The Second Millennium Chronology of Beycesultan

Author(s): James Mellaart

Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 20 (1970), pp. 55-67
Published by: British Institute at Ankara
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3642588 .
Accessed: 29/01/2014 03:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anatolian
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE SECOND MILLENNIUM CHRONOLOGY OF
BEYCESULTAN

By JAMES MELLAART

ALTHOUGH BeycesultanIII; the Late Bronze Age is in the course of preparation, it

would appear from a number of reviews of BeycesultanII, London, 1965,1 that some
of our colleagues still maintain the erroneous view that Beycesultan was uninhabited
during the Late Bronze Age. It is the purpose of this article to show that this view
is not supported by the evidence 2; on the contrary Beycesultan has a rich and
well stratified sequence of Late Bronze Age building-levels (III-IA), that run
parallel to the Hittite New Kingdom deposits of Central Anatolia.
In the absence of epigraphic material or radiocarbon dates, the dating evidence
from Beycesultan consists primarily of a stratified pottery sequence, for which
occasional typological parallels can be found at other sites in Anatolia. This is
normal archaeological procedure, as is the principle that a building-level is dated
by the latest (and not the earliest) object found in it. It is this principle which has
been ignored by a number of the reviewers of BeycesultanIH.3 Furthermore, the
excavations at Beycesultan, like those of Hisarlik ("Troy"), Bayrakh (Izmir),
Tarsus, etc., have shown quite clearly that even during the Late Bronze Age
(c. 1450-1200oo B.c.), the period of the Hittite New Kingdom, Anatolian cultures
were varied and diverse whatever power the Hittites may have held over them.
The fact that Hattusas was the Hittite capital does not make that city the type site
for the entire peninsula of Asia Minor, and the Bogazk6y ceramic sequence is not
binding for any area outside the Hittite homeland. These same considerations
apply to Ktiltepe-Kanesh for the first part of the Middle Bronze Age. It has been
said that unless one knows the distribution of a phenomenon, one knows nothing
worthwhile about it and this dictum is certainly applicable to the study of ceramics.
To establish the extent of ceramic provinces, a basic element of various cultures,
field surveys are needed. I am not aware that any of the reviewers of BeycesultanII
has any experience of this arduous, basic and essential form of extending one's
geographical knowledge of ceramic distribution. The next logical step is to build
up the ceramic sequence in each area through excavation and only then, and not
before, can one proceed to compare one area with another. As Prof. Bittel once
remarked to me, one ought to conduct modern excavations along strings of sites
(say) fifty kilometres apart to see how ceramic assemblages changed and where the
ceramic (and possibly cultural) boundaries are to be drawn.
There is one further point of importance; when comparing contemporary
(or approximately contemporary) ceramic groups it is essential to compare the

1 Machteld Mellink in BiOr, XXIV, nos. 1-2, 1967, pp. 3-9; Jeanny Voris Canby in A.J.A.,
70, 1966, 379-80, cf. also Machteld Mellink in Chronologies in Old WorldArchaeology (edited by R. W.
Ehrich), Chicago, 1965, pp. 120, 122; R. Hachmann in F. Fischer, WVDOG, 75, Berlin, I963,
p. 88, note 79 (on the Early Hittite character of the pottery of Beycesultan II), and F. Fischer,
ibid., pp. 88-9.
2 6" One hopes (and suspects) that his (i.e. Mellaart's) rejection of the chronological significance
of ceramic similarities (Beycesultan,II, p. 71) is merely an emergency thesis maintained to protect
his L.B.A. date for Levels III-II, which appear M. B. to most observers" (Mrs. Canby in A.J.A.,
70, 1966, 379). I quote this as a sample of premature criticism. Dating in archaeology is based on
evidence, not on majority decisions.
3 The coarse ware platters, tall-necked jugs, bottles, etc., which have Biyfikkale III (c. I265-
1200 B.C.) parallels date Beycesultan I, not the bathtubs that have Killtepe I B parallels, or the
seals of similar type, see Chronologies,p. 12o.

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

entire set of shapes to evaluate resemblancesand differences. What one should not
do is pick out a number of forms, shapes or techniques and base one's conclusions
on a personal choice, ignoring the rest. Yet this is exactly what our reviewers
have done, when they pounced on the bath in Beycesultan I A (the final Late
Bronze Age building-level) and " date " it on Ktiltepe karumI B parallels to the
Middle Bronze Age.4
In archaeological comparisons it is further advisable to draw one's evidence
from well-stratified sites, from which the pottery is published by building level,
not thrown together in long periods without finer subdivisions. Miss W. Lamb's
excavations at Kusura in the nineteen-thirties were a laudable pioneering effort,
but the published results5 fail to satisfy modern methods of the nineteen-sixties.
" Kusura C ", the so-called Hittite level, is now seen to contain heterogeneous
material extending from Beycesultan E.B.3 to the end of the L.B.A. and cannot be
used for establishing a reliable chronology in S.W. Anatolia. Kusura C is a hotch-
potch: it does not qualify as a culture, does not prove the western limit of Hittite
pottery and cannot be used to " correct " the Beycesultan stratigraphy.
Nor is archaeology served by accusations of " mystification " about local
Mycenaean such as R. Hachmann thinks fit to make.6 In fact, most of the criticism
would have carried greater weight if it had come from scholars with a better
knowledge of Beycesultanpottery. None discussedtheir misgivings with the author,
no one corresponded with him, and with one exception, not one of the over-
critical reviewers had bothered to visit the Beycesultan excavations, while in
progress. Unfamiliarity with the material probably accounts for the ludicrous
statement that the author does not distinguish between wash and slip ' or the
disapproval of using reconstructed drawings of pottery as the basis of the pottery
classification, instead of whole vessels.8 Does Miss Mellink doubt the restoration
of the bowl profiles, which is based on thousands of sherds and bases, or does she
really believe that pithoi, storage jars and cooking pots (the intact or restorable
vessels) are the most sensitive indication of pottery change? And what, pray, is
the difference between a broken pot, restored in plaster, or one restored on paper,
other than a matter of convenience?
One of Miss Mellink's criticisms is unfortunately due to a mistake on p. 52,
where " Level IV B " should be corrected to IV C. She writes 9 " e.g. of over
twenty items from a dwelling in C/2 over room 16, p. 52, pl. XXVIII, none of these
is identifiable in drawings ". Owing to the mistake just mentioned, she did not
connect the list on p. 52 with pp. IoI ff. where this material is fully illustrated in
Figs. P 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 (captioned as " deposit over E.V 16 or 17 " or the
like), and assigned to its proper building level, Beycesultan IV C.

4 How can Beycesultan I be dated to the M.B.A., when Beycesultan III contains a well-
stratified Mycenaean III B sherd? cf. Chronologies, p. i2o.
r W. Lamb in 86 and 87, 1936, 1937, Chronologies,
Archaeologia, p. 122, where we read under
L.B.A., " in the west, Kusura does not continue ". Yet Kusura " C " includes Beycesultan III, II
and I pottery, as anyone can see. Miss W. Lamb had no doubts about period " C " covering the
entire second millennium, and not only the M.B.A. The Beycesultan excavations have clearly
proved her right.
6 WVDOG, 75, p. 88, note 79. One does not sweep unwelcome evidence under the carpet in

archaeology. If Mr. Hachmann had bothered to write to the excavators of Beycesultan, his problem
could have been solved in a less discourteous way.
" M.'s technical discussion seems rather
7 A.J.A., 70, 1966, inexact, the terms slip and wash
being used interchangeably ".
8 BiOr, XXIV,
1 Ibid., p. 1967, p. 9.
9.

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE SECOND MILLENNIUM CHRONOLOGYOF BEYCESULTAN 57

THE BEYCESULTAN SECOND MILLENNIUM SEQUENCE

Four main building-levels (Beycesultan V, IV C, IV B, IV A) are assigned
to the Middle Bronze Age, followed by four more (BeycesultanIII, II, I B and I A)
that form the local Late Bronze Age. Each of the Late Bronze Age building-levels
shows phases of repair, and so does Level V.
Beycesultan I A (2 phases)
IB (3 phases)
L.B.A. II (2 phases)
III (3 phases)
IV A
M.B.A. IV B
IV C
V (2 phases)
8 major building-levels (14 phases)

The Middle Bronze Age of Beycesultan started c. 1900 B.C., the generally accepted
date for the end of the E.B.A. in Western Anatolia, and the beginning of Troy VI.
In Central Anatolian terms a date of c. 190 marks the end of Kaltepe karum(and
citadel) II.
There is no evidence that the Beycesultan sequence is incomplete 0oor
interrupted by serious gaps and there is plenty of evidence for shabby squatter
occupation after the more serious destructions that the site suffered at the end of
Beycesultan V, II (and I B?). This argues against even temporary abandonment
of the site, and the pottery sequence gives one the impression of being complete
and uninterrupted.
A comparison with other sites leads to the same conclusion. At the Hittite
capital, Bogazk6y, ten building-levels (Btiytikkale V B-III A) span the period
from 1900-1200 B.C. At Hisarlik (" Troy ") periods VI and VII, with eleven
phases building, span a period from c. 1900- 1100 B.C. and sounding "B " at
of
Bayrakli (Old Izmir) yielded eight building-levels (7-10 M.B.A., and I-14 L.B.A.)
for the period c. 1900-1050 B.C., when Protogeometric Greek pottery made its
appearance at the site. According to a preliminary report, the Gordion sequence,
starting at c. 1900 B.C.?, showed fourteen building-phases (Gordion 18-5) for the
period c. 1900-1200 B.C."1 Kaltepe's second millennium sequence is not yet known
in its later phases, but Alaca H6yiik (IV, III A, III B, and II) and Ihca near
Aya? have shorter and in the case of Ilica incomplete sequences.12
If we assume that at Beycesultan the second millennium sequence covered the
same period as at Bogazk6y the average duration of a building phase would be
c. 50 years at Beycesultan, c. 70 years at Bogazk6y, c. 72 -5 years at Hisarlik and
somewhat over a hundred a Bayrakhl. From this it would seem that Beycesultan
does not present a pattern that is in any way abnormal.
In this case the uncertain element lies in the date of destruction of Beycesultan
I A; if it fell after 1200 B.C.,the average duration of its building levels might come
closer to those of Hisarlik and Bayrakh.
Continuity is a strongly marked feature of the Beycesultan pottery in spite of
marked variations in the prosperity of the site and numerous destructions. There
are enough links to show that Beycesultan's M.B.A. pottery descended from that
of Beycesultan VI, in spite of the fire that destroyed Level VI A. The end of

10
p. 122.
Chronologies,
11 A.J.A., 70, 1966, pp. 276-77.
12 Ist. Mitt., 16, 1966,51, 52.

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

Beycesultan V and the burning of palace, temple and other buildings and its con-
comitant political and cultural decline can no longer 13 be attributed to the rise
of the Hittite Old Kingdom, since the latter, founded by Hattusilis I is unlikely to
have come into being before c. I7I10-1700 B.C. An alternative for the destruction
of Beycesultan V may be sought in the events that brought about the destruction
of many Central Anatolian cities at the end of the Ktiltepe I B period c. 1780 B.c.,14
which ended the period of Assyrian trade.
Beycesultan IV C would then overlap with Ktiltepe karumI A and the beginning
of the Hittite Old Kingdom, which also covers Beycesultan IV B. With Beycesultan
IV A begins a slow revival and a transition to the L.B.A. and this phase would
roughly cover the Hittite Middle Kingdom. Beycesultan III marks the beginning
of a new period of prosperity, corresponding in a general way to the rise of the
Hittite New Kingdom under Tudhaliyas I (see chronological chart for more details).
Needless to say, these equations are of a fairly general order and it should not be
forgotten that even at Bogazk6y, the Hittite capital, after more than thirty years
of excavation the attribution of individual building levels to distinct periods of
Hittite history remains tentative.
Furthermore the establishment of a secure absolute chronology of the second
millennium is not facilitated by the use of various chronologies by different excavators.

CERAMIC COMPARISONS

Many students of Central Anatolian (so-called Hittite) pottery have been

struck by the " Early Hittite " resemblances of certain Southwest Anatolian shapes.
Such resemblances cannot be denied, but the interpretations of this phenomenon
are not always expressed without some bias towards C. Anatolian influence 15
on the Southwest. Without repeating what has been said in Beycesultan I, pp.
260-3, and II, pp. 70-2, the main ceramic developments can be summarized as
follows :
Around 2100 oo B.C. with the foundation of the karumsuburb of Kiiltepe (level IV),
new wheelmade monochrome wares with distinctive shapes make their entry (and
coexist side by side with local painted Cappadocian ware). These are the so-called
Hittite wares. Similar pottery occurs at about the same time at a number of other
situes situated further west; at Acem H6ytik V, Alaca H6yiik IV, Bogazk6y (Haus
am Hang WH 9) Ilica V A, Polath II, Ahlatlibel, and Etiyokugu. The best parallels
for this pottery at Bogazk6y (now also identified at Btiytikkale V F) comes from
Beycesultan VI A, in the 2oth century B.C., i.e. somewhat later than in C. Anatolia.
But at Beycesultan VI A this pottery, striking in its novelty, is evidently an innova-
tion and surveys to the north have revealed that it may have developed during
E.B.3 in the Tavanlh-Ktitahya area, where it may be contemporary, if not ancestral,
to similar wares in the Ankara region and C. Anatolia. I have suggested that this
pottery came from this N.W. region and moved east from there to C. Anatolia,
perhaps before it penetrated south towards Beycesultan. Whatever the actual
ceramic movements-details are not yet available as karum IV and III pottery
has not yet been published in extenso-one should also consider the possibility of
local development in C. Anatolia, e.g. at Kiltepe. It would seem that this new
wheelmade ware corresponds to some extent to the time that " Hittite " or perhaps
more correctly Proto-Anatolian Indo-European elements are thought to have

3aJustly criticized in BiOr and A.J.A., op. cit.

14 N. Ozgil , Seals and Seal Impressions
of Level IB from KarumKanish,Ankara, 1968, p. 6i.
15 A.J.A., 70, 1966, 380.

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE SECOND MILLENNIUM CHRONOLOGY OF BEYCESULTAN 59
established themselves in C. Anatolia, the Ankara region (and perhaps elsewhere,
such as the Konya Plain). The seals from Kiiltepe karumII and a study of personal
names from this same period would seem to prove beyond any doubt that Proto-
Anatolians (Indo-Europeans) were firmly established in Central Anatolia since
2000
B.c.,
and probably earlier. In CentralAnatoliathese might reasonablybe
regarded as the ancestors of the " Hittites ", in the Konya Plain or the West of
Anatolia they may be ancestors of " Luwians ", but the division between these two
branches of the language had probably not yet occurred.
The really significant point about this period (whether one calls it E.B.3 b in
the west, karumIV and III in Central Anatolia or adopts the new-fangled M.B. I
of M. Mellink) is the appearance of a new set of wheelmade pottery vessels that
transcend the earlier ceramic provinces of Anatolia from the Sea of Marmara to
the watershed between Halys and Euphrates, forming a sort of umbrella stretching
from western to Central Anatolia under which, always taking into account earlier
local influences, perhaps not too dissimilar ceramic developments took place. In
this way similarities between Beycesultan on the one hand and C. Anatolian sites
can easily be accounted for, but such resemblancesare " genetic " rather than due
to one area influencing the other directly.
Under the new umbrella, the most spectacular development was in the east,
and in particular at Ktiltepe, which in karumlevel II enters history as the city of
Kanis. Contemporary developments take place in BtiytikkaleV C and Haus am
Hang 8b, at Acemk6y V and at Kara Htiytik-Konya II. In the west the new
influences come in late, in Beycesultan VI A, roughly contemporary with karumII,
but at Hisarlik (" Troy ") in the Troad these new influences had not yet penetrated
in late Troy V, nor for that matter anywhere along the Aegean coast. There are
signs of disturbance in the Northwest of Anatolia (Tavganli, Yenik6y), at Beyce-
sultan VI A, Polath II, Gordion and possibly elsewhere in the Ankara region
c. 1900, which conventionally marks the end of the West Anatolian Bronze Age.
Their significance cannot yet be assessed. Kiiltepe II is destroyed around the
same time, possibly in a war with Zalpuwa, and there is a gap in the record before
Ktltepe karumI B takes its place, c. 1850, when during the reign of Shamshi-Adad I
in Assyria trade relations are resumed and a second period of trade, first as before
with Assyria but after Shamshi-Adad's death, with the Amorite states of Syria,
results in a second period of prosperity of the Central Anatolian states. Kiiltepe
karumI B, Alishar, Bogazkby IV D with karumin lower city, level 4, Eskiyapan
(with a possible karum?),Alaca H6ytik, and further to the west Acemhyaiik near
Aksaray and Kara H6yuik-Konya have yielded often impressive remains of this
period (c. 1850-1780/1750 B.C.). In the west Beycesultan V, walled and with a
monumental palace, belongs to this period, and on the west coast we have Bayrakll7,
surrounded by a city wall, Larisa and Hisarlik, early VI. C. Anatolian pottery
types, related to Kultepe karumI B, make their first appearance in the Ankara
region, e.g. at Karaoglan and in Polath III, at Gordion 18 and Ihca IV, just as
they are notable at Kara H6yik-Konya I in spite of strong local peculiarities.
In Beycesultan V, however, there is no question of strong Central Anatolian
influence; bowls, cups and jugs-beak-spouted, bifoil of trefoil mouthed-continue
E.B.3 a local shapes. Other beak-spouts and teapots derive from E.B.3 b types
(mainly VI A) and thus have relations further east, but none suggestsdirect Kiltepe
I B influence, except perhaps a basket-handled teapot with strainer spout (M.B.A.
shape the biconical jars with two handles (shape 21), the ovoid jar (shape 24),
19),
the knobbed storage jar (shape 26) and the cooking pot with attached stand
(shape 32) (see BeycesultanII).

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

The biconical jars also occur at Alaca i.313 (Alaca,161966, and k.12 [IV]),
as well as the knobbed storage jar (g.253) and the cooking pot plus stand (j.2o6),
all except the first in Alaca III A-B, which is later than KuiltepeI B and probably
also later than Beycesultan V. As storagejars and cooking pots are unlikely items
of trade the resemblances may go back to common ancestry. Alaca III A-B in
fact covers such a long period that its correlations with Beycesultan are of little
chronological use. From these same building levels, for example, there is a funnel
(i.3 1I) like Beycesultan shape 39, which first appears in Level IV C, but continues
up to Level I B. Then there is a quatrefoil cup (h.Io03)and a round-neckedjar
(e.248) which have parallels only in BeycesultanIV B, shapes 40 and 41 (and later) ;
a painted pilgrim flask (j.2o4) with parallels in Beycesultan II and I and a bath
with handles (i.3I3) with remote parallels (of different shape) in Beycesultan I A!
Such a range of parallels does not inspire great confidence in the establishment
of valid synchronisms with Beycesultan, which appears to have the advantage of
a more precise stratification.
Rather than deal with minutiae and the comparisonof one shape with another,
it is advisable to compare the complete corpus of pottery of an archaeological level
at one site with that of another. The repertoire of Alaca IV is not comparable to
that of Beycesultan V; that of Alaca III A-B in no way corresponds to that of
Beycesultan V, IV C, IV B, or IV A, and that of Alaca II does not resemble that
of Beycesultan III, II or I, even if occasionally one finds one or two shapes that
show similarities. Differences are in each case far more pronounced than the few,
remote or differently dated cases of resemblance. To talk about the " Old Hittite "
character of Beycesultan Second Millennium pottery is quite unjustified.
BuiytikkaleIV D and Lower city 4 likewise offer no specific comparisons to
Beycesultan V pottery; on the contrary dissimilarities prevail. Not even the
carinated bowls show the same profile.
Nearer to Beycesultan, Kara Haytik-Konya I has yielded an impressiveamount
of pottery of the Ktiltepe karumI B period, including a bath with seat, stamped
hearths or altars and many novel pottery shapes, including a great amount of
plain ware, unknown in the west. As this material is mostly unpublishedcomparisons
cannot yet be made with Beycesultan.
Beycesultan IV C continues the pottery trends seen in Beycesultan V and
some of the innovations such as fruitstands (shape 34) goblets (shape 7, 13), grooved
handles on large bowls (shape i) are essentially western. The footed teapot
(shape 18) looks like a western copy of a Central Anatolian shape and the globular
or ovoid jars (shapes 23-25) may be of foreign inspiration as in the previous
building-level. Specific links are hard to establish with Kaltepe karumI A (unpub-
lished). Btiyikkale IV C.3 and 2 may roughly overlap Beycesultan IV C, but
the new micaceous and porcelain wares of this site are not represented at Beyce-
sultan and the range of shapes at Bogazk6y is frankly dissimilar. Funnels, cooking
pots and two-handled jars of Beycesultan IV C have parallels at Alaca H6yik
III A-B (see above), but its characteristically extravagant beak-spouted jugs,
teapots, and its equally characteristic pilgrim bottles and jugs with round mouths,
heirs of the Kiltepe I B tradition, are conspicuous by their absence at Beycesultan.
Neither Polath nor Ihca nor the " Hittite " cemetery of Gordion have yielded
any evidence for a closer dating of Beycesultan IV C or B, but we must await the
publication of the new sounding at the mound, and one would like the rather drab
collection of pottery from the cemetery dated by the stratigraphy of the mound,

16 H. Z.
Kogay, Alaca Hdyiik, 1940o-948 Kazzss, Ankara, 1966. Abbreviated Alaca, 1966.

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE SECOND MILLENNIUM CHRONOLOGY OF BEYCESULTAN 61

and perhaps by some C-I4 dates. Compared to Alaca Hdytik III B-A this pottery
looks rather provincial and its quality is even grimmer than that of M.B.A. Beyce-
sultan (V-IV B).
Beycesultan IV B again shows few innovations. Among these is a rather short-
necked version of the jug with round mouth (shape 41), which may be compared to
Al.e.248 (Alaca, 1966, pl. 107), of Alaca III A-B, a quatrefoil cup (shape 40),
cf. Al.h.io3 (Alaca, 1966, pl. 102), and a vessel from the Hittite cemetery at Gordion,
pl. 14 d, pl. 28 c-d, but neither is dated well enough to fix the beginning of Beyce-
sultan IV B.
In BeycesultanII, a comparison was made between Beycesultan IV B and A
and Miletus, House I (level III), dated by imports to the transition from MM III
to LH I, c. I6oo, and between Beycesultan IV A and House 2 of L.H. I date
(Beycesultan II, pp. 74-5). The rim-lugs, typical of Beycesultan IV B only turn up
in the transitional level at Miletus, ribbed and ridged bowls, which first appear in
Beycesultan IV A, in the following L.H. I level, and at Bayrakli, level 9. These
are cited among other features such as the typical M.B.A. Beycesultan " Palace
Ware ".
In her review of BeycesultanI and II, M. Mellink in BiOr XXIV, no. 1/2,
Jan.-March 1967, p. 8, while stressing that the Kultndpfchen (they are nothing of
the sort at Beycesultan!) yield little chronological precision"7,and they are also
found in the Middle Bronze/Late Bronze sequence as far inland as Gordion, omits
any reference to the far more specific parallels quoted above. Following con-
ventional terminology, Miss Mellink would presumably put her division between
Middle and Late Bronze Age between I65o and 1550, the former being one of the
dates for the end of the Old Hittite Kingdom (high chronology) and the latter that
of L.H. I (not necessarilyapplicable to Anatolia !).
Here we seem to have at last a chronological link with the Aegean world and
it might be worth considering whether our guess dates could be readjusted.
BeycesultanII, pp. 73-5. Adjusted:
Level V c. 1900-1750 Level V c. of Karum Ib, c. 1780
19oo-end
Level IV C c. 1750-1650 Level IV C c. 1780- 1700
Level IV B c. I650-1550 Level IV B c.
Level IV A c. 1550-1450 Level IV A c. 1700-I600/1550
16oo/I550-1450
It must be stated at once here that we have no real evidence for such chronological
minutiae, but alternative possibilities should at least be considered.
Beycesultan IV A at last shows some falling off of traditional M.B.A. shapes
and the promise, both in its new micaceous and non-micaceous wash wares and its
shapes, of the Late Bronze Age revival that is to come in Level III. Pattern burnish
makes an appearance and an increased use of grooved and ridged decoration on
bowls. Tall-necked beak-spoutedjugs with bearded spouts, long known in Central
Anatolia (since KiultepeI B), make their first appearance, so do flat-rimmed plates

17 While she admits that M.B.A.

" palace ware " occurs in the form of " Kultniipfchen " in
the Miletus transitional level of c. I6oo s.C., roughly her division between M.B.A. and L.B.A.,
she would nevertheless have to admit that not less than four main building-levels (Beycesultan
III-I A) follow this Beycesultan " Middle Bronze Age ", extending therefore presumably into the
following Late Bronze Age. Yet, in her chapter in Chronologies in Old WorldArchaeology,Chicago,
1965, p. I22, she states that " the L.B. occupation of Beycesultan may at least be considered
questionable and incomplete ". No reasons are given for this ex cathedrastatement, except that on
p. 12o, after having erroneously dated the heterogeneous assemblage called " Kusura C " to the
Middle Bronze Age, she concludes that " In spite of the geographical distance between Beycesultan
and the Central Anatolian sites, it would seem unlikely that MB age pottery types continued to be
made in the Beycesultan region to the end of LB ".

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

(shape 35), bowls with overhanging rims (shape 50) and their larger basin-like
variety (shape 51). Among the bowl shapes, footed types, known since Beyce-
sultan V, increase, to lead to the goblets of the Late Bronze Age. Quatrefoil cups
increase in numbers, and two-handled jars, an old familiar shape, continue their
supposedly C. Anatolian tradition. Basket handles first appear on teapots and
trefoil-mouthed jugs flourish, whereas the round-mouthed jug, a rarity in IV B,
is not represented. The ceramic repertoire of Beycesultan IV A is fairly small,
and perhaps not fully representative,but innovations are notably local, not deriving
from a Central Anatolian stimulus. Not a single new Beycesultan IV A shape has
parallels in that region.
We have now approachedthe thresholdof the Late Bronze Age at Beycesultan
and the dreary list of rare, dubious and unlikely parallels, described above between
Beycesultan and the Central Anatolian sites for the period between c. I9o0 and
c. 1450 B.C., shows how tenacious local traditions were in the manufactureof pottery.
Occasional resemblances are probably best explained by trade of pottery with
contents and especially metalwork. In this sort of contact, borrowingsare few and
far between and in no case do we find the borrowing or implantation of a whole
new set of shapes that could be interpreted as evidence of strong cultural contact,
if not the arrival of new elements in the population. The last occurrence of such
a phenomenon at Beycesultan and in C. Anatolia had taken place with the
Beycesultan VI A and Ktiltepe karumIV wares, at the very end of the third
millennium B.C.
Beycesultan and Southwest Anatolia evidently did not share in the explosive
development of C. Anatolian wares in the Colony period but continued earlier and
less exotic traditions. No Cappadocian texts refer to cities in the west, no cylinder
seals are known, writing is not (yet) attested and in the centuries that follow the
establishment of the Old Hittite Kingdom, but for the solitary and rather abortive
raid of Hattusilis I on Arzawa, little contact with the West is recorded in texts, or
indicated by archaeological material.
With the rise of the Hittite New Kingdom, this is to change. A Hittite
renaissance is matched in the southwest by a renaissance in Arzawa, which from
now onwards becomes the most obdurate enemy to Hittite aggression in Western
Anatolia. Often defeated in raids, according to Hittite sources, it was never really
conquered and subjected. These increased contacts, perhaps not always of a hostile
nature, are reflected in the archaeological record of Late Bronze Age Beycesultan,
in sharp contrast to that of the preceding M.B.A.

THE LATE BRONZE AGE

Beycesultan III marks a ceramic renaissance with elegant metallic shapes,

thin-walled vessels, covered with buff, red or brown slips or micaceous washes of
copper red, silvery grey or a goldish tinge, frequently decorated with pattern
burnish. Much of the Beycesultan III pottery has ornament of one form or another;
simple rope impressions on coarse domestic vessels, stamped seal ornament on
pithoi and horned " altars ", grooved decoration, often wavy; applied ornament
such as bars, rivets, etc., and pattern burnish. Some of these tendencies first
appeared in Beycesultan IV A and the grooves and wavy lines also appear in late
Troy VI, where they continue into Troy VII as they did in the Southwest at
Beycesultan II and I B. The impoverished ceramic repertoire of Beycesultan IV A
is greatly augmented by the creation of twenty-two new shapes, among them the
typical L.B.A. chalices, goblets, fruitstands, beer-mugs, askoi, craters and stamped
pithoi of the southwest. None of these characteristic vessels finds parallels in

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE SECOND MILLENNIUM CHRONOLOGY OF BEYCESULTAN 63

Central Anatolia, but there are a few new shapes that probably derive from that
region, e.g. the miniature teapot (Fig. I), the round-mouthedjug (Fig. 2) and the
pilgrim bottle with painted (or grooved) concentric circles on the body (Fig. 3);
yet these vessels are so common in Central Anatolia that they do not yield any
chronological precision.

< I/

\1 \

/ J
I,•.

FIG. I.

Links with the Hittite area remain tenuous during Beycesultan III and II.
In this latter building-level were found two fragments, one in buff and one in gold
ware (AS. V, 1955, fig. 31 : 7) of a new shape of jug with a cutaway neck that has
good parallels at Bogazk6y (WVDOG 75, 466, 467, pls. 45, 40, p. 128, from
BtiyutkaleIII and Lower City I) thus dating from the 14th and I3th centuries B.C.
Again from Beycesultan II come fragments of a vessel (BS/54/366), six sherds in all,
of a lentoid vessel, which is not of local manufacture. The fabric is a light creamy
buff ware with slightly polished surface of the same colour on which parallel
concentric bands are painted in a matt red-brown paint. In our first preliminary
report (AS. V, 1955, p. 80) this vessel was described as Imitation Mycenaean, but
it is now clear that these sherds probably derive from a painted pilgrim flask of
C. Anatolian origin (cf. Alaca, 1966, pl. I I, e.I8I, pl. io6, j.204 (Level III A-B),
WVDOG, 75, nos. 469, p. 129, pls. 46, 50, earlier than Biiytikkale III, i.e. before
1265, and 495, P-. 129, pls. 49, 50, from the earliest cremations at Osmankayasi,
again well before 1265 B.c.). The Beycesultan example comes from rubbish in
street L in the Little Palace deposited before the area was destroyed by fire. The
Hittite parallels would therefore suggest that this destruction took place before
c. 1265 B.c. Then there is one example from Level II of a broad-rimmed plain-
ware plate (Fig. 5; shape 81), for which cf. WVDOG, 75, 909, p. 142, pl. 100,
from Btyiikkale IV B (I4th century). This is a shape that was to become much
more popular at both sites in the I3th century, Btiyiikkale III and Beycesultan I.
At Bogazk6y this shape starts even earlier (WVDOG, 75, no. 914, pl. 101, p. 142,
from Lower City 3), but at Beycesultanthe single example comes from BeycesultanII.
The Mycenaean sherd (Fig. 4) is part of an imported stirrup jar of a rather
common Myc. III A or B type decorated with parallel bands of fine red paint.
As F. Stubbings (letter of 3rd April, 1956) pointed out " it looks like the sort of
thing found at Tell el Amarna. I think 1300 is perhaps a safe middle date, but the
real date is perhaps more truly between I36O and 1240 ". This sherd was found

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

7\ *-,,I

---

1111
i
4 K\\. \

.010

1.1

a
----I12

FIGs. 2-12.

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE SECOND MILLENNIUM CHRONOLOGY OF BEYCESULTAN 65

firmly embedded in a pavement of stamped clay and potsherdsin area J, Room I,

dating from late Beycesultan III.
The upper date of the Mycenaean sherd shows that Beycesultan II cannot have
begun before c. 1350, but the parallel between Beycesultan II and Bayiikkale IV B
suggests that it started before c. 1300 (Btiyiikkale IV A). The other evidence
suggests that it ended before Biyiikkale III (reign of Tudhaliyas IV), c. 1265 B.c.
In other words, Beycesultan II may be dated to the reigns of Mursilis, Muwatallis,
Urhitesup and Hattusilis III, perhaps between c. 1340 and 1265 B.c. BeycesultanIII
would then be contemporary with the earlier part of the Hittite New Kingdom,
with Biyiikkale IV B and perhaps the end of IV C I. The beginning of Beyce-
sultan III cannot be dated precisely, but the estimate of c. 1450 B.C. would not
seem unreasonable. This should be the period then of Tarhundaradus, Anzapah-
haddus and Uhhazitis of Arzawa before Mursilis Arzawa war.
It is not until Beycesultan I B and I A that closer parallels can be found with
the Hittite pottery of Biytikkale III B and III A, dated to the reigns of TudhaliyasIV,
Arnuwandas III and Suppiluliumas II, c. 1265-1200 B.C. Characteristicof Beyce-
sultan I (both A and B) is the sudden introduction of a new class of burnished
wares with a bright range of colours (off-white porcelain ware, a chocolate brown,
an orange, a camel-leather buff, a pink and a deep plum red). This slipped ware
gradually supplants the old lustrous washes of Beycesultan II. Decoration is almost
absent, except on plain and coarse buff or brick red kitchen wares which bear
impressedrope ornament. These wares, rare in BeycesultanIII and II, now become
very common. It is not only the wares and surface treatment that change, but also
the shapes; more than half of which are new (twenty-four new shapes against
twenty-seven traditional ones). The multitude of chalices, goblets, fruitstands of
Beycesultan III-II are supplanted by a new type of chalice. Beer-mugs, teapots,
jugs with bifoil or trefoil mouths disappear. Pilgrim bottles supplant the askoi,
and jars and craters flourish. There are new jugs with tall necks, hemispherical
bowls with lids, bowls with spouts, beak-spouted vessels with channel spouts, jars
with crescent handles, dippers, possible libation arm fragments and a bath.
Stamped ornament on pithoi and hearths continues.
In general then there is evidence for fairly drastic changes in the ceramic
repertoire, and some, but by no means all, the new features can be matched in
Central Anatolia.
Among the obvious shapes are the tall-necked jugs (Fig. 6) that have fine
parallels at Bogazk6y (WVDOG, 75, no. 424, P. 126, pls. 38, 45) from Buiykkale III
(i.e. after 1265 B.C.). Then there are bottles of general Hittite type (Figs. 7, 8)
without specific parallels (cf. WVDOG,75, fig. I9, nos. I I41, I142, I145), possible
libation arms (Figs. 9, Io) (WVDOG, 75, fig. Io: Io90, and fig. I9: 1124, 1128).
Among the kitchen wares the platters with broad rims, typical of Beycesultan I
(AS. V, 955, fig. 50 : 9, 14, i5) compare with Bogazkoy (WVDOG, 75, nos. 910-12
latest Biiytikkale III, no. 913 from Biyiikkale III; no. 915 from Lower City 2,
nos. 916-17 from Lower City I B, p. 142, pls. Ioo-IoI). The date of most of these
falls between c. I265 and I200ooB.c.
Among the less specific parallels one might quote the hemispherical bowls with
lids (Fig. i i), the porcelain jar with crescent handle (AS. V, I955, fig- 50 : 2), the
bath (AS. VI, 1956, fig. 6: 7), the channel-spouted beaked jugs (Fig. 12), none of
them specifically datable to this late phase of Bogazkoy and hence chronologically
worthless, yet strongly indicative of Hittite influence of one sort or another.
The few significant parallels suggest that Beycesultan I B did not begin before
the reign of Tudhaliyas IV, c. I265 B.C., and the destruction of Beycesultan II

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 ANATOLIAN STUDIES

/1r14
z
.. ..

Att~
13 3 .
L.d 'a•
Ii
IV

U. ; . ??>

' -'

,•_-
I I 3 c f I -
..

0 pol -
Cu4 -r-1

. . . . ! I
rr\ Jr, j1 C! ~
30 -

0~ P 4

k)9 _____
I.,
-~c -;

o 04 , W H, t .7
.
o' o

cill
'4 '4 '

0) -
< a~
-
>I ~ ~ : > 3;

0.3

O v, Ci1 0r ao
_"- M g?h ~ t-?30 I S

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE SECOND MILLENNIUM CHRONOLOGY OF BEYCESULTAN 67

cannot be put before this date. 1265 then is a good post quemdate for this event,
which could on the other hand have occurred also later. The five phases of building
and rebuilding recognized in Beycesultan I B and I A argue against compressing
the length of this period too much and ending the Beycesultansequence at 1200 B.C.
like that of Bogazk6y. The evidence from Hisarlik (" Troy "), Bayrakli, Miletus,
Tarsus, and Gordion shows that I2th-century material is not altogether absent in
Anatolia and it is not impossible that Beycesultan I A should be placed in this
century.
After the destruction of Beycesultan I A there follows a gap of uncertain
length, but in the 8th century B.c. there is evidence for at least one Phrygian house.
Not until the Middle Byzantine period was Beycesultan reoccupied and a walled
settlement of modest size with, no doubt, a number of churches crowned the western
summit and a cemetery was laid out on the eastern half of the mound. With the
arrival of the Seljuk Turks this settlement was eventually abandoned.
A full confrontation of Southwest Anatolian pottery in the second millennium
at Beycesultan with that of Bogazk6y will be presented in BeycesultanIII. The
purpose of this article was to establish a reliable chronology covering the entire
second millennium, convince our critics that L.B.A. occupation did exist at
Beycesultan, and demonstrate that criticism should be based on hard facts, not on
preconceived ideas!

This content downloaded from 78.186.49.137 on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:21:21 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions