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

p. See AOF 15 (i95i) 20f. map iii. Bittel and H.'" and south of the river Halys. Burney.. B. Burney. Excavations in Azarbaijan. figs. Karao'lan. Otto. pl. 27 AA (1937) 17I. Observationson the chronological problems of the karum Kanesh (Ankara 1955) 41.A. x-xv.A. on the one hand."5 Among the many sites in the Kirsehir basin. The materials from her excavation and from a previous sounding made by L. p. For these see the article by D.. Delaporte are still unpublished. the destruction layers of the great mound of Acemk6y near Aksaray indicate a conflagration about 1900oo or a little later. Kleinasiatische Studien (Istanbul 1942) 193 and footnote 239. the plain of Eskisehir was studded with Early Bronze Age villages of the Demirci Hiiyiik culture.A. pl. 13 K. Burton Brown. is AA 54 (1954) 221. Its publication will have to wait until the excavations at the latter site are finished." 16 Information kindly supplied by the excavator Miss Halet Qambel. Further westward along the road from Erzerum to Sivas. W. 10 Ankara Universite Dil Tarih Cografya Dergisi 3 Fakuiiltesi (1945) 502. the knowledge of which is almost entirely drawn from its cemeteries. and at 8 Ankara Universite Dil Tarih Cografya Fakiiltesi Dergisi II (1953) 2o0ff. but the site is not reoccupied in the Middle Bronze Age. which demonstrate some disturbance in the northern half of Anatolia at the end of the Early Bronze Age.8 All these sites shared an East Anatolian E. 20 AnatStud I (I951) 57. 1955.22Further westward still. Stronach in AnatStud 7 (1957). but the next period shows a change of culture"2and two other sites.10 JAMES MELLAART least half the number were deserted after [AJA 62 1900ooB.A. pl. suffered the same fate (level i i Tb). and K. which should probably be located here.23 Between this region and the Troad lies the Balikesir plain. all show destruction layers attributable to the end of the Early Bronze Age.c. Within the great bend of the Sangarius. 59. 1948 (London 1951) 34ff. 19 Belleten 8 (1944) 353. In the hill country between the Halys and the Sangarius.B. 668. 26 No Troy VI material appears to have been found either at Kumtepe.B. K. Etiyokufu Hafriyati (Ankara I940)." but the destruction of Alaca Hiiyiik V is definitely earlier.A. Esq. Has Hilyjik. the last E. 11 Information kindly supplied by C.'9 Polatli20and Gordion are burnt.24 In the Troad. 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. Kansu.900oo B. another trading centre. 25 C. 9 T. now famous as the centre of the Yortan culture. the Kars district of Northeastern Anatolia which produced Early Bronze Age wares. M. accompanied by C. the two large mounds of K6priioren and Tavsanli. on the other. in Persian Adharbaijan. For surveys in this area see also IstanbulerForschungen 6 (1955) 75ff and AnatStud 6 (1956) 179ff. under "Royal Graves at Alaca. who surveyed the region in 1955. the destruction may be the result of Anita of Kussara'sconquest of Purushattum.A. III-vIl. 226. best known from Karaz near Erzerum and Geoy Tepe9 near Urmia. west of Kiitahya. Troy V was not destroyed by fire.B. B. 222) and Karaa'aqtepe. Kumtepe II and Karaagagtepe.None of these contained any pottery later than the end of the E. Bittel.. Balkan. On the evidence of the pottery collected all those sites appear to have been deserted after the end of the E. if not deserted earlier. A Hittite Cemetery at Gordion (1956) 51. 2. The pottery from this region shows close resemblances to that of the Inegal. J.I7 B. widespread destruction occurs. Kiiltepe near Hafik" and Maltepel2 near Sivas. 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.B.C. if not deserted much earlier. settlement of Poliochni is said to have been destroyed by earthquake. the latest level of which is of Troy V date (Troy II. (level ii)1' and not reoccupied for half a century. and even if future re- . A. Le Tumulus dit de Protisilas (Paris 1926). Demangel. If a little later. Pulur Hiiyiik`o near Baiburt. 12Belleten 11 (1947) 660.B. except Azat Hiiyuik. fig. Yenigehir and Iznik area.B. 23 Own observation during a survey of this region. A. 45. 22 Demirci Hiiyiik itself was deserted after the end of the E. in Nov. 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. are littered with burnt bricks of the destroyed city walls.see R. Blegen et al. Cerkes and several other sites21 are deserted. (Troy V type) and the neighbouring site of Tepecik appears to have been deserted after the end of this period. the only one excavated.c. was burnt." 15 ibid. only Azat Hiiyiik seems to have been occupied into the Middle Bronze Age.27 We have now rather laboriously traced a long line of burnt or deserted sites. and Etiyokusu. published in IstForsch 6 (1955) 53ff. culture. Demirci Hiiyiik (Berlin 1940). and that of Beycesultanin the upper Maeander valley. 7-12.the so-called mound of Protesilaos on the Thracian Chersonese are deserted. 14 See my article in AnatStud 7 (1957) under "Alishar. it will undoubtedly add others. xIv. Troy II. In Central Anatolia.'8 Bitik. 17 Own observation. Mellink. The contemporary city of Alishar Hiiyiik.26 On Lemnos. Turkish Thrace (also called Turkey in Europe) and the coastal province between the latter and Macedonia (Greek Thrace) are blanks on the 21S. A.c. and not reoccupied. in either case associated with pottery of the end of the E.

which in each case fled from invaders coming from the East (infra. the transition from an Early Bronze Age. 1451 and Crete. However. Cook. "SHesperia 24 (1955) 49. 34 Earthquakesare of a regional nature. 25 (I956) 173. the latest excavations at Gremnos near Larisa show a peaceful development of a local E. Lamb. the position is the same: south of the belt of disturbance the development from Early to Middle Bronze Age is uninterruptedat Thermi. to a more local and Northern Middle Bronze Age. Bulgaria and 28 Fouilles et RecherchesI (Sofia 1948) 62." RE (1955) abbreviatedhere as PKG. etc.c.4" Sizma42 and Kara Hiiyiik (Konya). Moreover. 87 (1937) 228-29. which on the new Beycesultan evidence can be equated with the Troy V. where the Cilician Middle Bronze Age 38 J. of course." Others still show gaps in the occupation."' At Mersin and Tarsus. 43 The transition from Early to Middle Bronze Age appears to be gradual here and uninterrupted."Priihistorische Kulturen Griechenlands. on the other hand. Destruction layers of the end of the Early Helladic III period c. Boehlau and K. Asine. into a local M. crossed the Aegean. J.c.PKG p. Greece are unlikely to be a coincidence and unrelated. which destroyed Mycenaean civilization at the end of the Bronze Age. p.900oo. A.1900oo B. etc. Salcutza..40none of which shows the slightest trace of any disturbance c. To these sites we may probably add Kusura.. 91f. Raphina. PKG p. was hit by a catastropheof such magnitude that it invites comparison with a similar one. Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos. 29 W. 81 F. 204-07. Makrovouni. Ayios Gerasimos.35or the Cyclades and Crete. 1. 42 Own observationsat the site. AnatStud 6 (1956) 124.3 Consequently there is no real break in the various cultures of those regions.33 This thorough devastation of Central Greece and the Peloponnese was followed by the arrival of a new culture. the so-called Dorian invasion. this migration or rather series of migrations could have come either from the east or from the west. which after overrunning the great centres of Early Helladic culture on the east coast." and "Effect of Hittite Invasion . illustrations pp. 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. seems to have taken place peacefully. 41 Archaeologia have ushered in the transitional period. 137ff. Lerna is the only site excavated. but in Bulgaria there is evidence that the disturbance in Northern Anatolia made itself felt there also. Bulgarian scholars date the end of their Early Bronze Age (Yunacite. 111."). 81 and ref. Esq." Larisa.29In Thessaly also. Many other sites are deserted. 35 PrehistoricMacedonia. except for one or two sites in the Chalcidice. Fortunately we are not reduced to guessing. This was fully confirmed by the 40o 1956 excavations. Schachermeyr. have been found at Orchomenos. on the other hand. Beycesultan VII-VI period. Palaiopyrgos. Eutresis. 4. 36 Cyclades.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 11 archaeological map. archaeological probability excludes a movement starting from the west coast of Greece.. Hagios Kosmas. the destruction is said to . it is generally agreed. e. Heurtley. Synoro. these approximately contemporary disturbances in Northern Anatolia. Zygouries. 2 PKG. which. footnote i.g.. Korakou. 8 W.p. Yiriza. "CulturalBackground .39Beycesultan. 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.32So far.8 and the sudden desertion of those sites added to the complete absence of a Middle Bronze Age certainly indicates some catastrophe. 39 Information kindly supplied by the excavator. In Macedonia. apparently unaffected by the momentous changes taking place further south.2ioo. Esero.P. for a series of what may be called "refugee cultures" are found in Anatolia. had no connection whatsoever with its predecessor.) to c."3 Mainland Greece from Boeotia to the Peloponnese. invaded Northern Anatolia and Bulgaria without touching Thessaly and Macedonia and finally ended up in the shadow of the Caucasusmountains.B. 30 AA (1955) 206.I9oo B. Tiryns. 123. Schefold.. PrehistoricMacedonia. 13. Malthi and Asea.B. Only one satisfactory explanation can be offered in these circumstances and that is one of migration. rebuilding on a reduced scale or a shift in position of the new Middle Helladic settlement. 1452-53. Theoretically. 129. M."3Bayrakli. with incised spirals and maeanders. Larisa am Hermos. Kophovouni. Apesokari. and they can hardly be interpreted as the the result of local wars or earthquakes. beginning c. Northwest Anatolian in character. 1490. where the transition from Early to Middle Bronze Age appears to have taken place without any interruption. I453. p. p. In Anatolia.34 more so as adjacent regions appear to have escaped destruction.

which suffered the same fate. For the ware see Rev. where it is wrongly dated. 45 There appears to be no break between the Geoy Tepe D and C pottery phases.C.. deserted c. the painted ware ("Cappadocian or Alishar III"). Maltepe near Sivas. 49 See note 12.50This culture.if we may judge by the amount of destruction in this region. 55 Cappadocianware was also found at Karaoilan. fasc. already rare at Kiiltepe.c. It is clearly dependent on that of Kiiltepe II. and which. the centre of an extremely localized painted ware. usually referred to as "Kiiltepe II. Goldman.12 JAMES MELLAART begins C. One may add that there are also no traces of disturbance at this date in Cyprus. To the eastern group belong the Karaz culture.1900 B." Further west. Before attempting to identify the invaders. It is this culture. will be discussed in detail below. disappeared along the invaders' route. one enters a territory where eastern and western influences met. Belleten 3 (i939) pl.46 known only from a group of barrows between Tiflis and the Turkish frontier. Kiiltepe near Kayseri.C. and Polatli. contemporary painted pottery cultures flourished. 47 Rev. (Barrows XIII.B. probably the richest city in Anatolia. Hittite et Asianique. which." perhaps after fierce resistance. Excavationsin Trialeti. the Araxes valley and the Urmia region. we may be excused for omitting them here. .B. as far as we know. fasc.during our extensive surveys in Southern Anatolia. et Asianique V. Iox-o5. but the Phrygian grey ware is western.A. North Syria. situated at its western end. Finely incised black wares are the characteristic product of these cultures. Burney. 10-14. 51 Kiiltepe. AnatStud I (1950) 46. 430 (surface finds). refugees from further east conquered the area." provides a pointer to the direction from which the thrust into Central Anatolia came. Nor have we found any regions with numbers of E. Hitt. in Anatolia. spread all over Central Anatolia [AJA 62 ently untouched and continued well into the second millennium B. in the Araxes valley around the lakes of Urmia and Van. the cultural background of Anatolia on the eve of the invasion must be briefly sketched.a series of different cultures is found in Anatolia. sites. such as are common e.A.e.45 It appears therefore that.2Ioo B. 50 Pottery of Kiiltepe Ib type. Burton Brown. XIX.44 there is no interruption about 1900B. 4. 62 and see my article in AnatStud 7 (I957). or rather a poor variant of it. Aksaray and Alishar. 54i. Siiyiigiizel and Sofular OIP 30.C.B. the wave of devastation was far from universal. Further east. 48 The distribution of this type of pottery has been defined by C. was completely As western. Crossing the western bend of the river Halys. pl. A. on the eve of its destruction. The distribution of this ware is confined to the Sivas region. Malatya and Divriki. Tarsus II. figs. map xvii.47but these were appar4 H. p. now in its third and last phase and the related socalled E. Excavations in Azerbaijan.B.A. but since they are irrelevant to the main argument."4 a result of the invasion. West Anatolian influences were predominant. XXIV) Antiquity 67 (i943) 132. See AOF i6 (1952) 152. The western group of cultures was remarkably in the second half of the 19th century B. but again south of the invaders' route. introduced into the Ankara-region after the end of the Early Bronze Age (Polatli III). was. 65 There is eastern Alishar chalcolithic in the region (Karaoilan) followed by a western ribbed and fluted ware in the E. Polatli II. Hittites. in the Eskigehir plain. which appear to have borne the brunt of the invasion. cx-cxv bis. LII (painted pot) and Qerkes. How this affects the traditional picture of the simultaneous arrival of the three Indo-European speaking peoples. and centre of the important Cappadociantrade with Assyria. To use this evidence for dating the Troy V period before the Cappadocianware would be a fallacy.g. note 45 supra and AOF 15 (1940). may still have been in use in the Kirsehir basin. The second millennium pottery is again eastern in derivation. cultures existed north of the Yozgat-Kirsehir area. and it had developed a culture which should be regarded as the ancestor of the so-called Hittite culture of second millennium Central Anatolia. T. 4 (1931) pl.C. A." seems to have been confined to a rather limited area between Kayseri.Further west. THE CULTURAL BACKGROUND ANATOLIA OF IMMEDIATELY BEFORE MIGRATIONS THE In the twentieth century B. which for convenience we may divide into a western and an eastern group. 9-11. though extensive areas of both Anatolia and the Aegean were affected by the migrations at the end of the Early Bronze Age. 46 B. lies a newly discovered painted pottery culture in the region of Elazig. as it lay on the line of their march westward. 52AnatStud I (i951) 48ff.. of Trialeti.A.c. I. 13: -8. Esq. fig. during a survey in 1956. Kuftin. North Mesopotamia.49 was destroyed by the invaders. probably Alishar and Acemk6y Hiiyiik near Aksaray. I31ff. 34 (I939) pls. Other E.4 On the other hand."3 At the period under discussion. Luwians and Palaites.

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

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

come to ology have gone far towards solving the problem an abrupt end c." Certain old elements79 beyond the western bend of the Halys.c. 77 AnatStud 6 (1956) i26 and fig.75 which lation. Grey Minyan is discussed.tance for determining the origin of the Middle sultan" in the Upper Maeander valley seem to be Helladic culture and its bearers. quoted by F. The villages in this well populated plain Greece. 83 F. When in the Troad at last the Aegean describes the sun rising out of the sea. p.H. it is neither common in the movement from this plain alone. Matz.8" ance and were destroyed.). Io. textual or archae. Of the new cultural features introduced the sotion. The expulsion of the latter into the Ankara region we have already called Minyan ware stands out. may contain coast was reached.period and most scholars hold that it is of foreign sessed. but the culture there is no evidence.g. The before in Greece. may have involved a considerable poputo the Sun God. A comparison between the city walls of Troy VI and Troy V is virtually impossible as so little is known of the latter.i400ooand arguBlocking the latter road. Balikesir and the Troad. that the Hittites themselves ever settled though closely related.houses of the early Troy VI period number only a few. Two roads were open to them.gone on living there side by side with newcomers. 81 ibid. 12. W. 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. XI. Cremation does not appear until c.which supersedes that of Troy V is a different one.III period. Blegen considers this new pottery to it is therefore not surprising to find that a move. which is of primary imporhave fled. ANATOLIA ON NORTHWESTERN Troy itself was not destroyed. Bittel's review of C. 80 Troy III. etc. to which should E. it is probable that they be added contingents from the areas they passed came from the northern 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.900oo and their population must of the Minyan ware. pl. 5ff. Der Aegeis (1950) 262f. p. but the greatly reduced population of the origin. Handbuch der Archaeologie. though red and buff also this region. overcrowding would be disastrous and appear. Recent developments in West Anatolian archaeIn the Balikesir plain and at Yortan. introduced at about the same time (c.II. 9 Such as grey. as K6prii6ren and Tavsanli probably offered resist. 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. Some new elements in level VI at Beyce. How large were the contingents of people on Greece until the beginning of the Middle Helladic the move in Northwestern Anatolia cannot be as. marble "owlfaced" figurines. Sommer. On agricultural land as poor as that of the most characteristic.. the other through first appearance of the horse must be mentioned.83 for. W. though grey ware was made settlements there in the Early Bronze Age.900oo were not easily defensible and the desertion of B. the two great sites of ments based on the house plans are inconclusive. 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. plain and red-coated wares. The Hittite hymn through. and therefore the settlements also. C. In the mountainous Troad. 78 See K. 7. I7 IstForsch 6 (1955) 55. . e."8Among the other changes the Iznik and the Sea of Marmora. Blegen. nor do any of the characteristic 76 F. 82 ibid. Sommer. the hills to Kiitahya. Troy Ill. Only one house of the early Troy VI period was excavated. were certainly unable to cope with such an increase THE EFFECTOF THE HITTITEINVASION of population. the few plains and valleys the western shore of the Caspian. in Gnomon (1956). Hethiter und Hethitisches (Stuttgart 1947) 1.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 15 of the Caucasus Mountains. in the Kirsehir region.7"one duced it into Greece at the beginning of the Middle leading down to the region round the Lake of Helladic period. 2. Although ological. Attempts to deny this have been singularly Eskisehir plain sharply contrasts with the numerous unsuccessful. Troy III. overpopulation in the fertile but an old memory from the days when they lived near limited coastal plain must have become acute. the cemeteries.

96 e.100but so have silver vessels. 95 ibid.A. 85 parallels and it would seem that the shapes originated there.5 Local variants are found in the Argolid and Laconia (Argive [black] and red Minyan). 89."' W. A. (Paros). 137. Recent discoveries in Bulgaria have likewise produced nothing from which the Minyan ware could have descended. copper and gold. fig. 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. whether one can really insist on this feature in tracing the origin of the ware. when areas as near as the Argolid cannot produce the same variety.16 JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 shapes of this Middle Helladic ware have ancestors in the Early Helladic culture.98and at the end of the East Anatolian Bronze Age we find it in the light grey ware at Ziilfiibulak. These cups have many Northwest Anatolian 84 Troy III. Three main features of the wheel-made Minyan ware are worth bearing in mind: a) the shapes are highly metallic. 383-399. but the latter is generally late and has lost most of its angularity. Pteleon on the Gulf of Pagasae. 210.1'1 probably made from the ore which occurs 93JHS (1914) 126ff. and is easily distinguished from genuine imported Minyan. brown and red to grey and black. 324ff. p. nos. BSA 44 AM (1917) 35. at Ankara. fig. W. The centre of this peculiar Grey ware appears to lie in Boeotia and it may well be asked.95 and there is little in favour of a Macedonian origin. When one plots the occurrence of grey ware with metallic shapes in Anatolia on a map showing silver deposits. but in Anatolia new evidence has been forthcoming.g. The distribution of Minyan ware is interesting. soapy grey wares are found at different times in different districts.. 258. 204. Some of the Troy V grey ware in the Museum at Hissarlik has this soapy touch. Macedonia. 12-13. probably late Minyan)."8 in Thessaly. 9" Troy III. As for the colour.92 the other a Northwest Anatolian origin. 155. b) grey."' Its origin has been much debated and two main theories advanced. 5859-5861. nos. 129. Schmidt. which leaves the vessel with a soapy touch. 229. 81 and nos. 9if. 87 AA (1955) 90 PrehistoricMacedonia.B. Hence its name. 101 Troy II silverware. grey slipped hand-made cups and mugs with high flung strap handles appear. five miles from the Persian frontier in the Van region. and c) the curious technique of the grey Minyan. 154."3 In the later phases of the Macedonian E. etc. 100Going back to Early Troy I and Kumtepe Ic. 89 Troy 111. 218. from the legendary Minyai. red and yellow Minyan are found. 98 Sherds in Brit. which according to C. 91 Excav. 31-34 (1949) 31f. for instance. and PKG 1457. Schliemann found this ware in great abundance. 9' Preh. 86 PKG 1465. Grey Minyan is the earliest of these three categories. PKG 1464-65. Blegen offers particularly close parallels to the Grey Minyan ware found at Troy in the early phase of the sixth citadel. the coincidence in distribution is often (but not always) striking.89Grey Minyan also occurs at Molyvopyrgo and Hagios Mamas on the Chalcidian peninsula"9 and was imported into the Cyclades. the rulers of Orchomenos. Troy. no doubt imitating silver. typical for the earliest Minyan. It lacks the characteristicshapes of goblets and the grooved decoration. indicating metal prototypes. collected by the writer in 1951-52. F. xxIv. 7 (Siphnos). 92 Preh. Schachermeyrin PKG 1468. produced genuine Minyan ware.84red and buff are also found. Burney and now in the same Institute. figs. Schliemann Sammlung. Some of the Troy V grey ware is soapy and so is much of the Troy VI Grey Minyan ware. it is never the only ware in use. p. at Phylakopi.87 and in Aetolia88 (Thermon with a bluish grey. 19-20. on the other hand. The Thessalian ware is clumsy and occurs in a variety of colours ranging from yellow. 46. but the characteristic features of the Middle Helladic Minyan ware are absent. 5868-5874. 88 Deltion I (1915) 225ff. one advocating a Macedonian. Grey ware has a long tradition in the Troad. figs. which are to technique a certain extent due to local clays and the degree and manner of firing. see also p. In Anatolia." Some of the grey ware dating from the Troy I period in Southwestern Anatolia shows the same characteristic. 82. Heurtley denies a local development of this ware into the typical wheel-made Minyan of Molyvopyrgo. 99 Sherds of grey ware collected by C. grey burnished wares are a variation on the normal Anatolian black burnished wares and though certain areas specialize in producing a grey ware. .g. 92. where H. Institute of Arch. 74. 35 (Troy VI ware). H. it covers most of Mainland Greece and its centre appears to lie in Boeotia. A. e. p. Macedonia. pl. figs." The only explanation is that the soapy touch is the result of clay and firing.

60. extending from Troy to Iznik. Vertical or oblique-handles. o10e. 1:13. fig. x8 and fig. A 64. figs. 19. 58 etc.c. I8. but shape. 292: A 57.e. sharp profiles."3 At Bayrakli Grey Minyan supersedesthe red variety only in the Late Bronze Age. x92. J. Forbes. 113 Thermi. It is confined to early Troy VI. in 1956. and footnote 64 IstForsch 6 (i955) 79. fig."o"and in Greece. Outside the Troad. and at Beycesultan. 9. fig. pedestalled goblets.Whereas Grey Minyan is typical of Central Greece. 58. in seeking the origins of the Minyan wares the real criterion should not be colour or soapy surface.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. This series extending to the Troy V period in the 1955 excavations can now be extended to the Troy III period since the exc. Therefore. 94. 6Iff. fig. Seton Lloyd have produced 102 R. 116Troy III. 48. it occurs all along the west coast as far south as Bayrakli (Ancient Smyrna)7"' and Liman Tepe (Clazomenai).1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 17 abundantly at Balya Maden on the eastern slopes of Mt. c. A 57. 64 (goblet). 92. A soapy touch is only found at Troy and at KiSprii6ren. parallels quoted under A 64. M.900 B. Blegen's excavations. 10s Information kindly received from J. it is prominent on the mounds of Tavsanli and K6prii6ren and several imported pieces were found in the Eskisehir plain.6iit6nii) 112AnatStud 6 (1956) 126ff.c. 42. The date of these Minyan wares in Anatolia is of great significance for the problem of their origin. Troy III. p. At K6priiiSren. fig.114Although Grey Minyan is found at K6prii6ren. In Anatolia. 96.. 46 (S. A comparison between the Troy V grey ware vessels and the Troy VI Minyan wares showed. I4. Its southern limits are not yet well defined. o09 110 ibid. I). closely related types at Beycesultan in the upper Maeander valley. 76-77. 104 ibid. 292 a. 58. 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. 61 etc. local variations in both colour and shape are characteristic. 3. i. red and black variants prevail in the south. 105 Preh.c.05' C. Macedonia. IstForsch6 (1955) 81. Esq. red and buff Minyan predominate on the plateau: at Tavsanli. 108 Troy Ill. W. . High flung ribbon or strap handles. p. 292a. 115At Tavyanli sporadicgrey wares were found higher up on the mound than the red and buff varieties. map 2). c. The most common shapes are cups and bowls.I400 B. p. Pattern burnishing is rare at Troy VI and confined to the very beginning of this period. fig."2 As in Greece.c. and a grooved or ribbed decoration are characteristic. no. 57. II4 Ankara Universite Dil Tarih Cografya Fakiiltesi Dergisi 8 (1950) 58. Troy III.e"" Since C. 2. that the earlier ware could not be considered as the ancestor of Minyan wares. and more material subsequently recovered on the spot. fig. p. however. fig. At at Egret near Afyon. 94.g. 292b. Cook. but already at Thermi and Larisa Grey Minyan is in the minority and red takes its place.We are therefore inclined to date these bowls before 1900 B. W.111Finally."' but the decoration in the form of a cross is not found in Anatolia at a date later than the end of Troy V. 3:1-4.102 Local ore deposits naturally influenced the metalworker in his choice of material and the potter followed suit. often (but not always) ringbases or ribbed pedestals. 78-79.115 the latter site Grey Minyan does not occur. Although none of this pottery on the west coast or at Troy appears to be earlier than the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. A 92. on the eastern side of the sea of Marmora.2oo-900oo B. 21.some of the Grey Minyan bowls are decorated with a pattern-burnishedcross on the interior (pl. (Boziiyfik).) at Tavsanli and Kdiprii6rennear Kiitahya. 61.'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. fig. fig. more has been learned about the distribution of Minyan ware in Anatolia (pl. fig. Metallurgyin Antiquity (Leyden i950) 19off. The same early date may be inferred for the beginning of this ware in the Ineg6l-Iznik region.x9oo. 17. esp. the excavations of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara under the direction of Mr. there is conclusive evidence that some of this ware goes back to the Troy V period (c. 136 and Larisa am Hermos III. Grey Minyan again has a northern distribution. 23. c.110 On the West Anatolian plateau. 2:16. Ida.ibid. 20. 31-95. 107 Ankara Universite Dil Tarih Cografya Fakiiltesi Dergisi 8 (1950) 55f. I35 (Alyamak Hiiyiik). 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.

58-60 (grey) and 85-87 (buff Upper Maeander valley and adjacent region to the south."' Although one might express some doubt about this dating.2Ioo1900 B. 119AnatStud 4 (1954) 198. This somewhat puzzling disappearanceof the pedestalled goblet is probably the result of its prototype being manufactured in metal. During the Troy V period (c. which occurs near Bursa and at KbpriiSren. 8tsSee my article in AnatStud 7 (0957). intrusive from the western provinces of Anatolia (but not from the Troad). Plain pedestal bases are common in Western Anatolia."•9but the distribution of the ribbed ones is confined to the and red).or wheel-made cups or small bowls. mainly cups and bowls. such as the high flung strap handles. these are found on the western edge of the plateau. and they are made in exactly the same ware. Calling these Beycesultan vessels "Minyan" requires some qualification and one might prefer "protominyan. but they show all those features which later become typical of Minyan ware.W. the imitation of which in pottery depended on the whim of contemporary taste. 365. until their reappearancewith different bowl shapes in both Grey Minyan and red wash ware in early Troy VI. in good stratified contexts at Beycesultan. It is in this same region that the characteristic Minyan shape of the goblet with ribbed pedestal base is most likely to have developed. but the use of special clays and a certain way of firing gave them the peculiar soapy touch. undisturbed by the invasion. Grey Minyan is carried to the coast of the Troad. The preference shown for Grey Minyan in the Troad may be ascribed to the local silverware tradition. The significance of this "protominyan" pottery lies in demonstrating the early occurrence of Minyan characteristicsin West Anatolian metalwork. they disappear. Anatolia is struck by a wave of emigrants from the east. contemporary with Troy III. where the new shapes are eagerly adopted. where they are common in grey. As the XIIth building level at Beycesultan. 1171stForsch 6 (I955) figs. The decorated pieces are the earlier and are confined to Beycesultan XII(a)-IX. I). among which there was a red-cross bowl.2. 403-o4. The new evidence from Western Anatolia shows conclusively that the Minyan ware of Middle Helladic Greece can only be derived from Western Anatolia. There can therefore be no reasonable doubt that Minyan shapes were in use in this region before they were introduced at Troy." Nearly all are red polished. somewhere between the coast and the edge of the plateau. i.c.c. marks the beginning of a new culture. jars and other more characteristicWest Anatolian shapes. including several other typical vessels of this date. The Troy V culture also produces a fine grey ware. as a result of the Hittite invasion. 218. at Tavsanli in a burnt deposit (fig.C.) the first Grey Minyan products are made at Kispriiiren and in the Iznik area.e. the migration left no permanent mark and the destroyed settlements were soon rebuilt. 120 See Beycesultan Excavations in AnatStud 7 (I957) for those from the burnt shrine in level XV. probably the result of the local use of silver. In the southwest. in absolute dates from about 22501650 B. Mounting pressure eventually led to a migration from the Troad. corresponding roughly to Troy IIIIV. a red Minyan bowl was found by the writer in a Troy V context. who introduced the red polished wares including "protominyan" shapes. beak-spouted jugs. ranging from level IV to level XII.18 JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 period. 1. where closely similar vessels were made in various metals and copied in pottery from. Then. at the latest. figs. . the 24th century B. I). 121See note 105. N. but the Minyan shapes are still unknown.121and in Grey Minyan in the deepest strata of Middle Helladic Greece. at least in pottery. all during the later half of the Early and well into the Middle Bronze Age. metallic profile. More spectacular still were the discoveries of red and buff vessels of Minyan shapes. Around 2250 B. buff or black burnished ware in the Beycesultan XV-XIII levels. this "protominyan" must have developed during the Troy II period. in search of new lands. which are still terra incognita to the archaeologist. at Beycesultan and probably also near Tavsanli and K6priidren. which will be discussed presently."8 These "protominyan" shapes form only a percentage among the many bowls. hand. probably in the great river valleys of the Hermos and the Lower Maeander. As in Central Anatolia. contemporary with the second half of Troy II.C. (fig. 217.120 After the conquest of this region by the westerners. life went on in the old way and red Minyan wares spread gradually to the west coast. small ringbases and grooved or ribbed decoration.

Of horses and chariots there is no sign until the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Two new house-types appear. c and d. 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.Among these local modifications. H.It is unlikelythatthe newcomers could have out the entire earlier population.whereas most.were local E. fig. burial in Messenia. PKG 1437. population led to the formation of the earliest Greek. period. The newcomersimposed their culture on the old population. 127 PKG 1461. L.'7" Granted that the Middle Helladic invaders were the first speakers of some very archaic form of Greek. Goldman. the and in regions last reached by the invaders. are characteristic.they do not seem to have settled. plan io. xx. 1461.126 may be mentioned.A. presumably the military leaders of the invasion founded local dynasties."" and a similar house with apsidal end. and helmet4"' is first introduced in this period. 63. B. Eutresis. Thessalyand Macedonia. gulf of Pagasaeand in Boeotia. traditions strongenoughto modifythe new culture. exceptthe mountainous Acarnania. and red black imitationsof the CentralGreek Grey Minburialat Mycenael25and tumulus yan. and then only at Mycenae.A.I900 B. The problemis of considerable general interest as most authorities that these invaderswere agree the first speakersof Greek. Wace in Documents in Mycenaean script (1956) p. 125 BSA 48 (1953) 7ff. and landedin the stoppingonly in the Chalcidice. wiped was judging by the numberof its settlements. map 2. Lorimer.H. which. when their more fortunate brethren p. Homer and the monuments (1950) 7. Troy III.129 This centralization implies the existence of kings or princes. 1459 and Hesperia 24 (1955) fig.124it is clear that the newcomers overranmost of the mainland. 30.C. 1954 (supplement of JHS 1955) 35. 133 PKG 1471. and locally copied. Elsewhere single burial in cist graves within the settlement became the prevalent custom. the establishment of "feudal" centres with citadels. 128 ibid. 184 Homer and the monuments. Early Helladic settlements appear to have been unfortified. C.136 Grey Minyan ware was exported to Melos. in particular from Aegina.'28 From the distributionmap of Middle Helladic sites in Greece. only in the Peloponnese. 183 On the grave stelae. 124ibid. Aigina.The next point to consideris where this invasioncame from and by which way it enteredthe country." a hall and portico type. p. 25 (1956) pl. 2.127 Among other features of the Middle Helladic culture. A. From the distribution map of M. 126 Archaeology in Greece. 212ff.128 like Malthi. scholars are confronted with a dilemma. Blegen. sites in northern Greece.from the gulf of In Pagasaeto the Peloponnese. fig."8 Not long after the beginning of the M. etc.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. J. 186PKG 1466 and G. MiddleHelladicculture. but its 130PKG 1460 and H. extramural 122 H. 41. H. BSA 25 (1925) 126ff. 129Aigina. Notice that no . 182 PKG gets the impression that the invaders sailed along the north coast of the Aegean.B. 1428ff. Hawkes. 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. and Hagios Mamasin the except at Molyvopyrgo Chalcidice. C. which may have been the distributing centre. however. 9-1o.From there they may have spreadby land over the restof the mainareasof Aetolia and land. but not all. boar-tusk lasts popularity well into theLateHelladic period.Otherhousesstill perpetuatethe EarlyHelladictradition. 7.'18 The latter is found from Thessaly to the Peloponnese and becomes the hallmark of the are rare"88 it appearsthat aftertheir conquest. Archaeology in Greece 1954. PKG 1492. has already been discussed above.12Weapons the invaders A settleddownpeacefully. considerable. 123 See map 2 in PKG 1420 and list of sites. The prehistoricfoundations of Europe (1940) 23940. 187 See note 91.B. W. ibid. the "megaron. contact is established with the Cyclades and mat-painted pottery was imported in great quantities.This is a strong argumentagainstthe old theory that the Middle Helladic invadersentered Greecefrom the north through Macedonia. Siphnos and Paros. The existence of a western Greek branch in Aetolia and Epirus (barbarians left behind in the mountains. Welter. Mycenae. etc. 1455ff.122though it might be more plausibleto suggestthat the intermingling of these invaders with the numerous local E. period.

apsidal houses: Troy Ia. Moreoverit suggests that they local Early Bronze Age. then NorthwesternAnatolia must be the region at Blegen'sdiscoveries Troy. settingfor an invasionc. AJA 58 in middle Troy I period. etc. Poliochni. .W.Although to match single items of this list of cultural reneverbeen raised.who at 138 So F. and in particular Minyanwares. 238-39 (Troy II late-Troy IV). (I954) 240. fig.The importsin E. op.urban settlements. urban settlements: Poliochni AA (I937) 270. I1 and C. T. III CentralGreece. fig.Many suggestions made. p. which probablyfollowed an old trade ancestor route.the main stumblingblock. W. Beycesultan. b. p.A. 436. Heraion (Samos). fig.The cause of the inof Actually. long! 142 megara: Troy Ib and following period (IIa.putting an abrupt end to the gave their name. megara. Blegencautiously Cistgravesarecommon considersit to have been introducedthere by a in the E. AJA 58 (1954) p. 141Fortifications: early Troy I period-Poliochni. 239. D.) Troy I. whosenumberswere certainly small. Ozgii?.show trading contactswith ars have thereforeargued that the arrivalof the Northwestern Anatolia.may have crossedinto Thrace and suggests before they settled in the country to which they invaded why.This traditional view.W. Troy III-IV period.apsidalhouses admitsthat he can all be matchedthere.To sail the stormyand inhospitable and Some of these. other area provides so have chosen to descend on Greece. This branchmay eventuknew where they were going.B. where the earliest Greek speaking invaderswith Anatolia long before their first appearancein their Middle Helladic culturecame from. Homer and the Monuments. p.and by among whom they arrive. about 500 m.Some schol. the metal prototypes the techniqueof making and may but then they borrowthe civilizationof the people grey Minyan.'' be claimed. it is possible One question.'"8 this seemsto one admits that the Middle Helladic materialculbe an impossibleway out of the dilemma. L. for it would have ally have reachedthe Pindus mountainsby roundthat been inconceivable the MiddleHelladicinvad. Houses of this type can be seen today in the village of Karatal on the south coast of inlandpeopleshould semblanceselsewhere. not one of a foreign thereseemsto be no valid reasonfor doubtingthis.C.or rather the arrivewithoutmuch culture.butfortifibut as no priorityof this ware in the Troad could cations.focus of the invasion.cit.and thoseof the contempoWhen Greek speakinginvadersand the introductionof rary Argolid are again with the Troad. nation several hundred miles away.passim and fig.20 JAMES MELLAART [AlA 62 not occupiedthe richerlowlandsat the beginningof the ers. not by land many parallelsand none but N.which. c."59 only was the Minyanwareat homethere. Prehistoric Foundations.about ways like the West Greek elements. 139So H. if the Greekshad indeed comefromEasternEurope. Troy I. Lorimer. Troy I. Anatolia can accountfor what is perhapsthe most typicalof all. period. there. occurred HanayTepe in Accordinglyno agreementhas been reachedas to the Troad. Beycesultan. tolian evidence admirably. Not the towardsregarding Minyanwareas Anatolian. Schachermeyrin PKG 1468. as far as I am aware has Greecein the M. for no satisfactory for this warehas yet been found there. Troy itself. 86.'42 and though intramural branchof the samepeoplewho broughtit to Greece. therehas been a swing from which the first Greek migrationcame. on reachingthe shoresof the Sea a fair measureof seamanship Aegean requires thatthe Greekshadbeena seafaring nation of Marmora.'4o but the Minyanware are unrelated. 234. and throughMacedonia Thessaly-the archaeology the Grey Minyan ware. of that region rules out such a migration-but by the Moreover.H.Such an actionwould in seemto be unparalleled the historyof migrations. p.x9ooor a sea from the northernshore of the Aegean to the little laterfrom the Troad to Greecesuits the AnaGulf of Pagasaeand Boeotia. 425. All these features occurredin N. Archaeologists attemptsto find materialsupportfor this linguistic suggeststhat they alreadyhad been in contactwith havebeen the Early Helladic people of Greece before their theoryin the the Hittites.were introduced the Greeks. W. 149. 140 See my article in AnatStud 7 (I957). by sea. it at burialis the exception. BCH 78. ill.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. Since C. H. Hawkes. Troy IV period (unpublished).People ture. 436 etc.would to have contributed this have embarkedand just trustedto luck that they Middle BronzeAge) may have made valiant would reacha countrysuitableto theirneeds. but the Minyan ware has proved to be the invasion.

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

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

Landsberger (Luwian I).'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.type are found and there is no evidence whatsoever that Hattic in the land of Hatti. 159 F. E. thus drawn with the exclusion of any names later than the second millennium B.Recueil d'onomastiqueHittite (Paris 1952) 73c. lay on the road from Kanesh Greece. G. map 3). where Purushanda. Hethiter und Hethitisches. the Marassanda.x8oo x55AOF 16 (1951) 20-21. 157Represented by A. TO WHAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE DO THESE NAMES BELONG? Widely divergent opinions have been expressed about the language to which these names belonged. Two strong arguments can be brought forward against this theory. and Anatolia suggest. Ma. and the West and South of Anatolia. Th. Forrer. the river Marassanda and perhaps also Zip. the location of which is devoid of any place-names ending in -ss. and its chief exponent.C. Luwian. H. .known from Late Bronze Age sources coincides almost precisely with that of the West Anatolian culture province.the 14th and 13th centuries B."' This language must have been spoken by the bearers of the Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age cultures."55 Indo-European substratum.)at the end of the Early Bronze Age.millennium in Southern Anatolia.B. NAMES AND OF THE E.C. Laroche."'oshows a nonwhere east of Aksaray. Like Hattic. With the exception of the name of the Halys.strongly established in the Amuq plain. already mentioned was spoken outside Central Anatolia. an Indo-European language. at a date prior 1650 B. including Cilicia (part of it until c. Represented by F. The eastern limit of the place-names in -ss. Otten. F. Laroche. that this estimate to the EarlyBronze and is probably too in Anatolia and the Aegean."s6 This region.the related name of a city Marassa. otherwords. the language spoken in the second to Purushattum is therefore be located and to some.c. Aegean West. Zur grammatikalishenund lexikalischen Beszimmung des Luvischen (Berlin 1953) 11o-1xI.. A glance at the map (pl. would assign these names to the pre-Hittite language of Central Anatolia. 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. immedithe and religion. 156 E.B. 75.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 23 mately that they are to be sought in Southwestern Anatolia and in Cilicia respectively.and -nd.that Luwian.different from Hattic.A.. Sommer. Numerous texts show type (and extramural burial)with thatof the -ss. Sommer. was West Anatolian influences were also felt here in spoken in the second millennium B. shows a very significant distribution. Kizzuwatna. Ninassa. but they can be reduced to two schools of thought. Otten."8At present. tes A. known of that language to exclude the possibility that our names belonged to it. 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. Hurrian COINCIDENCE OF DISTRIBUTION OF THESE PLACEwas not found in Western Anatolia or the Aegean.the Cyclades.2ioo B.These arguments disprove the theory that our placerassa. This cannot be mere co.names are of Hattic origin.c. are to palanda586 probably be locatedis archaeo. c. where logically unsurveyed and it is not impossible that Hurrian.A.. no names of -ss.c. the non-Indo-European Hattic (Hattili). 158s Giiterbock. I. do not commit themselves to any definite statement. Ninassa. peoples Greece. as at Kanesh itself. however. was also and -nd. Other scholars like H. Indo-Europeanl5or non-Indo-European. Goetze. Orientalia 25 (1956) 138. ately east of Cilicia. for Hurrian elements are Age. 60eo 181H."63Recent discoveries in Mesopotamia"6' to the HittiteandGreek in invasions. ern Anatolia appear to have been closely related.Although they are common in Cilicia.and -nd. enough is the later centuries of the E. shortly after Crete. 1e2 Orientalia 25 (1956) 138. Sommer. With a mountain Arnuwandaand the cult centres of the exception of one or two. 16 JCS 7 (1953) 68ff. let alone in in the Kultepe II texts.Not onlyin culture butalsoin language. Jean. defined above. another non-Indo-Europeanlanguage. the Hattic area is Ninassa and Zippalanda. the consensus of opinion is in favour of the latter view. Semitica I (1948) 17ff. as early as Alalakh VII. Goetze. Bossert. H. E. 13-16. B.and -nddisputed.

'69 This implies that the Luwians were the pre-Hurrian population of Cilicia and that the West Anatolian E.C. not Luwian. which at Beycesultan belongs to the II or I period (13-I2th century B. P.24 B.with what has been recognized as Anatolian hieroglyphs by two scholars. The first use of Anatolian hieroglyphs and Luwian by the Hittites seems to go back to Suppiluliuma.168 It is therefore impossible not to agree with A.C.III civilization of Cilicia.71 There is no evidence to disprove that the Anatolian hieroglyphs were invented for writing Luwian. Goetze's theory that of the two elements Luwian is the earlier one. Had the Luwians arrived later than the Hurrians.e. suggesting that Hurrian influence was not of a very recent date.c.79 a contemporary of the Hittite king Telepinus. All the monuments of 172See photograph in The Times of 31/8/1956. .A. If one maintains that the place-names ending in -ss.). Wiseman. with the exception of the Northwestern corner of Anatolia. to which the pot with the hieroglyphs belongs. around 2100 B. i."' Of Nasili. 173s AnatStud 5 (I955) 80. 176 JCS 8 (1954) 74ff. Cilicia! THE LANGUAGE WRITTEN IN ANATOLIAN HIEROGLYPHS J.A.'73 scratched on a part of a bouring plate.172 dating to approximately the 2oth 165 D. 166Relative chronologies in old world archaeology (Chicago 1954) 75. 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.and -ndare non-Indo-European. JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 Amuq was predominantly Hurrian in population. they would have to be put before 2400 B.I550 This seal also has a cuneiform inscription B. 167 See note 163. whose people are known to have spoken Luwian in the so-called Hittite Empire period (c. 3. 64 and discussion 62f. Beycesultan lies almost certainly in the region occupied in the second millennium B. Wiseman has shown that by this date the century B. Th..C. the Cilician Middle Bronze Age. p. date in level VI at Beycesultan. and p. 8off and 128. possibly contemporary with the Kiiltepe Ib period. 8. however. 171E.i85o-i800 B. there is. H. 33. In recent years. is of considerable interest.c. whose links are with the Amuq. note 4. 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. Kizzuwatna. I."7 This shows that the Hurrians formed the ruling class and were consequently latecomers in comparison with the Luwians..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.c. was found in a sealed deposit of late E. no. 71 (i954) 380.'66 In the Late Bronze Age the state religion and the names of kings and queens are Hurrian. The distribution of inscriptions in Anatolian hieroglyphs in the second millennium B. Archaeologically there is no evidence for a real break such as might indicate the arrival of newcomers after 2100 B. Not a single example of this writing was found in a Central Anatolian Early Bronze Age (Hattic) site. Landsberger remarked that in slightly later texts. Goetze.170was theirs. c.'65H.C. which can be dated from c. found at Kiiltepe in the Ib level (c.. 175 Language 29 (1953) 263ff and 30 (I954) no. the Luwian element becomes stronger. Goldman.C. Laroche in BiOr (Bibliotheca Orientalis) 11 (1954): H. Giiterbock in Orientalia 25 (1956) 138: H. MDOG 75. belonging to the 20th century B. one might have expected the very reverse. Siegeln aus Boghazi•y I (1940) 24. The next hieroglyphic inscription in date is the seal of Isputahsus. 169A. 179 AJA 40 (1946) 2Io.c. On the other hand. 181 H. Tarsus II (Princeton 1956) 349. king of Kizzuwadna. 170 H. Bossert in Le Museon 68 (1955) 6Iff.1450-Ii8o0 B. but both A. 177ibid. 62. Goetze and B.174 has some possible hieroglyphs painted on it and it may be significant in this context to mention that A.B. Giiterbock.c.). Goldman very plausibly suggests that the arrival of a new culture in Cilicia. The Alalakh tablets (London 1953) 9. Goldman. no trace178 at Kiiltepe. A graffito from the neighsite of 9ivril.C. s178AOF 15 (1951) 18.'75 and a later one related to or identical with Luwian..2400-2I00 B. G. Tarsus II.lsl who might easily have adopted it from Kizzuwadna.'76 The texts appear to be mainly of Kiiltepe II date. D.C. marked the beginning of Hurrian expansion into Cilicia. 9. Kizzuwatna. a clay stamp-seal. Iso MDOG 73. It again falls mainly within the area occupied by the West Anatolian culture province in the E.B. G.) shows that Anatolian hieroglyphs were still in use there at the end of the Late Bronze Age.. JCS 5 (1951) 131. the Arzawa states. 174Belleten 18. 168 There is a transition from Middle to Late Bronze Age in Cilicia. A pot.

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

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

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

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

. 2251AJA58 (954) 240. Gaul. MilojiW. 45 (from JHS 74). may have joined the seaborne invaders and led them through the Northern Cyclades. 32ff. Macedonia.2500 B. led to the destruction of the Bronze Age cultures of the Aegean and Anatolia in the 12th century B. 222 Archaeology in Greece 1952-53.212an offshoot of West Anatolian civilization. suffered invasion. Schachermeyr. 43. map 4) will be described in chronological order.c. 2. or sailed off to Chalcidice and Macedonia. 39. iff. 214 ibid. 220o (I950/51) p. op. citedthere. and J.226 Others.225but every other site of this coastal culture. For the Gumelnitza culture see V. Vinca etc. 22. . AnatStud 6 (1956) 45ff. 21o. 218 Crusted wares occur in the Gumelnitza culture and in and maps v. To facilitate reading. succeeding the Gumelnitza elements. AnatStud 7 (1957).215 spreading westward to Chalcidice216 and eastward to Komotini. 48f. see Gaul. Die Altesten Kulturen Griechenlands 224 e. including probably most of the island population. of course.223 and a score of other sites came to an abrupt end at the same time. who established themselves at Dikilitash in Western Thrace. our interpretation of the evidence (pl.214The formidable Rhodope range separating the Maritza valley from the Aegean coastlands did not stop the invaders. 226 Preh.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. to expand southwards across the Balkan range into Eastern Bulgaria. nos. culture reached northern Thessaly. Io09.221 Thermi Emporio in Chios suffered the same fate. See AJA 6o (1956) 376.cit. In the fertile Maritza valley. esp. as far as we know. Hiiyiicek near Bozkoiy etc. op. 133 (Kritsana) and 155. possibly by sea. 216Preh. 128-30 (Giumenitza). unknown forces caused the Gumelnitza culture. vi. Hilyilcek near Larisa. 1443. the country from which their culture had originally come at the beginning of the Troy I period some two hundred and fifty years before. Macedonia. where they settled around the Saronic and Argolid gulf as the first Early Helladic settlers c. The repercussionsof this invasion on both Greece and Northwestern Anatolia were profound and may be compared to the so-called Aegean migration. With the exception of Poliochni and Troy. Tigani. this earlier movement of people from the Balkans into Greece and Anatolia is. P. flourishing on the lower Danube in Southern Rumania. where they founded an Early Bronze Age culture of Troy I (or IIa) type. Claros. About the middle of the third millennium B. 1381.PKG. Institut 65/66 221 Troy 1. thoseof OkolGlava. The interpretation here offered is. 227 fig. 158. Further west. but the bulk of the emigrants headed south towards Northwestern Anatolia. the Veselinovo culture. 79ff. Die Jltesten Kulturen Griechenlands (Stuttgart 1955) I24f. The greater part of the area of the Veselinovo culture was overrun and its population forced south. p. 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. 70. Excav. The disaster which also overwhelmed the island sites shows that the invasion came by land and sea.c. was overrun. PKG 1427ff. and except at Veselinovo itself. to the East coast of Greece. some no doubt remained and were enslaved.cit. Elements of this V. The neolithic period in Bulgaria (1948) 83ff.1381withliterature D. 218AnatStud 6 (1956) 47. 217 F. elements from the West Bulgarian and Serbian uplands218 brought the curious Rakhmani culture to Northern Thessaly.222 was hastily fortified and then deserted. 46f. What happened to the old population we can only guess.224 Only Poliochni on Lemnos seems to have weathered the storm.220 What happened is clear: Troy I was stormed and burnt. took its place. whether on the Anatolian mainland or on the islands off the coast. Schachermeyr. 82. from Plovdiv to the Black Sea. which. 47. the break between the Troy I and II cultures is complete. others deserting their cities may have joined the invaders.217 The late neolithic culture of Macedonia and Thrace was put 212 For the chronology-see my article in AnatStud 7 (1957). 49ff.. somewhat tentative. For neolithic elements in it ibid. Bayrakli. Following roughly the same pattern as the Aegean migration. H. no. G. as it is often called in Bulgaria. F.219 This southward movement of the Gumelnitza culture had far reaching effects. at Olynthus I.C. Mylonas. which was immediately rebuilt by the survivors. map 3. PKG. 215 BSA 23 (I918/I9) 44ff. For the Veselinovo culture. where they picked up elements of the Syros group. Chronologie der jiingeren Steinzeit Mittel und Sildost-Europas(Berlin I949) 6off.213 the Gumelnitza or Mound culture.227 (Stuttgart 1955)133. 223 Thermi. For the Mound culture. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Arch. to an end by this invasion. the only one by which the first Indo-European languages could have been introduced. Thessaly. AA (1955) 184f. 219Preh. MilojWid. starting from approximately the same area.g.

which may suggest that their numbers were comparatively small. the conquerors must have come by sea. The newcomers had apparently only taken over the coastal regions. Schliemann's excavations. 239 On the evidence of the sherds collected by the writer since 1951.30 JAMES MELLAART [AJA 62 They seem to have mixed peacefully with the late neolithic local population. At Tarsus in E. the most important of which was a split between the coastal and the inland cultures. 35-36 in E.III: Tarsus II. a diminishing popularity of incised ware. the so-called 230o frying-pans.III culture it started expanding onto the Anatolian plateau. such as mirrors. late E. but see AnatStud 7 (1957). io8. 249. 229See note 220.236 A new culture.A. vI. PKG 1427b. 8. hitherto only faintly noticeable (e. incised ware etc. consisting of a framework of wooden beams filled with twigs.2400 and 2100 B.. All during the E. from which the use of wheelmade pottery was adopted.III. and partly the outcome of a local process already apparent in the previous period involving a gradual substitution of handles for lugs. C.. Most of its features. as it is associated with a coastal (N. imply an Anatolian origin. and a change from darker to lighter colours as the result of improvements in firing. between Troy I and Yortan). The Early Helladic I culture has no strong links with its late neolithic predecessor and appears to have been introduced by the newcomers. H. Zygouries. new shapes appear.III goes through some seven phases between c. The change in culture is undoubtedly partly due to trade with Cilicia. W.c.W.Troy IIg is destroyed in a great 235 V.C.B. 258 (IIb). the solid mud brick walls of Troy I-IIa and the Veselinovo tradition of wooden houses. the "TreasC. tubular lugs of rather degenerate type." is introduced by the conquerors and a branch of them overran Cyprus. Blegen.230 There is no question here of a simple transplantation of Anatolian culture. et de Plovdiv ('937-39) Unatzite. 41. brushwood and covered with mud plaster. Iv. 347f. About the middle of the Troy II period. incision. Khirokitia.. Cilicia is conquered by Northwest Anatolian elements and Tarsus burnt.229 period.III period contact with western Anatolia is maintained and soon after the arrival of the E. fig.cit.238 Cilician E. where gradually (Troy IIb-c) a new culture developed. 238Troy 1. op. From the Syros culture. The arrival of the northernersindirectly produced a number of cultural changes in Northwestern Anatolia. 12. houses of "hall and portico" type. etc. . In architecture there is one significant innovation: a framework of wooden beams is introduced in the mudbrick construction. 231 See especially M. 22. Mellink in BiOr io (i953) 58f. the Konya plain was gradually absorbedinto the area with a coastal west Anatolian culture. 247. and the use of vertical wooden beams reinforcing the antae (parastades). 232Troy 1.228 bowls and which appear before the end of the sauceboats. Mikov in Bull. 33 (IIc). beam-construction. 233 V.B. During the course of the Troy II period. c. The prosperity of Troy II under its new rulers is not only shown by the famous metalwork. 234Troy 1.233 the most characteristic vessel of that culture. None of these changes can be ascribed to the newcomers. de l'Institut Arch. the so-called depas amphikypellon or two-handled cup.. the one-handled tankard.c. p. During the twentyfourth century B. indicate a change of population. E. 233 (late Veselinovo). Gumelnitza."39 About 2300 B.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.2400 B. pl. AA (I943) 70ff (Gumelnitza levels).B. etc. along the old trade route frequented since the middle of Troy I. even if somewhat diluted and obscured by Early Cycladic elements which are dominant at the beginning. Schuchhardt. and as the neighbouring areason the plateau remained for the time being unaffected by this change. such as is the case in the Macedonian Early Bronze Age.g. such as slipped and burnished wares. fig. Bulgare 13 (1939) figs.B. Annuaire de la Bibliotheque Nat. 329 and fig. Construction in wood seems to have been normal in Bulgaria. putting to an end the Chalcolithic cultures and initiating the Early Cypriote period with the Philia-Vasilia phase. fig.C.B. 237 P. Goldman's "Trojan phase.).235This "half-timber" construction is of importance.) Anatolian culture wherever it is subsequently found. pl. 2*8 ures" found by Schliemann. introduced by people from the Amuq. 230.II (gate).231whereas the inland culture of Yortan remained unaffected..232 may or may not be an improvement on the old Veselinovo shape. Mikov. the most famous of which. but also by the great fortifications of Troy IIb and especially IIc. before it is replaced by the Middle Bronze Age.B. who no doubt adopted the culture of the subject population. J. the so-called megara.237"' Northwest Anatolian pottery. Dikaios. 238 Tarsus 11. 12 (post du Musee Nat.B.

c. 250 The Times. a series of of pottery. Troy 1. the next two citadels are extraordinarily poor west. shows many remiddle of Troy II onwards. Beycesultan XV. K6prii*ren. they were to carry tains that the land of Pala is probably to be located westward to Greece.. LV-LVII. pl..C.244The influence of unchanged to the present day.230oo B. destructions follow each other rapidly from the interpreted as a temple or palace. It is not impossible culture in the upper Maeander valley. but whereas the cause of action.2200 B. 11. which. with "protonorth and the ugly face-urns show the same spirit minyan" shapes.sleeping platforms along The same happens in Samos and the modified parallel for which in Anatolia was found in the pear. during the this period and the obvious conclusion is that Troy III period. Gaul. Curiously barbarous pottery.half-timber construction. Anatolian culture.1958] END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA AND AEGEAN 31 conflagration. 223f. op.248 local N.wash wares. Under pressure. become typical of Troy III and con.tury B. hardly any two-handled cups. the maritime culture expanded megaron-like building with a central round hearth. 245 stForsch 6 (1955) 59. 243J.importing wheel-made bowls and plates from Cilicia cussions. 1956.247Level and there can be no doubt that Troy had suffered XII at Beycesultan marks the beginning of a new some great reverse of fortune. then in IIg). 46f. first occurring in IId.W. Kiiltepe. XIV semblances to contemporary buildings in the west 240 Troy 1.C. the appearanceof a great of the newcomers. and the earlier invaders were almost certainly the the great Central Anatolian city of Kanesh. During the following centuries they be. a new type of spindle whorl and the stroyed Troy II and settled in Northwestern Ana. the face-urns. 247 See "BeycesultanExcavations" in AnatStud 7 (I957). the so-called destruction is unknown in the first two cases. 132.cit. who can only have been Luwians. 133. like Eskisehir region or direct from the west by a Tavsanli. where the old cultures disap.. Dec. We have shown that at Troy.2300 B. it had reached Polatli. 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. H.LXII. figs. and the half timber construction survives vival of culture in that region. (Polatli II). red polished and redMound culture of Bulgaria.240no doubt the result of enemy and XIII are all burnt. eastward to the Ineg6l-Iznik region245 and the surrounded by four columns and benches and the walls (the closest Kiitahya246 region. developed the similar movement.24'appear first at Troy at the end of the complete break in culture which follows the desecond citadel. ocas some of the anthropomorphic vessels of the casional wheel-made pottery. About 2200 B. rival of the Palaites there. i. the eastern cities of this group. 18. 241 246 The latest pottery of the old type in this area can be linked to that of Beycesultan XIII. etc.had some reper. Greek speaking elements were present in the area During the twenty-third century.e. 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. exercised by the arrival or the Konya plain. . introducing that the rich city had excited barbarians in the a variant of the Troy III culture. 249AnatStud 6 (I956) 188. 244 Troy 11. was Luwians and their mysterious Aegean relatives. 207. also.c. At Beycesultan. During the long centuries tolia. Inegil. Although Troy The Kastamonu region was reached either from the lagged behind. 236 (C 30 shape. until the end of the Bronze Age in the XIth cenBy the beginning of Troy V there is a general re.Afyon-Emirghazi area.250In construction this great building. c. first occurring in IIg) and 239 (D 13 lid. where the old western Anatolia was not confined to the import cultures are destroyed. which came to an end c. The fall of Troy II c. 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. and by the beginning of the came gradually more civilized and adopted the Troy IV period.struction of Beycesultan XIII leaves little doubt that tinue till Troy V. 248AnatStud I (1951) 33.243 Possibly they de. There is no alternative for the and this influx of westerners may indicate the ararrival of the Greeks into this area before 1900oo.C.249It is in those northern mounMinyan ware. after 1900.242After the destruction of Troy the city was conquered by newcomers from the II. the expansion of the new west by their arrival was the cause of the destruction of Anatolian culture continued eastward over the Troy II. 242Troy 11. 246 (C 30) and 248 (D 13).

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

arrive in Kizzuwadna.1958] 2200 END OF EARLY BRONZE AGE IN ANATOLIA West Anatolian cultures penetrate west Anatolian tableland. Pithana. Aetolia and Acarnania of devastation from east. Anita. Gulf of Pagasae and Boeotia in Central Greece. from where it spread southward and westward. reaching Polatli. Conquest of Hattus. Iznik region and in Chalcidice. founds the Hittite Old Kingdom. Cyclades. king of Kussara. 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. 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. Wave The Hurrians. king of Kussara. from where they spread over Attica and the Peloponnese. king of Kussara. Crete and Thessaly Immigration of West Greek elements which eventually find their way to Epirus.B. Yortan and Kusura B absorbed. Labarna's war against Arzawa 1750 ff. . Establishment of the supremacy of Kussara over Central Anatolia Labarna. 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.i85o-I800. around end of 20th century B. a non-Indo-European people. Zalpa and Purushattum. Destruction of Beycesultan V The Hittites "inherit" the kingdom of the kings of Kussara.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. Conquest of Nesa 1820 ff. establishing themselves as a ruling class over the Luwian population Immigration of the Hittites from the east. ends in destruction.c. Survival of old Indo-European population in Cyclades. c.e. i. Kusura burnt 200oo E.


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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful