that drew it. In spite of its homogeneity. we only know of them in Troy. One significant point must however be mentioned. and op.A. 16.I900. king of Mama. 8. but the presence of the horse at Kiiltepe and Troy does suggest that horse and presumably chariot were already in use c.B. 4o0-41. iI. 19. the amount of destruction is difficult to estimate.e. im 5a T. were found. 14. in the Bedesten Museum. see H. 61 Troy III. pl. KleinasiatischeStudien." 65 ibid.cit. 58K. they might have left no mark on the archaeological record. p.and an extramuralcemetery at Tekkek6y.c.C. Bestdttungsgebrauche vorgeschichtlichenAnatolien (Ankara I948) I4o.2Ioo B. Not a single second millennium chariot has been found in Europe. pl. Otto. Goldman. local variations persisted and the old area of the Demirci Hiiyiik culture. horses on reliefs 56 The transitional nature of the first phase of the M. pp. 5. pl. 215. 62 There is no reason why the chariot should not have been invented in northern Mesopotamia or Anatolia." These two groups differ considerably from each other. in burial customs.57 tween the Troad and the Iznik and Kiitahya region were also marked. tablets of a king of Kanesh. This god occurs in personal names at Kanesh in level II. 57 As is evident from a glance at the plates in K. the country in and around the great bend of the river Sangarius. 62. Bittel and H.A. horses are conspicuously absent among the many animal bones found there. pot.c. the Aegean and the Levant."60 On the other hand. from 1900 B. see AnatStud 6 (1956) 45-46.C.B. Barrow XXIX contained. Kuftin dates to c. and whose civilization they adopted. For fifty years the site of the destroyed karum of Kanesh was uninhabited and used occasionally as a cemetery by the merchants. or other object can be ascribed to them and though it is usually assumed that they introduced the horse and chariot. western elements were still by no means extinct. I2-I4. preserved a Differences besomewhat tenacious conservatism.. Ozgiiq. extramural burial in cemeteries of the west. Without more evidence this question cannot be decided. 348. 64 See my article in AnatStud 7 (1957) under "Kiiltepe and the length of the period separatinglevels II and Ib. who had taken refuge within the walls of the city. Tarsus II. Bittel. 7. Even during the first phase of the Cilician Middle Bronze Age. Notice also the cult of Pirwa." As few sites have been excavated in Central Anatolia.c.

or more likely their neighbours. The material culture of Kanesh Ib is as rich as that of Kanesh II. Although the location of Kussara is still disputed. Anita.C. and ancestor of a long line of Hittite kings. waged against the city of Nesa.900ooadmirably. 30 Dil Tarih Cografya Fakiiltesi Dergisi io (1952) 7 74 ibid. and the rise of Labarna. Balkan. the Great Salt Lake. its people spared and its gods honoured through the building of new temples. refers to the war which Anita's father Pithana. In the tablets from Kanesh II." The inference is obvious: between and 185o the Hittites arrived in Central Ana900oo tolia. settled in or around that city. which must be Nesite. the first of whom conquered Nesa. the Hittites may not yet have arrived in Central Anatolia. and the hundred years which separate the two main assemblages. with its numerous sites. The original homeland of the Hittites cannot yet be defined. trade was resumed with Assyria and riches flowed into the country. Nesa must be sought nearer Kussara. Hattic. as the fully developed Central Anatolian Middle Bronze Age culture.18501800 B.e. .14 JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 refers to a quarrel between them. As the latter flourished approximately up to the foot 70AOF 15 (195I) (1954) 350. the founder of the Hittite Old Kingdom c. the Hittites spoke an IndoEuropean language which they themselves called Nasili or Nesili. See for the whole problem Ankara Un. The so-called Anita text. Observations. and in kingof Hassum Zaruar theMari period. settled in Nesa and became the subjects of Pithana. More likely. This text is exceptionally important. 20 (1939) Syria westernmost region where this ware occurs. a great Middle Bronze Age city which appears to fulfill all the requirements.1750 B. both found in burnt levels and therefore belonging to the period immediately preceding the destruction. king of Kussara. and Alaca in the west to Kara Hiiyiik-Elbistan in the east. from which they. however. had derived the name of their language. after the conquest of that city.73 The interest taken in the early history of Kussara by the Hittites probably reflects the important role played by that state in establishing a supremacy in Central Anatolia. See my article in AnatStud 7 (1957)." i. moved westward from their homes and invaded the region between Halys and Sangarius. contemporary with Pithana and Anita.c.'7 where they had ousted the local population which. the Hittite capital at Boghazk6y.7"The position of Nesa can be inferred from the texts: as the surrounding Hattic kingdoms of Hattus. seems the most likely region in which to locate it and archaeological evidence suggests that it was here that the Hittite invaders first settled. The city was conquered. the Hittites may have made themselves masters of the kingdom. In the Anita text we have the name of the god giugmi. see OIP 30. non-IndoEuropean names. king of Kussara. log. This can only mean that the Hittites had. around Kirsehir in the southern Halys basin. was a king of Kussara. map xvii and Biiyiik Nefezki6y ?) 68MDOG 69 K.7 This suggests that in the twentieth century B. but the lack of any material culture among these invaders suggests that they came from beyond the area of Middle Eastern civilization. upon their arrivalin Central Anatolia. but certain IndoEuropean names are recognizable. 67The important to note that none of these are unmistakably Hittite (i.e. It is this Kanesh Ib culture which spread all over Central Anatolia and which has been found from Boghazkoiy. the predecessor of Hattusa. ArchOr 18 (1950) 341. 66 Thename the of Kingof Mama Hurrian. Bazirgan Hiiyjik. This fits the migration which we have traced into Central Anatolia c. we have elsewhere brought forward arguments that it may have been at Alishar. The Kanesh Ib culture is obviously a development from that of Kanesh II. the language of the city of Nesa. 249ff.)69 Moreover. for Pithana and Anita are historical kings. The Kirsehir region. Nesa became one of the residences of the kings of Kussara. Its development does not suggest that a numerous body of semi-barbaricimmigrants had settled in the Kayseri region or occupied Central Anatolia. The first nasili names occur in the Kanesh Ib period. 83 (I95i) 33-45. mentioned as lying near the "sea. Anis is cf. they had settled or had been settled in the fertile regions further west.c. hurpi."s a Hittite copy of an earlier document.44-45. who lived in the Kanesh Ib period (c. It is significant that Labarna. i. 263-77. were not conquered before Anita's reign.e."6Evidently life went on as before and the old order had not really been disturbed. as we have seen. and Purushattum. (Has Hilyiik. In the fifty years between the death of the last Hattic king. seems ample to account for the change. Alishar. inherited by the first Hittite kingdom.70It is. 71 AOF 15 (i951) 72 15 and Language 29 (1953) 18. nasili). predominate. to be located in the Aksaray region. Zalpa.

12.83 for. at home here and were probably introduced by OF THE PROBLEM THE MINYAN WARE refugees from that region or its immediate neighThe so-called Minyan ware does not appear in bourhood. Of the new cultural features introduced the sotion. quoted by F. p. one of the main features of a cultural break and ment into the more fertile Eskisehir plain took not unnaturally he linked this ware with that of place. He considers that the ware was introduced many sites suggests something like a massive flight in the Troad by a branch of the people who introto the west. Recent developments in West Anatolian archaeIn the Balikesir plain and at Yortan." Certain old elements79 beyond the western bend of the Halys. A comparison between the city walls of Troy VI and Troy V is virtually impossible as so little is known of the latter. W. Balikesir and the Troad. When in the Troad at last the Aegean describes the sun rising out of the sea. were certainly unable to cope with such an increase THE EFFECTOF THE HITTITEINVASION of population. Only one house of the early Troy VI period was excavated. the hills to Kiitahya. e. On agricultural land as poor as that of the most characteristic. overpopulation in the fertile but an old memory from the days when they lived near limited coastal plain must have become acute. Some new elements in level VI at Beyce. Although ological. it is neither common in the movement from this plain alone. ANATOLIA ON NORTHWESTERN Troy itself was not destroyed. Blegen. The expulsion of the latter into the Ankara region we have already called Minyan ware stands out.g. but the greatly reduced population of the origin. 9 Such as grey.c. plain and red-coated wares.. introduced at about the same time (c. etc.which supersedes that of Troy V is a different one. Bittel's review of C. to which should E. Attempts to deny this have been singularly Eskisehir plain sharply contrasts with the numerous unsuccessful. it is probable that they be added contingents from the areas they passed came from the northern steppes. 82 ibid. C. come to ology have gone far towards solving the problem an abrupt end c. The Hittite hymn through. I7 IstForsch 6 (1955) 55. Grey Minyan is discussed.houses of the early Troy VI period number only a few. the few plains and valleys the western shore of the Caspian. 81 ibid. Io. p. The villages in this well populated plain Greece. the other through first appearance of the horse must be mentioned.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 15 of the Caucasus Mountains. The before in Greece. overcrowding would be disastrous and appear. the two great sites of ments based on the house plans are inconclusive.i400ooand arguBlocking the latter road. that the Hittites themselves ever settled though closely related. nor do any of the characteristic 76 F. Hethiter und Hethitisches (Stuttgart 1947) 1. 78 See K.II. as K6prii6ren and Tavsanli probably offered resist.8" ance and were destroyed. Two roads were open to them. Blegen considers this new pottery to it is therefore not surprising to find that a move. 83 F. though grey ware was made settlements there in the Early Bronze Age. 5ff. Troy III.tance for determining the origin of the Middle sultan" in the Upper Maeander valley seem to be Helladic culture and its bearers. In the mountainous Troad. marble "owlfaced" figurines. textual or archae.period and most scholars hold that it is of foreign sessed.75 which lation.7"one duced it into Greece at the beginning of the Middle leading down to the region round the Lake of Helladic period. Der Aegeis (1950) 262f. may contain coast was reached. 7. and therefore the settlements also. Cremation does not appear until c. 2. Handbuch der Archaeologie. in Gnomon (1956). which is of primary imporhave fled.900oo and their population must of the Minyan ware. XI. Troy Ill. but the culture there is no evidence. . the cemeteries. though red and buff also this region."8Among the other changes the Iznik and the Sea of Marmora. pl. in the Kirsehir region.900oo were not easily defensible and the desertion of B. may have involved a considerable poputo the Sun God.III period. Sommer. their entry survived in the following centuries and it becomes into Central Anatolia is liable to have caused a fair clear that some of the old inhabitants must have amount of displacement among the local popula. How large were the contingents of people on Greece until the beginning of the Middle Helladic the move in Northwestern Anatolia cannot be as. 80 Troy III. Sommer.H.). 77 AnatStud 6 (1956) i26 and fig. W.gone on living there side by side with newcomers.

Heurtley denies a local development of this ware into the typical wheel-made Minyan of Molyvopyrgo. As for the colour. 89 Troy 111. pl. Three main features of the wheel-made Minyan ware are worth bearing in mind: a) the shapes are highly metallic. where H. 218. 35 (Troy VI ware). for instance. 204.87 and in Aetolia88 (Thermon with a bluish grey. no doubt imitating silver. 92 Preh. Pteleon on the Gulf of Pagasae. These cups have many Northwest Anatolian 84 Troy III. Schliemann Sammlung. 85 parallels and it would seem that the shapes originated there. 229. 87 AA (1955) 90 PrehistoricMacedonia. 88 Deltion I (1915) 225ff. which are to technique a certain extent due to local clays and the degree and manner of firing. indicating metal prototypes. Macedonia. 9" Troy III. probably late Minyan). the coincidence in distribution is often (but not always) striking. the rulers of Orchomenos. BSA 44 AM (1917) 35. but in Anatolia new evidence has been forthcoming. collected by the writer in 1951-52. 92. p.g. whether one can really insist on this feature in tracing the origin of the ware. 95 ibid. figs. 100Going back to Early Troy I and Kumtepe Ic. 46. 5859-5861. Grey Minyan is the earliest of these three categories. 91 Excav. 99 Sherds of grey ware collected by C. five miles from the Persian frontier in the Van region. 154. soapy grey wares are found at different times in different districts. It would appear that in discussing the origins of Minyan ware Aegean archaeologists have perhaps laid a little too much stress"9 the colour and the on of the grey Minyan ware. which leaves the vessel with a soapy touch. PKG 1464-65. 383-399." Some of the grey ware dating from the Troy I period in Southwestern Anatolia shows the same characteristic. 12-13. Blegen offers particularly close parallels to the Grey Minyan ware found at Troy in the early phase of the sixth citadel. and c) the curious technique of the grey Minyan. on the other hand. 86 PKG 1465. It lacks the characteristicshapes of goblets and the grooved decoration. 5868-5874. 101 Troy II silverware. 155." The only explanation is that the soapy touch is the result of clay and firing. (Paros). When one plots the occurrence of grey ware with metallic shapes in Anatolia on a map showing silver deposits. Troy.B. Some of the Troy V grey ware is soapy and so is much of the Troy VI Grey Minyan ware.95 and there is little in favour of a Macedonian origin.A. The centre of this peculiar Grey ware appears to lie in Boeotia and it may well be asked. at Ankara. 9if. 7 (Siphnos). nos."' Its origin has been much debated and two main theories advanced. and PKG 1457. 210. and is easily distinguished from genuine imported Minyan.1'1 probably made from the ore which occurs 93JHS (1914) 126ff. 74."3 In the later phases of the Macedonian E. Recent discoveries in Bulgaria have likewise produced nothing from which the Minyan ware could have descended. red and yellow Minyan are found. 98 Sherds in Brit. produced genuine Minyan ware.84red and buff are also found. 137.g.. Hence its name.98and at the end of the East Anatolian Bronze Age we find it in the light grey ware at Ziilfiibulak. The Thessalian ware is clumsy and occurs in a variety of colours ranging from yellow. one advocating a Macedonian. grey burnished wares are a variation on the normal Anatolian black burnished wares and though certain areas specialize in producing a grey ware. 324ff. when areas as near as the Argolid cannot produce the same variety. fig. Schmidt.5 Local variants are found in the Argolid and Laconia (Argive [black] and red Minyan). Grey ware has a long tradition in the Troad. p. 81 and nos."' W.16 JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 shapes of this Middle Helladic ware have ancestors in the Early Helladic culture. 89. see also p. Macedonia.89Grey Minyan also occurs at Molyvopyrgo and Hagios Mamas on the Chalcidian peninsula"9 and was imported into the Cyclades.92 the other a Northwest Anatolian origin. it is never the only ware in use.100but so have silver vessels. but the characteristic features of the Middle Helladic Minyan ware are absent. 128. brown and red to grey and black."8 in Thessaly. b) grey. at Phylakopi. typical for the earliest Minyan. it covers most of Mainland Greece and its centre appears to lie in Boeotia. which according to C. Some of the Troy V grey ware in the Museum at Hissarlik has this soapy touch. Schachermeyrin PKG 1468. figs. but the latter is generally late and has lost most of its angularity. etc. 82. The distribution of Minyan ware is interesting. figs. copper and gold. 129. H. A. 31-34 (1949) 31f. F. A. xxIv. e. W. grey slipped hand-made cups and mugs with high flung strap handles appear. nos. p. Institute of . 9' Preh. 19-20. Schliemann found this ware in great abundance. fig. from the legendary Minyai. In Anatolia. 258. 96 e. Burney and now in the same Institute.

figs. 6Iff. At K6priiiSren. I8. Esq. Vertical or oblique-handles. often (but not always) ringbases or ribbed pedestals.05' C. fig. I4. Seton Lloyd have produced 102 R. fig. The most common shapes are cups and bowls. pedestalled goblets. and at Beycesultan. In Anatolia.e. 76-77. and footnote 64 IstForsch 6 (i955) 79. 136 and Larisa am Hermos III. W. esp. 58. 42. it is prominent on the mounds of Tavsanli and K6prii6ren and several imported pieces were found in the Eskisehir plain. 21."' but the decoration in the form of a cross is not found in Anatolia at a date later than the end of Troy V. 46 (S.0' Other features include handles placed vertically or at an oblique angle on or below the rim of bowls with an everted or a bead rim. 292a. At at Egret near Afyon.c. I35 (Alyamak Hiiyiik). A soapy touch is only found at Troy and at KiSprii6ren. c. 31-95.) at Tavsanli and Kdiprii6rennear Kiitahya. A 57.c. Blegen has shown that the early Troy VI Minyan wares are very similar to those of the beginning of the Middle Helladic period in Greece and he quite rightly links the arrival of a new culture at Troy with that which brought the Minyan wares to Greece."2 As in Greece. Although none of this pottery on the west coast or at Troy appears to be earlier than the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age.I400 B. fig. extending from Troy to Iznik. red and buff Minyan predominate on the plateau: at Tavsanli. Blegen's excavations.Whereas Grey Minyan is typical of Central Greece. 61 etc. 96. 9. W. 61. Troy III. x92.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 17 abundantly at Balya Maden on the eastern slopes of Mt. closely related types at Beycesultan in the upper Maeander valley. High flung ribbon or strap handles. fig. 292b. x8 and fig. in seeking the origins of the Minyan wares the real criterion should not be colour or soapy surface. 2:16. and more material subsequently recovered on the spot. however. local variations in both colour and shape are characteristic. map 2). 1:13. (Boziiyfik). It is confined to early Troy VI."3 At Bayrakli Grey Minyan supersedesthe red variety only in the Late Bronze Age. Grey Minyan again has a northern distribution. o10e. 104 ibid.e"" Since C. red and black variants prevail in the south. 57. on the eastern side of the sea of Marmora. but already at Thermi and Larisa Grey Minyan is in the minority and red takes its place. Cook.some of the Grey Minyan bowls are decorated with a pattern-burnishedcross on the interior (pl. i. 2.c. Forbes.We are therefore inclined to date these bowls before 1900 B. 17. 108 Troy Ill. Similarly decorated sherds were found further north near the Lake of Iznik where the same Grey Minyan shape occurs and these too may belong to the same 111AnatStud 6 (1956) 191. The same early date may be inferred for the beginning of this ware in the Ineg6l-Iznik region. it occurs all along the west coast as far south as Bayrakli (Ancient Smyrna)7"' and Liman Tepe (Clazomenai). 20. 3:1-4. fig. A comparison between the Troy V grey ware vessels and the Troy VI Minyan wares showed. Macedonia.115 the latter site Grey Minyan does not occur. fig. Ida.2oo-900oo B.ibid. I). J.114Although Grey Minyan is found at K6prii6ren. 23. sharp profiles. p. c. 292: A 57.'08 Further east it was found inland in the plain of Balikesir'09 and along the south coast of the Sea of Marmora as far east as the Iznik region. This series extending to the Troy V period in the 1955 excavations can now be extended to the Troy III period since the exc. more has been learned about the distribution of Minyan ware in Anatolia (pl. Therefore. 78-79. 19. 92. Pattern burnishing is rare at Troy VI and confined to the very beginning of this period. A 64. A 92.g. fig. 105 Preh. II4 Ankara Universite Dil Tarih Cografya Fakiiltesi Dergisi 8 (1950) 58. 64 (goblet). 60.x9oo. 94. 115At Tavyanli sporadicgrey wares were found higher up on the mound than the red and buff varieties. p. 58. c. IstForsch6 (1955) 81. 292 a. The date of these Minyan wares in Anatolia is of great significance for the problem of their origin. fig. o09 110 ibid. 94. 3.900 B. 48.111Finally. p. Its southern limits are not yet well defined. the excavations of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara under the direction of Mr. Outside the Troad. 116Troy III. 58 etc.102 Local ore deposits naturally influenced the metalworker in his choice of material and the potter followed suit. but shape. M.110 On the West Anatolian plateau. fig. . and a grooved or ribbed decoration are characteristic. parallels quoted under A 64. fig. no.6iit6nii) 112AnatStud 6 (1956) 126ff."o"and in Greece. there is conclusive evidence that some of this ware goes back to the Troy V period (c. p. Troy III. in 1956..c. 10s Information kindly received from J. fig. Metallurgyin Antiquity (Leyden i950) 19off. that the earlier ware could not be considered as the ancestor of Minyan wares. 107 Ankara Universite Dil Tarih Cografya Fakiiltesi Dergisi 8 (1950) 55f. 113 Thermi.

corresponding roughly to Troy IIIIV."' Although one might express some doubt about this dating." Nearly all are red polished.c. all during the later half of the Early and well into the Middle Bronze Age.18 JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 period. which are still terra incognita to the archaeologist. contemporary with the second half of Troy II. contemporary with Troy III. jars and other more characteristicWest Anatolian shapes. a red Minyan bowl was found by the writer in a Troy V context. The Troy V culture also produces a fine grey ware. in absolute dates from about 22501650 B. In the southwest. The preference shown for Grey Minyan in the Troad may be ascribed to the local silverware tradition.) the first Grey Minyan products are made at Kispriiiren and in the Iznik area. 1. this "protominyan" must have developed during the Troy II period.2. these are found on the western edge of the plateau. marks the beginning of a new culture. ranging from level IV to level XII. During the Troy V period (c. 217. at least in pottery. (fig. including several other typical vessels of this date.121and in Grey Minyan in the deepest strata of Middle Helladic Greece.c. Mounting pressure eventually led to a migration from the Troad. 1171stForsch 6 (I955) figs."8 These "protominyan" shapes form only a percentage among the many bowls. but they show all those features which later become typical of Minyan ware. where the new shapes are eagerly adopted. in good stratified contexts at Beycesultan. Then. Calling these Beycesultan vessels "Minyan" requires some qualification and one might prefer "protominyan. This somewhat puzzling disappearanceof the pedestalled goblet is probably the result of its prototype being manufactured in metal.C. but the use of special clays and a certain way of firing gave them the peculiar soapy touch. I).or wheel-made cups or small bowls. The new evidence from Western Anatolia shows conclusively that the Minyan ware of Middle Helladic Greece can only be derived from Western Anatolia. the migration left no permanent mark and the destroyed settlements were soon rebuilt. mainly cups and bowls. metallic profile. probably in the great river valleys of the Hermos and the Lower Maeander. Around 2250 B.C. I). in search of new lands. i. 119AnatStud 4 (1954) 198. . As the XIIth building level at Beycesultan. Anatolia is struck by a wave of emigrants from the east. at Tavsanli in a burnt deposit (fig. The significance of this "protominyan" pottery lies in demonstrating the early occurrence of Minyan characteristicsin West Anatolian metalwork. until their reappearancewith different bowl shapes in both Grey Minyan and red wash ware in early Troy VI. among which there was a red-cross bowl. where they are common in grey. The decorated pieces are the earlier and are confined to Beycesultan XII(a)-IX. Grey Minyan is carried to the coast of the Troad. at the latest. but the Minyan shapes are still unknown. at Beycesultan and probably also near Tavsanli and K6priidren. undisturbed by the invasion. 120 See Beycesultan Excavations in AnatStud 7 (I957) for those from the burnt shrine in level XV. 365. the 24th century B. 58-60 (grey) and 85-87 (buff Upper Maeander valley and adjacent region to the south. 121See note 105. and they are made in exactly the same ware. probably the result of the local use of silver. 8tsSee my article in AnatStud 7 (0957). as a result of the Hittite invasion. beak-spouted jugs. 218. which will be discussed presently. where closely similar vessels were made in various metals and copied in pottery from. There can therefore be no reasonable doubt that Minyan shapes were in use in this region before they were introduced at Troy. More spectacular still were the discoveries of red and buff vessels of Minyan shapes. intrusive from the western provinces of Anatolia (but not from the Troad). life went on in the old way and red Minyan wares spread gradually to the west coast. figs.120 After the conquest of this region by the westerners. Plain pedestal bases are common in Western Anatolia. It is in this same region that the characteristic Minyan shape of the goblet with ribbed pedestal base is most likely to have developed. small ringbases and grooved or ribbed decoration. As in Central Anatolia. they disappear. 403-o4.e. somewhere between the coast and the edge of the plateau. such as the high flung strap handles.2Ioo1900 B."•9but the distribution of the ribbed ones is confined to the and red). which occurs near Bursa and at KbpriiSren. N. hand. who introduced the red polished wares including "protominyan" shapes.W. the imitation of which in pottery depended on the whim of contemporary taste. buff or black burnished ware in the Beycesultan XV-XIII levels.

etc. and locally copied. Homer and the monuments (1950) 7. the and in regions last reached by the invaders. 41. scholars are confronted with a dilemma. etc. Thessalyand Macedonia. period.C. but not all. the establishment of "feudal" centres with citadels. C. which. Notice that no . Mycenae. BSA 25 (1925) 126ff. 2.From there they may have spreadby land over the restof the mainareasof Aetolia and land. 123 See map 2 in PKG 1420 and list of sites.136 Grey Minyan ware was exported to Melos. 129Aigina. presumably the military leaders of the invasion founded local dynasties. fig. extramural 122 H. has already been discussed above. Of horses and chariots there is no sign until the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. 212ff.127 Among other features of the Middle Helladic culture. A conviction that all Indo-European speech developed somewhere between Central Europe and the South Russian steppes has become so deep-rooted that the arrival of the Greeks from the north through Macedonia into Greece was accepted almost automatically. J. Welter. Aigina. and then only at Mycenae. W. fig. ibid. but its 130PKG 1460 and H. wiped was judging by the numberof its settlements.from the gulf of In Pagasaeto the Peloponnese.This is a strong argumentagainstthe old theory that the Middle Helladic invadersentered Greecefrom the north through Macedonia. Siphnos and Paros. period. the "megaron. 128 ibid. 30. exceptthe mountainous Acarnania. Lorimer. Elsewhere single burial in cist graves within the settlement became the prevalent custom. when their more fortunate brethren p.whereas most. The existence of a western Greek branch in Aetolia and Epirus (barbarians left behind in the mountains.The next point to consideris where this invasioncame from and by which way it enteredthe country. 186PKG 1466 and G."8 Not long after the beginning of the M.B. which may have been the distributing centre. MiddleHelladicculture. 133 PKG 1471. sites in northern Greece. considerable.I900 B. Archaeology in Greece 1954. plan io. population led to the formation of the earliest Greek. xx. Blegen. and landedin the stoppingonly in the Chalcidice. L. however. contact is established with the Cyclades and mat-painted pottery was imported in great quantities. 187 See note 91. traditions strongenoughto modifythe new culture.It is unlikelythatthe newcomers could have out the entire earlier population. B.were local E. H. only in the Peloponnese. Goldman. H. and red black imitationsof the CentralGreek Grey Minburialat Mycenael25and tumulus yan. c and d. 7. 182 PKG 1460."" and a similar house with apsidal end. 183 On the grave stelae." a hall and portico type. The problemis of considerable general interest as most authorities that these invaderswere agree the first speakersof gets the impression that the invaders sailed along the north coast of the Aegean.'28 From the distributionmap of Middle Helladic sites in Greece. Early Helladic settlements appear to have been unfortified.Otherhousesstill perpetuatethe EarlyHelladictradition.A. 1428ff. 125 BSA 48 (1953) 7ff. Troy III. are characteristic. 184 Homer and the monuments.they do not seem to have settled.Among these local modifications. in particular from Aegina. 1954 (supplement of JHS 1955) 35. 1 31PKG chariots or horses occur on the stelae from the new grave circle ILN (27/9/1952) which date from the end of the M.124it is clear that the newcomers overranmost of the mainland. From the distribution map of M. burial in Messenia.126 may be mentioned. The prehistoricfoundations of Europe (1940) 23940.'18 The latter is found from Thessaly to the Peloponnese and becomes the hallmark of the are rare"88 it appearsthat aftertheir conquest. boar-tusk lasts popularity well into theLateHelladic period.129 This centralization implies the existence of kings or princes. 1461. A. 25 (1956) pl. and helmet4"' is first introduced in this period.122though it might be more plausibleto suggestthat the intermingling of these invaders with the numerous local E.12Weapons the invaders A settleddownpeacefully.128 like Malthi.B. and Hagios Mamasin the except at Molyvopyrgo Chalcidice.'7" Granted that the Middle Helladic invaders were the first speakers of some very archaic form of Greek. 1459 and Hesperia 24 (1955) fig. gulf of Pagasaeand in Boeotia. 127 PKG 1461. map 2. PKG 1492. 126 Archaeology in Greece.H. 124ibid.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 19 THE CULTURAL BREAKON THE GREEK MAINLAND The widespread destruction the EarlyHelladic of sites which preceded introduction the Middle the of Helladiccultureon the GreekMainlandc. p. 63. The newcomersimposed their culture on the old population. 9-1o. Hawkes. PKG 1437. Eutresis. Wace in Documents in Mycenaean script (1956) p. 1455ff.A. Two new house-types appear. C.

settingfor an invasionc.'4o but the Minyanware are unrelated. Prehistoric Foundations. T. Anatolia can accountfor what is perhapsthe most typicalof all. 149. fig. the metal prototypes the techniqueof making and may but then they borrowthe civilizationof the people grey Minyan. Ozgii?. Beycesultan.H. p. period. where the earliest Greek speaking invaderswith Anatolia long before their first appearancein their Middle Helladic culturecame from. whosenumberswere certainly small.'"8 this seemsto one admits that the Middle Helladic materialculbe an impossibleway out of the dilemma. AJA 58 (1954) p.'42 and though intramural branchof the samepeoplewho broughtit to Greece. Houses of this type can be seen today in the village of Karatal on the south coast of Cilicia.were introduced the Greeks. fig. ill.The cause of the inof Actually. if the Greekshad indeed comefromEasternEurope.W."59 only was the Minyanwareat homethere.focus of the invasion. Troy III-IV period.C. All these features occurredin N.Such an actionwould in seemto be unparalleled the historyof migrations. megara.urban settlements. tolian evidence admirably. Schachermeyrin PKG inlandpeopleshould semblanceselsewhere. 139So H. 140 See my article in AnatStud 7 (I957). Troy itself. fig. op.cit.To sail the stormyand inhospitable and Some of these. L.or rather the arrivewithoutmuch culture.who at 138 So F. W. BCH 78. III CentralGreece.Many suggestions made. Poliochni. Blegencautiously Cistgravesarecommon considersit to have been introducedthere by a in the E. Lorimer. p. (I954) 240. H.'' be claimed. Heraion (Samos). therehas been a swing from which the first Greek migrationcame. Not the towardsregarding Minyanwareas Anatolian. 234.and thoseof the contempoWhen Greek speakinginvadersand the introductionof rary Argolid are again with the Troad. long! 142 megara: Troy Ib and following period (IIa. p. 86. Beycesultan. 436. about 500 m. Since C. which probablyfollowed an old trade ancestor route. 238-39 (Troy II late-Troy IV).apsidalhouses admitsthat he can all be matchedthere. occurred HanayTepe in Accordinglyno agreementhas been reachedas to the Troad. b.) Troy I.W. I1 and C. on reachingthe shoresof the Sea a fair measureof seamanship Aegean requires thatthe Greekshadbeena seafaring nation of other area provides so have chosen to descend on Greece. and throughMacedonia Thessaly-the archaeology the Grey Minyan trading contactswith ars have thereforeargued that the arrivalof the Northwestern Anatolia. of that region rules out such a migration-but by the Moreover. apsidal houses: Troy Ia.The importsin E. 425. 239.would to have contributed this have embarkedand just trustedto luck that they Middle BronzeAge) may have made valiant would reacha countrysuitableto theirneeds.may have crossedinto Thrace and suggests before they settled in the country to which they invaded Bulgaria. 141Fortifications: early Troy I period-Poliochni.putting an abrupt end to the gave their name.which. W.Some the Hittites.and by among whom they arrive. urban settlements: Poliochni AA (I937) 270.People ture. for no satisfactory for this warehas yet been found there. p. Bestittungsgebrauche. Archaeologists attemptsto find materialsupportfor this linguistic suggeststhat they alreadyhad been in contactwith havebeen the Early Helladic people of Greece before their theoryin the Balkans. D.B. Troy IV period (unpublished).about ways like the West Greek elements. Homer and the Monuments.A. for it would have ally have reachedthe Pindus mountainsby roundthat been inconceivable the MiddleHelladicinvad. 436 etc. not by land many parallelsand none but N. then NorthwesternAnatolia must be the region at Blegen'sdiscoveries Troy. This branchmay eventuknew where they were going. c. Moreoverit suggests that they local Early Bronze Age. by sea. as far as I am aware has Greecein the M.This traditional view.the distribution Grey Minyan ware vasionwas the directresultof the Hittite invasion in Greeceleavesno doubtthat the invadersarrived which caused a movement of refugeesalong the northern naturalroadsto the coastof the northernAegean.passim and fig. it is possible One question. why. and in particular Minyanwares.butfortifibut as no priorityof this ware in the Troad could cations. there. not one of a foreign thereseemsto be no valid reasonfor doubtingthis.Although to match single items of this list of cultural reneverbeen raised. Troy I. nation several hundred miles away. Troy I. but the Minyan ware has proved to be the invasion. it at burialis the exception. etc. .x9ooor a sea from the northernshore of the Aegean to the little laterfrom the Troad to Greecesuits the AnaGulf of Pagasaeand Boeotia. AJA 58 in middle Troy I period.20 JAMES MELLAART [AlA 62 not occupiedthe richerlowlandsat the beginningof the ers.the main stumblingblock.

but the Greeks brought an Indo-Europeanlanguage with them from Northwestern Anatolia.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 21 the end of the twelfth century B. they first sailed to Chalcidice. who were probably of the same stock. Peasants are extremely conservative and unlikely to change their material culture when they are forced to emigrate. poorly furnished like all West Anatolian cemeteries. Whereas the Hittites were probably warlike nomads from the barbarous fringes of the Most important among these are two easily distinMiddle East. consisting to a great extent of the population of the maritime provinces of the Troad and the south coast of the Sea of Marmora. they retaliated by invading the land of their western neighbours. about twenty new sites can be added. the silent testimony of fierce resistance. 145The important element is the -ss. The Hittites introduced the first Indo-European language into Central Anatolia.(or -nd-) with various endings. The ruthlessness of the conquest is borne out by the thick destruction layers. and the nomad eagerly adopts the culture he destroyed before. In the absence of new texts. when love of warlike pursuits. J. we hope. ending in -essos and -nthos. Mellink. whose civilization and religion they adopted. will. Anatolia. A migration of peasants. but it is only fair to add that after the local population had been subjected. but a migration of peasants does. but which leaves the old order more or less unchanged. it seems advisable to bring the new archaeologicalevidence to bear on the problem. . the NAMES IN -SS. population.and the -nt. not just political power leading to the establishment of a ruling class. This is exactly what happened in the Middle Helladic invasion."battle axes. the Greeks were peasants and sailors. Marassanda(s) and Marassantiya(s). guishable groups. A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE HITTITE AND GREEK INVASIONS before their respective entry into their new homes. but the Greeks were numerous and civilized enough AND IN ANATOLIA It is generally agreed that many place-names in to impose their own culture upon the subjected Greece are a legacy from the pre-Greek population. A Hittite cemetery at Gordion (1956) 4950. Sometimes several spellings of one name occur: Siyanta(s) and Siyanti(s). the invaders settled down peacefully. and from there to the first natural harbours on the Gulf of Pagasae and Boeotia.-ND. The peaceful character of the rest of the Middle Helladic period is in strong contrast to that of the Late Bronze Age. Ousted from their own land by their eastern neighbours. A change in ruling class does not necessarily produce a cultural break. and widespread destruction. This interpretationof the conquest of Greece by the first Greek speaking elements from N. and by overpopulation. supersede the old concept of barbaroushordes of savages from Central Europe introducing bits of "Schnurkeramik. is quite a different thing. the Hittites were both in numbers and culture inferior to the local population. To his map showing the distribution of these. 144K. The differences between these two peoples therefore seems to exclude the possibility of a simple two-pronged invasion of Indo-European speaking peoples from a common barbarous European centre into Greece and Anatolia. based mainly on archaeological evidence. Their aim is the acquisition of land. as far as we know. However. This would also explain the effect their arrival had in each of the two countries. 32f. nomadic incursions are apt to produce some destruction before the tribe settles down. etc. the lack of arms in the graves. on the other hand. We may therefore well ask whether there is other evidence for the use of Indo-European in Anatolia and the Aegean before the Middle Bronze Age.44 IE speech.45" 148 M.143 should not create the impression that the Greeks of this period were unwarlike.C. no other archaeological conclusion appears to be possible. are evident with each new discovery. where some of them settled.IN THE AEGEAN Hatti. invaded Greece and destroyed the Mycenaean civilization. Presumably skirting the Aegean coast along the old trade routes frequented by them for centuries.W. BY LANGUAGES SPOKEN THE WERE EARLY WHAT BRONZE AGE PEOPLES OF ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN? The Hittite invasion had little in common with that of the Greeks. took to the sea. Demirci Hriyiik. very common battle axes. The other branch. with which they had been long familiar. Bittel. lalanda(s) and Ialanti(s). The conclusion reached that the earliest Greek elements must have come from Northwestern Anatolia implies that some form of Indo-European speech must have been in use there during at least the latter part of the Early Bronze Age. perhaps stimulated by the rich booty to be gained in Crete and elsewhere abroad. Startling as this may seem to many philologists. in third millennium Anatolia.

thus confirming their deduced.Kizzuwatna and the problem Hittitegeog.c. To reconstruct conditions in the fourth. 139ff and list.e.p. drawn from classical sources. Schachermeyr's theory of a non-Indo-European "Aegean" language spoken throughout the Mediterranean and linked to the neolithic and Early Bronze Age cultures is based on the occurrence of place-names of this type.c.names which appears in Caria and Lycia on the classical map bears no relation whatsoever to conditions in the Bronze Age. Glotz. Schachermeyr's PKG 1494ff with maps 3-7.and at Side.. The of whereAhhiyawa. The cluster of -ss. Chadwick. J.c. 150AOF 15 (1951) 32 and index: Ninassa. In the independent or semi-independent western states. Zakunthos. Ventris and J. of Anatolia. Perge in and Aspendos have produced a scrapof material not whichcan be confidently datedearlierthan the 7th century B. Crete. and Karkisa (with Masa) in Caria. came from that region.) and many were not founded until well into the classical period. in 15sA. some of whom used the place-names under discussion. which. Wace.therefore existed in Anatolia as early as the last century of the Early Bronze Age. I feel that the possibility of later diffusion of names of this type has been overlooked.5O Names in -ss.Lasunthos ?.and -nd.850 s. place-names are only mentioned in records of Hittite campaigns. dating to the late I5th century at Knossos and the late I3th century at Pylos.22 JAMES MELLAART [AlA 62 Those endings are not confined to place-names. I would locate in the Inegol-Iznik region.148The earliest occurrence of these names in Greece is found on the Linear B tablets. westernpartof the is often done and Millawanda Miletus. or actually under. 147AIA 32 (1928) 141ff. Palissa.B. between west of Eskigehir. and Patara Antiphellos Lycia. when this area appears to have been one of the poorest and least civilized in the whole of western Anatolia.147 Chalcidice and Anatolia. country Millawanda. 152In spiteof extensive the zone fromthe exploration. B. It was shown long ago by Blegen and Haley that the distribution of placenames of this type shows a remarkable coincidence with that of the Early Bronze Age civilization of Greece. contain a large number of these names. and in his Die Iiltesten Kulturen Griechenlands (x955) 239-263. and perhapsPurushattum. Northof Arzawalies Zippasla-Hariati. Parnassos ?. . with a strong concentration on the east They are also found in the there. from Kiitahyato Konya. Hittite rule. The was the scene of at least one more great migration. unlike Greece.c.and -nd. but some can be found as early as the Kultepe tablets of the 2oth century B. flowers and other objects. The Aegean civilisation (1925) 386-87. the Hittite texts of the I4th and I3th century B.g.W."5' one knows approxicentreof all threestateslies off the plateau.Documents Mycenaean Greek. a very meagre source for the geography of the period. of raphy. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 146ff. Anatolia 146A useful list of these is found in G. This should be borne in mind. Of the many towns with an -ss. When names of this type occur in the account of a war against Arzawa or in a title deed.x"4In Anatolia. but unproven. coast.butis at variance of with an intelligible reconstruction Hittitegeography. reliable a chance find or surface find. The construction of a distribution map of placenames in -ss. but occur also in personal names and in the names of which shows that trees. may be dismissed once and for all.or -nd.later written Purushanda. Assuwa to the south of it in classical Anatolia is beset by several perils.'"5 The Hittite records also should be used with care. coastal Halicarnassian peninsulaeastwardto the mouth of the Calycadnusat Silifkehas not produced single site. an approximate idea of their position is provided by the context in which they occur. Even though the exact location of most of the placenames mentioned in the texts cannot be accurately fixed. 149M. Knossos. 148The most up to date discussion of these is found in F. is occupiedby the Arzawa countries. for the largest number of names of this type are recorded from regions in close contact with. morelikelystill. One of these is our fragmentary knowledge of Hittite geography. existence in Early Bronze Age Greece. Goetze's ideas about the location of the various L."' another the unreliable expedient of using late. Interesting as this theory is. of Lackof spaceforbidsa discussionof the problems involved. i. Hudurunda. caused the displacement of several peoples. Arzawa and Lugga meet. To locateAhhiyawa Mycenaean in Greece. Kyparissos. countries in Anatolia: with Ahhiyawa in the N.6xff. shattering the Late Bronze Age states. Goetze. of a date earlierthan the IronAge.146 at one time they were part of a spoken language.not only ignoresthe at evidence the Hittitetexts.A. Three caves in westernPamphylia the only exception. Korinthos. who used this type of place-name. in Rhodes. Orumanthos ?. not a single one can be shown to have been founded before the Middle Iron Age (beginning c.'52 The suggestion that the Early Helladic people.and -nd. 154A. Lauranthia?. because related names in Anatolia are confined to geographical and personal names. classical and Byzantine sources for reconstructing conditions earlier than the classical period. For. issued by one of the kings of Kizzuwadna.e. xix. Ussa. Tylissos. F. third and second millennium from material drawn from classical sources seems to me a most unreliable procedure. 151 I wholeheartedly agree with most of A. are Excavations at Xanthus. the Lugga and citiesI wouldlocateeitherin the hills west of the lattercountry Ankara the edge of the plateau and or.

tes A.and -nddisputed.. Aegean West. Forrer. an Indo-European language. 16 JCS 7 (1953) 68ff.2ioo B. and its chief exponent. 1e2 Orientalia 25 (1956) 138. Numerous texts show type (and extramural burial)with thatof the -ss.x8oo x55AOF 16 (1951) 20-21. The eastern limit of the place-names in -ss.Not onlyin culture butalsoin language. Luwian."' This language must have been spoken by the bearers of the Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age cultures.c. Two strong arguments can be brought forward against this theory. Sommer."8At present. Like Hattic.and -nd.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 23 mately that they are to be sought in Southwestern Anatolia and in Cilicia respectively. the river Marassanda and perhaps also Zip. but they can be reduced to two schools of thought. at a date prior 1650 B.millennium in Southern Anatolia. Sommer. that this estimate to the EarlyBronze and is probably too low.. map 3). at home there and it is from this region that Hurone cannothelp beingstruckby the remarkablerian and Luwian influence reached the Hittites in similarity of distribution. the non-Indo-European Hattic (Hattili). Other scholars like H. Hethiter und Hethitisches. . A glance at the map (pl. Laroche. 158s Giiterbock. Ninassa. shortly after Crete. lay on the road from Kanesh Greece.different from Hattic. 157Represented by A. NAMES AND OF THE E. and the West and South of Anatolia. H. shows a very significant distribution. known of that language to exclude the possibility that our names belonged to it."s6 This region. ern Anatolia appear to have been closely related. including Cilicia (part of it until c. With the exception of the name of the Halys. enough is the later centuries of the E."63Recent discoveries in Mesopotamia"6' to the HittiteandGreek in invasions. Sommer. ately east of Cilicia. the location of which is devoid of any place-names ending in -ss. 159 F.names are of Hattic origin. Zur grammatikalishenund lexikalischen Beszimmung des Luvischen (Berlin 1953) 11o-1xI. another non-Indo-Europeanlanguage. Landsberger (Luwian I)."55 Indo-European substratum. thus drawn with the exclusion of any names later than the second millennium B. Th. as early as Alalakh VII. Represented by F. and Anatolia suggest. Otten. 13-16.and -nd. H.the Cyclades.known from Late Bronze Age sources coincides almost precisely with that of the West Anatolian culture province.Recueil d'onomastiqueHittite (Paris 1952) 73c. already mentioned was spoken outside Central Anatolia. Indo-Europeanl5or non-Indo-European. Kizzuwatna. are to palanda586 probably be locatedis archaeo.A. E. as at Kanesh itself.that Luwian. in Anatolia and the Aegean. B.)at the end of the Early Bronze Age."'oshows a nonwhere east of Aksaray.B. 156 E. Goetze.'62 and incidence theinevitable conclusion thatthese The introduction of Hurrian into Kizzuwadna is to the relatedpeople or (Cilicia) was formerly attributed to the period after place-names belonged of Chalcidicethe fall of the Hittite Old Kingdom. c. the language spoken in the second to Purushattum is therefore be located and to some. where logically unsurveyed and it is not impossible that Hurrian.These arguments disprove the theory that our placerassa. Ma. the Marassanda. was also and -nd. 60eo 181H. Jean. would assign these names to the pre-Hittite language of Central Anatolia. I.C.strongly established in the Amuq plain. immedithe and religion.the 14th and 13th centuries B. defined above.the related name of a city Marassa. E. the Hattic area is Ninassa and Zippalanda.Although they are common in Cilicia. TO WHAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE DO THESE NAMES BELONG? Widely divergent opinions have been expressed about the language to which these names belonged. where Purushanda. This cannot be mere co. Goetze. POPULATION OF WESTERN AND SOUTHERN ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN HURRIAN AND THE OTHER LANGUAGES OF KIZZUWADNA Hurrian was not the only language spoken in the Comparing the distribution map of the Early Bronze Age cultures of West Anatolian and Aegean Late Bronze Age in Cilicia. for Hurrian elements are Age. Laroche. Ninassa.c. otherwords. no names of -ss..c.type are found and there is no evidence whatsoever that Hattic in the land of Hatti. the consensus of opinion is in favour of the latter view. do not commit themselves to any definite statement. Semitica I (1948) 17ff. let alone in in the Kultepe II texts.B. peoples Greece. Bossert. Hurrian COINCIDENCE OF DISTRIBUTION OF THESE PLACEwas not found in Western Anatolia or the Aegean. however.C. Orientalia 25 (1956) 138.A. G. F. With a mountain Arnuwandaand the cult centres of the exception of one or two. 75. was West Anatolian influences were also felt here in spoken in the second millennium B.

s178AOF 15 (1951) 18. 166Relative chronologies in old world archaeology (Chicago 1954) 75.C.c.lsl who might easily have adopted it from Kizzuwadna.c. JCS 5 (1951) 131.A. 174Belleten 18. .C.c.c. Kizzuwatna. Kizzuwatna. a clay stamp-seal. Had the Luwians arrived later than the Hurrians.174 has some possible hieroglyphs painted on it and it may be significant in this context to mention that A. A graffito from the neighsite of 9ivril. 62.71 There is no evidence to disprove that the Anatolian hieroglyphs were invented for writing Luwian. not Luwian.24 B. Siegeln aus Boghazi•y I (1940) 24. Wiseman has shown that by this date the century B. 176 JCS 8 (1954) 74ff.B..C. Archaeologically there is no evidence for a real break such as might indicate the arrival of newcomers after 2100 B.B. The first use of Anatolian hieroglyphs and Luwian by the Hittites seems to go back to Suppiluliuma. the study of Luwian and of the language written in Anatolian hieroglyphs has made great progress and more and more scholars have come to the conclusion that the latter represents a Luwian dialect. Th. I. around 2100 B. The Alalakh tablets (London 1953) 9. If one maintains that the place-names ending in -ss. Bossert in Le Museon 68 (1955) 6Iff. p. 175 Language 29 (1953) 263ff and 30 (I954) no. Giiterbock.170was theirs. In recent years. is of considerable interest. whose people are known to have spoken Luwian in the so-called Hittite Empire period (c. possibly contemporary with the Kiiltepe Ib period. 171E. Wiseman..'76 The texts appear to be mainly of Kiiltepe II date. which at Beycesultan belongs to the II or I period (13-I2th century B. king of Kizzuwadna.C.III civilization of Cilicia. 177ibid.. G..1450-Ii8o0 B.180 with the name of the king in the outer border and is the earliest example of the use of both languages on the royal seal. fig.C. Goetze's theory that of the two elements Luwian is the earlier one.168 It is therefore impossible not to agree with A. 64 and discussion 62f.B."7 This shows that the Hurrians formed the ruling class and were consequently latecomers in comparison with the Luwians. no trace178 at Cilicia! THE LANGUAGE WRITTEN IN ANATOLIAN HIEROGLYPHS J. 169A. Goldman.'66 In the Late Bronze Age the state religion and the names of kings and queens are Hurrian. date in level VI at Beycesultan.e. but both A. c. note 4.C. Goetze. 170 H. 167 See note 163. Tarsus II. Goldman very plausibly suggests that the arrival of a new culture in Cilicia. whose links are with the Amuq. Beycesultan lies almost certainly in the region occupied in the second millennium B. H. which can be dated from c. It again falls mainly within the area occupied by the West Anatolian culture province in the E. P. 9. to which the pot with the hieroglyphs belongs. D.I550 This seal also has a cuneiform inscription B. 168 There is a transition from Middle to Late Bronze Age in Cilicia. belonging to the 20th century B.i85o-i800 B. 73ff. Landsberger remarked that in slightly later texts. suggesting that Hurrian influence was not of a very recent date. the Luwian element becomes stronger. with the exception of the Northwestern corner of Anatolia.) shows that Anatolian hieroglyphs were still in use there at the end of the Late Bronze the Arzawa states. however. 8off and 128. found at Kiiltepe in the Ib level (c. The next hieroglyphic inscription in date is the seal of Isputahsus. Giiterbock in Orientalia 25 (1956) 138: H. 8.).A. G. there is. 3. Iso MDOG 73. no. Goetze has been able to trace unmistakable Indo-European elements among the personal names on the tablets from Kanesh: an earlier element which he calls Kaneshite. the Cilician Middle Bronze Age. 181 H. On the other hand. Goetze and B.79 a contemporary of the Hittite king Telepinus. 179 AJA 40 (1946) 2Io.'73 scratched on a part of a bouring plate.. JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 Amuq was predominantly Hurrian in population. Not a single example of this writing was found in a Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age (Hattic) site. 71 (i954) 380.c. and p. A pot. The distribution of inscriptions in Anatolian hieroglyphs in the second millennium B.'65H. marked the beginning of Hurrian expansion into Cilicia.'69 This implies that the Luwians were the pre-Hurrian population of Cilicia and that the West Anatolian E. they would have to be put before 2400 B. MDOG 75.)."' Of Nasili.and -ndare non-Indo-European. Laroche in BiOr (Bibliotheca Orientalis) 11 (1954): H. All the monuments of 172See photograph in The Times of 31/8/1956. was found in a sealed deposit of late E. 173s AnatStud 5 (I955) 80. i. one might have expected the very reverse.with what has been recognized as Anatolian hieroglyphs by two scholars.C.172 dating to approximately the 2oth 165 D. Tarsus II (Princeton 1956) 349.'75 and a later one related to or identical with Luwian. Goldman. 33.2400-2I00 B.

From this is given. includes all Iron Age monuments.and -nd."86 The absence of any monuments of this nature in Luwia. in turn influenced Crete. Th. B.Kukkullis Malazitis. Luwian and Istanuwan are probably near of the Luwian language. Otten. The distribution of Luwian.2000).1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 25 this kind found in Central Anatolia appear to have THE LUWIAN PROBLEM been erected by the Hittites. Anatolia. One can interpret this fact as purely nega. Anatolia may be significant. Boghazkoy. is mentioned only in the Hitcorresponding dearth of -nd. having been conquered by them at some time of Ahhiyawa. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. and the Luwian states further south or other. Tasqi.deities in cities which formed part of the Hittite ence in language between this region. developed a hieroglyphic script Hittites and governed by their own kings. come from Kizzuwadna. . Goetze's new translation in J.182 There is no proof Before discussing the date of the first appearance whatsoever that the monuments of Karabel and Mt. of which the provenance elements of this type in N.tion of the Arzawa states in Southwestern Anatolia. Otten suspects same applies to the uninscribed monuments of the scribes of Hattusas of applying the term luwili Fassiler and Eflatun Pinar near Beyqehirand Gavur rather loosely to a variety of Indo-Europeandialects: Kalesi. but Huwassana of Hupisna. on the other hand. southwest of Ankara.Luwiya. The few Luwian texts (or absence of Anatolian hieroglyphs and place-names rather parts of rituals in which certain passages are of the -ss.ning of the Hittite Empire. Io9f. Gelb. however. c. such as either. and the differ. 187 A.~184 needed at the Hittite court. Istanumnili-the language of the town of the monuments with inscriptions in Anatolian Istanuwa-and a kind of Luwian mixed with hieroglyphs.cit.I700). 186 H. Firaktin. par. for there is a language is derived.Asia.'19 This city is said to have been conindicates that only a branch emigrated. if taken as an indication of the use Hittite. 107f. which were practically independent of the Greek invasion. 93f. We may just note that the latter are not ern Luwian regions under Hittite control.type may indicate a real lack of read or sung in Luwian). It is therefore hardly surprising that nearly may explain the absence of the Anatolian hiero. Bossert. Ancient Near Eastern Texts (1955) 188. which also. 30. the apparent Hittite Empire period. the country from which the name of the N. ibid. 4. which is no longer mentioned in the dom of Ahhiyawa. untouched by the Arzawa. we locate the king.all the Luwian texts available come from the eastglyphs. The work on the Luwian language. with A. We might quered by Labarna.names in that tite law code. 104-114. General agreement has been reached on the locainvented somewhere in southern Anatolia for writ. the kingdom state. is of great significance as enough to be considered as dialects of the same it confirms the few references to the language of language. Arzawa takes the place of Luwia. The along the same lines in the Middle Minoan Ia Hittites had therefore no obligations to the gods period (c. 190 2Bo TU 23. op. Hittite Hieroglyphic monuments. Goetze. 105 with p. Hanyeri etc. of the Luwians we must consider the evidence of Sipylus near Izmir and Karadagh and Kizildagh the Hittite texts. Karakuyu.cit. On the other hand.l88 Other texts area.'99It must be borne in mind therefore expect that some form of Greek survived that most of these rituals belong to the cult of there into the second millennium.8s7 In a tive evidence. 19. See map in I. Emirghazi. Crete. Otten. 189op. 18s4 185 H. which dates from before the beginsame area.C. In the conclusion of his standard near Karaman were set up by the Hittites. p. 28ff.183 of that town are otherwise known as Luwian. implythe absence of names in Hittite records referring to ing that Arzawa stood for or was part of the older this area where.W. the Middle Helladic invasion with Luwianisms relate to the cult of the goddess of the earliest Greek speaking elements came.and -ss. It is not impossible that the Anatolian hieroglyphs.W. the result of lack of exploration and duplicate.g.1450 B. Pritchard. cf.'s5H. and the gods mentioned in the rituals the powerful kingdoms of Arzawa and Assuwa. See ICS 8 (1954) 77-78. we have argued. which remained in use until Linear of Arzawa and no rituals for these parts were A took its place in the MM IIIb period (c. 5 and 19o. in the Ere'li district of the the continuation of the same culture after 1900oo Konya plain. 183Whose rulers have good Arzawan (Luwian) names: Piyama-Innaras. 188 H. rather found in Middle Helladic and Mycenaean Greece than from the western Luwian districts. ing Luwian. Zur grammatikalischen und lexikalischen Be- stimmung des Luvischen. At the height of their power the Arzawan kings 182 e.

AND -ND. Our interpretation of the arrival of the Hittites has been given above and the following discrepancies arise between the traditional theory and the archaeological evidence. 192 A. Arguments based on vocabulary alone are a poor guide to determining the character of the language to which these vocabulary words belong. Anatolian hieroglyphs were in use over the greater part of this area.and -nd. cultural elements into the Iron Age. Kleinasien (1933) 53ff. .19g00at any of the sites excavated in the south 191 H.und FriihgeschichteKleinasi5if. a non-IE. however. and the presence of Indo-European elements at Kanesh a century or so before the Hittite invasion. F. THE FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE LUWIANS There is a considerable controversy about the date at which the Luwians first appeared in Anatolia. Proc. Are they to be interpreted as the non-Indo-European substratum of that language. Phil.c. Grundziige der Vor. and Late Bronze Age in Southern Anatolia (except Cilicia). such as would have been noticed during our field surveys. There is no destruction c.A.names was still very much alive in the Iron Age. show conclusively that the traditional theory is out of date. Middle. could have entered the densely populated plains of Konya. 74 (1955) 122-130. and over the region where the kingdom of Assuwa should be sought. the classical and Hellenistic periods and surviving probably as late as the Roman Empire. Sommer and H. or are they remnants of a perhaps very archaic Luwian? The general opinion among philologists is that these names belonged to a non-Indo-European language. where he assumes closely related peoples to have lived before the arrival of the Greeks. These names are most frequent in the regions where Luwian is found in the Late Bronze Age. Luwians and Palaites is at variance with the archaeologicalrecord and such a theory must be abandoned. 97 (1953) 214-22. Goetze. Goetze. Amer. Bittel. or the Upper Maeander valley without leaving any trace of their entry or without meeting any resistance on the part of the local population. a vast area which may have corresponded to most of Luwia. From the archaeological side. There are no traces of refugee cultures or devastated (or deserted) areas. ARE THE NAMES ENDING IN -SS. K. A simultaneous arrival of Hittites. see Belleten 19. which we locate in the region near the Lake of Iznik. maintains that the Luwians inhabited western and southern Anatolia from some time in the third millennium and are to be identified with the people of the west Anatolian culture province. Moreover there is other evidence to show that the language which used -ss. F.'4 The numerous new founens (1950) 193 K. On the basis of linguistic evidence alone. Otten incline to the view that Hittites. Sommer. Hethiter uad Hethitisches."93Unfortunately too little was known about Southern Anatolia at that time to allow him to go further. Luwian must have been spoken there since the third millennium B. the traditional theory is badly in need of revision. nor any evidence whatsoever for a break in culture or the arrival of new elements of population. Otten has shown to be different from Hattic. unlike Hittites and Greeks. however. the only philologist who has attempted to combine linguistic and archaeological evidence.AND THEIR RELATIVES IN THE AEGEAN INDO-EUROPEAN OR NOT? This brings us back to the relation between -ssand -nd. As there is no break between the Early.B. op. which H. 194For the survival of L. This traditional view may be said to have held the field in the philological world. if we bring in the Luwians at approximately the same period. 17f. including the Aegean. is unrealistic. no.cit. more or less that of later Lydia. No people ever managed to infiltrate into Anatolia. Soc. Luwians and Palaites all entered Anatolia about the same time and took possession of different parts of the country. Bittel cautiously reviewed the evidence at the end of the last war and expressed the opinion that a chronological priority of Luwians in the third millennium was not impossible archaeologically. 91f. The chances of population (or rather of ruling class) in Cilicia described above. north of the Cilician gates) to Millawanda. Cilicia. To imagine that the Luwians.names and the Indo-European languages of the third millennium.26 JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 ruled from Tuwanuwa (near Bor.'92 His opponents deny any priority to the Luwians and hold that no Indo-European languages were known in Anatolia before the early second millennium. In the light of the new discoveries in recent years.'"' A. Otten.

201 So H. Olbassos. Sommer. (Mount) Tiwatassas Anatolia if they were there alreadyin the later and Pitassas."'9 geo. 81. etc. but not necessarilyidentical. Myriandos etc.g. etc. not before the Hellenistic Age. Sagalassos.its use is incomparably Luwian.c. in various dialects or descendants. Hattus of the Cappadociantexts becomes Hattusas. Tiwatas the Luwian Sun God and As we have attempted to show that the names the city Petasis known by itself. the -ss.evidence for a real break in the development of of das-Tarhintissas.and -nd. Halikarnassos. Luwian shows indeed a peculiarity. Kaduanda.names. both in Anatoliaand Greece. Sincethesenamescan be shownto datewell back ready extinct in the countrythey come from.names must have been an integral into the thirdmillennium. in Southern Anatolia offer an Arzawan king of the land of the River ?eia irrefutable proof that the languageto which these and Rhadamanthys (Radamandus)is the name of names belongedwas still a spokenlanguagein the a legendaryking of Crete.Asia. "belongingto. the name of an Arzawanking of Wilusa. theHittitesalsomakeuseof thisform.and sessive.. Aspendos (Estwendos). e. note Io4.208 only is Not Both groups cannot be separated. from which the Hittites may have bor. PRE-GREEK LANGUAGES IN THE AEGEAN (land of the city) Pitas.205 In the 195e. Bossert. 20SAnatStud 6 (1956) I18ff.Masduri. 14. raisestwo unparalleled in Hittite and Greek.Very similarnames can be found A. Hethiter und Hethitisches."96 settlers so"is no longersurprising the simplicity the As of and in a new areado not name cities in a languageal. and Atanassos.200 Hattusas and language there. as yet is to thosein -nd-. Goetze has producedan Indo-European etyall over southernAnatoliain areaswhere Luwian mology202for Tarhundas. Termessos. S. etc. exwas spokenin the secondmillenniumand personal plaining -andasas IE -want. 202 ICS 8 (1954) 80. 200 Unless this is a different process. Uruwandas. Salluwandas Sallawassas. 144ff. .an adjectival endingin -assisor -assas. classicalperiod. there is no derivations them are found in -ss-. 199F. 164. etc. Recueil d'onomastique Hittite.'*" Other parallels ending in -ssas and -ndas in Anatolia are part of are legion.there a great rebuilding of the palaces on a more sonal names of this type are not rare. Th. H. Pendlebury. are easily explainedas (land of centuresof the thirdmillenniumB.Mycaleand Mycalessos. Tarhun. Laroche. Giiterbockin Orientalia 25 (1956) 128. Crete and the Cyclades also indicates the use of a Parnassos. 12o. other cases the same word Minoan civilization. and During the second millennium B.199 related. 197 Orientalia 25 (1956) 119. Arycanda. the othertwo languagesuse a genitive. Xanthos.Alaksandus pottery to wheel-made plain wares204 an influx and Sandas. e. Dattas was a Luwian WeatherGod. The Archaeology of Crete (London 1939) 158f. all meaning"of so-and-so" "belonging so-andor to survivedwell into the RomanEmpire.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 27 in dations of cities with names of this type195 the yandushas the -andusending addedto Masturi(s). Many of these were founded in the Iron Age.C. the Parnaand use of related names in Early Helladic Greece.explanationis most convincing. and when did the Luwians arrivein The graphical names Dattassas. unified plan. Olbassos.20'Names endingin -ss-are closelyrelated LMII in Linear A (both undeciphered). tical. D. this language.during the MM I-IIIaperiod and from MM problems:the relationof Luwian to the lanwhere guages in the Aegean which also used the -ss. Atana an early Indo-European language (Luwian). the use of a so-calledpos. Indo-European Although sometimes in place-names. innovationsin the MM IIIb period.g. first millennium B. Oinoanda.? the god) Dattas.Not only is their distribution iden. 19e CS 8 (I954) 74-81. table x. but there is a change from the painted are is Uruwandas Luwiangods.Luwian of some archaic kind must have been spoken in Anatolialong bepart of Luwian.of new and more advanced metal types. This conclusion fore the Hittitesarrived. Isinda. Telmessos.etc. but they appearto be of the same date. 198JCS 1o (1956) 79. etc.-nd. (Mountainof the god) Tiwatas. G. others like Sagalassos. 127-x29 and references cited there. Whether this was the same lanlike morecommonin guage which was written in Cretan hieroglyphs Hakpisas.impossibleto say." If he names of Luwian derivationshow that the use of is right the extensivedistributionof place-names.c. E. 205 ibid.. but there are signs of great In and shows both endings.g. In each case the part to which the ending (-as?) is attached is probably of Hattic origin. Myriandos.e. 204J.g. Tarhundas.Moreoverper.

the new Linear A script spread all names in the tablets which can be exactly paralleled over the island. Luwian.numerous imported vessels show. and of Greeks in Northwestern Anatolia the years around 1400 B. Whether this was remained behind in this region.207 The syllabic nature of the Linear B script is so unsuitable208 writing Greek that one can WHEN DID THE FIRST INDO-EUROPEAN ELEMENTS for deduce with confidence that the earlier language(s) ENTER ANATOLIA AND THE AEGEAN? written with such a system (presumably in Linear We have traced the earliest Greeks and Luwians A). only should be located. the cause of which can be estabc. Some of these changes When one remembers that Luwian names in -ssbetray cultural influence from Southwestern Ana. Anatolian hieroglyphs absent.and -nd.where they came from. Blegen. 104. On the other hand in Anatolia to the later centuries of the Early one cannot go as far as maintaining that the earlier Bronze Age and the next question which must be language cannot have been Indo-European on the raised is whether they were native there or whether evidence of the script alone.archaeology suggests that a branch of the Greeks zation of the Minoan kingdoms.28 JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 field of writing. and tain that these languages were not the first ones the Mycenaean civilization has at last lost its ano. 32.c.2500oo 206 208Documents in Mycenaean Greek. In the Linear B script we may see a readaptation Troy is the one city known in Northwestern Anaof the earlier Linear A script for the purpose of tolia that kept up some form of contact with Middle writing a different language.1900oo a millennium between the earliest records and the The type of culture associated with the earliest arrival of the Greeks at the beginning of the Middle Luwians in Cilicia and in the upper Maeander Helladic period. It need hardly be mentioned that form of Greek known. a trace of dialects such as distin. 31. among them names would have left some traces in the archaeological ending in -ss. for which we have no writing. ibid. we have shown the what is Greek and what is not remains to be de. and shows affinities to the philology cannot help us here and we are therefore East Greek dialects of later times. 211 C. .206whereas before it seems to have in Homer are born by Trojans or their allies. but the exact proportion of records. Mycenaean Greek contains Greece. W. The nymity. 16ff.are rare in the Northwestern corner of tolia and the arrival of small bodies of aristocratic Anatolia.2400termined.the arrival of the first Luwians. where Ahhiyawa accompanied by a change of language as well. for Hittite.c. 207 ibid. For what it is worth. and that warriors may have led to a more efficient reorgani. selves "Akhaiwoi" and spoke some form of Greek. Moreover.spoken in western and southern Anatolia. Greek.III (c. cannot have been Greek. we now know to be an early form of tance in Greek legend need hardly be emphasized. in the upper Maeander valley at Beycesultan of now being able to study the Greek language in c.23oo. lowing a catastrophe at the end of the Troy I we may mention that twenty out of fifty-eight period.B. providing a clue as to valley What the very earliest Greek was like in North. A non-Indo-European substratum. so far. 209 210oibid. In spite of the considerable advantage 2100).C. Ventris and his col. and the Greeks themselves in Anatolia. folshall probably never know. 67ff. By analogy with the this Mycenaean Greek is remarkably homogeneous Hittite and Greek migrations we can assume that without.210 been in use in Phaistos only.211and its imporlaborators. as the brilliant decipherment of M. present The decipherment of the Linear B script has in both Luwian and Greek. period. B. Working backwards.. thanks to the Helladic and especially Mycenaean Greece. fig. 73ff.and -nd-. many pre-Greek elements. their relatives in guished classical Greek. makes it virtually ceropened a new chapter in Aegean archaeology. this may just add one more arguthe decipherment of the hieroglyphs and Linear A ment to the theory that the "Trojans" called themcan show. Bolletino d'arte 3 (1956) Documents in Mycenaean Greek. this culture is western Anatolia in the late third millennium we itself an innovation in Northwestern Anatolia.. Troy II. they had immigrated at some even more remote and Pala were written in such scripts. is West Anatolian. there is still nearly half before B.presence of Luwians in Cilicia in E. c. which.209It is clear that dependent on archaeology. question then arises when they could have arrived The language written in Linear B is the earliest and from where. 46 b.

somewhat tentative. For the Mound culture. or sailed off to Chalcidice and Macedonia. which. Further west.212an offshoot of West Anatolian civilization. map 3. Claros. What happened to the old population we can only guess. 70. 79ff. Hilyilcek near Larisa. Macedonia. Following roughly the same pattern as the Aegean migration. took its place. PKG 1427ff. where they settled around the Saronic and Argolid gulf as the first Early Helladic settlers c. Excav. Gaul. to expand southwards across the Balkan range into Eastern Bulgaria.g. In the fertile Maritza valley. For the Veselinovo culture. including probably most of the island population. Institut 65/66 221 Troy 1. 216Preh. 215 BSA 23 (I918/I9) 44ff. . and except at Veselinovo itself. Die Altesten Kulturen Griechenlands 224 e. flourishing on the lower Danube in Southern Rumania. which was immediately rebuilt by the survivors. 47. elements from the West Bulgarian and Serbian uplands218 brought the curious Rakhmani culture to Northern Thessaly. For neolithic elements in it ibid. 226 Preh. from Plovdiv to the Black Sea. AnatStud 6 (1956) 45ff. Elements of this V. the country from which their culture had originally come at the beginning of the Troy I period some two hundred and fifty years before. 43. may have joined the seaborne invaders and led them through the Northern Cyclades. unknown forces caused the Gumelnitza culture. 158. 227 fig. Hiiyiicek near Bozkoiy etc. the only one by which the first Indo-European languages could have been introduced. 39. Thessaly. esp. culture reached northern Thessaly. as it is often called in Bulgaria. About the middle of the third millennium B. where they picked up elements of the Syros group. 22. at Olynthus I. 218AnatStud 6 (1956) 47. 217 F. as far as we know. Bayrakli.C.213 the Gumelnitza or Mound culture. MilojWid. F.1381withliterature D. of course. The repercussionsof this invasion on both Greece and Northwestern Anatolia were profound and may be compared to the so-called Aegean migration. op. but it has the advantage of combining the results of archaeological research with a plausible migration of Indo-European elements from an area which has always been considered as the possible homeland of the Indo-European language. possibly by sea. Vinca etc. map 4) will be described in chronological order. With the exception of Poliochni and Troy. op. led to the destruction of the Bronze Age cultures of the Aegean and Anatolia in the 12th century B..226 Others. 82. 2. To facilitate reading. to an end by this invasion.221 Thermi Emporio in Chios suffered the same fate. Mylonas. MilojiW.215 spreading westward to Chalcidice216 and eastward to Komotini. was overrun.225but every other site of this coastal culture. succeeding the Gumelnitza elements. Chronologie der jiingeren Steinzeit Mittel und Sildost-Europas(Berlin I949) 6off. 32ff. For the Gumelnitza culture see V. 48f. 45 (from JHS 74). 133 (Kritsana) and 155. who established themselves at Dikilitash in Western Thrace. some no doubt remained and were enslaved. starting from approximately the same area.222 was hastily fortified and then deserted. nos. H.c. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Arch. no.cit. thoseof OkolGlava.cit.220 What happened is clear: Troy I was stormed and burnt. where they founded an Early Bronze Age culture of Troy I (or IIa) type. G. Die Jltesten Kulturen Griechenlands (Stuttgart 1955) I24f. to the East coast of Greece. the Veselinovo culture. Tigani. Macedonia. The interpretation here offered is. vi..223 and a score of other sites came to an abrupt end at the same time. 49ff.217 The late neolithic culture of Macedonia and Thrace was put 212 For the chronology-see my article in AnatStud 7 (1957). but the bulk of the emigrants headed south towards Northwestern Anatolia.224 Only Poliochni on Lemnos seems to have weathered the storm. P. 223 Thermi. AA (1955) 184f. 128-30 (Giumenitza). and J. p. suffered invasion. The neolithic period in Bulgaria (1948) 83ff.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 29 lished with a fair degree of accuracy as an invasion of Bulgaria and the north shore of the Aegean by northern elements from Rumania. PKG.227 (Stuttgart 1955)133. whether on the Anatolian mainland or on the islands off the coast.214The formidable Rhodope range separating the Maritza valley from the Aegean coastlands did not stop the invaders. 1381. The disaster which also overwhelmed the island sites shows that the invasion came by land and sea. 2251AJA58 (954) 240. 219Preh. Io09. this earlier movement of people from the Balkans into Greece and Anatolia is. our interpretation of the evidence (pl. others deserting their cities may have joined the invaders. 1443. The greater part of the area of the Veselinovo culture was overrun and its population forced south. 222 Archaeology in Greece 1952-53. AnatStud 7 (1957). 46f. iff. Schachermeyr. Schachermeyr. the break between the Troy I and II cultures is complete. 214 ibid.PKG.2500 B. 21o.219 This southward movement of the Gumelnitza culture had far reaching effects.c. See AJA 6o (1956) 376. see Gaul. 218 Crusted wares occur in the Gumelnitza culture and in and maps v. citedthere. 220o (I950/51) p.

236 A new culture. . the most important of which was a split between the coastal and the inland cultures.2400 B. but see AnatStud 7 (1957). the one-handled tankard. 239 On the evidence of the sherds collected by the writer since 1951.233 the most characteristic vessel of that culture. houses of "hall and portico" type. consisting of a framework of wooden beams filled with twigs.A. The newcomers had apparently only taken over the coastal regions. 33 (IIc). 329 and fig. the "TreasC. During the course of the Troy II period. Mellink in BiOr io (i953) 58f. hitherto only faintly noticeable (e.B. Schliemann's excavations. E. Dikaios. the so-called 230o frying-pans.232 may or may not be an improvement on the old Veselinovo shape. Bulgare 13 (1939) figs. imply an Anatolian origin. pl. late E.cit. Annuaire de la Bibliotheque Nat. Mikov in Bull.B. introduced by people from the Amuq."39 About 2300 B. 234Troy 1. 230. 8. fig.. which may suggest that their numbers were comparatively small. the most famous of which. even if somewhat diluted and obscured by Early Cycladic elements which are dominant at the beginning. PKG 1427b. 238Troy 1. and a change from darker to lighter colours as the result of improvements in firing.).. vI. such as is the case in the Macedonian Early Bronze Age. where gradually (Troy IIb-c) a new culture developed. io8.228 bowls and which appear before the end of the sauceboats.2400 and 2100 B. along the old trade route frequented since the middle of Troy I. The prosperity of Troy II under its new rulers is not only shown by the famous metalwork. In architecture there is one significant innovation: a framework of wooden beams is introduced in the mudbrick construction. At Tarsus in E. incised ware etc. p. incision. C. The arrival of the northernersindirectly produced a number of cultural changes in Northwestern Anatolia. the solid mud brick walls of Troy I-IIa and the Veselinovo tradition of wooden houses. 247. J. During the twentyfourth century B.235This "half-timber" construction is of importance. the Konya plain was gradually absorbedinto the area with a coastal west Anatolian culture. before it is replaced by the Middle Bronze Age.II (gate).30 JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 They seem to have mixed peacefully with the late neolithic local population. etc.g. pl." is introduced by the conquerors and a branch of them overran Cyprus.238 Cilician E.C. Gumelnitza. Cilicia is conquered by Northwest Anatolian elements and Tarsus burnt. as it is associated with a coastal (N. Goldman's "Trojan phase. the so-called megara. Blegen. 22. fig. Mikov. et de Plovdiv ('937-39) Unatzite.c. the conquerors must have come by sea. H. 232Troy 1. such as slipped and burnished wares. 229See note 220. Khirokitia.284 This has not been found before Troy IIb and it is not impossible that this type of construction is a blend of two techniques. 2*8 ures" found by Schliemann. 231 See especially M. but also by the great fortifications of Troy IIb and especially IIc. from which the use of wheelmade pottery was adopted.230 There is no question here of a simple transplantation of Anatolian culture.231whereas the inland culture of Yortan remained unaffected.III: Tarsus II. 41. The change in culture is undoubtedly partly due to trade with Cilicia.B.. The Early Helladic I culture has no strong links with its late neolithic predecessor and appears to have been introduced by the newcomers.B. 233 (late Veselinovo). 258 (IIb). AA (I943) 70ff (Gumelnitza levels).W.) Anatolian culture wherever it is subsequently found. beam-construction. putting to an end the Chalcolithic cultures and initiating the Early Cypriote period with the Philia-Vasilia phase. who no doubt adopted the culture of the subject population. brushwood and covered with mud plaster. the so-called depas amphikypellon or two-handled cup. such as mirrors. 233 V. Most of its features. Zygouries. tubular lugs of rather degenerate type. Schuchhardt. 35-36 in E. None of these changes can be ascribed to the newcomers.III period contact with western Anatolia is maintained and soon after the arrival of the E.. W. All during the E..237"' Northwest Anatolian pottery. 237 P. 12.c. 347f. 12 (post du Musee Nat. between Troy I and Yortan). From the Syros culture.III. and partly the outcome of a local process already apparent in the previous period involving a gradual substitution of handles for lugs. etc. and as the neighbouring areason the plateau remained for the time being unaffected by this change. About the middle of the Troy II period.III goes through some seven phases between c.C.Troy IIg is destroyed in a great 235 V.III culture it started expanding onto the Anatolian plateau. op. new shapes appear.B. indicate a change of population. Iv. 249.229 period. fig.B. c.B. Construction in wood seems to have been normal in Bulgaria. a diminishing popularity of incised ware. and the use of vertical wooden beams reinforcing the antae (parastades). de l'Institut Arch. 238 Tarsus 11.

and the low standard of culture for the next which follow this culture develops without a break two centuries may be a reflection of their conquest.C. was Luwians and their mysterious Aegean relatives. a new type of spindle whorl and the stroyed Troy II and settled in Northwestern Ana.2300 B. during the this period and the obvious conclusion is that Troy III period. H. 236 (C 30 shape. first occurring in IIg) and 239 (D 13 lid.e.243 Possibly they de.importing wheel-made bowls and plates from Cilicia cussions. 18. Troy 1. XIV semblances to contemporary buildings in the west 240 Troy 1. ocas some of the anthropomorphic vessels of the casional wheel-made pottery. after 1900. Under pressure.c.C. Kiiltepe.244The influence of unchanged to the present day. i.. . 243J. During the long centuries tolia. it had reached Polatli. Gaul. The fall of Troy II c. the next two citadels are extraordinarily poor west. Although Troy The Kastamonu region was reached either from the lagged behind. then in IIg). 133. also. 241 246 The latest pottery of the old type in this area can be linked to that of Beycesultan XIII. 46f.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 31 conflagration. 11.cit. 244 Troy 11. During the following centuries they be. with "protonorth and the ugly face-urns show the same spirit minyan" shapes.struction of Beycesultan XIII leaves little doubt that tinue till Troy V. a series of of pottery. It is noticeable that silverware led to the production of elegant grey the break between the old and new civilizations at ware vessels and east of the Troad the first Grey Tarsus and Beycesultan is much more abrupt than Minyan ware is produced.. introducing that the rich city had excited barbarians in the a variant of the Troy III culture. Curiously barbarous pottery.. the so-called destruction is unknown in the first two cases. destructions follow each other rapidly from the interpreted as a temple or palace.240no doubt the result of enemy and XIII are all burnt. Anatolian culture. op.Afyon-Emirghazi area. 223f. become typical of Troy III and con. (Polatli II). they were to carry tains that the land of Pala is probably to be located westward to Greece. hardly any two-handled cups. 248AnatStud I (1951) 33. 246 (C 30) and 248 (D 13). 207.LXII. About 2200 B. 1956. At Beycesultan. Inegil.247Level and there can be no doubt that Troy had suffered XII at Beycesultan marks the beginning of a new some great reverse of fortune.W. figs. 245 stForsch 6 (1955) 59. the maritime culture expanded megaron-like building with a central round hearth.230oo B. 242Troy 11. but whereas the cause of action. like Eskisehir region or direct from the west by a Tavsanli. and the half timber construction survives vival of culture in that region. who can only have been Luwians. 250 The Times. Greek speaking elements were present in the area During the twenty-third century.249It is in those northern mounMinyan ware. c. shows many remiddle of Troy II onwards.250In construction this great building. etc. 132. the face-urns.c. Dec. rival of the Palaites there. where the old cultures disap. pl. Beycesultan XV. K6prii*ren. and the earlier invaders were almost certainly the the great Central Anatolian city of Kanesh. the expansion of the new west by their arrival was the cause of the destruction of Anatolian culture continued eastward over the Troy II. which.242After the destruction of Troy the city was conquered by newcomers from the II.tury B. the eastern cities of this group.24'appear first at Troy at the end of the complete break in culture which follows the desecond citadel. exercised by the arrival or the Konya plain. It is not impossible culture in the upper Maeander valley. until the end of the Bronze Age in the XIth cenBy the beginning of Troy V there is a general re. developed the similar movement.half-timber construction. red polished and redMound culture of Bulgaria. 249AnatStud 6 (I956) 188. We have shown that at Troy. and by the beginning of the came gradually more civilized and adopted the Troy IV period. LV-LVII.sleeping platforms along The same happens in Samos and the modified parallel for which in Anatolia was found in the pear.wash wares. version of the coastal civilization at home in the roughly contemporary VIIIth building level at Hermos (or lower Maeander) valley penetrates Beycesultan) shows that the cultural influence of the basin of the upper Maeander.248 local N. eastward to the Ineg6l-Iznik region245 and the surrounded by four columns and benches and the walls (the closest Kiitahya246 region.2200 B. where the old western Anatolia was not confined to the import cultures are destroyed.C. which came to an end c. the appearanceof a great of the newcomers. first occurring in IId. 247 See "BeycesultanExcavations" in AnatStud 7 (I957).had some reper. There is no alternative for the and this influx of westerners may indicate the ararrival of the Greeks into this area before 1900oo.

culture expands First Greek speaking elements invade N. BRITISH INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ANKARA 252 MDOG 86 (i953) hazk6y. as Hattic did to Hittite.H. founding Early Bronze Age there 2500 Luwians arriveby land and sea in the maritime province of the Troy I culture and destroy it Earlier. By the beginning of the Troy V period c.W. At Beycesultanthey destroy the old non-IndoEuropeancivilization Arrival of Early Helladic I culture with Syros elementsin EasternGreece Northwest Anatolian elements invade Cilicia 24oo00 and found E.III culturethere. Earliest appearanceof "protominyan" wares in BeycesultanXII .The practice of extramural burial was continued. stretching with remarkable uniformity from the Aegean and the Sea of Marmora to the Salt Lake and Cilicia. see note 41. remains unknown.Movementof Troy I or IIa culture into Mace2450 donia. TENTATIVE HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION First Indo-European elements. E.The same culturearrivesin regions and in Inegil-Iznik.C. dates B. those of Yortan and Kusura B. Tavsanli-Kiitahya Samos. M. Othersinitiate E.. Rhodopeinto coastal Thrace (Dikilitash) and Chalcidice.252 Who the bearers of the pre-Indo-Europeancultures of Western and Southern Anatolia and the Aegean were.II. One of those formed the substratum of Luwian. II Eastern Crete and E.B. but where that was acquired-in Thrace before c.2100oo the last independent West Anatolian cultures B.2300.non-Indo-European refugeesfrom Troy I area settle in Macedonia First Indo-Europeanelement "Aegeans" with non-IE refugees from N. the uniformity of this culture province is so unique in Anatolian archaeology that one is justified in suspecting the presence of a contributory factor.251 became absorbed into the new West Anatolian culture province. but it is very probable that they spoke a variety of non-IndoEuropean languages. Anatolia from Thrace and oust Luwians from that region? Luwians move eastward under pressure from the newly arrived Greeks and move up onto the Anatolian plateau and into Samos. Osmankaya cemetery at Bog- ARCHAEOLOGICALDATA Approx. of the old type ensconced in the mountains.32 JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 and once more employs a framework of wooden beams. Hittites.partly ousted from their homeland. such as IndoEuropean speech and a similar social structure among the upper classes. and the non-IE elements in Greek again suggest a substratum.I. Anatolia and the Cyclades settle in eastern Greece LuwiansconquerCilicia and related(?) people settle in Cyprus Another wave of "Aegeans"reachesCrete and reinforcesthe original immigrantsinto Greece. in Northwestern Anatolia before 900oo or in Greece after that date-remains to be solved by future research. Luwians and their Aegean relatives. 37ff.H.c. who arrived in Central Anatolia several hundred years later by the eastern route. period in Cyprus West Anatolian influenceon E.C. Greece 2400 2300 Destructionof Troy II and subsequentdecline in cultureduring Troy III and IV period 2300 Destruction of BeycesultanXIII and introduction of new culture.emigrateto the south and southwest 2500 Gumelnitza culture expands into the Maritza valley of Bulgariaand acrossMt. In spite of local variations. and it is of interest that the 251 At Kusura the introduction of the new wares was preceded by destruction. also appear to have favoured this type of burial. Veselinovo culture overrun and foreign elements arrivein northernGreece 2500 Destruction or desertion of nearly all sites of Troy I period in coastalNorthwesternAnatolia 2500.W.II.

founds the Hittite Old Kingdom. c. Gulf of Pagasae and Boeotia in Central Greece. arrive in Kizzuwadna.e. king of Kussara. . Yortan and Kusura B absorbed.1958] 2200 END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA West Anatolian cultures penetrate west Anatolian tableland. king of Kussara. Conquest of Nesa 1820 ff. Kusura burnt 200oo E. ends in destruction. from where they spread over Attica and the Peloponnese. around end of 20th century B. a non-Indo-European people. and subsequent movements of refugees westward Invasion of the eastern part of the Greek region by refugees and enforced emigration of part of the Greek speaking population by sea to Chalcidice and North-central Greece. establishing themselves as a ruling class over the Luwian population Immigration of the Hittites from the east. Pithana.B. west of Ankara Similar movement penetrates Kastamonu area AND AEGEAN 33 Further eastward push of the Luwians Arrival of the Indo-European elements in Pala Last strongholds of non-Indo-Europeans absorbed into the Luwian area 2100 Last independent culture provinces in Western Anatolia.c. Crete and Thessaly Immigration of West Greek elements which eventually find their way to Epirus. Wave The Hurrians. Iznik region and in Chalcidice. king of Kussara. from where it spread southward and westward.III culture of Cilicia ends with arrival of new people from the east bringing painted pottery of the Cilician Middle Bronze Age 900oo Kanesh (Kiiltepe) II. Destruction of Beycesultan V The Hittites "inherit" the kingdom of the kings of Kussara. Establishment of the supremacy of Kussara over Central Anatolia Labarna. Conquest of Hattus. Labarna's war against Arzawa 1750 ff. Aetolia and Acarnania of devastation from east.i85o-I800. reaching Polatli. Cyclades. Anita. i. Survival of old Indo-European population in Cyclades. Crete and Thessaly unaffected by this movement I900oo Grey Minyan arrives in Troad from Tavsanli- 900oo Abrupt end of Bulgarian Early Bronze Age cultures in Maritza valley I85o Kiiltepe (Kanesh) Ib period. Zalpa and Purushattum.


7. 8. = Kritsana R. = Rakhmani M destroyed or deserted site of Troy I type M ? possible destroyed or deserted site of the same period Map 2.... Limantepe 15. Key to numbered sites: I. Tigani 12.--?of>L.. =. . 0..c. Migrations c. IN WESTERN ANATOLIA. = DISTRIBUTION OF MINYAN WARES. lS. -Rio Map.. Postin Po? Baba . 4..G UMELNITZA C. = K.. E'rig6ltepe Gryneion 13. BEYCESULTAN e& ?50=.. ..• . 2500-2100 B. Ucpinar 18... 6. Orhaneli 19. Naipli 17.' 'PRU OREN K YORTAN A. Papazli Antissa Palaiokastro Perama Yeldegirmentepe 11. VI T ROY ~L3 78 1 6 1 NE 20 UYUCEKTEPE Go GL G0**L~23 AV ERMI24 RM N I' "M Ao .Dikilitash K. i r LARISA 13BAYRAKU EGRET . =Komotini D. Key to Bulgaria: B. a v 0 19 VESELINOVO C. = V. 9.. Kaiktepe 14..4'v' . I6. = M.. _. Cakirca 20. o.. Banjata Karanovo Veselinovo Mikhalits Greece: K. Hanaytepe 4.i .I -2aoo\ . Karaaga~tepe Qobantepe 3. Pekmezllh 2..CC -fo .. Besikatepe 5.

First three rows: Red "Protominyan" from Beycesultan.MELLAART PLATE 3 XI1 i xV Xil V II ViiII KOPRU"OREN nn 410 TAV)ANLI 0 5 1o 0C. Fig. I. Bottom row: Buff and red Minyan from Tavgarili . Fourth row: Grey Minyan bowl from K6prii6ren.