Selected Books
Turkey in Europe & Europe in Turkey
Turgut Özal

Origins

"No part of anything that has a beginning and an end can be eternal."
Melissus of Samos

Many experts on the history of my country have considered that the achievements of the Greek and Roman civilizations in Anatolia were greater, both in number and sophistication, than those actually in Greece and Italy.

Can it, therefore, be claimed that Anatolia contributed in an original and significant way to world civilization, or was it merely the stage upon which the Indo-Europeans played their role of civilizes, while the Anatolian was only the spectator or had, at the very most, a walk-on part? Was Anatolia a crucible in which diverse civilizations fused to give an exceptional cultural amalgam, or was it merely the antechamber of a continent ruled, it was believed, by dark and barbarous forces? Was the Aegean Sea simply a strait separating two peninsulas of the northern Mediterranean, or a terrible abyss isolating from each other two different, hostile worlds, the East and the West? Moreover, what is the East, what is the West? Do the categories `Asia' for the barbarians, and `Europe' for the civilized and civilizing Indo-Europeans, correspond to reality?

These questions gave rise, particularly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, to misconceptions which we come across even now.

Before setting out my own thoughts on these questions, I want to examine the relevance of its distant past to the Turkey of today. Have the civilizations which succeeded one another long ago in Anatolia influenced our present culture? Despite the diversity of peoples who have lived in this land, is there a continuity in its culture? In other words, did the civilizations created by these successive peoples have points in common which are still discernible?

It must not be forgotten that cultural heritage plays a major part in shaping intelligence and feelings. An emigrant people carries with it a large part of its cultural possessions, in particular its language and religion, both of which involve characteristic mental attitudes, and emotional and temperamental tendencies. Religion profoundly colours the thinking and behavior of the individual. It determines also, in large part, the moral and aesthetic values which underlie the law and institutions of the society. We cannot disregard, moreover, the contribution made over thousands of years by the succession of cultures in this land where the Turkish nation has dwelt for

centuries.

It is evident that our present cultural synthesis has evolved throughout this history as a result of the interaction of the cultural heritage of the land, as well as our Islamic and pre-Islamic cultures. Though it is impossible to assess precisely the influence of geography over the making of the culture, it is nonetheless not negligible. A country's position on the globe, its configuration, its climate, and the nature of its soils, affect the axes of its politics (hence the term `geopolitics'), its economy, and its relationships with the rest of the world.

The role played by Asia Minor in Western culture was: primarily determined by its geographical position. Whereas all the Mediterranean peninsulas - Iberian, Italian, Greek-extend from north to south, Asia Minor, alone stretching from east to west, forms a unique bridge. It was this which caused the civilizations arising in the East in general, and on its territory in particular, to orient themselves towards the West, by way of the Aegean islands.

The two high mountain ranges, which follow the coastal line of the Black Sea in the north and the Mediterranean in the south, join the eastern highland mass, which virtually separates Anatolia from Iran and Mesopotamia, thus creating the geographical unity of the peninsula. Inside Anatolia, however, plateaus, mountains, plains, river basins, and lakes create numerous distinct climatic aná microclimatic regions, each suitable for the formation of small kingdoms with different cultures, given the difficulty of communication between regions in the past. In other words, it is the physical features of the peninsula which underlie the Anatolian `diversity within unity'.

Our knowledge of the exact location and date of origin of the earlier civilizations is not as precise as we might wish. Mesopotamia has long been considered as the first home of civilization in the Old World, about the fifth millennium BC, but the so-called neolithic revolution or transition to settled agricultural society about 10,000 BC probably occurred first in Anatolia.

The origin and ethnic derivation of the most ancient inhabitants of Anatolia are not known, but it is certain that they were among the first, if not the first, to have built a city. Before that, between 15,000 and 13,000 BC, we know only of nomadic hunters, as at Lascaux.

At Çatal Höyük in the middle of the Anatolian plateau, a cluster of the first real houses was discovered on an area of thirteen hectares. They were constructed from clay bricks, the walls were regularly colour-washed on the outside, and certain of them were covered on the inside with wall paintings, similar to cave drawings but fulfilling an aesthetic function. Linked together in tiers, the upper houses opened onto the flat roofs of the ones below.

The fourteen levels built up there correspond to a little more than one thousand years of occupation, from 6750 BC to about 5600 BC, that is to say, during the Neolithic period.

These first `town dwellers' were primarily farmers. They lived in family groups of five to seven persons, and were already cultivating wheat and vines, raising sheep and goats, and keeping dogs. They grew and wove flax, and possessed weapons of copper and lead, both for hunting and defence. They also traded with distant countries. At Çatal Höyük objects have been found made of volcanic glass and apatites which were unknown locally.

We also know that they worshipped a Mother-Goddess, a goddess of fertility, whose terra cotta statuettes decorated their domestic altars.

First known Inhabitants-the Hattians, the Louvites, the Hurrians

As far as we know, the Hattians (3000 Bc) were the first distinct race of people to live in Anatolia. They left us no written testimony, and our knowledge of the Hattian language comes to us from Hittite or Assyrian sources. According to the indications these provide, Hattian was an indigenous language, different from all other known languages. From its language, its religion, and its art, the Hattian civilization appears to have been one of the most advanced of its time, because the whole of Anatolia was named 'Hatti'. The Hittites, successors of the Hattis, were to inherit their capital, Hattusas, and numerous linguistic and cultural legacies.

Before the coming of the Hittites, another civilizing population appeared in the south-west of the peninsula. These people were known as the Luvians, and they lived side by side with the Hattians. If certain hieroglyphic texts found at Hattusas are indeed in Luvian, it can be claimed that their language was Indo-European, belonging, like Hittite, to the Anatolian group.

Place names deriving from Luvian are encountered not only in Anatolia, but in Crete, the Aegean islands, mainland Greece, and as far away as Italy, Sicily, and the Balkans.

Thus, long before the Hellenes, the Luvians appear as the first invaders who, by their influence on the indigenous populations of Anatolia, may have stimulated the flowering of a new culture.

Around 2000 BC, the east and the south-east of Anatolia were occupied by the Hurrians, who were neither Indo-Europeans nor Semites. Their civilization reached its peak about 1700 BC, at which period Aryan warriors established a State called Mitanni.

They maintained and radiated the Sumeric-Babylonian cultural heritage for much longer than they kept their political independence. Their language, which was agglutinative, does not fall into any known group. Their principal influence on the Hittites was in transmitting to them some of their religious beliefs. The Hurrian mythology influenced Hesiod and Homer through the late Hittites and the Phoenicians. The Gilgamesh epic, which was found in Hattusha, is a Hurrian interpretation.

The Hittites

The Hittites appeared about 2200 BC but, unlike other invaders, their arrival was progressive and peaceful. It has not been proved that the barbarians who destroyed Troy II between 2500 and 2000 BC were proto-Hittites, though it is generally accepted that the Hittites, who were of Indo-European origin, penetrated Anatolia by way of the Caucasus. Recently, however, certain researchers have suggested that the Hittites may have originated in Anatolia itself.

At first the Hittites called themselves the "Nesi", their language was nesili, and their first capital was Nesa. They later adopted the name of "Hattians", doubtless following their integration with the indigenous people, and perhaps to identify themselves with the ancient capital, Hattusas, which they rebuilt. As for the word `Hittite', it is the transcription of the "HT" of the Old Testament.

The so-called Hittite language was considerably influenced by Hattian. However, it would perhaps be more exact to speak of Hittite languages because we know of six, all related to each other and spoken by the Hittites around the year 2000 BC. The differences between these dialects reveal the assimilation by the Hittites of various Anatolian populations.

Some twenty thousand clay tablets discovered at Hattusas were written in these languages and even included dictionaries. They constitute the first State archives of mankind. The existence of these documents, the writing of which must have demanded a great number of scribes, calls to mind the importance that the Turks have always given to archives. Anatolia is the only country in the world whose official archives cover sixteen hundred years of history eight centuries relating to the Hittites and an equal number to the Turks.

It was the Hittites who gave Anatolia the name 'Asia' (Assuwa) around 2000 BC; the word gradually came to mean the whole Asiatic continent. It was during the Byzantine era that the Asian territory of present-day Turkey began to be called Asia Minor, to distinguish it from the rest of Asia.

The Hittite Empire ultimately encompassed all the population groups of Anatolia, and represented one of the first civilized societies of its time. It was organized as a confederation, a structure which enabled it first to establish, and then to maintain for eight centuries, the unity of Anatolia, and to protect it from barbarian invasion. In fact, the usual waves of invasions were absent during the Hittite period.

It was during this time, therefore, that the territory first appeared as a geopolitical unity on the world scene. For the first time political unity was superimposed on the geographical unity of the peninsula, creating in people's minds the idea of belonging to Anatolia. I see in this an essential contribution by the Hittites to the history of Anatolia-the establishment and maintenance of its territorial unity.

I will not attempt to recount the history of the Hittites because that would distract me from my theme. I will content myself with saying that the Hittite Empire was one of the major states of the past. Its expansion into the Middle East is explained by the geostrategic position of Anatolia in the heart of what was then the principal area of civilization and, likewise, of political power.

However, I believe it would be useful to give an outline of the contribution the Hittites made to civilization. They were among the first to give life to the rule pacta sunt servanda. At the beginning of the fourteenth century BC, the Pharaoh of Egypt attempted to conquer Syria, but he was successfully repelled by the Hittite King Mursilis. The struggle was begun again by Ramses II, five years after his accession to the throne of Egypt.

In 1299 BC one of the great battles of antiquity took place at Kadesh on the Orontes river, between Mutawallis, the son of Mursilis, and the Pharaoh. It was the first historic battle which can be reconstructed in all its details.

At stake was the domination of the known world, for the great era of the Babylonians had ended, and that of the Assyrians was in decline. The clash between the armies of the two great Empires of the time, Egyptian and Hittite, was tremendous but politically inconclusive. Both parties proclaimed themselves the victors, although only the Hittites could justifiably claim victory, Mutawallis having pursued the Egyptian army as far as Damascus.

It is important here to note that populations remote from each other and speaking different languages, such as the Mysians (Pergamum region), the Dardanians (Çanakkale), and the Cilicians (south-east of Anatolia, facing Cyprus), took part in the combat alongside the Hittites-a clear sign of Anatolian unity. The Trojan war, which occurred later but which dates from the same century, seems to present certain similarities with the battle of Kadesh.

The peace treaty drawn up ten years later undoubtedly has more significance for us than the result of the battle itself. The Egyptian text of this treaty was discovered in Egypt, and a version written in cuniform characters in the Akkadian language, which the Hittites used in international relations, was found in the ruins of Hattusas. Other tablets relating to other agreements show that the Hittites attached a sacred character to these treaties. A reproduction of this first treaty is a feature of the entrance to the headquarters of the Security Council of the United Nations. It is a sign that present-day civilization acknowledges its debt to the Hittites and to Anatolia.

Civil law was no less important to the Hittites than international law, and morality seems have been very strict. In general though, a leniency astonishing for the time seems to have been the rule-no retaliation, no brutality, no mutilation. The guilty were required to make restitution of what they had stolen, to pay compensation to the injured party, even if they had killed, provided it was accidentally or in hot blood. Injuries done to slaves cost half those caused to free persons. The death penalty was rare, and reserved principally for the punishment of crimes against the authority of the State.

Although Roman law regarded slaves simply as a means of production, divested of any individual rights, among the Hittites a slave did have certain rights, including that of property.

Historically, most judicial systems show a tendency to increase the severity of sanctions as the State ages and weakens. Hittite law, however, followed a contrary evolution, sanctions becoming less severe and more equitable

with time.

Another example of the profoundly humane nature of the Hittites was their treatment of prisoners of war, in sharp contrast to the cruelty of the Assyrians. This behavior has equally been characteristic of the Turks.

Traces of an earlier matriarchal regime can be found in the Hittite civil code. To marry a young girl, it was necessary to give her father gifts worthy of his rank. The young bride went to live with her husband in a regime of joint estate, but she retained the right to the disposition of her dowry. Certain of these customs still survive today in Anatolia.

The goddess Cybele, or Kupapa, or Hepa, symbolized Hittite womanhood. Respect for women was therefore intrinsic in laws and customs; disrespect was inconceivable. Queens were not merely the wives of kings, they were partners in their sovereignty. The treaty of Kadesh bears, beside the seal of King Hattusilis III, that of Queen Pudu Hepa.

The existence of the Amazons constitutes perhaps another example of the high social position of women in Anatolia, and more particularly among the Hittites. The Amazons, according to the fable, lived on the banks of the river Thermodon, near the present-day town of Kastamonu. Their influence extended the length of the Aegean sea from Troy to Ephesus. If one believes, like Socrates, that they were a historic reality, then one might well conclude that the Amazons who were featured in the Hittite frescos, double-headed axe in hand, were the priestesses of the Mother-Goddess. The fact that women

had been able to assume the warrior funetion, the most vital in those times, is clear proof of their elevated status.

The later evolution of the role of women leads us to the Bacchantes, participants in the rites of Dionysos, showing women exalted by passion. These produced the great poetesses found on the Aegean shores, counselors such as Aspasia (born at Miletus), the Byzantine empresses and finally, among the Ottomans, the legend of the Mother State, the invisible force which aided the valiant Osman I, founder of the Empire.

The fact that the Amazons were horse riders is further evidence of Hittite influence, for it was the Hittites who first used the horse as a means of transport. It is true that this achievement is sometimes attributed to the Mittanis, but the credit for the training of horses and their widespread use to this day really belongs to the Hittites. When Homer described the Amazons on horseback, he was referring to the time of Troy VII, whereas on a tablet dating from 1500 BC, discovered at Hattusas, the breeding and training of horses are explained in detail. It is a fact that, wherever mankind has set foot and spread knowledge and culture since those ancient times, he has been accompanied by the horse.

The Hittites used horses to pull chariots, which were also their invention. They were vehicles with two six-spoked wheels, which carried into battle a driver and a warrior armed with a lance. The intervention at Kadesh of fourteen hundred chariots constituted a veritable revolution in military technology which enabled the Hittites to destroy the Egyptian army in a few hours. It is said that the unexpected speed of the result encouraged the Hittites to start looting, thus allowing the fleeing Egyptian forces to turn about for a surprise counter-attack. The battle thus never reached a decisive conclusion.

The production of iron was another Hittite contribution to human civilization. At the beginning of the second millennium BC, iron was more valuable than gold. Thanks to simple and efficient techniques evolved by the Hittites, it could be produced at a cost lower even than that of silver. Since then, cheap iron has been used both for the manufacture of weapons and for agricultural and industrial tools, and has allowed enormous development in these two areas. Thus Anatolia reached the Iron Age well before other countries.

By a curious chance of History, Chinese documents reveal to us that the T'ou Kioue, ancestors of the Turks, were also a people who were very knowledgeable in the processing of iron. The familiarity of the Turks with the technology of iron is illustrated by the legend of Ergenekon: the Turks escaped from imprisonment in the heart of the mountains by melting them down with the aid of bellows they had invented.

Although the monuments left by the Hittite civilization are doubtless not so grandiose as those of the Egyptians, they do seem to us, however, to be wholly comparable with those of the Myceneans, who appeared in Greece five hundred years later.

The works of art which the Hittites have left to us can today be admired at Hattusas, on various monuments scattered from the Aegean shores to the depths of Anatolia, and at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at Ankara.

To sum up then, the Indo-European Hittite tribes arrived as barbarians in Anatolia, but became assimilated by the indigenous population, the Hattians, to the point where they abandoned their original name for that of the Hattians. Their religion was also influenced by another indigenous people, the Hurrians, and the Anatolian tradition of the Mother-Goddess.

The Hittites created the political unity of Anatolia. They did this by organizing the indigenous populations into the flexible framework of a confederation, while not involving themselves in their internal affairs.

Their society, respectful of the law, and founded on the equality of men and women, inaugurated the Iron Age by achieving significant technological advances.

Towards the end of the twelfth century BC, the invasion of barbarians originating in the north-west, the Thracians, put an end to the Hittite Empire. The civilized world was thus overturned-the so-called Dark Age began.

However, before coming to the year 1000 BC, which represents a cardinal date in the history of the world, it would perhaps be useful briefly to consider the other Anatolian peoples.

Urartu

The land of Urartu first appears under the name Uruartri in Assyrian inscriptions of the thirteenth century BC. Urartians founded an important state in the first millennium BC in the area around Lake Van. They were of Hurrian extraction, and spoke a dialect of the Hurrian language. I described earlier how the Hurrians, contemporaries of the Hittites, had created a highly developed civilization in the same region five centuries earlier. The Urartu kingdom was in existence between 860 BC and 580 BC. Its importance rivaled that of the Assyrians, until it was finally conquered by the Medes.

The Urartians were one of the last brilliant representatives of Eastern culture before the torch of civilization was passed on to western Anatolia and the Greek mainland. City ruins of Urartu are to be seen throughout eastern Anatolia, their fortress walls often visible above ground. They were excellent architects, tradesmen, and craftsmen. One notices the mountaineer's preference for high places and the ponderous monumentality of their architecture. The temple at Mu?a?ir, with its tower-like structure and gabled roof, was imitated later in the Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae. Their neat ashlar masonry is of high quality.

In metalwork they were at first influenced by the more ancient tradition of Assyria, but they later aquired a strongly individual style. They irrigated their land from artificially made lakes. They dominated the eastern trade, and we now know that some cauldrons found in the tombs of Etruscan princes in Etruria, Greece, and Gordion (Phrygia) are of Urartian origin, hence the Hittite griffons which are on them.

In his book Lloyd writes:

It has come to be realized that the high accomplishment and far-reaching significance of Urartian culture has in the past been consistently underrated. . . Urartu is now being presented to us as a nation-and in its time a very great nation-whose history and even identity seem to have been completely expurged from the records of human memory for two-and-a-half thousand years.3

Lydia

To the east of Smyrna (Izmir), centred on the valley of Gediz, lived the Maeonians (or Meonians), who undoubtedly were also indigenous. Their name derived from King Manes, their `Courage ancestor'. At the beginning of the Iron Age the invaders, following their integration with the Maeonians, would have chosen Lydus as their `ancestor', who was King Manes's son.

The language of these Lydians is of uncertain origin, perhaps indigenous and related to the Caucasian languages, perhaps Indo-European, unless it was simply influenced by Luvians, as Phrygian would be much later. Whatever its source, we know that from 1500 BC

The Lydians used hieroglyphs different from those of the Egyptians. However, their language has not yet been deciphered although some documents in Lydian that have come down to us are written in an alphabet similar to that of archaic Greek.

The name of Lydia evokes commerce and money. It was the Lydians who first linked Europe to Asia and Africa by an overland route. They controlled the traffic on the commercial routes of Anatolia, and ran the lodging centres which served them. Commercial activity continued in this region until the middle of the fourth century BC.

The Lydian caravans brought lapis-lazuli from the Far East, silver, lead, and timber from the Taurus mountains, and tin from other regions. This trade in raw materials, luxury goods, and finally manufactured products not only encouraged the development of craftsmanship and agriculture but it equally facilitated the intermingling and amalgamating of different Anatolian and surrounding cultures. Towns became cosmopolitan. The wealth created by trade and the production of goods nourished intellectual, scientific, and artistic endeavor.

The Lydians invented money between 800 and 650 BC, although the fact that the innovation took place in Lydia was probably more the result of the importance of commercial activity in the region than of Lydian genius. The circulation of money in turn gave an exceptional boost to commerce. Consequently one should not overlook the important part which the commercial and economic developments in Lydia played in the birth of the neighboring Ionian civilization.

Babylon used a system of weights, but the adaptation of this system to money is a Lydian contribution to civilization. The first coins were in electrum (an alloy of silver and gold) and carried the images of a bull and a lion, emblems which were associated with the Hittites.

Finally I should like to quote Herodotus, who wrote:

At this time, there was not in Asia Minor a people more courageous or more powerful than the Lydians. They made war on horseback, carried long lances, and were excellent horsemen.

And further:

The Lydians claim that the Olympic Games, now held among themselves and among the Greeks, were their invention. . . They say that they originated them at the time that they were colonizing Tyrrhenia.

According to Herodotus, it was the Lydian migrants to Italy round 900 BC who became the Etruscans. These were probably sailors attracted to Italy by deposits of metal-bearing ores.

Lycia

Lycia is situated at the south-western tip of Anatolia, to the south of Caria. The Hellenes gave it this name at the time of Homer. It is thought that its people were those referred to as "Lukka" in the Hittite documents, and that they were probably influenced by the Luvians. Homer wrote that they were descended from a Hellene, Glaukos, and a Lycian princess, so as to be able in part to attribute the origin of the Lycians to the Hellenes. Herodotus himself states that the Lycians were the result of a fusion of an indigenous population with Cretan immigrants brought there by Sarpedon, and regards this version of their origin as a tradition inherited from Crete and Caria. Ephorus, the author (in the fourth century BC) of the first universal history, states also that the immigrant Cretans, after having founded Miletus in Caria, spread towards the interior and the south of Anatolia.

It is possible that Herodotus, who was interested in the relationship of the Lycians with Crete, allowed himself to be influenced by Cretan emigrants of his own times. It is more probable that things happened the other way round, and that it was Crete which was influenced by Anatolian emigrants.

The Lycian language, which has not yet been deciphered, would also have been an indigenous language, not Indo-European.

Caria

The region which borders the Aegean sea below Izmir is called Caria. The Carians were mentioned for the first time in the Iliad, and originated from a fusion between the indigenous population and the Luvians. The origin of the name 'Caria' is disputed. According to a legend reported by the Hellenes, it came from a chief named 'Kar'. However, this word was borrowed from the Anatolian languages and itself means `chief'. The Carians are almost certainly the Karkiyans mentioned on the Hittite tablets.

Herodotus asserts that the Carians came from the islands into Anatolia, and refers to the Cretans. On the other hand, he states that the Carians themselves claimed to be indigenous. It is quite clear, though, that there was a close relationship between Caria, Crete, and the islands.

The Carian language, which equally would have been indigenous, has not yet been deciphered.

If one does not include the Luvians who, in contrast to the Hittites, did not seek the political union of the whole of the peninsula, then there were three indigenous peoples in western Anatolia: the Maeonians-Lydians, the Lycians, and the Carians.

Phrygia

Although the Phrygians entered Anatolia in the eleventh century BC, after the destruction of Troy VII a, their statehood dates only from 750 BC. They settled first in south-eastern Anatolia, and gradually moved westwards, first into the central regions around Ankara, then later to where Eski?ehir is today. They were Indo-Europeans who used the same Phoenician alphabet as the Greeks. This they most probably borrowed from northern Syria, which was their original home.

They assimilated Anatolian culture, and also produced an art of their own. Their architecture was based on the megaron style which we see in Troy, and which was later adopted by the Greeks. Phrygian monuments, which were once thought to be tombs, are now known to have been sanctuaries, and considered to be some of the most interesting remains in Anatolia. One of them, supposed to have been the tomb of Midas, is 170 feet high. Their capital was Gordion, which was most probably founded by King Gordios, the father of the legendary Midas.

In Gordion, one of the megaron-type buildings with gabled roof has a mosaic floor made up of coloured pebbles, the earliest example of its kind. They also contributed to Greek music with their flute. The Mother-Goddess cult of Cybele was revived and further consolidated by them. In Phrygian art we recognize the influence both of the late Hittite period, and increasingly that of Ionia. Towards the end of their period the Phrygians started importing Ionian works of art which they then imitated. Although, generally speaking, their style was mature, it tended to lose much of its individual Anatolian identity in the course of time, acquiring characteristics from the now flourishing cities of the Aegean coast.

Troy and the Aegean Civilization

Around 1200 BC the barbarian invasions began, coming from the north-west, across the Dardanelles. Homer's epic poem, the Iliad, tells the story of the war in which Troy was at stake. The dates of this war are traditionally fixed at 1193-84 BC, though some modern researchers think that it is more likely to have taken place about 1250 BC.

The city which was glorified and immortalized by Homer stood on a hill dominating the plain, thirty kilometres south of Canakkale and at the entrance to the Dardanelles. It was built on the bank of the river Scamander, and the site is now six kilometres from the sea. Troy stood at the crossing of the maritime routes linking the Aegean with the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea, and Anatolia with Thrace. The land route, climbing from the shores of the Aegean towards the north, also passed through Troy. For a long time this strategic location assured Troy its character of a wealthy commercial centre and a powerful political city. Troy was the natural port of entry to Anatolia for anyone arriving from the west and the north-west.

Excavations carried out on the Trojan site have revealed nine different cities, flourishing from the third millenium BC to the fifth century AD. The town of Homer's epic would have been Troy VI or Troy VIIa. Troy VI, a prosperous town surrounded by ramparts, was destroyed about 1300 BC following an earthquake. The inhabitants restored the ramparts and rebuilt the town on the same site. It is this new town, Troy VIIa, which seems to have been so long besieged and then laid waste by the Hellenes, after they had gained entry hidden inside the famous horse.

According to the Iliad, it was the abduction of Helen by Paris, son of Priam, King of Troy, which provoked the Achaeans of Sparta to assemble a fleet of twelve hundred ships for a war which lasted ten years. Helen was the wife of Menelaus, and daughter of the King of Sparta.

The Iliad recounts further that, in order to face the 'coalition of Hellenic forces under the command of Agamemnon, King of the Mycenaeans and brother of Menelaus, the Anatolian peoples too were similarly all allied into a single army. Even the Lycians, as far removed from Troy as was Greece, formed part of it. If the 'Keteians' cited by Homer are the Kattians or Hattians one can conclude that the whole of Anatolia was there. The Anatolians, however, spoke different languages, whereas the Hellenes had the advantage of a common tongue.

As to the cause of the conflict, it is difficult these days to accept the idea of a ten-year war entered into to protect a man who has abducted the wife of another. All modern commentators agree that more serious rivalries set Anatolia and Greece against one another, of which the antagonism between Aphrodite and Hera was only symbolic.

Let us consider the events from another viewpoint. Troy VI and Troy VIIa, surrounded by ramparts, both measure 180 metres in diameter. They could have contained at most four thousand warriors. It is inconceivable that anyone might have believed it necessary to use an army so large that it needed twelve hundred ships to carry it, in order to attack a fortress of this size, or that, having done so, they would then have been unable to conquer it. The legend has obviously magnified the town and the forces of the attacking Mycenaeans. Or perhaps the truth is completely different and, as certain archeologists have suggested, the town existed on the same peninsula, but

elsewhere.

One wonders, too, where the famous chariots of the Hittites were while all Anatolia fought at Troy. It is known that at Kadesh (in 1299 BC) the Hittites had as allies the Dardanians and the Ilians, that is to say the people of Trov. Perhaps the Hittites were having to face up to a more serious threat in the south-east.

Whatever the real circumstances, the Trojan war appears to me to have been an event of very great significance. It demonstrated the willingness, somewhat rare more than three thousand years ago, of diverse peoples to overcome their differences in order to achieve unity in Anatolia.

Caesar, who was an ardent admirer of Homer, traced his descent from Iulus, son of Aeneas. Augustus honoured Troy by rebuilding the temple of Athena there, and Hadrian and Caracalla also visited the city.

The Roman Emperor Constantine I, the Great, visited Troy in the year AD 326, thus demonstrating his interest in Anatolia, whose unity he had restored. Constantine considered rebuilding the town, but abandoned the idea. Julian the Apostate, who was shown the city by the local bishop, was pleased to find the old altars still burning with sacrifices to Hector. Ten centuries later the young Sultan of the Ottomans, Mehmet the Conqueror, worked to restore Anatolian unity on the debris of the Byzantine Empire. Mehmet would have read the Iliad. He wrote a letter to Pope Pius II, who was preparing a crusade against him, in which he justified his own expedition against the Peloponnese. It was, he said, revenge for Troy and vengeance for the death of Hector. He professed astonishment that Italy should be hostile towards him, since she shared the same origins, and ought therefore to be his ally.

The book by the Greek historian Kritobulos, who was at the court of Mehmet the Conqueror, describes how the Sultan went to Ilion with him and looked for the graves of Achilleus and Ajax. Like Alexander the Great, he praised Homer, and said that he `commemorated these heroes who rendered a great service,' and added that `we Asians have revenged the Trojans after so many years and eras'.

Mount Ida has remained sacred to this day. Even in this century the local Greeks still went there every year to celebrate a festival on 15 August, which was the ancient day of the Great Mother (Mother-Goddess), though they now replaced her with the Virgin Mary. The Turks also maintain this tradition which they attribute to the `Fair Maiden' (San Kyz).

More recently, the attempt in 1915 by the countries of the Entente to storm the Dardanelles reminds us of Troy. The epic lived by the Anatolians in the face of the combined attack of the Great Powers, who wanted to finish the Ottoman Empire with a single blow, is no less heroic than that of Troy, nor of less political importance. It is said that the future savior of Anatolian unity, Mustafa Kemal, whose crucial role in this battle is well known, and who was destined to prevent the penetration of the enemy into Anatolia, spoke of the example of Troy. Mustafa Kemal would have had occasion again in 1921 to invoke the heroism of the Trojans during the War of Independence at Sakarya. All serious threats coming from the west were always directed initially at Troy, Anatolia's first and most important western line of defence. Whoever managed, in one way or another, to get past Troy could divide the country and menace the political unity of the nation. Thus, each time Anatolia was faced with a question of life or death, Troy was involved.

Indeed, over the centuries, many Europeans have had a tendency to identify with the Achaean heroes, and especially with the Trojans. They have yielded to the very natural sympathy that one feels towards the vanquished who have fought valiantly. Or perhaps Homer, in whom one discerns a certain partiality in favour of the Trojans, influenced them in this direction.

Be that as it may, for us the Iliad is not only an epic narrative whose heroes we admire and whose poetry charms us. It was Anatolia, it was our country, which created this marvelous epic both on the battlefield and in literature, which it has since relived many times during its

long history.

Crete, the Aegean Islands, and Mainland Greece

Neolithic civilization in central Anatolia (Çatal Höyük, Hacilar) underwent a significant evolution between 7000 and 6000 BC. Then about 4000 BC the Sumerians created a civilization of considerable refinement in Mesopotamia. We know that the Hattians were in Anatolia between 3000 and 2000 BC, with the Hurrians to the east.

There was therefore a flowering of civilization along the Mesopotamia/Anatolia axis which progressed slowly towards the west. Until 2000 BC the different Anatolian cultures, upon which the Luvians and the Hittites would draw, were the creation of indigenous non-Indo-European peoples, namely the Hattians and the Hurrians.

By 2600 BC Anatolia was well into the Bronze Age. It is generally agreed that it was at about this time that its inhabitants took to the sea, and invaded in successive waves the Cyclades, Crete, Thessaly, and the rest of Greece, eventually spreading all round the Mediterranean basin, and even into Egypt.

These Anatolian invaders brought with them the art of cultivating the vine and the olive tree, the plough, an advanced architecture, a glazed pottery, the metallurgy of bronze, and, finally, the cult of the Mother-Goddess. They spoke a language different from Greek, which was then still unknown on the shores of the Aegean. The names of the oldest places and cities in Crete and in the Peloponnese belong to this pre-Greek language, traces of which are also found in Anatolia, in the Aegean islands, and in Italy. Philologists are generally in agreement on the Anatolian origin of this language, from which Greek later borrowed part of its vocabulary.

We observe a particular enthusiasm among West Europeans about the sources of their civilization. Each new discovery has led them to find a yet earlier date for their point of departure in history. Nowadays we see attempts being made to move this point of departure from Mesopotamia to the Neolithic Anatolia. In the early nineteenth century Western cultural roots were considered to be

found in Greece, and Greece only, but as the important influence of Minoan Crete over the Aegean basin became better understood, the claim was later made that it was the Minoans who formed the basis of Western civilization.

However, the Minoan civilization in Crete, one of the most remarkable cultures of antiquity, was created by Anatolians. Between 2200 and 1750 Bc, which was the middle Minoan period, the first palaces were built, and numerous advances in technology and the arts were achieved. An early hieroglyphic writing came into use in the eastern basin of the Mediterranean.

Between 1750 and 1580 BC towns razed by an earth-quake were rebuilt. Colonnades appeared, as did the art of fresco-painting and a new writing, Linear A. Minoan colonies were formed on nearby islands, and trading posts were maintained on distant Cyprus and at old Ugarit on the coast of Syria. The sacred symbols of the bull and the double axe (of Anatolian origin) were extensively revered

in the Aegean during this period.

After a further earthquake in 1580 BC, the Minoans began to spread their civilization to the Peloponnese. Until then, little of any significance had been happening in Greece. It was not until about 1600 BC that the first wave of Indo-Europeans, the Achaeans, invaded from the north and created a new centre of civilization at Mycenae, on the plain of Argos, and remained under the Cretan thalas-socracy.

It is clear that towards 1400 BC the Mycenaeans, having become rivals of the Cretans, conquered them and occupied their island: their last writing, Linear B, is in Greek. It is possible that they burned Knossos, the Cretan capital. In any case, the Mycenaeans became the sole power in the Peloponnese. These were the people whom the Hittites of the fourteenth century BC called the 'Ahhiyawa', and whom the Iliad designates as the Achaeans. Their expedition against Troy probably marks the zenith of their expansion. A little later, towards 1200 Bc, they were in their turn overwhelmed by new invasions of Hellenes coming from the north-the Dorians.

The basic difference between the Minoans and the Mycenaeans is that the former left little evidence of

violence in their art, while the latter took it as a major theme. Add to that an oral history of death and devastation passed down through Homer, and a people emerge forever girded for battle. The Mycenaean Empire crumbled after the Trojan war, and three centuries of dark ages bury Greece's heroic age in myth.

The Hellenes of the classical period were the first to designate as 'Pelasgi', or `Seafarers', those who were already living in the region when they arrived, and who had come there by sea. These people probably did not use the name for themselves, though modern historians have continued to refer to them by this title.

The Pelasgians, described as being of medium height, brown-haired and swarthy, were neither Semites nor Indo-Europeans. They are generally considered, in spite of their heterogeneity, to be 'Mediterranean race'.

It is also accepted that the Pelasgians were mainly Anatolians who, while keeping Anatolia as their base, were the first civilizers of all the lands of the Aegean basin, including the islands, Crete, and the rest of Greece.

This fact enables us to understand the close relationship of Crete and the Peloponnese with the Aegean shores of Anatolia, with Troy to the north and Miletus to the south. It is known, for example, that Miletus was founded by the Minoans of Crete, who had returned to their Anatolian ancestral cradle. Further, it is evident that the Mycenaeans and the Pelasgians/Minoans merged, as did the Hittites

with the Hattians.

If one refers to Herodotus, who defines the Athenians as 'Pelasgians who learned the new language (Greek)', one can understand more fully the significance of their expansion. Unlike their Babylonian and Egyptian contemporaries, the Minoans left little written history - and the writing they did leave is largely indecipherable. Herodotus also states that the Hellenes took their gods from this people.

The influence of the Hittite deities on the Greek gods is quite clear. It was in Crete and Anatolia that the anthropomorphic development of the gods reached its conclusion's The cult of the Mother-Goddess, with a dying and resurrected god as consort and son, is very important in Crete. As I mentioned earlier, this cult, which was born in Anatolia, spread throughout the Middle East and the

West right up until the coming of Christianity.

Like so many things Minoan, the cult of the bull symbol -representing strength and fertility - probably came originally from the East.9 This `East' implies Anatolia more particularly Neolithic Çatalhöyük, for sanctuaries in Cretan palaces, like those in Çatalhöyük, have bull-horns everywhere-frescoes display bulls, and the doors of burial places are filled in with bull skulls.

The Influence of Anatolia on the Mediterranean Basin in the Post-Minoan Era

It is known that the Phrygians of Phocaea founded Massalia (present-day Marseilles) at the beginning of the first millennium BC. The French Revolution chose a 'Phrygian' bonnet for the head of Marianne.

The French word frise, whence the English `frieze', comes from the Latin Phrygium, `Phrygian (work)'. It stands as a memorial to the craftsmen whose traditions were taken up and continued by the Turks. The double knot characteristic of Turkish weaving is called `the Gordian knot', from Gordium, capital of Phrygia.

The Hellenes inherited from the Anatolian peoples many other important cultural elements such as

architecture, metallurgy, fresco painting, etc. I do not believe I am detracting from the Hellenic civilization by observing that, like all other civilizations, it owed much to those which went before.

No civilization flowers in a void. It was a piece of historical good fortune that placed at the disposal of the Hellenes the inestimable heritage of the advanced civilizations of Anatolian origin. Those who attempt today to explain civilizations must not display less objectivity than the historians of antiquity, such as Herodotus for example. To do that would be to show a lack of respect both for the rationalist thought left to us by Greece, and for the cultural heritage formed since.

The ethnocentrism interpretation of history, the tendency to consider the Indo-European Hellenes as the one and only starting point for Western civilization, is in reality merely an expression of cultural weakness.

The Greeks formed one ancient society which owed much to the others. Their successes must be measured against the achievements of other peoples, principally those of the Pelasgians. The debt which the Hellenes owe to them has to be recognized.

The Pelasgians similarly have links with the Maeonians or Lydians. These people emigrated, at a date somewhere between 1000 and 800 BC, towards Umbria or Etruria where they became the Etruscans, as Herodotus records. Neither Indo-Europeans nor Semites, they can be numbered among the peoples who, a thousand years before, became the Pelasgians. The Etruscan language, related to that of the Lycians and Lydians, has not yet been deciphered.

The Maeonians had attained a high degree of civilization long before they emigrated. They brought from Asia the double-headed axe-an emblem of royalty, which subsequently became the symbol of State used by high-ranking Roman magistrates.

During the eighth century BC the Etruscans formed a large and powerful state in the centre of the Italian peninsula. They built fortified towns, worked in metal, extracted minerals in Sardinia and Corsica, and devoted themselves to a prosperous economy. Women had a high status in their society.

Having annexed Rome at the beginning of the sixth century, the Etruscans provided it with three kings, of whom the first and the third were called Tarquin. Tarkhon is the name of an Anatolian god who was worshipped by the Etruscans. It was Tarquin the Old who ordered the construction of Rome's first drains (the Cloaca Maxima) which are still in use to this day. Urban drainage was a practice that the Anatolians learned from the Sumerians.

Working in gold was one of the arts at which the Etruscans excelled. In the Museum of Etruscan Art at the Villa Giulia in Rome one can see gold filigree bracelets almost identical to those made and sold even now in the historic Grand Bazaar in Istanbul, which are typically Anatolian.

The role of the Etruscans in the civilization of Rome has long been just as misunderstood as the contribution made by the Pelasgians to Greek civilization, though Dante did lay claim to having had Etruscan ancestors.

The flow of migration from Anatolia towards the west has involved other peoples in a similar way. The Sardians colonized Sardinia, and the Sicels settled in Sicily. As to the legend that the Romans were descendants of the Trojans, that could possibly be explained by migrations of Lydian origin.

NEXT PAGE