Mellaart_Luwians_Bachhuber

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0Luwian Identities Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean Edited by Alice Mouton Ian Rutherford Ilya Yakubovich LEIDEN   BOSTON 2013 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0 CONTENTS Introduction  .................................................................................................... 1 Alice Mouton, Ian Rutherford and Ilya Yakubovich PART ONE PRESENT STATE OF THE LUWIAN STUDIES Luwians versus Hittites  ................................................................................ 25 J. David Hawkins Peoples and Maps—Nomenclature and Definitions  .......................... 41 Stephen Durnford PART TWO LUWIAN COMMUNITIES OF CENTRAL ANATOLIA 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 Görke CTH 767.7—The Birth Ritual of Pittei: Its Occasion and the Use of Luwianisms  .................................................................................... 135 Mary R. Bachvarova ‘Luwian’ Religious Texts in the Archives of Ḫattuša  .......................... 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 PART THREE LUWIAN CULTURE IN SOUTH-EASTERN ANATOLIA A Luwian Shrine? The Stele Building at Kilise Tepe  .......................... 193 Nicholas Postgate and Adam Stone A New Luwian Rock Inscription from Kahramanmaraş  ................... 215 Meltem Doğan-Alparslan and Metin Alparslan Carchemish Before and After 1200 BC  .................................................... 233 Sanna Aro PART FOUR LUWIAN AND LUWIC GROUPS OF WESTERN ANATOLIA 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 Sarı 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 PART FIVE CULTURAL CONTACTS BETWEEN LUWIAN OR LUWIC GROUPS AND THE AEGEAN 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 PART FOUR LUWIAN AND LUWIC GROUPS OF WESTERN ANATOLIA © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0 JAMES MELLAART AND THE LUWIANS: A CULTURE-(PRE)HISTORY 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 Mellaart’s 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 1970’s–80’s, 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 Mellaart’s 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 Mellaart’s 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. 1 Mellaart 1966: 175–177; 1981, 148–149. 2 E.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 1950’s. 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 Boğazköy-Ḫattuša, the Turkish-led Middle Bronze Age excavations at Kültepe-Kaniš, and the recently published American-led excavation of Troy, were all making vital contributions to the field. The extensive archives discovered at Boğazköy- Ḫattuša and Kültepe-Kaniš 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 Boğazköy. At the same time Turkish excavations were taking place at Karahöyük-Konya, and of course, since 1948, at the famous site of Kültepe-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, Çivri Höyük, 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. Mellaart’s 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 Mellaart’s 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 3 Mellaart 1995: iii. 4 Childe 1926; Gimbutas 1973; Renfrew 1987; Sherratt/Sherratt 1988; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002; Anthony 2009. 5 See 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 1930’s–40’s. In this culture-history the builders of the so-called royal tombs at Alacahöyük (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 people.6 The Turkish History Thesis did not enjoy much support after the 1930’s, resulting in decreased interest and investment in the prehistory of Tur- key. By the 1960’s many archaeologists working in Turkey had begun to challenge the migratory origins of the royal tomb builders of Alacahöyük, 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 time—probably 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 6 See Atakuman 2008. 7 Akurgal 1962: 13–29. 8 Mellaart 1966: 155. 9 See recently Bryce 1998: 13–14; Watkins 2001: 50, 58; Melchert 2003: 23–26; Yakubo- vich 2010: 8. 10 See for overview Melchert 2003: 24. 1 1  See in particular Mellaart 1981. 12 This pottery repertoire is also called ‘Red Coated Wares’ (see Sarı, 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 II–III (ca. 2600–2200 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. 2600–2400 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- cihöyük in Phrygia (founded ca. 3000 BCE) as evidence for the arrival of Indo-European horse-riders to this region.15 In Mellaart’s 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 peninsula.16 The invasion across the peninsula is most readily observed in discon- tinuities in ceramic traditions—in particular the introduction of RSW. Mellaart’s 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 13 Mellaart 1966: 175–177. 14 Mellaart 1981. 15 Mellaart 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). 16 Mellaart 1981: 145–149. 17 Mellaart 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. Mellaart’s 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 1970’s–80’s, 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. 18 Mellaart 1966: 177. 19 Mellaart 1966: 177. 20 E.g. Morris 2000. 21 Jones 1997. 22 See 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 people’s 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 definitions. 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 23 See Melchert (ed.) 2003 and several contributions in this volume. 24 Gilan 2008. 25 Glatz 2009: 129–130. 26 Shennan 1994: 14. 27 Hall 1997: 25. 28 Bryce 2003: 28–29. 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. Mellaart’s migration represents a demographic vector, as people speaking an Indo-European language (Luwian) settled in regions where it was not spoken before. Today Mellaart’s 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- key’s 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- key’s 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, Kültepe, 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, 29 E.g. Renfrew 1987: 99–119. 30 See Greaves 2007. 31 Rahmstorf 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 Kültepe-Kaniš, Alişar-Amkuwa, and Boğazköy-Hattuš 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. Özgüç 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 Kültepe 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. Şahoğlu36 has proposed a directly analogous ‘Anatolian Trade Network’ based on the distributions of similar kinds of objects. 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 32 See 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. 33 Özgüç 1963: 2; 1964: 48. 34 Efe 2007. 35 See D. Sarı, this volume. 36 Şahoğlu 2005. 37 See Bachhuber 2013; in press, for fuller treatment. 38 For 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: 502–504. 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 níg-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. 39 See Viganò 1996: 57–60. 40 These were given and received in several guises across the region, including as gifts to commemorate a royal wedding (Viganò 1996, 57–8); funerary gifts (Archi and Biga 2003, 2–3), or consignments to commemorate the birth of a royal son or daughter (Viganò 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, 10–11). 41 See for Iron Age Greece, Morris 1986: 7–14. 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, Alişar, 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 11.4–11.7g43 and local standards based on units of 5–5.5g.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, Bozüyük, Poliochni, and Küllüoba. 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 42 Rahmstorf 2006a; 2006b; Bobokhyan 2006; 2008; 2009. 43 Bobokhyan 2009: 40. 44 Bobokhyan 2009: 39. 45 Rahmstorf 2006b: 23–24. 46 Rahmstorf 2006a: 72–73. 47 Rahmstorf 2006a: 72. 290 christoph bachhuber © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0 are most readily observed at EB III Tarsus,48 Alişar 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- phrased): 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 48 Goldman 1956: 33, 275. 49 Schmidt 1932: 36, 66–67. 50 Bobokhyan 2006; 2009. 51 Bernabò-Brea 1976: 197–198, pl. CCLVII.1–7, 187–188. 52 Renfrew 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 šalliš waštaiš 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 53 The so-called ‘Treasures’ of Troy IIg-III, see Bachhuber 2009, and below. 54 Bobokhyan 2006. 55 See Viganò 1996. 56 Translation from Kassian et al. 2002: 268–269. 57 Moran 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 Mellaart’s 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 millennium.61 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 time—probably 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 58 Steiner 1981; Bryce 2005: 15–16. 59 Sherratt/Sherratt 1988. 60 Sherratt/Sherratt 1988: 592. 61 Sherratt/Sherratt 1988: 590, 593. 62 See for overview Melchert 2003: 24. 63 See 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 Alacahöyük 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 64 See recently Bachhuber 2011. 65 Massa forthcoming, in press. 66 Bachhuber, in press. 67 For 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). 68 Cf. Çevik 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 metal—as a form of wealth sacrifice—should 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 Appadurai’s70 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 69 See Bachhuber 2009; 2011. 70 Appadurai 1986. 71 Appadurai 1986: 21. james mellaart and the luwians 295 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0 invasion.72 Mellaart’s 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. 3000–2600 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. Blegen’s 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 72 Mellaart 1963; 1966: 177. 73 Bachhuber, in press. 74 Troy II–III, 2600–2200 BCE, Bieg et al. 2009: pl. 1; S. Blum, personal communication. 75 See for farming at Bronze Age Troy, Riehl 1998. 76 Of grain and liquids, see Bachhuber, in press. 77 Blegen et al. 1950: 270–277. 78 Blegen 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 II–III 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 79 Bachhuber 2009: 3. 80 Eslick 2009: 234–235. 81 I.e. they inhabited ‘peer polities’ after Renfrew/Cherry (eds) 1986. 82 See 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 poetry—all solidly reconstructed for Proto-Indo- European culture—and 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 archaeology’s unique ability to reconstruct the social arenas where these interactions took place. 83 Anthony 2009: 118. 84 Anthony 2009: 118. 85 See Greaves 2007; Özdogan 2007. 86 Collins et al. 2008. 87 Yakubovich 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 88 Yakubovich 2010: 208–223. 89 Mellaart 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. Bibliography 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, Ç., 2008. “Cradle or crucible: Anatolia and archaeology in the early years of the Turkish Republic (1923–1938)”, Journal of Social Archaeology 8, 214–235. Archi, A. and Biga, M.G., 2003. “A Victory over Mari and the Fall of Ebla”, Journal of Cunei- form Studies 55, 1–44. Bachhuber, C., 2009. “The Treasure Deposits of Troy: Rethinking Crisis and Agency on the Early Bronze Age Citadel”, Anatolian Studies 59, 1–18. ——, 2011. “Negotiation Metal and the Metal Form in the Royal Tombs of Alacahöyük in North-Central Anatolia”, in: T. Wilkinson and S. Sherratt (eds), Interweaving Worlds: systemic interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st millennia BC, Oxford, 158–174. ——, 2012. “The Anatolian Plateau”, in: D. Potts (ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Oxford, 575–595. ——, 2013. “Sumer, Ebla, Akkad and Anatolia”, in: H. Crawford (ed.), The Sumerian World, London. ——, 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, 157–188. Bernabò-Brea, L., 1976. Poliochni, cittá preistorica nell’isola di Lemnos, Rome. Bieg, G., Blum, S.W.E., Körpe, R., Sevinç, N. and Aslan, R., 2009. “Yeşiltepe: eine Siedlung der frühen Bronzezeit am Oberlauf des Skamander”, Studia Troica 18, 199–227. Blegen, C., Rawson, M., and Sperling, J., 1950. Troy: The First and Second Settlements, Princeton. 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 Mediterranean—Chronol- ogy, Typology, Material and Archaeological Context, Rome, 71–125. ——, 2008. Kommunikation und Austausch im Hochland zwischen Kaukasus und Taurus, ca. 2500–1500 v. Chr, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1853, Oxford. —, 2009. “Trading Implements at Troy”, Anatolian Studies 59, 19–50. Boyer P., Roberts, N. and Baird, D., 2006. “Holocene environment and settlement on the Çarsamba alluvial fan, south-central Turkey: integrating geoarchaeology and archaeo- logical field survey”, Geoarchaeology 21.7, 675–698. Bryce, T., 2003. “History”, in: H.C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians, Leiden, 27–127. ——, 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 17–19, 2004, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, Oxford. 300 christoph bachhuber © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25279-0 Czichon, R.M., 2000. “Das Hattuša/Boğazköy Surveyprojekt”, in P. Matthiae et al. (eds), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998, Volume 1, Rome, 269–278. Çevik, Ö., 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, 131–140. 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, 194–206. Efe, T., 2003. “Pottery distribution within the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia and its implications upon cultural, political (and ethnic?) entities”, in: M. Özbasaran, O. Tanıdı and A. Boratov (eds), Archaeological Essays in Honour of Homo amatus: Güven Arsebük. İcin Armağan Yazılar, İstanbul, 87–104. ——, 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, 47–64. Eslick, C., 2009. Elmalı-Karataş V. The Early Bronze Age Pottery of Karataş: Habitation Deposits, Oxford. Frankel, D., 2000. “Migration and ethnicity in prehistoric Cyprus: technology as habitus”, Journal of European Archaeology 3.2, 167–187. Gilan, A., 2008. “Hittite Ethnicity? Constructions of Identity in Hittite Literature”, in B.J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova and I. C. Rutherford (eds) 2008, 107–115. Gimbutas, M., 1973. “The Beginning of the Bronze Age and the Indo-Europeans: 3500–2500 B.C.”, Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, 163–214. Glatz, C., 2009. “Empire as network: Spheres of material interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia”, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, 127–141. Goldman, H., 1956. Excavations at Gözlü 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, 1–16. 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, London. Kassian, A., Korolëv, A. and Sidel’tsev, A., 2002. Hittite Funerary Ritual, Münster. Knapp, A.B., 2008. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus: identity, insularity, and connectiv- ity, Oxford. Korfmann, M., 1983. Demircihüyük: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978. Band I: Architektur, Stratigraphie und Befunde, Mainz. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C., 2002. “Archaeology and Language: the Indo-Iranians”, Current Anthropology 43, 63–88. Lambrianides, K. and Spencer, N., 1997. “Unpublished Material from the Deutsches Archäologisches 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, 73–107. Massa, M., forthcoming. “Early Bronze Age burials customs across the central Anatolian plateau: a view from Demircihöyük Sarıket”, Anatolian Studies. Massa, M. and Şahoğlu, V., 2011. “Early Bronze Age Burial Customs in Western Anatolia”, in V. Şahoğlu and P. Sotirakopoulou (eds), Across: The Cyclades and Western Anatolia During the 3rd Millennium BC, İstanbul, 164–171. Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R., 1971. Western Asiatic Jewellery, ca. 3000–612 B.C., London. Melchert, H.C., 2003. “Prehistory”, in: H.C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians, Leiden, 8–26. 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, 199–236. ——, 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, 135–149. ——, 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, 1–17. ——, 2000. Archaeology as cultural history: words and things in Iron Age Greece, Malden. Musche, B., 1992. Vorderasiatischer Schmuck von den Anfängen bis zur Zeit Achaemeniden (ca. 10000–220 v. Chr.), Leiden. Özdogan, 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, 17–25. Özgüç, T., 1963. “An Assyrian Trading Outpost”, Scientific American 207, 235–242. Rahmstorf, L., 2006a. “Zur Ausbreitung vonderasiatischer Innovationen in die frü- bronzezeitliche Ägäis”, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 81, 49–96. ——, 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, 9–45. 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, Cambridge. Richmond, J., 2006. “Textile Production in Prehistoric Anatolia: A Study of Three Early Bronze Age Sites”, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43, 203–238. Riehl, S., 1998. Bronze Age Environment and Economy in the Troad: The Archaeobotany of Kumtepe and Troy, Tübingen. Schmidt, E.F., 1932. The Alishar Hüyük 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, 1–32. Sherratt, A. and Sherratt, S., 1988. “The Archaeology of Indo-European: An Alternative View”, Antiquity 62, 584–595. Steiner, G., 1981. “The Role of the Hittites in Ancient Anatolia”, Journal of Indo European Studies 9, 150–173. Şahoğlu, V., 2005. “The Anatolian Trade Network During the Early Bronze Age”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24, 2005, 339–361. Viganò, 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, 44–63. 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 F i g . 1 .   M a p s h o w i n g c i t a d e l s w i t h p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y l a r g e a s s e m b l a g e s o f R S W p o t t e r y ( c a . 2 6 0 0 – 2 2 0 0 B C E ) . T h e s e p l a c e s i d e n t i f y M e l l a a r t ’ s L u w i a n s a n d t h e r e g i o n a l e x t e n t o f m y e l i t e i n t e r a c t i o n z o n e . 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 façade of the Troy II citadel, showing the glacis, buttresses, and part of the ramp to Gate FM (from Schliemann’ excavations, courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Istanbul). Fig. 3. The emblematic form of the RSW repertoire, the depas cup (after Rahmstorf 2006a: fig. 2).