ANATOLIA

Turkish Anadolu, also called Asia Minor, the peninsula of land that today constitutes the Asiatic portion of Turkey. Because of its location at the point where the continents of Asia and Europe meet, Anatolia was, from the beginnings of civilization, a crossroads for numerous peoples migrating or conquering from either continent. Anatolia has been known from the earliest period as a battleground between the East and the West. The central plateau, with no navigable rivers and few natural approaches, its monotonous scenery, and severe climate, is a continuation of Central Asia. The western coast, with its fertile valleys and fine climate, is almost a part of Europe. These conditions are unfavourable to permanence, and the history of Anatolia is that of the march of nomad tribes and colonists and of the rise and fall of small states. About 1950 BC western Anatolia appears to have been held by the 1st dynasty of Hittites. Two centuries later, Aryan races seem to have invaded the country and imposed at least their language on the Hittites, who in the 17th century BC emerged suddenly as a powerful empire at Hattusa (modern Bogazky), ruling over Anatolia and fighting the Egyptian pharaohs for the mastery of Syria, and Assyria for the mastery of Mittani (Jerablus). This Hittite empire was overthrown by Indo-European races, possibly Greeks, who, crossing the Hellespont from Europe to Asia, with their iron weapons defeated the Hittites, who possessed only bronze weapons. These Indo-European races established many colonies all along the Aegean coast and in the hinterland, from which arose the Phrygian kingdom. Traces of this kingdom remain in various rock tombs, forts, and towns and in legends preserved by the Greeks. In the 8th century BC the Cimmerians coming from Armenia overran the Phrygian kingdom, and on its decline rose the kingdom of Lydia, with its centre at Sardis. A second Cimmerian invasion, followed later by Cyaxares, almost destroyed the rising kingdom, but the invaders were stopped by Alyattes (c. 617560 BC). The last king, Croesus (560546 BC), carried his boundaries to the Halys and subdued the Greek colonies on the coast. These flourishing Greek colonies formed a chain of settlements extending from Trebizond to Rhodes. Too jealous of each other to combine and too demoralized by luxury to resist, they fell an easy prey to Lydia. After the capture of Sardis by the Persian Cyrus II the Great (c. 546 BC), these colonies passed to Persia without resistance. Under Persian rule, Anatolia was divided into four satrapies, but the Greek cities were governed by Greeks, and the tribes in the interior retained their native princes and priest-dynasts. Beginning with Darius' attempt to conquer the European, as well as the Asiatic, Greeks, the Greco-Persian Wars ended in 334 BC, when Anatolia was invaded by Alexander the Great. After the death of Alexander, various diadochoi (succession rulers) established their rule over various parts of the peninsula. Rhodes became a great maritime republic. The Ptolemies of Egypt ruled over the Mediterranean coast of Anatolia. A small independent kingdom was founded at Pergamum in 283 BC and lasted a century and a half. Bithynia became an independent monarchy, Cappadocia and Paphlagonia tributary provinces under native princes. In the south, the Seleucids founded Antioch, Apamea, Attalia, the Laodiceas, and other cities as centres of commerce, some of which afterwards played an important part in the Hellenization of the country and in the spread of Christianity. During the 3rd century BC, certain Celtic tribes crossed the Bosporus and established their power in districts between the Sangarius and Halys, called Galatia. Its capital was at Ancyrathe modern Ankara, the capital of republican Turkey. The defeat of Antiochus the Great at Magnesia (190 BC) placed Anatolia at the mercy of Rome, but it was only in 133 BC that the first Roman province, Asia, was formed to include western Anatolia. Under Mithradates the Great, Pontus rose into a formidable power; but he was driven from his country by Pompey the Great and died in 63 BC. The Romans organized the peninsula into various provinces, leagues, and almost independent principalities, and under their dominion Anatolia, or Asia Minor, developed and became prosperous. At the end of the 3rd century AD, in reorganizing the empire, Diocletian broke the great military commands and united the provinces into groups called dioceses. A great change followed the introduction of Christianity, which gradually spread over the region. When the Roman Empire was divided in two in 395, Anatolia fell to the Eastern Roman Empire with its capital at Constantinople; the native languages and old religions partly disappeared, and the country was thoroughly Hellenized. At the close of the 6th century, Anatolia had become wealthy and prosperous, but centuries of peace and overcentralization produced a state of affairs that is embodied in the term Byzantine. The vigorous Persian monarch Khrosrow II invaded Anatolia from 616 to 626 and pitched his camp on the Bosporus. The emperor Heraclius, however, restored the Byzantine power by marching his army to Kurdistan; but soon after, the Arabs entered Anatolia and in AD 668 laid siege to Constantinople. For the following three centuries, Byzantium and the caliphs of Baghdad waged occasional warfare for the mastery of the bridgeheads of the Euphrates and the Cilician gates. But a more dangerous enemy was soon to appear from the East. In 1067 the Seljuq Turks ravaged Cilicia and Cappadocia; in 1071 they defeated and captured the emperor Romanus Diogenes; in 1080 they took Nicaea. One branch of the Seljuqs founded the empire of Rum with its capital at Iconium. During the 12th century, a number of Seljuq Atabeks ruled in different districts of Anatolia; the Mamluks of Egypt in Syria and farther east; Greeks in Pontus; Armenians in Cilicia; Danishmends (an Armenian family) at Sivas; Bayandurs (a Greek family) at Erzerum; etc. The Mongols swept the whole region and in 1243 subdued the Seljuq sultan of Rum. In the ensuing struggle for power among the Turkish tribes, the Ottoman Turks eventually assumed supremacy and established their state at Brusa. In 1400 Sultan Bayezid I held almost all Anatolia west of the Euphrates. But he was defeated and imprisoned by Timur, who swept through the country to the shores of the Aegean. On the death of Timur, the Ottoman power was reestablished after a prolonged struggle that ended with the annexation by Mehmed II (145181) of Karamania and Pontus. The Seljuq hordes who had devastated Anatolia in the 11th century had been followed by a long succession of nomad Turkish tribes who left the country bare and desolate. Subsequently, nearly all traces of Hellenic civilization disappeared with the enforced use of the Turkish language and wholesale conversions to Islam under the early Ottoman sultans. The later history of Anatolia is that of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks dominated Anatolia until their rule was shattered in World War I. The Treaty of Svres, signed by the defeated Turks and the victorious Allies in 1920, abolished the Ottoman Empire, but the treaty's territorial concessions in Anatolia to the Allies and their Greek and Armenian clients were rejected by the Turkish nationalist movement led by Mustafa Kemal (afterward Atatrk), and the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 left Turkey sovereign in all of Anatolia. Under Allied auspices and in conjunction with the Treaty of Lausanne, a convention for the exchange of populations was signed between Turkey and Greece by which about 1,000,000 Greeks were transferred from Anatolia to Greece. Turkish Anadolu, also called Asia Minor the peninsula of land that today constitutes the Asian portion of Turkey. Because of its location at the point where the continents of Asia and Europe meet, Anatolia was, from the beginnings of civilization, a crossroads for numerous peoples migrating or conquering from either continent. This article discusses the history and cultures of ancient Anatolia beginning in prehistoric times and including the Hittite empire, the Achaemenian and Hellenistic periods, and Roman, Byzantine, and Seljuq rule. For later periods, see Ottoman Empire and Turkey, history of. Additional reading Ancient Anatolia The relevant chapters by James Mellaart, Carl W. Blegen, Hildegard Lewy, O.R. Gurney, and A. Goetze in The Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., vol. 1, part 2 (1971), vol. 2, part 1 (1973), and vol. 2, part 2 (1975), were for the most part written before the mid-1960s and therefore do not take account of more recent research; however, much of the information is still pertinent and the bibliographies are extremely useful. A popular and readable account is Seton Lloyd, Ancient Turkey (1989). There is a general account of the Anatolian Neolithic in James Mellaart, The Neolithic of the Near East (1975), chapter 3, and an introduction to the period between the Neolithic and the Iron Age in his The Archaeology of Ancient Turkey (1978). A controversial theory on the origin of the Indo-Europeans, with a comprehensive survey and bibliography of the subject, is found in Colin Renfrew, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (1987).O.R. Gurney, The Hittites, 2nd ed. (1954, reprinted with revisions, 1990), remains the most easily accessible, authoritative account of the subject. Also useful are J.G. MacQueen, The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor, rev. and enlarged ed. (1986); and Kurt Bittel, Die Hethiter (1976). The same period of history is treated from the Hurrian point of view in Gernot Wilhelm, The Hurrians (1989; originally published in German, 1982), although the chronology is 60 years lower than that used in this article. Horst Klengel, Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v. u. Z., vol. 1 (1965), remains an extremely useful summary of all the documentary evidence then available. Light is shed on the later history of the Hittite empire by Itamar Singer, Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century B.C. According to the Hittite Sources, Anatolian Studies, 33:205217 (1983); and by J.D. Hawkins, Kuzi-Teub and the Great Kings' of Karkami, Anatolian Studies, 38:99108 (1988). Archaeological work in the Hittite capital after 1978 is summarized in Peter Neve, HattuaStadt der Gtter und Tempel (1993).R.D. Barnett, Phrygia and the Peoples of Anatolia in the Iron Age, in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 2, part 2 (1975), pp. 417442, is an overview. Although in fact devoted to the city of Hattusas, Kurt Bittel, Hattusha: The Capital of the Hittites (1970), also contains much information on the Phrygian parts of Anatolia, especially in chapter 6. The results of the American excavations at Gordium have appeared in preliminary reports in the American Journal of Archaeology since 1955. Papers from an important archaeological conference on the nomadic impact in both Anatolia and Iran during the Iron Age are collected in M.J. Mellink (ed.), Dark Ages and Nomads c. 1000 BC (1964). A brilliant survey of archaeological material on the Cimmerians and Phrygians may be found in Kurt Bittel, Kimmerier, Phryger, und Skythen in Kleinasien, in his Kleinasiatische Studien (1942, reissued 1967), pp. 54126. An excellent chapter by M.J. Mellink, The Native Kingdoms of Anatolia, in The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., vol. 3, part 2 (1991), pp. 619665, addresses Phrygia, Lydia, Lycia, and Caria.New readings of some of the most frequently used signs in the Hittite hieroglyphic syllabary, originally proposed about 1960, have gained practically universal acceptance; the topic is treated in J.D. Hawkins, Anna Morpurgo-Davies, and Gnter Neumann, Hittite Hieroglyphs and Luwian: New Evidence for the Connection (1974). The historical implications of these new readings and of the steadily increasing number of Hieroglyphic Luwian texts are presented in a masterful manner by J.D. Hawkins, The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia, in The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., vol. 3, part 1 (1982), chapter 9. Neo-Hittite art is examined in Winfried Orthmann, Untersuchungen zur Spthethitischen Kunst (1971); and Heinz Genge, Nordsyrisch-sdanatolische Reliefs, 2 vol. (1979).An exhaustive collection of all the data on Lydian history found in classical authors is given in Georges Radet, La Lydie et le monde grec au temps des mermnades (687546) (1893, reissued 1967). The archaeological results of the American excavations at Sardis have been regularly presented by members of the team in preliminary reports published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research since 1959. The events of the 7th century are set forth in Mordechai Cogan and Hayun Tadmor, Gyges and Ashurbanipal: A Study in Literary Transmission, Orientalia, new series, 46:6585 (1979).The history of the politically less well-developed regions in the first half of the 1st millennium BC can be written only by archaeologists on the basis of archaeological evidence. Henri Metzger, Anatolia II (1969; originally published in French, 1969), gives an account of these archaeological data with a marked emphasis on the indigenous population. Greek colonization and commercial adventures in the East are chronicled in books by J.M. Cook, The Greeks in Ionia and the East (1962, reissued 1970); and by John Boardman, The Greeks Overseas, new and enlarged ed. (1980); and in two essays by these same authors in The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., vol. 3, part 1 (1982): J.M. Cook, East Greece, pp. 745753; and John Boardman, The Islands, pp. 754778. The brief work by Maurits N. Van Loon, Anatolia in the Earlier First Millenium BC (1991), provides a succinct characterization of the religious imagery prevailing on the monuments and small finds of the neo-Hittite Luwians, the Urartians, the Phrygians, the Lydians, and the Carians.A modern treatment of the Anatolian Greeks in the Achaemenian period is Hermann Bengtson (ed.), The Greeks and the Persians (1968; originally published in German, 1965). Gabriele Bockisch, Die Karer und ihre Dynasten, Klio, 51:117175 (1969), is based on full use of all the Greek evidence from both classical authors and inscriptions, but the study disregards the few available data from Persian sources. Oskar Treuber, Geschichte der Lykier (1887), is the old, but by no means antiquated, collection of all the evidence on Lycian history before it became possible to incorporate evidence from indigenous sources such as inscriptions and coins. P.H.J. Houwink Ten Cate, The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera During the Hellenistic Period (1961), contains an introductory historical chapter, based on both the Greek and the indigenous evidence. Both Lycia and Cilicia have formed the subject of more detailed studies: Trevor R. Bryce, The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources (1986); and Paolo Desideri and Anna Margherita Jasink, Cilicia: dall'et di Kizzuwatna alla Conquista macedone (1990). The Lycian trilingual is studied in Fouilles de Xanthos, vol. 4 (1979).W.W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation, 3rd. ed., rev. by W.W. Tarn and G.T. Griffith (1952, reissued 1975), provides a general survey of the Hellenistic period with full emphasis on historical evidence. A trustworthy study of the intricate geographic problems connected with the Hellenistic history of the Anatolian states is Ernst Meyer, Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien (1925). A storehouse of information, also for the preceding periods, is D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, to the End of the Third Century After Christ, 2 vol. (1950, reprinted 1988). Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, 2 vol. (1993), begins with the early Hellenistic period and covers up to the 8th century AD. Dominique P.M. Collon The Rev. Donald Fyfe Easton Philo H.J. Houwink ten Cate Roman, Byzantine, and Seljuq rule A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284602: A Social Economic and Administrative Survey, 2 vol. (1964, reprinted 1986), includes much relevant information on Anatolia in the later Roman period, especially on society, urban-rural relations, and administration. J.F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture (1990), includes detailed but clear discussions of the social, economic, and institutional changes affecting Anatolia from the 6th to the 8th century. Wolfram Brandes, Die Stdte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert (1989), surveys the archaeological and literary evidence for the development of urban life in Anatolia. Peter Charanis, The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire, in his Studies on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire (1972), pp. 140154, summarizes the main elements of imperial policy in this respect, along with their demographic and political implications. Also useful is Hans Ditten, Ethnische Verschiebungen zwischen der Balkanhalbinsel und Kleinasien vom Ende des 6. bis zur zweiten Hlfte des 9. Jahrhunderts (1993). Ralf-Johannes Lilie, Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der Araber (1976), offers a detailed specialized analysis of the effects of the Arab-Islamic raids and attacks and the Byzantine resistance in the 7th and 8th centuries. Several relevant sections in The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4, The Byzantine Empire, 2nd ed., 2 parts (196667), provide general background and political history regarding Asia Minor. An invaluable reference work, Tabula Imperii Byzantini (1976 ), published by the Austrian Academy of Sciences, is a multivolume series, each volume dealing with a specific region of the Byzantine world by original province name and including cartographic analyses and detailed discussions of all relevant sources for each region and its political history. Another important work, Michael F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy, c. 3001450 (1985), contains very useful sections on politics, geography, and land use, as well as discussions of Anatolia in the context of the imperial economy as a whole. Gilbert Dagron and Haralambie Mihaescu, Le trait sur la Gurilla (De velitatione) de l'empereur Nicphore Phocas (963969) (1986), an important study, deals with guerrilla warfare on the eastern Anatolian frontier; it is written for the specialist and is often quite technical. Jean-Claude Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations Byzance (9631210) (1990), a fairly specialized treatment, includes an excellent survey of the structure and evolution of the provincial landowning elite in Anatolia. Claude Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History, c. 10711330 (1968), available also in a revised and updated French version, La Turquie pr-ottomane (1988), contains a valuable descriptive and historical account of both political and socioeconomic development. Speros Vryonis, Jr., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh Through the Fifteenth Century (1971, reissued 1986), an accessible and scholarly text, describes and analyzes Byzantine society and culture in Anatolia and the effects of the Seljuks and other Turkish settlements and conquests.The work by Cahen cited in the previous paragraph is the most important treatment of the Anatolian Seljuqs in a Western language. The chapters by Claude Cahen in Kenneth M. Setton (ed.), A History of the Crusades, vol. 12 (195862), provide a good background overview of the coming of both Turks and Mongols to Anatolia. Ibrahim Kafesoglu, A History of the Seljuks: Ibrahim Kafesoglu's Interpretation and the Resulting Controversy, trans. from Turkish and ed. by Gary Leiser (1988), offers an interesting perspective on the continuing scholarly debates in Turkey on the significance of the Seljuq phenomenon as a whole; the Anatolian Seljuqs are dealt with briefly. M. Fuad Kprl, The Origins of the Ottoman Empire, trans. and ed. by Gary Leiser (1992; originally published in French, 1935), studies the role of the Seljuqs as forerunners of the Ottomans, and The Seljuks of Anatolia: Their History and Culture According to Local Muslim Sources, trans. from Turkish and ed. by Gary Leiser (1992; originally published in Turkish, 1943), deals with the issue of sources and the literary culture of the Anatolian Seljuqs. Tamara Talbot Rice, The Seljuks in Asia Minor (1961), although not particularly helpful for history, is useful for its discussion of Seljuq building activity and artistic achievements. Alexis G.C. Savvides, Byzantium in the Near East: Its Relations with the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in Asia Minor, the Armenians of Cilicia, and the Mongols, AD c. 11921237 (1981), clearly shows the basis of political relations among the major powers in Anatolia in the pre-Mongol period. The work by Vryonis cited in the previous paragraph presents a detailed if somewhat uneven treatment of the Turkification of Anatolia from the Byzantine perspective; the history becomes rather vague after 1176. Also of interest is Osman Turan, Anatolia in the Period of the Seljuks and the Beyliks, in The Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 1 (1970), pp. 231262. Kosuke Shimizu, Bibliography of Saljuq Studies (1979), deals with Seljuqs as a whole but contains useful references to articles and monographs on the Anatolian branch. John Frederick Haldon John E. Woods Ancient Anatolia Anatolia from the end of the Hittite Empire to the Achaemenian Period Anatolia and northern Syria, c. 1180 BC to the 6th century BC. With the end of the Hittite empire, Anatolia and the whole of the ancient Middle East were severely shaken. Migratory groups of the Sea Peoples moving along the south coast of Anatolia and the seashore of Syria and Palestine caused great havoc and upheaval. The Sea Peoples followed the ancient trade route between the Greek Mycenaean world and the coastal cities of Syria, the commercial centres of the Middle East. The geographic characteristics of Anatolia facilitated the west-east connection, while the mountain ranges along the northern Black Sea coast and the southern Mediterranean hampered the traffic between north and south. Anatolia functioned as a bridge connecting the Greek world in the West with the great empires of the East. When migrating groups passed over this bridge, some of their people often remained and settled, as had occurred when the Hittites entered Anatolia. The Phrygians arrived in a similar manner, either in connection with or after the fall of the Hittite empire. The newcomers readily adapted themselves to an existing cultural pattern, and the geography of the country gave rise to the growth of a great number of small local powers and petty chieftains. Written records are few for the period between c. 1200 and 1000 BC, and the picture is not always clear, but archaeological evidence sheds some light on the new political divisions that emerged in Anatolia after the breakup of the Hittite empire. A number of Greek city-states were established on the western (Aegean) coast, among them Miletus, Priene, and Ephesus. The southern part of this area became known as Ionia, the northern part as Aeolis. The early history of these cities is known mainly from archaeological finds and from scattered remarks in the writings of later Greek historians. Most of western and central Anatolia was occupied by the Phrygians. In the northeast were the Kaska, who probably had participated in the dismemberment of the Hittite empire. In the southeast were the Luwians, related culturally and ethnically to the Hittites. They were organized in a number of small neo-Hittite states (including Carchemish, Malatya, Tabal, and Que) that extended into northern Syria. For the eastern region, archaeological evidence is supplemented by Assyrian texts and by about 150 neo-Hittite Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions. Phrygia from c. 1180 to 700 BC Anatolia and northern Syria, c. 1180 BC to the 6th century BC. The early Phrygians probably were not organized in one strong and centrally governed kingdom. Their origins and the affiliations of their language are still enshrouded in mystery. Greek traditionstill in many cases the best source availableusually dates their migration into Anatolia from Europe about the period of the Trojan War (early 12th century BC), and the Greeks were convinced that the Phrygians came from Macedonia and Thrace. Thus the Phrygian language once was believed to be related to Thracian or Illyrian. Most linguists, however, now view Phrygian as a separate Indo-European language that shares a number of isoglosses with ancient Greek. From the middle of the 8th century BC, the Phrygians were almost certainly the people called Mushki by the Assyrians, though it is possible that the Assyrians had earlier used this name as a label for northern tribes of various affiliations, in which case the name might also include newly arrived Armenians. The area occupied by the Phrygians in this early period (12th9th century BC) is uncertain; many authorities believe they were confined to the area west of the Kizil River. Parts of the former Hittite capital, Bogazky, were reoccupied well before 800 BC. The new settlement was an open, unfortified collection of small, often one-room, houses. The occupants apparently were dissociated from and unaware of the great Hittite past, but it is not certain that they were Phrygians. By the 8th century the Phrygians had formed a centrally organized kingdom in the west with its centres at Gordium and Midas City. Their three main areas of settlement were the hilly country between modern Eskisehir and Afyon; the central regions around their capital, Gordium; and the region around Ancyra (modern Ankara), where Phrygian tombs and architectural remains of the 8th6th century have been found. To the east, settlements such as Alaca Hyk, Bogazky-Hattusas, and Pazarli temporarily belonged to the Phrygian sphere of influence. Alisar Hyk and alapverdi were in a kind of no-man's-land between the Phrygians and their Luwian neighbours to the east. The Kaska by this time probably had penetrated into the region between the Kizil and the upper Euphrates River. At the time of its zenith in the late 8th century, the Phrygian kingdom made up so large a part of Anatolia that geographically it can in a sense be characterized as the political heir to the Hittite empire. The invasion of the Cimmerians from beyond the Caucasus at the beginning of the 7th century BC, however, prevented the full realization of this possibility. Excavations in Gordium and in the neighbouring burial tumuli provide evidence of the great wealth of the Phrygian rulers, reflected in the Greek legends about the Phrygian king Midas, while excavations in Midas City provide insight into later Phrygian culture. Phrygia's relations with Assyria are attested to by Assyrian documents. A letter of King Sargon II (ruled 721705 BC) to the Assyrian provincial governor of Que, apparently dating to 709 BC, indicates a temporary collaboration between the two powers on an equal basis. Assyro-Phrygian relations, however, were not always friendly; between 715 and 709 BC the provincial governor of Que twice fought the Phrygians before finally achieving success in 709. Sargon II himself had undertaken a campaign against them in 715. Between 718 and 709, a number of East Anatolian and North Syrian Luwian princes sought help from Phrygia in a failed attempt to protect themselves from Assyrian expansionism. The Luwian states, however, were defeated and turned into Assyrian dependencies. According to the official Assyrian interpretation, King Midas in 709 sent an embassy to Sargon offering submission. During the reign of Sargon's successor, Sennacherib (704681), the Cimmerians swept through Anatolia, bringing an end to Phrygia as a major political power. Tradition has it that Midas then committed suicide, and some archaeologists have tried to identify a royal tomb excavated at Gordium as that of the legendary king. Evidence of the Cimmerian destruction of the city is unmistakable. After about 690 the site was abandoned; late in the 7th or early in the 6th century BC it was reinhabited and a new city was built. This late Gordium functioned as the centre of a provincial district, probably limited to the upper valley of the Sangarius River. Excavations at Gordium show that the building and fortification, woodcutting, metalwork, and ivory carving techniques of the Phrygians had reached a high level of perfection. The excellence of Phrygian textiles is known from ancient writings. Cauldrons with bullhead attachments show the influence of Urartian craftsmanship, but the differences are significant enough to indicate an independent local school of bronze working. Other objects reflect the influence of Assyria. Bronze fibulae (clasps), traditionally held to have been a Phrygian invention, have been found in great numbers. Evidence that the Phrygians, through King Midas, had contacts with Greek coastal cities of western Anatolia is provided by Greek sources, which also show that Midas was married to a Greek woman from Aeolic Cyme and was the first non-Greek ruler to send offerings to the oracle of Delphi. Two main types of pottery have been found at sites associated with Phrygia, one polychrome with geometric designs and the other mainly gray or red monochrome. Some archaeologists believe that the polychrome variety, first found in eastern Anatolia and usually called Early Phrygian or Alisar IV, is actually Luwian; it is certain that there was extensive cultural contact between the eastern Phrygians and their Luwian neighbours. Geometric patterns typical of Phrygian sculpture appear in Luwian rock reliefs of Ivriz Harabesi and Bor. Conversely, Luwian influence clearly is present in Phrygian sculptures found at Ankara. There is a cultural, if not a political, division in this period between more purely native Phrygians in the west and the eastern Phrygians, with their neo-Hittite affiliations. Before the middle of the 8th century BC the Phrygians adopted an alphabetic script ultimately derived from the Phoenician alphabet. There is some question as to whether the Phrygians acquired their alphabet from a Greek source in the west or south or whether the Phrygian form of the alphabet was the parent of the Greek. The first supposition seems more likely, since the Greeks probably had more contact with the seagoing Phoenicians than did the inland Phrygians. The oldest Phrygian inscriptions found at Gordium date from the second half of the 8th century BC. Another inscription at Tyana from the same general period, but perhaps slightly later, seems to refer to King Midas. His name, or possibly his title, is mentioned on the stone. Toward the end of the 8th century BC, Bykkale, the citadel of Bogazky-Hattusas, undoubtedly was a Phrygian settlement. In the early 7th century, perhaps as a result of the Cimmerian invasion, a new system of fortification was added. Later in that century the settlement extended beyond the citadel to cover most of the area of the former Hittite capital. The Phrygian character of this city is clearly shown by graffiti in Phrygian script and especially by a cult image of Cybele, the main Phrygian goddess, found in a niche at the southeast gate of the citadel. Cybele, the Great Mother of the Gods, was similar to the goddess known to the Luwians as Kubaba, who played an important role in the religion of Carchemish. The importance of Cybele seems to have increased during the Phrygian period, and the statue of her at Bogazky seems to show the influence of 6th-century Greek art, as do comparable cult statues from Gordium, Ayas (west of Ankara), and Ankara. Roman, Byzantine, and Seljuq rule Anatolia in the later Roman and Byzantine periods Administration and settlement patterns During the later Roman period (4th to early 7th century AD) Anatolia was divided into 24 provinces. These provinces were in turn grouped into dioceses under vicarii (deputies), those of Asia Minor belonging chiefly to the dioceses of Pontica and Asiana and partly to that of Oriens. The whole formed part of the praetorian prefecture of the East, with its headquarters at Constantinople; this massive administrative circumscription comprised all the Middle Eastern districts of the empireincluding Egypt and parts of North Africaand the European provinces of Thrace, Haemimontus, and Rhodope (modern Turkey and parts of southeastern Bulgaria and northeastern Greece). The most densely settled regions were the narrow coastal plains in the north and south and the much broader plains of the Aegean region, dissected by the western foothills of the Anatolian Plateau. Urban settlements were concentrated in these coastal plains, although there were other groups of cities in certain inland regions with more sheltered climatic conditions than were afforded by the central plateau and eastern mountains. Land use throughout the medieval period and into modern times was predominantly pastoral on the plateau, while the cultivation of cereals, vegetables, vines, and olives dominated the fertile coastal regions. All cities depended on their agricultural hinterlands for economic survival; those with good harbour facilities or other access to the coast were also centres of long-distance as well as local trade and exchange. Politically and militarily, Anatolia was at peace throughout the Roman period, except for the existence of brigandage in less accessible regions such as Isauria and the brief civil wars of the later 5th century, which involved both Isauria and parts of western Anatolia. War and social dislocation In the 7th century this favourable situation changed. War with Sasanian Persia brought hostile military occupation and invasion; even after the imperial victory in 626 under Heraclius (ruled 610641), the devastation of much of Anatolia during the following century and a half of Muslim raids and invasions drastically changed the economic, social, and administrative character of the peninsula. The loss of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine and later the North African coastal provinces meant that Anatolia became the heartland of the much-reduced state, with its southern and eastern regions forming a frontier zone. Constant raiding transformed the traditional pattern of urban-rural social and economic relationships: most cities acted as shelters for the local population and were reduced to small fortresses housing imperial and ecclesiastical officials and soldiers. Endemic plague, which struck the eastern Mediterranean basin frequently throughout the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, further damaged the older pattern of urban settlement. Economic activity became increasingly rural. Provincial elites focused their attention on Constantinople as the capital and seat of the imperial court and administration, thus investing less wealth locally, while the state concentrated its fiscal apparatus on the village rather than the city, accelerating the process of ruralization. The traditional provincial administration, while it persisted until the 9th century, began to be replaced by a militarized system: the armies of the eastern regions (lost to the Arabs in 637640) and the army formerly based in Thrace came to be settled permanently in Anatolia, where they were recruited locally. The new circumscriptions, consisting of a number of the older provinces together, came to be known as themes (Greek: themata), originally a term denoting simply an army corps billeted in a particular region. Each theme was governed by a strategos (general), but the fiscal and civil administrative officials continued to be appointed from Constantinople. The original five large themes were soon subdivided to form smaller units, while many new themes were added along the frontier during the period of reconquests by the Byzantines in the late 9th and 10th centuries. Some of the soldiers were recruited on a mercenary or full-time basis and paid directly by the state, while from the late 7th century many were recruited on the basis of their own lands, part of the income from which was used to support them on active service. Although these troops initially represented the main professional field armies of the empire, they rapidly came to resemble a peasant militia. In spite of this evolution, the so-called theme system appears to have functioned relatively well at a purely defensive level; the theme system and the natural geographic boundaries formed by the Taurus and Southeastern Taurus ranges combined to prevent any permanent Muslim conquest or assimilation of Anatolian regions under the authority of the Caliphate. The system was jeopardized during the 10th century, however, as an increasingly powerful provincial magnate elite began to encroach on the soldiers' smallholdings, thereby depriving the state of an important source of military manpower. In the context of an imperial program of military expansion and offensive campaigns on both the eastern and western frontiers, these changes led to civil conflicts that were stimulated by rivalry both among certain magnate clans and their leaders and between the leaders and the state. But the system lasted, with some modifications, until the mid-11th century and the period of the first Seljuq conquests; the themes gradually lost their military character, a process connected with a greatly increased reliance on professional and mercenary soldiers at the expense of the older peasant militia.