Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:53:56.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anatolian Chronology in the Early and Middle Bronze Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2015

James Mellaart
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Modern scientific excavation did not start in Turkey until the nineteen-thirties and it is therefore not surprising that Anatolian chronology has been somewhat neglected in the past.

Since the war, however, Anatolian archaeology has made rapid progress. New excavations, publication of old ones and systematic field-surveys have added a vast amount of new material, much of it stratified. These new results call for a reconsideration of Anatolian chronology, not as an adjunct to that of Syria and the Aegean, but in its own right. The recent excavations at Kültepe, near Kayseri, undertaken by T. and N. Özgüç for the Turkish Historical Society, have produced literary evidence for relating the Anatolian culture-sequences to those of Mesopotamia in and before the Hammurabi period. This new material has a direct bearing on the vexed problem of dating the Hammurabi period and the rise of the Hittite Old Kingdom and at last enables one to establish the chronology of the area, not only in relation to Mesopotamia, but also in absolute dates.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 7 , December 1957 , pp. 55 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schaeffer, C., Stratigraphie comparée, Oxford, 1948, chapter VI, pp. 215–327Google Scholar. Weinberg, S. S., “Aegean chronology,” AJA. LI (1947), pp. 167, 178 fGoogle Scholar. Milojčić, V., Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel und Südosteuropas (Berlin, 1949), pp. 22 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 See AS. VI, 1956, p. 25 f.Google Scholar, and VII, 1957, under “Summary of archaeological work in Turkey” (Kültepe). The Times, 11th December, 1956, “Beycesultan and Kültepe.” The writer is much indebted to Professor T. Özgüç. and Dr. K. Balkan for their kindness in allowing him to make use of unpublished material from Kültepe.

3 Balkan, K., Observations on the chronological problems of the kārum Kaniš (Ankara, 1955), p. 46 (abbreviated here as Observations)Google Scholar.

4 Observations, p. 60.

5 Observations, p. 59.

6 Observations, p. 43, f. 47.

7 Özgüç, T. and Özgüç, N., Ausgrabungen in Kültepe, 1949, pp. 215–16, note 407Google Scholar.

8 RHA. III (1934), pp. 1–8Google Scholar. Gelb, I. J., Inscriptions from Alishar and vicinity, p. 50Google Scholar.

9 Belleten XX, no. 77 (1956), p. 34Google Scholar. Observations, p. 78.

10 Belleten XVIII, no. 71 (1954), pp. 379, 383, figs. 14, 15Google Scholar; Belleten XIX, no. 73 (1955), p. 69 f., figs. 40a, 42, 90Google Scholar.

11 Observations, p. 43.

11a See postscript, pp. 87–88.

12 Parrot, A., Archéologie Mésopotamienne II, 1953, p. 353Google Scholar.

13 Observations, p. 60.

14 Goetze, A., “Cultures of Early Anatolia,” Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 97, no. 2 (1953) p. 218Google Scholar. Smith, S., Alalakh and Chronology (London, 1940), p. 33Google Scholar. Albright, W. F., BASOR 1948, p. 126Google Scholar.

15 Observations, p. 60, and information kindly supplied by Professor T. Özgüç.

15a This number represents the total of limu names of the Karum Ib period from all sites, after the 1956 excavations, as Prof. W. F. Albright kindly informed me.

16 Syria VIII (1927), p. 2 fGoogle Scholar; fig. I and pl. I, 3 and 4, pl. II, 1.

17 BASOR. no. 122 (1951), pp. 18 ff.Google Scholar; no. 127 (1952), pp. 21 ff. JAOS. 72, no. 2 (1952), pp. 67 ffGoogle Scholar. Against this view: BASOR. no. 126 (1952), pp. 20 ff., 24 ffGoogle Scholar.

18 MDOG. 83 (1951), p. 60Google Scholar, and JAOS. 72 (1952), pp. 71 ffGoogle Scholar.

19 Smith, S., Alalakh and Chronology, p. 15Google Scholar.

20 Archéologie Mésopotamienne II, 1953, pp. 393 ff.Google Scholar, and BASOR. no. 127 (1952), p. 25, n. iiGoogle Scholar.

21 Matz, F., Handbuch der Archaeologie II, p. 231Google Scholar, and Historia I (1950), pp. 173–194Google Scholar.

22 Alalakh and Chronology, p. 13 f., and BASOR. no. 127 (1952), p. 25Google Scholar.

23 Posener, G., Princes et pays d'Asie et de Nubie (1940)Google Scholar.

24 OIP. XXIX, p. 2 fGoogle Scholar.

25 ibid., p. ii.

26 ibid., p. 15; Observations, p. 41; Ausgrabungen in Kültepe, 1949, pp. 127 ff.

27 OIP. XXIX, p. 15Google Scholar.

28 ibid., p. 24. Belleten no. 65, p. 109.

29 Ausgrabungen in Kültepe, 1949, pp. 215–16, note 407Google Scholar.

30 ibid., pp. 215–16, note 407.

31 OIP. XXIX, p. 24Google Scholar.

32 ibid., p. 110.

33 AS. VI, 1956, p. 25 f.Google ScholarGoldman, H., Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II (Princeton, 1956)Google Scholar, fig. 268, nos. 614–17 (abbreviated here as Tarsus).

34 Tarsus, fig. 268, e.g. nos. 514, 523, 524.

35 Tarsus, fig. 265, nos. 412, 413, 4–8.

36 Tarsus, fig. 289, no. 813; fig. 290 nos. 811, 812; fig. 291, nos. 820–1.

37 Ausgrabungen in Kültepe, 1948, pp. 198–9Google Scholar, figs. 328 and 616 (level II) and figs. 617 and 317, 331 and 595 (level IV); add: fig. 341.

38 Tarsus, p. 62, and information kindly supplied by Professor T. Özgüç.

39 i.e. about a century later than earlier estimates.

40 OIP. XXVIII, p. 158, fig. 164, 1–2Google Scholar: pl. IV, 7. OIP. XIX, pl. I.b 139: pl. VII, below. AS. IV, 1954, p. 20Google Scholar. S. S. Weinberg's parallel with bowls from E. H. I. Eutresis is far-fetched and inadmissible (Relative Chronologies in Old-world Archaeology, p. 90).

41 H. Z. Koşay, Les fouilles d'Alaca Höyük, pl. CVI, 3a.

42 AJA. LI (1947)Google Scholar, pl. XCII, 1, and CXIII, 1.

43 H. Z. Koşay, Ausgrabungen von Alaca Höyük, pl. LXXI, 168 (level 5).

44 AJA. LI (1947), p. 384Google Scholar.

45 Blegen, C. W. et al. Troy II, p. 138Google Scholar.

46 AS. I (1951), p. 46Google Scholar (period II).

47 BiOr. X, p. 59Google Scholar.

48 H. Z. Koşay, Les Fouiles d'Alaca Höyük, pl. XCV–XCVI.

49 MDOG. 86 (1953), pp. 54–5Google Scholar, and note 1 on p. 55.

50 AS. I (1951), p. 53Google Scholar.

51 Tarsus, p. 348. OIP. XLVIII, p. 6Google Scholar, under Judeideh VIII. SirWoolley, Leonard, Alalakh (London, 1955), pp. 308 ff.Google Scholar, esp. pp. 340 ff.; pl. LXXXIV, LXXXV, XC–XCVII.

52 Relative Chronologies, p. 38.

53 Alalakh, p. 329, type 113b. Carchemish III, pl. 59, p. 224.

54 Alalakh, pl. XCI, ATP/47/119, and ATP/47/152, p. 309. Tarsus, fig. 298, no. 813; fig. 290, no. 818, and fig. 291, no. 820.

55 JCS. VIII (1954), pp. 51 ffGoogle Scholar.

56 Alalakh, pp. 382 ff.

57 Relative Chronologies, pp. 38, 40, and fig. I.

58 ibid., p. 75.

59 Tarsus, pp. 39 43, 62, and 64 (chronological table).

60 Tarsus, p. 43, and Relative Chronologies, p. 76.

61 Tarsus, pp. 62–3, and Relative Chronologies, p. 76.

62 Relative Chronologies, p. 76.

63 Garstang, J., Prehistoric Mersin, pp. 210 ffGoogle Scholar.

64 ibid., pp. 237, 242, figs. 154–5.

65 ibid., p. 242, figs. 156, 3, and 157.

66 MDOG. 73, p. 33, n. 4, and 75, p. 62. Goetze, A., Kizzuwatna and the problem of Hittite geography (New Haven, 1940), p. 75Google Scholar.

67 Tarsus, pp. 61 and 347.

68 Tarsus, pp. 131, 133 f. (pottery), and 347 (house plans).

69 Troy I, pp. 205–6Google Scholar.

70 Troy I, p. 205Google Scholar.

71 Tarsus, p. 105.

72 Tarsus, p. 142, nos. 487, 488–490.

73 Tarsus, p. 61, and Troy I, p. 206Google Scholar.

74 Lamb, W., Thermi, p. 61Google Scholar (Thermi III and IV).

75 Tarsus, pp. 134–5, figs. 283–5. Lack of space forbids an exhaustive enumeration of parallels here.

76 Unpublished.

77 Tarsus, p. 97 and note 9.

78 Tarsus, figs. 257–9 and 351.

79 Archaeology in Greece, 1954, p. 20Google Scholar, fig. I (JHS., 1955, supplement).

80 Ath. Mitt. 60/61, 1935/1936, shape F.61Google Scholar.

81 In the Classical Museum at Konya. For a bad photograph see AJA. XXXI (1927), p. 43Google Scholar, no. 21, fig. 25 d.

82 Relative Chronologies, p. 73.

83 Tarsus, p. 64.

84 Relative Chronologies, p. 74.

85 Relative Chronologies, p. 74.

86 Tarsus, p. 61.

87 Prehistoric Mersin, pp. 211, 213, figs. 120, 121.

88 Mentioned by courtesy of Professor T. Özgüç, cf. pottery from Beycesultan VII–VI, contemporary with Troy V. See AS. VI (1956), p. 136Google Scholar and fig. 2, nos. 15, 25, 26.

89 Belleten XIX, no. 73 (1955), figs. 7–8, p. 67Google Scholar (1b). Ausgrabungen in Kültepe, 1949, p. 159. Troy, II, fig. 162 a–b.

90 Antiquity no. 101 (1952), p. 39 (4519 = before present).

91 Troy I, figs. 457–462.

92 Dikaios, P., Khirokitia (Oxford, 1953), p. 329Google Scholar.

93 AJA. LVIII (1954) p. 240Google Scholar.

94 PZ., 1932, fig. 13. Ath. Mitt. 60/61 (1935/1936)Google Scholar, pl. 57, 1–2, 61, 62.

95 In the Citadel Museum, Ankara.

96 OIP. XXVIII, p. 67Google Scholar.

97 Prehistoric Mersin, p. 167 and figs. 107, 115, pp. 183 ff., fig. 118. Although separated in the publication, these two classes of pottery were found together in one and the same building-level.

98 Relative Chronologies, p. 70.

99 BiOr. X, 1953, pp. 57–8Google Scholar.

100 Troy II, p. 227Google Scholar.

101 ibid. II, p. 227, and AS. VI (1956), p. 136Google Scholar, fig. 2, no. 23.

102 Troy II, p. 138Google Scholar.

103 ibid., p. 227.

104 British Museum, Catalogue of vases I; A 61, pl. II, but without spout.

105 Unpublished, but spouted.

106 AS. VI (1956), p. 136Google Scholar, fig. 2, nos. 24, 26 (level VI). In the 1956 campaign others were found in level VII. Tavşanli material, collected in November, 1955, still unpublished.

107 Still unpublished.

108 And in M.M. I a; PM. IV, 1Google Scholar, fig. 57.

109 Mallia: Maisons I, pl. LI, b. Mallia: Necropoles, pl. XIII, g; XX, h.

110 Mallia: Maisons I, pl. LI, c. Mallia: Necropoles, pl. VII a.

111 From a grave near Gournia. PM. I, p. 139Google Scholar a, and in pottery, ibid., b and c.

112 ibid., fig. 139, d.

113 BCH., 1925, p. 473Google Scholar, fig. 10.

114 PM. IV, i, figs. 53–4.

115 Unpublished.

116 Ausgrabungen in Kültepe, 1949, p. 171Google Scholar, figs. 196–8.

117 OIP. XIX, pl. II, IX (found in graves).

118 K. Bittel, Boghazköy-Hattusas, fig. 28, 2.

119 A. Goetze, Kleinasien, pl. 5, top right.

120 See my forthcoming article in Belleten nos. 81 or 82: “Second millennium pottery from the Konya plain.”

121 Troy II, p. 214Google Scholar, fig. 170, 10. Also H. Schmidt, Schliemann Sammlung (SS.) nos. 3407, 3483. Troy II, fig. 185. EH. 704, p. 109Google Scholar, fig. 154 b D.29 add SS 2066.

122 V. Milojčić, Chronologie, pl. 15, ii.

123 Unpublished; plain undecorated specimen.

124 cf. the askos from Paros: Ath. Mitt. XXXXII (1917)Google Scholar, fig. 57.

125 Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, pl. XXIV, ii.

126 British Museum, Catalogue of vases I, pl. I, A.21 and A.23.

127 Metal types from several cemeteries in the Balikesir plain (especially that of Bayindirköy), systematically robbed, have parallels ranging from the Troy II to the Troy V period. See D. B. Stronach's article in this same number of AS.

128 Phylakopi, figs. 135–6.

129 Phylakopi, fig. 134. Ath. Mitt. XI, pl. 2, fig. 10. cf. rims AS. IV (1954)Google Scholar, figs. 451–5.

130 Troy II, pp. 9 and 110Google Scholar. PEAT., p. 8, pl. IX, 6, examples cf. JHS., 1915, p. 205 fGoogle Scholar. cf. Troy II, fig, 72, 33.179 of the last Troy III phase and PEAT., pl. IX, lower row, 3.3.

131 Type B.23 occurs in Troy IV and V, but not in III. Cups of the A 39 type range from Troy II–V, but are especially common in Troy IV. Jugs; cf. SS.636 and from Yortan; British Museum, Catalogue of vases I, A 38Google Scholar.

132 Welter, G., Aigina, p. 15Google Scholar, fig. 16.

133 AJA. XXX, 1934, p. 272Google Scholar, fig. 17. Eph. Arkh., 1952, p. 129Google Scholar, fig. 3 (A 33 and 37 cups of Troy IV type).

134 Aberg, , Chronologie, IV (Griechenland)Google Scholar, figs. 172–3, p. 86 (A 39 type).

135 Archaeology 7 (1954), p. 29Google Scholar, fig. 17. Archaeology 8 (1955), p. 119Google Scholar, fig. 6. Hesperia XXIV, no. 1 (1955)Google Scholar, pl. 21, i (and whorl pl. 22, i).

136 Tiryns IV, pl. 32, 5. AS. VI (1956), p. 135Google Scholar and fig. 1, i. Another depas from Korakou, C. W. Blegen, Korakou, fig. 17, resembles one from Beycesultan VIII, AS. VI (1956), p. 136Google Scholar and fig. 1, 8.

137 Orchomenos III, p. 56Google Scholar, no, 45, pl. XXIII, i. Eph. Arkh., 1899, p. 108, 122Google Scholar.

138 The Anatolian vessels were found at Lerna in the earliest E.H. III level. In the level immediately below, no patterned ware or Anatolian imports have yet been found and it would appear that this level was the last E.H. II one.

139 Antiquity no. 111 (1954), pp. 157 ffGoogle Scholar. Relative Chronologies, p. 90.

140 In “Aegean chronology”, AJA. LI (1947)Google Scholar, S. S. Weinberg makes use of a series of spurious parallels:—

Pl. XXIX, b, is part of a beak-spouted jug, not an askos. The photograph in Schliemann Sammlung is misleading (p. 6), the text clear.

P. 167: bothroi are not a reliable chronological criterion, for they occur in Thermi III and IV a, i.e. middle Troy I. At Troy they are found in Troy II d, but also in Troy I a, c and d. In Cilicia they are found from the beginning of E.B. III, which we equate with Troy II c, and at Beycesultan they occur in level XIV, i.e. late Troy II, later than c. How such evidence can be used to fix the date of the E.H. II “bothros-level” at Orchomenos is difficult to see. To use such a simple feature as a lined pit, which is all that the pompous term “bothros” means, as a chronological criterion, seems unwise.

P. 168: clay “anchors” occur at Mikhalits in typologically early Troy I contexts, at Kritsana in advanced Troy I contexts, at Eutresis in E.H. I–II and at Lerna in E.H. III (Hesperia XXV, no. 2 (1956), pl. 47 1–p). As chronological evidence they are therefore unreliable, as might be expected from such simple household objects.

P. 170 and fig. 4: the lids from Dimini resemble the Trojan D 12 type (Troy III–V only!) more than the D 11 type (Troy I), with which Professor Weinberg compares them.

141 As in E.M. II Crete: Pendlebury, H. W. and Pendlebury, J. D. S. and Money-Coutts, M. B., Excavations in the plain of Lasithi, p. 70Google Scholar. Hesperia XXIV, no. i (1955)Google Scholar, pl. 21, d (Lerna).

142 Hesperia, ibid., pl. 22, a–i.

143 Troy I, p. 408Google Scholar.

144 Weinberg, S. S. in Relative Chronologies, p. 94Google Scholar.

145 Asine, fig. 171, and Cycladic spiral decoration in E.M. III (PM. I, figs. 76, 80 and 86).

146 AJA. LI (1947), p. 178Google Scholar.

147 OIP. XXIX, fig. 134, d, 2418.

148 Montelius, La Grèce préclassique, pl. 29. Aberg, , Chronologie IVGoogle Scholar, fig. 129. Beycesultan specimens unpublished, but see AS. IV (1954), p. 211Google Scholar and figs. 342–3.

149 Eph. Arkh., 1898, p. 154Google Scholar. Montelius, op. cit., pls. 7, 15.

150 Troy I, p. 210Google Scholar.

151 Troy I, p. 211Google Scholar. Thermi, p. 195 (Thermi IV).

152 Troy I, p. 46Google Scholar.

153 Troy I, p. 211Google Scholar. For a cautious view see Thermi, pp. 195–6.

154 Thermi, p. 177.

155 AA. XLVIII, p. 247Google Scholar.

156 Unpublished.

157 The Kusura figurines are illustrated in Archaeologia 86 (1936)Google Scholar, fig. 11, 5–7; 87 (1937), pl. LXXXIV, 11, and fig. 17, i–5. AS. IV (1954)Google Scholar, figs. 459–461 (Kusura, Karaca and Yassi Hüyük II). The Karaca Ahmet figurines in the Afyon museum are unpublished. A fine plastic local marble figurine was found at Şuhut, see AS. IV (1954)Google Scholar, fig. 462.

158 Local marble was used for making large figurines as early as the chalcolithic period in Anatolia, S.W.. AS. VI (1956)Google Scholar, pl. XII, b, where it is erroneously described as of limestone.

159 Troy I, p. 53Google Scholar.

160 Troy I, p. 41Google Scholar.

161 Thirty building levels at Troy. Even with deduction of the minor alterations in Troy III–V, at least twenty complete rebuildings remain. The most complete record in Greece, that on the site of Lerna, has about ten (or at most a dozen) Early Helladic levels, two to four in E.H. III, Hesperia XXV (1956), p. 161Google Scholar, and five to six earlier ones, preceding the House of the Tiles, ibid., p. 167.

162 Except E.C. askoi in Troy IV period levels at Heraion, see note 122. The other sites were all uninhabited after Troy I, at least during the E.B.A. To the list of Troy I sites without later occupation we may add Bayrakli, Hüyücek, near Larisa, and Hüyücek, near Ağa Ali Çiftlik, as well as several other minor sites. At none of these was any E.H. ware found.

163 Matz, F., Handbuch der Archaeologie, II (Der Aegaeis), 1950Google Scholar, and Historia I (1950), pp. 173 ffGoogle Scholar. See Antiquity no. 111 (1954), p. 157Google Scholar.

164 Troy I, pp. 53–4Google Scholar; p. 222. Troy II, pp. 20, 120, 136Google Scholar. None occurs in Troy Vd.

165 Troy I, p. 222Google Scholar. Troy II, pp. 20, 120, 136Google Scholar.

166 Troy II, p. 20Google Scholar (imported b), fig. 73: 34.411 (incised) and 34.400 are shape B 22, a descendant of a Troy II shape, p. 43 and fig. 73: 33.256 is paralleled in Beyce XII and IX (Troy III and IV period) and 33.257 and 258 are again normal Anatolian shapes, easily matched in shape, fabric and ware in the Afyon district (Yazılıkaya, Karaca Ahmet, etc., unpublished pottery in the Afyon museum). All of these belong to the last phase of Troy III.

167 See footnote 164.

168 Troy I, p. 54Google Scholar. Troy II, pp. 20 and 236Google Scholar.

169 e.g. in case of Troy II, fig. 82, 4–6, 16, and fig. 83, 9–11, 12.

170 Troy I, pp. 106, 193Google Scholar.

171 Troy I, fig. 252, 5 and 12.

172 Emporio; Archaeology in Greece, 1954 (JHS., 1955, supplement), p. 44, “bird-shaped vase”; Thermi, town V, fig. 32, no. 521, and p. 91Google Scholar. SS. 5863. These Anatolian types appear to have influenced the Southern Balkan cultures of Vinča and Bubanj, for which see V. Milojčić, Chronologie, pl. 35, 7, and 37, 8.

173 SS. 2066.

174 See footnote 121.

175 Troy I, p. 154Google Scholar, fig. 251, 14, and pp. 184–5, fig. 262, 17–18.

176 Troy I, pp. 54–5Google Scholar.

177 Troy I, p. 273Google Scholar, fig. 412, 38 (Troy II c); Troy II, p. 96Google Scholar, fig. 60, F 16.

178 In the E.C. settlements of Paros and Phylakopi, op. cit., and in E.M. III. White-painted pottery continued into the M.B.A. in both Cyclades and Crete, but not in Anatolia.

179 Relative Chronologies, p. 71 (scored ware); Tarsus, p. 97 (late E.B.I), p. 121 (E.B. II). AS. IV (1954), pp. 190 f.Google Scholar, 196, and figs. 95–147 (thin painted metallic) and 159 (scored ware).

180 AS. IV (1954), p. 191Google Scholar.

181 An almost coastal site.

182 At Yilancı Burun and Kadikalesı, between Kuşadası and Cape Mykale.

183 See footnote 179, and unpublished new material from the Calycadnus valley.

184 Troy I, p. 54Google Scholar.

185 AS. IV (1954)Google Scholar, figs. 95, 115, 122, 145–7. Prehistoric Mersin, fig. 122.

186 Troy I, p. 17Google Scholar, fig. 250, 7. cf. AS. IV (1954)Google Scholar, figs. 96, 99, 117, 124, 143.

187 Tarsus, fig. 253; 250–1.

188 At Kafkala, near Myrtou, the writer collected pottery decorated in this way, which is indistinguishable, but for the shape, from that on the opposite coast at Silifke. Technique and fabric are identical. Miss Joan Duplat-Taylor informed me that the Kafkala ware is typical of the first phase of the Cypriote E.B.A.

189 See footnote 166.

190 Starting from level XII onwards. There is a profound break in the culture between levels XIII and XII, which can ony be explained by the arrival of a new people (Luvians?).

191 As far as recognisable on the photographs in Troy II, fig. 83, 4–6, 16 and 19. Shapes like these are commonplace in western Anatolia at this period.

192 At Eutresis, the earlier half of the E.H. I level was still mixed with late neolithic and the pure E.H. I level only one metre thick.

193 Schachermeyr, F., Die ältesten Kulturen Griechenlands (Stuttgart, 1955), pl. VIIIGoogle Scholar.

194 Milojčić, V., Chronologie, pls. 9, 1, and 10, 5, and p. 42Google Scholar.

195 AA., 1955, p. 188Google Scholar, fig. 2, 9–12.

196 AA., 1955, p. 163Google Scholar, fig. 6, i–3, 5.

197 AJA. LI (1947)Google Scholar, pl. XXXII, b.

198 White-painted pottery occurs earlier than Troy I in Kumtepe Ia, Mersin XII and in the Söğle group in the Elmali plain of Central Lycia.

199 Orchomenos III, passim.

200 Paros; Ath. Mitt., 1917, p. 45 f.Google Scholar, figs. 49–55; Phylakopi, op. cit., pp. 93, 152, fig. 134 and pl. X below, and BSA. XVII, pl. IV, right.

201 Pendlebury, J. D. S., The Archaeology of Crete, p. 80 fGoogle Scholar.

202 Troy I was burnt (Troy I, p. 39Google Scholar), Thermi fortified and then deserted, Emporio burnt, Bayrakli, Ayio Gala, Hüyücek, Tigani, etc., deserted.

203 Prehistoric Macedonia, fig. 36 a–c. Horned lugs on a middle and late Troy I A16 shape. The absence of typical early Troy I shapes is noteworthy and in sharp contrast with the pottery from Mikhalits. It does not look as if Kritsana I, to which these types belong, should be dated too early in the period and it is quite possible that the site was not founded by Anatolians until the earlier phases of Troy II, as Troy IIa is virtually indistinguishable from late Troy I. The barbarous vessel, fig. 39, 1, is not a depas (not even a degenerate one) as S. S. Weinberg maintains in AJA. LI (1947), p. 407Google Scholar, and on which he bases his argument for a low date for the beginning of the Macedonian E.B.A. An unpublished depas from a mound near Langada is in the Salonika museum.

204 Fouilles et Recherches I (Sofia, 1948), pp. i ff.Google Scholar, and AS. VI (1956), pls. I–II, p. 45 f.Google Scholar Mikhalits shows typical early Troy I shapes, though more heavily decorated than at the type-site (figs. 7–8). Other vessels with proper handles, bowl shapes of A16 type suggest that Mikhalits spanned the whole of Troy I (figs. 4–5). Coarse ware from this site resembles that of Karaağaçtepe, in the Thracian Chersonese, where it occurs in its second level, which is likewise of Troy I date (R. Demangel, Le tumulus dit de Protesilas, fig. 43). With the pre-Sesklo barbotine ware of Greece, Starčevo, etc., with which S. S. Weinberg connects it in the article referred to in the previous footnote, it has no connection whatsoever.

205 Six building levels for the whole of the E.B.A. at Kritsana, with a total depth of deposit of six metres, Prehistoric Macedonia, fig. 17; Hagios Mamas has the same depth of E.B.A. deposits and its finds are very similar, ibid., fig. 8.

206 [See above, p. 22.—ED.]