Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0

Luwian Identities
Culture, Language and Religion Between
Anatolia and the Aegean
Edited by
Alice Mouton
Ian Rutherford
Ilya Yakubovich
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
Alice Mouton, Ian Rutherford and Ilya Yakubovich
Luwians versus Hittites ................................................................................ 25
J. David Hawkins
Peoples and MapsNomenclature and Definitions .......................... 41
Stephen Durnford
Names on Seals, Names in Texts. Who Were These People? ........... 73
Mark Weeden
Anatolian Names in -wiya and the Structure of Empire
Luwian Onomastics .................................................................................. 87
Ilya Yakubovich
Luwian Words in Hittite Festivals ............................................................ 125
Susanne Grke
CTH 767.7The Birth Ritual of Pittei: Its Occasion and the
Use of Luwianisms .................................................................................... 135
Mary R. Bachvarova
Luwian Religious Texts in the Archives of attua .......................... 159
Daliah Bawanypeck
vi contents
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
The Luwian Cult of the Goddess Huwassanna vs. Her Position
in the Hittite State Cult ....................................................................... 177
Manfred Hutter
A Luwian Shrine? The Stele Building at Kilise Tepe .......................... 193
Nicholas Postgate and Adam Stone
A New Luwian Rock Inscription from Kahramanmara ................... 215
Meltem Doan-Alparslan and Metin Alparslan
Carchemish Before and After 1200 BC .................................................... 233
Sanna Aro
James Mellaart and the Luwians: A Culture-(Pre)history ................. 279
Christoph Bachhuber
The Cultural Development of Western Anatolia in the Third
and Second Millennia BC and its Relationship with
Migration Theories ................................................................................... 305
Deniz Sar
Luwian Religion, a Research Project: The Case of Hittite Augury ... 329
Alice Mouton and Ian Rutherford
Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of Western Anatolia: Long Arm of
the Empire or Vernacular Tradition(s)? ............................................ 345
Rostislav Oreshko
Greek (and our) Views on the Karians ................................................... 421
Alexander Herda
contents vii
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Divine Things: The Ivories from the Artemision and the Luwian
Identity of Ephesos ................................................................................... 509
Alan M. Greaves
Iyarri at the Interface: The Origins of Ares ............................................ 543
Alexander Millington
Singers of Lazpa: Reconstructing Identities on Bronze
Age Lesbos .................................................................................................. 567
Annette Teffeteller
Index .................................................................................................................. 591
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Christoph Bachhuber*
The prehistory of Indo-European is a seemingly intractable problem that
continues to attract the interest of mainstream archaeology. I begin by
asking why, in particular through the work of Mellaart and his hypoth-
esis of a Luwian migration across Anatolia in the third millennium BCE.1
Current surveys and excavations continue to support many of Mellaarts
observations on changes in material culture at a regional scale.
Since he first proposed this hypothesis almost 50 years ago Anglophone
archaeology has struggled with large-scale population movements. Migra-
tion has resided at the core of major theoretical developments, from the
outright rejection of migration as a quaint culture-historical agent of
social change in the processual archaeology of the 1970s80s, to a more
recent post-processual re-engagement with population movements in the
archaeological record, inspired by a considerable literature in the social
sciences on modern migration and identity.2 Bronze Age Anatolia has
been sidelined in this and most other discourse in Anglophone archaeol-
ogy. One consequence is that Mellaarts Luwian migration has been left to
stagnate in another era of culture-historical archaeology. The hypothesis
deserves to be revisited.
The migration that Mellaart proposed is improbable on empirical and
methodological grounds; though the changes that he observed in material
culture and settlement patterns remain valid and compelling. I approach
this corpus as a case study of identity. More specifically I examine the
relationship between social interaction, social change, and the creation of
an elite identity within the regions that were purportedly conquered by
Mellaarts Luwians (Fig. 1). I highlight one spatial context and two kinds
*Many thanks to Ian Rutherford and Alice Mouton for inviting me to present a paper
in the Luwian Identities conference at Reading, and for their patience through the edit-
ing process. Thanks also to Elizabeth Frood and Felipe Rojas for their review of my paper
and useful comments.
1Mellaart 1966: 175177; 1981, 148149.
2E.g. Chapman/Hamerow (eds) 1997.
280 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
of activities in the analysis. The spatial context is a citadel, defined here as
the fortified habitation of one or more chiefly households (Fig. 2). The two
activities were performed on citadels and were major catalysts for social
change: the exchange of wealth and the consumption of wealth.
New strategies to exchange and consume wealth signal a new era in
prehistoric Anatolia, defined by a rigid separation between an agrarian
elite who inhabited fortified citadels and those who lived and laboured
in the farming hinterland. The exchange and consumption of wealth on
citadels exaggerated the degree of separation between the two groups.
The exchange and consumption of wealth was also salient in the creation
of a new pan-regional elite identity. I conclude the paper considering
whether the term Indo-European is relevant to this citadel phenomenon.
1.The Arrival of the Luwians
James Mellaart first introduced the term Luwian to archaeological dis-
course in the 1950s. During this time Mellaart was Assistant Director of
the fledgling British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (founded in 1948).
Bronze Age archaeology in Anatolia was eventful and groundbreaking.
The German-led excavations at Late Bronze Age Boazky-attua, the
Turkish-led Middle Bronze Age excavations at Kltepe-Kani, and the
recently published American-led excavation of Troy, were all making vital
contributions to the field. The extensive archives discovered at Boazky-
attua and Kltepe-Kani created new possibilities for language-based
research in Bronze Age Anatolia. Histories could be written that could not
have been written before, including linguistic ones that prioritize Anatolia
as the place where an Indo-European language is first textually attested.
In the preface of the 1995 publication of the third volume of the Bey-
cesultan excavations, Mellaart offers a frank assessment of his motivation
for studying this site. Excavations began in 1954 with the aim of:
providing an archaeological sequence in a hitherto unknown area of Ana-
tolia, possibly within the ancient country of Arzawa, as a counterweight to
the discoveries at Troy and Boazky. At the same time Turkish excavations
were taking place at Karahyk-Konya, and of course, since 1948, at the
famous site of Kltepe-Kanesh. At the time it seemed a new dawn in Ana-
tolian Bronze Age archaeology (and without saying it) the hope of recover-
ing tablets, i.e. written material to free Western Anatolia from the stigma of
being illiterate, backward and at best provincial. Having found on the sur-
face of a neighbouring mound, ivri Hyk, a sherd with the hieroglyphic-
james mellaart and the luwians 281
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Luwian sign for scribe, one was entitled to believe that the neighbouring
mound of Beycesultan might yield inscribed material; but such was not to
be, and after six seasons the excavations came to an end.3
This melancholy confession reveals much about the perceived role of
archaeologists working in historical periods in the Mediterranean region.
Mellaarts characterization of Western Anatolia as illiterate, backward and
at best provincial might also be a caricature of these archaeologists, whose
job was to grub around in the dirt to assist text-based scholars in writ-
ing historical narratives, ideally through the discovery of tablets. Because
Bronze Age Beycesultan did not produce any epigraphic material, Mel-
laart would contribute to the historical narrative of Bronze Age Anatolia
in another way.
It is telling that Mellaarts most forceful archaeological observations on
the Luwians in western and southern Anatolia do not relate to the second
millennium when Luwian speakers are textually attested, but to the third
millennium (Early Bronze Age, herein EBA) when there is no epigraphic
evidence for the Luwian language. So why did Mellaart focus on the EBA?
If archaeology was inadequate to contribute to understanding the history
of the Luwians, then Mellaart believed that archaeology was better placed
to throw light on the origins of the Luwians, and by extension the origins
of the Indo-Europeans in Anatolia. The study of prehistoric origins, after
all, is perceived to be the exclusive domain of the archaeologist. What
better way to contribute to the intellectual history of western civilization
than through a prehistory of the earliest attested Indo-European speakers?
Similar kinds of archaeological self-consciousness have committed some
of the biggest names in Old World archaeology to the Indo-European
problem, including Gordon Childe, Marija Gimbutas, Colin Renfrew,
Andrew and Susan Sherratt, Karl Lamberg-Karlovsky and David Anthony,
to name a few.4
Mellaart integrated archaeological data from the EBA with the widely
held opinion among Hittitologists that the Luwians recorded in Hit-
tite texts inhabited the western and southern regions of the Anatolian
Peninsula.5 He was not the first archaeologist to use prehistoric evidence
to write a migratory culture-history of Bronze Age Anatolia (see hypothesis
3Mellaart 1995: iii.
4Childe 1926; Gimbutas 1973; Renfrew 1987; Sherratt/Sherratt 1988; Lamberg-Karlovsky
2002; Anthony 2009.
5See recently Bryce 2003.
282 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
below). For example, such a narrative was instrumental in the Turkish
History Thesis, developed among Turkish academics in the 1930s40s. In
this culture-history the builders of the so-called royal tombs at Alacahyk
(also dating to the EBA) were migrants who travelled from a primordial
Turkish homeland in Central Asia. The people buried in the royal tombs
were purportedly ancestral to the Hittites and by extension to all Turkish
The Turkish History Thesis did not enjoy much support after the 1930s,
resulting in decreased interest and investment in the prehistory of Tur-
key. By the 1960s many archaeologists working in Turkey had begun to
challenge the migratory origins of the royal tomb builders of Alacahyk,
and by extension their Hittite origins. Ekrem Akurgal7 was the most
prominent critic, suggesting rather that the tombs were autochthonic
and represent the Hattian culture of central Anatolia, later conquered by
the Hittites. Mellaart8 also sided with Akurgal. By doing so he shifted the
regional focus of the archaeological problem of Indo-European origins
from central Anatolia to the west and south, or towards regions where he
was active in fieldwork.
For most historians, philologists, and linguists working in Anatolia the
EBA is an appropriate time period to consider the initial spread of Indo-
European languages across Anatolia.9 The minor differences between the
three known Indo-European languages from the second millennium sug-
gest to many that Nesite, Luwian and Palaic genetically separated dur-
ing a relatively brief period of timeprobably no more than a thousand
years.10 Mellaart seized on this historical-linguistic observation to offer an
archaeological solution to the Indo-European problem in Anatolia, with
a focus on the EBA.11
To Mellaart, the origins of the Indo-Europeans in Anatolia can be
observed in a number of trends across the western and southern regions
of the peninsula. The distribution of a technologically innovative type of
wheel-made pottery, Red Slip Wares (herein RSW),12 was the most per-
vasive evidence. Prior to the appearance of RSW most of Anatolia was
6See Atakuman 2008.
7Akurgal 1962: 1329.
8Mellaart 1966: 155.
9See recently Bryce 1998: 1314; Watkins 2001: 50, 58; Melchert 2003: 2326; Yakubo-
vich 2010: 8.
10See for overview Melchert 2003: 24.
1 1 See in particular Mellaart 1981.
12This pottery repertoire is also called Red Coated Wares (see Sar, this volume), or a
more generalized Wheel-made Plain Wares (see Bachhuber, in press).
james mellaart and the luwians 283
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
using hand-made pottery (Cilicia was an exception). When Mellaart for-
mulated his hypothesis the RSW repertoire was most well-known from
excavations at Troy, where RSW forms including goblets, broad-rimmed
bowls and the emblematic depas cup (Fig. 3) dominated the assemblages
of Troy IIIII (ca. 26002200 BCE).
The perceived importance of Bronze Age Troy coupled with the dis-
tribution of RSW pottery across such a vast region required that Troy
hold a prominent role in this narrative. Troy was not the homeland of
the Luwians, rather the archaeologically observable destruction events of
Troy II (ca. 26002400 BCE) signalled the arrival of an invading force
of Indo-Europeans who swept down from the eastern Balkans. These bar-
baric people embraced the more sophisticated culture of the Trojans (e.g.
wheel-made RSW) and subsequently began their steady and destructive
advance east across the Anatolian Peninsula, diffusing the material cul-
ture of the Troad and founding (Indo-European/Luwian) kingdoms along
the way.13
In a later study Mellaart14 outlined a less forceful and earlier Indo-Euro-
pean entry into Anatolia. He cites horse bones at the settlement of Demir-
cihyk in Phrygia (founded ca. 3000 BCE) as evidence for the arrival of
Indo-European horse-riders to this region.15 In Mellaarts later interpreta-
tion, these earliest Indo-Europeans in northwest Anatolia were ancestors
of the Luwians who inhabited Troy II and other contemporary citadels in
this region, and who eventually conquered great swathes of the Anatolian
The invasion across the peninsula is most readily observed in discon-
tinuities in ceramic traditionsin particular the introduction of RSW.
Mellaarts surveys of the Konya Plain noted another trend, this time in
settlement patterns.17 The majority of the sites in his study area appear
to have been abandoned at the same time that RSW was introduced, sig-
nalling a profound disruption (e.g. decimation and displacement) caused
by the invasion of the Indo-Europeans/Luwians. Mellaart could follow
these two trends (RSW and destruction/abandonment) straight across the
southern length of the Anatolian Peninsula to Cilicia, where the transition
13Mellaart 1966: 175177.
14Mellaart 1981.
15Mellaart 1981: 137. Though it is now known the horse was an indigenous animal
in Anatolia that was hunted and not domesticated during the EBA (see Bachhuber,
in press).
16Mellaart 1981: 145149.
17Mellaart 1963.
284 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
between the EB II and EB III phases at Tarsus was marked by a violent
destruction and the introduction of RSW. In Cilicia most of the sites had
also been abandoned at the same time that RSW was introduced.18
Mellaart believed that Luwian was spoken by this wave of Indo-
Europeans,19 primarily because he believed (like most Hittitologists) that
the Luwians were settled in the southern and western regions of the Ana-
tolian Peninsula during the second millennium, or the regions where Mel-
laart could follow his invading population during the EBA, and where he
was active in fieldwork.
Mellaarts migration cannot be supported on empirical grounds. A migra-
tion hypothesis should be able to rule out any other potential agent for
regional-scale changes in material culture, e.g. emulation or some similar
social process. For a migration to be confidently reconstructed in prehis-
tory, changes in the archaeological record need to be total, and observed
in all aspects of material culture and society. Continuity in EBA Anatolia
is noted in farming practices, diets, and various technological and stylis-
tic features of material culture (see below), diminishing the differences
between the purported Luwians and the people that they conquered.
When Mellaart formulated the Luwian hypothesis there were few alter-
natives to migration for explaining profound changes in the archaeological
record. He was among the last generation of Anglophone archaeologists
who confidently observed cultures (or discrete ethnic groups) in material
culture. Alternative approaches were introduced with the New and later
Processual archaeologists who dominated the methodological agenda in
the 1970s80s, replacing culture-history with empiricism, and replac-
ing migration as an agent of culture change with culturally mediated
responses to any number of social and environmental conditions. More
recently, the Post-Processual critique has re-vitalized culture-history,20 in
part by replacing top-down reconstructions of cultures with bottom-up
reconstructions of identities,21 and by examining how the relationship
between material culture and identity can inform problems like migra-
tion in the archaeological record, and/or the prehistoric use of language.22
A new culture-history is needed that can account for the transformations
that Mellaart observed long ago, whilst relating them to the creation of an
elite identity rather than a large population movement.
18Mellaart 1966: 177.
19Mellaart 1966: 177.
20E.g. Morris 2000.
21Jones 1997.
22See particularly Anthony 2009.
james mellaart and the luwians 285
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
2.Formulating a New Culture-History
Luwian is a term that is often used to describe things other than language;23
but how does an archaeologist approach the problem of Luwian beyond
its epigraphic context? It is easy to be pessimistic and conclude that this
term is meaningless. If Hittite is an ambiguous and potentially mislead-
ing ethno-linguistic-historic category in both text-based studies,24 and in
studies of Late Bronze Age material culture,25 then archaeologists should
avoid the term Luwian altogether for un-inscribed material culture. The
prehistorian Stephen Shennan is succinct on this point:
Ethnicity . . . should refer to self-conscious identification with a particular
social group at least partly based on a specific locality or origin. If we accept
this definition, then it appears that prehistoric archaeology is in a difficult
position as far as investigating it is concerned, since it does not have access
to peoples self-conscious identifications.26
Similarly, the classical archaeologist Jonathan Hall isolates two self-
defining aspects of a social group that might effectively pinpoint ethnic-
ity: identification with a specific territory and a shared myth of descent.27
Archaeology cannot inform either Luwian origins or historical claims to
territory. Text-based researchers are normally better placed to address the
problem of ethnicity. A Land of Luwiya in the Hittite Laws is the only tex-
tual evidence that hints at a Luwian territory,28 though the Laws were not
self-consciously composed by Luwians and do not inform a Luwian identi-
fication with this territory any more than the later Greek identification of
Lydia informs a Lydian ethnicity. Accepting that Luwian is an appropriate
term for things other than language, a Luwian ethnicity might never be
accessible to archaeologists. The absence of a Luwian self-consciousness
in the text corpus related to shared territoriality or descent also obscures
a Luwian ethnicity from philological consideration, at least by the above
On the other hand, there are ways to think about the relationship
between material culture and language that do not invoke ethno-linguis-
tic-historic categories. The analysis can begin by re-considering the causes
and meaning of social change during the EBA in Anatolia, and relating
23See Melchert (ed.) 2003 and several contributions in this volume.
24Gilan 2008.
25Glatz 2009: 129130.
26Shennan 1994: 14.
27Hall 1997: 25.
28Bryce 2003: 2829.
286 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
these changes to the hypothetical use of a particular language. Prehistoric
archaeologists who approach the problem of language rely on models
developed in historical linguistics to explain language change.29 Broadly
two vectors of language change can be distinguished: one demographic
that equates with the movements of populations, and one social that
studies the relationship between social interaction and language change.
Mellaarts migration represents a demographic vector, as people speaking
an Indo-European language (Luwian) settled in regions where it was not
spoken before.
Today Mellaarts migration hypothesis has been eclipsed by models of
long-distance trade for reasons that are worth briefly considering. Archae-
ologists are less interested in questions related to Hittite/Indo-European
origins, and more interested in understanding the relationship between
Anatolia and regions to the west including the Aegean and the Balkans,
and regions to the east including Syria and Iraq. This shift resonates with
the geo-politics of the Turkish republic today, as the foundation narratives
of the early republic have been replaced with concerns to navigate Tur-
keys relationships with the European Union to the west and north, and
the predominantly Muslim countries to the east and south. In prehistory
trade networks across Anatolia fulfil specific expectations related to Tur-
keys perceived role as a bridge between Europe and the Middle East.30
In some respects the archaeology of this new culture-history is not
altogether different from the migratory culture-history of Mellaart. Both
culture-histories draw upon the distribution of specific object types across
Anatolia and related changes in material culture. The distribution of RSW
forms, for example, have been used to identify both the migration of Indo-
Europeans (as above), and trade networks across Anatolia.31 Similarly the
founding of Indo-European kingdoms has been replaced with the creation
of trading centers that thrived within networks of long distance exchange
(e.g. at Troy, Kltepe, and Tarsus etc.).
Nevertheless the shift from migration to trade is appropriate. In the
prehistoric record migration scenarios need to be supported by profound
and pervasive changes in material culture. The new ceramic technol-
ogy (e.g. the introduction of wheel-made RSW) should be accompanied
by new technologies in the industries of weaving, farming, metallurgy,
29E.g. Renfrew 1987: 99119.
30See Greaves 2007.
31Rahmstorf 2006a; Efe 2007.
james mellaart and the luwians 287
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
architecture, etc. Such changes are not attested in EBA Anatolia, where
all of the above technologies and industries remained consistent through
the duration of the EBA.32
Another reason to emphasize trade as an agent rather than migration
is that the latter cannot be informed with textual evidence, whereas the
former presumes continuity with the early second millennium. Personal
letters and accounts from the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) text corpus of
Assyrian language archives from Kltepe-Kani, Aliar-Amkuwa, and
Boazky-Hattu provide precise details of Assyrian merchant enterprise
in Anatolia. The archives of Assyrian trading enterprise have suggested to
many archaeologists that an extensive if not comparable exchange net-
work was already in place in the EBA, into which the Assyrian network
naturally coursed.
To what extent the MBA text corpus reveals or obscures the nature of
long distance trade during the EBA is worth considering. T. zg has
proposed on the basis of the identification of pottery forms like eastern
inspired Syrian Bottles and western inspired depas cups (Fig. 3) that the
EBA settlement of Kltepe had already begun to assume an important role
in interregional trade,33 establishing a precedent for the MBA networks of
Assyrian trade. Efe34 has described a Great Caravan Route across EBA
Anatolia based on similar evidence35 with direct reference to the donkey
and wagon caravans that were used to transport metal and textiles in the
early second millennium. aholu36 has proposed a directly analogous
Anatolian Trade Network based on the distributions of similar kinds of
It is not my intention to detail or re-examine all the evidence for
long distance trade between the two regions;37 it is enough to observe
that the evidence is extensive and many-layered, but does not allow for
direct lines of communication between Anatolia and Syria and/or Iraq.38
32See for plausible EBA migration to Cyprus based on these criteria, Frankel 2000; For
the megaron architectural tradition see Werner 1993; for the warp-weighted loom weaving
tradition see Richmond 2006; see Bachhuber, forthcoming for general overview of conti-
nuities in the EBA.
33zg 1963: 2; 1964: 48.
34Efe 2007.
35See D. Sar, this volume.
36aholu 2005.
37See Bachhuber 2013; in press, for fuller treatment.
38For example there is no conclusive evidence for Akkadian merchants on the Ana-
tolian Plateau, contra some readings of the King of Battle narrative, see Bachhuber 2013:
288 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Networks were more complex during the EBA than they were in the MBA.
In the earlier period long distance communication was likely mediated
by relationships and interactions based on the circulation of prestige
commodities within networks of gift exchange (or similar pretestations),
rather than via the well-organized merchant enterprise of the MBA with
caravans, colonies, taxation, and the like.
The contemporary royal archives from Ebla describe how desirable
materials and commodities circulated over long distances.39 The archives
are most detailed in connection with two kinds of long distance commod-
ity transfer: tribute demanded from vassals and consigned to the treasur-
ies and storehouses of palaces and temples (Sumerian mu-DU); and gifts
consigned to individuals or gods (Sumerian ng-ba). The Ebla archives
record gift giving with gold and silver jewellery and inlaid weaponry, gold
and silver vessels, volumes of silver, garments, textiles, oil and livestock.40
If a little over simplified, the dynamic of gift exchange and the social/
moral/political obligation to reciprocate the gesture kept the metal flow-
ing in EBA Syria (together with tribute and plunder), and probably also in
adjacent regions like Anatolia.
The least ambiguous context for gift exchange in the archaeological
record is observed in votive deposits or gifts to the gods, where rela-
tionships with cosmological entities were mediated with prestations of
valuables. The gesture between the gift-giver and the cosmological entity
is understood to be analogous with less archaeological accessible gift-
exchange gestures between people.41 Below I examine how and why metal
objects (identical to the kinds of objects gifted in the Ebla archives) were
ritually deposited as gifts to the gods on citadels in EBA Anatolia.
39See Vigan 1996: 5760.
40These were given and received in several guises across the region, including as gifts
to commemorate a royal wedding (Vigan 1996, 578); funerary gifts (Archi and Biga 2003,
23), or consignments to commemorate the birth of a royal son or daughter (Vigan 1996,
60). But the most frequent occasion to deliver and receive gifts between palaces was prob-
ably in diplomatic correspondence. Messengers between courts of equal status continu-
ally crisscrossed the region, delivering news, entreaties, demands, and personal messages.
Every diplomatic visit included the exchange of a gift; the more important the visit the
larger the gift. For example, the delivery of news regularly warranted a gift of 1 mina of sil-
ver to the messenger (Archi and Biga 2003, 11, 32). A peace delegation from Mari received
11 minas of silver from the Eblaite court (Archi and Biga 2003, 1011).
41See for Iron Age Greece, Morris 1986: 714.
james mellaart and the luwians 289
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
3.Weight Metrology, Cognition, and Language
The first category of material culture that I address in this paper relates
directly to the problem of long distance exchange. Systems of weight
metrology in EBA Anatolia have been reconstructed through the study of
pan balance weights. Objects identified as pan balance weights have been
recorded across Anatolia to the Aegean, including from Tarsus, Aliar,
Kusura, Aphrodisias, Troy, and Poliochni. These weights have surfaced in
the archaeological literature due largely to the careful compilations and
analyses of Lorenz Rahmstorf and Arsen Bobokhyan.42 Both authors have
engaged sophisticated statistical studies on large assemblages of weights
from third millennium contexts across Western Asia and the eastern
Mediterranean to arrive at the delineation of regional weight standards.
For example, Rahmstorf and Bobokhyan have suggested that multiple
standards were in operation during the EBA in Anatolia, including based
on northern Syrian units of 9.4g and 11.411.7g43 and local standards
based on units of 55.5g.44 Rahmstorf also detected a Mesopotamian
standard in EBA Anatolia based on 8.33g units and a Syrian one based on
9.35 g units.45
To what extent the statistically thin corpus from EBA Anatolia (prob-
ably no more than 60 examples) can demonstrate the existence and
interaction of different regional weight standards may be questioned. A
more extreme sceptic might wonder if these weights circulated as desir-
able, shiny, exotic and amulet-like things with little or no administrative
function. I doubt that such scepticism is warranted in this case however.
Rahmstorf46 has highlighted a number of beam-shaped, bone objects from
roughly contemporary (EBA) contexts in northwestern Anatolia and
the northeastern Aegean, at Troy, Bozyk, Poliochni, and Klloba. These
all have three piercings, one on either end of the beam and one in the
middle. A balance arm for a scale is the most plausible interpretation of
this object type.47 A review of several contexts across EBA Anatolia also
reveals a regular contextual association between weights and assemblages
of metal objects, including scrap metal and ingot forms. These associations
42Rahmstorf 2006a; 2006b; Bobokhyan 2006; 2008; 2009.
43Bobokhyan 2009: 40.
44Bobokhyan 2009: 39.
45Rahmstorf 2006b: 2324.
46Rahmstorf 2006a: 7273.
47Rahmstorf 2006a: 72.
290 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
are most readily observed at EB III Tarsus,48 Aliar Stratum 1,49 Troy II
III50 and Poliochni Giallo.51
Weight metrology signals a new use and perception of materials in EBA
Anatolia related to the commodification of metal. The commodification
of metal during this period is most clearly illustrated in the contemporary
textual record of Mesopotamia, where the weight of metal (in particular
silver) was chosen as the primary standard of valuation for all commodi-
ties. The primacy of metal required that its value was uniform, stable and
agreed upon, at least in transactions where it was used to measure value.
In principle any commodity might have been used to make a payment
during the third millennium, but the most practical and desirable medium
of exchange in long distance networks was metal, by virtue of its portabil-
ity (high value, low volume) and liquidity (as a physical property).
The confident reconstruction of weight metrology on EBA citadels in
Anatolia represents the highest order of symbolic communication that
can be reconstructed through archaeology in this region and time period.
Renfrew52 makes six assertions related to the innovation of metrology.
The first three illustrate the basic cognitive apparatus required for such a
system to work; the latter three highlight how this system was used (para-
1) Concepts of weight and mass must exist;
2) The use of these concepts involve the operation of discrete units, and
the creation of a concept of modular measure;
3) A hierarchical system of numeration must exist;
4) The measuring system allows an individual and society to register (or
map) the world quantitatively and qualitatively;
5) The notion of equivalence based on weight enables an individual or
society to observe ratios of value between materials;
6) The inferred concept of value requires a constant rate of exchange
between commodities.
The innovation of metrology has salient implications for a number of devel-
opments in EBA Anatolia, including a new use and perception of materials
48Goldman 1956: 33, 275.
49Schmidt 1932: 36, 6667.
50Bobokhyan 2006; 2009.
51Bernab-Brea 1976: 197198, pl. CCLVII.17, 187188.
52Renfrew 1982: 17.
james mellaart and the luwians 291
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
like metal, evidence for a higher order of symbolic communication between
citadels, and evidence for a restructuring of social relationships.
Weight metrology represents an esoteric knowledge (with origins prob-
ably in Mesopotamia) exclusive to a small circle of citadel elites in EBA
Anatolia. Weight metrology was a form of knowledge and communication
related to the efficacy and desirability of metal in different contexts of
exchange. Prestations to cosmological entities is an archaeologically acces-
sible exchange activity in EBA Anatolia. At Troy, sacrificial dedications
of metal53 include several deposits of metal with pan balance weights.54
Potential gifts to the gods circulated as commodities that were invested
with a value that could be measured in a metrological system. Similarly,
every gift of metal in the Ebla archives was recorded with a weight.55
The dedication of pan balance weights in the treasure deposits of Troy
reveals a ritual significance of weight metrology, beyond its apparent
function as a technology to measure value. An analogous ritual context
for the use of metrology can be considered in the Hittite alli watai
royal mortuary ceremony. On Day 3 of the ceremony, as the cremated
remains of the king or queen rested in the pyre: the Old Woman takes
the balance and with one pan she takes all silver gold and gems, with the
other pan, however, she takes clay mortar . . . . At the end of this stage
of the ritual the Old Woman smashes the balance into smithereens and
holds it towards the Sungod.56 She conspicuously destroyed the balance
in a way that is similar to the deposition of pan balance weights with the
treasures at Troy. In both contexts the implements of weight metrology
were used in a gesture of dedication/sacrifice.
It is a small conceptual leap from weight metrology to begin to consider
the use of language in these contexts of exchange and ritual (and ritual-
ized exchange). There is no shortage of historical evidence for the devel-
opment of an elite language in contexts of long distance communication
that cross cultural and linguistic boundaries. The most well-known and
clearly illustrated example from the Bronze Age is the Akkadian language
correspondence of the Amarna Letters.57 Much of this communication
included the exchange of gifts (cognate with EBA developments that I
reviewed above), and reveals how the flow of desirable commodities can
53The so-called Treasures of Troy IIg-III, see Bachhuber 2009, and below.
54Bobokhyan 2006.
55See Vigan 1996.
56Translation from Kassian et al. 2002: 268269.
57Moran 1992.
292 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
relate to the spread of an elite language. A similar though less conclusive
development has been proposed for Nesite/Hittite during the MBA.58 In
this scenario the Nesite/Hittite language was adopted across the Anato-
lian Plateau as a courtly language of trade and diplomacy (within net-
works of metal, wool and textile exchange), due largely to the economic
and political prominence of the kingdom of Nesa within these networks.
Nesite/Hittite retained its prestige as a courtly language among the Hit-
tite elite of the Late Bronze Age, although the kingdom of Nesa had been
long abandoned.
Analogous reconstructions become more tenuous in prehistory, though
Andrew and Susan Sherratt59 first considered the possibility of the spread
of Indo-European language(s) from western Anatolia to the Aegean dur-
ing the third millennium within similar networks of communication. The
exchange of things like metal and textiles may have been accompanied
by new forms of language, perhaps initially a special-purpose trade or
elite language, used specifically in communicating within the context of
extraterritorial exchanges.60 Like Mellaarts Luwian invasion to the east,
the Sherratts granted Troy a dominant role in facilitating the dispersal of
Indo-European language(s) west into the Aegean in the mid-to-late third
The focus of the Sherratts analysis was the Anatolian/Aegean interface.
I introduce similar considerations to the Anatolian Plateau where two
strands of linguistic evidence might substantiate such a claim: 1) Nesite,
Luwian and Palaic genetically separated over a relatively brief period of
timeprobably no more than a thousand years;62 2) Non-Indo-European
Hattic is likely a substrate language.63
In EBA Anatolia activities of exchange can account for the spread of
an elite language across the western and southern regions of the Ana-
tolian peninsula, as well as eastern Thrace and the east Aegean islands,
beginning near the middle of the third millennium BCE (Fig. 1). Here,
I prioritize the evidence for gift exchange and metrology as the most
consequential for understanding how a language may have been shared
between potentially distant inhabitants of citadels. Nevertheless exchange
58Steiner 1981; Bryce 2005: 1516.
59Sherratt/Sherratt 1988.
60Sherratt/Sherratt 1988: 592.
61Sherratt/Sherratt 1988: 590, 593.
62See for overview Melchert 2003: 24.
63See for overview Bryce 2005: 12.
james mellaart and the luwians 293
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
was just one social agent in a more complex process that was ultimately
defined by new power relationships, maintained or legitimized by a new
ritual-ideological sphere.
4.Citadels as Vortices of Consumption
Citadels in EBA Anatolia were places to consume wealth. Metal is an obvi-
ous form of wealth and relates directly to the problem of long distance
exchange. Wealth was also drawn from the farming hinterland. Here I pri-
oritize the consumption of livestock in feasting and sacrifice. Prior to the
ascendance of citadels ca. 2600 BCE this kind of consumption occurred
mainly in mortuary contexts. The presentation of cattle skulls and hooves
and the ostentation of metal objects in the cemetery of Alacahyk is the
well-known and spectacular example,64 but several additional extramural
cemeteries show an analogous consumption/sacrifice of cattle and metal
objects, if on a more modest scale.65
The few dozen extramural cemeteries in EBA Anatolia that have been
excavated share two salient features: most pre-date the developments
that I am covering in this paper; and none are associated with monumen-
tal citadels.66 In other words, a transition can be observed ca. 2600 BCE
when the archaeologically visible sacrifice of livestock and metal moved
from cemeteries to citadels. This pattern in EBA Anatolia mirrors devel-
opments on the Bronze Age of Cyprus and the Iron Age in the Aegean,
where the focus of commemorative actives also shifts from cemeteries to
monumental buildings.67 In all the above examples this shift represents a
trend towards a more urbanizing social structure, though urban may be
an exaggerated description of the citadel polities of EBA Anatolia.68
Consumption on citadels represents the culmination of two spheres of
production and exchange. Metal was consumed within a supra-regional
sphere defined by long distance networks of communication. Farm-
ing productivity was consumed in a local sphere defined by a farming
64See recently Bachhuber 2011.
65Massa forthcoming, in press.
66Bachhuber, in press.
67For Iron Age Aegean, see Coldstream 1977, chap. 2 for investment in 9th century
cemeteries, chap. 13 for investment in temples from the 8th century onwards; for Bronze
Age Cyprus see Knapp 2008 for transition from cemetery-oriented Prehistoric Bronze Age
Cyprus (chap. 3) to palace-oriented Protohistoric Bronze Age Cyprus (chap. 4).
68Cf. evik 2007.
294 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
hinterland. The consumption of metal can inform relationships between
potentially distant elites. The consumption of farming productivity can
inform relationships between the inhabitants of the citadel and the farm-
ing hinterland. Both activities are the manifestations of a chiefly ideology
that included the sanctioning of inequality through the extravagant and
public consumption of wealth.
The treasures of Troy and analogous deposits of metal on citadels at
Poliochni and Eskiyapar are normally interpreted as a measure of wealth
for these societies. In earlier articles I have argued that large deposits of
metal are misleading wealth indicators. Rather, the intentional deposition
of metalas a form of wealth sacrificeshould be interpreted as a mea-
sure of value, in particular the salience of metal for the societies that were
using it during the EBA.69 Appadurais70 formulation of a tournament of
value is particularly useful, as it outlines how value and social status can
be simultaneously negotiated through the exchange and consumption of
desirable objects or materials. The exchange and consumption of metal
can transform an EBA citadel into an arena where strategic skill is cultur-
ally measured by the success with which actors attempt diversions or sub-
versions of culturally conventionalized paths for the flow of things.71 The
conventionalized paths of commodity flow in EBA Anatolia included the
long distance networks that circulated metal through gift pretestations or
similar gestures between citadel elites. The diversions and subversions of
this flow can be recognized in gifts to the gods: here the gestures of metal
sacrifice on citadels like Troy. The exchange and consumption of metal
was a salient feature in the negotiation of status and identity between
citadel elites.
The public display and consumption of metal also sanctioned inequal-
ity between the elites who inhabited citadels and those who inhabited
the farming hinterland and were excluded from this sphere of interaction.
The relationship between citadel dwellers and the farming hinterland can
be further informed by settlement patterns that were first identified by
Mellaart. His surveys recorded a sharp decrease in site frequencies on the
Konya Plain and in Cilicia precisely when RSW pottery was introduced
to these regions. To Mellaart, this trend revealed the destruction and/
or abandonment of indigenous communities in the wake of the Luwian
69See Bachhuber 2009; 2011.
70Appadurai 1986.
71Appadurai 1986: 21.
james mellaart and the luwians 295
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
invasion.72 Mellaarts observations continue to be supported by recent
surveys across Anatolia.73 This is best illustrated in the Troad, where 30+
sites have been identified with handmade pottery that dates to Troy I
(ca. 30002600 BCE, pre-RSW). Wheelmade RSW pottery has been iden-
tified at only one site in the Troad.74
The monumental fortifications and megaron buildings of Troy II
(Fig. 2) relate directly to the corresponding reduction of site frequencies
in the Troad. The 30+ Troy I sites in the Troad likely represent farm-
ing villages that were abandoned during the ascendance of Troy II. It is
within this demographic pattern of nucleation (and dispersal?) beginning
ca. 2600 BCE that citadel polities across Anatolia achieved the economic,
social and political consolidation of the valleys that they inhabited. Citadel
elites extracted farming productivity from a much expanded hinterland,75
and transformed this surplus into higher orders of production, exchange
and consumption. This farming surplus is archaeologically visible in large-
scale storage on citadels.76 It is also visible in the burnt offerings of meat,
most clearly demonstrated at Troy II.
Blegens excavations on the Ledge, about 100m west of the citadel (Fig.
2a), identified a large rectangular basin (16m by 6m) cut out of an over-
hanging ledge of limestone overlooking the Aegean. It was filled with a
remarkable accumulation (3.5m) of depositional material, including large
quantities of pottery (almost exclusively RSW) and burnt faunal remains
dominated by cattle and sheep/goat, with lesser volumes of deer, pig, dog
and tortoise. The Ledge was also filled with unidentified burnt organic
matter and with numerous stone idols, celts and spindle whorls.77 Blegen
raised the possibility that this was a cultic space where burnt sacrificial
offerings had been made.78
The Ledge represents an unprecedented context in EBA Anatolia to
sacrifice wealth, here in the form of burnt offerings of livestock. Following
Blegen, it is worth considering whether the smoke of the burnt sacrifice
ascended towards one or more appreciative deities, not unlike the smoke
of burnt animal sacrifice in the communal feasting events described in
72Mellaart 1963; 1966: 177.
73Bachhuber, in press.
74Troy IIIII, 26002200 BCE, Bieg et al. 2009: pl. 1; S. Blum, personal communication.
75See for farming at Bronze Age Troy, Riehl 1998.
76Of grain and liquids, see Bachhuber, in press.
77Blegen et al. 1950: 270277.
78Blegen et al. 1950: 270.
296 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Homer or in Archaic Greek religious practice. To extend this analogy
across EBA Anatolia, the sacrifice of wealth was directed at cosmological
entities that could be communed with on citadels, in contrast with the
previous period in Anatolia when the sacrifice of wealth was directed at
cosmological entities (probably ancestral) that could be communed with
in cemeteries.
RSW pottery was deposited in the Ledge as well as in bothros-like con-
texts on the citadel that contained similar kinds of objects and burnt
faunal remains.79 RSW was innovative not only for the technology that
the repertoire introduced (the fast wheel), but also for the new kinds of
vessels that were introduced to the habits of eating and drinking. Chris-
tine Eslick80 highlights two innovations of RSW in particular: the large
diameters of the platters and the double handles fixed to tankards (Fig. 3).
She suggests these formal innovations represent a greater emphasis than
in previous periods on sharing table wares in feasting contexts; double
handles facilitated the passing of the goblet and large plates were shared
at the table.
RSW is the materialization of a feasting decorum that was developed
on citadels like Troy IIIII and cognate places across EBA Anatolia
(Fig. 1). Feasts and attendant burnt offerings of meat were an opportunity
to invest farming surplus in events that celebrated the munificence and
hospitality of the inhabitants of citadels. It is within such a context that
the pervasiveness of RSW across Anatolia can begin to be apprehended.
This feasting decorum was communicated, much like the value of metal
was communicated, between peers who self-consciously resembled one
another in a process that was at once emulative and competitive.81
It is worth considering whether similar motivations driven by emula-
tion, competition and decorum can account for the development or adop-
tion of a shared language between the inhabitants of citadels across this
region (Fig. 1). I have prioritized activities of consumption and exchange
to account for this process. Both activities are evoked in the celebration
of hospitality and gift-giving that are well-known virtues of early Indo-
European speakers.82 The public sacrifice and partial immolation of live-
stock on EBA citadels is also a recurring feature in the ritual cycles of early
79Bachhuber 2009: 3.
80Eslick 2009: 234235.
81I.e. they inhabited peer polities after Renfrew/Cherry (eds) 1986.
82See for example the praise of the gift songs, Watkins 1995: 186.
james mellaart and the luwians 297
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Indo-European speakers, and normally preceded feasting. Anthony83 has
highlighted such a context to explain the spread of Indo-European lan-
guages across Europe. A social and ideological asymmetry existed between
non-Indo-European speaking populations and a chiefly Indo-European
elite who introduced:
a new ritual system in which they in imitation of the gods provided the
animals for public sacrifices and feasts, and were in turn rewarded with
the recitation of praise poetryall solidly reconstructed for Proto-Indo-
European cultureand all effective public recruiting devices.84
5.Concluding Thoughts
Anatolia lends itself well to diffusion models, whether in the guise of
population movements or long distance trade. The landmass is often
perceived as a kind of bridge, across which materials, populations, and
armies moved between east and west. It is where east meets west; it is
also a crossroads. The enduring metaphor of a bridge highlights the mar-
ginal place that Anatolia (and Turkey) occupies in western scholarship
and in contemporary discourse.85 In the broad paradigms of archaeol-
ogy and ancient history, Anatolia exists between two traditional poles of
research: the Hellenic Aegean and the Mesopotamian Near East. It is a
place in western scholarship whose global significance in antiquity can be
measured by the intensity of interactions with these two poles.
Archaeologists, philologists and linguists working in ancient Anatolia
all share a concern with diffusion. The most comprehensive and evoca-
tive language-based research seeks to explain Anatolian influence on the
corpus of Greek literature and myth,86 and interactions between Luwian
language/speakers and Hittite language/speakers.87 Diffusion between
Anatolia and the Aegean is also explicit in the title of this volume. It is an
appropriate concept; though diffusion as an explanatory agent of social,
ideological or language change often runs the risk of abstraction from the
people who were involved in the process. A material culture approach to
the problem begins with archaeologys unique ability to reconstruct the
social arenas where these interactions took place.
83Anthony 2009: 118.
84Anthony 2009: 118.
85See Greaves 2007; zdogan 2007.
86Collins et al. 2008.
87Yakubovich 2010.
298 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
I suggest (like Mellaart did) that the problem of Indo-European in Ana-
tolia becomes archaeologically accessible near the middle of the third
millennium, when the ascendance of citadels marks the beginning of a
long era in Anatolia defined by the dominance of an agrarian elite. The
Bronze Age in Anatolia begins with the inhabitants of these citadels, who
self-consciously enclosed themselves from the majority of the agricultural
producers of the hinterland, and exaggerated the degree of separation
between the two groups through the ceremonialized exchange, display,
and consumption of wealth. The relevance of Indo-European (as a linguis-
tic or as ritual-ideological term) is worth considering in the creation of
this new chiefly identity, for no other reason than their successors in the
early second millennium carried Luwian and Hittite names.88
I have avoided several potential Indo-European flashpoints. I made no
attempt to geographically isolate the earliest Indo-European speakers in
Anatolia. Similarly I have not proposed directionality (e.g. west-to-east
or east-to-west) in this vector of social change. I emphasize rather the
remarkable geographical scope of the development, including eastern
Thrace, the east Aegean islands, and the western and southern regions
of the Anatolian peninsula. Figure 1 shows a vast interaction zone.
Mellaart89 already recognized that the boundaries of this EBA phenom-
enon are familiar from Hittite political geography. For example, there are
no like EBA citadels north of the Anatolian Plateau (Kaska) or east of the
Taurus and Amanus mountains (Hurrian).
Can this EBA interaction zone define a boundary for the use of a com-
mon Anatolian Indo-European language? Interaction was a process of
elite identity-making that likely involved the public recruitment strate-
gies that Anthony refers to. For example, Hattic speakers who inhabited
the central regions of the Anatolian Plateau may have already begun to be
absorbed into an Indo-European speaking ritual sphere through ideologi-
cally and politically motivated exchanges of desirable commodities (e.g.
metal), and through the need or desire to participate in the public con-
sumption of wealth on citadels (e.g. in feasts and festivals). This process
would have continued (and accelerated) into the second millennium and
sufficiently accounts for the Hattic substrate in Late Bronze Age texts; but
can it account for the use of a common Anatolian Indo-European lan-
guage on EBA citadels? And if so, was this language more like Luwian
than the other Anatolian Indo-European dialects? These are unanswerable
88Yakubovich 2010: 208223.
89Mellaart 1981.
james mellaart and the luwians 299
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
questions that are nevertheless worth pondering. They offer an alternative
perspective to the problem of language contact and the transmission of
myth and ritual within Anatolia, and between western Anatolia and the
Aegean during the Bronze Age.
Akurgal, E., 1962. Art of the Hittites, London.
Anthony, D., 2009. The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the
Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, Princeton.
Atakuman, ., 2008. Cradle or crucible: Anatolia and archaeology in the early years of the
Turkish Republic (19231938), Journal of Social Archaeology 8, 214235.
Archi, A. and Biga, M.G., 2003. A Victory over Mari and the Fall of Ebla, Journal of Cunei-
form Studies 55, 144.
Bachhuber, C., 2009. The Treasure Deposits of Troy: Rethinking Crisis and Agency on the
Early Bronze Age Citadel, Anatolian Studies 59, 118.
, 2011. Negotiation Metal and the Metal Form in the Royal Tombs of Alacahyk
in North-Central Anatolia, in: T. Wilkinson and S. Sherratt (eds), Interweaving Worlds:
systemic interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st millennia BC, Oxford, 158174.
, 2012. The Anatolian Plateau, in: D. Potts (ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East, Oxford, 575595.
, 2013. Sumer, Ebla, Akkad and Anatolia, in: H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World,
, in press. Citadel and Cemetery in Early Bronze Age Anatolia, Monographs in Mediter-
ranean Archaeology 15, London.
Bauer, A., 2011. The Near East, Europe, and the Routes of Community in the Early Bronze
Age Black Sea, in: T. Wilkinson and S. Sherratt (eds), Interweaving Worlds: systemic
interactions in Eurasia 7th to 1st millennia BC, Oxford, 157188.
Bernab-Brea, L., 1976. Poliochni, citt preistorica nellisola di Lemnos, Rome.
Bieg, G., Blum, S.W.E., Krpe, R., Sevin, N. and Aslan, R., 2009. Yeiltepe: eine Siedlung
der frhen Bronzezeit am Oberlauf des Skamander, Studia Troica 18, 199227.
Blegen, C., Rawson, M., and Sperling, J., 1950. Troy: The First and Second Settlements,
Bobokhyan, A., 2006. Identifying Balance Weights and Weight Systems in Bronze Age
Troia: Preliminary Reflections, in: M.-E. Alberti, E. Ascalone and L. Peyronel (eds),
Weights in Context. Bronze Age Weighing Systems of Eastern MediterraneanChronol-
ogy, Typology, Material and Archaeological Context, Rome, 71125.
, 2008. Kommunikation und Austausch im Hochland zwischen Kaukasus und Taurus,
ca. 25001500 v. Chr, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1853, Oxford.
, 2009. Trading Implements at Troy, Anatolian Studies 59, 1950.
Boyer P., Roberts, N. and Baird, D., 2006. Holocene environment and settlement on the
arsamba alluvial fan, south-central Turkey: integrating geoarchaeology and archaeo-
logical field survey, Geoarchaeology 21.7, 675698.
Bryce, T., 2003. History, in: H.C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians, Leiden, 27127.
, 2005. The Kingdom of the Hittites, New edition, Oxford.
Chapman, R. and Hamerow, H. (eds), 1997. Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological
Explanation, Oxford.
Childe, V.G., 1926. The Aryans: a study of Indo-European origins, London.
Coldstream, N., 1977. Geometric Greece, London.
Collins, B.J., Bachvarova, M. and Rutherford, I. (eds), 2008. Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites,
Greeks and their neighbours: proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-cultural
Interaction, September 1719, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, Oxford.
300 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Czichon, R.M., 2000. Das Hattua/Boazky Surveyprojekt, in P. Matthiae et al. (eds),
Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near
East: Rome, May 18th23rd 1998, Volume 1, Rome, 269278.
evik, ., 2007. The emergence of different social systems in Early Bronze Age Anatolia:
urbanisation versus centralisation, in: A. Fletcher and A. Greaves (eds), Transanatolia:
Proceedings of a conference held at the British Museum, 31 March to 1 April 2006, Anato-
lian Studies 57, London, 131140.
Dexter, M.R. and Jones-Bley, K. (eds), 1997. The Kurgan culture and the Indo-Europeaniza-
tion of Europe: selected articles from 1952 to 1993, Washington D.C.
Easton, D., 1997. The Excavation of the Trojan Treasures, and their History up to the
Death of Schliemann in 1890, in: E. C. Allison (ed.), The Spoils of War: The Loss, Reap-
pearance, and Recovery of Cultural Property, New York, 194206.
Efe, T., 2003. Pottery distribution within the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia and its
implications upon cultural, political (and ethnic?) entities, in: M. zbasaran, O. Tand
and A. Boratov (eds), Archaeological Essays in Honour of Homo amatus: Gven Arsebk.
cin Armaan Yazlar, stanbul, 87104.
, 2007. The theories of a Great Caravan Route between Cilicia and Troy: the Early
Bronze Age III period in inland western Anatolia, in: A. Fletcher and A. Greaves (eds),
Transanatolia: Proceedings of a conference held at the British Museum, 31 March to 1 April
2006, Anatolian Studies 57, London, 4764.
Eslick, C., 2009. Elmal-Karata V. The Early Bronze Age Pottery of Karata: Habitation
Deposits, Oxford.
Frankel, D., 2000. Migration and ethnicity in prehistoric Cyprus: technology as habitus,
Journal of European Archaeology 3.2, 167187.
Gilan, A., 2008. Hittite Ethnicity? Constructions of Identity in Hittite Literature, in
B.J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova and I. C. Rutherford (eds) 2008, 107115.
Gimbutas, M., 1973. The Beginning of the Bronze Age and the Indo-Europeans: 35002500
B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, 163214.
Glatz, C., 2009. Empire as network: Spheres of material interaction in Late Bronze Age
Anatolia, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, 127141.
Goldman, H., 1956. Excavations at Gzl Kule, Tarsus II, Princeton.
Greaves, A., 2007. Trans-anatolia: Examining Turkey as a bridge between East and West,
in: A. Fletcher and A. Greaves (eds), Transanatolia: Proceedings of a conference held at
the British Museum, 31 March to 1 April 2006, Anatolian Studies 57, London, 116.
Hall, J., 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge.
Hoffner, H., 1997. The Laws of the Hittites: a critical edition, New York.
Jones, S., 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: constructing identities in the past and present,
Kassian, A., Korolv, A. and Sideltsev, A., 2002. Hittite Funerary Ritual, Mnster.
Knapp, A.B., 2008. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: identity, insularity, and connectiv-
ity, Oxford.
Korfmann, M., 1983. Demircihyk: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 19751978. Band I:
Architektur, Stratigraphie und Befunde, Mainz.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C., 2002. Archaeology and Language: the Indo-Iranians, Current
Anthropology 43, 6388.
Lambrianides, K. and Spencer, N., 1997. Unpublished Material from the Deutsches
Archologisches Institut and the British School at Athens and its Contribution to a Bet-
ter Understanding of the Early Bronze Age Settlement Pattern on Lesbos, Annual of the
British School at Athens 92, 73107.
Massa, M., forthcoming. Early Bronze Age burials customs across the central Anatolian
plateau: a view from Demircihyk Sarket, Anatolian Studies.
Massa, M. and aholu, V., 2011. Early Bronze Age Burial Customs in Western Anatolia,
in V. aholu and P. Sotirakopoulou (eds), Across: The Cyclades and Western Anatolia
During the 3rd Millennium BC, stanbul, 164171.
Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R., 1971. Western Asiatic Jewellery, ca. 3000612 B.C., London.
Melchert, H.C., 2003. Prehistory, in: H.C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians, Leiden, 826.
james mellaart and the luwians 301
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Mellaart, J., 1963. Early cultures of the south Anatolian Plateau, Anatolian Studies 7,
, 1966. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near East and Anatolia, Beirut.
, 1981. Anatolia and the Indo-Europeans, Journal of Indo-European Studies 9,
, 1995. Preface, in: J. Mellaart and A. Murray (eds), Beycesultan III.2: Late Bronze Age
and Phrygian pottery and Middle and Late Bronze Age small objects, London.
Moran, W., 1992. The Amarna Letters, Baltimore.
Morris, I., 1986. Gift and Commodity in Archaic Greece, Man 21, 117.
, 2000. Archaeology as cultural history: words and things in Iron Age Greece, Malden.
Musche, B., 1992. Vorderasiatischer Schmuck von den Anfngen bis zur Zeit Achaemeniden
(ca. 10000220 v. Chr.), Leiden.
zdogan, M., 2007. Amidst Mesopotamia-centric and Euro-centric Approaches: the
changing role of the Anatolian peninsula between the east and west, in: A. Fletcher and
A. Greaves (eds), Transanatolia: Proceedings of a conference held at the British Museum,
31 March to 1 April 2006, Anatolian Studies 57, Ankara, 1725.
zg, T., 1963. An Assyrian Trading Outpost, Scientific American 207, 235242.
Rahmstorf, L., 2006a. Zur Ausbreitung vonderasiatischer Innovationen in die fr-
bronzezeitliche gis, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 81, 4996.
, 2006b. In search of the earliest balance weights, scales and weighing systems from
the East Mediterranean, the Near and Middle East, in: M.E. Alberti (ed.), Weights in
Context: Bronze Age Weighing Systems of Eastern Mediterranean. Chronology, Typology,
Material and Archaeological Contexts, Rome, 945.
Renfrew, C., 1982. Towards an Archaeology of Mind: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered Before
the University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
, 1987. Archaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins, London.
Renfrew, C., and Cherry, J. (eds), 1986. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change,
Richmond, J., 2006. Textile Production in Prehistoric Anatolia: A Study of Three Early
Bronze Age Sites, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43, 203238.
Riehl, S., 1998. Bronze Age Environment and Economy in the Troad: The Archaeobotany of
Kumtepe and Troy, Tbingen.
Schmidt, E.F., 1932. The Alishar Hyk seasons of 1928 and 1929, Oriental Institute Publica-
tions 20, Chicago.
Shennan, S., 1994. Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, in:
S. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, London, 132.
Sherratt, A. and Sherratt, S., 1988. The Archaeology of Indo-European: An Alternative
View, Antiquity 62, 584595.
Steiner, G., 1981. The Role of the Hittites in Ancient Anatolia, Journal of Indo European
Studies 9, 150173.
aholu, V., 2005. The Anatolian Trade Network During the Early Bronze Age, Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 24, 2005, 339361.
Vigan, L., 1996. On Ebla: an accounting of third millennium Syria, Barcelona.
Watkins, C., 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics, Oxford.
, 2001. An Indo-European Linguistic Area and its Characteristics: Ancient Anatolia.
Areal Diffusion as a Challenge to the Comparative Method?, in: A.Y. Aikhenvald and
R.M.W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative
Linguistics, Oxford, 4463.
Werner, K., 1993. The Megaron during the Aegean and Anatolian Bronze Age, Jonsered.
Yakubovich, I., 2010. Sociolinguistics of the Luwian Language, Leiden.
302 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0






























james mellaart and the luwians 303
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Fig. 2a.Locating the proximity of the Troy IIc Ledge and the Troy IId bothroi
(circled) (Troia II citadel plan after Easton 1997: fig. 86).
304 christoph bachhuber
2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0
Fig. 2b.A view on the southern faade of the Troy II citadel, showing the glacis,
buttresses, and part of the ramp to Gate FM (from Schliemann excavations,
courtesy Deutsches Archologisches Institut, Istanbul).
Fig. 3.The emblematic form of the RSW repertoire, the depas cup (after
Rahmstorf 2006a: fig. 2).

Centres d'intérêt liés