Alalakh and Its Neighbours: Proceedings of the 15th Anniversary Symposium at the New Hatay Archaeology Museum, 10-12 June 2015 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement) 9789042938939, 9789042938946, 9042938935

Citation preview

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 55

ALALAKH AND ITS NEIGHBOURS Proceedings of the 15th Anniversary Symposium at the New Hatay Archaeology Museum, 10–12 June 2015 Edited by

K. Aslıhan YENER and Tara INGMAN

PEETERS 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 55

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 55

ALALAKH AND ITS NEIGHBOURS Proceedings of the 15th Anniversary Symposium at the New Hatay Archaeology Museum, 10–12 June 2015 Edited by

K. Aslıhan YENER and Tara INGMAN

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT. 2020

Series Editors: Andrew Jamieson and Claudia Sagona A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-90-429-3893-9 eISBN 978-90-429-3894-6 D/2020/0602/14 Cover illustration: Sealing of Great Priest Pilukatuha (AT 17741) © Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN BELGIUM BY

Peeters N.V., Warotstraat 50, B-3020 Herent

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION Alalakh in the Past, Atchana in the Present: Situating Site and City . . . . . . . . K. Aslıhan YENER, Murat AKAR and Tara INGMAN

3

Making Use of the Past: The Possibilities of Archaeological Archives . . . . . . . Hélène MALOIGNE

13

TEXTUAL RECORDS Linguistic and Political Borders in the Period of the Ebla Archives . . . . . . . . Alfonso ARCHI

31

The Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions of the Amuq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David HAWKINS

41

The Jurisdiction of Legal Transactions at Middle Bronze Age Alalah . . . . . . . Jacob LAUINGER

55

COMPARATIVE MATERIAL CULTURE The Ostentatious Use of Obsidian in Bronze Age Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Northern Levant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elizabeth HEALEY

75

A Glass Production Centre in Central Anatolia? Büklükale in Relation to Alalakh and Mesopotamia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kimiyoshi MATSUMURA

103

Carnelian, Agate, Amber and Other Gemstones: Production and Exchange in Late Bronze Age Alalakh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magda PIENIĄŻEK

117

Reconsidering the Alalakh Frescoes within their Levantine Context . . . . . . . . Constance VON RUDEN Symbolic Messaging and Incised Signs on Bronze: A Cache of Middle–Late Bronze I Weapons from Alalakh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. Aslıhan YENER

141

171

vi

CONTENTS

CERAMIC STUDIES Alalakh and the Aegean: Five Centuries of Shifting but Enduring Contacts . . . . Robert B. KOEHL 12th Century BC Painted Pottery at Alalakh: Local Development and Foreign Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mariacarmela MONTESANTO Drinking in Iron Age Atchana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marina PUCCI

201

225

249

ALALAKH AND ITS NEIGHBOURS Oylum Höyük and Alalakh: Cultural Relations in the Second Millennium BC . . Atilla ENGIN

275

The Sacred Mountain of Ugarit and Alalaḫ? Mount Kasion and Related Issues . . John HEALEY

307

The Dawn and Demise of Imperial Impact – Tell Atchana vs. Arslantepe in the Framework of the Hittite Expansion and Dissolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federico MANUELLI

317

Tell Afis and its Plain: A Route to the Amuq and the Mediterranean . . . . . . . Stefania MAZZONI

343

The Two Sides of the Amanus: Cilicia and the Amuq: A Comparative Chronology Mirko NOVÁK, in collaboration with Ekin KOZAL, Sabina KULEMANN-OSSEN and Deniz YAŞIN

367

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS AT ALALAKH Mortuary Practices and GIS Modelling at Tell Atchana, Alalakh . . . . . . . . . Tara INGMAN

389

Speiss’ing Things Up: Iron Arsenide in a Secondary Production Context at Tell Atchana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael JOHNSON

407

A General Outlook on the Connections between Alalakh and Cyprus in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Textual, Archaeological and Archaeometric Studies . . . . Ekin KOZAL, Sinem HACIOSMANOĞLU, Mustafa KIBAROĞLU and Gürsel SUNAL

419

CONTENTS

vii

Come and Hear My Story: The ‘Well-Lady’ of Alalakh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rula SHAFIQ

433

Chemical Characterisation of Mycenaean Pottery from Alalakh via ICP-MS . . . Sıla MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA and Cansu YILDIRIM

453

SUMMARY Fifteen Years of Renewed Research at Tell Atchana: Some Final Thoughts . . . . Geoffrey SUMMERS

475

INTRODUCTION

ALALAKH IN THE PAST, ATCHANA IN THE PRESENT: SITUATING SITE AND CITY K. Aslıhan YENER – Murat AKAR – Tara INGMAN

INTRODUCTION1 Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh (Fig. 1), is widely considered one of the most appealing of the over 400 sites in the Amuq Valley (Plain of Antioch), due in part to the charisma of Sir C. Leonard Woolley and his popular publications of the site.2 Over 30 years had passed

Fig. 1. Map of Alalakh, 2003–2017 soundings. Alalakh archives, courtesy M. Akar.

1

 We would like to warmly thank everyone involved in the success of the 15th anniversary celebration symposium (Fig. 2). We acknowledge the generous contributions from the Koҫ University dean, Ahmet Iҫduygu, the Hatay Cultural Director, Hüsnü Ișıkgör, the Hatay Archaeological Museum director, Nilufer Sezgin, and all the museum staff who enabled us to freely exchange ideas and information and to create an intellectual synergy that we will be discussing in the years to follow. Special thanks go to the entire Alalakh and Amuq Valley Regional Projects team, as well as all the participants in this conference from our neighbouring regions in both Turkey and Syria, who gave wonderful papers. 2  Woolley 1953a; Yener 2005; Dodd et al. 2012.

K. A. YENER

4

– M.

AKAR

– T.

INGMAN

Fig. 2. “Fifteenth Anniversary of the Alalakh Excavations Symposium” in front of the new Hatay Museum. Photo Alalakh archives, courtesy M. Akar.

since the last Woolley excavation season when I (K. Aslıhan Yener) first set foot on Tell Atchana as a Columbia University graduate student assistant of Irene Winter in 1977. The dig house on the summit of the mound was deserted, the doors and windows wide open for all to enter, and we did. The wooden cabinets contained cylinder seals, flint, bitumen, glass and copper implements; the depot floor was strewn with bags of pottery reaching from floor to ceiling. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that so many years later, in 2000, I would be directing the new series of investigations. By that time, new guards had been placed on the mound in succession, some valuable finds had gone to the museum, the door had been padlocked and the rotting fabric ceramic bags had been replaced by plastic. Notably, radical changes in perspective had taken place that characterise the differences between the old and new excavations. New research agendas, methods, technologies and funding, as well as the participation of Turkish scholars, had now supplanted the earlier 20th-century ideals. Tell Atchana was originally excavated by Woolley from 1936–39 and, after World War II, from 1946–49 for the British Museum and Oxford University. Woolley’s publications, particularly his 1955 volume on Alalakh,3 have been widely used as a source for further study. While in many ways ahead of its time in terms of archaeological methodology, Woolley’s work nevertheless left a number of gaps and uncertainties in the documented history of ancient Alalakh. Driven by his desire to, among other things, understand the development of Minoan culture on Crete and its links to the “great civilizations of history,” Woolley sought to find the connections between the Aegean, Mesopotamia and Anatolia. Traditional wisdom has Alalakh functioning as the capital of a smaller regional state called Mukish. The broad horizontal exposures conducted at Alalakh have provided evidence of a 30-ha city (now with a lower town) and its material culture during the Late 3

 Woolley 1955 and references.

ALALAKH IN THE PAST, ATCHANA IN THE PRESENT: SITUATING SITE AND CITY

5

Bronze Age (c. 1600–1200 BC) and glimpses of the final Early Bronze and the entire Middle Bronze Age (c. 2200–1600 BC). Woolley’s momentous finds and his infectious enthusiasm galvanised public attention, and research in the Amuq Valley, and Alalakh took on mythic stature in archaeological circles. While only a small part of the whole site was originally excavated, the Woolley trenches provided a comprehensive sequence from Level XVII (c. 2200–2000 BC) to Iron Age Level O (now known to be c. 1190–750 BC). The new round of research at Tell Atchana4 began in 2000 under the direction of K. Aslıhan Yener with Murat Akar as co-assistant director and was sponsored by a succession of universities and institutions, including the Hatay Museum, the University of Chicago, Mustafa Kemal University, and Koҫ University. It is currently sponsored by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Seventeen seasons of surveys and excavation were completed from 2000–2017, exploring areas both within and beyond the zone previously explored by Woolley. Establishing a relative and absolute chronology for a previously excavated site has been dependent on the integration of many lines of evidence and pursued according to a rigorous methodology. The papers in this volume (see comments by Summers Chap. 24) present the methods used by the Alalakh Excavations in building chronologies for the site, with a special focus on the study of local ceramics. The construction of the ceramic sequence adhered to several important criteria. The first was the reliance on depositional units within a strictly controlled stratigraphy. The second priority was the use of common wares to construct the spine of the sequence.5 A nine-year study has resulted in the first comprehensive typology and sequence for local ceramics,6 forming the backbone of the site’s relative chronology. In combination with the terminus post quem provided by foreign pottery, other chronologically sensitive artefacts, C14 dating, foreign textual synchronisms and glyptic evidence, the new chronology of Alalakh revises and builds on Woolley’s work to create a new understanding of this regional capital. Many artefactual origins and means of dissemination are considered in the context of the intensifying connectivity and dawning internationalism that characterised the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. A wide diversity of imported precious items was unearthed, some of which were managed and organised using sealing devices such as stamp and cylinder seals. While the bulk of the Assyrian trade with Kültepe (ancient Kanesh) was with Assur, nevertheless, intriguing stylistic parallels were found with Alalakh glyptic, as also noted previously by Collon.7 In this volume, shared central Anatolian-north Syrian signage systems on Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age bronze weapons are discussed by Yener (Chap. 10). Political relations with neighbouring Oylum Höyük are discussed by Engin (Chap. 14), who suggests that Oylum was ancient Ulisum/Ullis and describes the historical landscape, as well as material culture similarities with Alalakh. The topic of the long-lasting relationship of Alalakh with the Aegean is detailed by Koehl (Chap. 11). Also in the category of styles and technologies shared with the west is the chapter by von Ruden (Chap. 9), who discusses the frescoes of Alalakh.  Yener 2005, 2010; Yener et al. in press.  Horowitz 2015. 6  Horowitz in press. 7  Collon 1975, 1982, 2010. 4 5

K. A. YENER

6

– M.

AKAR

– T.

INGMAN

To the extensive royal archives found written in Akkadian and Hurrian, as well as materials inscribed in Hittite and Luwian, the new excavations can add a text in Sumerian. Archi (Chap. 3) provides a historical reconstruction of the region using third millennium BC Ebla cuneiform texts. On the other end of the time scale, Hawkins (Chap. 4) reconstructs the area during the Iron Age using Luwian inscriptions found in the Amuq region, while J. Healey (Chap. 15) describes the delta of the Orontes River and Mount Cassius (Kel Dağ/ Jebel al-Akra) through historical documents. Although not in the great quantities found by the original excavations, the Yener excavations nevertheless yielded numerous texts.8 Some provide insights into Middle Bronze Age jurisdictional practices, as expounded by Lauinger (Chap. 5). The sequence of royal architecture, temples, private houses, administrative buildings and ramparts with impressive gate structures defines the architectural legacy of Alalakh.9 During the Middle Bronze Age, Yarim-Lim was vassal to the Amorite Kingdom of Yamhad (Aleppo).10 Alalakh subsequently formed part of the Hurro-Mitanni Empire after the fall of Aleppo in the 16th century BC, serving as an independent vassal state at least part of the time under kings Niqmepa and Idrimi.11 Eventually drawn into the Hittite Empire around 1350 BC, the city was largely abandoned around 1300 BC, for unknown reasons, though the main temple and its surroundings continued in use at least until the latter half of the 13th century BC.12 Expanding on this theme of regional powers and their impact, Manuelli (Chap. 16) discusses the relationships between Alalakh and distant Arslantepe, near Malatya. Shafiq (Chap. 22) explores the theme of burials by describing what appears to be a death by misadventure. Ingman (Chap. 19) uses new technologies such as GIS mapping to geolocate and help date graves on the slope necropolis of Tell Atchana that are difficult to place stratigraphically. The earliest levels were investigated by Woolley by means of two large, deep soundings below a courtyard of the Level VII palace, extending 10 m down to the water table and producing levels to XVI.13 Early levels were also reached in the temple excavations, where Woolley said he reached virgin soil, with the aid of pumps, below the water table in Level XVII. The labour force Woolley employed evokes scenes in recent films, where hundreds of traditionally clothed workers are digging away and very few archaeologists are supervising. Indeed, photographs taken at the time show the enormity of the labour force, a style of excavation typical of its day. Excavations were not dug by stratigraphically defined depositional units as they are today, which has been the source of many dating issues. Questions arose about how anyone could control the details of stratigraphy, architecture and find places with so much going on at once. Woolley, however, was a genius, and he had experienced foremen working for him, including one by the name of Hamoudi ibn  8

 Lauinger 2005, 2010, 2011, 2014; von Dassow 2017.  Yener 2005. 10  Lauinger 2015. 11  Von Dassow 2008. 12  Yener et al. in press. 13  See photos in Akar and Maloigne 2014; Maloigne this volume.  9

ALALAKH IN THE PAST, ATCHANA IN THE PRESENT: SITUATING SITE AND CITY

7

Sheikh Ibrahim, who was brought up from the earlier excavations at Ur in southern Iraq.14 Indeed, our new round of excavations have revealed how often Woolley’s “broad brush” conclusions were correct, although many phasing details have altered and have been finetuned by recent assessments. Today, the reverse labour force proportions are in operation; that is, more archaeologists and fewer workers. Maloigne (Chap. 2) explores the Woolley archival practices at Alalakh. In 1995 a program was inaugurated for regional analysis in the Amuq Valley and excavations at several sites,15 focusing finally on Tell Atchana, Alalakh. This regional approach, involving a series of linked excavations, has resulted in an unusual, multi-institutional laboratory that can cast light on transformations of regional and interregional relationships. The program includes examination of the tension between social institutions, technological developments and the environment. Reconstruction of the ancient environment has been emphasised in the second round of investigations.16 Geo-archaeological research is now targeting the changing human and natural landscape, as well as the social effects (if any) of abrupt climatic shifts. Apropos of a regional approach, Mazzoni (Chap. 17) discusses the extensive north–south route systems tying together the Amuq with the rest of northern Syria. The new round of excavations at Alalakh cross-cut the massive Woolley excavation trench to provide a fresh section of his work in Area 1, the Royal Precinct. Other new exposures targeted untouched parts of the mound on the eastern and southern flanks, Areas 2, 3 and 4. After an exhaustive correlation of the new excavation results with Woolley’s stratigraphy, a new phasing system is now in place, based on the Roman numerals assigned by Woolley but written in Arabic numerals to be clear where we have independently phased a new context or re-phased a Woolley context (Fig. 3). Ancient Alalakh is uniquely poised to answer a number of compelling questions that demand more complex forms of data than were available from the first series of excavations. In theory, the site has the dubious distinction of partially providing the basis for the so-called “Mesopotamian Middle Chronology” viewpoint, due to the many textual and material culture synchronisms with that area. Therefore, the establishment of a rigorous calendar dating for Atchana — based on a fine-grained relational stratigraphy, dendrochronology, radiocarbon sampling, ceramic seriation based on depositional units, and textual data — took precedence in the new round of excavations. The preliminary results of this new effort have suggested that the dating for Alalakh’s levels as defined by Woolley is greatly in need of some revision. Nevertheless, for the much-disputed time span that elapsed between the two palace archives of Level VII and Level IV, Woolley was correct (200–250 years), and a modified “Middle Chronology” best fits our evidence. These strata will constitute a future publication (Alalakh Excavations Vol. 3) and research program into the Middle Bronze II–Late Bronze I transition at Alalakh (c. 1650–1550 BC), a time of great transformations, collapses and rejuvenations of political structures all over the ancient 14

 Woolley 1953b.  Yener et al. 2000. 16  Yener 2005, 2010; Yener et al. 2017; Bulu 2017; Ulaş et al. 2019. 15

K. A. YENER

8

– M.

AKAR

– T.

INGMAN

Fig. 3. Chart of Woolley’s soundings (“Levels”, in Roman Numerals) integrated with Yener’s soundings (“Periods”, in Arabic Numerals). Alalakh archives.

Near East. Another viewpoint on chronology is expressed by Novak et al. (Chap. 18), who discusses the synchronisms between Cilicia and Alalakh. Our excavations revealed that, contemporary with the Level VII Palace of the final Middle Bronze II period, just before the destruction thought to be by Hattusili I, a smaller building with an apsidal short end stood about 15 m northwest of the Woolley Ishtar temple. In the search for parallels of this apsidal feature, we know that apsidal megaroids exist from the late Neolithic of Greece and Anatolia through the second millennium BC. But the best temple in antis parallel is the Temple of Dagan from the contemporary Syrian Middle Bronze Age site of Tel Bi’a, ancient Tuttul (Fig. 4). When the plans are superimposed, the apsidal complex of Alalakh resembles the Tuttul example. A favissa (a ritual pit with burnt offerings) with a dog offering sealed the earlier apsidal complex and was perhaps a closing ceremony or termination ritual, or even a foundation offering for the erection of a new, smaller apsidal building. Similar termination rituals were found in contemporary Qatna and Ebla in Syria.17 The continuity of this unusual architectural idiom, rebuilt in the same location over a timespan of perhaps 200 years, could be indicative of a well-articulated set of relationships between the gods and their special “sacred space” which is very strong at Alalakh, as demonstrated by the Ishtar Temple sequence from Level I down to Level XVI. This evidence of special place-making practices suggests how the builders of this sanctuary employed “architectonic” elements that imparted a recognisable character to the structure as a whole in each phase where it appears.

17

 Morandi-Bonaccosi 2012.

ALALAKH IN THE PAST, ATCHANA IN THE PRESENT: SITUATING SITE AND CITY

9

Fig. 4. Square 32.57 Apsidal Building superimposed upon Tell Bi’a Temple of Dagan (in green). Alalakh archives, courtesy M. Akar.

The new excavations have also paid particular attention to dating the final cessation of habitation at Atchana.18 Newly excavated sequences from several parts of the site strongly suggest that Atchana’s final phase of widespread Bronze Age Hittite habitation ended by around 1300 BC, and that most of the site lay deserted throughout the 13th century. The exception is the temple area, which continued in use as part of a cult centre into the early 13th century, as demonstrated by Hittite imperial seals and texts of that date. There appears to be a resettlement sometime in the mid-12th century and continuation of the occupation of Alalakh throughout Iron I and Iron II/III, c. 1190–750 BC. Both Pucci (Chap. 13) and Montesanto (Chap. 12) give detailed data about the transition between the Late Bronze II and the Iron Age in terms of ceramics. Many new technologies have become available to archaeology since the last round of excavations, such as satellite imagery, remote sensing, geographical positioning devices, spatial modelling and relational databases. Furthermore, new instrumental analyses and archaeological sciences have sharpened and increased the sophistication of questions we can

18

 Yener 2013.

K. A. YENER

10

– M.

AKAR

– T.

INGMAN

now ask of the finds.19 While the luxury imports at Alalakh have given the city its cachet and have garnered the weight of attention paid to the site in the past, the nature of local production technologies has been marginalised. Generally, the assumption has been that Nuzi-style pottery was imported, but new analyses have shown that it was all locally produced.20 Other characterisation studies by Kozal et al. (Chap. 21) have identified local and imported ceramics from Cyprus. Votruba and Yıldırım (Chap. 23) have also focused attention on local and imported ceramics, especially Mycenaean wares. Furthermore, a diversity of elite products such as glass and other vitrified materials were determined by Dardeniz to be local.21 On the theme of vitrified materials, Matsumura (Chap. 7) discusses central Anatolian Büklükale and glass production. Pieniazek (Chap. 8) has outlined the variety of stones, both imported and local, used to make beads. Johnson (Chap. 20) has focused attention on iron smelting technology at Alalakh. Using the analysis of obsidian, E. Healy (Chap. 6) has discussed its use and technologies of crafting it into luxury elite products during the Bronze Age. A seal impression from the 2012 season appeared on a bulla belonging to a hitherto unknown 14th-century Hittite great priest named Pilukatuha; unfortunately, it was found out of context mixed in with Iron Age materials. This was the second “great priest” seal to be discovered, after the seal belonging to Palluwa found by Woolley. Another Hittite-period stamp seal impression was found on the floor of a Local Phase 4 room in a mudbrick building unearthed in the same square (42.10). The sealing is of Princess Asnuhepa and Prince Tuthaliya22 and is in a context dating to the Late Bronze II. This tantalising evidence revealed who was depicted on the Tuthaliya basalt relief. The Alalakh orthostat relief shows a Hittite prince who is also a great priest of Alalakh and, according to Dinçol and Peker, a grandson of Suppililiuma I. The orthostat, which was found by Woolley, was re-used as a staircase step in Temple Ib, but we can see how the Hittites asserted their political dominance by inserting themselves into Ishtar’s temple and thus into the religious life of the city’s inhabitants. Thus, Pilukatuha, Palluwa and Tuthaliya are attested at Alalakh, revealing it as an important cult centre. In conclusion, what is certainly emerging from our team’s interdisciplinary research is that despite the rise and fall of kingdoms and empires — be they Amorite, Hittite, Aegean or Hurro-Mitanni — and the appearance of new commodities, artistic styles and cult practices at the site, the people of Alalakh engaged in this milieu on their own terms, and local expressions always endured.

19

 For example, the ongoing archaeometric analysis of pottery at the site (Tübitak Project no. 114K766).  Erb-Satullo et al. 2011. 21  Dardeniz 2017. 22  Yener et al. 2014; Yener 2017. 20

ALALAKH IN THE PAST, ATCHANA IN THE PRESENT: SITUATING SITE AND CITY

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY AKAR, M. and MALOIGNE, H., eds. 2014 Unutulmuş krallık: antik Alalah’ta arkeoloji ve fotoğraf (The forgotten kingdom: Archaeology and photography at ancient Alalakh). Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. BULU, M. “A new look at the periphery of the Hittite Empire: Re-evaluating Middle 2017 and Late Bronze Age settlements of the Amuq Valley in the light of ceramics,” in Proceedings of an International Workshop: Places and Spaces in Hittite Anatolia I: Hatti and the East, Istanbul (Turkey), October 25th–26th 2013, edited by M. Alparslan and M. Doğan-Alparslan, pp. 185–208. Istanbul: Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü. COLLON, D. 1975 The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Bd. 27). Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon und Bercker. 1982 The Alalakh Cylinder Seals: A New Catalogue of the Actual Seals Excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley at Tell Atchana, and from Neighbouring Sites on the Syrian-Turkish Border (British Archaeological Reports International Series 132). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 2010 “Report on the seals and sealings found at Tell Atchana (Alalakh) during the 2003 season of excavation,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003–2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 89–97. Istanbul: Koҫ University Press. DARDENIZ, G. 2017 “Sharing technologies and workspaces for ceramic and vitrified material production at Tell Atchana-Alalakh,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology. A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. S. Gilbert, pp. 139–157. Leiden: Brill. DODD, L. S., GREEN, A., HIGHCOCK, N., CADWELL, L. and YENER, K. A. 2012 “The 2010 Amuq Valley Regional Projects Survey,” Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 29: 205–223. ERB-SATULLO, N., SHORTLAND, A. J. and EREMIN, K. 2011 “Chemical and mineralogical approaches to the organization of Late Bronze Age Nuzi Ware production,” Archaeometry 53(6): 1171–1192. HOROWITZ, M. 2015 “The evolution of plain ware ceramics at the regional capital of Alalakh in the 2nd millennium BC,” in Plain Pottery Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East: Production, Use, and Social Significance, edited by C. Glatz, pp. 153–181. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. In press “Local ceramics in the battleground of empires: Alalakh in the 14th Century BC,” in Ceramic Identities, edited by S. Mazzoni, M. Pucci and F. Venturi. Pisa: ETS. LAUINGER, J. 2005 “Epigraphic finds from the Oriental Institute’s 2003 excavations at Alalakh,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 64: 53–58. 2010 “Epigraphic report,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003–2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 85–88. Istanbul: Koç University Press. 2011 “An excavated dossier of cuneiform tablets from Level VII Alalakh?” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 362: 21–64. 2014 “Witnessing at Old Babylonian Alalah: A new Level VII witness list from the Koç University Excavations at Tell Atchana/Alalah,” Revue d’Assyriologie 108: 25–40. 2015 Following the Man of Yamhad: Settlement and Territory at Old Babylonian Alalah (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 75). Leiden: Brill.

12

K. A. YENER

– M.

AKAR

– T.

INGMAN

MORANDI-BONACOSSI, D. M. 2012 “Ritual offering and termination rituals in a Middle Bronze Age sacred area in Qatna’s Upper Town,” in Leggo! Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 2), edited by G. B. Lanfranchi, D. M. Bonacossi, C. Pappi and S. Ponchia, pp. 539–582. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. ULAŞ, A., AKAR, M. and PEARSON, C. 2019 “Geoarchaeological investigations in the Amuq Valley of Hatay: Sediment coring project in the environs of Tell Atchana,” in 72nd Geological Congress of Turkey. The Proceedings and Abstracts Book, edited H. Sözbilir, Ç. Özkaymak, B. Uzel, Ö. Sümer, M. Softa, Ç. Tepe and S. Eski, pp. 798–802. Ankara: UECTA Chamber of Geological Engineers of Turkey. VON DASSOW, E. 2008 State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalaḫ under the Mitanni Empire (Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 17), edited by D. I. Owen and G. Wilhelm. Bethesda: CDL Press. 2017 “Diri and Sa at Alalaḫ,” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2017(2): 94–96. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1953a A Forgotten Kingdom: Being a Record of the Results Obtained from the Excavation of Two Mounds, Atchana and al Mina, in the Turkish Hatay. Harmondsworth: Penguin, Revised edition, London: Max Parrish, 1959. 1953b Spadework: Adventures in Archaeology. London: Lutterworth. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949, with Sections by C. J. Gadd and R. D. Barnett (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, No. 18). London: Printed at the University Press by Charles Batey for the Society of Antiquaries. YENER, K. A. 2013 “New excavations at Alalakh: The 14th-12th centuries BC,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1 2010, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–36. Leuven: Peeters. 2017 “Cult and ritual at Late Bronze Age II Alalakh: Hybridity and power under Hittite administration,” in Hittitology Today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th birthday, edited by A. Mouton, pp. 215–224. Istanbul: Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes. YENER, K. A., ed. 2005 The Amuq Valley Regional Projects. 1: Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995-2002. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2010 Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons. Istanbul: Koç University Press. YENER, K. A., BULU, M. and AKAR, M. 2017 “Amik Ovası Bölgesel Yüzey Araştırması Projesi 2015 Çalışmaları,” in 34. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, pp. 551–568. Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü. YENER, K. A., DINÇOL, B. and PEKER, H. 2014 “Prince Tuthaliya and Princess Ašnuhepa,” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2014 (4): 136–138. YENER, K. A., AKAR, M. and HOROWITZ, M. T., eds. In press Tell Atchana, Alalakh, The 2006-2010 Seasons. Volume 2: The Late Bronze Age II City. Istanbul: Koç University Press. YENER, K. A., EDENS, C., HARRISON, T. P., VERSTRAETE, J. and WILKINSON, T. J. 2000 “The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995–1998,” American Journal of Archaeology 104: 163–220.

ALALAKH IN THE PAST, ATCHANA IN THE PRESENT: SITUATING SITE AND CITY

13

K. Aslıhan YENER Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University University of Chicago Koç University [email protected]

Murat AKAR Mustafa Kemal University [email protected]

Tara INGMAN Koç University [email protected]

MAKING USE OF THE PAST: THE POSSIBILITIES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARCHIVES Hélène MALOIGNE ABSTRACT* Historiographical research in archaeology has recently experienced an archival turn. Many researchers explore archaeological archives, whether they were formed as part of institutional or national depositories or, like the Tell Atchana excavation archive (Woolley Papers) held by the Institute of Archaeology at UCL, stem from individual excavation projects. This chapter explores the many avenues open to researchers using material from such archival collections, while keeping in mind that archives and their component parts are objects in their own right. Digitisation, particularly of photographs, can open access to archaeological research for a wider range of audiences through online databases, exhibitions and community engagement projects. Ultimately, such initiatives can help to virtually reunite archives and objects located in different museums.

Fifteen years of excavations at Tell Atchana, Alalakh, have produced a vast and extremely varied field of research, of which the chapters in the present volume are the best example. Based on the excavations of Charles Leonard Woolley (1880–1960) at Tell Atchana from 1936 to 1939 and 1946 to 1949, the current excavation under the directorship of Professor Yener has inspired scholars and students from a variety of backgrounds and specialties to explore objects or samples excavated at Tell Atchana for a plethora of studies, publications, experiments and as teaching materials. Objects from Alalakh are on display at the Hatay Archaeological Museum, the British Museum in London, the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology in Oxford and in many university study collections. It is primarily through objects like these that archaeologists, curators and educators communicate their ideas about the ancient past to those they want to reach. And it is objects that were the main drive for archaeological research in the Middle East throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.1 This work was predominantly conducted by European or American scholars, often funded by national museums, aided by national governments or their colonial extensions, and publicised by newspapers, radio broadcasts and, later on, television programmes and films as the work of ‘the archaeologist’. The lone hero — and up until today the archaeologist in the popular imagination is mainly portrayed as male — is depicted singlehandedly saving ancient and ‘lost’ treasures from the dust of history and bringing ‘forgotten kingdoms’ back to life.2

* I would like to thank K. A. Yener and Tara Ingman for the opportunity to contribute to this volume at a late stage. 1  Hoock 2007; Bahrani et al. 2011. 2  Woolley 1953.

H. MALOIGNE

16

In reality, archaeology, especially fieldwork, has always been a collaborative practice. Woolley had several main long-term collaborators: his wife, Katharine Elizabeth Woolley (1888–1945), and his foreman Sheikh Hamoudi ibn Ibrahim el Awassi and his sons.3 They contributed substantially to his work, as Woolley regularly pointed out, but never co-authored any of his articles or books, and all remain elusive figures in the archaeological record.4 Yet their presence and that of many others only alluded to by Woolley can be reconstructed from the archival record of the Tell Atchana excavations. In recent decades, archaeological archives have received increased attention in historiographical research. Archaeology as a discipline has been catching up with its own history,5 with its interdependence on the processes of modernity and the formation of nations, especially the state as an instrument of empire and control.6 As Ian Hodder points out, ‘[f]or many European countries, for example, the archaeological past still has a self-evident relationship with the state. The protection of ancient monuments [and this includes objects] is a function of national governments…’7 Yet the creation of the French and British Mandates in the Middle East and Northern Africa after World War I denied these newly created states this relationship. Antiquities legislation favourable to archaeologists and their funding (national) institutions was often developed by the archaeologists themselves.8 This deep entanglement between archaeology and the state has become the focus of in-depth studies in recent decades. A shift away from tales of strings of ‘great discoveries’9 towards a closer look at institutional and personal networks,10 and with a view towards some of the socio-political and historical backgrounds to these discoveries, is noticeable.11 Research such as that conducted by Magnus T. Bernhardsson (2010) makes extensive use of archival records, including those formed as part of archaeological projects like Ur in southern Iraq. This ‘archival turn’ in archaeological historiography presents a shift away from exploring excavations solely through the biographies of their practitioners and the material culture, that is, the objects, they unearth.12 It further takes into account the often haphazard way such archaeological archives were formed. Not subject to state-controlled policies of record-keeping, the survival rate of archaeological archives and their content can be low. They are further prone to shifting priorities within the institution acting as a depository, reflecting changing curators’ or archivists’ choices, as well as technological advances in records management. A number of initiatives and projects have recognised

 3

 On Katharine Woolley, see H. V. F. Winstone’s (1990) biography of Woolley, which depicts her in a rather unfavourable light. See also Kaercher 2016a; Shillito n.d. On Sheikh Hamoudi see Woolley 1920; Kaercher 2016b.  4  In the introductory paragraphs to his preliminary reports, Woolley mentioned some of the members of his team and his funders. See, for example, Woolley 1937.  5  The literature available here is vast. See, for example, Christenson 1989; Schlanger and Nordbladh 2008; Trigger 2008; Lucas 2010.  6  Thomas 2004; Trümpler 2008.  7  Hodder 2003, pp. 55–56.  8  Segret 2012.  9  Fagan 2007, 2014. 10  Thornton 2015. 11  Chevalier 2002; Lydon and Rizvi 2010. 12  Baird and McFadyen 2014, p. 14.

MAKING USE OF THE PAST: THE POSSIBILITIES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARCHIVES

17

the importance these collections carry for the history of the discipline. Digitisation and open access through an online database or website are often seen as the path to diversifying audiences and users of such materials. An important factor in not only digitising the material but making it available online for free is the growing awareness by mainly Western scholars and institutions of the power structures involved in the formation of their collections stemming from former conquered or colonised regions and their exploited source communities.13 Preservation and conservation needs, lack of storage availability, as well as staffing and collections care costs are factors not as often acknowledged but further contributing to the move to the digital archive.14 Leonard Woolley’s archive of the Tell Atchana excavations presents a slightly different situation than archives housed in large research institutions. It is cared for by the Institute of Archaeology (IoA) at University College London, but its formation process and history before its arrival at the IoA remain sketchy at best.15 The glass plate negatives in the Woolley Papers are stored in a variety of containers, mainly cardboard and wooden boxes. These, as well as the individual sleeves in which some of the negatives are stored, show handwritten descriptions or annotations (Fig. 1). Some of the negatives themselves carry numbers, the meaning of which, in the absence of an index, remains unclear (Fig. 2). Most likely they refer to the sequence of images taken during the excavation seasons. The information thus collected over time is an integral part of the photographic object, and, as Elizabeth Edwards argues, “[B]oxes… in archives are not neutral spaces… but are entangled in shifting sets of values derived from and embodying specific institutional and affective engagements with users.”16 In addition to photographs of the excavation in progress, the main bulk of photographs cover the range of objects and materials found at Tell Atchana (pottery, metal, bone, ivory, clay, and stone objects, but no images of burials or other skeletal remains). Scales were used only sparingly, predominantly for shots of small finds and pottery sherds (Fig. 3). They are absent in excavation shots17 and do not occur in images showing one or several complete or restored vessels (Fig. 4). Figure 4 furthermore illustrates the field number system assigned to each object during the excavation. Woolley never explained his numbering system in great detail, but it seems that most ceramic material was marked with an ATP number. Clay tablets were sometimes given ATT numbers and other types of objects AT numbers. A typical field number for a vessel would therefore be ATP/8/196. This denotes the object as from the 1938 season. During that year, most field numbers were 13

 See, for example, AREA, Archives of European Archaeology (http://www.area-archives.org/), ARACHNE, the online database of the German Archaeological Institute (http://arachne.uni-koeln.de/drupal) and the Ur Online Project of the British Museum and the Penn Museum (http://www.ur-online.org/), to name but a few [All accessed 24 August 2017]. 14  Terras (2012, pp. 49–50) further explores some of the issues, mainly the high costs, of digitisation projects from a digital humanities perspective. See Sassoon 2004 for a critical view on digitisation projects with a Benjaminian stance on the mechanical/digital reproduction of images. 15  It is archived under the name ‘Woolley Papers’ and contains other, non-Atchana-related material. See Maloigne 2012, 2014 for further details on the archive’s content and history. 16  Edwards 2009, p. 146; Baird and McFadyen 2014, pp. 16–19. 17  This is of course not to suppress the significance of the human figure employed as scale, specifically in the context of the Orientalist gaze; see, for example, Behdad and Gartlan 2013; Nochlin 1989, pp. 36–37. Cf. Dorrell 1989, pp. 52–55 for another view of the use of the human figure as scale.

18

H. MALOIGNE

Fig. 1. Wooden storage box in the Institute of Archaeology Archives. By permission of UCL Institute of Archaeology Collections, photo by the author.

Fig. 2. Excavations at Tell Atchana (WP_11_040). © UCL Institute of Archaeology Collections.

MAKING USE OF THE PAST: THE POSSIBILITIES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARCHIVES

19

Fig. 3. Small Finds from Tell Atchana: Clay Figurines (WP_10_046). © UCL Institute of Archaeology Collections.

written with a single number 8. By 1939 the year came to be denoted by a two-digit number (e.g., ATP/39/XY), and in the final publication the numbers were standardised to two digits, presumably in order to avoid confusion with objects found in 1948.18 Information thus collated from the images and the objects themselves, as well as museum collections and other archives, can hence be combined to enhance our knowledge of objects stemming from Tell Atchana. To follow Frederick N. Bohrer, “[r]ather than completely capturing or recording, the photograph’s value is its filtering, reorganizing, and fundamental improvement upon real conditions.”19 Most of these glass plate negatives, which form the bulk of the material in the archive, were digitised from 2012 to 2014 by the author. Some of the digitised images were shown in an exhibition at Koç University’s Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (RCAC) in 2014, under the title The Forgotten Kingdom. Archaeology and Photography at Ancient Alalakh.20 They introduced to a wider audience for the first time some of the excavation processes employed by Woolley and the actors involved in them. The juxtaposition of these images in the exhibition with those taken by Murat Akar in his capacity as excavation 18

 Woolley 1955. Comparison with the British Museum online catalogue allows us to identify the object in figure 4 as one registered under the number BM 126193. http://britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/ search.aspx [Accessed 30 August 2017]. I am grateful to Dr Rachael Sparks for her comments on this point. 19  Bohrer 2008, p. 184. 20  Akar and Maloigne 2014a.

H. MALOIGNE

20

Fig. 4. Nuzi Ware Vessel from Tell Atchana (WP_12_022). © UCL Institute of Archaeology Collections.

photographer since 2006 illustrated how far archaeologists have come in acknowledging the importance of the local community for any archaeological project. Whether as members of the field team, or employed in finds processing or house work, locals have been involved in the excavations at Tell Atchana since 1936, many of them over the course of several years. Akar’s aim as photographer, archaeologist and chronicler at Tell Atchana is to portray the social as well as scientific aspects of an excavation. Foremost, this means re-introducing a human aspect into archaeology and recognising “the value of multivocality.”21 As outlined above, archaeology happens in neither a political nor a social vacuum and “all fieldwork, whether it is archaeology or palaeontology or geology or something else, has an impact on living people.”22 These people can be members of the community that lives on or around a site and will continue to do so even if archaeological projects come to an end, or the archaeological community that comes together for a short period of time during an excavation season.23 By documenting members of both communities and how they work together, the 21

 Hodder 2003, p. 58.  Pyburn 2009, p. 163. 23  See www.alalakh.org [Accessed 11 September 2017] for an overview of the various projects, the site and team members. 22

MAKING USE OF THE PAST: THE POSSIBILITIES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARCHIVES

21

interconnections and interdependence of both come to light in Akar’s studies (Figs. 5–6). Akar’s work furthermore reflects the dedication to outreach and education programmes the Alalakh excavation team have developed over the last decades. Since 1995, the Amuq Valley Regional Projects have been engaging with the citizens of the Amuq Valley to preserve the rich archaeological heritage of the region and to raise awareness of the close links between the archaeological and local communities.24 Being able to display previously unpublished images from an archaeological archive in an exhibition is just one of the outcomes of engaging with an archival collection. The involvement of Western scholars and museums as outlined above has resulted in the worldwide dispersal of objects from Middle Eastern (and other) excavations. Often objects from one site or even one context within an excavation were distributed to a range of museums, and re-integration is a long and arduous process. Projects like Ur Online by The British Museum and the Penn Museum or Artefacts of Excavation (headed by researchers at UCL and the University of Oxford) aim to retrace the journeys these objects undertook and facilitate the study of geographically separated collections.25 Similarly, objects from Tell Atchana have come to be housed in several museums in and outside of Turkey, and documentation regarding the distribution of finds is fragmentary at best.26 The images in the Woolley Papers thus offer a scaffold on which to build a virtual archive of Tell Atchana material that could include objects as well as the material held in the Institute of Archaeology archives. The glass plates, the images they carry and the archive as a whole are hence intricately connected and intertwined. Knut Ebeling astutely remarks: wenn jede Digitalisierung auf der Tatsache beruht, dass der Datenträger die Information mitbeeinflussen und mitbestimmen kann, dass jedes Archivierte das Archiv mit definiert, dann muss jede Information und jedes Wissen aus diesem Archiv …. über dieses Archiv mitinformieren, mitberichten, mitwissen.27

And although Ebeling continues by calling the archive, somewhat sarcastically, a junkor storeroom, he recognises its significance in holding great potential for the exploration of archaeological knowledge.28 The archive defines and informs on its objects and vice versa, and digitisation adds another layer by opening up access to the archive in addition to its analogue materiality in those dusty storerooms. While in a digital age the storage of borndigital photographs may present its own set of challenges,29 exploring a historically formed excavation archive means engaging with the archive and the photograph — or in this case 24

 Yener 2005, pp. 15–16. See Arauz 2014 for an account of recent community engagement projects at Tell Atchana. 25  Hafford 2013; Ur Online Project: see footnote 13, above; Artefacts of Excavation: http://egyptartefacts. griffith.ox.ac.uk/ [Accessed 30 August 2017]. 26  Maloigne 2017; 2012, p. 35 for a preliminary list of UK museums housing material from Alalakh. See the Alalach-Archiv hosted by the Hethitologie-Portal Mainz of the University of Würzburg for an overview of tablets in museum collections: http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/Alalach/alalarch.php [Accessed 11 September 2017]. 27  Ebeling 2004, p. 15: “If every digitisation is based on the fact that the data carrier influences and co-determines the information, that all archived material also co-defines the archive, then all information and all knowledge resulting from this archive must in return inform and report on and know about this archive.” 28  Ebeling 2004, p. 23: ‘die Abstellkammer’ or ‘Gerümpelkammer.’ 29  See Houghton 2016 with references.

22

H. MALOIGNE

Fig. 5. Nurettin Bataray, Christine Johnston, Abdullah Öz, Harun Gökalp and Cengiz Kurt excavating in Square 32.57. © Alalakh Excavations Archive, photo by Murat Akar.

Fig. 6. Hatice Öz engaged in reconstruction work in the courtyard of the Level VII palace (Square 33.32). © Alalakh Excavations Archive, photo by Murat Akar.

MAKING USE OF THE PAST: THE POSSIBILITIES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARCHIVES

23

the negative — as an object in and of itself. To think of photographs merely as carriers of information is to ignore a wide range of questions such as: who actually took the photograph,30 the cost and procurement of photographic materials such as cameras, negatives and developing solutions, and issues of conservation and preservation.31 As Elizabeth Edwards and Janice Hart point out in the introduction to their seminal volume Photographs Objects Histories, “… photographs have inextricably linked meanings as images and images as objects; an indissoluble, yet ambiguous, melding of image and form, both of which are direct products of intentions.”32 It is some of these intentions I aim to trace in the closing paragraphs. Many of the images in the Woolley Papers can be found in Woolley’s preliminary articles in The Antiquaries Journal or in the final publication of 1955, but the images not chosen for publication can say just as much about a site or process as the ones that were.33 Thus, we can choose to interpret or look at an image like Figure 7 in a variety of ways.34 It is payday at Tell Atchana in 1939, and Woolley holds court — quite literally — in the

Fig. 7. Payday at Tell Atchana: Leonard and Katharine Woolley and Hamoudi ibn Ibrahim el Awassi pay the workforce (WP_8_003). © UCL Institute of Archaeology Collections.

30  For a discussion on the authorship of the photographs in the Woolley Papers see Akar and Maloigne 2014b. See also Quirke 2010; Shepherd 2003. 31  Gillet et al. 2010; Lavédrine 2009. 32  Edwards and Hart 2004, p. 2. 33  Woolley 1937, 1938, 1939, 1948, 1950. 34  Thanks go to Dr. Murat Akar in developing this idea.

H. MALOIGNE

24

entrance of the Level IV palace at Tell Atchana. Workers were paid weekly according to their position on the excavation (either as basket carriers, pick-axe or spade men) and sometimes an additional system rewarding small finds was in place. This accounting system was balanced each week and required every man to be called up to the desk individually. Woolley’s — or the photographer’s — choice of location and set-up is telling. The Level IV palace was one of the most important discoveries of the seasons prior to World War II and led to the identification of the site with the city of Alalakh, previously only known through textual records from other sites.35 Framed by one of the few stone structures on the site, separated from the workforce by the table, Woolley’s intended hierarchy is made quite clear. Did Woolley perceive himself as the last in the line of kings at Alalakh and therefore chose the setting in the palace? One could also argue that the scene was staged. Woolley was, through his experience at Ur, rather accomplished at publicising and popularising his work for newspaper and magazine readers.36 As the excavation at Tell Atchana relied on public subscription,37 it was perhaps with a view to ‘good copy’, pandering to the perceived or real expectations of readers about ‘life on an excavation’ that such a scene was performed in this particular space. These are just two of the possible intentions with which this picture could have been taken. Inevitably, each researcher must take her own intentions in exploring and interpreting these images into account. With a feminist point of view on archaeology and society, I immediately notice how Katharine Woolley remains on the margins of this artificial power structure — whether created intentionally or not — while Sheikh Hamoudi, as a man, has been granted a place behind the table next to Leonard Woolley. As an archaeologist or conservator, another researcher would perhaps criticise the volume of people walking over a recently excavated area.38 A third researcher might choose to look at the wide range of headdresses — from Katharine Woolley’s pith helmet style and Leonard Woolley’s telescope crown panama hat, Sheikh Hamoudi’s keffiyeh and agal, to the various caps and fezzes worn by the men waiting to be paid — and what these might signify.39 There are thus scores of possible approaches to this photograph and the photographer’s intentions. Reflecting Knut Ebeling’s appeal to consider and keep in mind the materiality of an archive and its component parts, Elizabeth Edwards reminds us that “… much is to be gained analytically through understanding the specific ways in which different material forms both become meaningful and produce meaning themselves as they emerge from dense intersections of value and materiality.”40

35

 Smith 1938.  A discussion of Woolley’s articles for newspapers and magazines is outside the scope of this chapter. He wrote several articles per year for The Times and the Illustrated London News on Ur, as well as on Tell Atchana, and gave public lectures in the UK and the United States on both subjects. 37  Woolley 1937, p. 4. 38  Woolley employed 300 men in 1938 and 400 in 1939. Woolley 1939, p. 1; 1948, p. 1. The date of the image is uncertain, but most likely it was taken in 1938 or 1939, as excavations in the Level IV palace had not progressed thus far until 1938. Katharine Woolley died in 1945, thus ruling out a post-World War II date. 39  Shields 2011. 40  Edwards 2009, p. 136. 36

MAKING USE OF THE PAST: THE POSSIBILITIES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARCHIVES

25

BIBLIOGRAPHY AKAR, M. and MALOIGNE, H., eds. 2014a Unutulmuş krallık: antik Alalah’ta arkeoloji ve fotoğraf = The Forgotten Kingdom: Archaeology and Photography at Ancient Alalakh. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. AKAR, M. and MALOIGNE, H. 2014b “Envisioning the present, documenting the past,” in Unutulmuş Krallık: Antik Alalah’ta Arkeoloji ve Fotoğraf = The Forgotten Kingdom: Archaeology and Photography at Ancient Alalakh, edited by M. Akar and H. Maloigne, pp. 134–143. Istanbul: Koç Universitesi Yayınları. ARAUZ, E. 2014 “The Arkeo-Park Project and community engagement at Tell Atchana, Alalakh,” in Unutulmuş Krallık: Antik Alalah’ta Arkeoloji ve Fotoğraf = The Forgotten Kingdom. Archaeology and Photography at Ancient Alalakh, edited by M. Akar and H. Maloigne, pp. 98–114. Istanbul: Koç Universitesi Yayınları. BAHRANI, Z., ÇELIK, Z. and ELDEM, E., eds. 2011 Scramble for the Past: A Story of Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753-1914. Istanbul: SALT. BAIRD, J. and MCFADYEN, L. 2014 “Towards an archaeology of archaeological archives,” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 29 (2): 14–32. BEHDAD, A. and GARTLAN, L., eds. 2013 Photography’s Orientalism: New Essays on Colonial Representation (Issues & Debates). Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. BERNHARDSSON, M. T. 2010 Reclaiming a Plundered Past: Archaeology and Nation Building in Modern Iraq. Austin: University of Texas Press. BOHRER, F. N. 2008 “Photography and archaeology: The image as object,” in Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image, edited by S. Smiles and S. Moser, pp. 180–191. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. CHEVALIER, N. 2002 La recherche archéologique française au Moyen-Orient, 1842-1947 (Centre de recherche d’archéologie orientale, Université de Paris I, 14). Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. CHRISTENSON, A. L., ed. 1989 Tracing Archaeology’s Past. The Historiography of Archaeology (Publications in Archaeology). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. DORRELL, P. G. 1989 Photography in Archaeology and Conservation (Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EBELING, K. 2004 “Die Mumie kehrt zurück II. Zur Aktualität des Archäologischen in Wissenschaft, Kunst und Medien,” in Die Aktualität des Archäologischen in Wissenschaft, Medien und Künsten, edited by K. Ebeling and S. Altekamp, pp. 9–30. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. EDWARDS, E. 2009 “Photography and the material performance of the past,” History and Theory 48 (4): 130–150. EDWARDS, E. and HART, J. 2004 “Introduction,” in Photographs Objects Histories: On the Materiality of Images, edited by E. Edwards and J. Hart, pp. 1–15. London: Routledge. FAGAN, B. M. 2007 Return to Babylon: Travelers, Archaeologists, and Monuments in Mesopotamia rev. ed. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.

26

H. MALOIGNE

FAGAN, B. M., ed. 2014 The Great Archaeologists. London: Thames & Hudson. GILLET, M., GARNIER, C. and FLIEDER, F. 2010 “Glass plate negatives: Preservation and restoration,” in Issues in the Conservation of Photographs, edited by D. Hess Norris and J. J. Gutierrez, pp. 338–350. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. HAFFORD, B. 2013 “Archaeology in the digital age. Creating an online research tool for the ancient city of Ur,” Expedition 55 (2): 10–13. HODDER, I. 2003 “Archaeological reflexivity and the ‘local’ voice,” Anthropological Quarterly 76 (1): 55–69. HOOCK, H. 2007 “The British State and the Anglo-French wars over antiquities, 1798-1858,” The Historical Journal 50 (1): 49–72. HOUGHTON, B. 2016 “Preservation challenges in the digital age,” D-Lib Magazine 22 (7/8), http://www. dlib.org/dlib/july16/houghton/07houghton.html [Accessed 30 August 2017]. KAERCHER, K. 2016a “Adventure calls: The life of a woman adventurer,” Penn Museum Blog, 29 February 2016, http://www.penn.museum/blog/museum/adventure-calls-the-life-of-a-womanadventurer/ [Accessed 30 August 2017]. 2016b “Sheikh Hamoudi Ibn Ibrahim and Ur.” Penn Museum Blog, 28 June 2016, https://www.penn.museum/blog/museum/sheikh-hamoudi-ibn-ibrahim-and-ur/. [Accessed 30 August 2017]. LAVÉDRINE, B. 2009 Photographs of the Past: Process and Preservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute. LUCAS, G. 2010 “Time and the archaeological archive,” Rethinking History 14 (3): 343–359. LYDON, J. and. RIZVI, U. Z. 2010 Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. MALOIGNE, H. 2012 Towards a Re-Integration of Archaeological and Archival Material from the Institute of Archaeology, UCL at Tell Atchana (Alalakh) in Hatay, Turkey. Unpublished MA Thesis. University College London. 2014 “Sir Leonard Woolley and Tell Atchana, Alalakh (1935-49),” in Unutulmuş Krallık: Antik Alalah’ta Arkeoloji ve Fotoğraf = The Forgotten Kingdom: Archaeology and Photography at Ancient Alalakh, edited by M. Akar and H. Maloigne, pp. 34–45. Istanbul: Koç Universitesi Yayınları. 2017 “How Idrimi came to London: Diplomacy and the division of archaeological finds in the 1930s,” Museum History Journal 10 (2): 200–216. NOCHLIN, L. 1989 The Politics of Vision: Essays on Nineteenth-Century Art and Society (Icon Editions). New York: Harper & Row. PYBURN, K. A. 2009 “Practising archaeology — as if it really matters,” Public Archaeology 8 (2–3): 161–175. QUIRKE, S. 2010 Hidden Hands: Egyptian Workforces in Petrie Excavation Archives, 1880-1924. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. SASSOON, J. 2004 “Photographic materiality in the age of digital reproduction,” in Photographs Objects Histories. On the Materiality of Images, edited by E. Edwards and J. Hart, pp. 186– 202. London/New York: Routledge. SCHLANGER, N. and NORDBLADH, J., eds. 2008 “General introduction. Archaeology in the light of its histories,” in Archives, Ancestors, Practices: Archaeology in the Light of its History, pp. 1–5. New York: Berghahn Books.

MAKING USE OF THE PAST: THE POSSIBILITIES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARCHIVES

SEGRET, G. 2012

27

Une histoire de la législation: Patrimoine en Syrie et au Liban sous le Mandat Français. Paris: Geuthner.

SHEPHERD, N. 2003 “‘When the hand that holds the trowel is black…’: Disciplinary practices of selfrepresentation and the issue of ‘native’ labour in archaeology,” Journal of Social Archaeology 3 (3): 334–352. SHIELDS, S. D. 2011 Fezzes in the River: Identity Politics and European Diplomacy in the Middle East on the Eve of World War II. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. SHILLITO, L.-M. n.d. “Katharine Woolley. Demanding, dangerous, and digging,” Trowelblazers. http:// trowelblazers.com/katharine-woolley/. [Accessed 30 August 2017]. SMITH, S. 1938 “The Atchana finds,” The Times. 16 June, p. 12. TERRAS, M. M. 2012 “Digitization and digital resources in the humanities,” in Digital Humanities in Practice, edited by C. Warwick, M. M. Terras, and J. Nyhan, pp. 47–70. London: Facet Publishing in association with UCL Centre for Digital Humanities. THOMAS, J. 2004 Archaeology and Modernity. London: Routledge. THORNTON, A. 2015 “Social networks in the history of archaeology. Placing archaeology in its context,” in Historiographical Approaches to Past Archaeological Research, edited by G. Eberhardt and F. Link, pp. 69–94. Berlin: Edition Topoi. TRIGGER, B. 2008 “Historiography,” in Histories of Archaeology. A Reader in the History of Archaeology, edited by T. Murray and C. Evans, pp. 360–377. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. TRÜMPLER, C., ed. 2008 Das Grosse Spiel: Archäologie und Politik zur Zeit des Kolonialismus (1860-1940). Köln: DuMont. WINSTONE, H. V. F. 1990 Woolley of Ur: The Life of Sir Leonard Woolley. London: Martin Secker & Warburg. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1920 Dead Towns and Living Men. Being Pages From an Antiquary’s Notebook. London: Humphrey Milford. 1937 “Excavations near Antioch in 1936,” The Antiquaries Journal 17 (1): 1–15. 1938 “Excavations at Tal Atchana, 1937,” The Antiquaries Journal 18 (1): 1–28. 1939 “Excavations at Atchana-Alalakh, 1938,” The Antiquaries Journal 19 (1): 1–37. 1948 “Excavations at Atchana-Alalakh, 1939,” The Antiquaries Journal 28 (1–2): 1–19. 1950 “Excavations at Atchana-Alalakh, 1946,” The Antiquaries Journal 30 (1–2): 1–21. 1953 A Forgotten Kingdom. Being a Record of the Results Obtained from the Excavations of Two Mounds, Atchana and Al Mina, in the Turkish Hatay. London: Penguin Books. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949; with Sections by C. J. Gadd and R. D. Barnett (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, No. 18). London: Printed at the University Press by Charles Batey for The Society of Antiquaries. YENER, K. A., ed. 2005 The Amuq Valley Regional Projects (Oriental Institute Publications 131). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Hélène MALOIGNE [email protected]

TEXTUAL RECORDS

LINGUISTIC AND POLITICAL BORDERS IN THE PERIOD OF THE EBLA ARCHIVES Alfonso ARCHI ABSTRACT The archives of Ebla cover systematically about 45 years (c. 2380–2335 BC). We can deduce that this city-state became a regional state in the second half of the 25th century BC. According to the written documents, Alalaḫ (with the Amuq Plain) belonged to Ebla at the time of the last-but-one king, Irkab-damu. This territory was included in the kingdom of Ebla at the time of his predecessor, Igriš-Ḫalab, if not earlier. Two city-states located beyond Karkamiš are quoted also in the texts of Mari of the Amorite period: Uršum(/Urša᾿um) and Ḫaššum. Uršum has to be identified quite probably with Gaziantep (or in the area between Gaziantep and the Euphrates); Ḫaššum probably with Tilbeșar. These cities were conquered in the 17th century BC by Hattušili I in his campaigns before reaching Ḫalab. Ḫaššum was subjugated by Ebla in the last years of king Irkab-damu (c. 2373 BC). Uršum remained independent. It is possible to determine the linguistic affiliation of the population of a region in ancient periods on the basis of its personal names. The names from Uršum are in large majority Semitic, belonging to a dialect close to Old Akkadian with some West Semitic elements; those from Armi (probably the tell of Samsat, or in any case in that region) are mostly not Semitic. Some of the names from Armi end in -atu, perhaps the ending -a(n)da/u of an Indo-European dialect of Anatolia (cfr: Arnu-(w)anda). The mountains north of Gaziantep, with the narrows of Halfeti, were the linguistic barrier of the third millennium BC, and also later.

THE

POLITICAL SCENARIO

About 50 years ago, the authoritative Cambridge Ancient History stated that [the] means of knowing who were the inhabitants of Syria in the Early Bronze Age and what language, or languages they spoke … must be drawn from a later age. The so-called [Egyptian] Execration Texts of the early second millennium … contain a large number of personal names which are indisputably Semitic, and show that the inhabitants of Palestine and Syria … were predominantly Semites. The study of ancient place-names points to a somewhat different conclusion … most Bronze Age settlements in north Syria appear to have names which are non-Semitic in form.1

The scarce pertinent data in the commemorative inscriptions of the kings of Akkad (about 2324–2142 BC) depict, in fact, Mari as the western limit of the world consistent with Sumer and Akkad, and Syria as a land beyond the horizon of their usual relations. The archives of Ebla, found in 1974/1976, have radically changed this situation. They cover 46 years (c. 2376/66–2330/20 BC), corresponding to the reigns of two kings: Irkabdamu and Išar-damu; moreover, quite a few documents refer to the king who was last but two: Igriš-Halab. 1

 Drower 1971, p. 320.

A. ARCHI

32

These three royal names are Semitic, as are the majority of the other personal names from Ebla. Two of them refer to the king as a warrior: “Ḫalab (that is, Hadda, the god of Aleppo) has driven out (the enemy)” (*grš) and “Damu has mounted,” that is, “(He, who has the right) blood ties (dāmu) (that is, who belongs to the royal family) has ridden (*rkb) (his chariot).” The other name is pertinent to a king of justice: “Damu is just.” dāmu, “blood,” means the social rank conveyed by blood. Igriš-Halab was a contemporary of the well-known Iblul-il, king of Mari, whose military achievements are reported in a letter which his successor Enna-Dagan sent to Irkab-damu of Ebla (ARET XIII 4). In one of his military expeditions, Iblul-il reached the territory of Ḫaššuwan (Ḫaššum of the Mari and Hittite sources), which is probably to be identified with Tilbeșar (a large tell, whose morphology is similar to that of Karkamiš).2 Ebla had to pay its tribute to Mari at Má-NEki, on the Euphrates, north of Emar. Another document, the Treaty with Abarsal (ARET XIII 5), which is to be dated to around the very last years of Igriš-Ḫalab or the first years of Irkab-damu, helps in defining the political situation of northern Syria in the 24th century BC. Mari dominated the Euphrates Valley as far as Tuttul on the Baliḫ, and its kingdom bordered the city-state of Emar. The Khabur triangle belonged to Nagar (Tell Brāk), while the region which extends from the northern area of the Baliḫ river to the Euphrates (at the height of the present Syrian-Turkish border) was under the control of Abarsal (probably Tell Khuēra) until this city was finally defeated by Igriš-Ḫalab and consequently disappeared from the political scene. At that moment, Ḫarran chose to become an ally of Ebla, profiting from this situation. The kingdom of Ebla extended from Karkamiš in the north, to Ḫamath and perhaps Ḥoms (Emesa) in the south; its eastern border was delimited by the Euphrates. These regional states of the third millennium were surrounded by 10–15 satellite ‘kingdoms’, that is, city-states ruled by a king, as would be the case also for the major states of the Middle Bronze Age, such as Yamḫad (Aleppo), the Mari of Zimri-Lim and the Babylon of Hammurabi. It is not possible to determine how long Igriš-Ḫalab’s reign lasted. Irkab-damu reigned for 11 years (Arrukum was his minister for the last five years), and Išar-damu for 35 years (with Ibrium and Ibbi-zikir as ministers, for 18 and 17 years respectively).3

DEFINING THE EBLAITE NORTHERN BORDER The territory controlled directly by Ebla reached north more or less to the current SyrianTurkish border. There are constant features in history: the kingdom of Ebla was roughly the same size as the vilayet of Aleppo in the Ottoman Empire, which included Idlib and Ḫamath. Some names of the cities which belonged to the kingdom of Ebla or were under 2

 Tilbeșar lies about 24 km to the southeast of Gaziantep, in the Sajour valley. The identification of this tell with Ḫaššu(wan) has been proposed by Archi 2008 = Archi 2015, pp. 419–434. Ünal (2015) has suggested recently that Ḫaššu(wan) should be identified with Oylum, near Kilis, a large tell about 42 km south of Gaziantep. 3  For a more detailed history of Syria in this period, see Archi 2013 = Archi 2015, pp. 13–31.

LINGUISTIC AND POLITICAL BORDERS IN THE PERIOD OF THE EBLA ARCHIVES

33

its hegemony still survived in the second millennium BC: Alalaḫ, Ḫaššum, Irritum, Tuba, Tuttul, Uršum; Ḫalab and Ḫarran still exist today. The awareness of continuity in a single urban place was far greater during that period than after the crisis between the second and first millennia BC. Karkamiš was “in the hands of the king of Ebla” according to the Treaty with Abarsal, ARET XII 5 § 6; therefore, at least from the last years of king Igriš-Ḫalab. Since no ‘king’ is known for it, it is certain that this city was included in the kingdom of Ebla.4 According to ARET XIV 53 (TM.75.G.1653), Alalaḫ belonged to Ebla at the latest from the second half of Irkab-damu’s reign (not later than 40–35 years before the destruction of Ebla) (§ 3, here below), but it is very probable that this situation went back at least to the time of Igriš-Ḫalab; therefore, to the beginning of the 24th century.5 Ḫaššuwan (Ḫaššum), a city surely located south of the line formed by Gaziantep – Birecik, was defeated during the last years of Irkab-damu, and annexed to Ebla in the first years of minister Ibrium (about 35–33 years before the fall of Ebla). The border was shifted, therefore, north of ῾Azāz / Kilis to Tilbeșar (if its identification with Ḫaššum is valid). North of Karkamiš, Ebla established two systems of “fortresses,” bàd-bàd: one organised around Hama, the other one around Lu᾽atum.6 The northern border of the kingdom of Ebla was delimited by a line formed by several city-states that lay a little way north of the modern Syrian-Turkish border and which recognised the hegemony of Ebla. They were characterised by the presence of an authority such as a minister, the ba-da-lum, who acted immediately below the king and often appeared in his place (preceding the elders) as the recipient of yearly ceremonial gifts. The cluster of cities is: Urs᾿aum (Uršum) – Iritum (Irrite; about 20 km east of the Euphrates)7 – Ḫarran – Sanapzugum – Gudadanum

Ursa᾿um was undoubtedly the most powerful of all the allied cities of Ebla, considering the number of its elders who received yearly gifts (from four to eight). A possible location for this city is Gaziantep, because the Old Assyrian caravans had, as an alternative to the route to Ḫaḫḫum (in the plain of Samsat), to travel to Uršum, meaning that they crossed the Euphrates in the vicinity of Birecik. M. Falkner placed Uršum between Birecik and Gaziantep, but there is no suitable höyük in that area. The best candidate is, therefore, Gaziantep, 65 km west of the Euphrates, which presents a morphology quite similar to that

 The Treaty with Abarsal has the writing: Gàr-gàr-mi-iški, which does not appear in any other text and perhaps is to be explained as a scribal inconsistency. The usual writing is Gàr-ga-mi-iški; a very rare variant presents the Semitic vocalisation -u(m): Gàr-ga-mi-suki, unusual for geographic names of the third millennium BC. Gàr-ga-me-zuki seems to be attested only once. For the geographic documentation from the Ebla texts, see Archi et al. 1993. s.v., where names and titles of the officials pertaining to these place names are also listed; see further, Bonechi 1993. 5  Tell Atchana and Tell Ta῾yinat have to be considered a ‛twin-city’, and evidence is in favour of Ta῾yinat as the major settlement during the third millennium (Yener 2005, p. 197). 6  For relations between Ebla and Ḫaššuwan, see Archi 2008, pp. 87–92 = Archi 2015, pp. 419–424. For the fortresses of Lu᾿atum, see Archi 1989, and for those of Hama (᾿À-maki), see Archi et al. 1993, pp. 130–131. 7  The Suruç plain is a suitable area for the localisation of Irrite, see Einwag 1993. 4

A. ARCHI

34

of Aleppo: the citadel on a natural hill with Islamic structures which have destroyed most of the previous levels and the lower city completely covered by recent settlements.8 That Uršum was not directly on the Euphrates is deduced from the identification of Ulišum, conquered by Naram-Sin in his Syrian campaign, with Uršum. The inscription, RIME 2, Narām-Sin E2.1.4.26 ii 8-18, says: iś-tum-ma pu-ti BURANUN.I7 a-dì-ma U-li-śi-imki NI.SI11 ša-at dDa-gan BÍL-íś i-qí-śu-śum6 “(He conquered Armānum and Ebla). Further, from the side of the Euphrates River as far as (the city of) Ulišum, he smote the people whom the god Dagan had given to him for the first time.”9 Considering the geographical context, and also the r/l alternation attested at Ebla, Ulišum can only be Uršum.10 A direct knowledge of the region compels us to place the alternative crossing point south of Ḫaḫḫum (in the Samsat plain) only in the short stretch between classical Zeugma and the Ottoman Birecik. Between Samsat and ancient Zeugma, the river flows through a deep gorge which was impossible for caravans to cross, as Pliny the Elder knew: “From Samosata, the capital of Commagene, the river washes Zeugma (Greek Bridgetown) 72 miles from Samosata, famous as a place where the Euphrates can be crossed,” (HN V, 87).11

THE

CASE OF

ALALAḪ

A syllabic writing needs rules for a correct phonetical rendering. This writing was not adequately codified at Ebla, so that the name of Alalaḫ appears with many variants, some of which are not immediately recognisable:12 A-a-aḫki A-a-a-ḫuki A-la-la-ḫuki ᾿A5(NI)-a-a-ḫuki ᾿A5-a-la-ḫuki ᾿A5-la-a-ḫuki ᾿A5-la-la-ḫuki

᾿A5-la-la-ḫu-umki

ARET XII 909 rev. IV 5; ARET XII 937 obv. III 4 MEE II 37 obv. VII 1 ARET XIV 53 obv. III 2 ARET III 31 obv. III 11; ARET XII 210 II 4; ARET 731 I 3 TM.75.G.1701 r. XIII 2; TM.75.G.1867 obv. VIII 3 ARET XIV 65 obv. X 5; TM.75.G.1708 obv. VII 2 ARET III 370 IV 4; ARET XII 161 II 4; ARET XIV 54 obv. III 4; ARET XIV 58 rev. V 3; MEE II 37 rev. III 8; TM.75.G.1588 obv. III 11; TM.75.G.10088+10182 obv. XXI 4; TM.75.G.2434+10280 obv. IX 3. ARET XII 825 obv. III 5; ARET XII 830 III 2; TM.75.G.2434+10280 rev. IV 8

 8  Archi 2008, pp. 99–100 = Archi 2015, pp. 432–434. Falkner (1957/1958, p. 31) has the merit of demonstrating how other suggestions were untenable.  9  Frayne 1993, p. 133. A. Engin (2014; this volume) suggests that Ulišum should be instead Oylum Höyük, because of a toponym Ullis attested in that area in the early Islamic period. 10  This identification has been proposed in Archi 2011, p. 29. 11  On the classical sources concerning the Euphrates Valley between the Melitene and Zeugma, see Kilndjian 2009. 12  Hecker (1981, p. 169 n. 28) was the first to note that Ì(NI)-la-la-ḫuki could be Alalaḫ. The list of the variants here below has already been given in Archi 2006, p. 5 = Archi 2015, p. 362.

LINGUISTIC AND POLITICAL BORDERS IN THE PERIOD OF THE EBLA ARCHIVES

35

The two last forms are explicit, considering that ᾿A5(NI)- may alternate with A-. In the other cases /l/ is omitted (which was usual at Ebla) as the first or second consonant, or even in both positions. Mimation is very rare, as expected; in one case the final vowel is not expressed. That Alalaḫ belonged to the kingdom of Ebla may be deduced from the fact that no reference is made to a king (en, that is, malkum). The earliest mention of this town falls in the period of minister Arrukum (the last five years of king Irkab-damu); that is, from the 40th to the 36th year before the fall of Ebla. Alalaḫ appears among 37 generally small settlements belonging to the kingdom, which delivered small amounts of gold for a total of 5.05 minas (2.39 kg). The cluster of the settlements with Alalaḫ is (ARET XIV 53 obv. II 5-III 4): A-zúki Ti-ig-ma-nu-umki Ga-ḫa-tiki A-la-la-ḫuki La-ar-maki Ì-rí-NEki. Some annual documents of minister Ibrium (years 35–18 before the fall of Ebla) list in detail the deliveries of some of these towns: ARET XIV 54 (Ibrium I) § 8: 1.27 minas (681 g) of silver: (delivery) of Alalaḫ. ARET XIV 58 (Ibrium IV) § 31: 17 shekels (133 g) of silver: delivery of Alalaḫ. ARET XIV 65 (Ibrium XII) § 20: 32 shekels (250 g) of silver: delivery (mu-DU) of Alalaḫ. Like the other towns of the kingdom, Alalaḫ was administered by a representative of the central administration, an ‘overseer’ (TM.75.G.1708 [minister Ibrium] obv. VII 1-2: ugula ᾿A5-la-a-ḫuki). ARET XII 731 (not datable) I 2-4 gives the name of one of these officials: Zé-ma-lik ugula ᾿A5-a-a-ḫuki. During an undeterminable year of Ibrium, Alalaḫ rebelled. The syntax of the relevant passage does not enable us to determine whether Ebla immediately suppressed this revolt (as seems probable) or whether Alalaḫ was initially successful - TM.75.G.2434+10280 rev. IV 5-10: (clothes) Ib-du-lu ur4 níg-mulx ᾿A5-la-la-ḫu-umki Ib-laki til “(clothes for) Ibdulu, the collector, who brought the news that Alalaḫ defeated Ebla / Ebla defeated Alalaḫ.” In the third year of Ibbi-zikir (who succeeded Ibrium as minister), an official was appointed to reside in Alalaḫ — a usual measure when a city rebelled — but this event cannot be directly linked with the previously mentioned revolt for chronological reasons: TM.75.G.10088+10182 obv. XXI 1-4: Iš-gi-bar-zú tuš-LÚ×TIL in ᾿A5-la-la-ḫuki. Several registrations concern people who “took in possession (šu-du8) goods (clothes and in some cases also bracelets) in Alalaḫ.” These passages follow the scheme: goods PNs š(u-du8) A(lalaḫ): ARET III 31 obv. III 11-12: š. A.; ARET III 161 II 1-4: [NP] š. in A.; ARET III 370 IV 1-4: Ki-ti-ir š. in A.; ARET XII 210 II 4-5: A. š.; ARET XII 825 obv. III 1-5: …] maškim Ḫa-ra-ì š. in A.; ARET XII 830 III 1-2: …] š. A.; ARET XII 909 rev. IV 2-5: I-ti-gú Ša-nu-gúki š. A.; ARET XII 937 obv. III 1-4: ᾿À-wa-ra Ḫu-ti-muki š. A.; MEE II 37 obv. VI 19-VII 1: š. A., rev. III 8: A.; TM.75.G.1588 obv. III 5-11: Ib-bíma-lik Wa-rí-gu Gi-NE-ùki (cancelled) š. in A.; TM.75.G.1701 obv. XIII 2: A.; TM.75.G.1867 obv. VIII 2-3: A.; TM.75.2434+10280 obv. VIII 12-IX 3: Du-bí-šum I-ti-lum En-na-ì 3 maškim Ḫa-ra-ì š. A. For Ebla, control over Alalaḫ was important. The A᾿muq, ‘the Plain’, is a region which makes a deep impression on anyone who admires its thriving vegetation from the hills which

A. ARCHI

36

define its southern limit, either from Harim, the castle from whence the soldiers of Aleppo observed the Franks of Antioch, or coming down from the low pass of Bāb el-Hawa. Especially in summer, the A᾿muq looks like a garden of Eden. From Ebla, it is only 92 km to Alalaḫ (72 km from Aleppo). With the fall of Ebla, about 2330 BC, Alalaḫ and the A᾿muq reattained their status of independent political units. During the period of Hittite domination, political relations were reversed: it was the Hittite ‘Lord of the Land’, who resided in Alalaḫ, who had direct control over the plain of Idlib, on whose eastern edges lay Ebla.13 Linguistic borders G. A. Olivier,14 who travelled at length in the Ottoman Empire, observed more than three centuries ago that “the Sacur River (was) the borderline between Turkmans and Beduin nomads.”15 This river has its sources south of Gaziantep and then flows into Syria, parallel to the border, and into the Euphrates. About 4000 / 4500 years earlier, the linguistic border lay just a little further to the north. Eblaite, the oldest known Semitic language, is related to Old Akkadian. The texts preserve a large lexicon, and some of its terms appear later in the West Semitic languages. The Eblaite grammar is known only partially, because most of the documents are administrative in character, and therefore terse, with a very simple structure.16 Many Sumerian words are also used in the chancellery documents, so that one could, theoretically, read them in different languages.17 The written language may have been different from the spoken one. This is the case with the Akkadian of the Mari texts of the 18th century BC: the population spoke Amorite dialects. Also the Akkadian of the Amarna letters reveals a clear Canaanite background. Ebla exchanged letters not only throughout all of northern Syria, but even with Ḫamazi, an important city northeast of Aššur.18 This means that cuneiform writing, with its code of Sumerian terms, was also the shared medium for written communication for peripheral regions of Babylonia. Semitic personal names are a valuable source not only for detecting ideological aspects of a society, but also for determining the language spoken in a region, because they contain morphological forms, including the verbal ones. Already, an initial analysis demonstrated that the Syrian cities shared the same language and even the same name-giving traditions.19

13

 See Archi 2012  Olivier 1801. 15  Quotation from Bașgelen 1999, p. 32. 16  A grammar of Eblaite language has been published by Catagnoti (2012). 17  Civil and Rubio (1999, pp. 263‒265), refer to the case of texts with Chinese ideograms which may be read in Japanese. 18  The chancellery documents from Ebla are edited by Fronzaroli 2003; the letter to Ḫamazi is text no. 3. 19  An initial presentation of the personal names of the cities in northern Syria was given in Archi 1984. A list of the personal names of all the cities and villages with which Ebla was in contact, based on extensive documentation, appears in Archi et al. 1993. I refer to these two works for all the cities discussed here below. 14

LINGUISTIC AND POLITICAL BORDERS IN THE PERIOD OF THE EBLA ARCHIVES

37

Many of the personal names of Adabik, Ḫaššuwan, and Karkamiš are the same as those of Ebla. Adabik is mentioned in the Alalaḫ tablets, and should be identified with modern Dābiq, about 40 km north of Aleppo. Dabigu occurs in the New Assyrian sources as “a fortress of Ḫatti,” once preceded by Tīl-bašerê (Ḫaššuwan?).20 Also many personal names of Dub (Tuba), Ḫarran and Irrite, cities in the northeastern regions, and in particular those of Emar, on the Euphrates, were common at Ebla. The names from Tuttul on the Baliḫ are few: Iš-má-ì ‘The God has heard’ was common in Syria, as well as in Babylonia; Mi-na-lum ‘Why, oh God?’ is known only from this city; Iš-dub-il/ì ‘The God has rescued’ (šaṭāpu) is known from both Mari and Kiš. Tuttul was included in the kingdom of Mari at least from the beginning of the 24th century BC. The few names from Haddu (᾿À-duki), perhaps Malḫat ad-Dārū (70 km north of Dēr ez-Zor), a city whose alliance Ebla disputed with Mari, are similar to those of Ebla.21 Nagar (Tell Brāk), the capital of a regional state which extended over the Ḫabur triangle, had Semitic names in part different from those of Ebla. The name of its crown prince, Ul-tum-ḫu-ḫu, is isolated. The names from Nabada (Tell Beidar), a provincial city of the same state, stress the marginality of this name-giving tradition.22 The names from Kiš show a different cultural background, whilst those from Mari share the Syrian and the Babylonian traditions. It is, however, impossible to determine how far the Semitic dialect of Babylonia in that period differed from that in use in northern Syria.23 In defining the northern linguistic border, one has to consider that while the onomasticon of Ursa᾿um (later Uršum), in Gaziantep or its vicinity, was very close to that of Ebla, that of Armi presents a radical change. In his campaign in north Syria, Naram-Sin of Akkad mentions as his major opponent the city of Armānum. Its king, Rīd-Adad (whom Naram-Sin captured), is the only one to be mentioned by name, and the citadel, which lay on the banks of a river, was fortified in so remarkable a way as to be exceptionally depicted on the base of a statue of the king. Its caption described it as follows: “From the river to the quay wall: 196 cubits; the height of the hill 156 cubits ….”24 It is therefore compelling to locate Armānum on the banks of the Euphrates. There is no more imposing tell upstream from Mari than that which became the citadel also of the classical Samosata. The identification of Armānum with the höyük of Samsat is, therefore, inevitable.25 As remarked upon above, there is some continuity in the Syrian toponymy from the Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age. It is unlikely that a powerful state such as Armānum arose in the short period of roughly 100 years which elapsed from the fall of 20

 The occurrences of Dabigu in the NAss. sources are collected in Bagg 2007, p. 57.  The letter reporting the diplomatic steps conducted by Šuwa-ma-wabar of Mari in order to convince Haddu to become an ally of Mari is ARET 13 no. 19, Fronzaroli 2003, pp. 191–200. 22  For prince Ultum-ḫuḫu, and his marriage with a princess of Ebla, see Biga 1988. For the personal names in the Tell Beidar texts, see Talon 1996. According to Richter (2004, pp. 275–278), the names Sa?-tar-gu-ni and Šu-gu-zi, as well as Ul-tum-ḫu-ḫu, are Hurrian. 23  The personal names from Mari are collected in Archi 1985. For those from Kiš, see Archi 1987, pp. 130– 132. Singers of Mari might adopt Sumerian “stage” names of art, see Steinkeller (1993), who has analysed the personal names from Kiš and some from Mari in the broader context of name-giving in Babylonia. 24  Frayne 1993, pp. 134–135 (E2.1.4.26 III 17-31, V 14-VI 17). 25  Archi 2011, pp. 27–30 = Archi 2015, pp. 470–473. 21

A. ARCHI

38

Ebla to Naram-Sin’s reign. Armānum must, therefore, be the Akkadian form of the Eblaite Armi (Ar-miki; archaic writing: Ar-mi-umki). The personal names from the city-state of Armi attested to in the Ebla texts number about one hundred, a sign of the intense relations between the two cities. Most of these names do not belong to the Eblaite tradition and are not Semitic: Armi belonged to a marginal linguistic area, only partially Semitised. The onomasticon of Dulu (a city which recognised Ebla’s hegemony) is, on the contrary, fully Semitised; however, it shares with Armi (and only with this city), the name Ar-ra-du-lu/Ar-ra-ti-lu. A possible localisation of Dulu could be Titriș.26 There are names from Armi such as Ba-ba-ù; La-lu, Li-lu, which present the repetition of the same consonant and are not distinctive. Names of members of the elite are: A-dar-NE-a/lu, Da-gú-ra(-du), Dar-zi-mu, Ḫa-maš-da-ar, Ḫa-ra-na-ù, ḪAR-ḫu-nu, Kùn-tidu/ì, La-wu(-u9/du), Mi-mi-a-du, Su-mi-a(-ù), Šar-mi-lu, Ù-mi-nin.uš.MUŠEN. A typical ending of masculine names is -adu: A-la/li-wa-du/da, A-li/lu-wa-du, A/Ar-ra-da, Ba-mi-a-du, Iš11-ga-sa-du, La-wa-du, Mi-mi-a-du, Mu-lu-wa-du, NE-ba-du, NE-ḫa-du, Ù-la-ma(-du). This recalls a very productive suffix in Hittite and Luwian, -(a)nda, -(a)ndu, for both (a) geographical and (b) personal names: see, for example, a) (Arinna) Arinnanda, Arnuwanda, (lala- “tongue”) Lalanda, Zippalanda; b) Zidanda, (Masturi) Masturijandu, (Zida) Zidanda.27 The name Du-du-wa-šu seems to preset the suffix -wašu, Anatolian “good”. That Anatolians (that is, the people speaking Hittite or Luwian, two of the IndoEuropean languages of Anatolia) might have already settled immediately south of the mountains which delimit the plain of Adiyaman – Samsat in the first half of the 24th century BC is theoretically possible, if one considers that these people were present at Kaneš at the beginning of the second millennium BC. Since the Hittites and Luwians reached the Kızılırmak basin no later than the 20th century BC, chronology requires that these people coming from the Caucasus region had moved along the Erzurum – Sivas route some centuries earlier. In this scenario, it is quite possible that some groups also descended to the plains of Malatya and even Samsat. The Ebla documents prove in any case that north of the line Gaziantep – Urfa – Mardin, the Semitisation of the third millennium BC found its limit, encountering people of different languages.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARCHI, A. 1984 1985 1987

26

“The personal names in the individual cities,” in Studies on the Language of Ebla, edited by P. Fronzaroli (Quaderni di Semitistica 13), pp. 225–251. Florence: Università di Firenze. “Les noms de personne mariotes à Ebla (IIIème millenaire),” M.A.R.I. 4: 53–58. “More on Ebla and Kish,” in Eblaitica 1, edited by C. H. Gordon, G. A. Rendsburg and N. H. Winter, pp. 125–140. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

 The personal names from Armi are listed in Archi 2011, pp. 21–25 = Archi 2015, pp. 461–466.  See in general, Laroche 1961; 1966, p. 329. This ending -anti is written in the Old Assyrian texts -ati.

27

LINGUISTIC AND POLITICAL BORDERS IN THE PERIOD OF THE EBLA ARCHIVES

39

“Ga-ne-iš/šu in the Ebla texts,” in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, edited by K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink and N. Özgüç, pp. 11–14. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. 2006 “Alalaḫ al tempo del regno di Ebla,” in Tra Oriente e Occidente. Studi in onore di Elena Di Filippo Balestrazzi, edited by D. Morandi Bonacossi, E. Rova, F. Veronese and P. Zanovello, pp. 3–5. Padova: SARGON srl. 2008 “Haššum/Hassuwan and Uršum/Uršaum from the point of view of Ebla,” in Muhibbe Darga Armağanı, edited by T. Tarhan, A. Tibet and E. Konyar, pp. 87–102. Istanbul: Sadberk Hanım Müzesi Yayını. 2011 “In search of Armi,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 63: 5–34. 2012 “Hittites at Tell Afis (Syria). The cuneiform tablets,” Orientalia 81: 32–55. 2013 “History of Syria in the third millennium: The written sources,” in Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie. Vol. 1. La Syrie de l’époque néolitique à l’âge du fer, edited by W. Orthmann, M. al-Maqdissi and P. Matthiae, pp. 75–88. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2015 Ebla and its Archives. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter. ARCHI, A., PIACENTINI, P. and POMPONIO, F. 1993 I nomi di luogo dei testi di Ebla (Archivi Reali di Ebla Studi II). Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. BAGG, A. M. 2007 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit. Vol. 1. Die Levante (Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 7/1). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. BAȘGELEN, N. 1999 The Legacy of Gaziantep to World Culture. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications. BIGA, M. G. 1998 “The marriage of Eblaite Princess Tagriš-Damu with a son of Nagar’s king,” in About Subartu. Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia. À propos de Subartu. Études consacrées à la Haute Mésopotamie, edited by M. Lebeau (Subartu 4.2), pp. 17–22. Turnhout: Brepols. BONECHI, M. 1993 I nomi geografici dei testi di Ebla (Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 12/1). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. CATAGNOTI, A. 2012 La grammatica della lingua eblaita (Quaderni di Semitistica 29). Florence: Università di Firenze. CIVIL, M. and RUBIO, G. 1999 “An Ebla incantation against insomnia and the Semiticization of Sumerian: Notes on ARET 5 8b and 9,” Orientalia 68: 254–266. DROWER, M. S. 1971 “Syria before 2200 B.C.,” in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 1, pt. 2, Early History of the Middle East, edited by I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd and N. G. L. Hammond, pp. 315–362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EINWAG, B. “Vorbericht über die archäologische Geländebegehung in der Westğazira,” 1993 Damaszener Mitteilungen 7: 23–43. ENGIN, A. 2014 “Oylum Höyük için bir lokalizasyon önerisi / A localisation proposal for Oylum Höyük: Ulisum/Ullis/Illis,” in Armizzi: Engin Özgen’e Armağan / Studies in Honor of Engin Özgen, edited by A. Engin, B. Helwing and B. Uysal, pp. 129– 149. Ankara: Asitan. FALKNER, M. 1957/1958 “Studien zur Geographie des alten Mesopotamien,” Archiv für Orientforschung 18: 1–37. 1989

40

A. ARCHI

FRAYNE, D. R. 1993 Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 2). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. FRONZAROLI, P. 2003 Testi di cancelleria: i rapporti con le città (Archivi Reali di Ebla Testi 13). Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. HECKER, K. 1981 “Eigennamen und die Sprache von Ebla,” in La lingua di Ebla: Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Napoli 21–23 aprile 1980), edited by L. Cagni, pp. 165–175. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale. KILNDJIAN, S. 2009 “De Zeugma à Mélitene: quelques passages sur l’Euphrate, du Ier siècle av. J.-C. au IIe siècle apr. J.-C.,” in L’Asie Mineure dans l’Antiquité. Échanges, populations et territoires, edited by H. Bru, F. Kirbihler and S. Lebreton, pp. 181–204. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. LAROCHE, E. 1961 “Études de toponymie anatolienne,” Revue Hittite et Asianique 19: 57–98. 1966 Les noms des Hittites (Études Linguistiques 4). Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck. OLIVIER, G. A. 1801 Voyage dans l’Empire Ottoman, l’Égypte et la Perse. Paris: Agasse. RICHTER, T. 2004 “Die Ausbreitung der Hurriter bis zur altbabylonische Zeit: eine kurze Zwischenbilanz,” in 2000 v. Chr. Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende, edited by J.-W. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld, pp. 263–311. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. STEINKELLER, P. 1993 “Observations on the Sumerian personal names in Ebla sources and on the onomasticon of Mari and Kish,” in The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, edited by M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell and D. B. Weisberg, pp. 236–245. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. TALON, Ph. 1996 “Index of names,” in Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995), edited by F. Ismail, W. Sallaberger, Ph. Talon and K. Van Lerberghe (Subartu 2), pp. 187–192. Turnhout: Brepols. ÜNAL, A. 2015 “A Hittite treaty tablet from Oylum Höyük in southeastern Turkey and the location of Ḫašu(wa),” Anatolian Studies 65: 19–34. YENER, K. A. 2005 The Amuq Valley Regional Projects. 1. Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Alfonso ARCHI [email protected]

THE HIEROGLYPHIC LUWIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE AMUQ David HAWKINS ABSTRACT In CHLI I (2000), inscriptions from VII. AMUQ were poor and fragmentary: uninformative fragments from Tell Tayinat, Jisr el Hadid – Tuleil, Azaz, and Afrin, a small statue Kirçoğlu, an epigraph from Ain Dara and an illegible Antakya stele. Since then things have changed with the discoveries of some major inscriptions: the Aleppo Temple inscriptions ALEPPO 6 and 7; the two duplicate Arsuz stelae ARSUZ 1 and 2; the colossal statue from Tell Tayinat with inscription TELL TAYINAT 4 with other fragments; the inscribed base JISR EL HADID 4; also the bulla from Alalakh with inscription which led to the reading of the epigraphs on the longknown TELL AÇANA stele. These inscriptions revealed the existence of a powerful kingdom Palastin/Walastin in the Amuq, 11th–10th centuries BC, with its capital city at Tell Tayinat. This contribution presents translations of the new texts and discusses the historical information which can be drawn from them.

At the time of publication of CHLI Vol. I/1-3 in 2000, the tally of Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions from the Amuq was meagre indeed: of the twelve numbered items, eight were fragments yielding little or no information, though most were clearly parts of once-fine monuments.1 These fragments fell mainly into two groups, one from Tell Tayinat,2 the other from the area of Jisr el Hadid and Tuleil (Fig. 1).3 Three more substantial pieces4 are poorly legible and yield no more significant information. Only the small statue KIRÇOĞLU5 preserves a relatively complete and clear inscription, and even this has lost the name and title(s) of the dedicator. In retrospect, the most significant piece of information was on TELL TAYINAT 1, frag. 3, l. 1, the toponym wa/i-TA4-sà-ti-ni-(REGIO), now read Walastin-land, already recognised by Paolo Meriggi as probably the Hieroglyphic Luwian designation of the Amuq itself. The picture has changed dramatically in the last 15 years with important new discoveries.6 The exciting excavation of the Tell Açana bulla, coupled with the reading by Hasan Peker of the epigraphs on the long-known Alalakh orthostat excavated by C. Leonard Woolley, reused as a threshold step slab in Temple I,7 provided valuable historical information on the period of Hittite domination of the city: the names of Prince Tudhaliya, the High Priest, and his wife Asnuhepa.8 1

 CHLI, VII.1-5, 7, 9, 10.  TELL TAYINAT 1, 2, 3 and assorted fragments. 3  JISR EL HADID frags. 1-3, TULEIL 2. 4  TULEIL 1, AFRIN, ANTAKYA: VII.6, 11, 12. 5  VII.8 6  To be included in CHLI III (forthcoming), given here with their new numbers. 7  Together, XIV 20 a and b. 8  Yener et al. 2014; Peker, forthcoming. 2

J. D. HAWKINS

42

The appearance of two major new Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions found outside the Amuq but belonging to the kingdom of Palastin/Walastin has revealed unexpected information about the kingdom in the 11th and 10th centuries BC: these are the Aleppo Temple inscriptions ALEPPO 6 and 7,9 and the two ARSUZ stelae, 1 and 2, with their duplicate inscription.10 The new round of excavation at Tell Tayinat is promising a better understanding of the two main groups of fragments, TELL TAYINAT 1 and 2,11 along with an increasing number of new fragments to join those excavated by the Oriental Institute, Chicago.12 Most recently, the site has produced the upper half of a magnificent colossal statue with part of an inscription TELL TAYINAT 4,13 and two fragments, perhaps part of the same statue, have been joined to give the name of the country wa/i-la-sà-ti-ni-za-(REGIO), “Walastinean,”14 only the second appearance from Tell Tayinat itself of this toponym. Lastly, Jisr el Hadid (Turkish, Demirköprü), formerly the source of three fragments of a stele preserving little information, has now produced a base of a statue with a part of an interesting text.15 Table 1 shows the pre- and post-CHLI I/2 inscriptions of the Amuq. Among the latter must be included also ALEPPO 6 and 7 on the basis of the authorship by the king of Palastin-land. I here take the opportunity of the present publication to summarise the information provided by these new discoveries, together with translations of their texts. CHLI I/2 (2000) VII.

 1. TELL TAYINAT 1 (statue, throne fragments)  2. TELL TAYINAT 2 (base fragments)  3. TELL TAYINAT 3 (?)  4. TELL TAYINAT fragments  5. JISR EL HADID frags 1–3 (stele fragments)  6. TULEIL 1 (block)  7. TULEIL 2 (fragment)  8. KIRÇOĞLU (statue)  9. ‘AZAZ (fragment) 10. AIN DARA (epigraph) 11. AFRIN (stele) 12. ANTAKYA (stele, unpublished)

CHLI III (forthcoming) VII.

13. ARSUZ 1 and 2 14. JISR EL HADID 4

stelae (duplicate) base

15. TELL TAYINAT 4 16. TELL TAYINAT

statue fragments

VIII. 4. (ALEPPO 4 5. (ALEPPO 5 6. ALEPPO 6 7. ALEPPO 7

epigraph) epigraph) orthostat lion-sphinx

IX.

stele stele

MEHARDE SHEIZAR

Table 1. Pre- and post-CHLI I/2 inscriptions of the Amuq.

9

 VII.6 and 7.  VII.13a and b. 11  VII.1 and 2. 12  VII.4. 13  VII.15. 14  Weeden 2015; VII.16. 15  JISR EL HADID 4: VII.14; Dinçol et al. 2014. 10

THE HIEROGLYPHIC LUWIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE AMUQ

Fig. 1. Map of the Amuq and surrounding regions (Haines 1971, pl. 1 with additions).

43

J. D. HAWKINS

44 THE

ALEPPO

TEMPLE INSCRIPTIONS, ALEPPO 6 AND 7

ALEPPO 6 (Fig. 2), an 11-line inscription beginning on a slab with a figure and continuing on the adjoining rebated slab, is fully preserved. These were excavated in situ in the centre of the east wall of the cella in October 2003.16 ALEPPO 7 (Fig. 3), two parts of an inscription on a broken fallen lion continuing on a broken fallen sphinx were excavated in 2004–2005 on the left side of the south entrance of the cella and were in the process of restoration when the excavations were discontinued in 2011.17 Both inscriptions, and all the sculpture, were left in the Temple, but their whereabouts and condition following the tragic fate of Aleppo are unknown. ALEPPO 6 § § § § § § § § § § § §

1. King Taita am I, the Hero, Palastin-ean king. 2. For my lord the Halabean Storm-God I honoured the desire, 3. and for me the Halabean Storm-God did that of the desire. 4. He who comes to this temple to celebrate the god, 5. if he is a king, 6. let him sacrifice an ox and a sheep. 7. On the other hand if he is a king’s son, 8. or he is a country-lord, 9. or he is a river-country lord, 10. let him sacrifice a sheep. 11. On the other hand if he is an inferior man, 12. (there shall be) bread, oblation, and …

This text represents a rededication of the temple to the Storm-God of Aleppo by Taita, king of the land Palastin. His figure is placed facing that of the deity in the centre of the east wall. The excavator dates the figure of the god stylistically to the period of the Hittite domination of Aleppo, after Suppiluliuma I had installed his son Telipinu the Priest as king of Aleppo, from whom a dynasty descended, his son Talmi-Sarruma, and later a Tudhaliya the High Priest,18 thus c. 1320–1200 BC. The excavator considers the figure of Taita to be stylistically later, and thus part of a later remodelling.19 A Taita, king of the land Walastin, was already known from his stele MEHARDE and that of his mother (rather than wife) SHEIZAR,20 found in the area where the road from Hama to Qal῾at el Mudiq crosses the river Orontes. I originally took this Taita to be the same as the author of Aleppo 6, but subsequent consideration suggests that the inscriptions of MEHARDE-SHEIZAR are palaeographically significantly later than 16

 Hawkins 2011.  Hawkins 2011. 18  Yener 2017, pp. 216 f., fig. 5. 19  Kohlmeyer 2012. 20  CHLI I/2, IX.13 and 14. 17

THE HIEROGLYPHIC LUWIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE AMUQ

Fig. 2. ALEPPO 6 (photo K. Kohlmeyer); ALEPPO 6 (drawing J. D. Hawkins).

45

J. D. HAWKINS

46

ALEPPO 6-7, a dating which would be consistent with Taita of Meharde-Sheizar being the grandson of Taita of Aleppo. The palaeography suggests for ALEPPO 6 and 7 an 11th century BC date and for MEHARDE-SHEIZAR the early 10th century BC. The new discoveries make it certain that the Iron Age land of Palastin/Walastin refers to the Amuq, with its political capital at Tell Tayinat, which does not necessarily share the name – its Assyrian designation Kunulua/Kinalia is not attested in the Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions. Its kings’ monuments are quite widely distributed from Arsuz in the west to Aleppo in the east and Meharde-Sheizar in the south. The reference to Karkamiš on Aleppo 7 may show that the influence of Taita I extended as far as this city on the Euphrates, and it is likely that the temple of Ain Dara, which shows sculptural links with the Aleppo temple, was also the work of this king. This distribution of monuments suggests that in the 11th and 10th centuries BC, Palastin/Walastin formed a powerful and extensive kingdom in north Syria, though by the ninth century BC its territory was circumscribed by the Iron Age kingdoms of Karkamiš, Arpad and Hamath, and it may have been reduced to its core territory, the land of Unqi (Amuq), where the ethnic “Pattin-ean” (KUR pat(t)inaya) applied by the Assyrians to its kings, and also occasionally to its people, has been thought to preserve in attenuated form the toponym Palastin/Walastin. The links of this historically attested kingdom with the archaeological evidence of the early architectural remains at Tell Tayinat (specifically Building Period I with Buildings XIV and XIII) and the ceramic evidence (specifically the spread of Late Helladic IIIC pottery across the Levant) are in the process of being examined.21 The alternation P/W in the toponym Palastin/Walastin shows hesitation in the representation of this consonant in Hieroglyphic, perhaps F. The question as to whether the name of the kingdom may be connected with the Philistines and the spread of Late Helladic IIIC pottery from the Aegean through the Levant down to Philistia is being considered, as well as the historical implications this might have. ALEPPO 7 (Fig. 3) § § § § § § § § § §

1. [I am Taita … Pala]stin-ean Hero King. 2. From the city Karkamiš from the bed-chamber(?)/seal-house(?) forth […] I went. 3. The god(dess?) Ku[baba(?) … 4. and him/her(?) … [… 5. (to) me … 6. But if a scribe [… 7. … he/they brought mules (to/from) the land Egypt, 8. and to(?) me(?) [… 9. … 10. and these my last [… 21

 Harrison forthcoming; Janeway 2017.

THE HIEROGLYPHIC LUWIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE AMUQ

47

Fig. 3. ALEPPO 7 (drawing J. D. Hawkins).

§ § § § § § § § §

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

… ] to his lord and to … [… … ] to the land. But that scribe [… … ] let him/them run. [… … ]… [… … ] forth [… … ] ninety … boy (and) man Halpa [… …

The fragmentary nature of this inscription yields little information beyond tantalising glimpses. There is little doubt that the author-speaker is still Taita, in spite of the loss of his name. It was hoped in 2011 to find further fragments of the inscription, but of course excavations have been broken off since then. § 2 with its reference to Karkamiš is clearly important: (DOMUS) sa5-sa5-da-ti may be interpreted as “bed-chamber” (Hitt. É.SÀ sastas) or “seal-house, treasury” (Hitt. É NA4. KIŠIB / siyannas per; cf. Hieroglyphic Luwian SIGILLUM(sa5) / sasanza, “seal”), depending on which may be most appropriate to the context, but unfortunately this is not sufficiently clear to decide. Whichever it may be, does this clause indicate that Taita exercised at least some influence or control over Karkamiš? § 11. Also an important clause, suggesting some international presence for Palastin. The late Itamar Singer reminded me of King Solomon’s horse trade with Egypt and Que.22 22

 I Kings 10:28 // II Chronicles 1:16.

48

J. D. HAWKINS

ARSUZ 1 and 2, stelae with duplicate inscription (Fig. 4) § § § § §

1. I am Suppiluliuma, the Hero, Walastinean King, son of King Manana. 2. I took up my father’s power (and) rule, 3. and I myself settled the land. 4. The Grain-God and the Wine-god favoured me, 5. and (for) a sheep 20 (measures of) bread stood, for a sheep 100 jugs (of) good wine stood. § 6. At what time I took up power, § 7. this city opposed me, § 8. the Storm-God put (his) hand on me, § 9. I arose, § 10. and defeated (it) at one time. § 11. The city Adana “put me to the spear,” § 12. I arose, § 13. and turned (to?) the land Hiyawa also. § 14. I made my weapon pass before the city … § 15. and this neither my fathers did, § 16. nor did my grandfathers do it, § 17. but I myself did it. § 18. This mighty Storm-God I myself Suppiluliuma set up, King Manana’s son § 19. and for me the Storm-God raised (his) right hand, § 20. and he made me superior to every king. § 22. After me (he) who lays low this god, § 23. or takes away this bread from him, § 24. for him (his) “mummy” the Grain-God and for him (his) father the Wine-God may they always oppose! § 25. may Heaven and Earth prosecute him, § 26. may the Storm-God of Heaven be his prosecutor, § 27. who is lord of all! § 28. Manana the (good) scribe carved (it). This remarkable duplicate inscription contains many of the topoi well known from other inscriptions: succession to father, favour of the gods and prosperity as marked by low prices, feats exceeding those of predecessors, direct support of the supreme god leading to superiority, erection of a monument, curse protecting the monument and its endowment against desecration, and finally a scribal “signature.” But it also contains many interesting features, particularly the central passage giving an account of a conflict with “this city” (unnamed), with the city Adana and the land Hiyawa, the neighbouring country of Plain Cilicia, and another city (name unread). The references to the gods are also of interest: the Storm-God whose relationship with the author is depicted on the obverse of each stele, and the Grainand Wine-Gods represented on the obverse by the bunch of grapes and ear of corn held by

THE HIEROGLYPHIC LUWIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE AMUQ

Fig. 4. ARSUZ 1 (above) and 2 (below) (photos, Dinçol, Peker).

49

J. D. HAWKINS

50

the author and characterised in the text as his mother (diminutive hypocoristic “mummy”) and father, in an unexpected reversal of their usual sexes. The description of the Storm-God of Heaven as “Lord of All” is striking. The stelae were discovered within the perimeter of the Uluçınar Special Training Centre of the Turkish Navy at Uluçınar (formerly Arsuz, classical Rhosos) on the coast south of Iskenderun, reportedly during the course of electrical works, but no investigation of the find spot was permitted. The find was reported to the Hatay Archaeology Museum in autumn 2007. The museum officials visited the base, as did later Professor Aliye Öztan. The stelae were taken to the (old) Hatay Archaeology Museum, where Professors Ali and Belkıs Dinçol and Dr Hasan Peker viewed and worked on them. They are now exhibited in the new Museum.23 Stylistically and palaeographically, the text closely resembles that of the Suhi II-Katuwa inscriptions from Karkamiš, which suggests a date in the later 10th century BC. Nothing else is known of this Suppiluliuma or his father Manana, but a later Suppiluliuma (II) is known, the author of the colossal statue inscribed with the TELL TAYINAT 4 inscription (see below), who could have been the same as the Sapalulme encountered by Shalmaneser III in 858 BC, and thus generationally the grandson of Suppiluliuma I. The kingdom of Walastin, encountered above on the Aleppo Temple inscriptions as Palastin under a king Taita (I), has been recognised as located in the Amuq (Plain of Antioch) with its centre at Tell Tayinat. Thus, the ARSUZ stelae were found outside the Amuq, west across the Amanus range on the Mediterranean coast. What were they doing there, and why two stelae with duplicate texts? A partial answer is found in the text: they must have been at least intended for erection in “this city” (unnamed). The content suggests that they were victory stelae celebrating the successful war against Adana-Hiyawa. Indeed, was Arsuz/ Rhosos their intended destination? The creation of duplicates could be explained by the assumption that “this city” was actually a different one for each stele, and further that neither reached its destination but both were abandoned together where found. TELL TAYINAT 4 (beginning of text not (yet) discovered) § 1. He became my opponent § 2. and from him I took away eight lands, § 3. and for him I set the frontier “engraved”(?). § 4. I Suppiluliuma er[ected] a stele [for] (my) father. § 5. [and] before father … [with] fullness [I …] one hundred cities, § 6. and the city Ru… … … The statue was excavated in 2012 beneath the paving in the area in front of the then recently excavated Temple XVI, along with some other pieces of sculpture and Hieroglyphic Luwian fragments. It was probably thrown down and broken at the Assyrian take-over of  Dinçol et al. 2015.

23

THE HIEROGLYPHIC LUWIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE AMUQ

51

the city in 728 BC. The text as preserved is written across the shoulder and upper back and consists of only three lines before being broken off. It is not the beginning, which was presumably placed on the lower front part of the figure’s garment. The lower part of the statue has not (yet) been found, although it may be noted that further excavation may recover at least some of it, or it may be represented by some of the fragments found with it. The text thus consists of a three-line fragment from the middle part of the whole. The author identifies himself as Suppiluliuma without further details, which were probably given at the beginning – paternity, titles, country, etc. The palaeography of the inscription is markedly later than that of the Arsuz stelae, though it shows some peculiarities, notably a very idiosyncratic sign form of pa (L.339), also of i and ia (L.209, 210); and, it preserves the initial -a- final convention which goes out of use in the mid-late ninth century BC. This Suppiluliuma might be the grandson of Suppiluliuma, son of Manana, of the Arsuz stelae dating to the early-mid-ninth century BC. The indications would be consistent with an identification as the Sapalulme the Patinean named by Shalmaneser III in 858 BC. It would be most interesting to learn who his defeated opponent named in §§ 1-3 is; presumably, a neighbour, and thus a ruler of Que, Gurgum, Arpad or Hamath. The statue and inscription will be published by Elif Denel, Timothy Harrison and Mark Weeden, to whom I am grateful for the above information.

TELL TAYINAT FRAGMENTS 2463 + 2713 These two fragments, excavated in 2012 in the area to the south of Temple XVI along with the colossal statue and other sculptures and inscribed fragments, were joined by Weeden in August 2014 when he was working on the fragments in the Hatay Archaeology Museum. Together they read wa/i-la-sà-ti-ni-za-(REGIO), “(land) Walastin-ean.” (see Weeden, 2015) The piece is remarkable, not only in giving the second attestation of the toponym found actually at Tell Tayinat (after the first on TELL TAYINAT 1, frag. 3, 1.1), but also in establishing the vocalisation of the second syllable with the writing la (L.175) instead of the usual la/i (L.319) or lá/í (L.172). Whether or not this fragment was a piece of the colossal statue with inscription TELL TAYINAT 4 remains open. JISR EL HADID 4, inscribed base, sides A, [B, C,] D (Fig. 5) A) § 1. … he […]ed, § 2. and my brother (and) sister he raised. § 3. … [ … [B-C lost] D1) § 1. … he […]ed, § 2. but I Runtapi made him (as) his image,

J. D. HAWKINS

52

Fig. 5. JISR EL HADID 4 (photos Dinçol, Peker; inked by J. D. Hawkins).

§ 3. and for his fathers’ gods I exalted him (as) the image, § 4. and for the wayfarers (2) I …ed this for him: § 5. for Tarhunta one ram will always KUWAZA, § 6. and afterwards one ox and one gazelle will stand. § 7. And to my father Parisami’s statue [… This rectangular block has been dressed as a base for a monument, probably a statue, and an inscription, beginning on an upper element now lost, continued on around the base, side A one line running on to the now destroyed sides B and C, preserved again on side D, one line descending on to line 2, returning and terminating somewhere on the lost sides B-C. The stone was reported in 2006 and visited by Professors Ali and Belkıs Dinçol and Dr Hasan Peker, who worked on it, and again in 2009. Photographs and squeezes were made, and the text checked and collated.24 The main preserved part of the text on side D, 1-2, records the honouring by Runtapi of his father Parisami (name re-read following suggestion by C. Melchert) as an image and a statue, presumably erected on this base and inscribed with the beginning of the text. It also seems to speak to passers-by (“wayfarers”) and describes offerings to the Storm-God. On the surviving text on A, Runtapi mentions his brother and sister. From the above it may be seen how much the new discoveries since the year 2000 have enlarged our knowledge of the history of the Amuq, especially in the 11th and 10th centuries BC, revealing the kingdom of Palastin/Walastin with the inscriptions of the Kings Taita I, Taita II and Suppiluliuma I. We may tabulate the rulers and their inscriptions as follows (Table 2): Eleventh century (+/-) Tenth century (early) Tenth century (late) Ninth century (early) Ninth century (mid)

Taita I Taita II Suppiluliuma I Halparuntiya(?) Suppiluliuma II  = Sapalulme (858 BC)

(ALEPPO 6 and 7) (MEHARDE-SHEIZAR) (ARSUZ 1 and 2) (TELL TAYINAT 1) (TELL TAYINAT 4)

Table 2. The chronology of P/Walastinean inscriptions.

 Dinçol et al. 2014.

24

THE HIEROGLYPHIC LUWIAN INSCRIPTIONS OF THE AMUQ

53

These indigenous Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions dovetail with the Assyrian sources of the ninth and eighth centuries BC from the inscriptions of Assurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III, and later Tiglath-Pileser III. With this rate of appearance of new sources, we may look forward to a harvest of further information in the years ahead.

BIBLIOGRAPHY DENEL, E., HARRISON, T. and WEEDEN, M. Forthcoming “Suppiluliuma, an Iron Age king at Tell Tayınat.” DINҪOL, A., DINҪOL, B., PEKER, H. and HAWKINS, J. D. 2014 “A new hieroglyphic Luwian inscription from Hatay,” Anatolica 40: 61–70. DINҪOL, B., DINҪOL, A., HAWKINS, J. D., PEKER, H., and ÖZTAN, A. 2015 “Two new inscribed Storm-god stelae from Arsuz (Iskenderun),” Anatolian Studies 65: 59–77. HAINES, R. C. 1971 The Structural Remains of the Later Phases: Chatal Hüyük, Tell al-Judaidah, and Tell Taʿyinat (Excavations in the Plain of Antioch 2). Chicago: Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Press. HARRISON, T. P. Forthcoming Shifting Networks and Community Identity at Tell Tayinat in the Iron IA-B. HAWKINS, J. D. CHLI = 2000 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol. 1/1–3. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 2011 “The inscriptions of the Aleppo Temple,” Anatolian Studies 61: 35–54. JANEWAY, B. 2017 Sea Peoples of the Northern Levant? Aegean-style Pottery from Early Iron Age Tell Tayinat. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. KOHLMEYER, K. “Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo,” in Temple Building and Temple Cult: 2012 Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.-1. mill. B.C.E.), edited by J. Kamlah and H. Michelau, pp. 55–78. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. WEEDEN, M. 2015 “The land of Walastin at Tell Tayinat,” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 2: 44. YENER, K. A. 2017 “Cult and ritual at Late Bronze Age II Alalakh: Hybridity and power under Hittite administration,” in Hittitology Today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th birthday, edited by A. Mouton, pp. 215–224. Istanbul: Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes. YENER, K. A., DINҪOL, B. and PEKER, H. 2014 “Prince Tuthaliya and Princess Ašnuhepa,” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 4: 136–138.

David HAWKINS SOAS, University of London (Emeritus)

THE JURISDICTION OF LEGAL TRANSACTIONS AT MIDDLE BRONZE AGE ALALAH Jacob LAUINGER ABSTRACT In this article, I study the jurisdiction of legal transactions at Middle Bronze Age Alalah as manifest in the cuneiform tablets from the site. I demonstrate that certain legal transactions fell under the jurisdiction of the regional hegemon, Aleppo, while other legal transactions fell under local jurisdiction, and I consider the wider socio-political context in which jurisdiction might have played out.*

The focus of this chapter is Alalah during the Middle Bronze Age, specifically Level VII according to Woolley’s stratigraphy, a period that is coterminous with the late Old Babylonian Period in Mesopotamia and which can be dated to approximately 1750–1650 BC according to the Middle Chronology.1 During this time, the rulers of Alalah acknowledged the hegemony of the Amorite kings of Yamhad, who ruled southern Anatolia and northern Syria from the Euphrates in the east to the Mediterranean in the west from their capital at Halab, the modern city of Aleppo. Indeed, the later rulers of Alalah were not only the subjects of the kings of Yamhad, but also their cousins, for the king of Yamhad, Abba-el (I), established his younger brother Yarim-Lim I at Alalah some time in the second half of the 18th century BC.2 I study Alalah during this period through its cuneiform record. There are around 280 cuneiform tablets from Level VII, almost every one being administrative or legal in content. The administrative texts document the movement of commodities into, out of, and within the palace, while the legal texts document legal transactions made by the successive rulers of Alalah and various other family members. During Level VII, each legal text was encased in a clay envelope on which the text was written in duplicate, presumably so that in the event fraud was suspected, the envelope could be broken and the wording of the original tablet inspected. Some of these envelopes, perhaps 12–15, survive, although mostly in numerous small fragments.

* I am grateful to Aslıhan Yener, the director of Koç University’s expedition to Tell Atchana/Alalah, for all she has done to make these important excavations possible and for the opportunity to be part of the scientific team. As these conference proceedings demonstrate, she has brought together an interdisciplinary team of scholars who together are more than the sum of their parts! I thank Aslıhan and Gonca Dardeniz also for their efforts in organising the conference and for the invitation to participate. Fifteen years of excavations — almost twice as many as Woolley! — are certainly worthy to celebrate. As a confirmed Alalahophile, I enjoyed the three days of conversations about Alalah and its neighbours tremendously. 1  On the relative chronology of Level VII Alalah, see Lauinger 2015, pp. 201–227. 2  For the possibility of an Abba-el II of Yamhad, see Lauinger 2015, pp. 212–214.

J. LAUINGER

56

The Level VII legal texts in particular are the object of my study in this chapter. Specifically, I am interested in identifying and disentangling two realms of legal jurisdiction that coexisted during Level VII, as they have been preserved in the surviving textual material. Now, the use of the word ‘jurisdiction’ in English goes back over 700 years, and like any word with such a long history, it has acquired a number of different uses and shades of meaning over that time. For the purposes of this study, I use ‘jurisdiction’ in one of its most direct meanings, which lies near to its etymology, which goes back to Latin ius, “law,” and dico, dicere, ‘to speak’: Jurisdiction is the “power of declaring and administering law and justice.”3 And, to add a corollary to this definition, any study of the power of declaring and administering the law necessarily has to consider where that power ends. This study of jurisdiction in the Level VII legal texts, then, is interested in the scope of legal authority: What sort of legal transactions, if any, did the rulers of Level VII Alalah have the power to conduct of their own accord and what sort required the authority of the kings of Yamhad? That is, which legal transactions fell under local jurisdiction at Alalah and which fell under the jurisdiction of Yamhad? The question is important because its answer promises to illuminate the extent to which the rulers of Alalah were autonomous actors and the extent to which their actions were constrained by the regional hegemon of the time. I begin by briefly surveying the Level VII legal corpus with an eye to identifying the different types of transactions that are known and the types of property that these transactions involved. Then I look at the important issue of how to identify in the ancient record the jurisdiction that a given transaction fell under. Next, I break down the Level VII legal corpus by type of transaction, considering the operative jurisdiction for each. Finally, I step back and consider the wider context in which jurisdiction might have played out. Figure 1 arranges the Level VII legal texts by type. Because our interest is in the legal transactions that generated legal texts, I consider envelopes only when they do not duplicate an extant tablet. For our purposes, then, there are 105 discreet legal texts from Middle Bronze Age Alalah. As shown in the figure, 35 — or one-third — of these texts are loans, mostly of an antichretic nature, whereby a debtor received silver but pledged his labour or that of his family in lieu of interest. Purchases of immoveable property, including houses, vineyards, and even complete settlements make up about 20 per cent of the corpus. Records of court proceedings, testaments and receipts all comprise smaller portions of the corpus, while 26 texts — or one-quarter of the corpus — are indeterminate transactions, which generally means that the tablet or envelope is too damaged for the type of transaction it recorded to be identified. How, then, do we identify the jurisdiction operative in each of these 105 transactions? As a matter of fact, sometimes, the texts tell us. Many legal texts explicitly state that the transaction they record took place before the king of Yamhad or that he rendered the relevant decision. Dominique Collon remarked on this feature of the texts in her masterful study of the Alalah seal impressions, observing that “the kings of Yamhad seem to have taken a personal interest in legal transactions of all types at Alalah,” and continuing on to  Oxford English Dictionary online, s.v. jurisdiction, n. mng. 1 .

3

THE JURISDICTION OF LEGAL TRANSACTIONS AT MIDDLE BRONZE AGE ALALAH

57

Fig. 1. Level VII Legal Texts Arranged by Type.

speculate “whether these [texts] were sent to Aleppo for ratification, whether the kings sent their seals to Alalah, or whether they actually resided in Alalah.”4 In her 1975 study, Collon suggested that the presence of clay envelopes around the legal tablets might be a reason for preferring to understand that the tablets were sent to Aleppo for ratification, while in a subsequent study, she suggested that Alalah might have been the summer residence of the kings of Yamhad.5 We will have reason to revisit both of these suggestions in this study’s conclusion. Not long after Collon’s 1975 study of the Alalah cylinder seal impressions appeared, Nadav Na᾿aman wrote a pair of illuminating articles on the chronology of Level VII Alalah in which he observed that certain groups of witnesses recurred together again and again in the legal texts.6 This observation and the inference that groups of people who appear together in a witness list should have been alive at the same time was an important tool for Na᾿aman’s chronological re-analysis in the articles. It was only towards the end of the second article of the pair, however, that he raised a second, related inference, namely that groups of people who appear together in a witness list should have been alive not only at the same time but also, at least for the moment of the legal transaction recorded, in the same place. He writes: “As to the … problem of the witnesses of Yamhad and Alalakh. The relevant documents are those reporting legal cases that took place at the court of Yamhad. In some tablets, the location is specified and in others it is indicated by the fact that the king of Alalah is one of the parties in litigation. It would also appear that some (or even 4

 Collon 1975, p. 139.  Collon 1975, pp. 139–40; 1982, p. 1. 6  Na᾿aman 1976, 1979. 5

J. LAUINGER

58

most) of the transfers of lands required the approval of the king of Yamhad, and were signed in his presence.”7 In other words, a variety of clues — such as litigation before a king of Yamhad, a ruler of Alalah as a party in litigation, or the place where a transaction was conducted — allowed Na᾿aman to ascertain that certain legal transactions took place at, in his words, the “court of Yamhad.” Other clues not mentioned by Na᾿aman help in identifying what I would describe as the jurisdiction rather than the court of Yamhad. For instance, in some texts, transactions take place before not the king of Yamhad but Yamhadian officials, who undoubtedly served as the king’s representative in this regard.8 Furthermore, the ruler of Alalah is consistently identified in texts recording transactions before the king of Yamhad with only the title “man” and not “king” of Alalah, so that the presence of this title can serve as another indicator of Yamhadian jurisdiction in other texts.9 Finally, after working through the legal corpus, one recognises that some of the recurring groups of witnesses that Na᾿aman recognised only appear in conjunction with the jurisdiction of Yamhad, and so can indicate that jurisdiction even in texts without other explicit indicators.10 Conversely, a convergence of two other features of the texts tells us that other transactions occurred under local, Alalahian, jurisdiction: The ruler of Alalah only appears with the title “king of Alalah” in legal texts with a different recurring group of witnesses, and many of these witnesses can be securely identified as palace officials at Alalah.11 Therefore, the title “king of Alalah,” or the occurrence of this group of officials as witnesses in a legal text, allows one to identify the respective transaction as having taken place under local jurisdiction. When we apply these criteria to the 105 Level VII legal texts, we get the following results (Fig. 2): About one-quarter of the legal transactions documented by these texts fell under the jurisdiction of Yamhad, about one-quarter fell under local jurisdiction, about one-quarter are too fragmentary to determine jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is unspecified for the final quarter of transactions, by which I mean that the tablet is mostly complete but all of the indicators of jurisdiction mentioned above are absent. These data become more interesting when we dive in and examine jurisdiction by type of transaction. For instance, loans occur overwhelmingly under local jurisdiction (Fig. 3). The only exceptions are texts that lack any indicators or are too fragmentary to determine — not a single extant loan was transacted under the jurisdiction of Yamhad. Contracts for the purchase of immoveable property, however, present a different picture (Fig. 4). These transactions predominately occurred under the jurisdiction of Yamhad or are of unspecified jurisdiction. And this picture itself sharpens when we look more closely  7

 Na᾿aman 1979, p. 109.  For example, AlT 8 obv. 11–13, in which a litigant advances a claim against Ammi-taqum (II?) of Alalah “before Niqmi-epuh, son of Ešbi-Addu, before Abba-el, son of Šiguwa, before Yaqa-Ammu and the servants of the king.”  9  E.g., AlT 8 obv. 5; see Lauinger 2015, p. 223, n. 34 for discussion citing previous literature. 10  See Lauinger 2015, p. 218. 11  For literature on the title “king of Alalah,” see note 9 above; on Alalah witnesses, see Lauinger 2015, p. 224, with n. 35.  8

THE JURISDICTION OF LEGAL TRANSACTIONS AT MIDDLE BRONZE AGE ALALAH

Fig. 2. Level VII Legal Texts by Jurisdiction.

Fig. 3. Loans by Jurisdiction.

59

J. LAUINGER

60

Fig. 4. Purchases of Immoveable Property by Jurisdiction.

at the different objects of purchase. As mentioned above, the purchases of immoveable property include a number of transactions where the object of purchase is one or more settlements. Tellingly, these transactions were of great interest to the kings of Yamhad, for every single purchase of immoveable property that came under their jurisdiction involved a settlement as the object of purchase (Fig. 5). On the other hand, purchases of individual vineyards and fields seem to have been of little interest to either the kings of Yamhad or the rulers of Alalah, since almost all extant transactions lack any indicator of jurisdiction (Fig. 6). It could be that these data were written on envelopes that are no longer extant, but it seems more likely that the transactions for these individual plots, all of which were located in rural settlements, simply did not require royal authorisation. There is little data on our final objects of purchase, houses, since only two contracts are extant (Fig. 7). One transaction, the purchase of a house in Alalah, seems to have fallen under local jurisdiction. The other, the purchase of a house in Ebla, has a remarkable witness list that lacks any prosopographical connection to the Alalah corpus, suggesting that the transaction took place in Ebla and may have fallen under local, Eblaite, jurisdiction.12 Testaments tend to fall under the jurisdiction of Yamhad, with none occurring under local jurisdiction (Fig. 8). This situation may be because the testators’ estates included settlements such as those found in the purchase contracts. A similar explanation may serve for the records of court proceedings (Fig. 9). The litigation typically involves disputes over inheritance, with much of this inheritance, in turn, being comprised of settlements. The ruler of Alalah is also generally the plaintiff or defendant in 12

 See Lauinger 2014, pp. 217–218.

THE JURISDICTION OF LEGAL TRANSACTIONS AT MIDDLE BRONZE AGE ALALAH

Fig. 5. Purchases of Settlements by Jurisdiction.

Fig. 6. Purchases of Vineyards and Fields by Jurisdiction.

61

62

J. LAUINGER

Fig. 7. Purchases of Houses by Jurisdiction.

Fig. 8. Testaments by Jurisdiction.

THE JURISDICTION OF LEGAL TRANSACTIONS AT MIDDLE BRONZE AGE ALALAH

63

Fig. 9. Records of Court Proceedings by Jurisdiction.

the suit, a position that may have required that his suzerain and the head of his extended family, namely the king of Yamhad, adjudicate. Jurisdiction in quitclaims is generally unspecified, but in one instance tracks on to the type of transaction for which the receipt is the record of fulfilment (Fig. 10). Finally, those records of transactions whose type remains indeterminate because the relevant lines are damaged or no longer preserved are, unsurprisingly, also tablets that are too fragmentary to establish jurisdiction (Fig. 11). The most important conclusion from this whirlwind tour of pie charts is found in Figure 12, the jurisdiction of loans juxtaposed against the jurisdiction of purchases of settlements. Purchases of settlements typically required the authorisation of the king of Yamhad or his representative, while loans of silver were typically left to local jurisdiction. A key to understanding this contrast may lie in the acquisition and control of labour. In a previous study of the legal texts recording purchases of settlements, I argued that these settlements are best conceived of not as spatial entities consisting of a nucleus of buildings surrounded by arable land but as a group of individuals associated with a particular place. The object of purchase in the legal texts recording the purchase of settlements was the labour of that group in a designated parcel of land considered by custom to belong to the group.13 The loans are fundamentally about the acquisition and control of labour, too, but of a different sort: The debtors are craftsmen, generally weavers, but also a fowler and a fletcher, who owe their labour to their creditor, generally the ruler of Alalah, in lieu of interest.14 13

 For a summary, see Lauinger 2015, pp. 187–189.  Lauinger 2015, p. 189, citing previous literature.

14

64

J. LAUINGER

Fig. 10. Quitclaims by Jurisdiction.

Fig. 11. Indeterminate Transactions by Jurisdiction.

THE JURISDICTION OF LEGAL TRANSACTIONS AT MIDDLE BRONZE AGE ALALAH

65

Fig. 12. Loans by Jurisdiction Juxtaposed Against Purchases of Settlements by Jurisdiction.

In other words, grasping the jurisdictions operative in the Level VII legal corpus shows us that the kings of Yamhad were not too interested in monitoring specialised labour and craft production, but they were very interested in monitoring agricultural production. This conclusion implies the important role of agriculture to the economic base of the kingdom of Yamhad relative to more specialised production, an implication that would seem unsurprising if not for the important structuring role of mobile pastoralism in the social and political organisation of the Amorite kingdom of Yamhad and its dependents.15 In which regard, I conclude this study by returning to the passage from Collon’s book quoted above in order to try and contextualise how the jurisdiction of Yamhad may actually have played out. Collon envisioned three possibilities: That the relevant tablets were sent from Alalah to Aleppo in order to be ratified; that kings of Yamhad’s seals were sent from Aleppo to Alalah; or that the kings of Yamhad were themselves on occasion physically present at Alalah. On the one hand, Collon suggested that the presence of envelopes for legal texts might be some reason for preferring the first possibility, envisioning that tablets were sent from Alalah to Aleppo, whereupon the king of Yamhad ratified them by encasing them in a clay envelope and sealing them, before returning them to Alalah. After our survey of jurisdiction, however, we can state that this possibility is the least likely because loans 15

 Lauinger 2015, pp. 196–199, citing previous literature, and see below.

J. LAUINGER

66

— the transaction most definitively associated with local, Alalahian, jurisdiction — were also encased in envelopes. On the other hand, as again mentioned above, Collon herself later seemed to prefer the third possibility, that the kings of Yamhad were physically present at Alalah in the summers. Leaving aside the timing of the visits for the moment, this third possibility also seems the most likely to me, especially if we expand the possibility to include not just the kings of Yamhad but also one or more of their representatives such as the šukkallū, or ministers, of Yamhad, who frequently appear in the legal transactions. Circumstantial evidence in various forms makes this scenario attractive. For instance, we should remember that the kings of Yamhad were Yaminite Amorites, a population group for whom transhumance was not only a way of life but also an ideal. In this regard, we may remember that the king of Mari, Zimri-Lim, took a trip late in his reign when he accompanied the king of Yamhad to Ugarit, a subject city of Yamhad parallel in status to Alalah.16 While this journey seems to have been a remarkable event in Zimri-Lim’s career, there is no indication in the dossier of Mari texts that witness it that it was anything but routine for the king of Yamhad.17 In line with this surmise, we can note a peculiar feature of the Level VII legal corpus from Alalah. Although only 22 — or less than one-quarter — of the extant texts are dated (a phenomenon worthy of study in its own right), more than half of these texts are dated to the same three months of the year.18 Two tablets are dated on successive days.19 A third tablet is dated to the day of a festival, and the most frequently attested month, Hiyari, takes its name from the Hiyaru festival of Ištar.20 This distribution of days and months becomes explainable if we imagine that periodic, perhaps even semi-regular, perambulations throughout their territory punctuated by sojourns at various subject cities may have been a way of life for the Yaminite kings of Yamhad. The chronological clusters of legal texts around particular years would then represent moments when the kings of Yamhad or their officials were physically present at Alalah, perhaps to take part in religious festivals, and thus were also able to authorise those purchases of settlements, testaments and legal disputes that fell under their jurisdiction.

16

 Villard 1986; Charpin and Ziegler 2003, pp. 214–216.  Cf. Villard 1986, pp. 407–408. 18  Hiyari (AlT 6, 54, 61, and 63); Hudizzi (AlT 11, 39, and 96); Attanati (AlT 18A, 65, and UF 36: 78–81 [20.09]). 19  AlT 27 and 61A; see Lauinger 2015, p. 223 n. 34. 20  For the Šuhhu festival attested in AlT 38, see Arnaud 1969; for the Hiyaru festival of Ištar attested in AlT 358, see Lauinger 2015, p. 363, citing previous literature. 17

THE JURISDICTION OF LEGAL TRANSACTIONS AT MIDDLE BRONZE AGE ALALAH

67

APPENDIX: JURISDICTION IN LEVEL VII ALALAH LEGAL TEXTS This appendix provides a table organising the corpus of Level VII Alalah legal texts by type of transaction and indicating the operative jurisdiction for each, as well as the features on the basis of which jurisdiction can or cannot be inferred.21 The table is organised alphabetically by transaction type according to commonly accepted types of legal texts, with other and unclear texts appearing as the final category. Within the categories of transaction type, the texts are organised alphanumerically. If a feature indicative of jurisdiction is present in the text, the corresponding field is marked x; if the feature is absent or no longer preserved, the field is left blank. The appendix uses the following abbreviations: JUR = Jurisdiction -Y = Yamhad -A = Alalah -U = Unspecified -F = Fragmentary by = transaction/litigation before king of Yamhad or his representative(s) rapl = ruler of Alalah party in litigation man = ruler of Alalah described as “man of Alalah” yw = Yamhad witnesses ba = transaction/litigation before ruler of Alalah king = ruler of Alalah described as “king of Alalah” aw = Alalah witnesses Text

JUR

by

rapl

man

yw

ba

king

aw

x x

x

Loan and Transfer of Loan AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT AlT

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

[31.03] [31.11] [31.02] [31.03] [31.04] [31.12] [31.05] [31.06] [31.07] [31.08] [32.01] [32.02] [32.03] [32.04] [30.04] [30.05]

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

21  The table is based on the table in Lauinger 2014, pp. 32–35, from which UF 36 126–27 [22.22] was inadvertently omitted, and the reader is referred there for notes explaining occasional disagreements with the classification of certain transactions in Dietrich and Loretz 2004, 2005, 2006.

J. LAUINGER

68 Text AlT 35 [30.07] AlT 36 [31.09] AlT 38 [31.13] AlT 39 [30.09] AlT 44 [31.10] AlT 65 [24.01] UF 37 302-03 [21.07] UF 37 256-57 [30.15] UF 37 273 [31.15] AlT 34 [30.06] AlT 37 [30.08] AlT 41 [20.06] AlT 40 [31.14] UF 36 81 [20.10] UF 37 257-58 [30.16] UF 37 274 [31.16] UF 37 274 [31.17] UF 37 275 [31.18] UF 37 275 [31.19]

JUR

by

rapl

man

yw

ba

A A A A A A A A A U U U U F F F F F F

king

aw

x

x x x x x x

x x x

Quitclaim AlT 9 [20.03] AlT 97 [60.02] AlT 98a [51.06] UF 36 82 [20.11] UF 37 292 [51.09]

Y U F F F

x

x

Record of Court Proceedings AlT 7 [20.01] AlT 8 [20.02] AlT 10 [20.04] AlT 11 [20.05] AlT 57 [20.07] AlT 455 [20.08] UF 36 78-81 [20.09] AlT 98c [51.02] AlT 119 [51.03] AlT 12 [51.01] AlT 120 [51.04]

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y A A U U

x x x a) x

x x x x

x x x

x

x

x

x x x x x x

Sale of House AlT 59 [22.07] AlT 60 [22.08]

A U

x

THE JURISDICTION OF LEGAL TRANSACTIONS AT MIDDLE BRONZE AGE ALALAH

Text

JUR

by

rapl

man

yw

x x x

x x x x x

ba

king

69 aw

Sale of Settlement, Including Exchange AlT 52 [22.01] AlT 54 [22.03] AlT 55 [22.04] AlT 56 [22.05] AlT 58 [22.06] AlT 76 [23.01] AlT 77 [23.02] AlT 78 [23.05] AlT 79 [23.03] AlT 80 [23.04] AlT 53 [22.02] UF 36 126 [22.20] UF 37 304 [22.28]

Y Y Y Y Y b) Y c) Y d) Y Y e) Y A F F

x

x

x

x x x x

Sale of Vineyard and Field AlT 62 [22.10] AlT 64 [22.12] AlT 63 [22.11] AlT 98d [22.13] UF 36 123 [22.15] UF 36 128-29 [22.24]

U U U U U F

Testament AlT 6 [21.01] AlT 95 [21.03] AlT 96 [21.04] AlT 86 [21.02] UF 36 96 [21.05] UF 36 96 [21.06]

Y f) Y Y U F F

x x

Y g) Y Y Y A h) F F F F F F F F

x

x

x x

Other or Unclear Type AlT 456 [20.02] UF 36 85 [20.16] UF 36 87 [20.18] UF 36 122 [22.14] AlT 61 [22.09] AlT 98b [60.03] RA 108: 29 UF 36 82-83 [20.12] UF 36 84 [20.13] UF 36 84 [20.14] UF 36 85 [20.15] UF 36 86 [20.17] UF 36 123 [22.16]

x x x x

x

J. LAUINGER

70 Text UF 36 124 [22.17] UF 36 125 [22.19] UF 36 126 [22.21] UF 36 126-27 [22.22] UF 36 127-28 [22.23] UF 36 129 [22.25] UF 36 130 [22.26] UF 36 136-37 [23.06+23.06A] UF 37 304 [22.27] UF 37 258 [30.17] UF 37 293 [51.10] UF 37 297 [61.01] UF 37 298 [61.02] UF 37 298 [61.03]

JUR

by

rapl

man

yw

ba

king

aw

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F

a) Reading line obv. 7 as ma-har ⸢ÌR.MEŠ LUGAL⸣ (collated). b) In addition to referring to the ruler of Alalah as the “man of Alalah” and listing court officials of Yamhad as witnesses, lines u.e. 2-rev. 19 specify that the property has nothing to do with the man of Alalah and describes its ilku as “of the house of Halab” (ilik bīt Halab). c) Abba-el I of Yamhad is a principal in the transaction. d) Abba-el I of Yamhad is a principal in the transaction. e) Yarim-Lim (II?) of Yamhad is a principal in the transaction. f) The text includes the ruler of Alalah’s statement, “He (Hammu-rabi, son of Ammi-taqum II of Alalah) is the servant of Yarim-Lim (III), the king (of Yamhad), my lord” (wardu ša Yarim-Lim šarri bēliya šū, lines rev. 5-6). g) Lines rev. 7-u.e. 1 stipulate the ruler of Alalah’s loyalty to the king of Yamhad. h) The text is unusual in combining the title “man of Alalah” with a list of local witnesses. A third datum not incorporated into the table – the penalty payment for breach of contract is made to the temple of Ištar, Alalah’s patron deity, and not to that of Addu, Halab’s patron deity – tips the balance in favour of local jurisdiction.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARNAUD, D. 1969 “Le verbe šuhhû en accadien périphérique,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 26: 316–317. CHARPIN, D. and ZIEGLER, N. 2003 Mari et le proche-orient à l’époque amorrite: essai d’histoire politique (Florilegium Marianum 5, Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 6). Paris: Société pour l’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien. COLLON, D. 1975 The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 27). Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon and Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1982 The Alalakh Cylinder Seals: A New Catalogue of the Actual Seals Excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley at Tell Atchana, and from Neighbouring Sites on the Syrian-Turkish Border (British Archaeological Reports International Series 132). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

THE JURISDICTION OF LEGAL TRANSACTIONS AT MIDDLE BRONZE AGE ALALAH

71

DIETRICH, M. and LORETZ, O. 2004 “Alalaḫ-Texte der Schicht VII (I). Historische und juristische Dokumente,” UgaritForschungen 36: 43–150. 2005 “Alalah-Texte der Schicht VII (II). Schuldtexte, Vermerke, und Sonstiges,” UgaritForschungen 37: 241–314. 2006 “Alalah-Texte der Schicht VII (III). Die Listen der Gruppen ATaB 40, ATaB 42, ATaB 43 und ATaB 44,” Ugarit-Forschungen 38: 87–137. LAUINGER, J. 2014 “Witnessing at Old Babylonian Alalah: A new Level VII witness list from the Koç University excavations at Tell Atchana/Alalah,” Revue d’Assyriologie 108: 25–40. 2015 Following the Man of Yamhad: Settlement and Territory at Old Babylonian Alalah (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 75). Leiden: Brill. NA᾿AMAN, N. 1976 “A new look at the chronology of Alalakh Level VII,” Anatolian Studies 26: 129–143. 1979 “The chronology of Alalakh Level VII once again,” Anatolian Studies 29: 103–113. VILLARD, P. 1986 “Un roi de Mari à Ugarit,” Ugarit-Forschungen 18: 387–412.

Jacob LAUINGER The Johns Hopkins University [email protected]

COMPARATIVE MATERIAL CULTURE

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN IN BRONZE AGE MESOPOTAMIA, ANATOLIA AND THE NORTHERN LEVANT Elizabeth HEALEY ABSTRACT* Obsidian is mostly known for its use in prehistoric times as a tool stone. By the Middle Bronze Age, it had virtually gone out of use for such purposes, but it was used along with other exotic materials to make highly crafted vessels and was a valued material. A review of the origin of the obsidian and the evidence (mainly from older excavations) for the manufacture and use of these vessels suggests localised responses within a frame of wider and developing relations during this period.

INTRODUCTION Obsidian is of course well known in pre- and proto-historic periods for its use alongside flint for making tools and occasionally jewellery and vessels. Its geologic origins are often far from the place where the artefacts are found, and so its presence in an assemblage is considered to be an indicator of long-distance exchange. Because of this, study of it has tended to focus on determining its origins and how it was used as a tool stone, particularly in prehistoric times.1 As societies become more complex and states begin to form, objects made of obsidian receive less attention from archaeologists, even though they are often associated with high-status contexts. This chapter will review the archaeological data we have for obsidian use in such societies and consider its potential for examining the relationships of Alalakh and its neighbours. Most of the evidence for the use of obsidian in early state societies is in the form of vessels, many of which were used in elite contexts, although we ought to note that its use to make non-tool items is not new; since the Neolithic, in small-scale societies, there is a growing body of evidence to show that it was used to make vessels, mirrors and jewellery.2 The first manifestations of its use in obviously special contexts include two bowls from a tomb at Tepe Gawra X3 and a ‘chalice’ from a Late Chalcolithic workshop at Tell Brak, which is made from a large core and was set in a marble stand, but abandoned in a bin; its deposition has been interpreted as ritual recycling, despite the fact that it was discarded.4 * Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Aslıhan Yener for inviting me to take part in the conference and for enabling me to study the lithic artefacts from Alalakh. I am also grateful to Fikri Kulakoǧlu and Çiler Altınbilek-Algül who discussed the obsidian vessels from Kültepe with me. Denys Stocks made useful comments on the bowl AT/48/99 from Alalakh and gave valuable advice on the use of tubular drills more generally. 1  Cauvin et al. 1998; see also Watkins 2008. 2  Healey 2007; 2013, p. 259. 3  Tobler 1950, pp. 82, 221, figs 7 and 8, pl. LIII, b and c. 4  McMahon et al. 2007, pp. 151–152; Oates et al. 2007, pp. 591–593; Khalidi 2014, p. 84, fig. 5.22.

E. HEALEY

76

By the late Uruk period, we start to see the “mass” production of obsidian vessels. Particularly notable are 37 highly crafted vessels of obsidian, along with vessels of other local stone, from a temple area in Uruk-Warka in contexts mostly dated to the Uruk IV period. The use of obsidian is notable, because not only is it virtually the only hard stone used, but it is also the only exotic stone.5 The large number of vessels also implies a regular supply of raw material. These occurrences are not unique — a large number of fragments of obsidian vessels have also been found at Abu Shahrain (Eridu) (at least 28 are in the British Museum alone),6 al-‘Ubaid7 and elsewhere in southern Iraq. This increase in the number of vessels broadly coincides with the time when stone vessels made of both local and exotic stone are found in greater quantity and show more elaborate manufacturing skills than hitherto practised.8 In the Early Bronze Age, vessels are found in palaces or temples, for example, in Iran at Tell Malyan,9 at Tell Mozan in the Khabur,10 and in royal tombs in Mesopotamia, as the beautiful bowl (U.10488, measuring some 165 mm in length, 85 mm in width and 60 mm in height and only 3 mm thick at the rim), made of translucent grey obsidian, in Queen Pu’abi’s grave in the Royal Cemetery at Ur testifies.11 Fragments of other vessels were also found at Ur, including two with inscriptions, one (U6702) naming Ur Nammu12 and the other (U523) with a dedication to the goddess Bau.13 After this relatively short-lived flourishing of stone vessels, there is a sharp decline in the presence of vessels made of exotic hard stone in Mesopotamia,14 and the best evidence for the use of obsidian for vessel manufacture now comes from the northern Levant and Central Anatolia (as well as Egypt and Crete), particularly in palace and/or temple contexts, some of which also have evidence of workshops, as we will see later in this chapter. First, though, it is useful to consider some of the characteristics of obsidian as a stone.

OBSIDIAN AS

A MATERIAL

The choice of obsidian to make vessels might seem somewhat strange. It has an attractive appearance, but it is a challenging stone to work; although hard (Mohs 5.5-6), it breaks predictably with a conchoidal fracture, but it is also very brittle. It is not straightforward to acquire; because its geological sources are limited and in hard-to-reach, mountainous regions which can be inaccessible for large parts of the year because of snow, the sources are also often far from the places where it was worked and used (Fig. 1). Yet these factors may have been some of the very reasons for its choice. Things acquired from distant places are thought  5

 Lindermeyer and Martin 1993, pp. 24, 32.  http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search.aspx?searchText=Abu+Shahrain+ obsidian (2 March 2016).  7  Hall and Woolley 1927, p. 51.  8  Bevan 2007; cf. Carter et al. 2016; Potts 1989.  9  Blackman 1984, p. 22; Sparks 2001, p. 95. 10  Frahm and Feinberg 2013, p. 1125. 11  Woolley 1934, p. 379, pl. 165. 12  Sollberger 1965, no. 18. 13  Gadd and Legrain 1928, no. 15. 14  Moorey 1994, pp. 43-45; Bevan 2007, p. 182.  6

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

77

Fig. 1. Map showing location of the Levantine and Anatolian sites with obsidian vessels discussed in the text, in relation to the obsidian sources. Courtesy Stuart Campbell.

to accrue value and bring prestige to the person acquiring them,15 so that possessing things with specific but distant origins is likely significant in creating and maintaining social and political relations. Obsidian’s shiny appearance, as with similar materials, must have alerted its users to its cosmology; we may note too, that it belonged in the valued category in stone classification,16 although it was on the losing side in Ninurta’s battle of the stones.17 Contemporary texts also suggest that it was a meaningful and valuable material.18 The transformation of a raw obsidian block into a fine vase requires an understanding of its physical and mechanical properties, as well as the experience, skill, know-how and confidence to work an exotic and valuable material; perhaps, too, it incorporates an appreciation of its cosmology or mystique — would the heavens fall in if the vessel broke in manufacture, or just the wrath of the person who commissioned it be incurred? Conversely, would there be extra kudos for a special design or craftsmanship? Evidence of technological prowess is useful to us for reconstructing the milieu in which the stone was worked, 15

 Helms 1988, 1993.  Aufrère 1991; Postgate 1997. 17  Black et al. 2004/2006, etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr25415.htm ETCSLtranslation: t.1.6.2. 18  Healey 2014; See also the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary vol. 16 ṣurru. 16

E. HEALEY

78

as well as the skills and thus the type of workforce needed, and it might indicate whether the methods (and so perhaps the stone worker) were local or foreign.19 For the person who commissioned the vessel, the choice of obsidian signalled that they could afford exotic material and were able to employ skilled stonecutters, thus displaying connections and status. Many of the vases are associated with palaces and temples, and certainly vase makers in Mesopotamia enjoyed some palace patronage.20 Thus the analytic potential of obsidian vessels is likely to be fruitful to the archaeologist on many fronts.21

OBSIDIAN VESSELS Obsidian vessels in Neolithic and Ubaid contexts are mostly small cups and jars (between about 7 and 10 mm in diameter) with little variation in form, although they are well made.22 Larger and more elaborate vessels begin to appear as societies increase in complexity. For example, the bowls from Tepe Gawra are larger (116 and 126 mm in diameter)23 and more elaborate in design and have spouts. At Uruk, types include knobbed beakers, fluted vases and a plate, some of which can be paralleled in other materials, and the shape of the vessel in Queen Pu’abi’s grave at Ur suggests that it was made to imitate metal forms.24 The known obsidian vessels in the Levant and Central Anatolia (summarised in Table 1) present a fuller, but as we will see, still incomplete picture; contemporary examples are discussed below. Acemhöyük and Kültepe-Kaneš At Acemhöyük and Kültepe-Kaneš (both Assyrian Trade Colonies in Central Anatolia), elaborately designed and skilfully executed forms are present. At least ten individual vessels and a number of fragments of others were recorded from rooms in the Sarıkaya palace at Acemhöyük; vases of rock crystal and basalt were also present.25 Shapes are elaborate, and some look as though they are virtuoso pieces. They include shouldered vases which have holes on the rim for a handle (for example, Ac.h/18. NM.3-285-8), one of which has traces of bronze on it, suggesting that the attachment was made of bronze; fluted vases embellished with zoomorphic handles (Fig. 2), for example, an antelope biting the rim (Ac.e/34. AMM.69-21-66); a rhyton (Ac.83/40 NM/5-39-83); various bowls (Ac.d/3 NM/3-291-81 and Ac.e.Et/AMM); and the fragment of a foot ring (Ac.e.Et./AMM), as well as a plate and other unclassified fragments. 19

 Morero 2011.  Loding 1981; Lindermeyer and Martin 1993, p. 23. 21  Cf. Bevan 2007, p. 102. It is also possible to determine the origin of the raw obsidian through its elemental composition, although this has rarely been done in the case of vessels and other museum quality objects. 22  Healey 2013, pp. 258–259; 2007, table 3. 23  Tobler 1950, p. 229, pl. LIII b and c. 24  Moorey 1994. 25  Özten 1988. 20

*

Tell Arpachiyah

*

Tell Kurdu

*

? (pointed base)

Uruk

Eridu

Nader-Tepe Arlanduz

Tepe Gawra,  Tomb 102

*

Tell Zeidan

Yarim Tepe III

*

* (palette)

*

edge of vessel

handle?

*

Tell Brak

Tell Brak LC II

*

Kenan Tepe

Indet.and fragments

*

Ungentaria

Hagoshrim

Tripod Pyxides mortars

1

* (palette)

Platse/ dishes

*

*

Fluted Rhyton/ vessels bibru

Tülintepe

*

Beakers, chalices, etc

1

* (with spouts)

Bowls

Banahilk

Sabi Abyad

*

Cups and jars

Domuztepe

Site

2 in report, but more in British Museum catalogue

37 + unallocated fragments

2

2

1

Safar et al. 1981, nos. 30 and 38

Lindermeyer and Martin 1993

Agha-Aligol et al. 2015, p. 262

Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, p. 216, fig. 162.14; Edens and Yener et al. 2000 Tobler 1950, pl. CIII, figs. 7 and 8

Stein 2010, fig. 19

Merpert and Munchaev 1993, p. 188

Parker and Dodd 2005; Healey forthcoming b Oates and Oates 1994, p. 170

Schechter et al. 2013, fig. 11

Arsebük 1983, p. 57, fig. 4.7

Watson 1983, p. 576

Mallowan and Rose 1935, fig. 44.15, pl. Vc Copeland 1996, p. 296

Healey 2013, fig. 22.8

Reference

1

?

large nodule

Raw Material Storage

Khalidi 2014, p. 84-85, fig. 5.22

3 decorated

jar with decorative grooves

Inscribed

1

1

2

4

1

1

1

1

24 +

Total present

*

*

*

*

Indet.and fragments

Total present

Khorsabad

*

*

*

Table 1. Occurrence of obsidian vessels.

*

Tell-el ‘Ajjūl

*

*

*

Qatna

*

* and box

*

Byblos

Boğazköy

*

*

Kültepe-Kaneš  (including Karum)

Acemhöyük

*

*

Alalakh handle

?

Tell Mozan

1

4

1

2

4

10+

11

6

1

2

*

*

Ungentaria

Tell Malyan Kafteri  Phase

*

Tripod Pyxides mortars

1

*

Platse/ dishes

Mesopotamia’

*

Fluted Rhyton/ vessels bibru

7?

*

Beakers, chalices, etc

Ur

Bowls

?

Cups and jars

al’Ubaid

Site

Nefer sign

Throne names of Amenenhat III (unguentarium) and IV (box). Box also has accompanying epithet

Cartouche

Ur Nammu and Bau

Inscribed

?

*

*

Raw Material Storage

Loud and Altman 1938, pl. 64, no. 254

Petrie 1934; Petrie et al. 1952

Boehmer 1972, p. 211, nos. 2177, 2178, 2188, 2189, pl. LXXXII and LXXXIII Naville and Clermont-Ganneau 1922; Virolleaud 1922; Montet 1928 Pfälzner and Dohmann-Pfälzner 2011, pl. 52; Ahrens 2015, p. 146, fig. 3

Frahm 2010; Frahm and Feinberg 2013, p. 1125 Woolley 1955b, pp. 293-4, pl. LXXXIII, A-D Özgüç 1986, p. 50-51, pls. 67, 2-4, 95.7. 96.3; 1999, pl. 77.4, pl. 105. 4-5, pl. 106, 1 and 2 C20-22; Kulakoğlu 2010-11, nos. 197, 198 and 199; Altınbilek-Algül and Balcı 2010, fig. 2 and 3 Özten 1988, p. 393-406

Metropolitan Museum of Art New York, Acc No. 1979.23 Blackman 1984, p. 39

Perkins 1949, p. 86; Hall and Woolley 1927 Woolley 1934, U10488; 1956, p. 170

Reference

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

81

Fig. 2. Fragment of fluted vessel with handle in the form of an antelope biting the rim from Acemhöyük (Ac.e/34 AMM. 69-21-66). 11.5 cm by 7.8 cm. Museum of Anatolian Civilisations, Ankara. Photograph John Healey.

At Kültepe-Kaneš, as well as finished vases and evidence for vase manufacture, a store of obsidian nodules was found in a room adjacent to a temple.26 Manufacture is suggested by a substantial “bar” of obsidian, which may be a drill core.27 Vessels recovered from the storeroom area include the pointed base of a fluted goblet (Kt82/K261), two other vessel fragments (Kt.e/T 197 and Kt.e/T 198) which appear similar to some of the plainer vases or beakers from Acemhöyük,28 and part of a handle.29 Three other vessels were found in the palace,30 and a fragment of a fluted vessel was discovered in the burnt debris of the north fortification wall (Kt 73t).31 Further evidence of obsidian working is found in the lower town (karum): another “bar” of smaller diameter (also Kt ș/K49)32 and other vessels

26

 Özgüç 1986, p. 50, fig. 97, 4–5. Discussed further below.  Özgüç 1986, p. 51, fig. 97, 7; Özten 1988, p. 405f. 28  For example, Özten 1988, figs. 15–16. 29  Altinbilek-Algül and Balcı 2010, fig. 3. 30  Özgüç 1999, p. 113, fig. C, 20–22. See also Balci and Altinbilek-Algül 2017. 31  Özgüç 1999, p. 92, pl. 77, 4a–b. 32  Özgüç 1986, p. 51, fig. 97, 6. 27

E. HEALEY

82

including an unfinished cup (Kt 90k, 391 inv. no 90/2992), as well as a handle in the form of a bull (Kt. 00/K088 inv. no 41-14-05), and a bull-headed bibru (Kt 05/K.086 inv.no. 1.57-2000).33 As at Acemhöyük, most of these shapes can be found in more malleable materials such as metal and pottery and other softer stone, both locally and in the wider Mediterranean world.34 The use of an exotic hard stone is a clear demonstration of prowess. Alalakh As at Kültepe-Kaneš, there is evidence at Alalakh for the storage of blocks of obsidian and for vase making. The repertoire of vessels from Alalakh, however, is very different and much less visually attractive: there are no fine vases or zoomorphic vessels, and instead there are open bowls and containers, some of which suggest a more Levantine focus rather than an Anatolian one.35 Woolley recorded four unfinished vessels and a “tray” from a workshop in the Level VII Palace, and two other fragments from the palace and temple area, as well as some pieces of inlay.36 The vessels include a thin-walled, spouted vessel (AT/39/135) found in Room 8 and a sherd from a closed vessel (AT/48/41) found near the Level VII temple which, on the basis of its shape, Rachel Sparks suggests may be an Egyptian import.37 The vessels found in the workshop include an unfinished leaf-shaped bowl (AT/48/101), c. 170 mm long and 90 mm wide,38 which seems from Woolley’s photograph to have a spout,39 and a fully polished pyxis or semi-circular open vessel (AT/48/98), part of which was seemingly found in the large jar in the workshop. It is 24 mm in height and has a flat rim and base and two internal compartments. This form is much more common in ceramic, ivory or faience in Syria and elsewhere and must have been difficult to execute in obsidian; most of these pyxides also have lids. Sparks noted a pivot hole at the centre of the rim to fix a lid.40 The remaining two vessels are now on display in the new Hatay Archaeology Museum. The fully shaped, but unfinished, tripod bowl or mortar (AT/48/100) (Fig. 3) is a Levantine form more familiar in basalt or granite;41 it measures c. 197 mm in diameter and has a flat rim about a centimetre wide; this bowl is c. 85 mm in diameter and stands around 85 mm high.42 Another bowl (about half of which survives) seems to be carinated in shape but is still in the process of being formed and hollowed out (AT/48/99) (Fig. 4). It measures c. 160 to 175 mm in diameter and 50 mm in depth.

33

 Kulakoǧlu and Kangal 2010–2011, p. 250, nos. 197, 198 and 199.  Kulakoǧlu 2011, p. 250. 35  Cf. Sparks 2001, p. 97. 36  Woolley 1955a, pp. 64, 109, 292–294. 37  Sparks 2007, p. 256. 38  Measurements from Sparks (2007, pp. 120–121) unless otherwise stated. 39  Woolley 1955a, pl. LXXXIII, AT/38/101. 40  Sparks 2007, pp. 120–121, 395; see also Bevan 2007, p. 113. 41  Sparks 2007. 42  Measurements from Sparks 2007, catalogue p. 395. 34

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

83

Fig. 3. Unfinished tripod mortar AT/48/100 from Alalakh. Photograph Murat Akar. ©Atchana archive.

Tell-el ‘Ajjūl The obsidian vessels found at Tell-el ‘Ajjūl (at the time a major port for southern Palestine)43 were among a large assemblage of stone vessels made of a wide range of materials, 80 per cent of which are Egyptian imports. Obsidian was also used to make gaming pieces, but no other artefacts are recorded.44 The first vessel is a semi-circular, straight-sided box (like a pyxis, but with no compartments), some 81 mm in diameter, with three legs; it is embellished with an incised image of a lotus flower on its base. While the lotus flower recalls Egyptian examples, it has other features which recall both the pyxis (AT/48/98) and the tripod mortar (AT/48/100) found at Alalakh. A second Egyptian piece is comprised of two conjoining fragments (Petrie nos. 540 and 541) which have the outline of a cartouche and a nefer sign.45 A third vessel (FB 815) resembles a cosmetic/kohl jar of Egyptian type46 but has no inscription and is larger and cruder than the better-known Egyptian examples. The cruder execution of this vessel and the fact that the pyxis was found in an ‘Achan’ tomb (no. 1924)47 raises the question of local manufacture, although despite the large number of vessels, no workshop involving the manufacture of obsidian vessels has been specifically identified at Tell-el ‘Ajjūl.48 Provenance analysis of the obsidian might go some way to resolving this question, since all the Egyptian vessels in Egypt that have been provenanced are made of Ethiopian obsidian, not Anatolian.49

43

 Sparks 2007, p. 206, fig. 70.  Described by Petrie as draughtsmen. Petrie et al. 1952, p. 10. 45  Petrie et al. 1952, p. 23. 46  Petrie 1934, pl. XXXVIII, no. 43. 47  Petrie 1934, pp. 9–10, pl. XXII. 48  See Sparks (2007, pp. 207–208) for a discussion of this. 49  Gimènez et al. 2015. 44

84

E. HEALEY

Fig. 4. Bowl AT/48/99 from Alalakh. Photograph Murat Akar. ©Atchana archive. 4a General view; 4b Roughly shaped undersurface; 4c Upper surface showing cuts from the tubular drills.

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

85

Boǧazköy At Boǧazköy, four obsidian vessels and a number of flakes and blades were recorded;50 two of the vessels came from the Büyükkale Building D, one (No. 2177) from Room 8 and the other (No. 2188) from Room 12/13. The third fragment (No. 2178) was reconstructed as a bowl of about 12 cm in diameter and was found in the rubble on the northwest slope above Layer 5; it has a cartouche of the Hyksos ruler Chian incised on it (Fig. 5).51 The fourth fragment (No. 2189) comes from the southern area 3/69 in the rubble from a Hittite fire. The cartouche of the Hyksos foreign ruler Chian incised on No. 2178 , indicates that it is likely to be of Egyptian rather than Anatolian manufacture; interestingly, the provenance analysis by Renfrew of an unstratified chip of obsidian determined that it was of “Egyptian” origin (his group 4d),52 not Anatolian; this was subsequently confirmed by Zarins.53 It might also be worth noting that the obsidian of which another of the vessels from Büyükkale (No. 2188) was made had a different appearance from the rest of the obsidian, and this was thought to indicate the use of obsidian of a different origin.54

Fig. 5. Vessel fragment, with cartouche of foreign Hyksos ruler Chian, from Boğazköy (no. 2178). 5.7 cm by 3.7 cm. Museum of Anatolian Civilisations, Ankara. Photograph John Healey.

Byblos and Qatna The obsidian vessels from Byblos and Qatna, found in royal tombs, are almost certainly of Egyptian origin and were likely funerary gifts.55 The obsidian objects from Byblos come from two tombs (Royal Tombs I and II) which were connected by a subterranean passage

50

 Boehmer 1972, pp. 211, 220.  Boehmer 1972, p. 211; Stock 1963, pl. 73ff. 52  Renfrew et al. 1966, p. 49, no. 295. 53  Zarins 1989, p. 367. Zarins states that the flake he provenanced came from the side of the bowl. It is not clear whether this is a different piece. 54  Boehmer 1972, p. 211. 55  Ahrens 2015, p. 151. 51

E. HEALEY

86

and likely belonged to Abishemu, a count56 and his son, Ibshemuabi.57 Both tombs were undisturbed until discovered in a landslide in February 1922 and October 1923.58 In Tomb I, found in 1922, the burial was in a sarcophagus with many rich grave offerings. Among the grave goods was an exquisite unguentarium of obsidian (Fig. 6a). It measures 12 cm in height and c. 7 cm in diameter, and has bands of gold c. 13 mm high around its foot and neck. The lid is 7.3 cm in diameter and has been grooved on the under-surface to prevent it sliding off. The lid is also encircled by a band of gold on which there are two pieces of gold leaf with the throne name of Amenemhat III. There are also two hieroglyphic inscriptions, one on the gold band on the lid between the cartouches and another on the gold band on the vase. The vessel seems to have been found open, but Virrolleaud noted a whitish stain part way up the inside, as if it had been lying on its side, likely caused by the perfume or incense it contained.59 Tomb II, a chamber of “very mediocre appearance”, probably contained a wooden coffin (rather than a sarcophagus) and was discovered because of a rockfall in 1923 which disturbed the contents.60. Among the contents (considered to be richer than those of Tomb I)61 there was a small box or chest (coffret) of obsidian (Fig. 6b); It had been disturbed by a large rock which had fallen and broken a jar at the side of the coffin; it was found with its feet in the air and the lid some centimeters away. The box measures 8.5 cm by 14.2 cm long and 7.4 cm high. It is very precisely made62 and inscribed with the throne name of Amenemhat IV and the accompanying epithet “May the good king live, lord of the two lands, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ma’a‛-kherou-re, beloved of Toum, lord of Heliopolis, to whom is given eternal life like Ra”.63 At Qatna, another unguentarium, also with gold bands around the rim and base, but no inscription and no lid, was found in the royal necropolis in Tomb VII where there were many Egyptian imports and some imitations;64 it measures about 5.3 cm in height and 4.5 cm maximum diameter, so is much smaller than the Byblos example.65 It has been suggested that it reached Qatna by way of Byblos.66

THE

ORIGIN AND STORAGE OF THE

OBSIDIAN

There has been virtually no study of the origins of the obsidian from which the vessels were made, but there can be little doubt that the Byblos and Qatna vessels and the fragment 56  Naville and Clermont-Ganneau 1922; see also Virolleaud 1922. The title “Count” is conferred by a pharaoh. The names are known from an inscription on a scimitar found in Tomb II (Jidejian 1968, p. 27). 57  Jidejian 1968, p. 27. 58  Virolleaud 1922. See also his fig. 4. 59  Virolleaud 1922, pp. 284–286; Montet 1928, pp. 156–157; Sparks 2007, p. 48. 60  Montet 1923, pp. 337-339. 61  Montet 1923, p. 337. 62  Montet 1928, pp. 157–159, fig. 69. 63  Montet 1928, pp. 128–159. 64  Morero 2011. 65  Pfälzner et al. 2011. 66  Ahrens 2015, p. 146.

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

87

Fig. 6. Unguentarium and box from Byblos. The unguentarium is 12 cm in height and the box is 4.5 cm in length. National Museum of Beirut, Lebanon. Photograph Kay Prag.

E. HEALEY

88

with the cartouche from Boǧazköy are Egyptian imports, although the origin of the obsidian of the other Egyptian-style vessels, especially from Tell-el ‘Ajjūl, is less certain. Provenancing the obsidian would decide this matter, because all the obsidian artefacts provenanced in Egypt originate from Porc Epic in Ethiopia; none are of Anatolian obsidian.67 A different situation pertains for Alalakh, Kültepe-Kaneš and Acemhöyük, because there are stores of unworked obsidian, likely intended for vase manufacture. This obsidian almost certainly originated in Anatolia.68 There are three main potential source areas, one in Central Anatolia, one in southeast Anatolia and one in the northeast, as well as a Transcaucasian group that obsidian might have been obtained from (Fig. 1). For Kültepe, the Central Anatolian obsidian sources, though not immediately to hand, are relatively close — between 80 and 130 km away; these sources, however, are over 400 km from Alalakh. The sources in southeastern Anatolia are even further away from both areas, being over 550 km to the east.69 Despite the distance, obsidian was acquired in considerable quantities. Two or three tons are estimated to have been stored in the Anitta temple complex at Kültepe70 and “plenty” in the Level VII Palace at Alalakh.71 At Kültepe, the obsidian is described as being of good quality and translucent grey in colour, with some that is matt or opaque grey, perlitic and perhaps not of such good quality, though we may note the handle found in the lower town (karum) which has a perlite inclusion in the centre of the forehead of the bull.72 Geochemical analysis of a single nodule indicates that it was obtained from the Kayırlı outcrop on Göllüdağ, in Central Anatolia.73 At Alalakh, Woolley described the two sorts of obsidian, both translucent and of good quality, one dark bottle-green and the other black.74 Green-coloured obsidian correlates closely with the peralkaline variety that is only found in southeastern Anatolia (Nemrut Daǧ and Bingöl A), and it is not impossible that the black obsidian came from this area too. An eastern attribution can also be supported by some obsidian artefacts in non-palatial contexts at Alalakh, which have been geochemically sourced to Nemrut Daǧ and Bingöl.75 The obsidian used for the vases at Uruk and Tell Malyan was also from Nemrut Daǧ and for Malyan also from Meydan Daǧ, a source east of Nemrut Daǧ; in the case of Uruk, obsidian came from Satanankar in the Transcaucasus.76 The obsidian seems to have been acquired in different forms, which may indicate different sources or suppliers, or that the distribution from the sources was managed differently. At Kültepe, the obsidian in the store was in the form of nodules. A recent study has determined that they comprised 494 blocks totalling almost 900 kg (the largest weighing  Gimènez et al. 2015.  Woolley 1955a, pp. 110, 292–296. 69  Distances are straight-line distances measured on Google Earth. 70  Özgüç 1986, p. 51, pl. 97; 1999, pp. 123–124, pl. 63.I. 71  Woolley 1955a, p. 293. 72  Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010–2011, no. 198. It seems that the obsidian was worked in such a way as to emphasise this inclusion. 73  Altınbilek-Algül and Balcı 2010, p. 12; Carter and Kilikoglou 2007. 74  Woolley 1955a, p. 293. 75  Frahm in Healey forthcoming a. pXRF analysis in 2018 confirmed that it was peralkaline, but it was not possible to provenance it. 76   Lindermeyer and Martin 1993, p. 194; Blackman 1984, p. 39. 67 68

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

89

20 kg), as well as smaller blocks and chips. The nodules were unworked except for the removal of a chip, perhaps deliberately made to check their quality.77 The quantity of obsidian at Kültepe is far greater than that known78 at any other site — there would have been enough obsidian for more than 500 vases. For Alalakh, Woolley does not indicate the quantity present, though he says “plenty”. It seems to have been acquired as pre-shaped rectangular blocks, although he also suggests that some raw nodules may have been present. The blocks of obsidian were shattered in the heat of the fire and none survive, but Woolley describes them as being rectangular with ground surfaces. The larger blocks measured 30 × 20 × 20 cm and the smaller ones about half that size or less.79 On the basis of size and comparison with other nodules, we estimate that the larger pieces might have weighed in the region of 15 to 20 kg each, and so are broadly similar to those at Kültepe. We cannot know for certain whether the obsidian was stored purely for palace use or with a view to trading it on (Kültepe-Kaneš is of course an Old Assyrian Trade Colony). That the stores at both Alalakh and Kültepe-Kaneš are part of palace or temple complexes (the Level VII palace at Alalakh 80 and the Anitta temple at Kültepe81) and have adjacent workshops suggests that the obsidian was for palace consumption; a substantial quantity of raw material would in itself have been a display of elite wealth.82 It is interesting to note in passing that blocks of obsidian were found in the Cretan palace workshops too.83 Similarly, a text from Mari indicates that ruling groups stockpiled supplies of precious stone for their own use.84

VESSEL

WORKSHOPS

Information about workshops is tantalising because of its lack of detail. At Alalakh, Woolley only partially excavated the workshop, which apparently contained five vessels, four obsidian and one granite.85 It was in a sounding in the northwest corner of Courtyard 22 in the Level VII palace and identified as a workshop on the basis of the presence of unfinished vessels, though no debris was recovered or recorded. The evidence for potential tools is also somewhat ephemeral: Woolley mentioned a polished celt with a battered end (AT/48/96), perhaps used for chiselling away lumps, and a large, barrel-shaped granite weight (possibly a pounder?), along with lumps of red haematite which could perhaps have been used for marking out the shape or burnishing.86 The fact that the vessels are at different stages of 77

 Altınbilek-Algül and Balcı 2010, p. 12.  Balcı and Altınbilek-Algül, however, suggest that the nodules may have been intended for trade rather than vase manufacture. See n. 81. 79  Woolley 1955a, p. 293. 80  Woolley 1955a, p. 109. 81  Özgüç 1986, 1999. 82  But see Balcı and Altınbilek-Algül 2017, p. 20. 83  Carter et al. 2016. 84  Michel 1992, p. 127, B2. 85  Woolley 1955a, pp. 109–110, 293; see also Sparks 2001. 86  Woolley 1955a, pp. 109–110, 294. 78

90

E. HEALEY

manufacture is helpful, not only for reconstructing manufacturing sequences, but also for evaluating the knowledge and knowhow required for each stage of production and thus for postulating the presence of skilled craftworkers and apprentices.87 At Kültepe-Kaneš, no actual workshop has been identified, but the “bar” of obsidian (Kt. ș/K49 Inv. no. 177-3-74), possibly a core from a tubular drill, was found on the mound and may indicate a workshop there.88 Unfinished vessels were found in the lower town (karum), where both craft workshops and houses and many unfinished objects of stone, metal and other materials are present.89 The obsidian vessels include a rhyton (no. 197), an elaborate handle in the shape of a bull (no. 198) and a cup (no. 199), obviously broken in manufacture, which had been thrown into the street.90 Although these smaller workshops may have been under the control of the palace or temple, they are less centralised than those on the mound or at Alalakh.

MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES The bars or drill cores lead us to infer that tubular drills were employed at Kültepe, at least for the finer vases; this is corroborated by a limestone vessel (Kt.e/t 188), which was described as a mould but in fact appears from the photograph to be a dish, hollowed out using a series of tubular drill holes.91 The broken cup (no. 199), however, seems to have been made differently. First, after selection of an appropriate nodule and its preparation with parallel upper and lower surfaces, it was pecked or hammer dressed into shape. A concave area was prepared by grinding on the upper surface to facilitate the hollowing out of the centre, which could have been achieved with a solid drill; this would have been opened out below the shoulder with a crescentic or figure-of-eight pebble.92 The hollowingout process is often seen as a risky procedure and probably required the work of a specialist.93 Once the vessel had been hollowed out, the outside would then have been ground smooth and finally polished; as this is considered to be a less skilled activity, it may perhaps have been done by an apprentice or non-skilled craftsman. At Alalakh, on the other hand, Woolley suggested that the obsidian bowls were hollowed out before the outside was shaped.94 Even so, one bowl (AT/48/99) is extremely roughly finished on the outside (Fig. 4). Woolley’s proposed sequence of manufacture is in contrast both to the Kültepe cup (no. 1999) described above and to a granite dish found in the 87  Compare the reconstruction by Apel (2006, pp. 211–218) of the degrees of theoretical knowledge and practical knowhow associated with the manufacture of late Neolithic flint daggers in Scandinavia. 88  Özgüç 1986, p. 51, pl. 97, 7. 89  Kulakoǧlu 2011, p. 1021. 90  Fikri Kulakoğlu, personal communication. 91  Özgüç 1999, p. 126, pl. 106 no. 3. This is not unlike a limestone vessel from Alalakh in Level II (Woolley 1955a, p. 191, fig. 66). This technique is sometimes described as “honeycombing” and is also found in third millennium BC Egypt and in Minoan Crete (Morero 2015, p. 131). 92  Morero 2013, p. 79. 93  Note that at Kulaksizlar, 20 per cent of the vessels were broken at the shaping stage (Takaoğlu 2005, p. 15). 94  Woolley 1955a, p. 293.

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

91

workshop at Alalakh (AT/38/105), which had been shaped and smoothed but not hollowed out. The different order may have been because obsidian would be more likely to fracture during drilling than granite, so the more risky, skilled and time-intensive procedures were carried out first.95 The four obsidian vessels in the workshop at Alalakh are at different stages of manufacture.96 The pyxis (AT/48/98) Woolley describes as “fully formed and polished,”97 and there is no obvious reason as to why it was still in the workshop. The tripod mortar (AT/48/100) (Fig. 3), on the other hand, is waiting to be given its final treatment. It is fully shaped and the interior ground smooth, but unpolished. The outer side of the tripod legs are also smooth (though striations running the length of the legs are still visible, suggesting that it was awaiting finer grinding and a polish); the outside of the bowl has been shaped by pecking and was probably awaiting the next stage of grinding prior to polishing. Experimental work and tribological analysis elsewhere indicate that this grinding is likely to have involved the use of progressively finer abrasives; once smoothed, a high polish could then be achieved by rubbing the surface with vegetal matter or leather and perhaps oil or wax.98 However, it is possible that the bowl’s outside, at least, was never intended to be ground smooth or highly polished: pecked surfaces on mirrors from Domuztepe99 and from Tell Kabri,100 for example, seem to have been deliberately left that way, perhaps for decorative effect. The other two bowls allow us to observe the hollowing-out process. Beyond Woolley’s illustration and description,101 there is little information for the leaf-shaped bowl (AT/48/101). As far as can be determined from his photograph, it seems to have been shaped by flaking and then hollowed out by drilling a series of small holes. Woolley claims this was done using a solid drill 13 mm in diameter. The bits in between would then have been chiselled out and the interior regularised by pecking and grinding before being finally polished. A similar practice can be seen in an undated bowl reportedly from Mesopotamia now in the Metropolitan Museum, New York.102 The way in which bowl AT/48/99 (Fig. 4) (now broken) was made is very different. The conjectural sequence of manufacture can be best described in stages (Fig. 7) and involved the use of a series of tubular drills of different diameters.103 The drill was likely worked in what Denys Stocks describes as a twist-reverse-twist action,104 rather than a fully rotational one as described by Elise Morero,105 since this is deemed to be more efficient;

 95

 Sparks 2001, p. 93.  Two of the vessels are on display in the Hatay Archaeology Museum. The descriptions given here are made from direct observations by me and high-resolution photographs taken by Murat Akar. The other two vessels have not been seen by the author.  97  Woolley 1955a, p. 294.  98  Morero 2015, p. 128.  99  Healey 2013, pp. 259–260. 100  Prausnitz 1969. 101  Woolley 1955a, p. 293. 102  Metropolitan Museum of Art Accession Number: 1979.23. 103  Not a solid drill as suggested by Sparks 2001, p. 94–95. Woolley (1955a, p. 293) also implies the use of a solid drill by saying that the inside had been ground out and the stone broken away between the holes. 104  Stocks 2003, pp. 149ff. For a reconstruction see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i92ORg0ItVk. 105  Morero 2015.  96

E. HEALEY

92

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of AT/48/99 showing conjectural sequence of drill cuts. ©Elizabeth Healey.

the cutting action would have been aided by the use of sand as an abrasive,106 striations from which can be seen in some of the cuts. Once a suitably sized block of obsidian had been selected, the preliminary shaping of the bowl (AT/48/99) could be carried out (Fig. 7a). The smoothed surface on the blocks mentioned by Woolley seems to have been utilised without further modification to form the base and the upper surface ground flat to ensure that it was parallel to it.107 The sides were prepared either from a natural surface or were rudimentarily shaped by the removal of flakes and by some pecking (Fig. 4b) to create a roughly hemispherical shape. At about this stage, it is likely that the centre of the block would have been determined and an initial cut made using a large tubular drill (estimated to have been about 17 cm in diameter) to define the shape of the upper part and the outer edge of the cut likely chiselled away. The next main stage (Fig. 7b-d) involved a number of concentric cuts; the first was probably midway between the centre and the outer edge; then a small-diameter drill cut was started near the edge, presumably to facilitate hollowing out, but abandoned early on. The rim seems the 106

 Stocks 2003.  Although Sparks (2001, p. 94) suggests that this could have been the pre-ground surface of the block, the grinding is much finer than that on the base. 107

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

93

next thing to have been defined, and this was followed by another small diameter drill cut; although deeper than the first, this was not taken advantage of until later (Fig. 7e). Two more cuts were made between the central cut (Fig. 7f) and the rim, and after this, some chipping suggests that some attempt was made to chisel out the material nearer the second small drill cut. A last drill cut was made between the centre cut and the centre of the bowl (Fig. 7g). Finally, this inner area was peppered with smaller cuts to facilitate the hollowing out, either with a sharp tap or more likely using wedges.108 Scars from the chisels can still be seen on some of the drill marks. This enabled the centre to be opened out (Fig. 7h). Unfortunately, at this point the bowl seems to have broken across one of the smaller drill holes. This bowl is clearly of local manufacture, though it may have been made by a foreign worker. It seems to be the earliest recognised use of the tubular drill in the region: Woolley suggested that the tubular drill was not employed at Alalakh until later.109 In fact, up to now the use of the tubular drill was thought to have bypassed the Levant and Anatolia,110 its use being documented only in imported vessels.111 It is, though, well known from Mesopotamia,112 in Old Kingdom Egypt, where it was used to drill sarcophagi,113 and in Crete.114 Two different mechanisms can also be documented, using a foret à archet (typically in Egypt and in Crete) or foret à volant method (identified in Crete).115 It is considered to be an efficient way of working hard rocks and one that is easy to learn.116

THE

FUNCTION OF THE

OBSIDIAN VESSELS

The contexts and varied shapes of vessels suggest that they did not have a single purpose, although all seem to be associated with palatial societies in some way. In Mesopotamia, stone vessels were associated with ritual,117 either as libation vessels (as at Uruk) or as burial goods or dedications to the gods (in Ur). The unguentaria from Byblos and Qatna would almost certainly have held perfumed oils and, like the ones found in Egypt, are associated with burial preparation, as the pyxides found in burials might be.118 On the other hand, the skilfully executed ‘showy’ vessels, including the bibru, are more likely to indicate conspicuous consumption through drinking and feasting.119 The flatter, more open, mortar-like

108

 Stocks 2003, pp. 159–163, but see also Morero 2015, p. 133.  Woolley 1955a, p. 295. 110  Morero 2011, p. 209, maps 1, 2 and 3; although see Özten 1988, p. 405f. 111  Morero 2011. 112  Tobler 1950, p. 204, pl. XCVIIa, 2; Woolley 1955a, p. 14; Moorey 1994. 113  Petrie 1884, p. 93; Stocks 2003, pp. 172–173. It seems, however, that drills of much smaller diameter were used. See also Vargiolu et al. 2007, p. 48. 114  Morero 2011, maps 1–3, pp. 215–216; Morero and Prévalet 2015, p. 72. See also Warren 1978 for the use of tubular drills in Crete. 115  Morero 2011, 2015; Warren 1978, fig. 4. 116  Morero and Prévalet 2015, p. 78. 117  Postgate 1997, p. 210. 118  Cf. Bevan 2007, p. 101. 119  Kulakoǧlu 2011, pp. 1022–1023. 109

E. HEALEY

94

bowls seem to belong to a different genre and may have been platters or used for grinding up reasonably soft substances, such as pigment or cosmetics, rather than materials requiring the usual pounding associated with mortars, because obsidian would probably shatter if put to such a use.

THE

VALUE ATTRIBUTED TO

OBSIDIAN

The prestige and value of the obsidian vessels described here is confirmed in a number of different ways. First of all, the choice of an exotic material such as obsidian seems to have been deliberate and its origins likely meaningful.120 As a hard stone, it would have required a different skill set121 to work it than the softer local stones, which could be carved, and this would have drawn attention to its origins.122 Value is suggested by the fact that both the stores and workshops are in palace or temple complexes and so of limited access; and we have already noted that stone cutters were under palace patronage, so the vessels are also found in palaces and associated with conspicuous consumption.123 A particularly striking example of the value attributed to such vessels can be seen in the way a broken vessel from Acemhöyük was repaired (Fig. 8). The broken sherds were collected together and matched, then perforated with small neat holes only 2 mm in diameter; these were regularly spaced at off-set intervals on either side of the break (suggesting that the break was temporarily held together with some sort of adhesive). The two fragments were then stitched together, using gold ribbon 1.3 mm wide, to form a regular decorative zig-zag pattern.124 Thus attention was drawn to the repair, perhaps to re-purpose the vessel, much in the manner of Japanese art of kintsugi.125 Whether this was a particularly treasured possession or whether the risk and cost of repair outweighed the cost of acquisition of obsidian and manufacture of a new vessel, we cannot know, though given the amount of obsidian in the stores, it seems unlikely that the motive was a shortage of raw material. The destruction of the palaces at Acemhöyük, Kültepe and Alalakh seems to mark the end of the ostentatious use of obsidian for vessel manufacture, although it does continue in use as a tool stone in a low-key way;126 this abrupt decline is perhaps somewhat surprising, since the written records suggest that obsidian was still significant as a material.127 We can point only to a single small vase (no. 254) dated to the Neo-Assyrian period, found in a courtyard of Residence K, Room 576 at Khorsabad.128 Obsidian continued to be used for

 Cf. Carter et al. 2016.  This skill-set was already present in Neolithic societies (Healey 2007, 2013). 122  Bevan 2007, p. 168. 123  And this of course was the case in Crete, as usefully summarised by Carter et al. 2016. 124  Özten 1988, p. 399, fig. 19. Inv. nos. Ac. e/33 AMM69-20-67 and Ac. j/78 AMM. 136-1-72. 125  I am grateful to a member of the conference for drawing this to my attention. 126  Healey forthcoming a. 127  Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Vol 16, ṣurru A. 128  Loud and Altman 1938, p. 99, pl. 64. 120 121

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

95

Fig. 8. Vessel mended with gold ribbon from Acemhöyük; 18.5 cm in height. Museum of Anatolian Civilisations, Ankara. Photograph John Healey.

jewellery and inlays, some Lamastu plaques,129 and occasional cylinder seals,130 as well as fragments of statutes, apparently deliberately smashed, imported from Egypt in Late Bronze Age Hazor.131 Judging by auctioneers’ catalogues, it is still valued today: for example, an alabastron found in Lebanon sold at auction in 2011 for $182,500.132

129

 For example, Metropolitan Museum of Art Accession number 1984.348. See also Californian Museum of Ancient Art in An Exhibition of Ancient Mesopotamian Art: A Gathering of the Gods – the Power of Mesopotamian Religion and others. 130  Collon 1987. It is of course possible that some of these seals were made from the cores from tubular drilling (cf. Porada 1977). 131  Connor et al. 2017, p. 574. 132  Christie’s Sale 2400 (Antiquities, 7 December 2011 Christie’s Special Exhibition Gallery) Lot 30.

E. HEALEY

96 IN

CONCLUSION

In this chapter I have tried to disentangle the origins and affinities of the techniques, styles and raw materials associated with obsidian-working in the northern Levant and Central Anatolia in the Middle Bronze Age. It is always risky to single out a raw material or a solitary type for discussion outside its wider context, although I hope that I have been able to demonstrate, without de-contextualising it, that the way obsidian was understood, acquired and used by contemporary society meant that it stood out from other stone, even then. Obsidian, along with other stone, seems to have had a shared, and perhaps universal, value as a prestigious material used to make highly crafted vessels destined for use in ritual drinking and feasting contexts, as well as royal burial contexts. Each community, however, worked and used it in subtly (and sometimes less subtly) different ways, mixing exotic and local traditions, and not always how one might expect given the evidence of other materials. Some of the more tangible differences can be summarised as follows: a. The acquisition and storage of obsidian from different sources shows that those who acquired the obsidian had both knowledge of the geographic location of the sources and the ability to choose nodules of good quality. We do not know whether the obsidian was part of a routine trade network, given that Acemhöyük and Kültepe were Assyrian Trade Colonies, or whether it was separately and purposefully acquired, but it does seem to have been under royal patronage. The use of different sources at Kültepe and Alalakh may also demonstrate different allegiances, although more provenance analysis remains to be undertaken. b. The repertoire of vessel forms, and probably the purpose of the vessels, is different in the Central Anatolian palaces from the palace at Alalakh. The drinking vessels from the palaces on the plateau are much more reminiscent of earlier vessels from Mesopotamia, albeit from a temple context; this is perhaps not so surprising when we remember that Kültepe was an Assyrian Trade Colony. The connections between Alalakh and Kültepe suggested by other materials such as ceramics133 and the ivories discussed by Aslihan Yener134 do not seem to be so clear in the case of obsidian. c. Different shapes, of course, may need different knowledge and techniques to actualise them, and so this may account to some extent for the different manufacturing techniques used on the central plateau compared to those at Alalakh. If our assumption of the use of tubular drills at Alalakh and Kültepe is correct, it is quite likely that it is due to Egyptian and/or Mediterranean influence. d. Obsidian seems to have had a ‘universal’ value too. The vessels of Egyptian origin found at Byblos and Qatna show not only close connections between Egypt and the Levant, but also that this understanding and appreciation of obsidian was not confined to the Levant and Anatolia. So, too, it was also made into vases in Minoan palace workshops.135 133

 Kulakoǧlu 2011, pp. 1022–1023.  Yener 2007. 135  Carter et al. 2016. 134

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

97

On a broad level, obsidian encapsulates the complexities and subtleties of connections between Central Anatolia and the Levant on the one hand and the Egyptian and Mediterranean world on the other. It signifies status, identity and social distinction and involves local and international elements. We will only be able to disentangle these matters through more detailed studies of provenance, technologies and context.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AGHA-ALIGOL, D., LAMEHI-RACHTI, M., OLIAIY, P., SHOKOUHI, F., FARMAHINI FARAHANI, M., MORADI, M. and FARSHI JALALI, F. 2015 “Characterization of Iranian obsidian artifacts by PIXE and multivariate statistical analysis,” Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 30: 261–270. AHRENS, A. “Objects from afar – the distribution of Egyptian imports in the Northern 2015 Levant: Parameters for ascertaining the character of diplomatic contacts between Egypt and the Levant during the Bronze Age?” in Policies of Exchange: Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Proceedings of the International Symposium at the University of Freiburg Institute for Archaeological Studies 30th May-2nd June 2012, edited by B. Eder and R. Pruzsinszky, pp. 141–156. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. APEL, J. 2006 “Skill and experimental archaeology,” in Skilled Production and Social Reproduction (Stone Studies 2), edited by J. Apel and K. Knutsson, pp. 207–218. Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis. ALTINBILEK-ALGÜL, C. and BALCI, S. 2010 “Obsidiyen ticaretinin merkezi olarak Kültepe,” Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler. Sayı 30 (Mayis 2010): 11–13. ARSEBÜK, G. 1983 “Some aspects of a prehistoric village,” in Beitrage zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, edited by R. M. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann, pp. 51–57. Mainz: von Zabern. AUFRÈRE, S. 1991 L’Univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne. L’Influence du désert et des minéraux sur la mentalité des anciens Égyptiens. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale. BALCI, S. and ALTINBILEK-ALGÜL, C. 2017 “Polished obsidian objects: examples of prestige items from Kültepe,” Colloquium Anatolicum 16: 15–29. BEVAN, A. 2007 Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BLACK, J. A., CUNNINGHAM, G., EBELING, J., FLÜCKIGER-HAWKER, E., ROBSON, E., TAYLOR, J. and ZÓLYOMI, G. 2004/2006 The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/), Oxford 1998–2006. Accessed 2nd September 2017. BLACKMAN, M. J. 1984 “Provenance studies of Middle Eastern obsidian from sites in highland Iran,” Advances in Chemistry Series 205 (Archaeological Chemistry III): 19–50. BOEHMER, R. M. 1972 Die Kleinfunde von Boǧazköy: aus den Grabungskampagnen 1931–1939 und 1952–1969. Berlin: Mann.

98

E. HEALEY

BRAIDWOOD, R. and BRAIDWOOD, L. 1960 Excavations in the Plains of Antioch I. The Earlier Assemblages A-J. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. CARTER, T. and KILIKOGLOU, V. 2007 “From reactor to royality? Aegean and Anatolian obsidians from Quatier Mu, Malia (Crete),” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20: 115–143. CARTER, T., CONTRERAS, D. A., CAMPEAU, K. and FREUND, K. 2016 “Spherulites and aspiring elites: The identificiation, distribution and consumption of Giali obsidian (Dodecanese, Greece),” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 29: 3–36. CAUVIN, M.-C., GOURGAUD, A., GRATUZE, B., ARNAUD, N., POUPEAU, G., POIDEVIN, J.-L. and CHATAIGNER, C., eds. 1998 L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient: Du volcan à l’outil (British Archaeological Reports International Series 738). Oxford: Archaeopress. CHICAGO ASSYRIAN DICTIONARY / The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 16, ṣurru A. pp. 257–259. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. COPELAND, L. 1996 “The flint and obsidian industries,” in Tell Sabi Abyad, The Late Neolithic Settlement: Report on The Excavations of the University of Amsterdam (1988) and the National Museum of Antiquities Leiden (1991-1993) in Syria, edited by P. M. M. G. Akkermans, pp. 285–338. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. CONNOR, S., LABOURY, D., MARÉE, M., BEN-TOR, D., MARTIN, M., BEN-TOR, A. and SANDHAUS, D. 2017 “Egyptian objects,” in Hazor VII. The 1990-2012 Excavations: The Bronze Age, edited by A. Ben-Tor, S. Zuckerman, S. Bechar and D. Sandhaus, pp. 547–603. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. COLLON, D. 1987 First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum. EDENS, C. and YENER, K. A. 2000 “Excavations at Tell Kurdu, 1996 and 1998,” in “The Amuq Valley Regional Project 1995-1998,” in Yener, K. A., Edens, C., Harrison, T. P., Verstraete, J. and Wilkinson, T. J. “The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995–1998,” American Journal of Archaeology 104: 198–220. FRAHM, E. 2010 The Bronze-Age Obsidian Industry at Tell Mozan (Ancient Urkesh), Syria: Redeveloping Electron Microprobe Analysis for 21st-Century Sourcing Research and the Implications for Obsidian Use and Exchange in Northern Mesopotamia after the Neolithic. Unpublished PhD diss. University of Minnesota. FRAHM, E. and FEINBERG, J. M. 2013 “Empires and resources: Central Anatolian obsidian at Urkesh (Tell Mozan, Syria) during the Akkadian Period,” Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 1122–1135. GADD, C. J. and LEGRAIN, L. 1928 Ur Excavations Texts I. Royal Inscriptions. London: British Museum. GIMÈNEZ, J., SÁNCHEZ, J. A. and SOLANO, L. 2015 “Identifying the Ethiopian origin of the obsidian found in Upper Egypt (Naqada period) and the most likely exchange routes,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 101: 349–359. HALL, H. R. and WOOLLEY, C. L. 1927 Al-῾Ubaid: A Report on the Work Carried out at Al-῾Ubaid for the British Museum in 1919 and for the Joint Expedition in 1922–3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. HEALEY, E. 2007 “Obsidian as an indicator of inter-regional contacts and exchange: Three case-studies from the Halaf period,” Anatolian Studies 57: 171–189. 2013 “Exotic, aesthetic and powerful? The non-tool use of obsidian in the later Neolithic of the Near East,” in Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, edited by

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

99

O. P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P. M. M. G. Akkermans and J. Rogash, pp. 251–266. Turnhout: Brepols. 2014 “Interpreting obsidian use in the Near East: a personal perspective,” Bulletin of the International Association for Obsidian Studies 51: 6–30. Forthcoming a “Tell Atchana lithics from LB II contexts with a report on the geological origin of the obsidian by Ellery Frahm,” in Tell Atchana, Alalakh, The 20062010 Seasons. Volume 2: The Late Bronze Age II City, edited by K. A. Yener, M. Akar, and M. T. Horowitz. Istanbul: Koç Üniversity Press. Forthcoming b “The lithic artifacts from the Ubaid period contexts at Kenan Tepe,” in The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project: The Ubaid Period at Kenan Tepe, edited by B. J. Parker. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. HELMS, M. 1988 Ulysses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge and Geographical Distance. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal. Austin: University of Texas Press. JIDEJIAN, N. Byblos Through the Ages. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq Publishers; distribution Librairie 1968 Orientale. KHALIDI, L. 2014 “Fifth-millennium BC obsidian production and consumption in area TW, Tell Brak,” in Preludes to Urbanism, the Late Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia, edited by A. McMahon and H. Crawford, pp. 69–78. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. KULAKOĞLU, F. 2011 “Kültepe-Kaneš: A second millennium B.C.E. trading centre on the central plateau,” in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia 10,000-323 B.C.E, edited by S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon, pp. 1012–1030. Oxford: Oxford University Press. KULAKOĞLU, F. and KANGAL, S. 2010-2011 Anatolia’s Prologue. Kultepe Kanesh Karum. Assyrians in Istanbul. Kayseri: Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality Cultural Publications. LINDERMEYER, E. and MARTIN, L. 1993 Uruk: Kleinfunde III: Kleinfunde im Vorderasiatischen Museum zu Berlin: Steingefässe und Asphalt, Farbreste, Fritte, Glas, Holz, Knochen/Elfenbein, Muschel/ Perlmutt/Schnecke (Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte, Bd. 9). Mainz: von Zabern. LODING, D. 1981 “Lapidaries in the Ur III Period,” Expedition 23.4: 6–14. LOUD, G. and ALTMAN, C. B. 1938 Khorsabad Part II: The Citadel and the Town. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. MALLOWAN, M. and ROSE, J. C. 1935 “Excavations at Tell Arpachiyah, 1933,” Iraq 2: 1–178. MCMAHON, A., OATES, J. and AL-QUNTAR, S. 2007 “Excavations at Tell Brak 2006-2007,” Iraq 69: 145–171. MERPERT, N. and MUNCHAEV, R. M. 1993 “Yarim Tepe III: The Halaf Levels,” in Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization. Soviet Excavations in Northern Iraq, edited by N. Yoffee and J. J. Clark, pp. 207–224. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. MICHEL, C. 1992 “Les ‘diamants’ du roi de Mari,” Florilegium marianum 1: 127–136. MONTET, P. 1923 «Nouvelles archéologiques», Syria 4: 334–344. 1928 Byblos et l’Egypte. Paris: Geuthner.

100

E. HEALEY

MOOREY, P. R. S. 1994 Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. MORERO, E. 2011 “Transferts techniques en Méditerranée Orientale. L’exemple de la fabrication des vases de pierre à l’age du Bronze,” Syria 88: 207–224. 2013 “Ruptures et continuités des techniques lapidaires protohistoriques en Mediterranée orientale. L’exemple de la production de vase de pierre en Crete minoenne,” in Transitions, ruptures et continuité en Préhistoire. XXVIIe congrès préhistorique de France – Bordeaux-Les Eyzies, 31 mai-5 juin 2010, edited by J. Jaubert, N. Fourment and P. Depaepe, pp. 75–86. Paris: Société Préhistorique Française. 2015 “Mycenaean lapidary craftsmanship: The manufacturing process of stone vases,” The Annual of the British School at Athens 110: 121–146. MORERO, E. and PRÉVALET, R. 2015 “Technological Transfer of Luxury Craftsmanship between Crete and the Orient during the Bronze Age,” in There and Back Again – the Crossroads II. Proceedings of an International Conference held in Prague, September 15-18, 2014, edited by J. Mynářová, P. Onderka and P. Pavúk, pp. 58–83. Prague: Charles University. NAVILLE, E. and CLERMONT-GANNEAU, Ch. 1922 “Le vase à parfum de Byblos,” Syria III.4: 291–297. OATES, J., MCMAHON, A., KARSGAARD, P., AL QUNTAR, S. and UR, J. 2007 “Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the north,” Antiquity 81: 585– 600. OATES, D. and OATES, J. 1994 “Tell Brak: A strategraphic summary, 1976-1993,” Iraq 56: 167–176. ÖZGÜÇ, T. 1986 Kultepe-Kaniṣ II. New Researches at the Trading Centre of the Ancient Near East. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kumuru Basimevı. 1999 The Palaces and Temples of Kültepe-Kaniš/Neša. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. ÖZTEN, A. 1988 “Acemhöyük taș kapları,” Turk Tarih Kurumu Belleten LII: 393–406. PARKER, B. and DODD, L. 2005 “The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): A preliminary report form the 2002 field season,” Anatolica 31: 69–110. PERKINS, A. L. 1949 The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. PETRIE, W. M. F. 1884 “On the mechanical methods of the ancient Egyptians,” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 13: 88–109. 1934 Ancient Gaza IV. Tell el Ajjul. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. PETRIE, W. M. F., MACKAY, E. J. H and MURRAY, M. A. 1952 City of Shepherd Kings. Ancient Gaza V. London: Quaritch. PFÄLZNER, P., DOHMANN-PFALZNER, H., WITZEL, C., FLOHR, S., DEGENHARDT, S. and AHRENS, A. 2011 “Die Gruft VII: Eine neu entdeckte Grabanlage unter dem Königspalast von Qatna,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 143: 63–140. PORADA, E. 1977 “Of professional seal cutters and nonprofessionally made seals,” in Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 6), edited by McG. Gibson and R. D. Biggs, pp. 7–14. Malibu: Undena Publications. POSTGATE, J. N. 1997 “Mesopotamian petrology: Stages in the classification of the material world,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7: 205–224. POTTS, T. F. 1989 “Foreign stone vessels of the late third millennium B.C. from Southern Mesopotamia: Their origins and mechanisms of exchange,” Iraq 51: 123–164.

THE OSTENTATIOUS USE OF OBSIDIAN

101

PRAUSNITZ, M. W. 1969 “The excavations at Kabri,” Eretz Israel 9: 122–129. RENFREW, C., DIXON, J. E. and CANN, J. R. 1966 “Obsidian and early cultural contact in the Near East,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32: 30–72. SAFAR, F., MUSTAFA, M. A. and LLOYD, S. 1981 Eridu. Baghdad: Ministry of Culture and Information. State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage. SCHECHTER, H., MARDER, O., BARKAI, R., GETZOV, N. and GOPHER, A. 2013 “The obsidian assemblage from Neolithic Hagoshrim, Israel: Pressure technology and cultural influence,” in Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East, edited by F. Borrell, J. J. Ibañez and M. Molist, pp. 509– 528. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. SOLLBERGER, E. 1965 Royal Inscriptions. Ur Excavations Texts VIII Vol 2. (Publications of the Joint Expedition of the British Museum and of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to Mesopotamia). London: The Trustees of the British Museum and of the University Museum of Pensylvania. SPARKS, R. T. 2001 “Stone vessel workshops in the Levant: Luxury products of a cosmopolitan age,” in The Social Context of Technological Change. Proceedings of a Conference held at St Edmund Hall, Oxford 12-14 September 2000, edited by A. J. Shortland, pp. 93–112. Oxford: Oxbow. 2007 Stone Vessels in the Levant. Leeds: Maney. STEIN, G. J. 2010 “Tell Zeidan 2009 excavations and laboratory work,” 2009-2010 Annual Report of the Oriental Institute Chicago: 105–118. STOCK, H. 1963 “Der Hyksos Chian in Bogazkoy,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 94: 74–80. STOCKS, D. 2003 Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology, Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge. TAKAOĞLU, T. 2005 A Chalcolithic Marble Workshop at Kulaksizlar in Western Anatolia: An Analysis of Production and Craft Specialization (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1358). Oxford: Archaeopress. TOBLER, A. J. 1950 Excavations at Tepe Gawra II Levels IX–XX. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. VARGIOLU, R., MORERO, E., BOLETI, A., PROCOPIOU, H., PAILLER-MATTEI, C. and ZAHOUANI, H. 2007 “Effects of abrasion during stone vase drilling in Bronze Age Crete,” Wear 263: 48–56. VIROLLEAUD, C. 1922 “Découverte à Byblos d’un hypogée de la douzième dynastie égyptienne,” Syria 3: 273–290. WARREN, P. M. 1978 “The unfinished red marble jar at Akrotiri, Thera,” in Thera and the Aegean World 1, Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978, pp. 555–568. London: Thera and the Aegean World. WATKINS, T. 2008 “Supra-regional networks in the Neolithic of Southwest Asia,” Journal of World Prehistory 21: 139–171. WATSON, P. J. 1983 “The soundings at Banahilk,” in Prehistoric Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks, edited by L. Braidwood, R. Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed and P. J. Watson, pp. 545– 613. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

102

E. HEALEY

WOOLLEY, L. 1934 Ur Excavations II. The Royal Cemetery. A Report on the Predynastic and Sargonic Graves Excavated between 1926 and 1931 (Joint Expedition of the British Museum and of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to Mesopotamia). New York: British Museum. 1955a Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay 1937–1949 (Reports of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). London: Society of Antiquaries. 1955b Ur Excavations, Volume IV, The Early Periods. A Report on the Sites and Objects Prior in Date to the Third Dynasty of Ur Discovered in the Course of the Excavations (Joint Expedition of the British Museum and of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to Mesopotamia). Philadelphia: Published for the Trustees of the two Museums by the aid of a grant from the Johnson Fund. YENER, K. A. 2007 “The Anatolian Middle Bronze Age kingdoms and Alalakh: Mukish, Kanesh and trade,” Anatolian Studies 57: 151–160. ZARINS, J. 1989 “Ancient Egypt and the Red Sea trade: the case for obsidian in the Predynastic and Archaic periods,” in Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor, edited by A. J. Leonard and B. Williams, pp. 339–368. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Elizabeth HEALEY University of Manchester [email protected]

A GLASS PRODUCTION CENTRE IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA? BÜKLÜKALE IN RELATION TO ALALAKH AND MESOPOTAMIA Kimiyoshi MATSUMURA ABSTRACT Alalakh is one of the most important sites of glass finds in the second millennium BC of the Near East, and one of the oldest glass bottles was found there. Despite its significance, however, Alalakh was thought to be situated at the edge of the distribution area of glass in this period. A new find of a glass bottle from Büklükale in Central Anatolia changes this situation. This bottle has some striking characteristics, such as its size, its production technique and its white colour. Moreover, its date makes it one of the oldest glass bottles in the Near East. Such peculiarities suggest an unknown glass workshop, possibly somewhere in Central Anatolia. Alalakh is now situated in the middle of the distribution of glass bottles. Together with the discovery of a possible glass workshop there, Alalakh should be regarded as one of the centres of glass production.

INTRODUCTION: ALALAKH AND ANCIENT GLASS It is well known that Tell Atchana, Alalakh, is one of the most important sites of glass finds in the second millennium BC of the Near East. In this period, glass bottles are known especially in northern Mesopotamia, for example, at Nuzi, Assur and Tel al Rimah. Hence, the centre of glass production is supposed to have been the Mitanni sphere.1 Glass materials are rarely found in archaeological sites in the third millennium BC, and it is only in the middle of the second millennium BC that large amounts of glass appear. Glass begins to appear regularly in Mesopotamia between 1600 and 1100 BC.2 In the 16th century BC there appear to have been some major changes in glass production. One was the introduction of new techniques, such as core-forming.3 However, very few sites in this area preserve levels of the correct date, leaving a difficult gap in our knowledge at a crucial time.4 The Oldest Glass In Egypt, the earliest glass vessels are from the reign of Tuthmosis III in the middle of the 15th century BC, so perhaps some 50 years later than in Mesopotamia.5 The earliest significant amounts of glass and glass vessels seem to have been found in Syro-Palestine, 1

 Barag 1962, p. 22.  Barag 1970, pp. 131–134; Moorey 1994, p. 192. 3  Barag 1962, p. 9; Moorey 1994, p. 204. 4  Moorey 1994, p. 194. 5  Shortland 2012, p. 57. 2

104

K. MATSUMURA

specifically at Tell Atchana. Here, a number of vessels are known that date to around 1500 BC.6 There is a fragment of the neck of a glass bottle showing dark-blue glass with white trailed decorations (BM 130094) from Level VI. Level VI is dated to at least the late 16th century BC and possibly earlier.7 It is well known that there are problems with the dating of the glass objects from Alalakh. One is the dating of Level VI, and another is the contamination of the material. The chronological problems at Alalakh are complex. There have been extensive studies on the chronological systems of Alalakh for the first half of the second millennium BC.8 The crucial point as far as glass vessels are concerned is the end of Level VI, where they make their first appearance. Even the lowest estimations date this level to no later than the end of the 16th or very beginning of the 15th century BC. Barag also pointed out that there are sherds of pottery and faience in Levels VI-V at Tell Atchana that are definitely later, dating to the Late Bronze Age. There remains the possibility that at least some of this glass dates to the 15th or 14th centuries BC instead.9 Alalakh as a Glass Production Centre Alalakh is the only site outside of Mesopotamia that has yielded a considerable number of Mesopotamian glass vessels of the second millennium BC. However, Woolley always regarded them as “imports of a more or less costly sort.”10 Shortland also noted that no sign of production of glass has been found at Tell Atchana or elsewhere in the Near East.11 However, by the 2004 season of the Alalakh excavations, from Local Phases 1a and 1b, which are dated to the Late Bronze Age in the 13th century BC, several pyrotechnological installations, including a two-storey kiln, were found in a craft quarter on the southeast slope of the mound. These installations were possibly for making faience or glass. Preliminary analyses of materials in the vicinity of the installations revealed that they may represent the product of silica encountering high temperatures.12 The result is very suggestive for the existence of a glass workshop at Alalakh. Summary: The Uniqueness of Alalakh Two points should be made concerning the glass objects from Alalakh: 1) a glass bottle fragment from Alalakh seems to be among the oldest yet found, dated to the latter half of the 16th century BC; 2) Alalakh was thought to have been the westernmost glass production centre of the Ancient Near East found to date.

 6

 Barag 1962, p. 19.  Barag 1970, n. 93; Moorey 1994, p. 193.  8  Gates 1981; Heinz 1992; van Soldt 2000; Bergoffen 2005; Novak 2007; Fink 2010.  9  Barag 1970, pp. 150, 188. 10  Woolley 1955, p. 369. 11  See Shortland 2012, p. 57. 12  Yener and Yazıcıoğulu 2010, p. 31; Dardeniz 2012, 2016.  7

A GLASS PRODUCTION CENTRE IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA?

105

These two facts raise the following question: why was the oldest glass bottle fragment found in Alalakh, which is situated at the western edge of the Mitannian sphere? Recent excavations at Büklükale in Central Anatolia might shed some light on this question, for at Büklükale, a fragment of a glass bottle was found that is dated to the first half of the 16th century BC, which is comparable with the earliest example from Alalakh, or even earlier.

BÜKLÜKALE Büklükale is situated on the western bank of the Kızılırmak river, opposite the modern village of Köprüköy, which lies on the Bâla-Kırşehir road (D260) in Karakeçili, Kırıkkale province, c. 100 km southeast of Ankara and about 50 km west of Kaman-Kalehöyük (Fig. 1). It existed as a city in the second millennium BC, strategically situated on the bank of the Kızılırmak river, at a well-known crossing point (Fig. 2). The city is approximately 500 m wide on the west–east axis and about 650 m from north to south. At the eastern centre of the city, there is a mound on a rocky hill which is about 30 m high and 300 × 200 m in area.

Fig. 1. Map of the location of Büklükale.

K. MATSUMURA

106

Fig. 2. Aerial photograph of Büklükale.

The location of Büklükale seems to have been important from a strategic perspective, because it is situated at the narrowest point of the Kızılırmak river and at one of the most important crossing points through the ages. There is a Seljuk bridge (Çeşniğir Köprüsü) of the 13th century AD and beside it the remains of a Roman bridge. Additionally, some holes are visible on the rocks along the shore that might have been used for constructing a bridge or some type of waterway-controlling mechanism in earlier times, possibly the second millennium BC. At Büklükale, the Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology carried out a preliminary survey in 1991, 2006 and 2008 under the directorship of Dr Sachihiro Omura, and since 2009 an excavation is ongoing under my directorship. Excavations at the highest point of the rocky hill were conducted to better understand the history of the site. Four cultural layers were identified, as follows: 1st Stratum: Ottoman period; 2nd Stratum: Hellenistic and Iron Age; 3rd Stratum; Late and Middle Bronze Age; and, 4th Stratum: Early Bronze Age. Aside from these occupational levels, we found a Byzantine coin and some pottery sherds from the Middle Iron Age (so-called Alişar IV painted pottery), and some Early Iron Age pottery sherds (so-called “Dark Age” bichrome pottery that matches the IId Stratum at Kaman-Kalehöyük). These pottery sherds indicate that Büklükale was also settled in the Early and Middle Iron Ages.13 As a result of these findings, we concluded that Büklükale was continuously occupied from the Early Bronze Age through the Ottoman periods. 13

 Matsumura 2011.

A GLASS PRODUCTION CENTRE IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA?

107

The Glass Bottle from Büklükale One of the most impressive architectural features so far is a cyclopean wall. The terrace wall is over 7 m high on the hillside, and so far, it has been traced over 50 m in length. There seem to be two phases for this wall, and it was destroyed by a conflagration at the end of its history. In the last burnt layer, parts of three burnt rooms were found. On the floor of room R14, between or under fist-sized stones that had fallen onto the floor, fragments of a glass bottle (BK100177) and one glass pendant (BK100182) were found in 2010 (Fig. 3a and b). The glass bottle found at Büklükale is pear-shaped, and its bottom part, which possibly originally had a pointed or knob-base, is missing. The original background colour of the glass is white opaque and the decoration consists of horizontal twists of black and white threads, with blue and yellow bands. In between the bands there are thread-draped festoons and dots, with blue and black dots and yellow blobs placed one after the other in alternation. The yellow blobs seem to be formed by covering a yellow thread with black glass. At the inflection point from neck to body, a herringbone thread is attached. It is composed of two twists, with black and white threads that are twisted in opposite directions. The pear-shaped glass bottle was popular in the second millennium BC of Mesopotamia, and motifs such as twists, herringbones, zigzags and blobs are characteristic ornaments for glass objects of this period in Mesopotamia. However, there are some peculialities of this glass bottle. Size of the Glass Bottle The glass bottle fragment from Büklükale is 146 mm high, the rim diameter is 47 mm, the body diameter is 102 mm, and its body thickness is 5 mm. Its original height is estimated at c. 240 to 250 mm. This size is extraordinarily large compared to the contemporary examples from Mesopotamia (Fig. 4). Why was such a large example found in Büklükale? We may discover the reason in its production technique. In the second millennium BC of Mesopotamia, glass bottles are thought to have been produced using the core-formed technique. So far as present evidence goes, core-forming was the earliest method for the manufacture of glass vessels.14 For this technique, a core of clay and dung was made first, and around this, the craftsman trailed the glass.15 According to this technique, the bottle was made all at one time, as one part; that is, the bottle was formed from the base to the rim in a single stroke. There is no description of the joining of parts, except for the knob-base and handles.16 However, the inside of the glass bottle from Büklükale bears production marks that imply a different production process (Fig. 5). Here, the neck and the body are joined using a glass rod. In this case, a herringbone twisted rod was used. It is interesting that the two parts are not directly joined, but are connected through the intermediary of the twisted rod. 14

 Barag 1970, p. 133.  See Goldstein 1979, figs. 1–4. 16  See Moorey 1994, p. 204. 15

108

K. MATSUMURA

Fig. 3a and b. Glass pendant and glass bottle from Büklükale.

A GLASS PRODUCTION CENTRE IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA?

Fig. 4. Diagram showing comparative sizes of glass bottles from Mesopotamia.

Fig. 5. Photograph showing the inside of the glass bottle from Büklükale.

109

110

K. MATSUMURA

It is as a result of the use of this joining technique that the Büklükale example was able to be made in such a large size. Was this technique peculiar to the area around Büklükale, and does it differentiate Büklükale from Mesopotamia? It should also be noted that the round glass pendant from Büklükale seems to be one of the largest glass pendants in the Near East of the second millennium BC. Its diameter is 10.4 cm. There are five complete and nine fragmentary pendants known from Nuzi, and their diameters are 6–9 cm for undecorated pendants and 5–6 cm for star pendants.17 White-Based Glass Another feature of the Büklükale sample is the use of opacified white glass as the base colour, on which various coloured glasses were used for decoration. For most of the glass bottles from the Near East of the second millennium BC, blue glass was used as a base colour, although in many cases the original colours are unknown because of fading. On the sample from Büklükale, such fading is recognizable; its original colour was dark blue, but a part of the same thread changed to yellowish white (Fig. 6). Also, the analysis suggested that the thread of yellow colour must once have been black.18 One characteristic of early glass is its blue colour, and it is supposed to have been produced to imitate precious stones; for example, lapis lazuli.19 Yellow, white and dark brown were used for thread decoration. Green is also mentioned in this connection, but it may have originally been blue or red-brown.20 In the second millennium BC, white glass is very rare in Mesopotamia. At Nuzi, no white glass bottles were reported.21 There is one opaque whitish glass example at Tell Brak, but several spots retain the blue colour;22 therefore, its original colour must have been blue. There is also one white opaque glass from Assur (Grave 133: Berlin, Staatliche Museen, VA 5939), but it preserves twists of blue and white threads at midbody.23 As regards this example, its colour also seems to have faded, since white thread was not generally used for decoration on white glass. Thus, it is difficult to find real white glass bottles in Mesopotamia. In contrast to Mesopotamia, some white-based glass bottles have been found in marginal areas like Alalakh and Central Anatolia. At Alalakh, only one sample was reported as white glass by Woolley.24 It is opaque white glass decorated with a bi-coloured festoon of yellow and “dark brownish black” and was found in Level V.25 The earliest find has a dark blue, translucent body with a white feather pattern decoration and was located in Level VI.26

17

 Barag 1970, p. 140.  Personal communication with Dr Tantarakan and Dr Nakai from the Tokyo Science University. 19  See Barag 1970, p. 172; Shortland 2012, p. 46; Henderson 2013, p. 202. 20  Barag 1970, pp. 136–137. 21  Starr 1939. Also, personal communication with Dr Adam Aja and Katherine Eremin in the Semetic Museum of Harvard University. 22  Barag 1970, p. 146, fig. 27. 23  Barag 1970, p. 144, fig. 22. 24  Woolley 1955, p. 301, no. 3, fig. 74b:3. 25  Barag 1970, p. 151, fig. 32. 26  Woolley 1955, p. 300, AT/39/225; Barag 1970, p. 151, fig. 31. 18

A GLASS PRODUCTION CENTRE IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA?

111

Fig. 6. Photograph showing fading of the colour of the glass.

Some fragments of glass bottles were found from the Late Bronze Age at Boğazköy, the capital of the Hittites, and their colour seems to be yellowish-white with yellowish and reddish decorations.27 And now one white glass bottle has been found at Büklükale. Why were such rare white glass bottles found in the marginal areas of Mesopotamia, like Alalakh and Central Anatolia? The Dating of the Glass Bottle More important than anything else is the dating of the glass bottle from Büklükale. The glass bottle was found on the floor of a room which came to an end with a conflagration associated with the cyclopean wall. One of the problems for the architecture of this period is the difficulty in dating, because the upper structures above the stone foundation have mostly been destroyed by later occupational activities. Therefore, in situ materials above the floor are uncommon. There was only one reconstructable pottery vessel found on the floor of the burnt layer, a buff-coloured deep bowl (BK100141: Fig. 7). At Boğazköy, this type of vessel was most common from the 16th to the 15th century BC, but it does not disappear afterwards.28

27

 Boehmer 1979, p. 175, Taf. LXIII, 1803.  Schoop 2011, p. 245, fig. 1-5.

28

112

K. MATSUMURA

From the burnt layer, a lot of charred wooden material has been exposed. In situ charcoal samples were collected on the floor, and some of them were dated by Dr Omori at the University of Tokyo. The results demonstrate that the burnt layer is dated to the first half of the 16th century BC. To verify the results obtained and understand the entire history of the cyclopean wall, C14 samples were collected from the 3 m of ash debris outside of it. The samples are stratigraphically ordered from newest to oldest, and the oldest sample was collected from the lowest ash layer in front of the lowest foundation stone of the cyclopean wall. As a result, the lowermost sample might provide us with a potential construction date for the cyclopean wall, and the uppermost sample may shed some light on the dating of the last burnt layer. The C14 samples were measured and analysed with Bayesian statistics by Dr Omori. The results were consistent with the former C14 date suggesting that the cyclopean wall was first constructed c. 2000 BC and abandoned around 1850 BC. After a break in occupation, the wall was reconstructed. Although the settlement was re-established c. 1800 BC using the cyclopean wall, it was destroyed again by fire about 1600 BC (Fig. 8). As supported by the C14 dating, there are two occupation phases of the Assyrian Trading Colony period at Büklükale, and each phase is almost comparable with Karum-Kaniş II and Ib, respectively. Furthermore, the dating results indicate that at Büklükale, occupation continued during the gap between the end of the Assyrian Trading Colony period and the beginning of the Hittite period. Future research will contribute to helping us better understand this unknown transitional period in the history of Central Anatolia. The glass bottle was found on the floor of the last burnt layer and is dated to c. 1600 BC. That means it is one of the oldest glass bottles found thus far. Therefore, the glass bottle from Büklükale has several peculiarities — its size, colour and date — and they imply that it was produced in a workshop that is different from those where known Mesopotamian glass bottles were made. Isotope Analysis To get a clear picture of the glass bottle from Büklükale, isotope analysis has been undertaken by Dr. Henderson and his team, and the preliminary results were presented at the Glass Workshop at Kaman in 2014.29 The values of the results of the isotope analysis were plotted, together with the results of glass bottles from Mesopotamia. The results imply that the Büklükale bottle was produced in a different workshop from the rest of the bottles from Mesopotamia. Furthermore, some glass objects from Kaman-Kalehöyük, situated c. 50 km east of Büklükale, in the second millennium BC show similar results to the glass bottle from Büklükale. This analysis implies not only that they were produced by the same workshop, but also that it might have been situated not far from these two sites. During the 2012 season, a fragment of a blue glass ingot was found at Büklükale from a Late Bronze Age 29

 JIAA Late Bronze Age Glass Workshop held at the Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology, Kaman, Kırşehir, Turkey, on 27–28 September 2014.

A GLASS PRODUCTION CENTRE IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA?

Fig. 7. Deep bowl from Büklükale.

Fig. 8. C14 dating of the phases of the cyclopean wall.

113

K. MATSUMURA

114

context, and it might be proof that glass products were at least made from an ingot there during that period. Further analysis is essential for greater clarification. Peltenburg pointed out that glass and metalworking are strongly related30 and Anatolia is well known to have been one of the centres of metal production. Recent excavations at Kaman-Kalehöyük show possible iron production as early as the third millennium BC.31 The technological background for the production of glass was already in place in Anatolia by the second millennium BC. We await more evidence for glass production in Central Anatolia.

ALALAKH FROM

A NEW PERSPECTIVE

According to the discovery of the glass bottle from Büklükale, together with those from Boğazköy, Alalakh is no longer situated at the edge of the distribution area of glass bottles. On the contrary, Alalakh is now situated in the middle of the glass production area. Recent excavations show the potential for glass production at Alalakh.32 Oppenheim already argued for the Upper Syrian origin of glass technology on philological grounds.33 Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that one of the oldest glass bottles was found there. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the production of glass bottles was developed at Alalakh or in its surrounding area.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AKANUMA, H. 2008 “The significance of Early Bronze Age iron objects from Kaman-Kalehöyük, Turkey,” Anatolian Archaeological Studies 17: 313–320. BARAG, D. 1962 “Mesopotamian glass vessels of the second millennium B.C.,” Journal of Glass Studies 4: 9–27. 1970 “Mesopotamian core-formed glass vessels (1500-500 B.C.),” in Glass and Glass Making in Ancient Mesopotamia, edited by A. von Saldern, A. L. Oppenheim, R. H. Brill and D. Barag, pp. 131–200. New York: The Corning Museum of Glass. BERGOFFEN, C. J. 2005 The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana), Vol. 5. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. BOEHMER, R. M. 1979 Die Kleinfunde aus der Unterstadt von Boğazköy. Berlin: Mann. DARDENIZ, G. 2012 “The investigation of a Late Bronze Age (14th century BC) domestic craft quarter: Pyrotechnology at Tell Atchana /ancient Alalakh.” Unpublished MA thesis. Koç University.

30

 Peltenburg 1987, p. 20–22.  Akanuma 2008, p. 313. 32  Dardeniz 2016, 2017. 33  Oppenheim 1973, p. 263. 31

A GLASS PRODUCTION CENTRE IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA?

2016 2017

FINK, A. S. 2010

115

“Vitreous material crafting in the second millennium BC: Glass, faience and frit production at Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh.” Unpublished PhD dissertation. Koç University. “Sharing technologies and workspaces for ceramic and vitrified material production at Tell Atchana-Alalakh,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology. A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. S. Gilbert, pp. 139–157. Leiden: Brill. Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana (Alalakh): Stratigraphy, Chronology, History (BAR International Series 2120). Oxford: Archaeopress.

GATES, M.-H. 1981 Alalakh Levels VI and V: A Chronological Reassessment (Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4/2). Malibu: Undena Publications. GOLDSTEIN, S. M. 1979 Pre-Roman and Early Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass. Corning, New York. HEINZ, M. 1992 Tell Atchana / Alalakh: Die Schichten VII–XVII (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 41). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker. HENDERSON, J. 2013 Ancient Glass: An Interdisciplinary Exploration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MATSUMURA, K. 2011 “Büklükale Kazısı 2009,” 32. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4: 411–420. MOOREY, P. R. S. 1994 Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. NOVAK, M. 2007 “Mittani empire and the question of absolute chronology: Some archaeological considerations,” in The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd Euro Conference, edited by M. Bietak and E. Czerny, pp. 389–401. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. OPPENHEIM, A. L. 1973 “Towards a history of glass in the ancient Near East,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93: 259–266. PELTENBURG, E. J. 1987 “Early faience: Recent studies, origins and relations with glass,” in Early Vitreous Materials (British Museum Occasional Papers 56), edited by M. Bimson and I. C. Freestone, pp. 5–29. London: British Museum Press. SCHOOP, U.-D. 2011 “Hittite pottery: A summary,” in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology (Colloquia Antiqua 2), edited by H. Genz and D. P. Mielke, pp. 241–273. Leuven: Peeters. SHORTLAND, A. J. 2012 Lapis Lazuli from the Kiln: Glass and Glassmaking in the Late Bronze Age. Leuven: Leuven University Press. STARR, R. F. 1939 Nuzi. Report on the Excavation at Yorgan Tepe near Kirkuk, Iraq, Conducted by Harvard University in Conjunction with the American Schools of Oriental Research and the University Museum of Philadelphia 1927-1931. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. VAN SOLDT, W. 2000 “Syrian Chronology in the Old and Early Middle Babylonian Periods,” Akkadica 119/120: 103–116.

116

K. MATSUMURA

WOOLLEY, C. L. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. London: Society of Antiquaries. YENER, K. A. and YAZCIOĞLU, G. B. 2010 “Excavation results,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh Vol. 1: The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–49. Istanbul: Koç University Press.

Kimiyoshi MATSUMURA Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology [email protected]

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES: PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE IN LATE BRONZE AGE ALALAKH Magda PIENIĄŻEK ABSTRACT This contribution discusses gemstone jewellery from Alalakh from both a local and a transregional perspective. Objects made of carnelian, agate, onyx, amber, and other materials were subjects of various kinds of exchange, demonstrating undoubtedly the presence of networks stretching between central Asia and the Baltic area. Most of the gemstones were known long before the second millennium BC, but their patterns of distribution show remarkable fluctuations in time and space. Furthermore, the data from Alalakh confirm that the exchange of raw materials and the local production of stone beads also played a very important role in the system of acquisition of these valuable objects in the eastern Mediterranean. In this paper, evidence connected with the manufacturing process of beads made of carnelian and other materials at Alalakh is presented for the first time. Finds such as pieces of raw material, chips, and semi-finished and broken beads illustrate various aspects of the chaîne opératoire and point to the conclusion that Tell Atchana was an important centre of ancient lapidary.

Whether the villager’s pendant or the queen’s diadem, jewellery played an important role in past societies. People of all social classes and ages invested great amounts of time and energy in creating and acquiring personal adornments. While the significance of such items is rather marginal in modern times, it was tremendously important in prehistory — as clearly evidenced by the repertoire of grave goods in most Bronze Age cemeteries. Jewellery made of semi-precious stones has received much less attention in previous research than one would expect. Archaeologists’ attitudes towards these objects feature an element of ambivalence: on the one hand, these finds are the first to be mentioned in preliminary reports or presented in museum showcases and exhibition catalogues, yet they are among the last items to undergo systematic evaluation. This is especially true in the case of the material from the first excavations at Alalakh, as Leonard Woolley expressed in a straightforward manner in the final publication: “Very many beads were found (…), but their historical value is less than might have been expected.”1 Although he had noticed that the beads were numerous, other aspects escaped his attention. One of them is the fact that Alalakh was clearly a major centre for the manufacture of jewellery.2 In this contribution, I will provide the first insights from a research project initiated in 2014 in cooperation with the Alalakh project.3 The study focuses on gemstone objects 1

 Woolley 1955, p. 268.  See below. 3  I would like to thank Prof. Aslıhan Yener for the opportunity to study this fascinating and beautiful material. Many thanks especially go to Mara Horowitz for all the information she provided and her patience in explaining the details concerning chronology, stratigraphy and other issues related to the archaeology of Alalakh. Gratitude is also expressed to Tara Ingman for sharing her MA Thesis (Ingman 2014) about the 2

118

M. PIENIĄŻEK

and gemstone raw materials that were found during the excavations by Aslıhan Yener and Leonard Woolley in various contexts dating to the second millennium BC.4 Beads and other kinds of jewellery are numerous and important, but, as mentioned above, underestimated in archaeological research. They were items of international trade and other methods of exchange; this is not only evidenced by the presence of imports, such as objects of foreign shape or made of exotic material, but also confirmed by the written sources. Texts from Mari (18th century BC), for example, addressed palace inventories and deliveries of jewellery, as well as raw materials, repairs and manufacture, royal gifts, dowries, and votive gifts.5 Inventory lists included information on spherical or cylindrical beads made of agate and lapis-lazuli.6 Among the raw materials, the most frequently mentioned were lapis-lazuli, carnelian, and banded agate, as well as pale green, whitish, and violetbluish stones whose names cannot be securely translated.7 Much later texts from Amarna (14th century BC) mention “lentils” made of lapis-lazuli, “pomegranates,” “dates” made of carnelian, and “eye-stone.”8 Some gemstones were inlaid in or capped with gold.9 The Amarna letters also give us valuable information on the social distribution of various kinds of jewellery. According to the list of jewellery belonging to the equipment of the princess of Mitanni and her entourage (altogether c. 300 persons), the majority of the male followers (servants) did not receive any jewellery, and the majority of female servants received a pair of pins and silver rings. Some received gold arm-rings or earrings. The most precious jewellery, including necklaces made of gemstones, belonged to the princess herself and only two or four of her court ladies. However, the number and weight of objects possessed by the king’s daughter was much higher.10 Late Bronze Age texts from Qatna (mainly various kinds of inventory lists) reveal a very differentiated repertoire of objects and materials.11 Most common was lapis-lazuli appearing in various shapes; carnelian was also represented. One of the stones mentioned in texts is most probably banded agate, and another may eventually be translated as amber. Beads were often capped or inlaid in gold.12 Unfortunately many names, among which are names of gemstones, have not been translated yet. mortuary practices at Alalakh with me, as well as to Murat Akar and other team members for their help and support during my stay at the dig-house in 2014 and 2015. I would also like to thank Carolyn Aslan for proofreading the English of this chapter. Finally, special acknowledgements must be given to J. M. Kenoyer and G. Ludvik, because much of my experience in working with gemstone objects was gained in the course of cooperation with these two specialists (Ludvik et al. 2014, 2015).  4  The project includes beads and pendants found since 2005. Objects from campaigns in 2003‒2004 are published elsewhere (Yener 2010; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010, pp. 265‒283).  5  Information related to jewellery coming from texts from Mari, Amarna and Qatna was recently extensively discussed by Elisa Roßberger (2015, pp. 273‒361).  6  Roßberger 2015, pp. 284‒286.  7  Roßberger 2015, p. 288.  8  Moran 1992, pp. 24‒25; Roßberger 2015, pp. 294, 298‒301. “Pomegranates” are most probably the same as pendants known in the literature under various names: “opium-poppy-shaped,” “pomegranate-shaped” or “vase-shaped,” and “lotus-seed-shaped” (Hughes-Brock 1999, p. 280; Philips 2012, p. 486; Pieniążek 2016, 58). They were very popular in Egypt and Palestine during the Late Bronze Age. “Dates” must be barrel-shaped beads, and “lentils” probably refer to simple spherical beads. “Eye-stone” could refer to banded agate or onyx.  9  Moran 1992, pp. 24‒80; Roßberger 2015, pp. 292‒294. 10  Moran 1992, pp. 72‒84 (EA 25); Roßberger 2015, p. 295. 11  Roßberger 2015, pp. 303‒361. 12  Roßberger 2015, pp. 358, 376‒377.

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

119

The importance of jewellery in trans-regional exchange is best demonstrated by the repertoire of goods found in the Uluburun shipwreck, which sank at the end of the 14th century BC and included numerous beads made of agate, rock crystal, carnelian, amber, glass, faience, and other materials.13 However, less valuable jewellery was also distributed in the course of smaller scale enterprises, maybe even freelance trade, as demonstrated by the objects found on board the modest Cape Gelidonya ship that sank around 1200 BC. The ship contained hundreds of glass and faience beads, including multi-coloured barrelshaped and globular beads with inlaid spiral bands.14 No stone beads were present, but two pieces of raw rock crystal belonged to the cargo as well.15 Objects made of semi-precious stones and amber were ascribed a variety of symbolic values, which are difficult to decipher for a present-day researcher. They were not only prestige bearers, but also had various cultic and magical meanings, as is clearly demonstrated in ancient texts. Gemstones such as carnelian, lapis-lazuli, banded agate, or turquoise were used, for example, as remedies and prophylactics in the art of conjuring in Mesopotamia and were loaded with sophisticated religious symbolism in Egypt.16 The reason for this special role of semi-precious stones within prehistoric societies was related to their extraordinary virtues: rarity, shine, durability and colour. The case of amber was different because it was not durable but had other exceptional properties: it could be electrically charged, or burnt, and sometimes plants or insects were preserved inside. Many scholars have stressed the solar affinities of amber and postulated its use in religious or cultic contexts.17

GEMSTONE

OBJECTS FROM RECENT EXCAVATIONS AT

ALALAKH:

REPERTOIRE

In the following section I focus on the objects made of stone and amber. During the first two study seasons many items were examined by the author in person in the depot at Alalakh, in addition to studies of the field records in the case of artefacts inventoried in the Hatay Archaeological Museum in Antakya (altogether more than 150 specimens). Unknown numbers of such objects, surely reaching into the hundreds, were found during Woolley’s excavations.18 Woolley unfortunately published this material in a very cursory way and practically without any illustrations, giving only a few instances of more detailed information on jewellery in his discussion of the grave goods.19 Thirteen objects were found in settlement and funerary contexts dating to earlier phases (Middle Bronze Age‒Late Bronze I), Periods 8 to 5.20 It is important to note that seven beads coming from this time were made of soft stone and only six of hard stones (variations 13  Pulak 2005, pp. 66‒82; 2008, pp. 316–317, with photos. The cargo of this elite sponsored ship contained more than 70,000 mass-produced simple beads made of glass and faience (Ingram 2005, 2014). 14  Bass 1967, pp. 132‒133, figs. 139‒142. 15  Bass 1967, p. 130, fig. 138, ST 18‒19. 16  André-Salvini 1999; Schuster-Brandis 2008; Murock-Hussein 2010; Roßberger 2015, p. 329. 17  See, for example, Maran 2013, pp. 159‒161 or Czebreszuk 2011, pp. 164‒168, with further literature. 18  The study of the beads found by Woolley is planned for the future. 19  Woolley 1955, pp. 268‒270, pl. 68a, pp. 202‒223. 20   For chronology, periodisation and other information on the new excavations in Alalakh see Yener et al., this volume.

120

M. PIENIĄŻEK

of quartz). Almost all of these early beads represent bigger shapes, such as barrel-shaped, bi-conical, or cylindrical. Furthermore, various jewellery, including many beads, was found in the “Plastered Tomb” excavated in 2003.21 The tomb dates to the 15th century BC (late Period 5 or Period 4). More than one hundred objects came to light in tombs and settlement layers dating to the later Late Bronze Age contexts (Late Bronze II). Approximately half of them, mostly made of various quartzes, were found in Period 3 contexts. During this Period, smaller kinds of beads predominated: spherical or cylindrical, often only roughly shaped. Bigger types are also represented: amygdaloid (most of them faceted), barrel-shaped and cylindrical. Remarkable is the fact that as many as 45 gemstone objects of Period 3 were found not in the area of the palace, but in the southwestern part of the citadel, in the area where workshops were localised (Area 4). Approximately 60 beads and pendants date to Period 2 and the transition from Periods 2 to 1. Most of them belong to the assemblage of graves explored in Area 4: a rich infant’s grave dating to the turn of Periods 2 and 1,22 as well as one probable grave that was dug into a mudbrick wall.23 Only a few beads represent large types, such as amygdaloid and barrel-shaped. The rest of the beads are small spherical or cylindrical types, and some of them are roughly shaped. Only a few beads made of carnelian, quartz and red steatite belong to contexts dating to Period 1. Carnelian The repertoire of carnelian objects from Alalakh is limited to the basic types: globular, cylindrical and amygdaloid, both roughly shaped examples and perfectly symmetrical and polished ones. The oldest carnelian object in the collection presented in this contribution is a small bead from Period 6, which may be unfinished.24 As mentioned above, such beads also belonged to the equipment of the Plastered Tomb (late Period 5 or Period 4). The largest number, 26 carnelian beads, dates to Period 3. Also in this case, most of the beads are rather small, with an average diameter of 9‒7 mm and often roughly shaped, but there are also four big amygdaloid and one barrel-shaped bead (up to 3 cm long). The smallest carnelian beads are 3‒5 mm in diameter (Fig. 1). Carnelian beads are present until the end of the Late Bronze Age. At least 15 beads and an elegant bell-shaped pendant capped with gold were discovered in the rich infant’s grave mentioned above.25 A thoroughly polished big carnelian amygdaloid bead was found together with 18 small beads in the possible disturbed grave (Fig. 2). According to Woolley, small carnelian beads were included in some graves dating to Level V; he describes them usually as “carnelian balls,” “rings” or “discs.”26 Beads made of this mineral are present in all younger levels (the material is sometimes 21

 Yener 2013, pp. 268‒269, 274, fig. 17.8.  Yener and Akar 2013, p. 5, fig. 6 (some of these are not published yet). 23  Personal information from Mara Horowitz, 2015. 24  See below. 25  Yener and Akar 2013, p. 5, fig. 6. 26  Woolley 1955, pp. 216‒220 (graves ATG/39/80, 39/108, 37/28, 39/271, 37/33). 22

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

121

Fig. 1. Tiny carnelian bead of 4 mm diameter, Period 2 (AT 03759).

Fig. 2. One amygdaloid and 18 small roughly shaped carnelian beads from possible destroyed grave, Period 2 (AT 19740 and AT 19742).

described as “sard”27). From Level IV onwards, carnelian beads became numerous; 70 beads are reported from one of the graves.28 In the same Period, bigger shapes also appeared: “date-shaped”29 (most probably our barrel-shaped), as well as “flattened lozenges”30 (probably our amygdaloid). He also mentions one “drop pendant” from Level I.31 Agate Two beads made of agate occurred in contexts dating to Period 6 or 5, and four date to Period 3 (Fig. 3). Interestingly, all of them are big and, with the one exception of a bead that was probably unfinished (Fig. 12), all were carefully shaped and polished. The shapes are cylindrical, barrel-shaped, and amygdaloid. Woolley mentions only one barrel-shaped agate bead from a Level IV grave.32

27

 The term “sard” is sometimes used simply as a synonym for carnelian, but sometimes more specifically for darker versions of carnelian, meaning dark red chalcedony. 28  Woolley 1955, p. 215 (grave ATG/39/77). 29  Woolley 1955, p. 210 (grave ATG/39/33). 30  Woolley 1955, p. 211 (grave ATG/47/8). 31  Woolley 1955, p. 206 (grave ATG/37/72). 32  Woolley 1955, p. 215 (grave ATG/39/62).

122

M. PIENIĄŻEK

“Common” Quartz One of the most interesting features of the repertoire of the stone beads from Alalakh is the fact that both Woolley and Yener found not only beads made of exotic material coming from distant areas, but also objects made of common quartzes probably obtained somewhere in the neighbourhood. These are opaque or translucent, but not transparent; the kinds of crystalline rocks usually of beige, orange, or pale pink colour. At least seven were found in the contexts of Period 3, and very few examples come from Periods 2 and 1. Four belonged to the equipment of the rich infant’s grave in Area 4.33 Most of them are bigger cylindrical and barrel-shaped beads (Fig. 4). This was most probably the kind of material that Woolley called “crystals” or “pebbles.” They appear from Level IV onwards (“quartzite cylinders,”34 “pebble balls,”35 “date-shaped,” and “balls of crystal,”36 etc.). Other Hard Stones An amygdaloid bead made of a very interesting kind of stone — opaque white milky chalcedony with a slightly bluish shade — was found in an infant’s grave dating to Period 6 or 5. A very elegant bead of the same shape made of onyx (Fig. 5) belonged to a floor deposit of Period 3 in Area 4. One roughly shaped bead or pendant was made of obsidian. As mentioned above, some beads were manufactured of translucent milky-white quartz, but true, transparent rock crystal is rare in Alalakh.37 Woolley lists a “lapis-lazuli” ring from Level IV,38 and bead/beads in one grave from Level III.39 He also mentions “chalcedony,” but it is impossible to guess what kind of stone he meant.40 Soft Stones These are red, black, grey and brown rocks, mostly steatite, serpentine and limestone. Present are tubular, bi-conical and globular forms. As already mentioned above, they were best represented in earlier periods. Interesting is an elongated bi-conical bead made of red stone dating to Period 7 and found during the recent excavations. It resembles long bi-conical carnelian beads, but is made of soft stone, probably a kind of red steatite (Fig. 6). Singular beads made of steatite, as well as other soft stones, are present until the end of the Bronze Age.

33

 Yener and Akar 2013, fig. 6. All of them are barrel-shaped. Three are milky-white (one unpublished), one is pale brown. 34  Woolley 1955, p. 209 (grave ATG/37/37). 35  Woolley 1955, p. 209 (grave ATG/39/15). 36  Woolley 1955, p. 212 (grave ATG/37/33). 37  But see below, “Production of stone beads in Alalakh” for the pieces of raw material found at the site. 38  Woolley 1955, p. 214 (grave ATG/39/15), “from the adult skull.” 39  Woolley 1955, p. 208 (grave ATG/47/8). 40  Woolley 1955, pp. 211‒212 (grave ATG/47/8, 38/15), 208 (grave ATG/47/8). It could be white or blue chalcedony, jasper, agate, or “common” quartz.

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

123

Fig. 3. Cylindrical agate bead, Period 3 (AT 08483).

Fig. 4. Barrel-shaped quartz bead, Period 3 (AT 07012).

Fig. 5. Amygdaloid bead made of onyx, Period 3 (AT 18477).

Fig. 6. Bi-conical bead made of red soft stone, Period 7 (AT 12726).

Amber Last, but not least, the amber beads should be considered. Two amber beads are attested in Alalakh as early as the 15th century BC — in the Plastered Tomb mentioned above.41 Amber was found by Woolley in one of the tombs of Level III,42 and more than ten beads came from the rich infant’s grave (Period 1 or 2) excavated in 2003 (Fig. 7).43 The repertoire includes mainly bigger and smaller disc-shaped and bi-conical beads.

PRODUCTION

OF STONE BEADS AT

ALALAKH

Alalakh provides extremely important evidence for the manufacturing process of stone beads for the entire Near East, as well as the Mediterranean area, during the second millennium BC. Therefore, the objects demonstrating various stages of production will be discussed in more detail below. 41

 Yener 2013, pp. 268‒269, 274, fig. 17.8.  Woolley 1955, p. 208 (grave ATG/47/8). 43  They were partly decayed. 42

124

M. PIENIĄŻEK

Unambiguous evidence for the local production of stone beads at Alalakh comes from Periods 3 and 2 in Area 4 (southwestern part of the mound), however, there are various hints indicating such manufacture during earlier periods as well. Already from a floor deposit in Area 1 dating to Period 8 or 7 came, for example, one rough-out of a bead made of a kind of black soft stone pebble. Its surface was not treated in any way, but the bead was halfway perforated. In the same area, a perforated plano-convex object made of a poorquality rock crystal was found. It may have been a blank of a seal.44 Some other beads from Periods 7 to 4 may be unfinished as well, but what is especially important is that pieces of raw material were found in these early contexts as well. From Period 7 came two fragments of high-quality rock crystal (Fig. 9), and in Periods 6, 5 and 4, various pieces of common quartz were recovered. One fragment of serpentine dates to Period 4, and one carnelian pebble was found in Area 1, in the context of Period 5 (Fig. 8). Eleven objects dating to Period 3 can be classified as unfinished. The biggest concentration was recorded in the area of a street45 and adjacent buildings in Area 4. One of them is an unperforated rhomboid object of serpentine, with 10 grinding facets (Fig. 10). It is most probably a rough-out of a barrel-shaped bead. A second is made of milky-white quartz (Fig. 11). It is a short cylinder, not perforated, roughly worked, and with many picking traces still visible on the surface. This one may be a rough-out of a bead or a seal. Another was most probably in the process of being shaped into an amygdaloid bead of banded agate (Fig. 12). Its surface shows big and small chips on both sides of the body, as well as longitudinal lines from grinding, and is matt, not polished. Additionally, 15 other beads found in the same area were roughly shaped. In some cases, spots of the outer core had not been removed from their surface (Fig. 13), which means they were technically unfinished, but it does not mean that they were considered unfinished in the past.46 Furthermore, some broken beads were found in Area 4; two of them are fragments of faceted amygdaloid beads that may have broken during or as a result of the drilling process (Fig. 14). In the case of one small bead, the perforation was placed asymmetrically, and it was probably the reason for the damage (Fig. 15). From a context dating most likely to Period 2 came one very important object — it is undoubtedly a semi-product of a big faceted amygdaloid carnelian bead (Fig. 16). Its central facets are ground flat, but the lateral facets are not finished, and chipping and picking traces are still visible along the longitudinal edges. Local manufacture of carnelian beads is further reinforced by the discovery of many pieces of raw carnelian, both chunks (Fig. 17) and chips (Fig. 18), mostly in Area 4 in the contexts of Period 3, as well as some pieces of milky-white, pale pink to light brown quartz. An especially important discovery is a fragment of raw agate with milky white, brown and blue veins. Furthermore, some pieces of rock crystal chips were also recorded. Moreover, a big piece of a very rare mineral, blue chalcedony (Fig. 19), came from a context dating to late Period 1–early Period 0

44

 However, the seals of this shape seem not to be typical for Alalakh and northern Syria (Collon 2010).  Loci 51 and 63 in Square 64.82 in Area 4. 46  It is typical for the small carnelian beads dating to the 14th‒13th century BC to be only roughly shaped (Ludvik et al. 2015; Eder 2014, pp. 224‒225; Pieniążek 2016, p. 58). 45

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

125

Fig. 7. Amber beads from an infant’s grave, Period 2‒1 (AT 17893).

Fig. 8. Carnelian pebble, Period 5 (AT GEM 00899).

Fig. 9. Rock crystal chip, Period 7 (AT GEM 17498).

Fig. 10. Rough-out of a serpentine bead, Period 3 (AT 07245).

Fig. 11. Quartz cylinder, probably a rough-out of a bead or seal, Period 3 (AT 09007).

Fig. 12. Probably unfinished agate bead, Period 3 (AT 19107).

M. PIENIĄŻEK

126

Fig. 13. Unfinished (?) carnelian bead, Period 3 (AT 04848).

Fig. 14. Broken amygdaloid carnelian bead, Period 3 (AT 06443).

Fig. 15. Small, roughly shaped and broken carnelian bead, Period 3 (AT 05861).

Fig. 16. Unfinished amygdaloid carnelian bead, Period 2 (AT 02407).

Fig. 17. Carnelian chunk, Period 3 (AT GEM 20318).

Fig. 18. Carnelian chips, Period 3 (AT GEM 21378).

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

127

Fig. 19. Partly chipped nodule of blue chalcedony (AT 14157).

(c. 13th‒12th century BC).47 Some very interesting stones were found in the depot in the collection of objects from Woolley’s excavations, including a fragment of red jasper (dark red opaque chalcedony).48 Unfortunately, these objects cannot be dated. Therefore, the finds from Alalakh illustrate all the important steps in the process of bead manufacturing. The chaîne opératoire of bead production was studied intensively by Mark Kenoyer and Massimo Vidale, mainly based on data from sites of the Harappan culture, as well as ethnoarchaeological surveys in the area of the Indus Valley.49 The following stages of work can be reconstructed based on the finds from the Alalakh campaigns 2005‒2015. Most of these objects were found in one area.50 1. Primary working of the raw material is demonstrated by the presence of one untouched pebble of carnelian, as well as many partly chipped nodules of carnelian and other materials (Figs. 8, 17, 19). 2. First chipping and second chipping is proved by the abundance of flakes (Figs. 9, 18).51 3. The outcome of the chipping process is the rough-out of the bead. In Alalakh, there are some rough carnelian cubes resembling pre-forms of small beads, as well as true rough-outs, like the serpentine and quartz objects mentioned above (Figs. 10, 11).

47

 No beads made of blue chalcedony were found at Alalakh so far, but one seal is reported by Woolley (1955, p. 259). This one, from Level VII, was imported, however. 48  Alalakh’s depot may contain many more discoveries. 49  For example, Kenoyer et al. 1991, 1992; Kenoyer 2003. 50  In the neighbourhood of the building adjacent to the street of Area 4. 51  I have registered 19 carnelian and 18 flakes made of other kinds of crystal and chalcedony so far, but there were numerous flakes coming from Area 4 during 2015 that could not yet be registered. Also, the inspection of the geological samples is not finished yet.

M. PIENIĄŻEK

128

Carnelian was often heated in order to enhance the colour.52 Since beads found at the site are relatively darker than the nodules and chips, it seems reasonable to conclude that carnelian was also heated at Alalakh to make the red colour more intense. According to Kenoyer et al., drilling the hole for perforation usually takes place at the end of the manufacturing process: after grinding, but before polishing. However, they noticed that there is also archaeological evidence for drilling before grinding, and such a sequence can be especially suitable for carnelian, which is more fragile than other quartzes.53 Semi-finished as well as broken beads from Alalakh support this tradition. The most obvious is the example of the large, faceted bead mentioned above (Fig. 12): it is drilled, but the grinding of lateral facets was not finished yet. The same is true in the case of other unfinished beads made of carnelian, agate, or quartz. The evidence for local manufacture at Alalakh is further enhanced by the presence of broken beads. In some cases, it is clear that the damage occurred in the section where the drilling channels met (Fig. 14), which means that the breakage happened either immediately during or as a result of the drilling process. A few of the beads may be “wasters,” such as one with an asymmetrically placed perforation (Fig. 15). Usually the last step is polishing. Some of the beads from Alalakh have lustrous, shiny and perfectly smooth surfaces (Figs. 2, 3, 5, 14), but some are matt and rough (Figs. 12, 13). In the case of bigger beads, such as barrel-shaped or cylinders, which were usually very carefully polished, we can suspect that the matt ones were not finished. The interpretation of roughly shaped, small carnelian beads from this perspective is difficult, as was already mentioned above, but some of such beads found at Alalakh may have also been unfinished (Fig. 13).

4.

5.

6.

7.

GEMSTONES

IN TRANSREGIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The distribution patterns of gemstones in Mesopotamia and the eastern Mediterranean have never been the focus of systematic research. Monographs on jewellery concentrate on selected assemblages such as elite graves from Ur, Troy, tomb 45 from Assur, and the “jewels of the pharaohs,” and consequently do not allow us to understand the entire picture of the consumption and value of Bronze Age personal and body adornments.54 Moreover, the objects made of semi-precious stones are usually discussed in a cursory way.55 Despite all these limitations in the state of research, we can safely conclude that carnelian was definitively the most popular among the Near Eastern and Mediterranean hard gemstones. The main sources of raw material that were surely exploited during the Bronze Age

 “Secondary heating”, Kenoyer et al. 1991, pp. 51‒52.  Kenoyer et al. 1991, p. 53. 54  For example, Maxwell-Hyslop 1971; Aldred 1971; Andrews 1990; Musche 1992. 55  Only in the Aegean is the situation studied in more detail (e.g., Harding and Hughes-Brock 1974 for amber, Philips 2009 for amethyst, and Laffineur 1999 and Stamatatou 2004 for gemstone objects from the Late Bronze Age Peloponnese). 52 53

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

129

are those in Guarajat in western India on the edge of the Indus Valley,56 as well as in Egypt, where it occurs as pebbles in the eastern desert and can be easily collected from the surface.57 Whether carnelian from other areas, such as Anatolia, the Caucasus, or Iran,58 played a role in trans-regional exchange during the third or second millennium BC is difficult to say.59 The earliest uses of carnelian for beads in central and eastern Anatolia, Cyprus and Egypt date to the Neolithic.60 This material became well known during the Early Bronze Age when two main production centres for beads gained great importance: undoubtedly the Indus Valley and probably also Egypt. Carnelian together with turquoise and lapis-lazuli were the most important gemstones in Egypt throughout the Bronze Age.61 In Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Chanhudaro and other centres of Harappan culture, the working of carnelian was raised to a complex and very specialised manufacture,62 and the characteristic Harappan beads covered with etched decoration, as well as elongated bi-conical beads, travelled not only to Ur in Mesopotamia during the second half of the third millennium BC, but also to central Anatolia and the Aegean.63 Beyond carnelian beads, raw carnelian and debitage were also found in Ur, clearly indicating local production.64 Carnelian beads are reported from many other Mesopotamian Early Bronze Age sites, such as Uruk, Tell Asmar and Tello.65 During the first phases of the second millennium BC, this material was well represented in Kültepe (levels II‒Ib).66 Some carnelian was found in one of the tombs of Tell Ajjul67 and it reached the Aegean for the first time in larger quantities around the 18th‒17th centuries BC (Middle Minoan II‒III).68 Carnelian beads were widespread in the entire area of the eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age.69 They became especially popular

 Kenoyer et al. 1991, p. 49.  Lucas and Harris 1962, p. 391; Aldred 1971, p. 34; Andrews 1990, pp. 37‒52. 58  Moorey 1994, p. 97; Ludvik et al. 2015, p. 2, for further literature. 59  The provenance studies of semi-precious stones are in the initial stage of development. Although the first attempts to study carnelian from North Africa with LA-MS-ICP did not bring any convincing results (Insoll et al. 2004), recent research on carnelian and agate conducted by Kenoyer’s students on material from southern Asia was encouraging (Law et al. 2012). Also the provenance of other kinds of quartzes (various chert tools) have been successfully analysed during the last decade (e.g., Pettitt et al. 2012). 60  Calley and Grace 1988; Andrews 1990; Moorey 1994, p. 77; Astruc et al. 2011. 61  Aldred 1971, p. 33; Murock-Hussein 2010. 62  Kenoyer 1997. 63  Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, pp. 8‒12; Musche 1992, pp. 87‒94; Inizan 1999; Reinholdt 2008, pp. 52‒53; Murock-Hussein 2010; Ludvik et al. 2014, 2015. 64  Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, pp. 3‒12; Moorey 1994, p. 98. 65  Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, pp. 33, 65; Price 2008. 66  Kozal 2006, nos. 988‒993. 67  Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, p. 125 (tomb 1074). 68  For example, Ayia Irini on Keos (Overbeck 1989, pp. 192‒193, 199, 203) and the Aegina treasure in the British Museum (most probably Middle Minoan II‒III, Fitton et al. 2009). Almost 90 Minoan seals made of carnelian date stylistically to Middle Minoan II‒III (Krzyszkowska 2005, pp. 81–82). Around 470 Minoan seals made of carnelian were executed in the “talismanic” style (CMS/Arachne) and very likely date to Middle Minoan III‒Late Minoan I (Krzyszkowska 2005, pp. 133‒137). 69  Approximately 300 beads were found in the Shaft Graves in Mycenae (Middle Helladic III‒Late Helladic I: Karo 1930, nos. 111‒115; Mylonas 1972; Stamatatou 2004, p. 16). 56 57

130

M. PIENIĄŻEK

during the 14th‒13th centuries BC, being reported from Mesopotamia and Syria,70 and southern, central and western Anatolia,71 as well as from the Aegean.72 Interestingly, in Qatna, carnelian objects were less numerous than ones made of lapis-lazuli.73 Agate (a banded variation of chalcedony) was also well known in the Eastern Mediterranean long before the second millennium BC.74 Its sources are relatively more widespread than for other semi-precious stones,75 so it is unproductive to speculate about the origin of the raw material. The archaeological identifications of agate should be treated with caution, since it is often mistaken for onyx, sardonyx, carnelian and other kinds of chalcedony. Some of the most interesting objects made of agate — big beads and pendants, partly capped with gold — were found with queen Pu-abi in the Royal Cemetery of Ur and in the temple of Eanna in Uruk.76 Relatively many beads, among others big barrel-shaped ones, come from Kültepe Ib.77 Agate was used also during the Late Bronze Age,78 not only for beads, but also for the production of seals.79 Agate beads and pendants are known from the rich tomb 45 as well as other burials from Assur (14th–13th century BC),80 including one of the pendants attached to a very elaborate gold earring.81 Agate was the third most common semi-precious stone in the repertoire of jewellery from the tomb of Qatna.82 In the Aegean, agate was used mostly for the production of seals.83 True onyx is very rare in the archaeological record, so it is not surprising to have only one bead found in Alalakh. As mentioned above, terminology and mineralogical identification of gemstones are problematic, and in the case of onyx it is not absolutely clear if what is meant in archaeological publications is true onyx (black and white chalcedony) or, rather, dark agate (white and brown), such as an agate cylindrical bead from Alalakh (Fig. 3). In any case, “onyx” is said already to have occurred in Egypt in predynastic contexts84 and is reported from Early Dynastic Tell Asmar and Uruk.85 Many beads made of banded chalcedony are known from Assur; some of them can be labelled as onyx, others as agate or even sardonyx.86 70

 Carnelian is known from Assur and Mari, as well as from other sites (Musche 1992, pp. 168, 183‒189; Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, pp. 169‒171, 178‒179; Pedde 2015), from Qatna (Zöldföldi 2011, pp. 237‒238: Roßberger 2015), and from Deir el-Balah (Misch-Brandl 2008, pp. 53–57 with photos). 71  For example, Tarsus, Lidar Höyük, Hattuşa, Panaztepe, Beşik-Tepe, Troy (Kozal 2006, nos. 971‒981, 982‒986): Çınardalı-Karaaslan 2012; Pieniążek and Kozal 2014; Ludvik et al. 2014, 2015. 72  Stamatatou 2004; Eder 2014, p. 224; Matarese et al. 2015; Pieniążek 2016. 73  Roßberger 2015, p. 74, fig. 20. 74  Lucas and Harris 1962, p. 387; Moorey 1994, p. 99. 75  Lucas and Harris 1962, pp. 386‒387. 76  Thirteen agate beads, Musche 1992, p. 127, pl. 43; Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, pp. 5‒6, 26, fig. a‒b (Ur); Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, p. 65, pl. 45 (Uruk, note that the same beads are called either onyx or agate). 77  Kozal 2006, nos. 994‒997. 78  Musche 1992, pp. 168, 185, pl. 64. 79  Moorey 1994, p. 76; Krzyszkowska 2005. 80  Musche 1992, pp. 176‒187; Pedde 2015, pp. 33‒34. 81  Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, pp. 174‒175, fig. 107b. 82  Zöldföldi 2011, pp. 238‒239; Roßberger 2015, p. 74, fig. 20. 83  Hughes-Brock 1999. 84  Lucas and Harris 1962, p. 387. 85  Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, pp. 33, 65. 86  For example, a triple spacer bead from tomb 45 is formed by three “eye-stones” inlayed in gold: red and white (sardonyx) in the middle between black and white (onyx): Evans 2008, p. 213 with photo. See also Wilson 2008, pp. 42–43 with photos.

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

131

Other variations of chalcedony were rare. Red jasper was used in Egypt for the production of shallow bowls and beads as early as during the Old Kingdom, and its deposits are also known from Egypt.87 It appeared in Mesopotamia during the Early Bronze Age88 and is also reported from Late Bronze Age burials in Assur and Qatna.89 White and blue chalcedony objects were uncommon before the first millennium BC.90 A small quantity of objects made of jasper, onyx and other rare variations of chalcedony are known from the Aegean.91 Rock crystal is one of the most widespread among the semi-precious stones, and, as in the case of agate, its sources are numerous.92 However, as will be discussed below, it is not as popular among beads and other kinds of jewellery as one would expect. Late Bronze Age rock crystal beads and pendants are known, among others, from Assur and Babylon.93 Only rare examples are known from Qatna.94 This mineral is well represented in the Early Bronze Age treasures at Troy95 and in the Shaft Graves in Mycenae,96 but otherwise is rather rare in Aegean Bronze Age contexts. As mentioned above, common quartzes were probably easily available in the neighbourhood of Alalakh. Their use as material for the production of beads has not been discussed in previous research. However, one necklace from Mari (13th–12th century BC) published by Judith Price in a beautiful picture album on jewellery may suggest that the use of local material was not limited to Alalakh.97 The same is probably true for most soft stones. The first appearance of amber in the Aegean and Near East is not clear. Two beads belong to the Early Bronze Age treasure “L” from Troy, however, their affiliation with the treasure is doubtful.98 Other previously postulated Early Bronze Age finds from the Near East and eastern Mediterranean also have not been confirmed.99 The earliest undoubtedly secure finds date to the second half of the second millennium BC. Larger quantities reached the eastern Mediterranean in approximately the 14th‒13th century BC. Forty-one beads were found in the Uluburun shipwreck (end of the 14th century BC).100 The fact that a big piece of amber, with dimensions of at least 6 × 7 cm and shaped in the form of a Levantinestyle lion’s head vessel, travelled as far as Syria before finally being deposited in the Royal Tomb at Qatna around the middle of the 14th century BC is very meaningful. Mass

 87

 Lucas and Harris 1962, p. 387.  Moorey 1994, p. 76.  89  Zöldföldi 2011, pp. 239‒240; Pedde 2015.  90  Moorey 1994, p. 96.  91  Hughes-Brock 1999; Stamatatou 2004.  92  Moorey 1994, p. 95.  93  Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, p. 171; Musche 1992, pp. 168, 183‒185; Pedde 2015.  94  Zöldföldi 2011, p. 236; Roßberger 2015, p. 74, fig. 20.  95  Tolstikov and Trejster 1996.  96  Stamatatou 2004.  97  Price 2008, p. 28 (with photo). The stones are not described, but what we see in the photo are probably various agate-like or jasper-like hard stones, as well as translucent yellowish, greenish, pinkish, and brownish quartzes.  98  Götze 1902, p. 340; Harding and Hughes-Brock 1974, p. 146; Tolstikov and Trejster 1996, p. 175, cat. nos. 227‒228.  99  Harding and Hughes-Brock 1974, p. 146. 100  Yalçın et al. 2005, pp. 588‒589, cat. no. 94.  88

132

M. PIENIĄŻEK

spectrometry and infrared spectroscopy have shown that the material is Baltic amber.101 From Qatna also came the largest known collection of Late Bronze Age amber beads in the Near East: c. 90 specimens of various shapes (biconvex, carinated, disc-shaped). Amber was also found in Enkomi and Ugarit.102 On the western Anatolian coast, some beads are reported from Panaztepe.103 Singular objects were found in Late Bronze Age contexts in central Anatolia: in Alişar, as well as in the east, in Korucutepe and Tille Höyük.104 Surprisingly, only two amber beads are known from Hattuşa.105 Not all stones known from other Eastern Mediterranean sites were found in Alalakh. This is not surprising in the case of very rare minerals, such as varsicite (known, for example, from Qatna),106 sardonyx, or smoky quartz, since they were surely circulating in very small quantities, and therefore their discovery is mostly a matter of chance. Consequently, the presence of some rare gemstones in Alalakh, such as onyx and amber, blue chalcedony, and red jasper — in the last two cases as raw material — is meaningful. However, the absence of some minerals which were well represented in other regions also merits special attention. Especially surprising is the rarity of lapis-lazuli, amethyst and turquoise.107 Lapis-lazuli was already extremely popular in Egypt before the Old Kingdom, although there were no local sources of this mineral.108 It was also very important in Mesopotamia and Syria from the Early Dynastic until the Middle Assyrian period.109 Lapis-lazuli was the most favoured material for the manufacture of beads, pendants, inlays and seals at Qatna.110 The deposits used during the Bronze Age are known from central Asia, mainly Afghanistan. The pattern of distribution of turquoise is different — it was extracted in the Sinai Peninsula and was important throughout Dynastic times in Egypt, but was very rare in other areas.111 Amethyst was well represented only in Egypt and in the Aegean.112 It was used in Egypt for the production of beads from the Early Bronze Age onwards, but especially during the Middle Bronze Age, and rarely later. For the Old and Middle Kingdom periods, there were also places of extraction found in the western desert not far from Abu Simbel.113 Other sources may be possible,114 and the origins of amethyst found in Late Bronze Age contexts,

 Mukherjee et al. 2008.  Harding and Hughes-Brock 1974, p. 169; Caubet 1999, p. 106. Amber from Ugarit was identified as being of Baltic provenance. 103  Çınardalı-Karaaslan 2012, p. 72, fig. 5. 104  Kozal 2006, p. 198. 105  Boehmer 1972, p. 232, nos. 2459-60. One bead comes from a non-stratified context. The second was found in the Phrygian layer, however, this is the head of a Bronze Age pin (“Lamellenkopfnadel,” Boehmer 1972, pl. 98: 2459). 106  Zöldföldi 2011, p. 240. 107  Neither turquoise nor amethyst were published by Woolley or found during the recent excavations, but an amethyst bead has been seen among the beads coming from the Woolley excavations and stored in the British Museum (personal communication A. Yener and G. Dardeniz). 108  Lucas and Harris 1962, pp. 398‒400; Winter 1999. 109  Maxwell-Hyslop 1971, pp. 3‒7, 33, 66, 69, 170‒179; Musche 1992, pp. 168, 189; Moorey 1994, pp. 85‒92; Pedde 2015. 110  Zöldföldi 2011, pp. 241‒243; Roßberger 2015, pp. 73‒74. 111  Moorey 1994, pp. 101‒103; Murock-Hussein 2010. 112  Philips (2009) counted over 1600 beads from various sites. 113  Lucas and Harris 1962, pp. 388‒389. 114  Moorey 1994, p. 94; Phillips 2009. 101 102

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

133

such as in Qatna or in many sites in the Aegean, is especially unclear.115 Philips has suggested that amethyst beads found in the Shaft Graves in Mycenae and other Aegean sites may have originated from robbed Egyptian Middle Bronze Age tombs.116

FINAL

REMARKS

Distribution patterns of gemstone objects in Mesopotamia and the eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze Age follow certain general trajectories, but some peculiarities emerge as well. As noted above, this topic has never been intensively studied, so the following observations must be treated as preliminary. The carnelian finds at Alalakh follow patterns known from other areas. This stone was known since the Neolithic, but it became truly widespread in the 14th and 13th centuries BC. However, it is clear that during the Late Bronze Age quantity was preferred over quality; big amygdaloid beads were still produced, but highly polished long bi-conical and cylindrical, as well as bigger and symmetrical spherical, beads gave way to small and only roughly, carelessly shaped ones. If this was just a fashion, or if there was more behind it, is difficult to say. However, the possibility that carnelian was valued for its symbolic properties, maybe related to the red colour (the colour of blood), must be taken into consideration as well.117 No other hard gemstones show this chronological pattern — small and rough beads were produced during the second millennium BC only of carnelian. Perplexing is the extreme rarity of lapis-lazuli in Alalakh, especially considering the popularity of this stone in Egyptian, as well as Mesopotamian or Syrian, sites, such as Qatna. It is difficult to speculate about the reasons for this absence. Did lapis-lazuli have no particular value for the inhabitants of Alalakh, or maybe other materials had symbolic meanings attached elsewhere to this stone? Perhaps the elites of Alalakh had no access to certain exchange networks? Or were they satisfied with “artificial lapis-lazuli” — glass that was produced at the site?118 Another non-appearance or rarity — the case of amethyst ‒ may suggest that Alalakh was not interconnected with Egypt in terms of gemstone supplies. The absence of typical Egyptian Late Bronze Age vase-shaped pendants made of carnelian may speak for this interpretation as well. However, as was discussed above, amethyst is relatively rare, and its greatest popularity falls in the Middle Bronze Age (Egypt, Crete) and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Greece), whereas the majority of gemstone beads known from Alalakh date from the 15th‒13th century BC. The presence of amber confirms the existence of maritime connections with the Aegean, since this exotic material travelled from the Baltic area, most probably via the Aegean. This direction of exchange is well known based on various Minoan and Mycenaean objects, 115  Moorey 1994, p. 94; Philips 2009; Zöldföldi 2011, p. 236; Roßberger 2015, pp. 73‒74, 172‒173, figs. 20, 126 (in Qatna, only 16 beads and two scarabs). 116  Philips 2009, p. 20. In fact, some Minoan seals are re-cut scarabs. The biggest known collection of amethyst beads from Mycenaean Greece is comprised of 246 beads from Tomb IV at Englianos by Pylos in Messenia, which included a scarab as well (Philips 2009, pp. 10, 12, 16). 117  Pieniążek 2016, 59–62. 118  Dardeniz 2018.

134

M. PIENIĄŻEK

such as pottery119 and stone vessels,120 as well as a Mycenaean steatite seal found at Alalakh.121 Present also are certain kinds of Mycenaean beads: so-called “open work” or “lantern” beads122 and eventually “figure-of-eight-shaped” beads made of “white frit”.123 Carnelian and other stone and glass beads produced at the site could belong to objects exchanged for Aegean goods. Qatna is a very important reference point in respect to the jewellery from Alalakh, since the material from the royal tomb is fully published, and it dates almost exclusively to the Late Bronze Age and, therefore, is roughly contemporary with Periods 6‒2 in Alalakh, which produced the majority of the beads.124 There are some important differences between the repertoires known from both sites. Beyond the case of lapis-lazuli that was addressed above, it is noteworthy that gemstone beads capped with gold were very well represented in Qatna, whereas in Alalakh only a few such objects have been found, such as the bell-shaped pendant from the child’s grave.125 The reason is probably related to the fact that the material from Qatna comes from the burials of the highest elite — the ruler’s family. Comparable tombs have not yet been found in Alalakh, and the majority of gemstone objects were probably related to groups that can be described in an anachronistic way as the “middle class.” This could also be the reason for the low number of “common spherical stone beads” from the Royal Tomb in Qatna, in comparison with bigger specimens.126 However, chronology may play a role in this case as well: the beads may have been deposited in the crypt before the manufacture of small and roughly shaped carnelian beads “came into fashion.” Kenoyer et al. have argued that craft specialisation, such as the manufacture of beads made of hard stones, does not necessarily need to be connected solely to an elite class.127 However, the localisation of the production of beads in Alalakh on the mound and close to the place of residence of the local authority suggests that this industry was executed by attached specialists and under palace control. Artisans were also partly dependent on supplies of more or less exotic, but always difficult to obtain, raw materials such as carnelian, agate, and rock crystal, as well as abrasives needed for drilling and polishing. Deliveries of such supplies could only be guaranteed by the ruling class. The local manufacture of jewellery at Alalakh that began during the Middle Bronze Age (in the case of stone) and is especially well attested for the 14th century BC in the southwestern part of the mound (for stone and glass) is one of the significant results of the new excavations at Alalakh. 119

 Koehl forthcoming; Koehl in this volume.  Woolley 1955, pp. 294‒295, pl. 79; Warren 1969, pp. 55‒56, cat. no. P 310. 121  Woolley 1955. It looks like the Mainland Popular Group, however, one has to admit that the decoration of this seal is quite unusual. 122  Woolley 1955, p. 269, pl. 68:28; Rahmstorf 2008, pp. 223–227, fig. 42. 123  Woolley 1955, p. 214, pl. 68:27. Only a rough drawing of this type with no details of the shape is published, so that it is impossible to say if these were flat Mycenaean relief beads or common double beads (two spherical beads joined together). 124  The Royal Tomb of Qatna (Königsgruft) was used from the 18th until the 14th century BC, but most of the objects date most probably to Late Bronze Age I‒IIA (Roßberger 2015, pp. 32‒35, 367). 125  Yener and Akar 2013, p. 5, fig. 6. 126  Only 18 of 607 belonged to this category: Roßberger 2015, pp. 85‒86, tab. 7. 127  Kenoyer et al. 1991, pp. 46‒48. 120

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

135

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALDRED, A. 1971

Jewels of the Pharaohs: Egyptian Jewellery of the Dynastic Period. London: Thames & Hudson. ANDRÉ-SALVINI, B. 1999 “L’Idéologie des pierres en Mésopotamie,” in Cornaline et pierres précieuses: la Méditerranée, de l’antiquité à l’Islam. Actes du colloque organisé au Musée du Louvre par le Service Culturel les 24 et 25 Novembre 1995, edited by A. Caubet, pp. 373– 400. Paris: La documentation Française. ANDREWS, C. 1990 Ancient Egyptian Jewellery. London: British Museum Press. ASTRUC, L., VARGIOLU, R., BEN TKAYA, M., BALKAN-ATLI, N., ÖZBAŞARAN, M. and ZAHOUANI, H. 2011 “Multi-scale tribological analysis of the technique of manufacture of an obsidian bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük (Aceramic Neolithic, Central Anatolia),” Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 3415‒3424. BASS, G. 1967 “Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age shipwreck,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 37/8: 1–177. BOEHMER, R. M. 1972 Boğazköy-Hattuša. Vol. 7, Die Kleinfunde von Boğazköy, Aus den Grabungskampagnen 1931–1939 und 1952–1969. Berlin: Gebr. Mann CALLEY, S. and GRACE, R. 1988 “Technology and function of micro-borers from Kumartepe (Turkey),” in Industries lithiques: tracéologie et technologie, edited by S. Beyries, pp. 69–81. Oxford: Archaeopress. CAUBET, A., ed. 1999 Cornaline et pierres précieuses: la Méditerranée, de l’antiquité à l’Islam. Actes du colloque organisé au Musée du Louvre par le Service Culturel les 24 et 25 Novembre 1995. Paris: La documentation Française. ÇINARDALI-KARAASLAN, N. 2012 “Panaztepe: Geç Tunç Çağı boncuk üretimi ile ilgili bir çalışma,” Anadolu 38: 67‒87. CMS/ARACHNE CMS in Objektdatenbank Arachne des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Online . COLLON, D. 2010 “Report on the seals and sealings found at Tell Atchana (Alalakh) during the 2003 season of excavation,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh, Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 89–98. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. CZEBRESZUK, J. 2011 Bursztyn w kulturze mykeńskiej. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. DARDENIZ, G. 2018 “The Preliminary Archaeological Scientific Evidence for Glass Making at Tell Atchana/ Alalakh, Hatay (Turkey),” in Aspects of Late Bronze Age glass in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of JIAA Late Bronze Age Glass Workshop held at 27th – 28th September, 2014 in Kaman, Turkey, edited by J. Henderson and K. Matsumura, Anatolian Archaeological Studies 21, pp. 95–110. EDER, B. 2014 “Stone and glass: The ideological transformation of imported materials and their geographic distribution in Mycenaean Greece,” in Policies of Exchange. Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium BC, Proceedings of the International Symposium, 30th May-2nd June 2012 in Freiburg, edited by B. Eder and R. Pruzsinszky, pp. 221–242. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

136

M. PIENIĄŻEK

EVANS, J. M. 2008 “The Middle Assyrian Period,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, K. Bezel and J. M. Evans, pp. 206–213. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. FITTON, J. L., MEEKS, N. and JOYNER, L. 2009 “The Aigina Treasure: Catalogue and Technical Report,” in The Aigina Treasure, Aegean Bronze Age Jewellery and a Mystery Revisited, edited by J. L. Fitton, pp. 17–31. London: The British Museum Press. GÖTZE, A. 1902 “Die Kleingeräte aus Metall, Stein, Knochen, Thon und ähnlichen Stoffen,” in Troia und Ilion. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den vorhistorischen und historischen Schichten von Ilion 1870–1894, edited by W. Dörpfeld, pp. 320–423. Athens: Beck and Barth. HARDING, A. and HUGHES-BROCK, H. 1974 “Amber in the Mycenaean world,” Annual of the British School of Athens 69: 145–172. HUGHES-BROCK, H. 1999 “Mycenaean beads: Gender and social contexts,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18/3: 277‒296. INGMAN, T. 2014 Mortuary Practices at Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Unpublished MA thess. Koç University. INGRAM, R. S. 2005 Faience and Glass Beads from the Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Uluburun. MA thesis. Texas University. [accessed: 18.12.2018]. 2014 “Vitreous beads from the Uluburun shipwreck,” in Beyond Ornamentation: Jewelry as an Aspect of Material Culture in the Ancient Near East (Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, Special Studies 23/2), edited by A. Golani and Z. Wygnańska, pp. 225–246. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. INIZAN, M.-L. 1999 “La cornaline de l’Indus et la voie du Golfe au IIIe millénaire,” in Cornaline et pierres précieuses: la Méditerranée, de l’antiquité à l’Islam. Actes du colloque organisé au Musée du Louvre par le Service Culturel les 24 et 25 Novembre 1995, edited by A. Caubet, pp. 125–138. Paris: La documentation Française. INSOLL, T., POLYA, D., BHAN, K., IRVING, D. and JARVIS, K. 2004 “Towards an understanding of the carnelian bead trade from Western India to subSaharan Africa: The application of UV-LA-ICP-MS to carnelian from Gujarat, India, and West Africa,” Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 1161–1173. KARO, G. 1930 Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai. Munich: Bruckmann. KENOYER, J. M. 1997 “Trade and technology of the Indus Valley: new insights from Harappa, Pakistan,” World Archaeology 29/2: 262–280. 2003 “Stone beads and pendant making techniques,” in A Bead Timeline. Vol. 1. Prehistory to 1200 CE, edited by J.W. Lankton, pp. 14–19. Washington, DC: The Bead Museum. KENOYER, J. M., VIDALE, M. and BHAN, K. K. 1991 “Contemporary stone beadmaking in Khambhat, India: Patterns of craft specialization and organization of production as reflected in the archaeological record,” World Archaeology 23: 44‒63. 1992 “A new look at stone drills of the Indus Valley Tradition” in Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology, Vol. III, edited by P. Vandiver, J. R. Druzick, G. S. Wheeler and I. Freestone, pp. 495–518. Pittsburgh: Materials Research Society. KOEHL, R. Forthcoming “The Mycenaean Pottery,” Tell Atchana, Alalakh, The 2006-2010 Seasons. Volume 2: The Late Bronze Age II City, edited by K. A. Yener, M. Akar, and M. T. Horowitz. Istanbul: Koç University Press.

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

KOZAL, E. 2006

137

Anatolien im 2. Jt. v.u.Z. und die Hinterlassenschaften materieller Kultur aus dem Ostmittelmeerraum, insbesondere Zyperns. Unpublished PhD diss. Tübingen University. KRZYSZKOWSKA, O. 2005 Aegean Seals: An Introduction. London: University of London. LAFFINEUR, R. 1999 “La Crète minoenne et le monde mycénien,” in Cornaline et pierres précieuses: la Méditerranée, de l’antiquité à l’Islam. Actes du colloque organisé au Musée du Louvre par le Service Culturel les 24 et 25 Novembre 1995, edited by A. Caubet, pp. 59–76. Paris: La documentation Française. LAW, R., CARTER, A., BHAN, R., MALIK, A. and GLASCOCK, M. D. 2012 “INAA of agate sources and artefacts from the Indus, Helmand and Thailand regions,” in South Asian Archaeology 2007. Vol. 1. Prehistoric Periods, edited by D. Frenez and M. Tosi, pp. 177–184. Oxford: Archaeopress. LUCAS, A. and HARRIS, J. R. 1962 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. London: Arnold. LUDVIK, G., PIENIĄŻEK, M. and KENOYER, J. M. 2014 “Stone bead-making technology and beads from Hattusa. A preliminary report,” in Die Arbeiten in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2013, edited by A. Schachner, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2014/1: 147–153. LUDVIK, G., KENOYER, J. M., PIENIĄŻEK, M. and AYLWARD, W. 2015 “New perspectives on stone bead technology at Bronze Age Troy,” Anatolian Studies 65: 1‒18. MARAN, J. 2013 “Bright as the sun: The appropriation of amber objects in Mycenaean Greece,” in Mobility, Meaning and the Transformations of Things: Shifting Contexts of Material Culture through Time and Space, edited by H. P. Hahn and H. Weiss, pp. 147–169. Oxford: Oxbow Books. MATARESE, I., CRISPINO, A., JUNG, R., MARTINELLI, M. C., PALLANTE, P. and PACCIARELLI, M. 2015 “Veghi e pendent litici dell’età del bronzo dalla Sicilia e dalle Eolie,” Archaeologia Austriaca 99: 111–153. MAXWELL-HYSLOP, K. R. 1971 Western Asiatic Jewellery, c. 3000-612 B.C. London: Methuen. MISCH-BRANDL, O. 2008 “The Levant,” in Masterpieces of Ancient Jewelry: Exquisite Objects from the Cradle of Civilization, edited by J. Price, pp. 47‒57. Philadelphia: Running Press. MOOREY, P. R. S. 1994 Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. The Archaeological Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. MORAN, W. L. 1992 The Amarna Letters, 2nd ed. Edited and translated by W. L. Moran. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. MUKHERJEE, A. J., ROSSBERGER, E., JAMES, M. A., PFÄLZNER, P., HIGGITT, C. P., WHITE, R., PEGGIE, D. A. and AZAR, D. 2008 “The Qatna lion. Scientific confirmation of Baltic amber in Late Bronze Age Syria,” Antiquity 8.315: 49‒59. MUROCK HUSSEIN, A. M. 2010 “Beware of the red-eyed Horus: The significance of carnelian in Egyptian royal jewelry,” in Perspectives on Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honor of Edward Brovarski, edited by Z. Hawass, P. Manuelian and R.B. Hussein, pp. 185‒190. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities Press. MUSCHE, B. 1992 Vorderasiatischer Schmuck von den Anfängen bis zur Zeit der Achaemenide (ca. 10.000 330 v. Chr.). Leiden: Brill. MYLONAS, G. E. 1972 O Tafikos Kyklos B ton Mykenon. Athens: Archaiologike Etaireia.

138

M. PIENIĄŻEK

OVERBECK, J. C. 1989 Ayia Irini: Period IV. Part 1, The Stratigraphy and Find Deposits (Keos 7). Mainz: Ph. von Zabern. PEDDE, F. 2015 Gräber und Grüfte in Assur. Vol. 2. Die mittelassyrische Zeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. PETTITT, P., ROCKMAN, M. and CHERRY, S. 2012 “The British Final Magdalenian: Society, settlement and raw material movements revealed through LA-ICP-MS trace element analysis of diagnostic artefacts,” Quaternary International 272–273: 275–287. PHILIPS, J. 2009 “Egyptian amethyst in the Bronze Age Aegean,” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 1/2: 9‒25. 2012 “On the use and re-use of jewellery elements,” in Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 33), edited by M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur, pp. 483–492. Leuven: Peeters. PIENIĄŻEK, M. 2016 “Amber and carnelian: Two different careers in the Aegean Bronze Age,” in Proceedings of the EAA Session in Pilsen: 4000 years of World Career – Amber from the Neolithic to Iron Age (Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 52), edited by J. Czebreszuk and M. Jaeger, pp. 51–66. Poznań: Muzeum Archeologiczne w Poznaniu. PIENIĄŻEK, M. and KOZAL, E. 2014 “Anatolian beads and pins in the 2nd millennium BC: A discussion of their origin, function and distribution,” in Proceedings of the Workshop: Beyond Ornamentation – Jewelry as an Aspect of Material Culture in the Ancient Near East (Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 23/1), edited by A. Golani and Z. Wygnańska, pp. 187‒207. Warsaw: Centrum Archeologii Śródziemnomorskiej. PRICE, J. 2008 “Mesopotamia,” in Masterpieces of Ancient Jewelry: Exquisite Objects from the Cradle of Civilization, edited by J. Price, pp. 22–33. Philadelphia: Running Press. PULAK, C. 2005 “Das Schiffswrack von Uluburun,” in Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren. Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 15. Juli 2005 bis 16. Juli 2006, edited by Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak and R. Slotta, pp. 55‒102. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. 2008 “The Uluburun shipwreck and Late Bronze Age trade,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, K. Bezel and J. M. Evans, pp. 289–385. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. RAHMSTORF, L. 2008 Kleinfunde aus Tiryns. Terrakotta, Stein, Bein und Glas/Fayence vornehmlich aus der Spätbronzezeit. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. REINHOLDT, C. 2008 Der frühbronzezeitliche Schmuckhortfund von Kap Kolonna. Ägina und die Ägäis im Goldzeitalter des 3. Jahrstaunsends v. Chr. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ROßBERGER, E. 2015 Schmuck für Lebende und Tote: Form und Funktion des Schmuckinventars der Königsgruft von Qaṭna in seinem soziokulturellen Umfeld. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. SCHUSTER-BRANDIS, A. 2008 Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel. Untersuchung zu ihrer Verwendung in der Beschwörungskunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. vor Chr. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. STAMATATOU, E. 2004 Gemstones in Mycenaean Greece (BAR, International series 1230). Oxford: Archaeopress.

CARNELIAN, AGATE, AMBER AND OTHER GEMSTONES

139

TOLSTIKOV, V. and TREJSTER, M. J. 1996 Der Schatz aus Troja: Schliemann und der Mythos des Priamos-Goldes. Stuttgart: Belser. WARREN, P. 1969 Minoan Stone Vases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WILSON, K. L. 2008 “Mesopotamia,” in Masterpieces of Ancient Jewelry: Exquisite Objects from the Cradle of Civilization, edited by J. Price, pp. 40–45. Philadelphia: Running Press. WINTER, I. 1999 “The aesthetic value of lapis lazuli in Mesopotamia,” in Cornaline et pierres précieuses: la Méditerranée, de l’antiquité à l’Islam. Actes du colloque organisé au Musée du Louvre par le Service Culturel les 24 et 25 Novembre 1995, edited by A. Caubet, pp. 43–58. Paris: La documentation Française. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1955 Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. Oxford: University Press. YALÇIN, Ü., PULAK, C. and SLOTTA, R., eds 2005 Das Schiff von Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren. Katalog der Ausstellung des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums Bochum vom 15. Juli 2005 bis 16. Juli 2006. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. YENER, K. A. 2013 “A plaster-encased multiple burial at Alalakh: Cist tomb 3017,” in Amilla: The Quest for Excellence. Studies Presented to Guenter Kopcke in Celebration of His 75th Birthday, edited by R. B. Koehl, pp. 263‒279. Philadelphia: Institute for Aegean Prehistory Press. 2010 “Small Finds. Personal ornaments: Pins, jewellery and beads,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh, Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 104– 107. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. YENER K. A. and AKAR, M. 2013 “Excavations at Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh 2012,” in ANMED: News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas 2013-11: 1‒9. YENER, K. A. and YAZICIOĞLU, G. B. 2010 “2003-2004 Small finds catalogue. Personal ornaments: Pins, jewellery and beads,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh, Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 265–283. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. ZÖLDFÖLDI, J. 2011 “Gemstones at Qatna royal tomb – preliminary descriptive report about quartz varieties and lapis lazuli,” in Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Königsgruft von Qaṭna, edited by P. Pfälzner, pp. 235–248. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Magda PIENIĄŻEK Institute of Prehistory, Tübingen University [email protected]

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT Constance VON RÜDEN ABSTRACT Together with Tel Kabri in the southern Levant, Alalakh has been often considered the earliest find spot with wall paintings of the so-called fresco-secco technique in Western Asia and hence a central corpus for the long-lasting discourse about the technique’s origin in the Eastern Mediterranean. But one of its most crucial aspects, namely that fragments of this type of painting have been discovered as early as Level IX and up to the Late Bronze Level IV, has often been eclipsed due to the prominence of the famous and appealing reconstruction of the palatial paintings of Alalakh Level VII. Nonetheless, their chronologically widespread contextual dates challenge the assumption that these paintings are the result of Minoan craftsmanship and raise the question of whether we are not dealing with a locally embedded tradition of their production and consumption — a tradition which lasted from the period when Alalakh was still under the control of Yamhad until it became a Levantine city kingdom in the area of conflict between Mitanni, Hatti and Egypt. Within the frame of our research project ‘Aegean Design in Near Eastern Palaces,’ funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, which aims to discuss the diversity in the production and consumption of wall paintings at different sites in the Levant, Anatolia and Egypt, Alalakh is thus a key site for approaching the phenomenon of fresco-secco painting in Western Asia. How these paintings have been embedded within the local material culture, to what extent the practices involving them are interwoven with other regions of the Eastern Mediterranean, or the nature of the local intention of using such a technique and iconography are thus central questions to be addressed within this chapter.

INTRODUCTION Together with examples from Tel Kabri in the southern Levant, the wall painting fragments found at the palace of Alalakh Level VII have been often considered to be the earliest find of the so-called fresco-secco technique and Aegean-related iconography in Western Asia. As such, these fragments have gained special attention within the now long-lasting discussion about the technique’s “birthplace” and the question of travelling craftspeople in the Eastern Mediterranean.1 Rarely emphasised is the fact that Leonard Woolley detected wall painting fragments not only in the famous palace of Level VII, but also in the earlier Levels IX and VIII and in the later Level IV.2 Obviously, the prominence of the famous and appealing reconstruction of the palatial paintings of Alalakh Level VII has overshadowed the other findings. The chronologically widespread contextual dates of these findings, which cover about 300 years, permit us a diachronic insight into the craft of wall painting at 1 2

 Niemeier 1991; Niemeier and Niemeier 1998, 2000; Von Rüden 2011, 2013, 2015.  Woolley 1955, p. 228.

C. VON RÜDEN

142

Alalakh, which lasted at least from the period when Alalakh was under the control of Yamhad until it became a Levantine city kingdom in the area of conflict between Mitanni, Hatti and Egypt. Therefore, this craft tradition cannot be simply explained by a single short-term visit of “Minoan” craftspeople, but instead asks for a more far-reaching and multilayered approach. Therefore, this chapter aims first to discuss how these paintings have been approached since Woolley’s discovery, and second to embed them within the local material culture and the needs and intentions the people from Alalakh might have had in mind while decorating their palace with this specific technique and iconography.

THE

PAINTINGS AND THEIR DISCOVERY IN THE

1930S

Already in the 1930s, Leonard Woolley brought to light the above-mentioned fragments of coloured wall plaster at Tell Atchana. Unfortunately, the fragments of the deeper Levels IX and VIII were only briefly mentioned in Woolley’s final report, and neither they nor their findspots were described in detail.3 The same holds true for some red fragments discovered in the northwest bench box of the Level VII temple’s shrine, but the fact that they were discovered together with broken bricks and brick dust can allow us to assume that they did indeed originate from the temple’s embellishment.4 More information is available for the fragments from the Level VII palace. Their contexts have been described in general as originating from a relatively high layer of debris of fallen mudbricks in and around the small rooms 11, 12 and 13, and therefore the fragments had probably fallen from the upper floor (Fig. 1).5 Inside rooms 12 and 13, Woolley found “quantities of fragments of coloured plaster and a few coherent masses of brickwork fallen from the upper story which still preserved their coating of plaster bearing fresco decoration” (Fig. 2).6 For him, it was evident that these pieces belonged together, and he described them as displaying wavy lines, “some bowed lines as stalks of blossoms” and “twigs and leaves”, which he considered to be linked to “Minoan” iconography (Fig. 3).7 Furthermore, fragments with a bluish/purple horizontal band framed by two yellow ones and a bull’s horn on white background were discovered in the passage between rooms 11 and 12, and in the southeast end of the latter at a height of 2.10 m above the floor on which the tablets were exposed (Fig. 4).8 Moreover, from room 13 and outside of the southwestern wall of the palace, fragments with bowed, creamy white plants originated (Fig. 5).9 Less attention has been paid to the paintings that depict architectural elements in room 5, even though this room has been interpreted by Woolley as a central part of the palace’s official block: the “Chamber of Audience.”10 The latter was divided into two parts  3

 Woolley  Woolley  5  Woolley  6  Woolley  7  Woolley  8  Woolley  9  Woolley 10  Woolley  4

1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955,

p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p.

228. 64. 94. 94, pl. XXXVIb. 94. 94. 94. 92.

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

Fig. 1. Plan of Alalakh Level VII (Woolley 1955, fig. 35).

143

144

C. VON RÜDEN

Fig. 2. Find context of the wall paintings in room 12 (Woolley 1955, pl. XXXVIb).

by wood-panelled brick piers. In the first phase, three sides of the inner part had been lined with basalt orthostats at the bottom and fine white plaster above. At a later stage, changes were carried out: the walls were completely plastered, covering not only the upper parts, but also the stone orthostats below. It is rather strange to us today that paintings were executed on this plaster, depicting the architectonical structure of the wall below.11 Despite the importance of the room for Woolley’s interpretation of the palatial space, there are, unfortunately, no published photographs or drawings, but more has been said about a parallel for this painting that is several hundred years younger. In room 6 of building 39/A of Alalakh Level IV, a painting was still present on the wall, preserved to a height of about 1 m in the south corner (Fig. 6). Some scanty remains on the northeast wall and on the two door-jambs made clear that the design had covered the entire room.12 It shows the well-known construction features of Levantine architecture: at the bottom is a dado of dark purplish-red, whose single orthostats are 0.71 m long and only 0.15 m high. Their dark appearance was obtained by applying a dark blue wash over an initial wash of plain red flecked with “small spots of red and green which give a marbled effect quite like basalt.”13 Here the word “marbled” has been not used in the sense of a “marble imitation” nor to describe the veined nature of an alabaster, but more in the broader sense of an “imitation” of stone, in this case basalt and its porous surface. On top of the dado, a horizontal, deep red depiction of wooden timber 0.14 m in width has been painted, and the imitation of another wooden timber was repeated 65 cm above. On the latter, 11

 Woolley 1955, p. 92, compare pl. XXXIX.  Woolley 1955, pp. 231–232. 13  Woolley 1955, p. 232, pl. XXXIXa. 12

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

Fig. 3. Larger fragments from rooms 12 and 13 (Niemeier and Niemeier 2000, pp. 284–285, figs. 17–18).

145

146

C. VON RÜDEN

Fig. 4. Fragment with band and a horn, after Niemeier and Niemeier (2000).

Fig. 5. Fragments with spike bowed plants (photo by author).

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

147

Fig. 6. Paintings of room 6 in house 39/A of Alalakh Level IV (Woolley 1955, pl. XXXIX).

even the grain of the wood has been indicated by dark wavy lines.14 Below this second horizontal beam, red rectangles (0.25 m × 0.40 m) at regular intervals indicate transverse baulks of the half-timbered wall.15 In contrast to room 5 of the Level VII palace, the walls of house 39/A, room 6 consist of simple mudbrick architecture on shallow foundations of rubble and pebbles, and only the southeast wall had two transverse tie-baulks of timber to stabilise the wall.16 But as can be seen in the Late Bronze Age palace, this type of construction is well known not only in Alalakh Level VII, but also in Alalakh Level IV.17 Nonetheless, it is remarkable that this building is decorated with an “imitation” of an architecture with stone orthostats, beams and plaster that Woolley considered as a characteristic of palaces or temples.18 But as it is difficult to understand how the room was accessible, and due to the destruction in its northeast area, one can, unfortunately, hardly understand its specific use.19

WOOLLEY’S APPROACH AND ITS IMPACT ON LATER RESEARCH Before the fragments can be discussed in more detail, it is of importance to understand Woolley’s ideas and the research questions underlying his approach to the wall paintings and the architecture. Despite their relatively small size and fragmentary state, the paintings of the Level VII palace got great attention in Woolley’s more popular writing. Already by 1942, Woolley was enthusiastically emphasising the “astonishing resemblance” of the 14

 Woolley  Woolley 16  Woolley 17  Woolley 18  Woolley 19  Woolley 15

1955, p. 232, pl. XXXIXb. 1955, p. 232, pl. XXXIXa. 1955, p. 232. 1955, pp. 224–226, fig. 71, pl. XXVIIb. 1955, pp. 178–179. 1955, p. 179, fig. 63.

148

C. VON RÜDEN

architectural construction of the palace of Level VII and its painting technique and iconography with the palaces of Knossos on Crete.20 This early evaluation of the material as tightly related to the Aegean, indeed, still today has a great impact on research on this topic. But these are not the only aspects of his writing which show his tendency, or even desire, to connect his findings especially to Crete. Very intriguing, for instance, is that he used the appellation “piano nobile” for the not-preserved second floor, as Evans did in his publication of the palace in Knossos.21 Due to their personal relationship, it is rather improbable that they were both independently inspired by Italian Renaissance architecture.22 But Woolley reached even beyond this still rather unspecific analogy and resurrected his “Minoanised” fantasy about the detailed layout of the structure with the following words: the piano nobile [was] lit by a window with a stone frame and a central column like those on the mosaics of Knossos. The room itself, like other rooms in the palace, was divided into two parts by a pair of columns set between two wall pilasters and standing on a low threshold — a typically Cretan design. Its walls were decorated with frescoes which, in their peculiar technique, reproduced the “miniature” frescoes of the Cretan palace.23

Woolley based his reconstruction of the layout solely on the structure of the underlying three rooms/magazines 11, 12 and 13, and on two small column bases of the debris of the upper storey, which he interpreted as parts of the windows.24 Therefore, it is somehow charming that the Knossian “piano nobile” Woolley was referring to was itself a product of Evans’ imagination, only later materialised by his huge reconstruction of a concrete stairway leading to this upper floor. Hence, one of the most telling parallels between both structures is probably simply a product of a similar zeitgeist of the first half of the 20th century AD and the discussion between both researchers, but it has been often picked up as real evidence by later research.25 For us today, as we are used to the strongly promoted idea of Minoan craftspeople decorating Western Asian palaces, it is rather refreshing that Woolley did not see these parallels as the result of Minoan influences. Dating Alalakh Level VII as at least a century older than Knossos, Woolley had little doubt that Crete “owes the best of its architecture, and its frescoes, to the Asiatic mainland,”26 proposing itinerant Asian craftsmen in Knossos,27 and stated that “North Syria was helping to build up in Crete that remarkable Minoan civilization.”28 This perspective is also due to the diffusionist and ex-oriente lux zeitgeist of British archaeology in this period, mainly propagated by Gordon Childe, in which the “Minoan” culture of Crete played a central, but also ambivalent, role.29 Even though Childe 20

 Woolley 1942, p. 11; see also von Rüden 2013, pp. 60–66.  Woolley 1946, p. 186; 1955, p. 94. 22  Von Rüden 2013, p. 62. 23  Woolley 1946, p. 186; also cited in von Rüden 2013, p. 60. 24  Woolley 1955, p. 94. 25  For example, Niemeier and Niemeier 2000, pp. 780–781; Koehl 2013a, 2013b. 26  Woolley 1953, pp. 11, 12, 74. 27  Woolley 1953, pp. 74–75. 28  Woolley 1942, p. 12. 29  Sherratt 2006. Andrew Sherratt remarks that Childe’s concept is also not without forerunners, but owes many aspects to his teacher Evans, who formulated the idea of “civilizing influences” on Crete already in his first volume of the “Palace of Minos” in 1921, adding also that at this stage the “Minoan culture… had reached already a comparatively advanced stage” (Evans 1921, p. 16). 21

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

149

was very much a supporter of the idea that “advances” reached Crete from the “orient,” he assigned to Crete a specific role, and described the island as “essentially modern in outlook” and as “thoroughly European and in no sense oriental.”30 But even more telling is his orientalist comparison between Western Asia and Egypt on one side and Crete on the other:31 The Cretan artist was not limited to perpetuating the cruel deeds of a selfish despot nor doomed to formalism by the innate conservatism of priestly superstition. Hence the modern naturalism, the truly occidental feeling for life and nature that distinguish Minoan vase painting, frescoes and intaglios. Beholding these charming scenes of games and processions, animals and fishes, flowers and trees we breathe already a European atmosphere.32

Woolley very much incorporated Childe’s East-West diffusionism, but in contrast to Childe, Woolley obviously did not try to label fresco paintings as an outstanding “European” achievement, but more as an Asian innovation.33 But Childe’s idea of the “Europeanness,” or maybe “Minoaness,” of fresco painting was picked up by much later research. A new era of investigation started in the late 1980s and continued until the beginning of the 21st century AD with the successive discovery of wall paintings at Tel Kabri, Tell el Dabca, Qatna, Ebla, Tall Sakka and Tall Burak. This renewed publicity on the topic, and Barbara and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier’s interpretation of Tell Kabri paintings as having been executed by “Minoan” craftspeople also resulted in their new attention to the findings from Alalakh, with a strong desire to identify them as “Minoan” despite the difficulties of the very little and highly conserved material.34 Even though their interpretation assumed, in contrast to Woolley, a reverse direction of influence, the main focus of both approaches remained the same. Both studies nearly exclusively concentrated on the Aegean relations of the Alalakh murals and marginalised a possible local aspect. But while Woolley’s diffusionist approach permitted similarities to the local material culture as well as Aegean relations, the then-upcoming idea of “Minoan craftspeople” aimed to prove the “purely Minoan character”35 of the material, which had to be contrasted with any local practices in craft.36

EXECUTING THE ALALAKH PAINTINGS – MORE

QUESTIONS THAN RESULTS

The use of fresco-secco technique has always been considered as one of the strongest parallels to the way walls were decorated in the Aegean. But today it is very difficult to judge the paintings’ technical dimensions by a personal autopsy of the fragments, as conservation attempts cover important aspects; for example, the structure and composition of the plaster or the reverse sides. But Woolley’s record offers some fruitful insights. He had already observed different techniques in the way the plaster had been applied on the wall; for instance, in room 4, 30

 Childe 1925, p. 29.  For a more detailed discussion see von Rüden 2013. 32  Childe 1925, p. 29. 33  For the discussion of these passages see also Sherratt 2006; von Rüden 2013, pp. 62–63. 34  Niemeier 1991; Niemeier and Niemeier 1998, 2000. 35  Kempinski and Niemeier 1989, pp. XVII, XX. 36  Von Rüden 2013, pp. 66–68. 31

150

C. VON RÜDEN

which was only partially excavated, a rather thick layer of coarse plaster had been preserved in situ on the wall. Its surface was pitted all over with finger impressions, serving as a key for the final plaster layer. The latter was preserved only in a few fragments with red and cream coloured paint.37 A similar procedure was executed on the walls of the staircase in room 3 (Fig. 7),38 but unfortunately the precise shape of the anchor keys of the final plaster layer has not been documented. Such a practice of anchoring the uppermost fine plaster layer into the coarser lower rendering with finger-shaped impressions can also be observed in the wall paintings from Tall Sakka and Qatna (Fig. 8)39 and even in the presumed gypsum plaster of Mari (Fig. 9). Hence, it seems as if this technical practice was well established in Western Asia from the very beginning of the second millennium BC. Moreover, Woolley identified the use of string impressions as a means to divide and organise the surface of the final fine-grained plaster layer before the actual painting process (Fig. 10). Additionally, he described the use of a blunt-pointed instrument to sketch details of the layout, for instance, on both sides of the right “slender stem” of his “tree,” which later became the lower slim line below the Niemeiers’ griffin (see discussion below). But except for these examples, Woolley assumed that the greater part of the design was drawn freehand.40 That this is not entirely right can be shown by the fragments with the bands and the bull’s horn. Here it is indeed rather surprising that string impressions have not been used as a guideline for the linear motif of the bands, for which they would be most convenient. But underneath the uppermost paint layer of the bands, where the surface has been slightly flaked off, preliminary drawings in red can be clearly observed at the contours of the bands (Fig. 11). So in addition to the use of one string impression and a blunt point, the painting process was prepared by coloured preliminary drawings. The latter are not particularly remarkable, as red preliminary drawings are widespread in the Eastern Mediterranean; more unusual is the extremely rare use of the obviously-known method of string impressions, despite the numerous straight lines of the paintings. That is, even though the technique was known, people chose it only in very few instances. Particularly interesting is that even for probably wall-filling horizontal bands, the craftspeople from Alalakh did not consider the string impression technique to be necessary. This is especially striking when we compare the Alalakh paintings to those from Tell el-Dabca in the Eastern Nile Delta, where this preparatory means was extensively applied for almost every straight line. But a similar selective use of this technical feature as in Alalakh can be observed in Qatna, where it goes along with an extensive use of painted preliminary drawings.41 In both northern Levantine/ Syrian examples, the free-hand preliminary drawings evidently led to fewer absolutely straight lines and edges in the paintings. Was this simply due to a sloppy execution or was it intended? Were the less hard and more agile contours gained by the freehand preliminary drawing possibly more suitable for the usual perception in the Levant, and therefore intentionally chosen instead of the clear sharp lines of the string impression so popular in Tell el-Dabca? 37

 Woolley 1955, pp. 93, 228.  Woolley 1955, pl. XVIIIb. 39  Von Rüden 2011, pp. 89–90, pl. 39d. 40  Woolley 1955, p. 229, n. 2. 41  Von Rüden 2011, pp. 91, 97. 38

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

151

Fig. 7. The staircase wall of room 3 showing the vitrified bricks and the lower plaster rendering with finger imprints to anchor the uppermost fine plaster layer (Woolley 1955, pl. XVIIIb).

152

C. VON RÜDEN

Fig. 8. Finger imprints from Qatna (von Rüden 2011, pl. 26b).

Fig. 9. Imprints from Mari on the plaster’s rear side (Parrot 1958a, p. 87, fig. 90).

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

153

Fig. 10. String impression from Alalakh (photo by author).

Fig. 11. Red preliminary drawings below the black contour lines of the ribbons (photo by author).

C. VON RÜDEN

154

In any case, plaster manipulation, such as, for instance, string impressions or sketches with a blunt point, was conducted while the plaster was still moist. If a craftsperson intended to paint al secco on the dry wall, these manipulations would not have been necessary — in such a case, easier and less costly preliminary means were available. Of course, the fact that Barker, who conducted some early archaeometric analyses of the material, was not able to identify any gum or binder42 has to be reconsidered in the light of modern methods. But Woolley also observed that in areas where the paint had been applied on top of another layer it sometimes flaked off, and he interprets this as an execution of the later details in secco and therefore the whole procedure as a fresco-secco technique. To make the latter case, he especially pointed to what he considered to be leaves (later identified as details of a griffin wing by the Niemeiers, see below), where dark spots of thick “viscous paint purplishbrown in colour” were applied on top of the red background.43 Unfortunately, today this viscous colour has not been preserved, but a similar observation can be made for the pastos white used for the grass (Fig. 12). Of course, to discuss this matter in more detail, further technical examination would be needed.

Fig. 12. Flaking off of the cream-coloured paint of the spiky bowed plant leaves (photo by author).

42

 Barker 1955, pp. 233–234.  Woolley 1955, p. 230.

43

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

155

Even though Childe labelled fresco painting as an important marker for the “Western” modernity of the European “Minoans,” Woolley discussed this topic in a much more balanced manner, and also took a possible local development of the technique into consideration. Due to his chronological frame, in which Alalakh Level VII was earlier than the “Minoan” examples, he assumed a spread of the technique from east to west. Based on different chronological assumptions, in which the “Minoan” examples were considered to be earlier, Barbara and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier argued in the 1990s for a “Minoan” origin of the technique, and considered it as specifically suitable to the temperament of the inhabitants of Crete.44 More recently, the excavators of Tall Burak have proposed that the paintings could be considered to be a possible pre-stage of the fresco technique.45 As their iconography cannot be considered “Aegean” or “Aegeanised,” but is iconographically more closely related to Egypt, these observations would indeed break the “Minoan” monopoly on the fresco technique assumed by Childe and by the Niemeiers. A similar observation can be made thanks to a recently published photograph of the well-known pedestal in Mari.46 The framing bands above and below the running spiral motif clearly show thin depressions on both sides. Their very straight execution and their slightly changing width speak for a string impression as a means of preparatory drawing, and indeed the enlargement of the original photo even shows the texture of the string in the depression.47 In fact, the production and manipulation of lime plaster has been known in the Levant since the manufacture of lime plaster floors during the Natufian, and red ochre “painted” floors at Aceramic Aşıklı Höyük, among other Aceramic sites in Anatolia and Syria.48 Due to this long use and tradition, we need at least to consider the possibility that the knowledge existed that paintings were better preserved if they were made on moist plaster, whose success essentially depends on a very sophisticated knowledge of a specific lime plaster, which evolved locally, possibly in interplay with the steadily intensifying interregional cultural enmeshment in this period.

DEBATING A GRIFFIN’S IDENTITY The above-mentioned fragments were found together with coherent masses of brickwork in rooms 12 and 13 (Fig. 3),49 and were interpreted by Woolley as depicting a tree trunk and greenish leaves, originally belonging to the same painting.50 He compared its stylistic 44

 Von Rüden 2013, p. 69.  Kamlah and Sader 2010, pp. 96–97. 46  Koehl 2013a, fig. 4. This plaster manipulation in Mari would have been conducted in the moist plaster, and consequently we might also in this case raise the question of whether we are not also dealing with a frescorelated technique in Mari. Why otherwise would the people have chosen such a costly preliminary drawing, if they had intended a pure secco painting on the usually very quick-drying gypsum plaster? Did they possibly add some lime to retard the settling process, as was later done in medieval times? In the latter cases, some researchers even assume that a kind of fresco painting can be identified (Schmidt 2002, pp. 51, 56–59). 47  Koehl 2013b; von Rüden 2017. 48  Esin 2007. 49  Woolley 1955, p. 94, pl. XXXVIb. 50  Woolley 1955, p. 231. 45

156

C. VON RÜDEN

execution to the famous Sacred Grove Fresco from Knossos previously excavated by Arthur Evans.51 Later, this interpretation was picked up by Smith and translated into a reconstruction drawing based on the tree of the Naram-Sin stela, and photos were published in the excavation report.52 In regard to these fragments, it is of special interest that Woolley described a pale greenish-grey wash of triangular shape on which the twigs and leaves were painted in darker green, and noted that this colour faded badly after the discovery.53 Moreover, a greenishgrey colour was described where today only white areas are visible, and also in these cases Woolley thought he had distinguished leaves of darker colour when the paintings were found, but he was not certain.54 These fragments have specifically attracted the Niemeiers’ attention in their restudy of the Alalakh material. Instead of the tree leaves, they rightly recognised a notched-plume motif, well known as the characterisation of griffin- or sphinx-wings in the Aegean.55 This insight led them to reconstruct a griffin out of these few preserved fragments. For this purpose, they not only turned one of the two larger fragments about 90 degrees, but also resolved parts of Woolley’s restoration in the area of the later body of the griffin and even took one fragment out of the reconstruction (Fig. 13). Today the fragments are still installed in Woolley’s original reconstruction at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, so the Niemeiers could not verify if the individual fragments of his reconstruction are indeed joining or not, neither could they support their new composition with such an argument. Hence their reconstruction is simply guided by an iconographic idea of how this composite creature was displayed, and, despite their seemingly convincing arrangement, it remains difficult to judge if it is indeed crouching or maybe captured in another position. In any case, to reconstruct the notched-plume motif as a wing is surely the most promising reconstruction, and one might even go so far as to identify two parallel wings of a “mischwesen,” due to a small irregularity in the interval of the single feather rows at its top end. Also, for the depicted landscape, the overlapping half-circles and the ladder motifs suggest potential parallels with Aegean iconography, even though these motifs mostly date to the Neo-palatial or later periods.56 The earliest examples of griffins in Aegean wall paintings are Neo-palatial and have been discovered on Thera (Late Minoan IA), but there are several examples on Middle Minoan II seals from Phaistos and on a beaked jug of Cycladic White type from Thera of about the same period, as well as a bichrome version on a later monumental jar from the same site.57 Furthermore, we have to also take into consideration that Woolley identified a pale-greenish colour exactly in those areas where the Niemeirs have identified sections of wings.58 If we want to bring this in line with Aegean iconography, we could consider this as an oxidized 51

 Woolley 1955, p. 230; Evans 1930, p. 67, pl. XVIII.  Smith 1965, p. 103, fig. 138. 53  Woolley 1955, p. 230. 54  Woolley 1955, p. 231. 55  Niemeier and Niemeier 1998, p. 84. For example, Evans 1921, p. 548, fig. 399b. 56  Niemeier and Niemeier 2000, pp. 787–789. 57  Koehl 2013a, pp. 172–175; Doumas 2013, p. 184, figs. 10, 11. 58  Woolley 1955, pp. 230–231. 52

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

157

Fig. 13. Reconstruction of the fragments of rooms 12 and 13 by W.-D. and B. Niemeier (Niemeier and Niemeier 2000, p. 789, fig. 22).

blue, the colour used in the Aegean to mark mainly the upper and hindmost parts of the wings; nonetheless, we should not exclude the possibility of an intended green colour. In this regard, analysis of the painting’s surface would be most helpful to identify some scanty remains of the colour observed by Woolley. Griffins, as well as other composite creatures, are also well known in the Middle Bronze Age iconography of the Levant and Syria. On the Euphrates, winged creatures were displayed in the Investiture scene in the palace of Zimri-lim at Mari.59 But this motif is more widespread on contemporary seals (Fig. 14)60 and in other different media at Alalakh itself,61 as well as on a Syrian-style seal from Kültepe Ib that is slightly earlier in date and has remarkable similarities in its composition to the later Theran composition of Xeste 3.62 Winged composite creatures in running, sitting, or crouching postures are indeed well known on both sides of the eastern Mediterranean, but due to the still ongoing chronological problems, 59

 Parrot 1958a, figs. 57–60, pl. A, VIII-XII.  Koehl 2013a, p. 175, referring to Collon 1975, p. 79, no. 145; Buchanan 1981, p. 421, nos. 1214, 1216, p. 422, nos. 1217, 1221, p. 425, nos. 1225–1227, p. 426, nos. 1231–1232, p. 430. no. 1250. 61  Yener 2013, pp. 142–153. 62  Jones 2005, p. 714; Koehl 2013a, p. 175. 60

C. VON RÜDEN

158

Fig. 14. Cylinder seal with two griffins (Buchanan 1981, p. 420, no. 1209).

it is difficult to say where the origin of the motif lies, though this may be of no importance for our research question here. We can definitely say that griffins and other winged creatures were well known and well embedded in Levantine iconography, especially in the seals, and hence in the representational medium of the local elites. It is therefore of no great surprise to find them in the palatial endowment of the “man of Alalakh.” Due to the size of the depictions on these early seals, we can only identify the single rows of feathers, but not any more detailed motifs, such as, for example, the notched-plume. This lack of large-scale images makes any statement of influence difficult, but at least in this specific iconographic detail, an influence from the Aegean has to be taken into consideration.

“IMPRESSIONISTIC GRASSES” The slightly bowed, cream-coloured white plants were discovered in room 13 and outside of the southwestern wall of the palace.63 Woolley described their execution on a red background as “sketchy” and “impressionistic,” as if the plants were blowing in the wind, and, despite a lack of parallels, as “unmistakably in the spirit of Cretan art” (Fig. 5).64 The Niemeiers have taken the same line as Woolley in their judgment of this fragment — and even emphasised that their “sense of movement” is unknown in the iconography of western Asia, but is characteristically “Minoan”65 — but they also did not provide us with a proper parallel. Today’s knowledge about Levantine iconography leaves no doubt that the rather simplistic argument that movement is a characteristic of Minoan iconography while stiffness is a Levantine trait is surely not tenable anymore.66 Nonetheless, Irene Winter rightly hints at the fact that there is a certain similarity of the painting to the way some plants have been

63

 Woolley 1955, p. 94.  Woolley 1955, p. 231. 65  Niemeier 1991, p. 193; Niemeier and Niemeier 1998, p. 69; 2000, p. 784. 66  Von Rüden 2013, pp. 68–71. 64

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

159

depicted on Kamares pottery.67 There are several examples of painted Kamares from the excavation of Phaistos. Of particular note is a fragment of a rhyton which displays a slightly bowed plant on a dark background, with the irregular points of the plant tapering in groups of three right and left of the central stalk (Fig. 15).68 This parallel indeed hints at a certain relation to the decoration of Kamares pottery. Kamares pottery has been discovered, for example, at Byblos, Ugarit, Mari and recently at Sidon, and at least in Byblos and Sidon, the Kamares vessels obviously played a role in a burial ritual.69 The handling of these imported vessels in these rituals and their probable performative character obviously had an impact on the local elites. As Dominique Collon has pointed out, some of the Kamares motifs also entered the iconography of seals of Alalakh Level VII.70 Both adaptions from Kamares pottery, the one in the wall painting and the one in the seals, show how open the people of the northern Levant were to integrating new motifs and their stylistic execution into their personal representational media. At what point such an appropriation indeed took place is still difficult to pinpoint, but it surely shows how people had already integrated those foreign aspects which were convenient for their local representational desires during Alalakh Level VII.71

‘MINOAN BULLS’ AND ‘SYRIAN’ BANDS For the fragments with a bluish/purple horizontal band framed by two yellow ones and a bull’s horn on white background found in rooms 11 and 12 (Fig. 4),72 Woolley was very careful in his interpretation. On the one hand, he saw similarities to the favourite “Minoan” bull motif,73 but on the other, also a possible connection to scenes with sacrificial bulls in the murals of Mari, already excavated in the 1930s.74 He had no need to exclusively decide in favour of one or the other archaeological category, as his idea of an east-west diffusion allowed an iconographical relationship to Mari as well as to the Aegean. Woolley’s idea of a bucranium was then adopted by the Niemeiers, but they went far beyond it and reconstructed the remains of a black outline at the edge of the fragment as a double axe between its horns (Fig. 16).75 Any possible ambiguity of the image has been erased by this reconstruction, and a purely “Minoan” image has emerged. Meanwhile, no attention has been paid to the bichrome sequence of three horizontal bands with two yellowish ones enclosing a purple/bluish one. Such bands are very well known features of the wall paintings of Mari, where they are usually applied at a height of about 2 m, as for example, in court 106, and

67

 Winter 2000, p. 746; Walberg 1987, p. 181, nos. 29–32; later also remarked by Koehl 2013a, p. 175.  Levi 1976, pl. LXXXI. 69  For a recent summery and discussion, see von Rüden 2017. 70  Collon 2000, pp. 291, 293, fig. 15. 71  Von Rüden 2017. 72  Woolley 1955, p. 94. 73  Woolley 1942, p. 11. 74  Woolley 1955, p. 231; Parrot 1937, 1958a, 1958b. 75  Niemeier and Niemeier 1998, p. 83; 2000, p. 781. 68

160

C. VON RÜDEN

Fig. 15. Rhyton with a spiky plant motif from Phaistos (Levi 1976, pl. LXXXI).

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

161

Fig. 16. Bucranium reconstruction by Niemeier and Niemeier (2000).

rooms 43 and 46 (Fig. 17).76 From this section of a possible horn, it is hardly possible to judge whether we are dealing with a bucranium or not, not to mention a double axe between the horns, but the sequence of bands refers to the endowment of the Mari palace, and indeed shows that these paintings have also to be embedded within a local painting tradition.77 Moreover, in the case that we are indeed dealing with a bucranium, Robert Koehl has clearly pointed out that this motif is well known in Old Syrian glyptic,78 and therefore also well embedded in the local iconography. Without the Niemeiers’ assumption of a double axe between the horns, it is at the current time hardly possible to exclusively compare these fragments to Aegean iconography.

ECLECTIC APPROACHES TO ARCHITECTURAL IMITATIONS As briefly mentioned above, orthostats and half-timbered constructions were depicted on the plaster of room 5 of the Level VII palace, curiously covering the actual construction from the depicted materials. A very similar decoration was found in the much later house of Level IV (Fig. 6),79 where the painting was still preserved in situ and standing to a height of about 1 m in the south corner.80

76

 Parrot 1958a, pp. 89–90, 177–178, 180–181, figs. 94, 204, 208.  Von Rüden 2013, p. 67. 78  Koehl 2013a, p. 175. 79  Woolley 1955, p. 92, comp. pl. XXXIX. 80  Woolley 1955, p. 232, pl. XXXIXa. 77

162

C. VON RÜDEN

Fig. 17. Tripartite bands of Court 106 in Mari (Parrot 1958b, p. 20, fig. 17).

Both cases, the one in the Level VII palace and the one in house 39/A, were characterised by Woolley as reflecting the local architecture of the Levant, which is today still visible in Alalakh itself, but also in the Late Bronze Age Palace of Ugarit (Fig. 18),81 a tradition that obviously was alive for around 300 years.82 In search of a marble-like motif as a parallel for the floor painting in Tel Kabri, Niemeier also lists examples from Mari83 or Qatna, along with the dados from Alalakh Level VII.84 He relates all these examples to stone depictions imitating veined stones, known, for instance, from Crete.85 But stone imitations are not all the same, and Woolley seemed to use the world “marbled” in his description not to refer to the typical pattern of marble, gypsum or alabaster, but more to express its reference to stone 81

 Schaeffer 1939, Taf. XIX.  Woolley 1955, pp. 224, 231. Woolley nevertheless cites later parallels in the Knossos Late Minoan II West Porch and Middle Minoan III East Palace Border (Woolley 1955, p. 231; Evans 1935, pp. 894, 896). 83  Parrot 1958a, pp. 105–106, 165–166, fig. 187, pl. 39:1–2; 1958b, pp. 67–69, fig. 54, pl. 15. 84  Niemeier 1991, p. 192; Niemeier and Niemeier 2000, pp. 769–772, figs. 2–4. 85  Niemeier and Niemeier 2000, p. 769. 82

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

163

Fig. 18. Remains of a half-timbered construction at Ugarit (Schaeffer 1939, pl. XIX).

in general. Otherwise his interpretation of the dado painting as depicting basalt, a common and locally available material used for orthostats, would not make very much sense. This volcanic material does not display veins, but often has small holes, which can be easily depicted by dots, as has been described by Woolley.86 A similar observation can be made for the wall painting from Qatna,87 whose find context dates roughly to the same period as the later example of Alalakh Level IV. Here, white dots are painted on either a reddish or a black background, probably also characterising the dado zone as basalt orthostats. In fact, the dado presentations discussed by Woolley are therefore not a real parallel to the veined stone depictions of the other sites, except in the regard that in general the visual characteristics of stone were painted on plaster. Apart from the discussion of this detail, the best-preserved wall paintings of Alalakh and their reference to the local architecture has been greatly neglected. This might have been due to two reasons: their “localness” was simply not very interesting in the context of Woolley’s agenda of an “ex oriente lux”; and their presence makes Niemeier’s argument of a pure “Minoan” character for the Alalakh murals unsupportable.88 But there are several aspects which show that they seem to have been indeed of great importance for the people of Alalakh. The fact that this kind of architectonic painting has a tradition of several hundred 86

 Woolley 1955, p. 232, pl. XXXIXa.  Von Rüden 2011, pp. 81–83. 88  Von Rüden 2013, pp. 67–68. 87

C. VON RÜDEN

164

years is remarkable on its own. To display, and indeed to emphasise, the wall’s composition as being out of orthostats, horizontal beams, and transverse beams obviously was essential. This becomes particularly evident in room 5 of the Level VII palace. As mentioned above, in this presumed prestigious room, the walls had been completely plastered in a second building phase, including the actual basalt orthostats underneath. It remains an open question if this happened due to repair measures, or because people preferred an entirely smooth and shiny plaster surface instead of a composition of different materials. But despite the coverage of the actual architectonic features, the craftspeople decided to keep the actual construction features of the wall as an image painted on top of the plaster. As mentioned above, Woolley considered this architectonic structure to be restricted to the temples and palaces, but maybe their depiction was not confined to an attempt to emphasise the prestigious character of the architecture. Half-timbered constructions are especially suitable for a seismic zone, as is the northern Levant, and were probably associated by the people with being particularly stable and reliable. We might even consider that this display of reliability could have referred to the stability of the political system incorporated by the palace.

THEIR ARCHITECTURAL SETTING Woolley acts from the assumption that the rooms where most of the paintings were originally applied were located directly above magazines 11, 12 and 13, and presumes that these magazines were more or less a single room “divided into two parts by a pair of columns set between two wall pilasters and standing on a low threshold.”89 Following his assumptions, the eastern part of this salon was painted in light colours, as the bull’s horn and bands were found there, while the inner part, after the assumed columns, was in his opinion richly painted with red as the predominant colour and with subjects of a “more complex nature less formally treated,” as for example the later reconstructed winged creature and the grasses.90 Apart from some very basic ideas extracted from the static possibilities provided by the lower rooms, we can in fact say almost nothing about the way the space had been organised on the second floor. Woolley’s proposal is of course possible, and the proposed room’s width could easily have been covered by cedar wood. But whether the builders had indeed decided on a single room or, for example, three smaller chambers on the second floor cannot be decided on the published evidence. But in regard to the possible origin of the fragments, we should perhaps add another plausible scenario. The fact that the neighbouring rooms 15 and 16 were situated at a higher level hints at another possibility. As Jochen Schmid has pointed out in his study about the decay of mudbrick walls in the abandoned village of Mishrife, there are specific ways that mudbrick walls can collapse after a building is out of use. A certain tendency can be observed for them to frequently break at a lower level and then topple over. Depending on the respective ground, they are then often horizontally preserved with the mudbrick still 89

 Woolley 1946, p. 186.  See Woolley 1955, p. 94.

90

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

165

largely cohesive (Fig. 2).91 Such a scenario is also plausible for the find context of the wall paintings. After the building had been exposed to erosion for some years, the debris of the upper floor as well as shifting soil successively filled the rooms. Only afterwards would the higher north wall of rooms 15–17 have given in to gravity and toppled over above the debris of the lower series of rooms in its north, together with the still partially adhering paintings. This would not only explain why there are only a few fragments preserved, but also why some of the paintings have been found together with brickwork at a height of 2.10 m. Moreover, if we indeed assume that the northern wall of rooms 15–17 simply toppled onto the debris of the lower northern part of the palace, it would not only make sense that the fragments with the wings on red background have been discovered in cohesion with parts of the mudbrick wall, but also that they were facing upwards.92 Especially the latter argument would support this proposal, but it of course remains a hypothesis. In this scenario, we still cannot decide if the craftspeople decorated one room or several, but some small details can give us information about where the paintings had been situated on the wall. During a recent re-evaluation of the entirely embedded fragments of the spiky plants (Fig. 5), some traces of smoothing on one of the lower fragments became evident, seemingly indicating the lower edge of the fresco (Fig. 19). This goes hand in hand with Woolley’s

Fig. 19. Smoothening traces at the lower edge of the spiky plant (photo by author). 91

 For a more detailed discussion see Schmid 2008.  Woolley 1955, p. 231, pl. XXXVIb.

92

166

C. VON RÜDEN

observation: he had already remarked that obviously two fragments formed the base of the panel, and three the top of it,93 but unfortunately most of the fragments do not join, so we cannot estimate the height of the fresco. His statement was slightly more elaborate in the corresponding footnote, in which he explains that “above and below the plaster ends in a straight line, the back of it showing that it was pressed in an angle, and the front bevelled slightly forwards.”94 He rightly concluded that the painting must have occupied the space between an upper and a lower projecting frame, possibly between the two horizontal beams in a half-timbered wall.95 For example, the distance of 0.65 cm between the two painted beams of the architectural imitation of the later house of Alalakh Level IV might be an indication for an estimation of the fresco’s height. Unfortunately these observations cannot help us to decide if the paintings were applied, for example, in the wall’s central or upper part. However, they can be considered to be an indication that the beams of the construction provided an important orientation for the work and possibly were not even covered by the plaster, hence remaining visible. This would again emphasise the importance of the architectural structure of half-timbered walls to the people of Alalakh.

CONCLUSIONS Despite their fragmentary state, the murals from Alalakh are key findings for the understanding of Levantine wall paintings. Their history of research suffered for many years from a too narrow focus on their possible western link. While Woolley preferred the thesis of “ex oriente lux” and wanted to throw light on the emergence of “European culture” on Crete, later scholars were often driven by the desire to identify Minoan craftspeople and the “purely Aegean iconography in the wall paintings at Alalakh Level VII,”96 and hence the impact these “early Europeans” had on the cultures of west Asia. This approach often resulted in the neglect of other possible influences, the local aspects of the paintings and architecture of Alalakh, or even that we are dealing with a local painting tradition lasting several hundred years at this site. Indeed, the people of Alalakh seem to have incorporated Cretan elements from the Kamares pottery into the elite iconography of the palaces and seals, but obviously they were at the same time open to the inner Syrian decoration theme of specific tripartite bands known to us from Mari, while many other aspects as, for example, the display of local architecture for about 300 years, the winged creature, or the assumed bucranium are well-known motifs of Levantine and western Syrian iconography, and are therefore perfectly embedded into the local perception habits.

93

 Woolley 1955, p. 231.  Woolley 1955, p. 231, n. 2. 95  Woolley relates this observation to the proposal of somebody he called Mr. Gadd (Woolley 1955, p. 231, n. 2). Later this statement was picked up by Niemeier and Niemeier (2000, p. 784). 96  Niemeier and Niemeier 2000, p. 792. 94

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

167

BIBLIOGRAPHY BARKER, MR. 1955 “Fragments of mural paintings. Examination of the fragments of mural paintings from Atchana,” in L. Woolley, Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay: 1937-1949, pp. 233–234. Oxford: Society of Antiquaries. BUCHANAN, B. 1981 Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection. New Haven: Yale University Press. CHILDE, V. G. 1925 The Dawn of European Civilization. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner/Co. COLLON, D. 1975 The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. 2000 “Syrian glyptic and the Theran wall paintings,” in The Wall Paintings of Thera: Proceedings of the First International Symposium. 30th August – 4th September 1997, edited by S. Sherratt, pp. 283–294. Athens: Thera Foundation. DOUMAS, C. G. 2013 “Akrotiri, Thera: Reflections from the East,” in Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, S. B. Graff and Y. Rakic, pp. 180–188. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. ESIN, U. 2007 “Aşıklı Höyük,” in Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, edited by C. Lichter, p. 114. Karlsruhe: Badisches Landesmuseum. EVANS, A. 1921 The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos. Vol. 1. The Neolithic and Early Middle Minoan Ages. London: MacMillan and Co. 1930 The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos. Vol. 3. The Great Transitional Age in the Northern and Eastern Sections of the Palace. London: MacMillan and Co. 1935 The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos. Vol. 4, Part 2. London: MacMillan and Co. JONES, B. 2005 “The clothes-line: Imports and exports of Aegean cloth(es) and iconography,” in Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference; 14-18 April 2004 Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004, edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco, pp. 707–715. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l’Art et Archéologie de la Grèce Antique. KAMLAH, J. and SADER, H. 2010 “Deutsch-libanesische Ausgrabungen auf Tell el-Burak südlich von Sidon: Vorbericht nach der siebten Kampagne 2010,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 126: 93–115. KEMPINSKI, A. and NIEMEIER, W.-D., eds. 1990 Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of 1989 Season 4. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. KOEHL, R. B. 2013a “The Near Eastern contribution to Aegean wall painting and vice versa,” in Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, S. B. Graf and Y. Rakic, pp. 170–179. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. 2013b “From pot patterns to pictures: Thoughts on the evolution of Aegean wall painting,” in Paintbrushes. Wall-Painting and Vase-Painting of the 2nd Millennium BC in Dialogue, edited by A. Vlachopoulos, pp. 82–85. Athens: Aegean Library.

168

C. VON RÜDEN

LEVI, D. 1976 Festòs e la civiltà minoica. Rome: Ed. dell’Ateneo. NIEMEIER, W.-D. 1991 “Minoan artisans travelling overseas: The Alalakh frescoes and the painted plaster floor at Tel Kabri (western Galilee),” in Thalassa: l’Égée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la 3e Rencontre Égéenne Internationale de l’Université de Liège, edited by R. Laffineur, pp. 189–201. Liège: Université de Liège. NIEMEIER, W.-D. and NIEMEIER, B. 1998 “Minoan Frescoes in the Eastern Mediterranean,” in The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium Cincinnati, 18th–20th April 1997, edited by E. H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline, pp. 69–98. Liège: Université of Liège. 2000 “Aegean frescoes in Syria-Palestine: Alalakh and Tel Kabri,” in The Wall Paintings of Thera: Proceedings of the First International Symposium, edited by S. Sherratt, pp. 763–800. Athens: Thera Foundation. PARROT, A. 1937 “Les peintures du palais de Mari,” Syria 18: 325–354. 1958a Mission Archéologique de Mari. Le Palais. 1. Architecture. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. 1958b Mission Archéologique de Mari. Le Palais. 2. Peintures murals. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. VON RÜDEN, C. 2011 Die Wandmalereien aus Tall Misrife/Qatna im Kontext überregionaler Kommunikation. Mit Beiträgen von Ann Brysbaert und Ilka Weisser (Qatna Studien 2). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2013 “Beyond the east-west dichotomy in Syrian and Levantine wall paintings,” in Critical Approaches to Near Eastern Art, edited by B. Brown and M. Feldman, pp. 55–78. Berlin: De Gruyter. 2015 “A touch of luxury from the western fringe of the ancient world: The Aegean impact on the Qatna wall paintings,” in Qatna and the Networks of Bronze Age Globalism, edited by P. Pfälzner and M. Al-Maqdissi, pp. 249–264. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. 2017 “Producing Aegeaness – An innovation and its impact in Middle and Late Bronze Age Syria/northern Levant,” in The Interplay of People and Technologies. Archaeological Case Studies on Innovations (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 43), edited by St. Burmeister and R. Bernbeck, pp. 223–247. Berlin: Edition Topoi. SCHAEFFER, C. F.-A. 1939 Ugaritica: Études relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra. Paris: Geuthner. SCHMID, J. 2008 “Versturz- und Verfallsprozesse bei Lehmziegelmauerwerk im Palastbrunnen von Qatna und den rezenten Ruinen von Mišrife,” Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 1: 434–450. SCHMIDT, TH. 2002 “Untersuchungen zu Abbindemechanismen mittelalterlicher Gips- und Stuckmassen und Analysen zur Einbindung der Bemalung auf diesen Materialoberflächen,” in Hoch- und spätmittelalterlicher Stuck. Material – Technik – Stil – Restaurierung, edited by M. Hoernes, pp. 51–61. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. SHERRATT, A. 2006 “Crete and Gordon Childe,” in Archaeology and Europe Modernity: Producing and Consuming the Minoans, edited by Y. Hamilakis and N. Momigliano, pp. 107–126. Padua: Bottega d’ Erasmo. SMITH, W. S. 1965 Interconnections in the Ancient Near East: A Study of the Relationships between the Arts of Egypt, the Aegean, and Western Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.

RECONSIDERING THE ALALAKH FRESCOES WITHIN THEIR LEVANTINE CONTEXT

169

WALBERG, G. 1987 Kamares: A Study of the Character of Palatial Middle Minoan Pottery. Göteborg: Paul Åström Förlag. WINTER, I. J. 2000 “Thera paintings and the Ancient Near East,” in The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of the First International Symposium, edited by S. Sherratt, pp. 745–763. Athens: Thera Foundation. WOOLLEY, L. 1942 “North Syria as a cultural link in the ancient world, Huxley Memorial Lecture for 1942,” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 72: 9–18. 1946 “Syria as the gateway between East and West,” The Geographical Journal 107: 179–190. 1953 A Forgotten Kingdom. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949. Oxford: Society of Antiquaries. YENER, K. A. 2013 “Recent excavations at Alalakh: Throne embellishments in Middle Bronze Age Level VII,” in Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, S. B. Graff and Y. Rakic, pp. 142–154. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Constance VON RÜDEN Institute for Archaeological Studies Ruhr-University Bochum [email protected]

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE: A CACHE OF MIDDLE – LATE BRONZE I WEAPONS FROM ALALAKH K. Aslıhan YENER ABSTRACT This chapter investigates an unusual arrowhead from a burnt Middle Bronze/Late Bronze I context, with signs incised on both sides of the weapon midrib. In general, various visual markers on weapons and other bronze artefacts include the category of elaborate decorative schemes, as well as incising cuneiform and hieroglyphic inscriptions onto the surface of the bronze certainly going back to the Early Bronze Age in Syro-Mesopotamia. But solitary incised marks on metal appeared in north central Anatolia during the Middle Bronze Age and early Late Bronze Age. Ingots, moulds, blades, arrows and sickles were scored with crosses, or vertical and horizontal lines and were occasionally punctured with multiple circles. The symbolic messaging behind this signage has many layered meanings perhaps indicative of production instructions, the crafter, ownership, weight, or the votive nature of the artefact. It is important to note that the incised weapon from Alalakh, which is of north central Anatolian type, appears within a culture of symbolic messaging in which potmarks become prevalent prior to the Hittite Empire.

INTRODUCTION During the 2009 season of the renewed Alalakh excavations, an assemblage consisting of four weapons was discovered, two of which had incised signage on their surface and two that did not. They were found in Square 45.44, located on the east slope of the mound, in two adjoining burnt rooms abutting a mudbrick casemate fortification wall (Fig. 1). The context dated to the late Middle Bronze II / Late Bronze I transition, Period 6, following the destruction of the Level VII Palace.1 The focus here will be on the two bronze artefacts with incised markings and an exploration of what their symbolism may signify. The arrowhead (Fig. 2) had a (+) on the obverse and a vertical incised line ( | ) on the reverse; the chisel had an asterisk (*) engraved on one side (Fig. 3).2 This signage assuredly may have had many layered meanings, perhaps indicative of production instructions, the identity of the crafter, ownership, in-group affiliations, and weights of metal. Similar coded signage had relevance especially in the late third and early

1

 This chapter will continue using “Middle Chronologies” until the Middle Bronze Age levels of Alalakh are fully evaluated. Roughly, the end of the Level VII Palace would date to 1650–1600 BC. The burnt room contained a typical assemblage of simple ware Middle Bronze/Late Bronze I vessels, a whimsical tripod vessel with legs ending in a ram or dog head and a cylinder seal depicting antithetical sphinxes and griffons (Yener 2010b). The use of the term “Periods” in Arabic numerals instead of Woolley’s “Levels” in Roman numerals indicates that these are part of the Yener excavations. 2  AT 5115 and AT 9182, respectively. It is important to emphasise that overzealous cleaning by site conservators may be obliterating signage on many excavated metal examples that have gone undetected to date.

172

K. A. YENER

Fig. 1. Context of AT 5115 and AT 9182 in Square 45.44, Local Phase 4. Plan Alalakh Archives, M. Akar.

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

173

Fig. 2. Arrowhead with incised signs, AT 5115: Alalakh Archives.

Fig. 3. Chisel with incised asterisk, AT 9182. Photo: Alalakh Archives, M. Akar.

second millennia BC. This chapter will also set out to explore a substantial shift in the perception of bronze weapons or tools that may be linked to socio-political phenomena radically elevating the artefacts to a new role. With the growing empire-building activities in mid-second millennium BC Syro-Anatolia, the first foreshadowing of weapons and tools with a votive, divine nature appears alongside the rise of these artefacts as emblematic of royal power. However nebulous the perceptions of the various scored symbols may be, there is a transformation of relationships between the signage prevalent in the earlier part of the second millennium BC and in the Late Bronze and Iron Age periods that follow.

174

K. A. YENER

SHAPE TERMINOLOGY Before examining these concepts, for the purposes of this chapter it is important to establish a common terminology for the typology of weapons and tools.3 The bronze incised arrowhead (AT 5115) (Figs. 2 and 4) is rib-bladed with a rhomboidal section and measures 7.34 cm in length. It is not barbed, but has a tang. Both sides of the low, broad midrib were engraved with symbols. The elliptical shape was made by splaying the blade outwards by hammering; a larger version of this shape also occurs at Alalakh as a spearhead.4 Alalakh has the distinction of yielding a diversity of arrow types: Woolley identified 16 in his typologies; the new excavations have added a few more.5 It is important to note that the incised arrowhead from Alalakh is of a north central Anatolian type, as exemplified by multiple finds in that region. Characteristic of others found in the Late Bronze I-II period in the Levant6 and Anatolia, the elliptical, leaf-shaped arrowhead stylistically dates to between 1550 and 1400 BC. The origins of this arrowhead, called a generic type “A” with a triangular blade and short tang, has a wide distribution in Syria and Anatolia beginning in the third through the first half of the second millennium BC.7 Chisel AT 9182 (Figs. 3 and 5), also fashioned of bronze with an engraved asterisk, conforms to Woolley’s Type 1,8 five examples of which were mostly found by him in Levels IV–I. As preserved, it measures 16 cm long, with a gently splayed working edge and tapering to a flat end. The asterisk was incised in the middle of the implement on one side only. Of much older origins in the Chalcolithic period, according to Andreas MüllerKarpe,9 this chisel form has a distribution mostly in north central Anatolia and Cilicia.

Fig. 4. Arrowhead AT 5115. Photo: Alalakh Archives, M. Akar.

3

 General works used for typology are the following: Philip 1989; Avila 1983; Erkanal 1977; A. MüllerKarpe 1994; Sandars 1961; Shalev 2004; Snow 2005; Tripathi 1988; Maxwell-Hyslop 1949, 1953. 4  Woolley 1955, pl. 71, Sp. 12; Yener 2010a, p. 103. Comparable rhomboidal midrib features are found at Tell Kazel and Middle Bronze Boğazköy, whereas in neighboring Qatna in Syria, the arrowheads are willowshaped, long and narrow (Genz 2013, fig. 9; Genz and Mielke 2011; Montero Fenellós 2000). 5  Woolley 1955, pl. 71; Yener 2010a, p. 103. 6  Cross and Milik 1956. 7  Snow 2005 and references. 8  Woolley 1955, pl. 73 and chart, p. 286. 9  A. Müller-Karpe 1994, p. 164, his type “6” and fig. 103; see also Deshayes 1960.

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

175

Fig. 5. Asterisk on chisel AT 9182. Photo: Alalakh Archives, M. Akar.

SYMBOLS

AND NOTATIONS ON BRONZE

Metal weapons and tools have always been considered to be functional or, at best, in the case of the beautifully embellished ceremonial examples, as being from the realm of decorative crafts. However, scholars have recently begun to examine the artefact from other perspectives, from its meaning, to the imagination of the producer, to the symbolism of motifs10 that have been exchanged and may have travelled through regions, sometimes to gain a new identity. Crucial issues concerning the negotiation of meanings in material culture within divergent social settings are what have been termed “object biographies.”11 The notion that decorative designs on artefacts served, in Alfred Gell’s terms,12 to “attach people to things, and to the social projects those things entail,” is further explored here in relation to metal artefacts. Irene Winter noted that according to Gell, if certain artefacts exerted force on the world, others could, through ritual, transfer divinity to physical matter, in our case weapons. But she cautioned “one must distinguish between agency ascribed by the analyst of a given work from agency marked by cultural practice.”13 Thus one must differentiate between the “grammatically marked” functional production signage on the one hand and ritually charged metal weapons and tools, as metaphors of the supernatural, on the other; this is the dichotomy discussed here. The conceptual thread tying the two signage systems together is an investiture of meaning through symbols, be they incised single signs or inscriptions on bronzes. Archaeological classifications of weapons and tools have often proceeded by dissecting typological styles into constituent motifs and shapes. In so far as it provided a framework for the organisation of consistent relationships, researchers have also concentrated upon the technical knowledge or prowess inherent in the making of metal artefacts, the sources of raw materials, or exchange patterns. However, it is emphasised here that metal weapons mediated upon and transmitted an ideology of things across regional boundaries through 10

 Pongratz-Leisten and Sonik 2015; Hodder 2012; Appadurai 1986.  Gosden and Marshall 1999, p. 169. 12  Gell 1998, p. 73. 13  Winter 2007, p. 42, discussing Mesopotamian sculpture. I thank Irene Winter for discussing these ideas with me during my presentation at Harvard, winter 2016. 11

176

K. A. YENER

symbols,14 be it the recognition of their shape, technology, or the surface markings and decorations. While the word ‘symbol’ is defined in a variety of different ways by researchers, at the most fundamental level, a symbol is something that represents something else. I would submit that signage-embellished weapons and tools played a distinct role in structuring networks of social interaction,15 along which persons, ideas and even other objects16 would flow. This shifting emphasis from incised signage on weapons representing simple everyday smithy or usage practices to complex metaphors involved a functional relocation whereby bronze weapons ultimately signified a politically empowered sector of society. The material record of this impressive mental feat of introducing symbolically charged bronze weapons occurred during the third through the second millennia BC in the ancient Near East. The centres of political power were Syro-Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Egypt, where the routes of trade and war crossed from one sphere of political influence to another. Weaker vassal kingdoms, which were precariously situated, allied themselves with one or more power centres and in some periods broke free to establish independent polities.17 Certainly it was not until the late Middle Bronze Age in Anatolia,18 during the time of King Anitta and his consolidation of city states into larger agglomerations, that this region echoed the expansionism witnessed earlier in Egypt, Syro-Mesopotamia or Iran. Anatolia became radically altered in the subsequent Late Bronze Age with the rise of the Hittite Empire. This impacted Alalakh in the Amuq, located in the unenviable interstices of the expansionist states of the Egyptians, Mitannians and Hittites.19 Earlier, throughout the Early Bronze Age, fantastic displays of metals were deposited in graves and hoards across the Near East to indicate both status and identity, as seen from ‘warrior burials’ and ‘Royal Tombs.’ Eventually the social role of metals changed from the prevalent elite practice of burying sumptuous metals exemplified by third millennium BC Anatolian sites such as Alaca Höyük, Bașur Höyük, Arslantepe and Horoztepe.20 I would argue that it is in the context of an emerging Late Bronze Age Hittite Anatolia as an expansionist state that local cults and ritual objects became symbolically recognised and travelled afar. Furthermore, the use and patterns of association of the symbol-laden weapons radically changed during this period. According to Ingman, metals in Late Bronze Age graves were “no longer reserved for elite individuals, [and] in the mid-second millennium BC metals become increasingly common in non-elite grave contexts.”21 Now other conventions differentiated the elite from the common usage of bronzes, such as the inscriptions engraved onto weapons invoking deities and celebrating victories at war. Furthermore, weapons as recognisable ritual attributes of particular deities began to appear. Symbolic markings 14

 Lemonnier 1993; Ingold 2007; Pfaffenberger 1992.  For the use of symbols in archaeology, see Robb 1998 and references; Yener 2011 for the symbolism behind the Alalakh three spiked shaft hole axe. 16  For emblems in other media, such as an animal-headed vessel from Alalakh, see Yener 2007. 17  Klengel 1992; Bryce 1998. 18  For Kültepe Level 1b political texts see Larsen 2015 and references; Barjamovic et al. 2012. 19  Von Dassow 2008; Singer 1999. 20  For metal hoards see Bradley 1998; Frangipane et al. 2001, p. 109; Bachhuber 2011; Sağlamtimur and Özen 2013; Mellink 1956; for Middle Euphrates sites see Peltenburg 2013; for Syria see Philip 1995; Bosze 2009 (Tell Bi’a); Schwartz 2007 (Umm el-Marra). 21  Ingman in preparation, on Alalakh burials. 15

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

177

changed as well; from simple “notches on a gun” or production markers, the metal weapon and tool became something much more powerful.22 This is not to say that production practices of notional symbols and management devices disappeared, but an added conceptual level of signage was introduced.

THE

VOCABULARY OF SYMBOLS

A significant category of signage symbolism are the makers’ marks that are solitary incised codes on bronzes appearing during the Middle Bronze Age in Anatolia. The catalogue of visual markers on weapons becomes the measure referencing practices spent in production. Thus, the course of the weapons’ history bears all the elaborate details of an extended labour of crafting in the workshop. A case in point would be that the single, enigmatic signs on metals may be as prosaic as markers of ownership, makers’ batch numbers from a workshop, or smith identity. For example, in the later medieval period (and still in use today) there is documentation that trademarks were used to identify a master craftsman’s work, which also carried suggestions of the quality of workmanship. Specific identifications included city, as well as a range of craftsmen, such as cutlers, shear smiths, sickle smiths, scythe smiths, awl blade smiths and file smiths.23 The notations used on the artefacts varied from letters, symbols and numbers to various combinations of both, constituting a vocabulary of coded and informative management devices. Perhaps functioning as trademarks, incised designs on specific metal types occurred during the second millennium BC across a whole spectrum of weapons, tools and moulds scored with crosses, crescentic shapes, vertical and horizontal lines, and single signs, and occasionally gouged with multiple circles (Table 1). Given the increase in hostilities in the empire-building, formative phases of the late Middle Bronze/Late Bronze I of Anatolia, it is not surprising to see a system in place to manage and organise the production of weapons. Richard Beal’s research on the organisation of the Hittite military demonstrates that the bow and arrow were the primary weapons of Hittite chariotry.24 While the number of actual weapons found with signage are too few to help in the decipherment of the symbols, clearly Hittite texts mention enormous numbers of arrows that needed to be institutionally controlled, managed and produced. KBo 2.9 mentioned 17,760 arrows and emphasises that the arrow symbolised masculinity. In a prayer to Ištar of Nineveh, the goddess is asked to take away from the enemy men manhood, valour, vigour, maces, bows, arrows and swords and to bring them to Hattusa. She is then asked to place in the enemy’s hands the spindle and distaff of women and to dress them like women. Signage relevant in terms of management markers in the production sphere include the Alalakh signage, with its emphasis on crosses, vertical incised markers and asterisks (Table 1, nos. 1, 2). These symbols join a typological list that also includes dimples or punched, 22  Seidel and Stol 2015; Schwemer 2007, pp. 40–41 for the ritual dagger used in witchcraft against the enemy with the possible addition of a name inscribed on it. 23  Unwin 1999. 24  Beal 1986, p. 584; see also Lorenz and Schrakamp 2011; Taracha 2004.

K. A. YENER

178 Site  1. Alalakh

Period

Symbol

Middle Bronze/ Late Bronze I transition

+ |

Arrowhead obverse Arrowhead reverse

⁎ +

Chisel Arrowhead obverse

 2. Alalakh  3. Korucutepe

Artifact

Blade obverse

 4. Korucutepe

Blade reverse  5. Boğazköy  6. Boğazköy

Blade obverse Arrowhead

Middle Bronze and Late Bronze

Sickle

 7. Boğazköy  8. Boğazköy

///

Lugged axe

 9. Gaziantep

X

Spearhead

10. Ҫorum

Shaft hole axe

11. Tilmen

Blade obverse hilt

12. Tilmen

Blade obverse

13. Kültepe

Middle Bronze

Lugged axe

14. Kültepe

Sickle X

15. Kültepe 16. Kültepe 17. Kültepe

Sickle Spearhead (cast on) Mold, shaft hole axe

18. Karahöyük

Middle Bronze

Lugged axe

19. Soloi

Early Bronze/ Middle Bronze

Blade

20. Soloi

Flat axe edge

21. Soloi

Flat axe obverse

22. Panaztepe

Spearhead edge

23. Gelidonya

Late Bronze Age

Hoe blade

24. Crete

Late Bronze Age

Spearhead midrib

Table 1. Catalogue of Signs.

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

179

circular hollows found in contemporary neighbouring sites.25 Relevant in both its similar morphological shape and symbolic messaging to the Alalakh arrowhead were examples discovered at the contemporary sites of Korucutepe in eastern Turkey and Tilmen Höyük near Gaziantep. A “cross” sign (Table 1, no. 3) on the midrib of an arrowhead from Korucutepe is markedly similar to the Alalakh example. Circular hollows punched on the hilt, often in groups of four, three or two seem to share meaning on a variety of weapons in central Anatolia and can be added to the repertoire of symbols during this period of increased militarism. The Korucutepe (Table 1, no. 4) blade had four circular hollows gouged on the tang and three on the blade midrib,26 whereas the Tilmen examples (Table 1, nos. 11, 12) had two hollows vertically situated on the midrib on one, and three together on the other.27 Four circular hollows bundled together in a square like the face of a die mark an arrowhead midrib from Boğazköy (Table 1, no. 5).28 Kültepe yielded a lugged axe (Table 1, no. 13) with a set of six hollows.29 Central Anatolian examples of incised designs on weapons stem from houses dating to the Middle Bronze II, in the lower town [karum] of Kaneš, which yielded groups of arrowheads with incised grooves decorated with slanting strokes on the midrib.30 While some have suggested that these appear to be decorative elements, nevertheless, they do identify specific characteristic choices of design from this particular workshop, and are thus inherently a symbol. At the eastern end of the Assur-Kaneš commercial network, incised weapons were also part of the contemporary Aššur repertoire.31 Several arrowheads excavated from Aššur were marked with vertical “arrows” engraved on their midrib (Fig. 6), a practice so far unknown in Mesopotamia.32 Part of the bronze and, in ceremonial cases, silver equipment of the military was undoubtedly the scale armour sewed onto leather vests. Ubiquitous throughout Hittite Anatolia33 and its neighbours were plaques of copper or silver with perforations enabling the scale armour to overlap, ultimately preventing arrows from penetrating the vest. Signage on the surface of some scale armour was perhaps part of the system of management, such as distribution or production. Examples of single signs were found on stacks of scale armour from Nuzi,34 heretofore too corroded to be properly documented. 25

 Arrowheads with single marked signs are found throughout the Levant, see Tubb 1980, pp. 4–5.  Ertem 1988, Kat 37-66 catalogue number unspecified, page opposite no. 63: top left. 27  Ertem 1988, no. 63; Duru 2013, pl. 116, nos. 2, 3. A crossed weapon is incised on an unprovenanced example from Iskilip, Ҫorum (Table 1, no. 10), A. Müller-Karpe 1994, pl. 64, no. 2. 28  For circular hollows on arrowheads see Boehmer 1979, pl. 30, no. 895; 1972, pls. 30-31; Erkanal 1977, pl. 2, no. 17. An arrowhead with markers from Alișar (Erkanal 1977, pl. 17, no. 42) is problematic: the shape is similar to the Alalakh example, but the incised markings on the surface need to be checked against the original. See especially Tarsus (Goldman 1956, fig. 427, no. 76) and Tell Mumbaqa (Czichon-Werner 1998, pls. 116-117). 29  Erkanal 1977, pl. 17, no. 41. 30  T. Özgüç 1986, pl. 129, nos. 1–2, 5–8; Erkanal 1977, pl. 17, nos. 54–63. For Kültepe metal artefacts in general see Yıldırım 2010. 31  Lead isotope analyses revealed that the metal from Old Assyrian Grab 20 was from the Taurus Mountains, see Yener 2015. 32  Harmankaya 1984, unpublished catalogue of the metal finds from Mesopotamian sites at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, his type 5.4 “arrowheads with prominent midrib and tang,” from Aššur, nos. 321– 324, p. 240, pls. 79, 80. Only one has an excavation or museum registration number: 3466. 33  For Alalakh, see Woolley 1955, pl. 71. For Emar, see Weygand 2012. 34  Starr 1937, pl. 126B; identified visually by the author, 2015, Harvard Semitic Museum. I thank Joseph A. Greene, deputy director, for allowing me to examine this collection. 26

180

K. A. YENER

Fig. 6. Assur arrowhead (Harmankaya 1984, pl. 80, no. 322), courtesy Harmankaya.

Tools too have been marked with signage, such as an example of a crescentic sickle from Boğazköy incised with a cross within a box (Table 1, no. 7) with one border line missing.35 Similar crosses and x’s enclosed within a box were inscribed on sickles (Table 1, nos. 14, 15) which were found at Kültepe/Kaneš.36 Other incised markers on weapons come from Boğazköy, which has an example of a lugged axe (Table 1, no. 8) marked with three strokes and an unprovenanced similar example with three parallel slanted incised lines crossing two horizontal strokes.37

35  Bittel 1937, p. 21, fig. 9. The same sign is incised on a stone weight (?) (Boehmer 1979, no. 3842). Tubb (1980, p. 4) notes suggestions that these may be hieroglyphic signs, one of which may be for “scribe.” 36  T. Özgüç 1986, p. 123, figs. 60, 61. An “x” is marked on a spearhead from the Gaziantep region (A. Müller-Karpe 1994, pl. 93, no. 10). Boğazköy (no. 6) also yielded an “x” bounded by a horizontal line on top and bottom on a trilobite arrow (Boehmer 1972, pl. 30, no. 895). See Summers 2017 for the continuation of signage practices into the Iron Age at Boğazköy and Kerkenes. For the Iron Age in the southern Levant see Sass 1989. 37  Boğazköy museum, after photo by the author; see also a lugged axe with signage from the Metropolitan Museum collections, Muscarella 1988, p. 410, no. 557.

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

SIGNAGE ON VESSELS AND OTHER

181

MEDIA

Interestingly, these markers on bronzes occur in the same conceptual environment as the proliferation of single marks on pots. It is important to emphasise that the incised weapons at Alalakh appear during a period in which an embedded culture of symbolic messaging such as pot marks becomes prevalent prior to the Hittite Empire. This timing runs counter to the recent suggestions of standardised production markers as indicative of Hittite imperial control.38 Confirming this early pre-empire usage are hieroglyphic signs on the Middle Bronze II, Kültepe Ib,39 pitcher from Kaneš, which has the signs ASINUSX+ra/i marked on it, perhaps a personal name. It is not surprising to see pot marks this early, since they appear even earlier in the third millennium BC, as exemplified on pithos storage jars from mid-third millennium BC Palace G, Ebla.40 Even outside the realm of immediate palace production and control, the provincial but critical resource area of tin and silver mining in the central Taurus at Early Bronze Age II Göltepe (Fig. 7), the tin miners’ village in central Anatolia, yielded pot marks, specifically on the painted Anatolian Metallic ware widely disseminated from central Anatolia to Cilicia.41 At Late Bronze Age Ugarit,42 incised marks seemingly appear everywhere on weights and vessels, suggesting that part of the symbolism may be metric. For example, Red Lustrous spindle bottles containing a popular beverage and embellished with signage on the base crop up throughout the eastern Mediterranean.43 Similarly at Alalakh, a Red Lustrous spindle

Fig. 7. Göltepe Early Bronze II Anatolian Metallic Ware, no. 2876_Shape 28: Göltepe archives.

38

 Glatz 2012; Horowitz 2017; Gates 2001.  Archi 2015, p. 24; Hawkins 2010, catalogue no. 37; Pre-Hittite hieroglyphs are also present on glyptic, which is a common practice of inscribing occasional single hieroglyphic signs (such as the ankh) on Middle Bronze seals from Alalakh; see Collon 1995, who suggests they may have had other connotations. 40  Bobokhyan 2014, fig. 5. 41  Hacar et al. in press. 42  Schaeffer 1949, fig. 96. 43  Ericksson 1993. 39

182

K. A. YENER

bottle that had an incised sign on its base was found in the White Plastered Tomb with multiple burials. Some pot mark signage is even executed with bitumen (Fig. 8), and the large storage vessel in question (AT 9199), from the same context as the metals discussed here, also had another incised “cross” pot mark.44 The cognitive link between systems of weight using coded syllabary signage on ceramics can be related to metals as well. Seemingly direct descendants of the pot marks on third and second millennium BC storage vessels are the engraved signs on metal weapons and tools mentioned above. While some single incised signs have been executed directly on the implement or an ingot after casting, others were incised on the mould itself at the pre-casting phase. A workshop from the Kültepe II lower town revealed a large collection of two-piece casting moulds, and some disk-shaped examples revealed a + engraved on the mould bed. Andreas Müller-Karpe made an important observation regarding how the moulds functioned at Kültepe Kaneš:45 he argued that these engraved notations on the moulds were directly related to a measurement system. One special example is a mould with five beds for bar ingots with circular depressions. According to Müller-Karpe, if used for casting silver, each bar-shaped product would weigh 6 shekels; if all five bars were cast, the total would be ½ mina or 250 grams of silver. Therefore, he suggested that each circular depression was 1 shekel, or 8 grams, and useful for breaking the bar ingots into change. For the circular moulds with the + sign, the cast ingot would be from 5 shekels (40 grams) to 1.5 minas (mina = 500 grams). Confirming the mould markings and their distributions, Tonussi46 published a distribution map of the signage on ingot moulds showing the origins of this metric system in the third millennium BC. According to this breakdown, it is notable that a shared measurement system for metal production existed throughout the Bronze Ages and was recognisable across geographical boundaries. I would submit that perhaps the simple signs on our weapons and tools may also signify weights of metal, and importantly, a mutually understood measurement system that was in operation for a long span of time. Ingots were accorded signs at Middle Bronze Age Acemhöyük, where a silver hoard of 210 pieces was found in the Sarıkaya palace Level III.47 According to Özten,48 the majority were scored with + and - signs, some on one side and many on both. On the basis of radiocarbon and archaeological datasets such as sealings of Šamši-Adad, who was one of the Aššur rulers contemporary to the Kültepe Ib commercial network, the palace context dates to ~1776 BC or ~1768 BC.49 Incised signs also appear on Late Bronze Age silver ingots from Panaztepe on the west coast of Turkey, one of which is an engraved “A” on a folded piece of lead.50 Similar scoring of an “A” appears on a lead strip from Alalakh (Fig. 9).51

44

 For the White Plastered Tomb contents, see Yener 2013.  A. Müller-Karpe 1994, p. 191, fig. 7, no. 492; 2000; 2006. 46  Tonussi 2016. 47  N. Özgüç 1995; Özten 1997; Erkanal-Öktü 2006; Yener 2007; Yener et al. 1991, sample no. AAN184. 48  Özten 1997, p. 245. 49  Manning et al. 2016, p. 21. 50  Erkanal-Öktü 2006, 2008. 51  AT 16599. 45

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

Fig. 8. Large jar with bitumen sign, AT 9199: Alalakh Archives.

Fig. 9. Lead strip with incised “A,” AT 16599. Photo: Alalakh Archives, M. Akar.

183

184

K. A. YENER

During the Late Bronze Age, single signs were discovered on ox-hide and bun ingots found in underwater excavations throughout the eastern Mediterranean. As a result, a whole vocabulary of signage, its meanings, and its role in the maritime trading networks abounds in the literature.52 From suggestions that the signs are systems of weight and identity, and indicate locations, some inscriptions have been interpreted as part of the Cypro-Minoan sphere.53 This signage is extant in the corpus of copper and tin ingots from the Uluburun and Gelidonya shipwrecks, some of which had cast-on signs54 in addition to the regular incised examples. The Gelidonya shipwreck examples demonstrate that symbolic signage continued into the Late Bronze Age, with an example of a hoe incised with a symbol (Table 1, no. 23). Surely part of a Mediterranean maritime interaction sphere of shared motifs are the hoard of weapons, some with signage, dating to the late third–early second millennium BC from Soloi, located on the coast near Adana in Cilicia. Included in the collection is a fragmentary, but elaborate, axe head incised with a circle.55 While the unfilled, incised circle is found in a number of Aegean and Cypriot examples, the axe is typologically similar to an axe head from Tuttul (Tell Bi’a) in central Syria, which is engraved with an inscription of a Late Sargonic ruler on its obverse.56 A flat axe (Table 1, nos. 20, 21) from the Soloi hoard had several symbols engraved on the implement; one was embellished with an engraved foot57 and falls into a more pictorial, perhaps hieroglyph, category of signage. The same axe also had bordered x’s depicted on its edge. An “x” motif with horizontal borders on its top and bottom58 is also apparent on a riveted blade (Table 1, no. 19), resembling notations on the Boğazköy arrows. Surprisingly, a parallel from so distant a western location as Late Minoan Crete is a triangular arrowhead with prominent midrib (Table 1, no. 24)59 engraved with an asterisk that has two circular hollows punched above it and three below. From another Aegean context is an example from Panaztepe (Table 1, no. 22). Although the incised geometric motifs may be decorative rather than symbolic, again hatches or bounded “x”s and undulating lines on a slotted spearhead and knife may indicate workshop characteristics.60 The common thread that ties together these examples from coastal sites is that they were part of a circum-Mediterranean maritime exchange with a shared system of notations on bronze weapons and tools.

52

 Pulak 2008.  Smith and Hirschfeld 1999. 54  Pulak 2008; see also Haifa examples with cast on and incised signs, Galili et al. 2013. 55  Bittel 1940, pl. 4, no. S3398; Tubb (1982, fig. 2, no. 12) describes the various knobs, rivets and incised circle on the crescentic axes from Soloi. 56  Similar anchor-shaped axe heads were found at Gezer, Ur, Byblos, Abydos, and Helwan. The Gezer example has a single incised sign in the shape of a semi-circle with a tail (see Tubb 1982, fig. 2, no. 3). 57  Bittel 1940, pl. 5, no. S3462; p. 195, fig. 12. For other animal heads incised on contemporary weapons from Byblos and incised signs from Tarsus, Ajjul and Gezer, see Tubb 1980 and references. 58  Bittel 1940, p. 186, fig. 4.f. 59  Buchholz 1962, fig. 14, type VIIb (see pp. 22–26 for other arrowheads of similar typology found at Middle Bronze/Late Bronze Thermi, Troy VI and Asine). 60  Ersoy 1988, fig. 3, nos. 2, 3. 53

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

INSCRIPTIONS: SIGNALING IDENTITY AND POWER

185

WITH BRONZES

Among the hallmarks of third millennium BC bronzes in Syro-Mesopotamia and Iran are incised cuneiform and hieroglyphic inscriptions on weapons, which must have been conceptually grounded in ritual practices. A nuanced and penetrating reading of these inscriptions on the bronzes should acknowledge their strongly symbolic content, with simultaneous visual references to the deities. For example, some weapons or tools are engraved with an asterisk, a ubiquitous symbol of divine meaning in the Ancient Near East. Perhaps this is the conceptual realm in which one could associate the Alalakh chisel with the asterisk. Used in the vocabulary of inscriptions to connote a deity, the asterisk or the cuneiform sign of the dingir appears in association with other cuneiform inscriptions on bronzes from SyroMesopotamian sites.61 In particular, weapons and tools with special incised features include the category of elaborate, supernatural weapons associated with specific deities. Single incised hieroglyphs on weapons go back to the third millennium BC, as exemplified by the engraved ox leg on a spear deposited in the Ur Royal Tombs.62 It is in this numinous, symbol-ridden world that the origins of incised messaging on weapons should be sought. In second-millennium BC Anatolia, the shift to emblematic, ritual weapons is slightly later. Glimpses can be caught of a more formalised Anatolian religion in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, which could have been used to support the case for the manipulation of religious activities in the consolidation of power by states such as the Hittites. Even a cursory survey of weapons during this period reveals curses and dire warnings, as exemplified by the lugged axe of Hittite King Ammuna, stating, “whoever erases these words, dies.”63 In the use of portentous inscriptions on a dangerous weapon, the mind is required to see something more than is actually there and escape the bonds of literality. The inscription leaves no doubt about the positively charged supernatural power of the weapon in general, and in particular, the warning inscription itself. Some inscriptions on weapons signal identity and territorial power. Found in the Middle Bronze Age Kültepe Ib destruction level, a spearhead with an incised cuneiform inscription declares, “Palace of King Anitta.”64 Notably, the extra crescentic shape (Table 1, no. 16) on the Anitta spearhead is cast on, similar to an example of a two-piece mould for a shaft hole axe (Table 1, no. 17) from the same site (Fig. 10).65 Central Anatolian KarahöyükKonya, too, yielded a weapon (Table 1, no. 18) with symbolic notation. The lugged axe was engraved with a signe-royale,66 which is a symbol usually stamped on large storage jars in early second millennium BC public buildings, such as palace storerooms. This sign has often been said to signify the property of the king or palace. It also appears on seals and 61  Maxwell-Hyslop 2002. For the inscription naming king Ur-Namma with an asterisk incised on spikes from Ur Royal Grave PG 25, see M. Müller-Karpe 1995, fig. 28. Inscriptions naming deities often embellish weapons (see sickle sword from Nuzi, Starr 1937, pl. 124, D). Whether or not the asterisk is a dingir could be debated, since the star does not have wedges visible which would identify it as a cuneiform sign. 62  Weber and Zettler 1998, p. 167, no. 142. 63  Salvini 1993, pp. 85–86. I thank Hasan Peker for the translation of the inscription. 64  Kulakoğlu and Kangal 2010, pl. 173; T. Özgüç 1956, fig. 3. 65  Kültepe archive, courtesy Fikri Kulakoğlu. 66  Erkanal 1977, pl. 1, no. 9.

186

K. A. YENER

Fig. 10. Two-piece mould with crescent. Photo Kültepe archive, courtesy F. Kulakoğlu.

pendants and has been interpreted as perhaps the emblem for the goddess Ištar.67 Often weapons have inscriptions that are celebrations of victories made by the king and invoking deities. The practice of invoking deities is exemplified by a contemporary sword inscribed in Old Assyrian, which informs us that it is a votive offering for Nergal, god of the underworld.68 The names of kings, both local and foreign are inscribed on weapons in Old Assyrian, such as the examples belonging to Anum-Hirwi, the King of Mama.69 Another actor in the Assyrian trade network is King Ilushuma of Aššur, represented by an inscription on a spearhead stating that it was a votive gift for the Nin-Lil temple at Nineveh.70 Late Bronze Age Ortaköy/Shapinuwa in Hittite territory yielded a sickle-shaped blade and lugged axe with two inscriptions of an unspecified Great King as part of a weapon hoard.71 67

 Woolley 1955, pl. 77, no. AT/8/79, silver and gold pendant from Alalakh.  Güterbock 1965. 69  Donbaz 1998, p. 185. 70  Thompson et al. 1932, 1933. 71  Süel 2005. 68

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

187

Similarly, the incised inscription on a long sword found at Boğazköy commemorated the victory of Tuthaliya I/II over Aššuwa and is dedicated to the storm god.72 More prosaic is the hieroglyphic sign on the spearhead, “Walwaziti Great Scribe,”73 no doubt an important palace official, a relative of the Hittite king. A large number of inscriptions on weapons have been found in Late Bronze Age contexts at sites in Palestine and Syria,74 most of which were a melting pot of languages so typical of coastal zones. In Ugarit, examples include the name of Pharaoh Merneptah inscribed on a weapon and the hoard of 74 copper and bronze weapons offered to the high priest, some of which bear inscriptions.75 The final category of weapons, with or without inscriptions, are those that signal identity, wealth, justice and power, as the object itself is a sacred emblem. Thus, some weapons were viewed not merely as physical objects but as things having a spiritual or magical power as well. Furthermore, kings could be invested with special weapons as divine gifts from the gods. Veenhof76 writes of a text from Kültepe which describes the administration of justice by the Assyrian merchants in the lower town [karum] of Kaneš. According to the text, persons were interrogated and witnesses were questioned and gave depositions under oath before the dagger sword of Aššur, which was a divine symbol erected in a cella. Consequently, the relevant anchor point for the dagger sword or its image is that it was imbued with sacred power and was an embodiment of the god. During the Middle Bronze Age of Anatolia, the layered meanings of weapons with special inscriptions also encapsulated the warrior-king and the elements of his worldview. This cognitive thinking underscores the fact that each memory-making element is a representation of the new and growing idea of social worth, a transformation in large part created by the numinous power of the weapon itself during a period of political turmoil. I would submit this is much like the real and legendary supernatural swords77 King Arthur’s Excalibur and the Prophet Ali’s doubleedged sword, Zulfikar, during the Middle Ages. Certain weapons, especially those emblematic of the deities, did not need inscriptions: the gods are depicted wielding them, and they are the material expression of religion. It should be recognised that some objects are animate in ways similar to deities. The case in point is that some weapons themselves take on the deities’ attributes, such as the mace or axe’s association with the storm god, known for his belligerent war-like behaviour. A wellknown example is the King’s Gate relief at Bogazköy/Hattuša, said to depict a storm god dressed as a Hittite warrior grasping his sacred spiked axe against his chest.78 Echoing the imagery of the spiked axe-wielding storm god is an impression of a cylinder seal on a Bronze Age pithos from Imikușağı, located in eastern Turkey.79 The impressed combat scene also depicts an emblematic sword with crescentic hilt wielded by another “smiting” deity who

72

 Ertekin and Ediz 1993.  Uygun and Gerҫeker 2013, p. 123. 74  For incised elaboration on swords and daggers from es-Sa’idiyeh see Green 2006, p. 389. 75  Yon 2006, pp. 168, 170; Bordreuil 2012. 76  Veenhof 1995. 77  Pearce 2013. 78  Bittel 1976, pl. 268. 79  Uzunoğlu 1978. 73

188

K. A. YENER

grabs the enemy by his hair. Splendid examples of such swords have been found at a number of sites, most notably one with a gilded crescentic hilt from Alalakh.80 Perhaps the most unusual supernatural embodiment of a weapon is the deification of the sword itself. Thus, the artefact accords with notions of “multivalence” or “ambiguity” in the sense used by Aegean scholars81 to reference objects or images which simultaneously contain multiple levels of meaning or function, or which elicit particular behaviours. This concept reaches its apogee in the composite hybrid creatures, part-human, part-animal embellishments, decorating Hittite weapons. Perhaps profoundly associated with the pantheon of Hittite deities is the wildly creative, totemic Șarkıșla axe.82 Physical manifestations of the canonical Hittite hierarchical positioning of their divine beings include, from the bottom up, the Atlas-like mountain god holding up the next tier of deities on their associated animals, topped with winged griffons and sphinxes. This vertically tiered arrangement from the grounded gods to the heavenly winged creatures and motifs is also evident on the Megiddo plaque83 and the Eflatun Pınar84 monument. Similar treatments of attributes intrinsic to the divinity of a weapon mediated by supernatural creatures can be observed in another relief image, the powerful portrayal of the Yazılıkaya Sword God.85 The sword’s divine nature is augmented by all the animal attributes and symbols embellishing a supernatural divinity wearing conical horned headgear, which was worshipped as a deity in Chamber B in the outdoor sanctuary at Hattuša. This powerful image of relief-decorated lion pillars swallowing a sword is seen at Tell al-Rimah and at Sheihk Hamad/Dūr-Katlimmu in the temple of Adad of Zamaḫu and according to Kühne,86 the sword/lion represents a variant of Nergal of Hubšalum. If one were to accept the iconography of incised symbols on metal artefacts outlined above, how were they understood in areas beyond local belief systems? Undoubtedly bronze weapons and tools are attractive as items of value and exchange; however, do the sign-laden weapons that were traded indicate shared sacred imagery when found outside the mainstay of the regional beliefs of their region of origin? An alternate view would identify them as in-group identification devices used during specific occasions of conflict and competition, as heraldic shields and banners emblazoned with animal motifs were in medieval heraldry.87 The long life histories of these weapons, memorialised in their artefact biographies, suggest that some were not only objects for human use, but may have been suffused with sacred powers and depicted with deities in fantastic and, for us today, difficult to understand imagery. As argued above, they are emblematic of the deities or worshipped as embodiments of the divine. Furthermore, often weapons and tools imply social group affiliations and celebrations of victories. As extensions of state religion and kingship, they were given as diplomatic gifts, thus not so subtly representing the gift givers and their deities. These 80

 Woolley 1955, pl. 70, no. AT/36/4.  Koehl 2016. 82  Bittel 1976, pl. 341. 83  Loud 1939, pl. 9:32a. 84  For a recent photo of Eflatun Pınar, see Erbil 2017, fig. 9a. 85  Seeher 2011. 86  Kühne 2017, figs. 2, 6, 7. 87  Davis 1985, p. 153. 81

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

189

bronzes then, are not just expressive as gifts, but are infused with symbolic subtleties in a dance of nuances between potentates and their surrogates. If the boundaries of the state are cognitive and not geographic, as Liverani has argued,88 then the sharing of ritual materials such as the inscribed bronzes with inscriptions may be part of Anatolian royal propaganda and an attempt to symbolically include rather than exclude neighbours such as Alalakh and other regions outside of the Hittite state.

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has argued that there are many layered meanings that are part of the messaging incised on bronzes. This quintessentially Ancient Near Eastern trait is reflected both in the visual arts of metals and in other media. There is a clear indication of the developing social order that was rewriting symbolic lifeways and prefiguring the wealth and ritual display characteristic of weapons in the Late Bronze Age. This is reflected by the pantheon of deities with their associative animals and weapons on the Yazılıkaya reliefs, who reflect particular social behaviours and whose rituals negotiate stages of experience with the gods. These symbols are hidden qualities that, if perceived accurately, would predispose the users of these bronzes to following particular instructions. At the onset, stand-alone signs on moulds, as well as code-like signs on weapons and tools, may indicate trademarks. Significantly, the signage, especially of the Middle Bronze Age examples in Anatolia, holds the clues for production, such as maker’s batch numbers, and perhaps a shared valuation as a standard of exchange in weights of metal. With the increasing power of statecraft, militarisation and ritualised religion in the later Bronze Age, weapon imagery and symbolic meaning became integrated into incised inscriptions of power. Furthermore, weapons became the supernatural accoutrements of the gods and ultimately reached the level of deified heraldry. Studying the inscribed caches, hoards and finds has helped us assess differences in the specific qualities of metal objects and human agency. It is clear that these approaches, outlined above, augment and enhance our ability to reconstruct religious and nonreligious meaning involving bronze weapons and tools with incised signs. BIBLIOGRAPHY APPADURAI, A. 1986 “Introduction: Commodities and politics of value,” in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, edited by A. Appadurai, pp. 3–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ARCHI, A. 2015 “A royal seal from Ebla (17th cent. b.c.) with Hittite hieroglyphic symbols,” Orientalia 84: 18–28. AVILA, R. A. J. 1983 Bronzene Lanzen- und Pfeilspitzen der griechischen Spätbronzezeit. Munich: C.H. Beck. 88

 Liverani 1990.

190

K. A. YENER

BACHHUBER, C. 2011 “Negotiating metal and metal form in the Royal Tombs of Alacahöyük in NorthCentral Anatolia,” in Interweaving Worlds: Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st Millennium BC, edited by T. C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt and J. Bennet, pp. 158–174. Oxford: Oxbow. BARJAMOVIC, G., HERTEL, T. and LARSEN, M. T. 2012 Ups and Downs at Kanesh: Chronology, History and Society in the Old Assyrian Period (Old Assyrian Archives, Studies, Vol. 5). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. BEAL, R. H. 1986 The Organization of the Hittite Military, Vols 1 and 2. Unpublished PhD diss. University of Chicago. BITTEL, K. 1937 Boğazköy. Die Kleinfunde der Grabungen 1906-1912 (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 60). Leipzig: Hinrichs Verlag. 1940 “Der Depotfund von Soloi-Pompeiopolis,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 46: 183–205 1976 Les Hittites. Paris: Gallimard. BOBOKHYAN, A. 2014 “Troy and Ebla: Cognitive links between two ancient capitals,” in Arkeolojiyle Geçen Bir Yaşam Için Yazılar: Veli Sevin’e Armaǧan. Scripta. Essays in Honour of Veli Sevin: A Life Immersed in Archaeology, edited by A. Özfırat, pp. 313–344. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. BOEHMER, R. M. 1972 Die Kleinfunde von Boǧazköy. Aus dem Grabungskampagnen 1931-1939 und 19521969. Vol. VII. Berlin: Gebr. Mann 1979 Die Kleinfunde aus der Unterstadt von Boǧazköy. Grabungskampagnen 1970-1978. Berlin: Gebr. Mann BORDREUIL, P. 2012 “Écriture dextroverse/sénestroverse: quelques réflexions sur l’histoire de l’alphabet cunéiforme d’Ougarit,” in Palaeography and Scribal Practices in Syro-Palestine and Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age: Papers Read at a Symposium in Leiden, 17-18 December 2009, edited by E. Devecchi, pp. 1–18. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. BOSZE, I. 2009 Analysis of the Early Bronze Age Graves in Tell Bi’a (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1995). Oxford: Archaeopress. BRADLEY, R. 1998 The Passage of Arms: An Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Hoards and Votive Deposits, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BRYCE, T. 1998 The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Clarendon. BUCHHOLZ, H.-G. 1962 “Die Pfeilglätter aus dem VI. Schachtgrab von Mykene und die helladischen Pfeilspitzen,” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 77: 1–58. COLLON, D. 1995 “Filling motifs,” in Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer, edited by U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann and H. Hauptmann, pp. 69–76. Mainz: Von Zabern. CROSS, F. M. and MILIK, J. T. 1956 “A typological study of the El Khadr javelin- and arrow-heads,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 3: 15–23. CZICHON, R. M. 1998 Tall Munbaqa-Ekalte I, die bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

191

DAVIS, D. D. 1985 “Hereditary emblems: material culture in the context of social change,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 149–176. DESHAYES, J. 1960 Les outils de bronze, de l’Indus au Danube (IVe au IIe millénaire). Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. DONBAZ, V. 1998 “Inscribed spear heads and some tablets at the Gaziantep Archaeological Museum,” Altorientalische Forschungen 25: 173–185. DURU, R. 2013 Excavations at Tilmen Höyük I: The Results of Excavations. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. ERBIL, Y. 2017 “Preliminary Report of the Fasıllar Survey,” in Hittitology Today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th Birthday. 5èmes Rencontres d’archéologie de l’IFEA, November 21-22, 2014, edited by A. Mouton, pp. 191–200. Istanbul: IFEA Publications. ERIKSSON, K. O. 1993 Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 103). Jonsered: Paul Åström Forlag. ERKANAL, H. 1977 Die Äxte und Beile des 2. Jahrtausends in Zentralanatolien (Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abteilung 9, Band 8). Munich: C. H. Beck ERKANAL-ÖKTÜ, A. 2006 “Panaztepe’de Bulunan Kurșun Külçenin/Ağırlığın Madencilikte Yeri ve Önemi,” Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 23/2: 1–20. 2008 “The significance of the lead ingot/weight from Panaztepe with the context of metallurgy,” in Anfänge der Metallverwendung in Anatolien IV, edited by Ü. Yalçın. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. ERSOY, Y. E. 1988 “Finds from Menemen/Panaztepe in the Manisa Museum,” Annual of the British School at Athens 83: 55–82. ERTEKIN, A. and EDIZ, I. 1993 “The unique sword from Boğazköy/Hattusa,” in Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors: Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, edited by M. J. Mellink, E. Porada and T. Özgüç, pp. 719–726. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. ERTEM, H. 1988 Korucutepe I. 1973-1975 kazı yıllarında ele geçen Erken Hitit-Imparatorluk Çağı arası küçük buluntuları [Small Finds from the 1973-1975 Excavations Datable to the Time between the Early Hittite and Empire Periods]. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. FRANGIPANE, M., DI NOCERA, G. M., HAUPTMANN, A., MORBIDELLI, P., PALMIERI, A., SADORI, L., SCHULTZ, M. and SCHMIDT-SCHULTZ, T. 2001 “New symbols of a new power in a ‘royal’ tomb from 3000 BC Arslantepe, Malatya (Turkey),” Paleorient 27(2): 105–139. GALILI, E., GALE, N. and ROSEN, B. 2013 “A Late Bronze Age shipwreck with a metal cargo from Hishuley Carmel, Israel,” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 42: 2–23. GATES, M.-H. 2001 “Potmarks at Kinet Hoyuk and the Hittite ceramic industry,” in La Cilicie: Espaces et Pouvoirs Locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C. - 4e siècle ap. J.-C.). Actes de la table ronde internationale d’Istanbul, 2-5 Novembre 1999 (Varia Anatolica 13), edited by E. Jean, A. M. Dinçol and S. Durugönül, pp. 137–157. Paris: De Boccard. GELL, A. 1998 Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

192 GENZ, H. 2007

K. A. YENER

“Stunning bolts: Late Bronze Age hunting weapons in the ancient Near East,” Levant 39: 47–69. 2013 “The introduction of the light, horse-drawn chariot and the role of archery in the Near East at the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Ages: Is there a connection?,” in Chasing Chariots: Proceedings of the First International Chariot Conference (Cairo 2012), edited by A. J. Veldmeijer and S. Ikram, 95–105. Leiden: Sidestone Press. GENZ, H. and MIELKE, D. P., eds. 2011 Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Leuven: Peeters. GLATZ, C. 2012 “Bearing the marks of control? Reassessing pot marks in Late Bronze Age Anatolia,” American Journal of Archaeology 116: 5–38. GOLDMAN, H. 1956 Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Princeton: Princeton University Press. GOSDEN, C. and MARSHALL, Y. 1999 “Cultural biography of objects,” World Archaeology 31: 169–178. GREEN, J. D. M. 2006 Ritual and social structure in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Southern Levant: The cemetery at Tell es-Sa’idiveh, Jordan. Unpublished PhD diss. University College London. GÜTERBOCK, H. G. 1965 “A votive sword with Old Assyrian inscription,” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Assyriological Studies no. l6), edited by B. Landsberger, pp. 175–181. Chicago: Oriental Institute. HACAR, A., FLETCHER, A. I. and BULU, M. In press “The ceramics,” in Göltepe Excavations: An Early Bronze Age Mining Town: The Production of Tin in the Central Taurus Mountains, Turkey. Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2, edited by K. A. Yener. Philadelphia: Institute for Aegean Archaeology Press. HARMANKAYA, N. S. 1978 Kalat Șergat (Ašur), Tello (Girsu) ve Fara (Šuruppak) Maden Buluntularının Anadolu Maden Buluntuları ile Tipolojik Ilișkileri Sorunu. Unpublished PhD diss. Istanbul University. HAWKINS, J. D. 2010 “Early recognisable hieroglyphic signs (?) in Anatolia,” in Anatolia’s Prologue: Kültepe Kanesh Karum. Assyrians in Istanbul (Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality Cultural Publication 78), edited by F. Kulakoğlu and S. Kangal, pp. 96–97. Kayseri: Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality. HODDER, I. 2012 “Entanglement,” in Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things, pp. 88–112. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. HOROWITZ, M. T. 2017 “Pot-marks as a feature of interregional connectivity at Tell Atchana-Alalakh: Evidence from the 2006-12 excavations,” in Questions, Approaches and Dialogues in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology. Studies in Honor of Marie-Henriette Gates and Charles Gates (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 445), edited by E. Kozal, M. Akar, Y. Heffron, Ç. Çilingiroğlu, T. E. Şerifoğlu, C. Çakırlar, S. Ünlüsoy and E. Jean, pp. 307–329. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. INGMAN, T. In preparation “Changing funerary rituals in the Late Bronze Age: The metal grave goods at Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh.” PhD dissertation draft. Koç University. INGOLD, T. 2007 “Materials against materiality,” Archaeological Dialogues 14: 1–16.

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

193

KLENGEL, H. 1992 Syria 3000 to 300 BC: A Handbook of Political History. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. KOEHL, R. B. 2016 “The ambiguity of the Minoan mind,” in Metaphysis. Ritual, Myth and Symbolism in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 39), edited by E. Alram-Stern, F. Blakolmer, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, R. Laffineur and J. Weilhartner, pp. 469–478. Leuven: Peeters. KULAKOĞLU, F. and KANGAL, S., eds. 2010 Anatolia’s Prologue: Kültepe Kanesh Karum. Assyrians in Istanbul (Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality Cultural Publication 78). Kayseri: Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality. KÜHNE, H. 2017 “The temple of Salmānu at Dūr-Katlimmu, Nergal of Hubšalum, and Nergal-ereš,” in At the Dawn of History: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of J.N. Postgate, edited by Y. Heffron, A. Stone, M. Worthington and J. N. Postgate, pp. 271–288. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. LARSEN, M. T. 2015 Ancient Kanesh: A Merchant Colony in Bronze Age Anatolia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LEMONNIER, P. 1993 Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. London: Routledge. LIVERANI, M. 1990 Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600-1100 B.C. Padova: Sargon. LORENZ, J. and SCHRAKAMP, I. 2011 “Hittite military and warfare,” in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, edited by H. Genz and D. P. Mielke, pp. 125–152. Leuven: Peeters. LOUD, G. 1939 The Megiddo Ivories (Oriental Institute Publications 52). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. MANNING, S. W., GRIGGS, C. B., LORENTZEN, B., BARJAMOVIC, G., RAMSEY, C. B., KROMER, B. and WILD, E. M. 2016 “Integrated Tree-Ring-Radiocarbon High-Resolution Timeframe to Resolve Earlier Second Millennium BCE Mesopotamian Chronology,” PLoS ONE 11(7): e0157144. MAXWELL-HYSLOP, R. 1949 “Western Asiatic shaft-hole axes,” Iraq 11: 90–129. 1953 “Bronze lugged axe or adze blades from Asia,” Iraq 15: 69–87. 2002 “Curved sickle-swords and scimitars,” in Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology of Mesopotamia and Syria presented to David Oates in Honour of his 75th Birthday, edited by L. al-Gailani Werr, J. Curtis, H. Martin, A. McMahon, J. Oates and J. Reade, pp. 210–214. London: Oxbow. MELLINK, M. J. 1956 “The royal tombs at Alaca Huyuk and the Aegean world,” in The Aegean and the Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman on the Occasion of her Seventy-Fifth Birthday, edited by S. S. Weinberg, pp. 39–58. Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin. MONTERO FENOLLÓS, J.-L. 2000 “La métallurgie du bronze dans le bassin syromésopotamien au début du IIIe millénaire avant J.-C.,” in Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, edited by P. Matthiae, A. Enea, L. Peyronel, F. Pinnock, pp. 1093–1104. Rome: Università degli studi di Roma «La Sapienza», Dipartimento di scienze storiche, archeologiche e antropologiche dell’antichità. MÜLLER-KARPE, A. 1994 Altanatolisches Metallhandwerk (Offa-Bücher Band 75). Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag.

K. A. YENER

194

“Zur Metallverarbeitung bei den Hethitern,” in Anatolian Metal I (Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 13), edited by Ü. Yalçın, pp. 113–124. Bochum: Deutsches BergbauMuseum. 2006 “Hititlerde Metal Külҫeler,” in Uluburun Gemisi, 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya Ticareti, edited by Ü. Yalҫın, C. Pulak and R. Slotta, pp. 487–494. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. MÜLLER-KARPE, M. 1995 “Zu den Erdgräbern 18, 20 und 21 von Assur. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis mesopotamischer Metallgefäße und -waffen von der Wende des 3. zum 2. Jahrtausends v.Chr.,” Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseums Mainz 42: 257–352. MUSCARELLA, O. W. 1988 Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in the Metropolitan Museum. New York: Metropolitan Museum. ÖZGÜҪ, N. 1995 “Silver and Copper ingots from Acemhöyük,” in Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer, edited by R. M. Boehmer, U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann and H. Hauptmann, pp. 513–520. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. ÖZGÜҪ, T. 1956 “The dagger of Anitta,” Belleten 77: 33–36. 1986 Kültepe-Kaniş II. Eski yakındoğu’nun ticaret merkezinde yeni aratırmalar = New Researches at the Trading Center of the Ancient Near East. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. ÖZTEN, A. 1997 “Acemhöyük Gümüș Hazinesi [The silver treasure of Acemhöyük],” Belleten 61/231: 233–271. PEARCE, M. 2013 “The spirit of the sword and spear,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 23: 55–67. PELTENBURG, E. 2013 “Conflict and exclusivity in Early Bronze Age societies of the Middle Euphrates Valley,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 72: 233–252. PFAFFENBERGER, B. 1992 “Social anthropology of technology,” Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 491–516. PHILIP, G. 1989 Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine, 2 vols (BAR International Series 526). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1995 “Warrior burials in the ancient Near-Eastern Bronze Age: The evidence from Mesopotamia, Western Iran, and Syria-Palestine,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (Oxbow Monograph 51), edited by S. Campbell and A. Green, pp. 140–154. Oxford: Oxbow Books. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, B. and SONIK, K. 2015 “Between cognition and culture: Theorizing the materiality of divine agency in crosscultural perspective,” in The Materiality of Divine Agency, edited by B. PongratzLeisten and K. Sonik, pp. 3–69. Berlin: De Gruyter. PULAK, C. 2008 “The Uluburun shipwreck and Late Bronze Age trade,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium BC, edited by J. Aruz, K. Benzel, and J. M. Evans, pp. 289–310. New York; New Haven: Metropolitan Museum of Art; Yale University Press. ROBB, J. E. 1998 “The archaeology of symbols,” Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 329–346. SAĞLAMTIMUR, H. and ÖZEN, A. 2013 “Bașur Höyük 2012 Kazı Ҫalıșmaları,” in 35. Kazı Sonuҫları Toplantısı, pp. 514– 529. Ankara: Ministry of Culture and Tourism. SALVINI, M. 1993 “Un Documento del re Ittita Ammuna,” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 32: 85–89. 2000

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

195

SANDARS, N. K. 1961 “The first Aegean swords and their ancestry,” American Journal of Archaeology 65: 17–29. SASS, B. 1989 “Inscribed Babylonian arrowheads of the turn of the second millennium and their Phoenician counterparts,” Ugarit Forschungen 21: 349–356. SCHAEFFER, C. F.-A. 1949 Ugaritica II; nouvelles études relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra. Paris: P. Geuthner. SCHWARTZ, G. M. 2007 “Status, ideology, and memory in third-millennium Syria: ‘Royal’ tombs at Umm el-Marra,” in Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, edited by N. Laneri, pp. 39–68. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. SCHWEMER, D. 2007 “Witchcraft and war: The ritual fragment Ki 1904-10-9, 18 (BM 98989),” Iraq 69: 29–42. SEEHER, J. 2011 Gods Carved in Stone: The Hittite Rock Sanctuary of Yazılıkaya. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. SEIDEL, U. and STOL, M. 2015 “Waffen im alten Mesopotamien,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 72: 613–626. SHALEV, S. 2004 Swords and Daggers in Late Bronze Age Canaan (Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abt. IV, Band 13). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. SINGER, I. 1999 “A political history of Ugarit,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, edited by W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 603–733. Leiden: Brill. SMITH, J. S. and HIRSCHFELD, N. E. 1999 “The Cypro-Minoan Corpus Project takes an archaeological approach,” Near Eastern Archaeology 62: 129–130. SNOW, H. 2005 The Role of Metals in the Early Bronze Age Economies of North Syria and Anatolia. Unpublished PhD diss. University of Toronto. STARR, R. F. S. 1937 Nuzi II. Plates and Plans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. SÜEL, A. 2005 “Ortaköy/Şapinuwa Ören Yerinde 2003 Yılı Çalışmaları [2003 season at the site of Ortaköy/Şapinuwa],” in Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 26, pp. 243–250. Ankara: Ministry of Culture and Tourism. SUMMERS, G. D. 2017 “Iron Age arrowheads from Kerkenes,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Festschrift Presented to K. Aslihan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, A. Gilbert, and M. Horowitz, pp. 645–664. Leiden: Brill. TARACHA, P. 2004 “Pfeil und Bogen,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10: 458–461. THOMPSON, C. R. and HAMILTON, R. W. 1932 “The British Museum excavations on the Temple of Ishtar at Nineveh 1930-31,” University of Liverpool, Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19: 55–116. THOMPSON, C. R. and MALLOWAN, M. E. L. 1933 “The British Museum excavations at Nineveh 1931-32,” University of Liverpool, Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20: 71–186. TONUSSI, M. 2016 “Near Eastern Early Bronze Age moulds for casting disc-shaped ‘ingots’,” in Libiamo ne’ lieti calici. Ancient Near Eastern Studies presented to Lucio Milano on the occasion of his 65th Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends, edited by E. Devecchi, P. Corò, M. Maiocchi and N. de Zorzi, pp. 533–556. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.

196

K. A. YENER

TRIPATHI, D. N. 1988 Bronzework of Mainland Greece from c. 2600 B.C. to c. 1450 B.C. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. TUBB, J. N. 1980 “A bronze arrowhead with engraved mark from Gezer in the British Museum collection,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 112: 1–6. 1982 “A crescentic axehead from Amarna (Syria) and an examination of similar axeheads from the Near East,” Iraq 44: 1–12. UNWIN, J. 1999 “The marks of Sheffield Cutlers, 1614-1878,” Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society 33/2: 93–103. UYGUN, D. and GERҪEKER, S. Ö. 2013 Traces of Ancient Ages: Sadberk Hanım Museum Collection. Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Foundation. UZUNOĞLU, E. 1978 “Küp Üzerinde bir Hitit Silindir Mühür Baskısı,” Jahrbuch für Kleinasiatische Forschung 6: 179–196. VEENHOF, K. 1995 “Kanesh: An Assyrian colony in Anatolia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 2, edited by J. M. Sasson, pp. 859–871. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. VON DASSOW, E. M. 2008 State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalah under the Mittani Empire (Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 17). Bethesda: CDL Press. WEBER, J. A. and ZETTLER, R. L. 1998 “Tools and weapons,” in Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur, edited by R. L. Zettler and L. Horne, pp. 163–173. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. WEYGAND, I. 2012 “Les objets en métal d’Emar (aujourd’hui Meskéné), une ville de Syrie du Nord sous domination Hittite au Bronze Récent: quels courants d’influence?” Anatolica 38: 237–261. WINTER, I. J. 2007 “Agency marked, agency ascribed: The affective object in ancient Mesopotamia,” in Art’s Agency and Art History, edited by R. Osborne and J. Tanner, pp. 42–69. Malden, MA: Blackwell. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). London: Society of Antiquaries. YENER, K. A. 2007 “A zoomorphic vessel from Alalakh: diplomatic emblems in three dimensional form,” in Studies in Honour of Refik Duru, edited by G. Umurtak, Ş. Dönmez and A. Yurtsever, pp. 217–228. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2010a The Amuq Valley Regional Projects: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch: Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons. Istanbul: Koc Universitesi. 2010b “Aççana Höyüğü 2008 Yılı Çalışmaları,” in 31. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, pp. 315– 332. Ankara: General Directorate of Antiquities and Museums. 2011 “Hittite Metals at the Frontier: A Three Spiked Battle Ax from Alalakh,” in Metallurgy: Understanding How, Learning Why. Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly, edited by S. Ferrence and P. Betancourt, pp. 265–272. Philadelphia: Institute for Aegean Prehistory. 2013 “A plaster-encased multiple burial at Alalakh: Cist tomb 3017,” in Amilla: The Quest for Excellence. Studies Presented to Günter Kopcke in Celebration of his 75th Birthday,

SYMBOLIC MESSAGING AND INCISED SIGNS ON BRONZE

197

edited by R. B. Koehl, pp. 263–279. Philadelphia: Institute for Aegean Academic Press. 2015 “Silver for Assur: Kanesh, Acemhöyük and metal wealth in the Taurus highlands,” Anatolica 41 (Numéro spécial en l’honneur du 80ème anniversaire de Klaas Veenhof): 1–7. YENER, K. A., SAYRE, E. V., JOEL, E. C., ÖZBAL, H., BARNES, I. L. and BRILL, R. H. 1991 “Stable lead isotope studies of Central Taurus ore sources and related artifacts from Eastern Mediterranean Chalcolithic and Bronze Age sites,” Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 541–577. YILDIRIM, T. 2010 “Weapons of Kültepe,” in Anatolia’s Prologue: Kültepe Kanesh Karum. Assyrians in Istanbul (Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality Cultural Publication 78), edited by F. Kulakoglu and S. Kangal, pp. 116–120. Kayseri: Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality. YON, M. 2006 The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

K. Aslıhan YENER Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University [email protected]

CERAMIC STUDIES

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN: FIVE CENTURIES OF SHIFTING BUT ENDURING CONTACTS Robert B. KOEHL ABSTRACT This paper will survey the evidence for contacts between Alalakh and the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures. It will address how the nature of these contacts appears to have changed over time, including the sharing and borrowing of artistic idioms and techniques, palatial and commercial exchanges, and culminating with a possible migration from the Aegean in the 12th century BC.

As an archaeologist interested in exploring the interconnections between the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean, Tell Atchana/Alalakh had long occupied a prominent position in my thoughts and teaching. Thus, when Aslihan Yener invited me to join the staff of the new excavations there as the specialist in Aegean culture, I jumped at the chance. I just want to take this opportunity here to express my gratitude to her for including me in the great adventure of excavating Alalakh. In this chapter, I will provide an overview of the relations between the Aegean and Alalakh, lasting approximately a half millennium, in hopes of demonstrating how the nature of these contacts changed over time. I shall also present the results of my own re-dating of C. Leonard Woolley’s Aegean-related material, and show how this impacts the history of Alalakh and its relationship to the Aegean. Right from the start, Woolley made it clear that one of his chief motivations in excavating at Tell Atchana was to document contacts with the Aegean, specifically with Minoan Crete.1 He correctly surmised that these would have existed based largely on its location alongside the Orontes River. However, the earliest evidence that Woolley thought documented these contacts is also among the most controversial: the architecture and wall paintings from the Level VII palace. Woolley believed that the room which he restored above the small storerooms 11, 12 and 13 resembled that of the so-called King’s and Queen’s “Megara” at Knossos, with its use of internal columnar divides and wall paintings.2 Thinking that these features first appeared on Crete at least a century later, Woolley argued that architects and artists from the Near East were responsible for their incorporation in the design of the Cretan palaces. However, excavations on Crete since Woolley’s writing, particularly at Malia, now indicate that orthostats, interior columns and wall paintings were part of the first palace on Crete, that is, roughly contemporary with their first occurrence in the Near East, and hence, the question of who is influencing whom is not so easily resolved.3 1

 For example, Woolley 1937, p. 1; 1968, pp. 14–15.  Woolley 1948, p. 14; 1955, pp. 228–234; 1968, pp. 73–75. 3  For a recent discussion of Middle Bronze Age architecture on Crete, see McEnroe 2010, pp. 45–55. 2

202

R. B. KOEHL

Discussions about the iconography and dating of the wall paintings from Tell Atchana and their connections to the Aegean were recently re-stimulated by Wolf and Barbara Niemeier’s re-examination and accompanying reconstructions of them, and from more recent discoveries of Aegean-related wall paintings at Tell Kabri, in Israel, and Tell el-Dab’a, in Egypt.4 According to the Niemeiers, the couchant griffin, frontal bucranium with double axe between the horns, and floral spray of spiky leaves from Alalakh are Aegean in inspiration if not execution.5 However, during the Middle Bronze Age, the Minoan griffin had no standardised iconography, and the frontal bucranium was rare; these are developments of the Neo-palatial period, starting c. 1600 BC.6 Further, their minimal state of preservation precludes judgments based on style. Rather, ample iconographic parallels for the couchant griffin and the frontal bucranium are found in Old Syrian glyptic, contemporary with the Level VII palace.7 On the other hand, the painting of spiky light green shaded leaves against a red background is a reasonable candidate for an Aegean painting (Fig. 1). Not only is the light-ondark painting technique standard in contemporary Middle Minoan II vase-painting, but numerous examples of spiky-leaved plants occur in those ceramics, when floral imagery is beginning to emerge as an important element in Minoan vase-painting.8 What is particularly striking on the Alalakh painting is the depiction of the plant’s varying stages of growth, by showing different-sized sprigs, a practice which becomes standard in Aegean depictions of flora by the Neo-palatial period, c. 1600 BC. Thus, it is reasonable to imagine that Minoan artists visited the Level VII palace at a time when the first Minoan palaces were still standing in Middle Minoan II (c. 1800–1700 BC) or soon after they were destroyed in Middle Minoan III (1700–1600 BC) and were undergoing reconstruction. If the latter is assumed, then it is possible that the inspiration to expand the repertoire of Minoan wall paintings to include figural scenes might have been inspired by visits to the Levant. It is during these visits to Alalakh that Minoan artists might also have learned how to manipulate plaster into figural reliefs. This notion is based on Yener’s recent reconstruction of fluted plaster griffin wings which she thinks may have flanked a throne from Alalakh.9 At Knossos, c. 1600–1500 BC, walls of the new palace were decorated with scenes of acrobats and boxers in high plaster relief.10 That artists moved among the courts of Near Eastern palaces sharing their skills and talents is not doubted.11 Indeed, the painted platform at

 4

 Niemeier and Niemeier 2000. For a summary of the discussion with bibliography, see Koehl 2013; also, von Rüden, this volume.  5  Niemeier and Niemeier 2000, pp. 780–793.  6  For the Protopalatial griffin, see Yule 1981, p. 138; Aruz 2008, pp. 107–108; for the Protopalatial bucranium, see Yule 1981, pp. 123–124.  7  For the frontal bucranium, see Buchanan 1966, pp. 177–178, nos. 901, 906; Aruz et al. 2008, p. 228, no. 138; for the griffin, see Buchanan 1966, p. 177, no. 901, p. 178, no. 906; Buchanan 1981, p. 421, nos. 1214, 1216, p. 422, nos. 1217, 1221, p. 425, nos. 1225–1227, p. 426, nos. 1231, 1232, p. 430, no. 1250; Aruz 2008, pp. 100, 108, 116.  8  MacGillivray 2013, p. 222, esp. n. 22; MacGillivray 1998, pl. 7, no. 230, pl. 15, nos. 379, 382, pl. 136, no. 930.  9  Yener 2013. 10  Kaiser 1976. 11  Zaccagnini 1983.

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

203

Fig. 1. Spiky-leaved fresco from Alalakh – restored view; after photo, courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum.

Mari with a border of j-spirals and panels of faux-marble is perhaps also best explained as the work of visiting Minoan artists.12 Until the summer of 2017, no examples of imported Middle Minoan “Kamares” style pottery had been found at Alalakh, despite the putative connections with Crete discussed here and its discovery at a few sites to the south, notably Ugarit, Sidon and Byblos.13 A new fragment, from an earlier phase of the Level VII palace, is from the rim and body of a hemispherical cup, covered with the characteristic glossy black slip and decorated with white line groups on the rim’s interior and exterior and rows of arcades and dot rosettes on the exterior (Figs 2a, 2b).14 Though the closest parallels from Knossos and Phaistos date to Middle Minoan IIB, an example from Anemospilia (Archanes) dates to Middle Minoan IIIA, thus suggesting a possible range in date from c. 1750–1650 BC.15

12

 Koehl 2013, pp. 171–173.  Koehl 2008a. 14  While I have yet to handle the sherd, I am grateful to Müge Bulu for its identification and for preparing the drawing, Fig. 2b. 15  For hemispherical cups from Knossos with similar rim decoration and dot rosettes, but without a central dot, see MacGillivray 1998, pl. 12, nos. 341, 342, 346, 348, 351, 352, pl. 73, nos. 341–346, pl. 74, nos. 348– 353; for Phaistos, see Levi 1976, pl. 124c-f; for Anemospilia, see Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 13

204

R. B. KOEHL

Fig. 2a. Middle Minoan IIB-IIIA “Kamares” Ware cup from Alalakh, photo, AT 25415.1.

Fig. 2b. Middle Minoan IIB-IIIA “Kamares” Ware cup from Alalakh, reconstruction drawing, AT 25415.1.

The positive evidence for contacts between the Alalakh palace and Middle Bronze Age Crete which this sherd provides may increase the chances that the bronze tripod cauldron found by Woolley in the palace was also an import from Crete (Fig. 3).16 With no known parallels from the Near East, this artefact is in fact strikingly similar to one from Quartier Mu at Malia.17 These vessels stand at the beginning of a long tradition of tripod cauldrons

fig. 384. I am grateful to Colin Macdonald and Carl Knappett for their helpful comments on the dating of the sherd. 16  Woolley 1955, p. 101, pl. LXXIV (AT/39/142); Reeves 2003, p. 151, a reference I owe to Aslihan Yener. 17  Vandenabeele 1980, p. 77, no. 110, pp. 82–84.

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

205

Fig. 3. Bronze tripod cauldron from Alalakh; photo courtesy of the British Museum.

in the Aegean, especially on Crete, that continues at least into the 13th century BC.18 Indeed, 13th century Linear B texts from Pylos refer to bronze tripod cauldrons either made in the Cretan style or of Cretan workmanship.19 Thus, the newly discovered Kamares sherd and the tripod cauldrons from Malia and Alalakh provide firm and reliable archaeological synchronisms between Alalakh Level VII/VIII, Middle Minoan IIB-IIIA, and the Middle Bronze IIA/B transitional period in the Levant.20 The existence of an imported Minoan bronze tripod cauldron in the so-called Yarim-lim palace at Alalakh accords well with the kinds of high quality luxury goods that texts state were sent from Crete to the Zimri-lim palace at Mari in exchange for tin, including precious metal vessels, inlaid swords, textiles and leather sandals.21 Indeed, since the vast majority of 18  For a catalogue and discussion of Aegean bronze tripod cauldrons, see Matthäus 1980, pp. 100–118. The vessel from Quartier Mu is cat. no. 42, and is the oldest specimen of its type. According to Yener, analysis of several bronzes from Quartier Mu indicates that they come from copper sources in the Taurus Mountains, though the tripod was not among those analysed; see Poursat and Loubet 2005; I am grateful to Professor Yener for this reference. 19  Ventris and Chadwick 1973, pp. 135, 325–326, 336–337, 498–499. 20  Warren and Hankey 1989, pp. 51–54; MacGillivray 1998, pp. 105–109; Manning 1999, pp. 341–366; MacGillivray 2013, pp. 222–223. 21  Koehl 2008a; Heimpel 2003, p. 12, n. 27.

206

R. B. KOEHL

Kamares ware vessels found in the Levant are cups, and considering its palatial context at Alalakh, it is likely that this exotic and attractive ceramic ware was also regarded as a high-status import. But it may not only have been Minoan artists and merchants that visited these sites in the Middle Bronze Age. Prominent among the eclectic international imagery on a wellknown sealing from Alalakh, and on several others without a provenience, are long-haired, wasp-waisted figures doing hand-stands on the backs of bulls.22 Their hairstyle and physique correspond well to representations of Minoan male figures, rather than to SyroAnatolians. Furthermore, bull acrobatics are depicted on Early Minoan II-III ceramic rhyta, from the third millennium BC.23 Along with the paintings from Tell el-Dab’a, which also depict Minoan-looking bull-leapers, this seal would seem to suggest that Minoan bull-leapers travelled around the eastern Mediterranean thrilling audiences, not unlike a travelling circus, and at least at Alalakh, inspiring seal cutters.24 After the destruction which marked the end of Level VII, c. 1650–1600 BC, contacts between Alalakh and the Aegean appear to have waned. Indeed, Late Minoan pottery is generally very rare in the eastern Mediterranean.25 Perhaps the explosion of the Thera volcano caused a temporary rupture in Aegean sea trade. And if the Theran eruption was followed by a prolonged Mycenaean conquest of Crete, as many surmise, the dearth of Minoan material in the Levant is not surprising.26 The only object thus far discovered at Tell Atchana which may have been made on Crete in the early part of the Late Bronze Age, perhaps the 16th century BC, is a low pedestalled red stone lamp, although its Level II context was dated by Woolley to the 15th century BC, and its Aegean parallels are inconclusive (Fig. 4).27 What is peculiar and most difficult to explain are the drill marks on its interior, suggesting that the lamp was unfinished at the time of its deposition. Evidence for contacts with early Mycenaean Greece, however, can now be deduced at Tell Atchana by the discovery in 2006 of a sherd from a cylindrical or “Vapheio” cup (Figs. 5a, 5b). Both its profile and foliate band decoration date it to the Late Helladic IIB period, or c. 1450–1400 BC.28 This fragment joins a small group of early Mycenaean ceramics from the Levant, all of which, interestingly, are types of cups, a distribution which echoes that of Kamares ware, as noted above.29 Though it would appear as if the early Mycenaeans were testing the market for fine Aegean table wares, no Mycenaean artefacts from the immediately succeeding Late Helladic IIIA:1 period, or the first quarter of the 14th century BC, have yet been found at Alalakh. Indeed, fewer Mycenaean ceramics from this phase are known generally from the Levant than from the preceding, Late Helladic IIB; again, all are cups.30 22

 Collon 1994; 2000, pp. 286–287.  Koehl 2006, pp. 16, 71, pl. 1, no. 2. 24  For the paintings from Tell el-Dab’a, see Bietak et al. 2007. 25  Koehl 2008b, p. 270. 26  Koehl 2008b, pp. 270–271; for the most recent and detailed discussion, see Wiener 2015. 27  Woolley 1948, p. 5, pl. VIIIa; Warren 1969, pp. 55–56. 28  Mountjoy 1986, p. 45, fig. 50.4. 29  Koehl 2008b, p. 271, especially n. 11. 30  Leonard 1994, pp. 96–97, 106. 23

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

207

Fig. 4. Stone lamp; photo courtesy of the British Museum.

Fig. 5a. Late Helladic IIB Vapheio cup sherd, reconstruction drawing, AT 859.1.

Fig. 5b. Late Helladic IIB Vapheio cup sherd, photo AT 859.1.

208

R. B. KOEHL

However, the next phase in the Aegean, Late Helladic IIIA:2, lasting perhaps for the last quarter of the 14th century BC, witnessed a dramatic surge in overseas activities, documented by the discovery of thousands of Mycenaean vessels found throughout the Levant.31 According to the results from neutron activation analyses, the vast majority of these were made in the Argolid, near Mycenae.32 Indeed, a stirrup jar found by Woolley on the floor of a Level I house is remarkably similar in shape and decoration to specimens from the Petsas House, at Mycenae, which has yielded the largest and best preserved assemblage of Late Helladic IIIA:2 pottery in Greece, especially of stirrup jars (Fig. 6).33 To date, the largest deposit of Late Helladic IIIA: 2 pottery found outside of Greece comes from Tell el Amarna, whose abandonment provides the most reliable synchronism for dating this phase.34 The synchronism of Late Helladic IIIA:2 with the Amarna Age is also supported by the discovery of a gold scarab of Nefertiti found on the Uluburun shipwreck with Late Helladic IIIA:2 pottery.35 After Tell el Amarna, the largest deposit of Late Helladic IIIA:2 pottery outside of Greece comes from Alalakh. In the course of studying the pottery from both Woolley’s excavation and the copious amounts that have turned up during the current campaign, a shape distribution specific to Alalakh has become apparent.36 Whereas at most other sites in the Levant, the most common Mycenaean shapes are the stirrup jar and small piriform jar (shapes which also occur at Alalakh), at Alalakh, there is a clear preference for the vertical globular flask and the amphoroid krater (Figs. 7–9). While the globular flask is also the most common shape at Tell el Amarna, the krater is rare. Indeed, outside of Cyprus, where Mycenaean kraters were frequently placed in tombs, Alalakh has yielded more examples of Late Helladic IIIA:2 kraters than any other site in the Levant. While kraters are also popular at Ugarit, the majority date to the next ceramic phase, Late Helladic IIIB, or the 13th century BC. Elsewhere I have suggested that the globular flasks contained a highly concentrated syrupy fermented grape juice known in Linear B tablets as de-re-u-ko, apparently the most expensive wine product in the Mycenaean world.37 The krater would thus have been used to dilute the de-re-u-ko, to which other aromatic flavours could be added. While these kraters had a practical use, they were also enhanced with a rich and varied repertoire of Mycenaean figural imagery, in the so-called Pictorial Style (Fig. 8). The recent excavations at Alalakh have yielded splendid new fragments including images of birds, octopi, and a horse’s head that may be attributed to the same artist who painted one found by Woolley.38 However, pride of place surely belongs to a krater that depicts a scene of bull leaping, 31

 Koehl 2008b, p. 271, especially n. 23.  Koehl 2008b, p. 271; French 2004; French and Tomlinson 2004. 33  Woolley 1955, pl. CXXVIIb (ATP/37/111). I am grateful to Professor Kim Shelton, the current excavator of Petsas House, for this information. 34  Warren and Hankey 1989, pp. 149–151; the occurrence of Late Helladic IIIB:1 pottery at Tell el Amarna has yet to be verified. 35  Pulak 2008, pp. 297, 358; Weinstein 2008; Rutter 2008. 36  Koehl 2005, 2010, forthcoming. 37  Koehl 2010, p. 83. 38  Koehl, forthcoming. 32

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

209

Fig. 6. Late Helladic IIIA:2 piriform stirrup jar from Tell Atchana; Hatay Archaeological Museum.

Fig. 7. Late Helladic IIIA:2 vertical globular flask from Tell Atchana; Hatay Archaeological Museum.

210

R. B. KOEHL

Fig. 8. Late Helladic IIIA:2 chariot krater: Hatay Archaeological Museum.

Fig. 9a. Late Helladic IIIA:2 “bull-leaping” krater, photo, AT 0281.25, 38, 41, 43, AT 3498.1.

Fig. 9b. LH IIIA:2 “bull-leaping” krater, reconstruction drawing, AT 0281.25, 38, 41, 43, AT 3498.1.

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

211

one of only a handful of depictions of bull acrobatics on Mycenaean vases (Figs. 9a, 9b). If my reconstruction is correct, the vase shows a bull-leaper about to grab the horns of a bull. When the bull raises his head, the leaper would be lifted into the air to begin acrobatic tricks on its back, as depicted on a sherd from Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus.39 Despite the fact that the Mycenaean pottery found by Woolley on the floors of his Level I houses belongs to Late Helladic IIIA:2, which thus would date this destruction to the late 14th century BC, he insisted that the Level I city was destroyed by the Sea Peoples, regardless of its absence from the list of cities mentioned in the Medinet Habu as destroyed by them.40 This conviction led him to inconsistently date the Mycenaean pottery from these floors. While in his 1937 preliminary report, he correctly dated it to Late Helladic IIIA:2, or the later 14th century BC, in his preliminary report of 1946, he lowered his dating to 1190 BC, surely in order to attribute it to the Sea Peoples.41 The two experts whom he consulted for the final publication, Alan J. B. Wace, the British excavator of Mycenae, and Frank Stubbings, the author of a seminal study on Mycenaean pottery in the Levant, allowed that the pottery could date either to Late Helladic IIIA or to Late Helladic IIIB, thus offering a broad chronological range, from c. 1400–1200 BC.42 But in his concluding chapter, Woolley admits that Stubbings was hesitant to date the Level I vases any later than 1300 BC, and only reluctantly conceded a date of 1280 BC.43 Still, Woolley finally embraced the lowest possible date, c. 1200 BC, so that Alalakh could be destroyed by the Sea Peoples before their war with Ramesses III in 1194 BC.44 While Woolley’s historical conclusions cannot be taken seriously, sherds from two Mycenaean stirrup jars dateable to Late Helladic IIIB:1, or the 13th century BC, were found in the recent excavations in Square 42.10, a sounding near Woolley’s temple, thus supporting the idea that this particular area experienced a limited continued occupation. One specimen has good parallels from the Aegean (Fig. 10).45 However, the even bands painted on the other suggest it might be classified as “Simple Style,” a derivative kind of Mycenaean pottery perhaps produced on Cyprus to supplement the shortages of Late Helladic IIIB ceramics shipping from Greece at this time, caused by disruptions in trade routes (Fig. 11).46 By the latter part of the 13th century BC, the palatial centres of Mycenaean Greece were suffering waves of destructions, sometimes accompanied by abandonments, and by the start of the 12th century BC, palatial society in the Aegean had finally collapsed.47 Previously underpopulated areas were newly settled and groups of Mycenaeans are thought to have begun migrating overseas, a movement that has been associated with the elusive Sea Peoples.48 39

 Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, pp. 25, 197 (cat. no. III. 31).  Woolley 1955, pp. 373–376, 398–399, n. 4; 1968, pp. 163–164. 41  Woolley 1938, pp. 4–5; 1950, p. 13. 42  Woolley 1955, p. 369. 43  Woolley 1955, p. 398. 44  Woolley 1955, pp. 374–375, 398, 399, n. 4. See now Yener 2013, p. 144, for the current abandonment date of c. 1300 BC, based on evidence from the current excavations. 45  Mountjoy 1986, fig. 128. 46  Koehl and Yellin 2007; Mountjoy 2011a. 47  Deger-Jalkotzy 2008; Jung 2010; Cline 2014. 48  The bibliography on this topic is extensive. For recent discussions, see Yasur-Landau 2010 and papers in Killebrew and Lehmann 2013. 40

212

R. B. KOEHL

Fig. 10. Late Helladic IIIB:1 stirrup jar, AT 20835.2.

Fig. 11. Late Helladic IIIB “Simple Style” stirrup jar, AT 18878.1.

Fig. 12. Late Helladic IIIC wavy line deep bowl, AT 19516.2.

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

213

It thus indeed came as a great surprise when, in 2007 and 2011, sherds from at least 32 vessels with clear associations to the Aegean were discovered at Tell Atchana in a paving comprised otherwise of familiar, local Iron Age I ceramics. While most if not all of the Aegean-style sherds are made in local Amuq clay, according to autopsy, their shapes and surface treatments seem clearly derived from the Mycenaean ceramic repertoire. In all likelihood, this is probably the same pottery which Woolley found “loose in the soil” and referred to in his 1937 preliminary report as “decadent Mycenaean ware”, none of which he published.49 In addition to the difference in fabric, however, the range of shapes represented in this assemblage is entirely unlike the imported Late Helladic IIIA:2 ceramic repertoire. As noted already, the Late Helladic IIIA:2 assemblage consists primarily of figural decorated kraters and small closed vessels, like the globular flask and stirrup jar — undoubtedly containers for exotic perishables, such as perfumed oil and wine products. By contrast, the Aegean-style vessels from this Iron I context consist primarily of open shapes of the types found typically in Aegean domestic contexts.50 Based on comparisons with assemblages from the Aegean, it would appear that this pottery derives its shapes and surface treatments from a phase of Mycenaean pottery known as Late Helladic IIIC Middle “Developed” or Middle “phase 1,” dating perhaps to the second quarter of the 12th century BC.51 As in the Aegean, the most common shape at Alalakh is the deep bowl, decorated with a monochrome red or black slip, or simple banded decoration (Fig. 12).52 Next in popularity is the lipless, one-handled conical bowl which, as in the Aegean, may have a monochrome interior or a distinct reserved line at the lip (Figs. 13a, 13b).53 This is followed at Alalakh by the shallow angular bowl which, as is typical of this shape in the Aegean, is undecorated but smoothed (Fig. 14).54 The kylix, a common shape in the Aegean, also occurs at Alalakh, but in small numbers. As in the Aegean, it can be partially painted or monochrome black or red (Fig. 15).55 It is also notable that a few shapes at Tell Atchana have a wide distribution in the Aegean, although they appear there only in small numbers. One such shape is the dipper which, in both the Aegean and at Alalakh, has an unpainted, smoothed surface (Fig. 16).56 Another is a large basin with horizontal handles and linear decoration; in the Aegean they often have a spout (Figs. 17a, 17b).57 Finally, the discovery of a fragmentary cooking jug may connect this assemblage with the Aegean and also with assemblages from the southern Levant that are associated with the Philistines (Fig. 18).58 Indeed, its frequency

49

 Woolley 1938, p. 4.  See, for example, Koehl 1984. For a full discussion of this material, see Koehl 2017. 51  For recent definitions/characterisations of Late Helladic IIIC Middle, see Mountjoy 1999, pp. 47–51; French 2007; Mountjoy 2007. 52  Mountjoy 1986, pp. 178–179. 53  Mountjoy 1986, p. 172. 54  Koehl 1984, p. 214, fig. 5.3; Mountjoy 1986, p. 180. 55  Koehl 1984, p. 211, fig. 3.3–10; Mountjoy 1986, p. 172; Mountjoy 2011b. 56  Koehl 1984, p. 214, fig. 5.2. 57  Mountjoy 1986, p. 153. 58  French 2013; Rutter 2013, table 1b, pp. 548–549, fig. 2.11–14. 50

R. B. KOEHL

214

Fig. 13a. Late Helladic IIIC style lipless onehanded conical bowl (exterior), AT 11134.11.

Fig. 13b. Late Helladic IIIC style lipless onehanded conical bowl (interior), AT 11134.11.

Fig. 14. Late Helladic IIIC style shallow angular bowl, AT 2027.1.

in the southern Levant has been cited as evidence for the presence of Aegean peoples there in the 12th century BC, specifically the Philistines.59 In light of the recent discoveries of 12th century BC Aegean-style ceramics at Tell Tayinat and of linguistic evidence which points to the existence in this vicinity of an Iron Age kingdom 59

 Lehmann 2013, p. 324.

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

Fig. 15. Late Helladic IIIC style kylix, AT 11134.3.

Fig. 16. Late Helladic IIIC style dipper, AT 14999.1.

215

216

R. B. KOEHL

Fig. 17a. Late Helladic IIIC style basin (exterior), AT 2045.7.

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

Fig. 17b. Late Helladic IIIC style basin (interior), AT 2045.7.

217

218

R. B. KOEHL

Fig. 18. Late Helladic IIIC style cooking jug, AT 11114.3.

of northern Philistia, it is tempting to associate the Iron I Aegean-style ceramic assemblage from Tell Atchana with the inhabitants of this kingdom.60 Indeed, the pottery from Tell Atchana is derivative from an earlier phase of Late Helladic IIIC Middle, “phase 1,” than the Aegean-style pottery from Tell Tayinat, which seems closest to Late Helladic IIIC Middle “phase 2” or “Advanced,” continuing into Late Helladic IIIC Late.61 Therefore, based on its 60  For the Aegean-style pottery from Tell Tayinat, see Harrison 2010, 2013; for the linguistic evidence identifying a kingdom of northern Philistia, see Hawkins 2009 and this volume. 61  See also Janeway 2011.

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

219

dating and the domestic nature of the assemblage, it may be suggested that the Late Helladic IIIC-style pottery from Tell Atchana was made by the first group of 12th century BC emigrés from the Aegean to the Amuq. Shortly thereafter, they moved across the Orontes River to Tell Tayinat, whence they established the small kingdom of northern Philistia. Thus, contacts between Alalakh and the Aegean began some five centuries earlier with gift-giving and visits to the palace of Yarim-Lim by Minoan artists and acrobats. By the 14th century BC, these contacts had evolved into an active and thriving trading network with Mycenaeans from the Argolid, based on the export of fine decorated Mycenaean vases and exotic perishables such as perfumes, wines, and spices, perhaps in exchange for copper and tin. The recent discovery at Alalakh of a few Mycenaean imports dated to the 13th century BC, associated with the limited occupation following the city’s abandonment c. 1300 BC, is surely a testament to the strength of the long-held ties between Alalakh and the Aegean. Thus, it is remarkable but not surprising that after the collapse of Aegean palatial society in the 12th century BC, a small group of displaced Aegean people appear to have settled on the remains of what was once the great Bronze Age city of Alalakh.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARUZ, J. 2008

Marks of Distinction: Seals and Cultural Exchange between the Aegean and the Orient (ca. 2600-1360 B.C.) (Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, Beiheft 7). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. ARUZ, J., BENZEL, K. and EVANS, J. M. (eds.) 2008 Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. New York: Yale University Press. BIETAK, M., MARINATOS, N. and PALIVOU, C. 2007 Taureador Scenes in Tell el-Dab’a (Avaris) and Knossos. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. BUCHANAN, B. 1966 Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum, Vol. 1, Cylinder Seals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1981 Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection. New Haven: Yale University Press. COLLON, D. 1994 “Bull-leaping in Syria,” Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant 4: 81–88. 2000 “Syrian glyptic and the Theran wall paintings,” in The Wall Paintings of Thera: Proceedings of the First International Symposium, edited by S. Sherratt, pp. 283–294. Athens: Thera Foundation. CLINE, E. H. 2014 1177 B.C. The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. DEGER-JALKOTZY, S. 2008 “Decline, destruction, aftermath,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by C. W. Shelmerdine, pp. 387–415. New York: Cambridge University Press. FRENCH, E. 2004 “The contribution of chemical analysis to provenance studies,” in La Céramique mycénienne de L’Égée au Levant. Hommage à Vronwy Hankey (Travaux de la Maison

220

R. B. KOEHL

de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 41), edited by J. Balensi, J.-Y. Monchambert and S. Müller Celka, pp. 15–17. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée-Jean Pouilloux. 2007 “Late Helladic IIIC at Mycenae,” in LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms II. LH IIIC Middle. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October 29th and 30th, 2004, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil, pp. 175–187. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 2013 “The origin and date of Aegean-type pottery in the Levant,” in The Philistines and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in Text and Archaeology, edited by A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann, pp. 345–347. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. FRENCH, E. and TOMLINSON, J. 2004 “Investigating the provenance of some Aegean-type potsherds found in the Near East: Results from neutron activation analysis,” in La Céramique mycénienne de L’Égée au Levant. Hommage à Vronwy Hankey (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 41), edited by J. Balensi, J.-Y. Monchambert and S. Müller Celka, pp. 18–25. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée-Jean Pouilloux. HAWKINS, J. D. 2009 “Cilicia, the Amuq, and Aleppo: New light in a Dark Age,” Near Eastern Archaeology 72: 164–173. HARRISON, T. P. 2010 “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age transition in the North Orontes Valley,” in Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze II and Early Iron Age. Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the New Excavations in Tell Afis, Bologna, 15th November 2007, edited by F. Venturi, pp. 83–102. Bologna: Monte. 2013 “Tayinat in the Early Iron Age,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31–June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 61–87. Leuven: Peeters. HEIMPEL, W. 2003 Letters to the King of Mari. A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. JANEWAY, B. 2011 “Mycenaean bowls at 12th/11th century BC Tell Tayinat (Amuq Valley),” in On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights, and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions. An International Archaeological Symposium held in Nicosia, November 6th–7th 2010, edited by V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, pp. 167–185. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation. JUNG, R. 2010 “End of the Bronze Age,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, edited by E. H. Cline, pp. 171–184. New York: Oxford University Press. KAISER, B. 1976 Untersuchungen zum minoischen Relief. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag GmbH. KILLEBREW, A. E. and LEHMANN, G. 2013 The Philistines and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in Text and Archaeology. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. KOEHL, R. B. 1984 “Observations on a deposit of LC IIIC pottery from the Koukounaries Acropolis on Paros,” in The Prehistoric Cyclades. Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology, edited by J. A. MacGillivray and R. L. Barber, pp. 207–224. Edinburgh: Department of Classical Archaeology. 2005 “Preliminary observations on the unpublished Mycenaean pottery from Woolley’s dig-house at Tell Atchana (Ancient Alalakh),” in Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens,

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

221

Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco, pp. 415–422. Austin; Liège: University of Texas; Université de Liège. 2006 Aegean Bronze Age Rhyta (Prehistory Monographs 19). Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. 2008a “Minoan Kamares Ware in the Levant,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J. M. Evans, p. 59. New York; New Haven; London: Yale University Press. 2008b “Aegean interactions with the Near East and Egypt during the Late Bronze Age,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J. M. Evans. pp. 270–273. New York, New Haven; London: Yale University Press. 2010 “Mycenaean pottery,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 20032004 Excavations Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 81–84. Istanbul: Koç University Press. 2013 “The Near Eastern contribution to Aegean wall painting and vice versa,” in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia: Cultures in Contact from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, S. B. Graff and Y. Rakic, pp. 170–179. New York, New Haven; London: Yale University Press. 2017 “Were there Sea Peoples at Tell Atchana (ancient Alalakh)?,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslihan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. Gilbert, pp. 275–295. Leiden: Brill. Forthcoming “The Mycenaean pottery,” in Tell Atchana, Alalakh, The 2006-2010 Seasons. Volume 2: The Late Bronze Age II City, edited by K. A. Yener, M. Akar and M. Horowitz. Istanbul: Koç University Press. KOEHL, R. B. and YELLIN, J. 2007 “What Aegean ‘Simple Style’ pottery reveals about Eastern Mediterranean interrelations in the late 13th-century B.C.E.,” in Krinoi kai Limenes: Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (Prehistory Monographs 22), edited by P. P. Betancourt, M. C. Nelson and H. Williams, pp. 199–207. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. LEHMANN, G. 2013 “Aegean-style pottery in Syria and Lebanon during Iron Age I,” in The Philistines and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in Text and Archaeology, edited by A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann, pp. 265–328. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. LEONARD, A. 1994 An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from Syria-Palestine (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 114). Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. LEVI, D. Festòs e la civiltà Minoica I (Incunabula Graeca 60). Rome: Edizioni 1976 dell’Ateneo. MACGILLIVRAY, J. A. 1998 Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period (British School at Athens Studies 5). London: The British School at Athens. 2013 “Absolute Middle Minoan III — the bigger picture: Early Neopalatial Crete’s relations with the ancient Orient in the mid-second millennium BC,” in Intermezzo: Intermediacy and Regeneration in Middle Minoan III Palatial Crete (British School at Athens Studies 21), edited by C. F. Macdonald and C. Knappett, pp. 221–224. London: The British School at Athens. MANNING, S. W. 1999 A Test of Time: The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid Second Millennium BC. Oxford: Oxbow Press.

222

R. B. KOEHL

MATTHÄUS, H. 1980 Die Bronzegefässe der kretisch-mykenischen Kultur (Prähistorischer Bronzefunde II.1). Munich: C. H. Beck. MCENROE, J. C. 2010 Architecture of Minoan Crete: Constructing Identity in the Aegean Bronze Age. Austin: University of Texas Press. MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1986 Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 73). Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. 1999 Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. 2007 “A definition of LH IIIC Middle,” in LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms II. LH IIIC Middle. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna, October 29th and 30th, 2004, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil, pp. 221–242. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 2011a “An Update on the Provenance by Neutron Activation Analysis of Near Eastern Mycenaean IIIC Pottery Groups with Particular Reference to Cyprus,” in Our Cups Are Full: Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers Presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, edited by W. Gauß, M. Lindblom, R. A. K. Smith and J. C. Wight, pp. 179–186. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2011b “The kylix and the basin in 12th century BC Cyprus with particular reference to Hala Sultan Tekke,” in On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights, and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions. An International Archaeological Symposium held in Nicosia, November 6th–7th 2010, edited by V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, pp. 331–348. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation. NIEMEIER, B. and NIEMEIER, W.-D. 2000 “Aegean frescoes in Syria-Palestine: Alalakh and Tel Kabri,” in The Wall Paintings of Thera: Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Petros Nomikos Conference Center, Thera, Hellas, 30 August-4 September 1997, edited by S. Sherratt, pp. 763– 800. Athens: Thera Foundation. POURSAT, J.-C. and LOUBET, M. 2005 “Métallurgie et contacts extérieurs à Malia (Crète) au Minoen Moyen II: Remarques sur une série d’analyses isotopiques du plomb,” in Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004 (Aegaeum 25), edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco, pp. 117–121. Austin; Liège: University of Texas; Université de Liège. PULAK, C. 2008 “The Uluburun shipwreck and Late Bronze Age trade,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J. M. Evans. pp. 289–385. New York, New Haven; London: Yale University Press. REEVES, L. C. 2003 Aegean and Anatolian Bronze Age Metal Vessels: A Social Perspective. Unpublished PhD diss. University of London. RUTTER, J. B. 2008 “Mycenaean pottery,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J. M. Evans, pp. 379–380. New York, New Haven; London: Yale University Press. 2013 “Aegean elements in the earliest Philistine ceramic assemblage: A view from the west,” in The Philistines and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in Text and Archaeology, edited by A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann, pp. 543–561. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. SAKELLARAKIS, Y. and SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKI, E. 1997 Archanes: Minoan Crete in a New Light. Athens: Ammos Publications.

ALALAKH AND THE AEGEAN

223

VANDENABEELE, F. 1980 “Vases de Métal,” in Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Le Quartier Mu, Vol. II, Vases de pierre et de métal, vannerie, figurines et reliefs d’appliqué, éléments de parure et de décoration, armes, sceaux et empreintes, edited by B. Detournay, J.-C. Poursat and F. Vandenabeele, pp. 71–89. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. VENTRIS, M. and CHADWICK, J. 1973 Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VERMEULE, E. T. and KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1982 Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press. WARREN, P. 1969 Minoan Stone Vases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WAREN, P. and HANKEY, V. 1989 Aegean Bronze Age Chronology. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. WEINSTEIN, J. M. 2008 “Nefertiti scarab,” in Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J. M. Evans, p. 358. New York, New Haven; London: Yale University Press. WIENER, M. H. 2015 “The Mycenaean conquest of Minoan Crete,” in The Great Islands: Studies of Crete and Cyprus Presented to Gerald Cadogan, edited by C. S. Macdonald, E. Hatzaki and S. Andreou, pp. 131–142. Athens: Kapon Editions. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1937 “Excavations near Antioch in 1936,” The Antiquaries Journal 17: 1–15. 1938 “Excavations at Tal Atchana, 1937,” The Antiquaries Journal 18: 1–28. 1948 “Excavations at Atchana-Alalakh, 1939,” The Antiquaries Journal 28: 1–19. 1950 “Excavations at Atchana-Alalakh, 1946,” The Antiquaries Journal 30: 1–21. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). London: The Society of Antiquaries of London. 1968 A Forgotten Kingdom. Being a Record of the Results obtained of Two Mounds, Atchana and al Mina, in the Turkish Hatay. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. YASUR-LANDAU, A. 2010 Philistine and Aegean Migration at the End of the Bronze Age. New York: Cambridge University Press. YENER, K. A. 2013 “Recent excavations at Alalakh: Throne embellishments in Middle Bronze Age Level VII,” in Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, S. B. Graff and Y. Rakic, pp. 142–153. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. YULE, P. 1981 Early Cretan Seals. A Study of Chronology (Vorgeschichtliches Seminar Marburg. Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 4). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. ZACCAGNINI, C. 1983 “Patterns of mobility among ancient Near Eastern craftsmen,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42 (4): 245–264.

Robert B. KOEHL Hunter College Email: [email protected]

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH: LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN CONTACT Mariacarmela MONTESANTO ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to analyse the Aegeanising Iron Age pottery from Alalakh in order to identify the main features of the production for this particular type of pottery. Was there continuity with the Late Bronze Age imports from the Aegean, or a change which can be modelled in the local production of the Aegeanising pottery?

The transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age in the Near East, or the 12th century BC,1 is a crucial juncture for the history of the ancient world. The crisis of the 12th century BC reshaped the organisation of Near Eastern states, together with the material culture, the distribution of settlements and the social and cultural ideology of that time. Recent analysis of material culture, and especially of the ceramic sequences, has brought into question earlier reconstructions based on epigraphic sources2 and has led to progress in the development of more coherent chronologies. Despite the political turmoil, the 12th century BC was a fundamental formative era, an arc of time characterised by a wide-reaching dynamic of cultural interactions stimulated by the crisis of the Eastern Mediterranean and Hittite political powers. The changes that occurred during this period are mirrored particularly in the archaeological material from relevant sites such as Tell Kazel, Tell Afis and Tarsus,3 as well as in the appearance of the locally made Late Helladic IIIC pottery in many sites of Cilicia and northern Syria.4 The presence of this pottery has sometimes been used as a proof of the presence of intrusive, particularly Aegean, people settled in these regions,5 rather than as a mercantile phenomenon.6 The discussion is still ongoing, as the phenomenon is more complex than previously believed, while new excavations and the publication of old materials are shedding light on this period. Recent excavations at Alalakh have revealed the presence of multiple layers dated to the Iron Age in the few surviving unexcavated sections in the northern part of the site (Squares 32.42/52 and 42.10). The earliest of these levels could be dated to the 12th century BC 1

 It is generally agreed that the Iron Age in northern Syria began around the 12th century BC, after the collapse and general destructions which occurred right at the beginning of the 12th century, while the second half of the 12th century is recognised as a period of re-urbanization (Mazzoni 2000, pp. 31–32). Because of that and because of the presence of Late Bronze Age traditions in the material culture dated to the 12th century, I consider this period a transitional one between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. 2  Hawkins 2011; Weeden 2013. 3  Badre 2006 (Tell Kazel); Venturi 2010 (Tell Afis); Ünlü 2005, 2015 (Tarsus). 4  Venturi 2007. 5  Badre 1983; Stager 1995; Lehmann 2013. 6  Sherratt 1998, p. 301; 2013, pp. 641–644.

226

M. MONTESANTO

because of comparisons between the pottery assemblage and the ones at contemporary sites located in the Amuq Valley7 and in Northern Syria,8 and because of the find of a sherd belonging to the Late Helladic IIIC Middle-Developed style9 and dated to the mid-12th century BC. The majority of pottery coming from these levels consists of local Iron Age ware showing a strong continuity with the Late Bronze Age pottery assemblage, including plain Simple Ware, Red Slip ware, Cooking ware, painted ware with geometric motifs, and new hybrid forms in local plain ware, which are discussed below. The Iron Age levels found at the site are still being researched and analysed, but preliminary studies point to the existence of a strong cultural continuity between the Late Bronze and the Iron Age. In particular, new ceramics studies linked with these levels are highlighting how the beginning of the Iron Age was a period of integration, where old and new elements assimilated to create a new material culture. This chapter focuses on the analysis of the Iron Age painted pottery assemblage, with special reference to the analysis of the possible evidence of non-local elements in the local pottery assemblage at Alalakh. The material is analysed stylistically. After a general introduction and a presentation of the archaeological contexts where the material was found, I present the painted material, organised by motif, followed by the hybrid shapes. I give an overview of the main decorative patterns present at Alalakh and compare them with neighbouring and contemporary sites. Finally, I present a series of vessel types of local origin, but showing non-local attributes and try to understand the cultural interactions between Alalakh and the Mediterranean area. Some of the sherds were initially selected because they were found in contexts dated to the Iron Age (this is the case for the sherds coming from Squares 32.42 and 42.10), while the sherds coming from the topsoil were selected based on stylistic criteria and, in particular, after comparing them with Iron Age pottery assemblages coming from nearby sites. The criterion used to select the painted pottery and the hybrid material was visual examination.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

OF THE POTTERY

The stratigraphy of the contexts at Alalakh that Iron Age pottery comes from poses some difficulties. Even though Iron Age material has been identified loose in the topsoil in Area 1, Area 1 South, Area 2 and Area 4 (Fig. 1), only two intact contexts have been found so far, both of them located in Area 1, Squares 32.42 and 42.10, located on the highest part of the mound and close to the temple site excavated by Woolley. Partial vessels also came from the mixed topsoil and rubble of Alalakh Period 1 in Square 42.29, located in Area 1, and Square 64.82, located in Area 4. This phenomenon might be due to the disposal of broken vessels and other trash of the mid-12th century into the rubble of Period 1’s early 13th century abandonment horizon, which was still visible on the surface of the city mound at the beginning of the Iron Age. 7

 Harrison 2010; Janeway 2017; Pucci 2013, 2019.  Venturi 2007. 9  See Koehl in this volume. 8

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

Fig. 1. Distribution of Iron Age pottery.

227

M. MONTESANTO

228

The first contexts where Iron Age levels were found are in Square 32.42/52, located in the northern part of the tell, and in Square 42.10, located as close as possible to the deep temple sounding first excavated by Woolley.10

12TH

CENTURY BC POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

The ongoing study of the pottery assemblage, specifically coming from Square 42.10, will allow us to establish a referenced pottery sequence to identify the 12th century BC in other, unstratified contexts coming from the topsoil accumulations in other parts of the mound as the result of millennia of ploughing that dragged sherds from a small 12th century settlement area at the highest point of the tell. Topsoil finds in other contexts could indicate that there were short-term uses of a wider area that did not leave significant architectural remains. The 12th Century BC Local Painted Pottery The painted pottery coming from Square 42.10 and the topsoil, as well as from Local Phase 1 in Areas 1 and 4 and from other parts of the mound, consists of local Iron Age I pottery different from the locally made Late Helladic IIIC piece which has been published by Koehl11 and from the Late Bronze Age typical band-painted pottery.12 Most of the Early Iron Age painted pottery consists of body sherds. Therefore, although both shape and decoration are used as guiding elements, the analysis largely relies on decorative elements, due to the scarcity of diagnostic sherds. The majority of the painted sherds have no surface treatment, and all are wheel-made. They can be roughly categorised into five groups based on style. Zig-Zag and Wavy Line Decoration Horizontal painted zig-zags and similar wavy line decorations are encountered at Alalakh from the Late Bronze Age and can be found incised on Middle Bronze Age pottery as well.13 Usually this motif is framed by horizontal lines.14 This kind of decoration is encountered in the Mycenaean world, but also in Anatolia,15 outside the Mycenaean area of influence,

10

 Pucci, this volume.  Koehl 2017. 12  Horowitz in press. 13  Woolley 1955, pl. XCI, fig. XIIa, pl. XCVI, fig. Va. 14  The zig-zag decoration framed by horizontal lines or bands can be found in Ras ibn Hani (Du Piêd 2008, p. 176, 11b); Hama (Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 179, fig. 81: 635); Tell Kazel (Badre and Capet 2014, p. 170, fig. 20b); Tell Afis (Venturi 2007, p. 329, fig. 58: 11); Kinet Höyük (Gates 2013, p. 498, fig. 7: 5); Kilise Tepe (Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 803, fig. 399: 800); Tarsus (Ünlü 2005, p. 158, fig. 3: 11). 15  Wavy line decoration is attested at Tille Höyük during the Early Iron Age period (Blaylock 1999, p. 274, fig. 1: 5). 11

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

229

in Cilicia16 and in the northern Levant.17 It is difficult to determine what influenced the zig-zag and wavy line tradition at 12th century Alalakh. These motifs were present in the Amuq Valley long before the Iron Age,18 even if the horizontal wavy line motif is rare and the zig-zag decoration framed by two bands or lines is more common. A Mycenaean influence can be argued, but the cruder execution of the motif on the 12th century sherds does not conform to Aegean traditions. The wavy line motif is attested in Amuq Valley sites during the Iron Age period,19 such as at Tell Tayinat20 and Chatal Höyük.21 Mostly red paint was used. At the moment, only two pieces bearing this decoration have been found at Alalakh: AT 14387.1 and AT 14906.2. The former (Fig. 2.8) is a deep bowl with rolled out rim and painted with a zig-zag motif enclosed by two horizontal bands. Both the bands and the zig-zag motif are applied haphazardly and are of unequal width. AT 14906.2 (Fig. 2.6) is a krater with a flared rim and painted with a zig-zag motif enclosed by two horizontal lines; it also presents a rim radials decoration.22 The proper wavy line motif is rarely encountered at Alalakh in the 12th century. Up to now, the only sherd showing this type of decoration belongs to the locally made Late Helladic IIIC Middle-Developed style.23 Wavy Line- Zig-Zag with Concentric Triangles An Iron Age Local Painted Pottery sherd is decorated with a wavy line or zig-zag motif framed by two lines together with a sloppy stacked chevrons motif (AT 15243.2, Fig. 2.5). The stacked chevrons motif is generally found along with the zig-zag motif on closed shapes in many sites of the Levantine area, such as Ugarit,24 Hama25 and Tell Afis,26 as well as in Cilicia, such as at Kilise Tepe,27 Kinet Höyük28 and Tarsus.29 The stacked chevrons motif is also attested in Anatolia, particularly at Tille Höyük.30 In the Amuq Valley, the stacked chevrons motif is attested at Tell Tayinat31 and Chatal Höyük.32 The only sherd of this type found at Alalakh is AT 15243.2. In this case, the overall character of the ornamentation 16  This type of decoration is attested at Tarsus (Ünlü 2005, fig. 3: 10), in Kilise Tepe (Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 744, fig. 400: 815–822) and at Kinet Höyük (Gates 2013, p. 504, fig. 10: 1, 4). 17  Tell Afis (Venturi 2007, p. 343, fig. 65: 2, 6); Hama (Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 179, fig. 81: 638); Ugarit (Monchambert 2004, p. 235, fig. 96: 1297). 18  Heinz 1992. 19  Swift 1958, p. 217, fig. 28: M and M’, p. 220, fig. 38. 20  Janeway 2013, p. 406, fig. 22: 4, p. 408, fig. 23: 2. 21  Pucci 2019, p. 218, fig. 24. 22  Rim radials decoration is attested at Alalakh since the Middle Bronze Age and in the northern Levant during the Late Bronze Age, at sites such as Ugarit (Monchambert 2004, p. 235, fig. 96: 1293). 23  The sherd will be published by R. Koehl. 24  Monchambert 2004, p. 234, fig. 95: 1281. 25  Riis 1948, p. 50, fig. 29, p. 96, fig. 23. 26  The stacked chevrons motif is attested here (Venturi 2007, p. 329, fig. 58: 5); see previous paragraph for a discussion of the wavy lines motif. 27  Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 740, fig. 396: 758–768. 28  Gates 2013, p. 498, fig. 7: 3. 29  Goldman 1963, pl. 64: 324. 30  Blaylock 1999, p. 274, fig. 1: 3. 31  Janeway 2013, p. 406, fig. 22: 3. 32  Period N, beginning (Pucci 2019, p. 218, fig. 73).

230

M. MONTESANTO

— that is, the combination of the stacked chevrons with the wavy lines decoration — can possibly be traced to a Levantine-Cilician origin, rather than an Aegean one, and therefore would be in line with the local continuity noticed at Atchana between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Hatched Decoration Among the Iron Age local painted pottery, hatched decoration is by far the most often recovered decoration from Alalakh. Most commonly, sherds presenting this type of decoration have irregularly painted hatched zones and triangles in brown or reddish brown paint and irregularly drawn lines or bands. Hatched decoration is commonly encountered during the Iron Age in the Amuq Valley,33 where comparisons can be found at Tell Tayinat and Chatal Höyük. Outside the Amuq Plain, comparisons can be found in Cilicia, particularly at Tarsus34 and Kinet Höyük,35 Kilise Tepe36 and northern Syria,37 where hatched decoration was very common all across the Late Bronze Age and continued in the Iron Age; it is also attested in the Upper Euphrates Valley.38 This type of decoration does not display many similarities with Mycenaean ware. Hatching is used in Mycenaean decoration39 but mostly within more complex geometric spaces and rarely to cover large zones. Hatched decoration is encountered at Alalakh mostly on open shapes, with the only exception thus far of AT 19593.2 (Fig. 2.2). In many cases the hatched zones are delimited with a band. This decoration can be divided into two types: hatched decoration between thinner and irregularly drawn lines (AT 15433.2 and AT 19593.2)40 and decoration usually enclosed in triangles (AT 11500.1, AT 10960.2, AT 10306.1).41 AT 11500.1 (Fig. 2.1) is a carinated shallow bowl, and the carination divides the zones of decoration into two parts: the upper decorated with a hatched motif enclosed in triangles and the lower decorated simply with the hatched motif enclosed by bands. This vessel also has a hatched motif on the rim; this attribute is quite unique for Alalakh. AT 10306.1 (Fig. 2.4) is a deep bowl decorated with a hatched motif enclosed in a triangle and a diagonal line. The rim is decorated with the hatched triangles motif.42 AT 10960.2 33  Pucci 2019, p. 177, fig. 45 for Chatal Höyük; Janeway 2013, p. 376, pl. 7-4 for Tell Tayinat; Swift 1958, p. 213, fig. 23. 34  Ünlü 2005, p. 160, fig. 4: 12–15. 35  Gates 2013, p. 504, fig. 10: 5, 7. 36  Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 740, fig. 396: 751–757, p. 742, fig. 398: 788–793. 37  Ugarit (Monchambert 2004, p. 234, fig. 95: 1283); Hama (Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 179, fig. 81: 637); Tell Afis (Venturi 2007, p. 329, fig. 58: 1); Tell Kazel (Badre and Capet 2014, p. 173, fig. 24: 3). 38  Summers 1993, p. 96, fig. 35: 4, p. 98, fig. 37: 1–5; Blaylock 1999, p. 274, fig. 1: 1–2, 12, 14, 16. 39  The hatched decoration motif was used as decoration since the Late Helladic I period (Mountjoy 1986, p. 10). 40  Hatched decoration is encountered in northern Syria, Cilicia and Anatolia starting from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age. See Ugarit (Monchambert 2004, fig. 95: 1282–1283); Tille Höyük (Summers 1993, p. 98, fig. 37: 2–5); Tarsus (Ünlü 2005, p. 160, fig. 4: 12–15); Tell Kazel (Badre 2014, p. 173, fig. 24b). 41  The motif of the triangles with hatched decoration is quite common in northern Syria; for example, as at Tell Afis (Venturi 2010, p. 25, fig. 8), Hama Period E (Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 149, fig. 459), Cilicia (Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 746, fig. 402: 865) and the Amuq (Pucci 2019, p. 177, fig. 45 for Chatal Höyük; Janeway 2013, p. 376, pl. 7-4 for Tell Tayinat; Swift 1958, p. 213, fig. 23). 42  The same decoration on the rim is encountered in AT 4906.2.

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

231

(Fig. 2.3) is a shallow bowl with a carination at mid-body that divides the decorated zone into two: the upper part is decorated with a hatched motif enclosed in triangles and the lower part is decorated with a hatched motif enclosed within bands.43 AT 15433 (Fig. 2.7) is an in-turning hemispherical bowl44 decorated with an irregularly painted hatched motif enclosed within bands. AT 19593.2 (Fig. 2.2) is a part of a jar, with only the neck and the rim preserved, decorated with an irregularly painted hatched motif divided by a broad band. Foliate Band Decoration The foliate band motif appears to be a very common painted decoration throughout the Amuq Valley in the Iron Age. It is found at Tell Tayinat45 and Chatal Höyük.46 Outside the Amuq Plain, comparisons can be found at Kilise Tepe47 in Cilicia and Tell Afis48 and Hama49 in Syria. In the northern Levant, this motif was very popular in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, especially at Ugarit,50 but it does not appear at Alalakh in the Late Bronze Age. Unfortunately, the sherd from Alalakh (AT 21247.1, Fig. 3.3) is too fragmentary to be able to identify the vessel shape and function. The sherd is painted in black and, according to the preliminary analysis, we can state that the motif is painted perpendicular to the orientation of the sherd. To summarise, the foliate band motif decoration is common all across the Amuq Valley during the 12th century BC, even if it was part of the Middle Bronze Age painted tradition,51 and at the moment is attested only in some sites of northern Syria and Cilicia. Banded Decoration Banded decoration is attested at Alalakh from the Late Bronze Age,52 but it is also attested at the beginning of the Iron Age in the Amuq Valley,53 northern Syria54 and Cilicia.55 This type of decoration is also found in the Mycenaean world,56 where it is usually part of a 43

 This type of decoration is the same as that of AT 11500.1. Possibly the potter was using this type of decoration while painting vessels with a carination. Comparisons can be found at Hama Period F (Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 179, fig. 81: 637). 44  The shape of this vessel is very similar to the Middle Bronze Age S-curve bowl. 45  Swift 1958, p. 216, fig. 27g from Tell Tayinat. From the new excavations at Tayinat, the herringbone motif is attested (Janeway 2013, p. 410, fig. 24: 6). 46  Pucci 2013, p. 110, fig. 4: 5. 47  Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 746, fig. 402: 860. 48  Venturi 2007, p. 327, fig. 57: 11; Venturi 2000, p. 515, fig. 7: 15. 49  Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 179, fig. 81: 632. 50  Bichrome ware from Ugarit (Monchambert 2004, p. 239, fig. 100: 1356). 51  This motif is attested in Syro-Cilician ware (Heinz 1992, fig. 83: 9c). 52  Banded ware is a type of painted pottery named in the new typology by M. Horowitz and appearing in the Late Bronze Age (Mullins 2010, p. 66, fig. 3.3: 1, 6; Woolley 1955, pl. CXVIII: 101). 53  Swift 1958, p. 211, fig. 17. 54  Ugarit (Monchambert 2004, p. 235, fig. 96: 1298); Tell Afis (Venturi 2007, p. 329, fig. 58: 2–3); Tell Kazel (Badre and Caput 2014, p. 173, fig. 24e). 55  Tarsus (Ünlü 2005, p. 157, fig. 2: 5–6); Kilise Tepe (Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 742, fig. 787). 56  See Mountjoy 1999 for examples.

232

M. MONTESANTO

linear decoration tradition that is characteristic of the Late Helladic IIIC period.57 However, on Late Helladic IIIA vessels, this particular decoration is mostly applied very competently, while the banded decoration found on the locally made Late Helladic IIIC vessels coming from the levels dated to the transition between the Late Bronze and the early Iron Age have a sloppy execution. Up to now, the non-Late Helladic IIIC vessels with a banded decoration found in the Iron Age levels at Atchana are AT 14941.3 (Fig. 3.1) and AT 10110.3 (Fig. 3.2). Both of these vessels can be classified as small jugs, and they present exactly the same decoration: two horizontal bands, one on the neck and one on the body just below the attachment of the handle, as well as a vertical band on the strap handle. Unfortunately, neither of them comes from a secure context (Squares 32.42 and 43.54, respectively), but they can be dated to the Iron Age on the basis of comparisons with Kilise Tepe Level II.58 The Iron Age local painted pottery effectively does not exhibit a coherent range of attributes, but merges attributes belonging to both the Bronze and the Iron Ages. Indeed, it appears at a wide variety of sites, such as Tell Kazel, Tell Afis, Tarsus, Kilise Tepe, Hama, Tell Tayinat, Chatal Höyük and Tille Höyük59 in the 12th century BC and can be considered in the context of regional cultures and connections surviving intact the tumult of the early 12th century. Local painted pottery has a long history in the Alalakh pottery assemblage and derives from earlier traditions dating to before the site of Atchana was settled. Painted pottery in the Syro-Cilician style60 started soon after the settlement of Atchana in the terminal Early Bronze Age and shows continuity into the Late Bronze Age banded and geometric styles.61 All these earlier painted traditions contributed to the 12th century BC local painted pottery style. By the end of the 14th century BC, local painted pottery in banded and geometric styles was not very common at Alalakh, while imported painted pottery in the Late Helladic IIIA style predominated. The resurgence of a local painted style in the 12th century BC, reviving elements of older local styles, is a fascinating regional trend, and it shows a mixture of different influences. 12th century BC Hybrids As mentioned above, within the 12th century BC pottery assemblage, we can list some shapes that show some non-local attributes in local shapes and, therefore, are called hybrids. At least two types of hybrid shapes can be distinguished: the rounded shallow bowl with stub loop horizontal handles,62 and the flared hemispherical bowl with a vertical loop handle.63 Vessels belonging to the first category have everted (AT 11164.3, Fig. 4.1) and thickened 57

 Mountjoy 1986, p. 152, fig. 192.  Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 742, fig. 787. 59  Capet and Badre 2014 (Tell Kazel); Venturi 2007 (Tell Afis); Ünlü 2005, 2015 (Tarsus); Postgate and Thomas 2007; Bouthillier et al. 2014 (Kilise Tepe); Riis and Buhl 1990 (Hama); Janeway 2017 (Tell Tayinat); Pucci 2019 (Chatal Höyük); Summers 1993; Blaylock 2016 (Tille Höyük). 60  Heinz 1992; Bulu 2017. 61  Woolley 1955; Horowitz 2015. 62  See AT 1164.3 (Fig. 4.1). 63  See AT 18217.1 (Fig. 4.3). 58

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

233

rims (AT 11134.4, Fig. 4.2). According to preliminary analysis, the shape of these vessels could have been inspired by Late Helladic IIIC types such as the deep bowl (FS 284 or FS 285). However, the presence of the stubby loop horizontal handles and of the hammer rim define them as non-canonical Aegean shapes.64 The rounded shallow bowl is present at Alalakh at least from the Late Bronze Age I period65 and therefore has a long history in the ceramic production of the site. The shape seems also to continue to be produced during the Iron Age. The presence of the horizontal loop handle is a clear sign that the potters were trying to imitate a Late Helladic IIIC shape, and the use of a common, well-known shape such as the local rounded bowl may demonstrate that they were experimenting or trying to imitate a foreign shape. The potters at that time (that is, the Iron Age) must have known or at least seen Late Helladic IIIC deep bowls,66 and should therefore have been familiar with this vessel shape. Vessels belonging to the second category (flared hemispherical bowl) have a flared rim, except for one piece, AT 00095 (Fig. 4.4), which has a thickened rim. They have at least one vertical loop handle attached on the rim and, according to visual examination, only AT 16557.1 (Fig. 4.5)67 could have had a second handle; it may belong either to the Late Bronze II or to the Iron Age. It was found in Area 1, Square 42.29, where traces of the Iron Age appeared in a mixed layer. AT 18217.2 (Fig. 4.3) is too small to have a second handle, and the other vessels are too fragmentary to hypothesise the presence of a second handle. The shape of AT 18217.2 is very similar to the Late Helladic IIIC FS 215, the cup,68 or FS 275, the conical kylix,69 but the absence of surface treatments, the rough execution of the handles, and the fabric, which is clearly local, classify it as a local production. This type of vessel has so far been found only in Area 1 (Squares 42.10 and 42.29), and possibly in Area 4 (Square 64.72). The only secure context where this vessel is present is in Square 42.10,70 and the finding of this type in a good stratigraphic context allows the dating of the other vessels, mainly found 64

 See Mountjoy 1986 (pp. 148–149) for a full description of the deep bowls dated to the Late Helladic IIIC Early. According to her, they are characterised by the presence of a thick angular everted rim and two horizontal handles set just above the belly. Similar vessels have been found in Ugarit (Monchambert 2004, p. 87, fig. 24: 525, 526, 528) and Ras Ibn Hani (Bounni et al. 1998, p. 178, fig. 159: 1–2, p. 179, fig. 162). Here the vessels have been identified as “bowls with two handles.” This is coherent with the ones coming from Atchana, for which we are not sure if they had one or two handles. 65  For the local shallow rounded bowl, see Horowitz 2015 (p. 169, fig. 7:6) and Woolley 1955 (pl. CX). 66  Up to now, no imported Late Helladic IIIA or IIIC deep bowls have been recovered in the Alalakh excavations. The deep bowl was a common import, though, and it is attested in Tell Kazel (Badre and Capet 2014, p. 172, fig. 23i), Ugarit (Yon et al. 2000, p. 237, n. 434) and Tarsus (Goldman 1956, fig. 330: 1255–1256). See Leonard 1994 for further comparisons. 67  This krater or deep shallow bowl may have had two handles, even if one comparison from Tell Afis has only one (Oggiano 1999, p. 396, fig. 4: 3). Similar kraters also come from Tille Höyük (Summers 1993, p. 113, fig. 52: 2) and from Hama Period E (Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 147, fig. 436, p. 173, fig. 78: 593), as well as Chatal Höyük Period O_beginning (Pucci 2019, p. 184, fig. 47: 24) and Ugarit (Monchambert 2004, p. 112, fig. 35: 631, 632, 634). 68  Mountjoy 1986, pp. 146–147: one of the main attributes of this shape is the presence of an oval or rounded handle from rim to lower body. 69  Mountjoy 1986, p. 172: one of the main attributes of this shape, dated to the Late Helladic IIIC, is the body, a shallow conical bowl with a lipless or incurving rim. It has two small oval handles reaching from the rim to the upper body. 70  The vessel AT 18217.1 was found in Locus 4, Lot 52, dated to Local Phase 1, and therefore to the last period of occupation of the square, and possibly the whole area.

M. MONTESANTO

234

in topsoil levels or mixed layers, to the Iron Age I or the transition between the Late Bronze and the Iron Age. In some cases, it seems that the potters were experimenting with making new shapes, such as AT 1164.3 (Fig. 4.1) and AT 1134.4 (Fig. 4.2), which are unique in their details. The discovery of these vessels is very important, because through them we can trace the process of evolution from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age. The local population possibly acquired through this experimental period certain shapes and decorations as part of the local pottery assemblage that would continue in the Iron Age. Discussion Local painted pottery became one of the most common wares in northern Syria and Cilicia at the beginning of the Iron Age, even if some prototypes and forerunners of this particular type of ware can be traced and found throughout the Bronze Age tradition. Effectively, during the Iron Age, painted decoration was widespread across a rather vast area, from coastal and northern Syria to Cilicia, reaching the site of Tille Höyük in the Upper Euphrates Valley in the east. Through the analysis of the painted pottery sherds coming from Alalakh, it can be noticed that the locally produced and painted pottery dated to the 12th century BC is slightly different from the Bronze Age painted pottery traditions, such as Atchana Banded Ware and Syro-Cilician Ware. Iron Age painted ware can be distinguished not only by the preference for geometric motifs, such as hatched lines and hatched triangles, but also by the presence of banded decorations, whose origin can be traced to the Aegean rather than to the local painted traditions.

CONCLUSION Pottery is all around us, irreplaceable in our daily lives, and it has been used as a trusty element for detecting aspects of change or continuity in past cultures. It testifies to a dynamic process of mutual assimilation and communication, and its circulation and spread reflect the intensity of social aggregation and its ideological contexts.71 The pottery assemblage found in the 12th century at Alalakh is characterised by the coexistence of both local and foreign elements. Even though there are traces of a foreign, especially Aegean, influence, the majority of pottery production during the transition from the Late Bronze to early Iron Age at Alalakh is characterised by a strong connection to the previous Bronze Age local traditions. The discovery of a local pottery tradition alongside the presence of the locally made Late Helladic IIIC attests to the assimilation of this style into the local painted pottery assemblage. One of the most important questions that scholars must address in regard to the 12th century BC in the northern Levant, and also in the Amuq Valley, is whether foreign people came to settle there. The appearance of Aegeanising pottery in the Levant and also in the Amuq Valley in the 12th century has often been explained as the result of 71

 Mazzoni 2000, p. 139.

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

235

the migration of populations from the Aegean to the Levant. The discussion over whether people from outside, mainly the western or Aegean world, migrated into Anatolia and northern Syria is still ongoing.72 Some scholars describe the presence of locally made Late Helladic IIIC as proof of the presence of an intrusive population in the area,73 while others are sceptical about this interpretation.74 According to the recent investigations on the mound, it seems that the site of Alalakh was abandoned some time at the end of the 14th or early in the 13th century BC, with only a small area on top of the mound still occupied during the middle of the 13th century.75 Alalakh seems to have lain abandoned while the world surrounding the city was going through a period of major crisis and change (for example, the collapse of the Hittite empire). The change in the use of space noticed between the 14th/early 13th and the mid-12th century BC,76 though, is not reflected in the material culture, where all these events were not affecting local and daily life. However, a change in the material culture can be noticed: the appearance of painted pottery alongside the locally produced Late Helladic IIIC pottery and the hybrid pottery. It is hard to judge if newcomers settled in the Amuq Valley, and specifically in Alalakh, solely on the basis of pottery. The preliminary analysis of the local painted and hybrid pottery shows that they were roughly made, and therefore they may not have performed the same function as the Late Bronze Age imports (that is, luxury goods as status symbols). It seems that the quality or the rarity of the vessels was no longer important, and that pottery was functioning as a medium to express other differences between the people.77 The resurrection of a painted pottery style and the appearance of hybrid shapes can be linked with the visual culture. Pottery, given its ubiquity, can be considered a semeiotic device and could have been charged with special meanings. The Early Iron Age assemblage at Alalakh appears to reflect a multicultural population, and a large portion of it should have been indigenous to the region, as proved by the continuing use of local fabrics and shapes. There is no need to attribute the presence of Aegean elements in the local pottery assemblages to a massive immigration. It is indeed possible that there were new arrivals, but the phenomenon of imitation or the use of imported pottery is not always linked with the presence of foreign people. Pottery has the capacity to cross borders and to convey special messages, for example, as a medium of cultural self-fashioning and self-identification, and thus it is possible that people used pottery for shaping or structuring social identities. Therefore, if we assume that at Alalakh the imitation was not linked with the presence of foreign people, we may suppose that people from Alalakh decided to integrate into the local painted and plain pottery tradition some foreign attributes in order to create new habits and a new community identity that can possibly be linked with the re-shaping and creation of new polities in the region. 72

 Janeway 2013, p. 320 for a recent discussion.  Badre 1983; Sharon 2001. 74  Mazzoni 2000; Venturi 2007, pp. 410–412. 75  Yener 2013; Horowitz 2015, p. 160. 76  This can be noticed in Square 42.10. 77  Crielaard 1999, p. 63. 73

M. MONTESANTO

236

CATALOGUE: PAINTED

POTTERY

Hatched decoration Carinated shallow bowl (Fig. 2.1) Inventory number: AT 11500.1 Area: 1 Square: 42.29 Locus: 13 Lot: 76 Dimensions: D. of the rim c. 22 cm Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Carinated shallow bowl with everted rim and vertical loop handle. Painted with hatched decoration on body and on rim. Colour paint: Red Surface Treatment: None Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age? Bibliography: Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 743, fig. 796, p. 742, fig. 788. Jar (Fig. 2.2) Inventory number: AT 19593.2 Area: 1 Square: 42.10 Locus: 20 Lot: 122 Dimensions: D. of the rim 12 cm Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Jar with rolled out rim and decorated with hatched decoration. Colour paint: Red/tan Surface Treatment: None Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age? Bibliography: Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 743, fig. 802–803 (only motif, not shape); Goldman 1963, fig. 55-8. Carinated shallow bowl (Fig. 2.3) Inventory number: AT 10960.2 Area: 1 Square: 42.29 Locus: 7 Lot: 67 Dimensions: D. of the rim unknown Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Shallow bowl with carination at mid body and everted rim. Painted with hatched triangles decoration.

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

237

Fig. 2. Iron Age painted pottery: zig-zag, wavy line, concentric triangles, and hatched decorations.

238

M. MONTESANTO

Colour paint: Red Surface Treatment: None Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age? Bibliography: Summers 1993, p. 98, fig. 37: 4; Ünlü 2005, p. 161, fig. 4b: 15; Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 179, fig. 81: 637. Krater or Deep Bowl (Fig. 2.4) Inventory number: AT 10306.1 Area: 1 Square: 42.29 Locus: 3 Lot: 35 Dimensions: D. of the rim 22 cm Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Deep bowl or krater with flared rim. Painted with triangles and hatched decoration, diagonal line underneath the rim and hatched decoration on the rim. Colour paint: Red Surface Treatment: None Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age? Bibliography: Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 746, fig. 867. Krater (Fig. 2.6) Inventory number: AT 14906.2 Area: 1 Square: 32.42 Locus: 9 Lot: 43 Dimensions: D. of the rim unknown Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Krater with flared rim and painted with a zig-zag lines motif enclosed in bands and rim radials. Colour paint: Red Surface Treatment: None Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age? Bibliography: Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 743, figs. 800, 889; Ünlü 2005, p. 158, fig. 11; Swift 1958, p. 220, fig. 38; Du Piêd 2008, p. 176: 11b; Badre and Capet 2014, p. 170, fig. 20b; Venturi 2007, p. 329, fig. 58: 11; Janeway 2013, p. 406, fig. 22: 4, p. 408, fig. 23: 2; Pucci 2019, p. 218, fig. 24. In-turning hemispherical bowl (Fig. 2.7) Inventory number: AT 15433.2 Area: 2 Square: 44.86 Locus: 13 Lot: 69 Dimensions: D. of the rim 21 cm Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

239

Description: In-turning hemispherical bowl decorated with triangles with hatched motif decoration and horizontal bands underneath the rim and underneath the carination. There are diagonal lines that may indicate the presence of concentric triangles. Colour paint: Red Surface Treatment: Burnished Date: Transitional Late Bronze–Early Iron Age? Bibliography: Swift 1958, p. 213, fig. 23; Ünlü 2005, p. 160, fig. 4: 12–15; Gates 2013, p. 504, fig. 10: 5, 7; Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 740, fig. 396: 751–757, p. 742, fig. 398: 788–793; Mochambert 2004, p. 234, fig. 95: 1283; Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 179, fig. 81: 637; Venturi 2007, p. 329, fig. 58: 1; Badre and Capet 2014, p. 173, fig. 24: 3; Summers 1993, p. 96, fig. 35: 4, p. 98, fig. 37: 1–5; Blaylock 1999, p. 274, fig. 1: 1–2, 12, 14, 16.

Wavy lines decoration Closed shape (Fig. 2.5) Inventory number: AT 15243.2 Area: 2 Square: 44.95 Locus: 7 Lot: 57 Dimensions: D. of the rim unknown Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Closed shape, no rim preserved; only the carination. Painted with a unique decoration consisting of a wavy-lines motif enclosed between bands and a concentric triangles decoration motif. Colour paint: Red, black, brown Surface Treatment: Wiped Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age? Bibliography: Mochambert 2004, p. 234, fig. 95: 1281; Riis 1948, p. 50, fig. 29, p. 96, fig. 23; Venturi 2007, p. 329, fig. 58: 5; Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 740, fig. 396: 758– 768; Gates 2013, p. 498, fig. 7: 3; Goldman 1963, pl. 64: 324; Blaylock 1999, p. 274, fig. 1: 3; Janeway 2013, p. 406, fig. 22: 3.

Zig-zag lines Deep bowl (Fig. 2.8) Inventory number: AT 14387.1 Area: 2 Square: 44.95 Locus: 6 Lot: 44 Dimensions: D. of the rim 22 cm Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Deep bowl with rolled out rim and painted with zig-zag lines enclosed by bands decoration motif. Colour paint: Tan Surface Treatment: None Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age?

240

M. MONTESANTO

Bibliography: Du Piêd 2008, p. 176, 11b; Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 743, fig. 800; Swift 1958, p. 220, fig. 38; Badre and Capet 2014, p. 170, fig. 20b; Venturi 2007, p. 329, fig. 58: 11; Janeway 2013, p. 406, fig. 22: 4, p. 408, fig. 23: 2; Pucci 2019, p. 218, fig. 24.

Bands Globular Juglet (Fig. 3.1) Inventory number: AT 14941.3 Area: 1 Square: 32.42 Locus: 11 Lot: 59 Dimensions: D. of the rim 4.5 cm Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Globular juglet with flared rim and strap handle, painted with horizontal bands on the body and a vertical band on the handle. Colour paint: Black Surface Treatment: Burnished Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age? Bibliography: Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 742, fig. 787. Globular juglet (Fig. 3.2) Inventory number: AT 10110.3 Area: 1 Square: 43.54 Locus: 33 Lot: 192 Dimensions: D. of the rim unknown Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Globular juglet with flared rim and strap handle, painted with horizontal bands on the body and a vertical band on the handle. Colour paint: Black Surface Treatment: None Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age? Bibliography: Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 742, fig. 787. Palmette decoration Body sherd (Fig. 3.3) Inventory number: AT 21247.1 Area: 1 Square: 42.10 Locus: 37 Lot: 175 Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Two body sherds decorated with a palmette motif decoration. Colour paint: Black Surface Treatment: None Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age?

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

Fig. 3. Iron Age painted pottery: foliate band and banded decorations.

241

242

M. MONTESANTO

Bibliography: Pucci 2013, p. 110, fig. 4: 5; Postgate and Thomas 2007, p. 746, fig. 402: 860; Venturi 2007, p. 327, fig. 57: 11; Venturi 2000, p. 515, fig. 7: 15; Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 179, fig. 81: 632.

Hybrid pottery Rounded shallow bowl (Fig. 4.1) Inventory number: AT 11164.3 Area: 1 Square: 32.42 Dimensions: D. of the rim c. 25 cm Locus: 5 Lot: 30 Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Almost complete rounded shallow bowl, possibly a local imitation of a Mycenaean Late Helladic IIIC deep bowl: rim everted, two stubby horizontal loop handles. The everted rim clearly signals the intention of closing the shape to possibly contain liquids. Surface Treatment: None Date: Iron Age Bibliography: Mountjoy 1986, p. 150, fig. 189: 1–4. Rounded shallow bowl (Fig. 4.2) Inventory number: AT 11134.4 Area: 1 Square: 32.42 Dimensions: D. of the rim c. 25 cm Locus: 3 Lot: 16 Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Incomplete rounded shallow bowl, possibly a local imitation of a Mycenaean Late Helladic IIIC deep bowl: thickened rim, two stubby horizontal loop handles. The hammer rim signals the intention of keeping the contents inside. Surface Treatment: None Date: Iron Age Bibliography: Mountjoy 1986, p. 150, fig. 189: 1–4; Horowitz 2015, p. 169, fig. 7.6: 14. Flared hemispherical bowl or shallow conical bowl (Fig. 4.3) Inventory number: AT 18217.1 Area: 1 Square: 42.10 Locus: 4 Lot: 52 Dimensions: D. of the rim 8 cm Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Almost complete flared hemispherical bowl or shallow conical bowl: flared rim, possibly only one loop vertical handle attached on the rim, it could have been used for holding or pouring liquids. Surface Treatment: None

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

Fig. 4. Iron Age hybrid vessels.

243

244

M. MONTESANTO

Date: Iron Age Bibliography: Mountjoy 1986, p. 146, fig. 183: 1–4, p. 172, fig. 222; Monchambert 2004, p. 87, fig. 24: 525, 526, 528; Bounni et al. 1998, p. 178, fig. 159: 1–2, p. 179, fig. 162. Flared hemispherical bowl (Fig. 4.4) Inventory number: AT 00095.8 Area: 4 Square: 64.72 Locus: 2 Lot: 11 Dimensions: D. of the rim unknown Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Flared hemispherical bowl: thickened rim, possibly only one loop vertical handle attached on the rim. Only the rim and the handle preserved. Surface Treatment: None Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age? Bibliography: Mountjoy 1986, p. 146, fig. 183: 1–4; Monchambert 2004, p. 87, fig. 24: 525, 526, 528; Bounni et al. 1998, p. 178, fig. 159: 1–2, p. 179, fig. 162. Flared hemispherical bowl (Fig. 4.5) Inventory number: AT 16557.1 Area: 1 Square: 42.29 Locus: 23 Lot: 147 Dimensions: D. of the rim 24 cm Fabric: Simple Ware Technology: Wheel-made Description: Partial flared hemispherical bowl: flared rim, possibly only one loop vertical handle attached on the rim. Only rim and handle preserved. Surface Treatment: None Date: Transition Late Bronze–Early Iron Age Bibliography: Mountjoy 1986, p. 146, fig. 183: 1–4; Monchambert 2004, p. 87, fig. 24: 525, 526, 528, p. 112, fig. 35: 631, 632, 634; Bounni et al. 1998, p. 178, fig. 159: 1–2, p. 179, fig. 162; Oggiano 1999, p. 396, fig. 4: 3; Summers 1993, p. 113, fig. 52: 2; Riis and Buhl 1990, p. 147, fig. 436, p. 173, fig. 78: 593.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BADRE, L. 1983

“Les peuples de la mer à Ibn Hani,” in Atti del 1 Congresso Internazionale di studi fenici e punici, edited by P. Bartolini and S. F. Bondi, pp. 203–209. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. 2006 “Tell Kazel-Simyra: A contribution to a relative chronological history in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343: 65–95. BADRE, L. and CAPET, E. 2014 “The Late Bronze Age pottery from Tell Kazel: Links with the Aegean, Cyprus and the Levant,” in Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in SyroMesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions. Proceedings of the International Workshop in

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

245

Berlin 2-5 November 2006 (Orient-Archaologie Band 32), edited by M. Luciani and A. Hausleiter, pp. 157–180. Rahden/Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

BLAYLOCK, S. 1999 “Iron Age pottery from Tille Höyük, south east Turkey,” in Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia and South Eastern Anatolia, edited by A. Hausleiter and A. Reiche, pp. 263–286. Munster: Ugarit Verlag. 2016 Tille Hoyuk 3.2: The Iron Age: Pottery, Objects and Conclusions (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 50). London: British Institute at Ankara. BOUHTILLIER, C., COLANTONI, C., DEBRUYNE, S., GLATZ, C., HALD, M. M., HESLOP, D., KOZAL, E., MILLER, POPKIN, P., POSTGATE, N., STEELE, C. S. and STONE, A. 2014 “Further work at Kilise Tepe, 2007-2011: Refining the Bronze to Iron Age transition,” Anatolian Studies 64: 95–161. BOUNNI, A., LAGARCE, E. and LAGARCE, J. 1998 Ras Ibn Hani I. Les Palais Nord du Bronze recent. Fouilles 1979-1995. Synthèse préliminaire. Beyrouth: Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient. BULU, M. 2017 “A Syro-Cilician pitcher from a Middle Bronze kitchen at Tell Atchana, Alalakh,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology. A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. S. Gilbert, pp. 101– 116. Leiden, Boston: Brill. CRIELAARD, J. P. 1999 “Production, circulation and consumption of early Iron Age Greek pottery (eleventh to seventh centuries BC),” in The Complex Past of Pottery. Production, Circulation and Consumption of Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries BC), edited by J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi and G. J. van Wijngaarden, pp. 49–81. Amsterdam: Gieben. DU PIÊD, L. 2008 “The Early Iron Age in the Northern Levant: Continuity and change in the pottery assemblages from Ras el-Bassit and Ras Ibn Hani,” in Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern Mediterranean: Regional Perspectives of Continuity and Change (Special issue of Scripta Mediterranea 27–28), edited by T. P. Harrison, pp. 161–186. Toronto: Canadian Institute for Mediterranean Studies. GATES, M. H. 2013 “Early Iron Age newcomers at Kinet Höyük, eastern Cilicia,” in The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology, edited by A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann, pp. 485–508. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Archaeology. GOLDMAN, H. 1956 Excavations at Gözlü Kule Volume 2: The Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1963 Excavations at Gözlü Kule Volume 3: The Iron Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press. HARRISON, T. 2010 “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age transition in the North Orontes Valley,” in Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age. Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the New Excavations in Tell Afis. Bologna, 15th November 2007, edited by F. Venturi, pp. 83–102. Bologna: CLUEB. HAWKINS, J. D. 2011 “The inscriptions of the Aleppo Temple,” Anatolian Studies 61: 35–54. HEINZ, M. 1992 Tell Atchana/Alalakh: die Schichten VII-XVII. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. HOROWITZ, M. T. 2015 “The evolution of Plain Ware ceramics at the regional capital of Alalakh in the 2nd millennium BC,” in Plain Pottery Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and

M. MONTESANTO

246

in press JANEWAY, B. 2013 2017 KOEHL, R. B. 2017 LEHMANN, G. 2013

Near East. Production, Use, and Social Significance (Institute of Archaeology Publications 67), edited by C. Glatz, pp. 153–182. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. “Local ceramics in the battleground of empires: Alalakh in the 14th century BC,” in Ceramics Identities, edited by S. Mazzoni, M. Pucci and F. Venturi. Pisa. Cultural Transition in the Northern Levant during the Early Iron Age as Reflected in the Aegean-Style Pottery at Tell Tayinat. Unpublished PhD diss. University of Toronto. Sea Peoples of the Northern Levant: Aegean-Style Pottery from Early Iron Age Tell Tayinat. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. “Were there Sea Peoples at Alalakh (Tell Atchana)?” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology. A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslihan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. S. Gilbert, pp. 275–295. Leiden, Boston: Brill. “Aegean-style pottery in Syria and Lebanon during Iron Age I,” in The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology, edited by A. Killebrew and G. Lehmann, pp. 265–328. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

LEONARD, A., Jr. 1994 An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from Syria-Palestine. Jonsered: Paul Äströms Forlag. MAZZONI, S. 2000 “Syria and the periodization of the Iron Age. A cross-cultural perspective,” In Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, edited by G. Bunnens (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7), pp. 31–59. Leuven: Peeters Press. MONCHAMBERT, J.-Y. 2004 La céramique d’Ougarit. Campagnes de fouilles 1975 et 1976 (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 15). Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. MOUNTJOY, P. A. 1986 Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. A Guide to Identification (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 73). Goteborg: Paul Äströms. 1999 Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. Rahden, Westf.: M. Leidorf. MULLINS, R. A. 2010 “A comparative analysis of the Alalakh 2003-2004 season pottery with Woolley’s levels,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh: Volume 1 the 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 51–66. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi. OGGIANO, I. 1999 “Cataloguistics: The experience of Tell Afis, Syria,” in Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia and South Eastern Anatolia, edited by A. Hausleiter and A. Reiche, pp. 377–402. Munster: Ugarit Verlag. POSTGATE, N. and THOMAS, D. 2007 Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994-98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia. London; Cambridge: British Institute at Ankara; McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. PUCCI, M. 2013 “Chatal Höyük in the Amuq: Material culture and architecture during the passage from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age,” in Across the Border: Late BronzeIron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31-June 1, 2010, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 89–112. Leuven: Peeters. 2019 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch III. Stratigraphy, Pottery and Small Finds from Chatal Höyük in the ‘Amuq Plain (University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 143). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

12TH CENTURY BC PAINTED POTTERY AT ALALAKH

RIIS, P. J. 1948

247

Les cimetières à crémation. Hama. Fouilles et Recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 19311938. Volume 2. Copenhagen: I Kommission hos Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag. RIIS, P. J. and BUHL, M. L. 1990 Les objets de la période dite syro-hittite âge du fer. Copenhagen: Fondation Carlsberg; Munksgaard. SHARON, I. 2001 “Philistine Bichrome Painted pottery: Scholarly ideology and ceramic typology,” in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, edited by S. R. Wolff (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 59; American Schools of Oriental Research Books 5), pp. 555–609. Chicago; Atlanta: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; American Schools of Oriental Research. SHERRATT, S. 1998 “‘Sea Peoples’ and the economic structure of the late second millennium in the eastern Mediterranean,” in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E. In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern, pp. 292–313. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2013 “The ceramic phenomenon of the ‘Sea Peoples’: An overview,” in The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology, edited by A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann, pp. 619–644. Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature. STAGER, L. 1995 “The impact of the Sea Peoples (1185-1050 BCE),” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 332–348. London: Leicester University Press. SUMMERS, G. D. 1993 Tille Höyük 4. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Transition (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 15). London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. SWIFT, G. F., Jr. 1958 The Pottery of the ‘Amuq Phases K to O, and its Historical Relationships. Unpublished PhD diss. University of Chicago. ÜNLÜ, E. 2005 “Locally produced and painted Late Bronze to Iron Age transitional period pottery of Tarsus-Gozlukule,” in Field Seasons 2001-2003 of the Tarsus-Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project, edited by A. Öyzar, pp. 145–168. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2015 “Late Bronze-Early Iron Age painted pottery from the northeast Mediterranean settlements,” in NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Ages, edited by Ç. Maner and K. Kopanias, pp. 517–529. Istanbul: Koç University Press. VENTURI, F. 2000 “Le premier âge du fer à Tell Afis et en Syrie septentrionale,” in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, edited by G. Bunnens, pp. 505–536. Leuven: Peeters. 2007 La Siria nell’età delle trasformazioni (XIII-X secolo a.C.). Nuovi contributi dallo scavo di Tell Afis. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna. 2010 “Cultural breakdown or evolution? The impact of changes in 12th century BC Tell Afis,” in Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age. Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the New Excavations in Tell Afis. Bologna, 15th November 2007, edited by F. Venturi, pp. 1–27. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna. WEEDEN, M. 2013 “After the Hittites: The kingdoms of Karkamish and Palistin in Northern Syria,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 56(2): 1–20.

248

M. MONTESANTO

WOOLLEY, L. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). Oxford: University Press for the Society of Antiquaries. YENER, K. A. 2013 “New excavations at Alalakh: The 14th-12th century B.C.,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–36. Leuven: Peeters. YON, M., KARAGEORGHIS, V. and HIRSCHFELD, N. 2000 Céramiques mycéniennes. Ras Shamra-Ougarit XIII. Paris; Nicosie: ERC-ADPF; Fondation A. G. Leventis.

Mariacarmela MONTESANTO Durham University [email protected]

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA Marina PUCCI ABSTRACT Although archaeological results at Alalakh/Tell Atchana supported until very recently the view that the site was inhabited until the end of the Bronze Age, recent excavations (2012–2014) carried out in two areas provided data to stress an Iron Age occupation of the site. The study and analysis of the local pottery produced on-site and found in these Iron Age contexts provides very important data on the occupation of the site during this period, pointing out changes and continuity in the morphology of local pottery and, most importantly, emphasising behaviours concerning preparation of food, its consumption and the social activities related to it. Through this study, it is possible to provide hypotheses concerning which social group was still occupying the site in a period of major political changes and external influences. This paper will present for the first time the ongoing study of this material and compare it with the local pottery production of the Late Bronze Age.

INTRODUCTION The discovery of an Iron Age archaeologically well-stratified accumulation is one of the most recent (2007, 2011–2013)1 and important discoveries made by the archaeological team directed by Prof. K. A. Yener at the site of Alalakh (Turkey, Hatay).2 This discovery opened a completely new branch of research on the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age in the settlement system of Tell Tayinat and Tell Atchana.3 The study and analysis of the Iron Age architecture, materials and stratigraphy from the site is still in progress, and these will appear in a comprehensive publication, including all aspects of the Iron Age occupation at Tell Atchana. This chapter focuses on a specific feature of the Iron Age I pottery inventory from the site, that is, the vessels related to drinking activities, and it aims to confront the drinking sets at Tell Atchana diachronically and synchronically. After a general presentation of the archaeological contexts and of the main morphological features of the drinking sets, I will compare the Iron Age drinking set with the typical Late Bronze Age drinking sets from neighbouring sites. In particular, I will emphasise those from Alalakh, which have been studied and published by Mara Horowitz,4 in order to point out continuity and change in habits from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age.

1

 Yener 2013, pp. 20–21.  My warmest thanks go to Prof. A. K. Yener, who asked me to work on the Iron Age pottery from the site and started a fruitful and growing collaboration. 3  The alternation of the leading role of the settlement at the two sites (Mazzoni 1997) seems to be confirmed; however, some overlap in the occupation occurred. 4  I thank Mara Horowitz, who provided me with draft copies of her articles in print and many details on the documentation system of the pottery at Atchana. 2

250

M. PUCCI

I will then compare the Alalakh Iron Age drinking set with neighbouring sites from the same period in order to identify the boundary of a ceramic region. Drinking, as well as eating and cooking, is considered an important cultural aspect of social life during both daily activities and feasting performances; habits related to food and liquid consumption have been largely employed to investigate the cultural identity of social groups and continuity and change in feasting traditions.5 Since the first studies concerning drinking habits6 and their relevance in understanding social behaviours, archaeologists have been dealing with this topic in the analysis of both specific feasting activities7 and the consumption of specific drinks.8 Obviously, recovering mannered behaviours presents the usual challenges of constructing methods for correlating temporal and spatial distribution of artefacts with past human action.9 Although a primary context would be the best archaeological data to reconstruct functionally related sets, these are extremely rare in the archaeological evidence. Therefore, an approach is employed based on morphological features and the large quantity of material processed, rather than on the “quality” of the deposits. This process implies: first, a selection of the containers which, according to their morphology, were likely to have been used in drinking performances; second, an analysis of the gestures involved in these performances; and third, a comparison with different or similar drinking sets. The criteria employed to identify drinking containers follows the well-known studies of vessel functions and use;10 they are directly related to the morphology of the vessels and their supposed use. A general open shape, which is apt to contain liquids (when not too shallow), is a necessary requirement both for single and communal drinking activity. A content of up to 500 ml of liquids (single sized), an outward-curving or tapered rim to facilitate direct drinking, and a morphology which could be held in the hand are necessary features for single serving and direct drinking. These containers can be filled either from jugs or from larger containers such as kraters or pithoi through the direct immersion of the cup/bowl or the use of specific tools, such as dippers. Communal drinking — that is, directly from a large vessel — requires not only an open and large container, but also the presence of additional tools such as straws (usually with filters when the liquid is the product of a fermentation process). Moreover, texts and iconography dealing with the act of drinking provide further information about this specific performance, both in the Late Bronze and in the Iron Age in the Mediterranean and in the Levant.11

 5

 Rabinowitz 2009; Karageorghis 2007.  For the anthropological basis, see Dietler and Hayden 2001.  7  Rabinowitz 2009; Bray 2003; South 2008; Steel 2004.  8  Milano 1994; Stol 1994; Zettler and Miller 1996.  9  Wright 2004b, p. 91. 10  Skibo 2013; Sinopoli 1991, pp. 83–98, 122–124; Mazow 2005, pp. 127–162; Smith 1988. 11  Studies on drinking habits in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean region were performed by YasurLandau 2010; Steel 2004; Wright 2004a; Hitchcock et al. 2008.  6

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

THE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FROM

TELL ATCHANA/ALAKAḪ:

251 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL

CONTEXTS OF THE IRON AGE LEVELS

Iron Age stratified materials and contexts were discovered in two sectors on the acropolis,12 both located in Area 1, one just above the so-called Northern Fortress (Squares 32.52, 32.53 and 32.63) and the second to the west of the temple (Square 42.10). From the point of view of the pottery analysis, however, it is important to clearly distinguish the archaeological contexts of the assemblages found in the area above the Northern Fortress from the ones identified in Square 42.10 near the temple. In the context above the fortress (Squares 32.53 and 32.63), the largest number of pottery sherds was found reemployed as building material in the paving of an Iron Age structure: this assemblage also included, besides large quantities of Iron Age material, a lower quantity of sherds from the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages. This archaeological context was identified for the first time during the excavation campaigns of 2003–2004 in Square 32.53 and interpreted as the remains of Woolley’s pottery yard. The concentration of pottery sherds, their mixture and the presence of “pieces of mortars similar to the ones employed in the dig house” led archaeologists to think that the process of accumulation in this area took place during the English excavations at the site, on top of the Level II “original” accumulation. However, in the publication of this material, Yener and Yazıcıoğlu suggested that several findings from the 2008 excavation could suggest the presence of Woolley’s Level O or I in these squares.13 Once the neighbouring Square 32.42 was excavated in 2012, it became clear that the straight limits of the sherd layers exposed in 2003 were defined by mud brick walls; thus, they could not be interpreted as the sherd court of Woolley’s dig house, but rather as a specific floor feature belonging to a period stratigraphically located above the Northern Fortress. Large pottery sherds were broken directly on the floor and in some cases were laid in several overlapping layers without mortar. The sherds had been removed from their original context, sorted out from the deposit and reemployed as building material. Moreover, the immediate analysis of the assemblages showed that they did not include any sherd or object more recent than the Iron Age II–III; thus, the structure was in use during the Iron Age occupation at the site.14 Underneath this building, archaeologists identified the mudbrick structure of the foundation platform of the Northern Fortress, dated to the Late Bronze Age II period.15 Therefore, this area resents a phase of abandonment after the construction of the Northern Fortress and a single phase of Iron Age II–III reoccupation with a single building. The pottery found in this floor belongs to a tertiary context.

12

 See Montesanto this volume; Yener 2013. Iron Age assemblages have also been collected in topsoil accumulations from other squares. 13  Yener and Yazicioğlu 2010, p. 12. 14  A structure with similar architectural features was excavated at Tell ‘Acharneh and was also dated to the Iron Age II (see Fortin et al. 2014, p. 210). 15  For a discussion on the cultural background, architectural features and chronology of the structure, see Woolley 1955, pp. 166–170, and more recently Akar 2013.

M. PUCCI

252

Square 42.10 is located approximately 15 m southeast of the temple area, without a direct archaeological connection to it. In the temple area, besides the sequence identified by Woolley, a section cleaning in 2001 led archaeologists to identify, only on the top deposits of the baulk, accumulation and architecture which could be related to Woolley’s Levels III and II.16 The Iron Age phases identified in Square 42.10 will be published in detail separately,17 however, for the aims of this contribution, it is important to briefly sketch the sequence inside the trench, in order to better ascribe the pottery collections and illustrate their contexts. In Square 42.10,18 the excavations revealed a sequence of three architectural local phases dated to the Iron Age (Period 0 in the new general sequence) above a fourth, Late Bronze Age one. The fourth phase, which was brought to light in 2014, is the most recent one in this area to have closed, built spaces and room inventories. In one of the inventories from Local Phase 4, archaeologists found the sealing of prince Tudhaliya, which provided the end of the 14th century as terminus post quem for the deposit in which it was found and the related pottery assemblage.19 During the most ancient Iron Age occupation of this area (Local Phase 3a and b), the Late Bronze Age structure of Local Phase 4 no longer existed, and a new floor was constructed above the levelled remains. The area was open during all three sub-phases of the Iron Age, and traces of human activity in the form of installations appear in all three phases, suggesting either glass and metal production (such as the pyrotechnical installation in Local Phase 3b)20 or food preparation and consumption (several large plates and cooking pots were found smashed above the tamped earth floor of Local Phase 3a; a few patches of stone installations on a tamped earth surface of Local Phases 2 and 1). The ceramic assemblages from this square are stratified, and those selected for the analysis of this topic belong only to Local Phases 3a and 3b; that is, to the most ancient Iron Age occupation at the site. The ceramic material at our disposal consists of approximately 1200 diagnostic sherds from four main contexts (CX 204 and 203, Local Phase 3b; CX 162 and 163, Local Phase 3a).

DRINKING SETS

IN IRON

AGE I TELL ATCHANA/ALALAKH

Both Local Phases 3a and 3b included very rich assemblages, consisting mainly of vessels related to food consumption and food preparation, with a minor quantity related to storage activity. The shapes, which may belong to a drinking set, can be reduced to a handful:

16

 Woolley 1955, p. 380. This sequence has been reconsidered by several scholars (Na’aman 1980; Fink 2010; Yener 2005). For the 2001 investigations in the trench, see Batiuk and Horowitz 2010, pp. 164–165. 17  A short overview is provided in Yener and Akar 2013. 18  I thank here Dr. Murat Akar, who provided the necessary information concerning the stratigraphy. 19  Yener et al. 2014 suggested a date at the end of the 14th century BC, considering that prince Tuthaliya was contemporary to Mursili II. 20  See Johnson this volume.

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

253

Direct drinking: Small, miniature bowl (BWL_Min;21 Fig. 1): this small vessel with outward curving rim, s-shaped (Fig. 1d), conical (Fig. 1a-b) or hemispherical (Fig. 1c) body and thick flat base recurs apparently in small numbers only in the oldest Iron Age occupation (Local Phase 3b). The vessel holds a very small amount of liquid (0.15 l).22 The clay in all examples is local; the base is simply cut off. These containers, and the s-shaped variant (Fig. 1d) in particular, are present only in the final stages of the Late Bronze Age occupation at Alalakh (marked in previous publications as HEBL-TR).23 Similar vessels were found in the coastal Levant up to Tyre in the 13th century,24 and their specific use has not been fully investigated: their small dimensions suggest their use either as tools to collect liquids to be poured into bowls or for the consumption of specialty drinks. The hemispherical version of this miniature shape appears to be completely new in the Iron Age horizon and represents only a smaller version of the well-known hemispherical bowl. Its use seems to be limited to the very early phase of the Iron Age, and it can be interpreted as having continuity from the Late Bronze II. II. Shallow bowl with tapered rim (BWL_Hem; Fig. 2f-g and i): this shape together with BWL_Str (below) is the most common in all assemblages, and they are likely variations of the same form. BWL_Hem consists of a shallow hemispherical body with a slightly outward curving and tapered rim. The base is probably rounded; the size of the diameter ranges from 15 to 20 cm, and the bowl can hold approximately 0.35 l of liquid. III. Shallow Bowl with straight rim (BWL_Str; Fig. 2e and j): a shallow body shape with carination and straight rim characterises this shape. It differs from BWL_Hem only in the very straight shape of the upper part. The dimensions of these vessels are only slightly smaller than BWL_HEM, due to the absence of the outward-curving rim. Their capacity also ranges from 0.3 to 0.4 l. Both shapes recur also in larger dimensions (Fig. 2k and l), which were probably employed for eating. IV. Hemispherical small bowls (HEBL_FL and CABL; Fig. 2a-d and h): several imitations of shallow angular bowls or bell-shaped bowls (Furumark Shape FS 284 and FS 284) appear in the assemblage. The body is hemispherical with a short, outward curving and thickened rim, and a small horizontal handle (elliptical in section) is attached to the body underneath the rim. One bowl (Fig. 2b) shows a body and rim shape which is very similar to the other examples; however, it is not possible to state whether the absence of the handle is due to the state of preservation or to the fact that it is a I.

21  Shape codes employed in this chapter are mainly those created by Mara Horowitz for the Late Bronze Age sequence, with several additions created for the Iron Age inventory. 22  Volumes are calculated using the program Pot-Utility, kindly provided by the ARCANE project (Thalmann and Arcane project 2006). 23  Horowitz in press, fig. 8:2-4. The shape apparently has no local precedent, and it is interpreted as ultimately belonging to a North Central Anatolian repertory. 24  At Arqa, Lev. 11, at Ugarit (Courtois 1969, fig. 6c), at Byblos (Salles 1980, pl. 20), at Tyre (Bikai 1978, pl. XLVIIa:15-17), and at Tell Kazel (Badre et al. 1994, fig. 42c). I thank Dr. H. Charaf for the information she provided me concerning this specific shape.

M. PUCCI

254

different shape, without handles. Besides the presence of the horizontal handle, the shape and size of these vessels is identical to the other drinking vessels; they contain approximately 0.35–0.4 l. All these shapes are intended to be single-sized drinking vessels. From a morphological point of view, the shape of the body tends to be shallow and hemispherical, it can be held in one hand, the shape of the rim facilitates the consumption of the liquid, and the vessel could contain either a very small or limited quantity (up to 0.4 l). All shapes except for those described in group IV above were also part of the Late Bronze Age assemblage, although with minor differences: BWL_Hem and BWL_Str are also in the Atchana Late Bronze Age II assemblage, but more rounded, and the rim is rarely outward curving. In particular, the Iron Age version of this type seems to be related to a shape which is characterised by thin walls and tapered rim, as well as a straight upper body, and which appears only in the final stages of the Late Bronze Age occupation at the site.25 Hemispherical bowls, as well as those with straight vertical rims,26 are well known in the Late Bronze Age of northern Syria.27 This morphology seems to continue into the Iron Age, when it becomes squatter and the rim tends to become more outward curving. The simple hemispherical shape of the bowl is frequently represented in drinking scenes from the Late Bronze and beginning of the Iron Age.28 Painted decoration is not very common. In the assemblage presented here, it occurs only in one drinking vessel, which belongs to group IV and has been published by Koehl.29 Furthermore, although the shape and decorative patterns imitate Late Helladic IIIC production, it is of a local ware and probably belongs to the same local production responsible for the group IV shapes. Red slip decoration is never employed in drinking vessels, but only in serving plates from these early Iron Age assemblages. This surface treatment also occurs sporadically during the Late Bronze Age (in banded plates) and seems never to disappear completely from the ceramic production. It would become very common again in the Iron Age II and III in combination with the standardisation of shapes.30 Mixing and Serving: Kraters are present in all assemblages, in smaller quantities than the bowls. The width of their opening (more than 20 cm) and their capacity are the criteria employed to select them as possible mixing containers, perhaps for wine.31 Considering that none of the fragments 25

 Horowitz in press, fig. 6:1-3, 6.  The bowl with straight rim is also called the “Mitannian bowl” in the analysis of the pottery from Qatna, and it was not considered typical for the Late Bronze Age local assemblage (Colantoni 2012, pl. 70:5-9). This shape is present also at Terqa (Rouault and Tommassini-Pieri 2014, fig. 17) and Nemrik (Reiche 2014, p. 303 pl. 2, n. 8, Mitanni level). 27  From Tell Bazi (Otto 2014, p. 99) to Tell Afis (Venturi 2014, p. 141) to Nemrik (Reiche 2014, p. 307). 28  See for the Iron Age, Bonatz 2000, p. 90; for the Late Bronze Age, Yasur-Landau 2005, fig. 2. 29  Koehl 2017, fig. 18.1.7 (AT 19516.2). 30  Pucci 2019. 31  The analysis on the function and use of kraters in the Mediterranean Near East during the Late Bronze Age has clearly shown that besides their practical use in drinking sets, they also fulfilled a symbolic function (see Steel 2013, p. 88). Wine production has been suggested for the Late Bronze Age in the Levant, see Joffe 1998, Yasur-Landau 2005 and, more generally, McGovern et al. 1996. 26

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

255

found in these contexts provides us with a complete profile, their morphological distinctions are mainly based on the shape of the rim and of the upper body part; these allow a general reconstruction of the shapes. It is possible to distinguish three main body shapes, which are, from the narrowest to the most open: the amphoroid krater, the biconical krater and the bell-shaped krater. A cylindrical collar and a biconical body characterise the first shape (Fig. 3a), while a simple biconical body without collar is typical for the second shape (Fig. 3b and c, Fig. 4c and d). The third shape is completely open, and the body has no carination, but is bell-shaped (Fig. 4a). V.

Amphoroid Krater (BIKR-AM): a flat triangular rim with a vertical loop handle attached directly to it, a cylindrical collar and possibly a middle simple carination characterise this specific shape (Figs. 3a and 4b). The few fragments found in the stratified contexts of this square are limited to the Iron Age local phases. No surface treatment could be identified; the capacity calculated on the reconstructed vessels ranges around 36 l, or 26 l when filled to just above the carination. Mycenaean amphoroid kraters (Furumark shape FS 53) were sporadic in the Late Bronze Age assemblage at Atchana:32 these kraters have an outward-curving upper part, and, in some examples, they seem already to be a combination of a biconical and an amphoroid krater. However, it is well known that Mycenaean imported kraters were ubiquitous in the northern Levant during the Late Bronze Age33 and probably contributed to defining the shape of the Iron Age examples; in fact, the handled variety occurs only in the final stages of the Late Bronze Age, and would be improved during the Iron Age. By contrast, the sharp, thickened rim seems to be more common in the Iron Age assemblages, while in the few examples from the Late Bronze Age, Alalakh kraters show a slightly offset rim, which disappears in the Iron Age. Moreover, the Iron Age versions bear features which are definitely Levantine: they are broader and squatter than their Late Bronze II counterparts. VI. Hole-mouth Krater (HMKR): a folded-out (triangular in section) or hammer-shaped rim with a middle soft carination and no collar is typical of this shape, which is very common in the assemblage (Figs. 3b–c, 4c–d). They may contain from around 20 l to 35 l, and their opening width ranges between 40 and 50 cm. Iron Age hole-mouth kraters differ from the Late Bronze II kraters: their body is hemispherical and not upside-down piriform as in the Late Bronze Age; in addition, during the Iron Age the opening becomes narrower and the body squatter and more carinated.34 The Alalakh examples differ from the Mycenaean ring based kraters (FS 282) only in the fact that they are wider and shorter than their Mycenaean counterparts, but the rounded body probably imitates the Mycenaean examples.35 Figures 3b and 3c show the similarities between an imitation of a painted Mycenaean ring base krater36 and an unpainted one. 32

 Horowitz in press, fig. 8:1-3.  Steel 2013. 34  Horowitz in press, fig. 8:4. 35  Mycenaean ring base kraters were found at Ugarit Late Bronze II (Monchambert 2004a, fig. 3:1), although they are rarer than the amphoroid ones (Yon et al. 2000). 36  See Montesanto this volume, fig. 2.1. 33

256

M. PUCCI

VII. Bell-shaped krater (KR_Bell): a large open vessel with thickened outward-curving rim and simple bell-shaped body (Fig. 4a) is also part of the assemblage. The general shape follows the same type as the Mycenaean bell-shaped deep bowls (FS 285), only the dimensions are much bigger. They contain around 8 l, and the opening ranges between 30 and 40 cm. They make their first appearance in the Iron Age at the same time as the bell-shaped bowls and should be interpreted as a variant of these. Most of the kraters from these contexts are unpainted, contain between 8 and 35 l, and have openings wide enough to allow a bowl to be dipped inside. No single fragment could be identified in the repertoire as belonging to possible serving vessels or serving tools; that is, objects which could be employed to pour the liquid from a larger container to a cup or bowl. The two fragments of dippers presented by Koehl37 were discovered in other areas of the settlement and seem to be a very rare find. Small jars or bottles, which could also be used for direct drinking, were not identified in the assemblage from this phase. Therefore, it seems likely that liquid was drunk using single-portion bowls, and that the bowls were dipped directly into the kraters to take the liquid. It is not possible at the moment to state whether a single-portion bowl was shared on occasion of communal drinking, or if it should be considered a personal tool. Products Although beer and wine had been produced in Mesopotamia and Syria since the third millennium BC, evidence for the kind of liquids employed in consumption in the Iron Age assemblage from Tell Atchana is very scant.38 The archaeological data allow only a few observations. Although beer was the most common product in the Late Bronze Age,39 strainer bowls and strainer straws are extremely rare in the analysed Iron Age assemblages: in Square 42.10, only one filter bowl was identified in a later context and one metal filter was identified in Local Phase 3b. Other vessels which are considered to be specifically for beer production are completely absent.40 By contrast, a large pilgrim flask was recovered from the assemblage (Fig. 5): the shape is asymmetrical, and the vessel could contain up to 7 l and belongs to a well-known Late Bronze Age type.41 These large vessels have been interpreted as possible vehicles for the transport of wine from the Karkemish area,42 so its presence in the Iron Age occupation, together with large kraters, may suggest the consumption of that beverage.

37

 Koehl 2017, fig. 18.4, n. 2 and 3.  Zettler and Miller 1996; McGovern 2009. 39  Milano 1994; Zarnkow et al. 2006. 40  So-called beer jars or perforated jars are usually considered part of beer production. See Stol 1994; Otto 2012. 41  Venturi 1996. 42  Gates 1988, pp. 71–73; Otto 2006, p. 96. 38

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN DRINKING HABITS FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE II IRON AGE I AT ATCHANA AND IN THE NORTHERN LEVANT

257 TO THE

The drinking set from Late Bronze Age Alalakh includes, besides the small hemispherical bowls, which continue into the Iron Age, cylindrical cups and strainer bowls. Small cylindrical cups with outward-curving or tapered rims43 could be employed for direct drinking; their recurrence seems to suggest that they were part of the Late Bronze Age drinking set. Larger versions of this shape (goblets) bear a painted banded decoration and belong to the wellknown group of Banded/Khabour ware, which was identified across a large geographic area in the northern Syrian and Mesopotamian regions during the Late Bronze I and II; the smaller ones with tapered rim bear a painted Atchana/Nuzi decoration. These specific shapes completely disappear in the usual sets of the Iron Age, implying the disappearance of the practice related to them. During the Iron Age, single-portion bowls, by contrast, increase in number and morphological diversity, with variations in decoration and capacity: besides the typical local bowl shapes, Aegeanising ones, such as bell-shaped bowls and angular shallow bowls, were introduced into the repertoire. The predominance of bowls over cups and goblets may be related to the way liquids (or specific liquids) were consumed, this time directly from the bowls. The same absence can be noted for the strainer bowls (and conical metal strainers) which were present in the Late Bronze II assemblage at Atchana and elsewhere;44 this may suggest that during the Iron Age, direct drinking from a large vessel (as the metal filters seem to indicate) disappeared, while filters were directly applied to small jars. Looking at a broader geographic area, if we compare the Iron Age drinking set from Atchana with Late Bronze Age assemblages from other sites, we can point out further differences. Although Late Bronze II in situ drinking sets from primary contexts are not available at sites from the northern Levant, Ugarit and Tarsus offer a very large repertoire, especially for the very late phases of the Late Bronze Age, which are ephemeral at Atchana. The presence of Aegeanising shapes in the Late Bronze Age assemblages at both Tarsus and Ugarit seem to influence the drinking sets; amphoroid kraters (FS53-55), handled cups (FS 220-222), kylixes (FS 258, 267 and 274) and shallow angular bowls (FS 284) are common shapes employed and imported to the Levantine coast, and these shapes are all involved in drinking.45 Stemmed bowls (kylixes and stemmed cups), which were characteristic in the Aegean archaeological evidence and Aegean representations of drinking activities,46 are few among the Mycenaean imports in the northern Levant and are completely absent from the Iron Age assemblage. This implies that the kind of bowl and the way it was held remained unvaried from the Late Bronze Age local tradition and the few stemmed Mycenaean imports did not influence the drinking or toasting habits at Alalakh.47

43

 Horowitz in press, figs. 11:1-2, 16:1-5. The function of the larger cylindrical cups has been debated. It should, however, be pointed out that the smaller ones seem to be related to drinking activity (see Stein 1984). 44  Otto 2014, p. 100; Horowitz in press, fig. 7:1-2, 7; Badre and Capet 2014, p. 165. 45  Ugarit (Monchambert 2004a, N2, fig. 5 no. 18, fig. 1 no. 19; 2004b, figs. 20–23); Kazel (Jung 2011); Megiddo (Leonard and Cline 1998). See also van Wijngaarden 2002, p. 114. 46  Yasur-Landau 2005, pp. 172–174; Wright 2004a. 47  See Koehl 2017, table 18.1.

M. PUCCI

258

Thus, the only Mycenaeanising shapes which seem to be used and produced in Iron Age Atchana are the bell-shaped kraters and the shallow angular bowl. It is, however, interesting that these two shapes were not the most common in the Late Bronze Age repertoires, nor do they preserve in the Iron Age the typical decorative features of the Late Bronze Age imports. The introduction of shallow angular bowls among the locally produced simple ware may be related to different factors: first, the appearance of local imitations of specific Mycenaean shapes (mainly bell-shaped bowls and amphoroid kraters, and more rarely, cooking pots) is common in the early Iron Age Levant and reflects, in the case of the Amuq region, a profound Mycenaean ascendancy, which has been explained in various ways (migration, invasion, influence) and will not be discussed here. Second, specifically the shallow angular bowls are similar in their general shape and size to the locally produced hemispherical bowls with outward-curving rim, so they could easily have been introduced into the local repertoire without implying a different handling of the cup itself.48 Painted decoration does not disappear completely during the Iron Age (as it is attested in later contexts of Square 42.10 and in Square 32.42); it represents, however, a very small percentage of the repertoire and was applied, besides the bell-shaped bowls, mainly to kraters.49 The morphological changes which concern the kraters and have been described above could already be identified during the very end of the Late Bronze Age and do not seem to affect the function of the vessels. Therefore, considering both direct-drinking and serving vessels, a strong continuity from the Late Bronze Age can be observed in the drinking sets, together with the progressive disappearance during the Iron Age of specific shapes (locally produced as beakers and cups or imported in forms such as kylixes). This disappearance could be related to the drinking of specific products (as with the cylindrical cups) and/or to a different social context.

DRINKING IN

THE

EARLY IRON AGE IN THE NORTHERN LEVANT

Thus, the Iron Age I drinking set seems to be restricted to a few main shapes: single-sized bowls and multiple-serving kraters, in which specific drinks were mixed. It seems likely that the same bowls could be employed to drink liquids which did not require mixing (such as water) from large storage containers. Cups and other drinking tools (such as dippers or filters) or specialty vessels (such as stirrup jars, strainer jugs and feeding bottles) are completely missing from the Early Iron Age repertoire at Atchana. This reduced drinking set finds good comparisons with pottery inventories from the 12th century BC in the northern Levant.

48

 The addition of the handles follows a general trend of the Iron Age: during this period, handles were always applied to kraters and jars, and sometimes to bowls, to storage jars and to cooking pots. While their application on the cooking pots also meant a practical change (once vertical handles began to be applied on the pots, the collar, which was typical for the Late Bronze Age assemblage and useful in handling the pot, became completely useless), in other examples, the handles were only vestigial (in several shallow angular bowls) or not useful (as is the case for the storage jars). 49  Montesanto this volume, fig. 2.6.

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

259

Simple hemispherical bowls or hemispherical bowls with straight rim were found at Tell Afis, Chatal Höyük, Tell Arqa (together with hemispherical bowls), Tell Tweini and Tell Tayinat.50 The same can be observed for the imitations of shallow angular bowls (mostly unpainted), which are present at Kazel in the passage from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age,51 at Tarsus, at Tell Afis and in the southern Levant.52 By contrast, the small bowls (BWL_MIN) are extremely scarce in early Iron Age contexts from neighbouring sites,53 so they may mirror the persistence of a Late Bronze Age tradition specifically at Alalakh. The fact that the examples presented here are all from the very early phase (Local Phase 3b) of Square 42.10 seems to confirm this statement. Amphoroid and biconical kraters, although different in shape, share similar dimensions (capacity and width of the opening), while the bell-shaped kraters are smaller both in their opening and in their capacity and may have had a different use. At Chatal Höyük, the amphoroid krater in its Levantine version becomes very popular over time and more common than the simple biconical krater, which continues being produced but tends to disappear over time.54 The Alalakh assemblage presented here shows the very first stages of this transformation, when the hole-mouth krater is still more numerous and the local amphoroid kraters are making their first appearance. All three shapes are well known in the Iron Age assemblages from the northern Levant,55 and are part of the drinking sets for this region. Although in the northern Levant kraters are among the shapes which are more frequently painted, all kraters found in this assemblage at Tell Atchana were unpainted; this could suggest that the Early Iron Age context, at least in this area and in its beginning phases, was quite poor. Moreover, the drinking set as it has been identified at Alalakh seems to be common in a very large area in the Amuq and north Syria, but already at sites east of the Euphrates, the drinking set of the Early Iron Age occupation consisted of carinated bowls and several jugs, and different kinds of drinking sets were employed.56 More extensively excavated sites, such as Chatal Höyuk, Tell Tayinat and Tell Afis57 in the northern Levant provided larger assemblages, but not richer ones in terms of shapes related to drinking activity, so we may 50

 Venturi 2007, fig. 56:9-11 (Tell Afis); Pucci 2019, pl. 63a-c (Chatal Höyük); Charaf 2011, fig. 3:4 (Tell Arqa); Du Piêd 2011, fig. 10e (Tell Tweini); Harrison 2013, fig. 5.10 (Tell Tayinat). 51  Jung (2011) states that 5 per cent of the Mycenaeanising pottery from the site belongs to this shape. 52  French 1975, fig. 16 (Tarsus); Venturi 2007, fig. 572 (Tell Afis); Killebrew and Lev-Tov 2008 (southern Levant). 53  Possibly one from Tayinat: Harrison 2013, fig. 2 no. 3. 54  This process of transformation could be observed at Chatal Höyük (Pucci 2019) and on a smaller scale at Tell Tayinat: here the amphoroid kraters are, in Field Phase 5, more numerous than the biconical ones (see Janeway 2013, pls. 7–9). 55  Besides the examples from Tayinat, kraters in all three shapes were found at Ras Ibn Hani (see Du Piêd 2006–07, fig. 7), at Tell Afis (Venturi 2007, figs 58.9, 49.8, 11, 49.1-5); amphoroid and biconical (Badre 2006, fig. 13) at Tell Kazel, at Tell Tweini (Vansteenhuyse 2010, Ill. 3) and at Tille Höyük (Blaylock 1999, fig. 99). 56  It is quite difficult to point to drinking sets in this area which can be dated with certainty to the beginning of Iron Age I (12th–10th century BC) on the east side of the Euphrates in order to make comparisons in the same chronological period. Tille Höyük, for example, already shows shapes for direct drinking different from those at Atchana, see Blaylock 2016, fig. 11.5. Possibly Jurn al Kabir and Lidar Höyük provide the best examples. 57  Venturi 2007, fig. 57.6.

260

M. PUCCI

hypothesise a general trend in the Early Iron Age northern Levant. The absence of specialty vessels such as beer strainers and feeding bottles, filters and beakers, emphasised above, is also attested at other neighbouring and contemporary sites in these early levels of the northern Levant.

CONCLUSIONS The archaeological evidence at Tell Atchana related to drinking habits shows a strong continuity and some changes from the Late Bronze Age assemblage: cups disappear, single serving bowls were employed for direct drinking and were filled through direct immersion in large kraters, and handles start to become ubiquitous on open vessels. Although at Atchana these changes could be related to the limited extent of excavations and, consequently, to the different nature of the excavated contexts (such as Late Bronze Age palace and household inventories on the one hand, and Iron Age open areas on the other), they seem to occur also at other sites in the northern Levant, and, consequently, they may mirror a general trend. The same phenomena are attested in the Iron Age levels at other sites in the Amuq (such as Chatal Höyük and Tell Tayinat) or inner Syria (such as Tell Afis, Tell Kazel and Tell Qarqur). They can consequently be regarded as concerning the whole northern Levant, mirroring a slow but progressive change in the morphology of drinking sets, but not in the performance of the action. The archaeological material at our disposal does not currently allow us to reconstruct the product consumed in this set; however, the disappearance of filters as well as the use of the kraters (biconical or amphoroid) may indicate that wine continued being consumed. It remains for the moment a working hypothesis which needs to be tested in other assemblages. Moreover, the introduction of Mycenaeanising shapes in the drinking set does not imply the introduction of Mycenaean drinking habits: Mycenaean habits are related to specific handling of the containers employed for direct drinking (usually the kylix) and to specific content, usually related to specialty vessels which are not part of the set found at Tell Atchana. The modification of the shape of the local krater, as well as the introduction of the imitation of the shallow angular bowls and bell-shaped bowls are possible clues for hypothesising a progressive fusion, a melting of different cultural elements, in which the local tradition remained the stronger one.

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

CATALOGUE Fig. 1a Inv. Nr.: AT 19586.4 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 23, Context 204, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Miniature shallow bowl with straight vertical rim. BWL_Min Fabric: Simple Ware, tan Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 1b Inv. Nr.: AT 19593.1 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 20, Context 203, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Miniature shallow bowl, flat base. BWL_Min Fabric: Simple Ware, salmon Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 1c Inv. Nr.: AT 20038.2 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 24, Context 204, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Miniature hemispherical bowl, rounded base. BWL_Min Fabric: Simple Ware, tan Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 1d Inv. Nr.: AT 20048.1 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 24, Context 203, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Shallow bowl, truncated cup. Out-curving rim. BWL_Min Fabric: Simple Ware, salmon Surface Treatment/Decoration: None

Fig. 1. Miniature bowls from Square 42.10, Local Phase 3 (Iron Age I).

261

262

M. PUCCI

Fig. 2a Inv. Nr.: AT 19545.5 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 20, Context 204, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Hemispherical bowl with horizontal loop handle. Imitation of shallow angular bowl. CABL Fabric: Simple Ware, cream Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 2b Inv. Nr.: AT 19461.9 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 16, Context 163, Local Phase 3a Shape description: Hemispherical bowl, outward curving rim. CABL Fabric: Simple Ware, cream Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 2c Inv. Nr.: AT 19511.2 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 16, Context 163, Local Phase 3a Shape description: Hemispherical bowl with horizontal loop handle. Imitation of shallow angular bowl. CABL Fabric: Simple Fine Ware, salmon Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 2d Inv. Nr.: AT 19564.3 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 16, Context 164, Local Phase 3a Shape description: Hemispherical bowl with horizontal loop handle. Imitation of shallow angular bowl. CABL Fabric: Simple Ware, tan Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 2e Inv. Nr.: AT 19569.1 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 22, Context 204, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Hemispherical Bowl, vertical tapered rim. BWL_Hem Fabric: Simple Ware, grey Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 2f Inv. Nr.: AT 20016.2 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 20, Context 203, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Hemispherical bowl, tapered rim. BWL_Hem Fabric: Simple Ware, cream Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 2g Inv. Nr.: AT 19511.3 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 16, Context 162, Local Phase 3a Shape description: Hemispherical bowl, vertical rim. BWL_Hem Fabric: Simple Ware, tan Surface Treatment/Decoration: None

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

263

Fig. 2h Inv. Nr.: AT 19532.4 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 20, Context 203, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Hemispherical bowl, rolled out rim. HEBL_FL Fabric: Simple Fine Ware, cream Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 2i Inv. Nr.: AT 19529.2 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 16, Context 163, Local Phase 3a Shape description: Shallow bowl, concave base, rilling on the exterior. BWL_Hem Fabric: Simple Ware, cream

Fig. 2. Bowls from Square 42.10, Local Phase 3 (Iron Age I): a–d, Imitation of Shallow Angular bowls; e–j, Hemispherical bowls with outcurving or straight rim, for drinking; k–l, Larger hemispherical bowls with outcurving or straight rim.

264

M. PUCCI

Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Notes: These specific bowls with the rilling on the external base are very common in Late Bronze Age assemblages. Fig. 2j Inv. Nr.: AT 20085.2 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 24, Context 203, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Shallow bowl, straight rim. BWL_Str Fabric: Simple Ware, salmon Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 2k Inv. Nr.: AT 20057.1 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 20, Context 203, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Shallow bowl, straight rim. BWL_Str Fabric: Simple Ware, tan Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 2l Inv. Nr.: AT 19569.2 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 22, Context 204, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Shallow bowl. BWL_Str Fabric: Simple Ware, tan Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 3a Inv. Nr.: AT 18327.2 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 12 Shape description: Amphoroid krater. BIKR-AM Fabric: Simple Ware, cream Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Notes: Reconstruction Fig. 3b Inv. Nr.: AT 14906.2 Context: Area 1, Sq. 32.42, Locus 9 Shape description: Hole-mouth krater, ring base krater. HMKR Fabric: Painted Ware Surface Treatment/Decoration: Horizontal bands and zigzag, red paint Notes: Reconstruction Fig. 3c Inv. Nr.: AT 20085.4 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 24 Shape description: Hole-mouth Krater. HMKR Fabric: Simple Ware, tan Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Notes: Reconstruction: the base is left rounded, although most probably it had a ring base.

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

Fig. 3. Reconstruction drawings of main kraters’ shapes: a) Amphoroid Krater, b) Hole-mouth Krater, ring base type, c) Hole-mouth Krater.

Fig. 4a Inv. Nr.: AT 20007.1 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 20, Context 203, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Krater, bell-shaped. KR_Bell Fabric: Simple Ware, tan Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 4b Inv. Nr.: AT 19572.10 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 23, Context 204, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Amphoroid krater. BIKR-AM Fabric: Simple Ware, cream Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 4c Inv. Nr.: AT 20085.4 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 24, Context 203, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Hole-mouth krater. HMKR Fabric: Simple Ware, tan Surface Treatment/Decoration: None

265

266

M. PUCCI

Fig. 4. Kraters from Square 42.10 Local Phase 3 (Iron Age I): a) Bell-shaped Krater, b) Amphoroid Krater, c–d) Hole-mouth Kraters.

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

267

Fig. 4d Inv. Nr.: AT 19572.11 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 23, Context 204, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Hole-mouth krater. HMKR Fabric: Simple Ware, cream Surface Treatment/Decoration: None Fig. 5 Inv. Nr.: AT 20016.3 Context: Area 1, Sq. 42.10, Locus 20, Context 203, Local Phase 3b Shape description: Pilgrim Flask, asymmetrical. Fabric: Simple Ware, cream Surface Treatment/Decoration: None

Fig. 5. Pilgrim Flask from Square 42.10 Local Phase 3 (Iron Age I).

BIBLIOGRAPHY AKAR, M. 2013

BADRE, L. 2006

“The Late Bronze Age fortresses at Alalakh: Architecture and identity in Mediterranean exchange systems,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia, Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 37–60. Leuven: Peeters. “Tell Kazel - Simyra: A contribution to a relative chronological history in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343: 65–95.

268

M. PUCCI

BADRE, L. and CAPET, E. 2014 “The Late Bronze Age pottery from Tell Kazel: Links with the Aegean, Cyprus, and the Levant,” in Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in SyroMesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions, edited by A. Hausleiter and M. Luciani, pp. 157–180. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. BADRE, L., GUBEL, E., CAPET, E. and PANAYOT, N. 1994 “Tell Kazel (Syrie). Rapport préliminaire sur les 4e-8e campagnes de fouilles (19881992),” Syria 71: 259–346. BATIUK, S. and HOROWITZ, M. T. “Temple Deep Sounding investigations, 2001–2006,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient 2010 Alalakh Volume 1: The 2003-2004 Excavations Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 161–176. Istanbul: Koç University Press. BIKAI, P. M. 1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. BLAYLOCK, S. R. 1999 “Iron Age pottery from Tille Höyük, South-Eastern Turkey,” in Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria, and South-Eastern Anatolia: Papers Presented at the Meetings of the International ‘table ronde’ at Heidelberg (1995) and Nieborów (1997) and other Contributions, edited by A. Hausleiter and A. Reiche, pp. 263– 286. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2016 Tille Höyük 3.2. The Iron Age, Pottery Objects and Conclusions (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 50). London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. BONATZ, D. 2000 Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung einer neuen Bildgattung in der Eisenzeit im nordsyrisch-südostanatolischen Raum. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. BRAY, T. L., ed. 2003 The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. CHARAF, H. 2011 “Over the hills and far away: Handmade Burnished Ware and Mycenaean cooking pots at Tell Arqa, Libanon,” in On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions (an International Archaeological Symposium held in Nicosia, November 6th-7th 2010), edited by V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, pp. 203–218. Nicosia: Leventis. COLANTONI, C. 2012 The Late MBA and LBA Pottery Horizons at Qatna. Udine: Forum. COURTOIS, J. C. 1969 “Le matériel céramique de la tombe 4253 du Bronze Récent à Ugarit,” in Ugaritica VI, edited by C. F. A. Schaeffer, pp. 121–138. Paris: Geuthner. DIETLER, M. and HAYDEN, B., eds. 2001 Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. DU PIÊD, L. 2006–07 “The Early Iron Age in the Northern Levant: Continuity and change in the pottery assemblages from Ras el-Bassit and Ras Ibn Hani,” Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: 161–186. 2011 “Early Iron Age society in the northern Levant: Architecture, pottery and finds,” in On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions (an International Archaeological Symposium held in Nicosia, November 6th-7th 2010), edited by V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, pp. 219–236. Nicosia: Leventis.

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

FINK, A. S. 2010

269

Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana (Alalakh): Stratigraphy, Chronology, History. Oxford: Archaeopress. FORTIN, M., COOPER, L. and BOILEAU, M. C. 2014 “Rapport préliminaire et études céramologiques sur les campagnes de fouilles 2009 et 2010 à Tell ‘Acharneh, vallée du Ghab, Syrie,” Syria 91: 173–220. FRENCH, E. B. 1975 “A reassessment of the Mycenaean pottery at Tarsus,” Anatolian Studies 25: 53–75. FURUMARK, A. 1941 Mycenaean Pottery: 1. Analysis and Classification. 2. Chronology. 3. Plates. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. GATES, M.-H. 1988 “Dialogues between Ancient Near Eastern texts and the archaeological record: Test cases from Bronze Age Syria,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 270: 63–91. HARRISON, T. P. “Tayinat in the Early Iron Age,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age 2013 Relations between Syria and Anatolia, Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 61–87. Leuven: Peeters. HITCHCOCK, L., LAFFINEUR, R. and CROWLEY, J. L. 2008 Dais: The Aegean Feast: Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference, 12e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008. Liège: Université de Liège. HOROWITZ, M. T. In press “Local ceramics in the battleground of empires: Alalakh in the 14th Century BC”, in Ceramic Identities, edited by S. Mazzoni, M. Pucci, F. Venturi. Pisa: ETS. JANEWAY, B. 2013 Cultural Transition in the Northern Levant during the Early Iron Age as Reflected in the Aegean-Style Pottery at Tell Tayinat. Unpublished Ph.D. diss. University of Toronto. JUNG, R. 2011 “Mycenaean vending cups in Syria? Thoughts about the unpainted Mycenaean pottery from Tell Kazel,” in Our Cups Are Full: Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age Papers Presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, edited by W. Gauss, M. Lindblom, R. A. K. Smith and J. C. Wright, pp. 121–132. Oxford: Archaeopress. KARAGEORGHIS, V. 2007 “Eating and drinking in Cyprus, 13th–6th centuries B.C.,” in Keimelion: Elitenbildung und elitärer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche: Akten des internatonalen Kongresses vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg, edited by E. Alram-Stern and G. Nightingale, pp. 257–262. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. KILLEBREW, A. and LEV-TOV, J. “Early Iron Age feasting and cuisine: An indicator of Philistine-Aegean connectivity?,” 2008 in Dais: The Aegean Feast: Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008, edited by L. Hitchcock, R. Laffineur and J. L. Crowley, pp. 339–346. Liège: Université de Liège. KOEHL, R. 2017 “Were there Sea Peoples at Alalakh (Tell Atchana)?”, in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology. A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. Horowitz and A. Gilbert, pp. 275–295. Leiden: Brill.

270

M. PUCCI

JOFFE, A. H. 1998 “Alcohol and social complexity in ancient western Asia,” Current Anthropology 39: 297–322. LEONARD, A. and CLINE, E. H. 1998 “The Aegean pottery at Megiddo: An appraisal and reanalysis,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 309: 3–39. MAZOW, L. B. 2005 Competing Material Culture: Philistine Settlement at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Early Iron Age. Unpublished Ph.D. diss. University of Arizona. MAZZONI, S. 1997 “The gate and the city: Change and continuity in Syro-Hittite urban ideology,” in Die Orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch, edited by G. Wilhelm, pp. 307– 338. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Verlag. MCGOVERN, P. E. 2009 Uncorking the Past: The Quest for Wine, Beer, and Other Alcoholic Beverages. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press. MCGOVERN, P. E., FLEMING, S. J. and KATZ, S. 1996 The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Amsterdam: Routledge. MILANO, L. 1994 “Vino e Birra in Oriente. Confini geografici e confini culturali,” in Drinking in Ancient Societies: History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium held in Rome, May 17-19 1990, edited by L. Milano, pp. 421–440. Padova: Sargon. MONCHAMBERT, J.-Y. 2004a La céramique d’Ougarit: Campagnes de fouilles 1975 et 1976. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 2004b “La céramique mycénienne d’Ougarit. Nouvelles données,” in La céramique mycénienne de l’Égée au Levant: Hommage à Vronwy Hankey, edited by J. Balensi, J.-Y. Monchambert and S. Müller Celka, pp. 125–140. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée and de Boccard. NA’AMAN, N. 1980 “The Ishtar Temple at Alalakh,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39: 209–214. OTTO, A. 2006 Alltag und Gesellschaft zur Spätbronzezeit: Eine Fallstudie aus Tall Bazi (Syrien). Turnhout: Brepols. 2012 “Defining and transgressing the boundaries between ritual commensality and daily commensal practices: The case of Late Bronze Age Tall Bazi,” in Between Feasts and Daily Meals: Toward an Archaeology of Commensal Spaces, edited by S. Pollock, pp. 179–195. Berlin: Edition Topoi. 2014 “The Late Bronze Age pottery of the ‘Weststadt’ of Tell Bazi (Syrien),” in Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syro-Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions, edited by A. Hausleiter and M. Luciani, pp. 85–118. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. PUCCI, M. 2019 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch, Volume 3. Stratigraphy and Materials from Chatal Hüyük (Oriental Institute Publications 143). Chicago: Oriental Institute. RABINOWITZ, A. 2009 “Drinking from the same cup: Sparta and Late Archaic commensality,” in Sparta Comparative Approaches, edited by S. Hodkinson, pp. 113–192. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. REICHE, A. 2014 “Late Bronze Age pottery from Nemrik,” in Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syro-Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions, edited by A. Hausleiter and M. Luciani, pp. 289–332. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

DRINKING IN IRON AGE ATCHANA

271

ROUAULT, O. and TOMMASSINI-PIERI, B. M. 2014 “Stratigraphy, chronology and the Late Bronze Age ceramics in Terqa and around,” in Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syro-Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions, edited by A. Hausleiter and M. Luciani, pp. 219–234. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. SALLES, J.-F. 1980 La nécropole ‚K‘ de Byblos. Lyon: Editions Association pour la Diffusion de la Pensée Française. SINOPOLI, C. M. 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York, London: Springer. SKIBO, J. M. 2013 Understanding Pottery Function. New York: Plenum Press. SMITH, M. F. 1988 “Function from whole vessel shape: A method and an application to Anasazi Black Mesa, Arizona,” American Anthropologist 90: 912–923. SOUTH, A. 2008 “Feasting in Cyprus: A view from Kalavasos,” in Dais: The Aegean Feast: Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008, edited by L. Hitchcock, R. Laffineur and J. L. Crowley, pp. 309–316, Liège: Université de Liège. STEEL, L. 2004 “A goodly feast … A cup of mellow wine: Feasting in Bronze Age Cyprus,” Hesperia 73: 281–300. 2013 Materiality and Consumption in the Bronze Age Mediterranean. New York; London: Routledge. STEIN, D. L. 1984 “Khabur Ware and Nuzi Ware: Their origin, relationship, and significances,” Assur 4/1: 1–65. STOL, M. 1994 “Beer in Neo-Babylonian times,” in Drinking in Ancient Societies: History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East: Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, May 17-19, 1990, edited by L. Milano, pp. 155–183. Padova: Sargon. VANSTEENHUYSE, K. 2010 “La céramique du Chantier A,” in Tell Tweini: Onze campagnes de fouilles Syro-Belges (1999-2010), edited by M. Al-Maqdissi, K. Van Lerberghe, J. Bretschneider and M. Badawi, pp. 95–114. Damas: Direction Générale des Antiquités et de Musées – Syrie. VENTURI, F. 1996 “Une ‘fiasca del pellegrino’ da Tell Afis: l’evoluzione dei ‘Pilgrim Flasks’ cananaici nel passaggio tra bronzo tardo e ferro I,” Vicino Oriente 10: 147–161. 2007 La Siria nell’età delle trasformazioni (13-10 sec. a.C.): Nuovi contributi dallo scavo di Tell Afis. Bologna: CLUEB. 2014 “The Late Bronze Age II pottery production from Tell Afis,” in Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syro-Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions, edited by A. Hausleiter and M. Luciani, pp. 133–156. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. VAN WIJNGAARDEN, G. J. 2002 Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (16001200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. Oxford: Society of Antiquaries of London. WRIGHT, J. C. 2004a “Mycenaean drinking services and standards of etiquette,” in Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehistoric Greece, edited by P. Halstead and J. C. Barrett, pp. 90–104. Oxford: Oxbow.

272

M. PUCCI

WRIGHT, J. C., ed. 2004b The Mycenaean Feast. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. YASUR-LANDAU, A. 2005 “Old wine in new vessels: Intercultural contact, innovation and Aegean, Canaanite and Philistine foodways,” Tel Aviv 32: 168–191. 2010 The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. YENER, K. A. 2005 “Introduction, Alalakh spatial organization: Augmenting the architectural layout of Levels VII-0,” in The Amuq Valley Regional Projects, Volume 1: Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995-2002, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 99–144. Chicago: Oriental Institute. 2013 “New excavations at Alalakh: The 14th–12th centuries BC,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia, Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–35. Leuven: Peeters. YENER, K. A. and YAZICIOĞLU, G. B. 2010 “Excavation results,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh Volume 1: The 2003-2004 Excavations Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–50. Istanbul: Koç University Press. YENER, K. A. and AKAR, M. 2013 “Excavations at Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh 2012,” ANMED, News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas 11: 1–9. YENER, K. A., PEKER, H. and DINÇOL, B. 2014 “Prince Tuthaliya and Princess Ašnuhepa,” NABU: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 4: 136–138. YON, M., KARAGEORGHIS, V., HIRSCHFELD, N. and CAUBET, A., eds. 2000 Ras Shamra-Ougarit XIII: Céramiques mycéniennes. Nicosia: Leventis. ZARNKOW, M., SPIELEDER, E., BACK, W., SACHER, B., OTTO, A. and EINWAG, B. 2006 “Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen zum altorientalischen Bierbrauen in der Siedlung von Tall Bazi/Nordsyrien vor rund 3200 Jahren,” Technikgeschichte 73: 3–25. ZETTLER, R. L. and MILLER, N. F. 1996 “Searching for wine in the archaeological record of ancient Mesopotamia of the third and second millennia B.C.,” in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine, edited by P. E. McGovern, S. J. Fleming and S. H. Katz, pp. 123–132. Amsterdam: Routledge.

Marina PUCCI Universitá degli Studi di Firenze [email protected]

ALALAKH AND ITS NEIGHBOURS

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH: CULTURAL RELATIONS IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC Atilla ENGIN ABSTRACT Oylum Höyük is situated on the fertile land at the point where the high Anatolian plateau gives way to the Syrian plains that extend southward, overlooking the Plain of Kilis. The settlement was an important part of the northern Syria cultural region in the second millennium BC. Cuneiform texts and glyptic materials found in the recent excavations at Oylum Höyük, one of the largest mound settlements in the region, not only indicate that the site was a regional administrative centre, but also highlight its political, cultural and economic role. Fine artefacts, dating to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, found at Oylum Höyük, including ceramics, bronzes, clay and stone objects, faience, glass, frit, and ivory and bone carvings, as well as architectural remains and burial practices, show strong similarities with those of Alalakh.

INTRODUCTION1 The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of the recent excavations at Oylum Höyük and to compare them with those of Alalakh as a regional centre in the second millennium BC. Oylum and Alalakh, one located in the east and other in the west, are two administrative centres that dominated a region which reached into Northern Syria. Both are located on the fertile plains where the high Anatolian plateau ends and the Syrian plains start. Oylum Höyük is situated within the borders of the province of Kilis on a fertile plain (Figs. 1–2). It is the biggest settlement mound in the region, thanks to its 460 × 370 m area and height of up to 37 m. The Akpınar River that springs from the Kilis Plain flows into the Orontes after joining with the Halep Suyu tributary by the western slope of the mound.2 The traces of a well-preserved monumental basalt fortification wall indicate that the settlement covered approximately 17 ha at the end of the third millennium and beginning of the second millennium BC. Alalakh, located on the Orontes River and occupying an area of 750 × 325 m (approximately 22 ha), is slightly larger than Oylum. The survey we conducted in the fields surrounding Oylum Höyük demonstrated that the settlement extended beyond its walls after the 18th century BC, and that, accordingly, the city reached at least 35 ha in size.

1

 I would like to extend my thanks to Dr. Alan M. Greaves who improved the English text.  Today, the water discharge of the river has decreased significantly due to the extensive use of underground water resources. 2

276

A. ENGIN

Fig. 1. General view of Oylum Höyük from the west.

Fig. 2. Location of Oylum Höyük between the regional centres.

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

277

Oylum Höyük caught the attention of several researchers due to its general size and strategic location, and it is considered to be one of the most significant urban settlements of the Bronze Age in the region.3 The survey we conducted around Kilis and the surrounding area revealed that Oylum was the most important settlement in this region, and that it evidently functioned as a regional centre for the surrounding satellite settlements in the second millennium BC.4 The first excavation at the mound started in 1988 under the leadership of Prof. Dr Engin Özgen and continued until 2011. E. Carter, B. Helwing and A. M. Greaves participated for a number of years as project partners in the excavations, which were conducted in the northwest and southeast zones and small areas on the northwest summit.5 Alalakh primarily governed the trading, travel and communication routes in the region during the second millennium BC, thanks to its strategic location at an interregional crossroads that dominated both land and sea/river routes.6 Oylum is situated just north of the major trade route that extends from southern Mesopotamia towards the northern Mediterranean and passes Aleppo. It is also on the intersection of the roads that extend from Gaziantep Kale Höyüğü (Uršum?)7 to Halpa (Aleppo) and from Carchemish to Alalakh; being 55 km from Gaziantep Kale Höyük and Halpa, 75 km from Carchemish, and 85 km from Alalakh (Fig. 2). These roads, therefore, connect sites that are at a distance from one another of two to four days walk, or one to two days by chariot. If the present Turkey-Syria border is disregarded, then the 85 km road that leads south through the Kurdish Mountains would have facilitated the Oylum-Alalakh connection. Oylum, probably located at the end of one of these crucial routes, can be considered a gateway to Syria, functioning as a bridge between Anatolia and Syria on the route that runs along the Göksun Valley through Kayseri, Pınarbaşı, Göksun, Kahramanmaraş and Gaziantep. Oylum is also situated on one of the alternative roads on the route that extends from northern Mesopotamia to the eastern Mediterranean via Carchemish. This alternative route, located to the north of the road from Carchemish to Aleppo, was probably preferred for trips to Cilicia and the Amuq regions, as the distance would be shorter. This route is important, since it is a passageway to the inner regions of Anatolia through the Amanus Mountains and Cilician passes.

OYLUM AND ALALAKH IN THE REGIONAL POLITICAL CONTEXT OF THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BC Alalakh, the capital of Mukiš that ruled over the Amuq Valley for 800 years,8 and Oylum, which dominated the Kilis Plain, are two neighbouring centres that were influenced by the same political events in the second millennium BC. The Amuq Valley served as a major  Alkım 1969; Archi et al. 1971, pp. 10, 15, 27, 44, 87–88; Ünal 2015, pp. 27–32.  See Engin 2008a; Engin and Helwing 2012; Özgen et al. 2002, 2003, 2004. 5  Helwing and Özgen 2003; Özgen and Carter 1991; Özgen and Helwing 2001, 2003; Özgen et al. 1997, 1999. 6  Yener 2014, p. 54; Yener and Akar 2014a, p. 349. 7  Archi 2011, pp. 6, 11, 29. 8  Yener 2005, pp. 2–16, 99–107; Yener and Akar 2014a, p. 350. 3 4

278

A. ENGIN

centre for thousands of years, thanks to its fertile soils and location on key trading routes.9 Surface surveys show that Alalakh was the largest and most important settlement in the Amuq in the second millennium BC.10 Alalakh, located amidst the Anatolian, eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamian regions, is on essential trading routes. Social and economic relations between these regions improved in the second millennium BC.11 It is known that the Hittites used two routes during their Syrian campaigns: one was the route through the Cilician Gates,12 which would require the Hittite army to first gain control of Alalakh; the other led south along the Göksü Valley, passing through Kahramanmaraş and Gaziantep.13 The principal cities that would need to be controlled along this second route were Uršum, Carchemish, Oylum and Aleppo. Accordingly, Alalakh and Oylum can be seen to function as two separate gates into the northern region of Syria. The archives of over 550 cuneiform tablets and tablet fragments discovered in Levels VII and IV at Alalakh provide crucial information about the region’s political history in the second millennium BC and significant clues to relative chronology.14 It seems that in the first half of the second millennium BC the Yamhad Kingdom, with its capital Halpa, assumed the role previously played by Ebla, Mari and Nagar in the second half of the third millennium BC.15 The Yamhad Dynasty ruled northwest Syria, including Mukiš in the beginning of the second millennium BC. 16 At this time, Oylum, in its role as the central administrative centre of the Kilis Plain, can be assumed to have been a part of Yamhad. However, these small kingdoms still had autonomy, even though they were subject to a central power. Following the establishment of their kingdom in Anatolia, the Hittites appeared on the historical stage as a new political actor in the region in the 17th century BC. The Hittite government’s policy of expanding southwards into Syria started with the first Hittite king, Hattušili I,17 and this expansionist policy continued to the end of the kingdom. It is believed that the Level VII palace of Alalakh was burnt down and destroyed during the Syrian campaign of Hattušili I.18 Oylum Level VIb2 also ended with destruction by fire in the same period. When the Yamhad Kingdom declined during the Late Bronze Age I, the Kingdom of Mitanni emerged as the region’s new political power.19 It ruled northern Mesopotamia and northern Syria in the 15th century BC, as well as expanding its territory into Cilicia to the west. Carchemish and Halab were made vassals of the Kingdom of Mitanni, as was Mukiš.20

 9

 Yener 2005, pp. 2–4.  See Casana 2009; Yener 2005, pp. 99–113. 11  Yener 2007, p. 152; 2010, p. 2. 12  See Jasink 1991. 13  It is understood that one of the routes to Kanesh used in the Old Assyrian Trading Colony Period headed northwest from the Jazira region to east of the Euphrates (Salvini 1998, p. 501). 14  Speiser 1954, pp. 19–25; Von Dassow 2005; Wiseman 1953, p. 9; Yener 2005, p. 105; 2014, pp. 50–54. 15  Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, pp. 233–304; Astour 1988; Archi and Biga 2003; Eidem et al. 2001; Klengel 1992, pp. 21–35, 44–83. 16  Heinz 2009, p. 51; Salvini 1998, p. 502; Yener 2007, pp. 152, 153; 2010, p. 2; 2014, p. 51. 17  See Salvini 1998. 18  Yener and Akar 2014b, pp. 62, 64; 2014c, p. 100. 19  Akermans and Schwartz 2003, pp. 327–331; Klengel 1992, pp. 84–131; Von Dassow 2008. 20  Goetze 1975, p. 4; Heinz 2009, p. 52; Yener 2010, p. 2; 2014, p. 51. 10

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

279

When Šuppiluliuma I defeated the Mitannian king Tušratta and reached an agreement with his son Mattiwaza, the Kingdom of Mitanni fell into decline, and northern Syria came under the domination of the Hittites.21 In order to assure continued Hittite dominance in Syria, Šuppiluliuma I assigned his sons Telipinu and Piyaššili (Šarrikušuh) as governors of Aleppo and Carchemish, respectively.22 Consequently, the Amuq and Kilis plains were also ruled over by the Hittites at this time. According to radiocarbon analysis, the Late Bronze Age I settlement level of Oylum Höyük ended with a fire in the 14th century BC, and this may be associated with Šuppiluliuma I’s Syrian campaign. Alalakh was conquered by Šuppiluliuma I: Mukiš waged war against the Hittites and was punished, and the kingdom of Alalakh was divided into two by assigning a Hittite governor, with the north of the kingdom being ruled by the Hittite Empire and its south becoming a part of Ugarit.23 Alalakh and Mukiš are rarely mentioned in documents from the 13th century BC. Yener and Akar argue that the city was abandoned after an unsuccessful revolt against Hittite rule, which resulted in the forced migration of its population, along with the populations of other places conquered by Muršili II in northern Syria.24 There is evidence that a Hittite governor was assigned after the re-establishment of Hittite dominance and the destruction of Alalakh.25

OYLUM HÖYÜK

AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER

Unfortunately, our knowledge about Oylum in the second millennium BC is not as clear as for Alalakh. However, although the region came under the domination of Yamhad, Mitanni and the Hittites during the second millennium BC, the local authorities at Oylum appear to have retained a certain degree of autonomy.26 Recent work in the northwest of Oylum Höyük enabled extensive examination of the second millennium BC levels and confirmed beyond any doubt that it was an administrative centre during that period. This conclusion is supported by the discovery of a monumental mudbrick building27 dating back to the Middle Bronze Age I (Fig. 3) and a large house with a courtyard and channel28 that dates to Late Bronze Age II and was constructed in the Hittite style (Fig. 4).29 According to the archaeological evidence and by tracing the city wall (Fig. 5), the settlement covered an area of approximately 17 ha at the end of the third millennium BC and beginning of the second millennium BC. The massive basalt stones of the fortification wall that surrounded the settlement are exposed on the north, west and south slopes of the mound. On the south, this wall is preserved up to 21

 Alp 2000, pp. 93–94; Goetze 1952, p. 69; Klengel 1992, pp. 84–131; Na’aman 1980, pp. 35–38.  Na’aman 1980, p. 38; Van den Hout 2013, p. 31. 23  Singer 2014; Yener 2006, p. 38; Yener and Akar 2013b, p. 270. 24  Yener 2014, p. 60; Yener and Akar 2013b, p. 270; 2013c, p. 6; 2014b, p. 66. 25  Casana 2009, p. 11; Niedorf 2002; Fink 2008, p. 211; Yener et al. 2014. 26  Casana 2009, pp. 7, 10–11; Klengel 1992, pp. 44–83. 27  Engin et al. 2014, fig. 10; Özgen et al. 2011, fig. 6; 2013a, fig. 5; 2013b, fig. 3; 2014, figs. 12–14. 28  Özgen et al. 2013a, fig. 15; 2013b, fig. 9. 29  See Engin 2016. 22

280

A. ENGIN

Fig. 3. Oylum VIc2 (Middle Bronze Age I), the Monumental Building in the Northwest Area.

Fig. 4. Oylum Va, Late Bronze Age II building in the Northwest Area.

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

281

Fig. 5. Oylum Höyük, fortification wall of the second millennium BC.

approximately 4 m high.30 The survey we conducted in the surrounding fields and gardens demonstrates that after the 18th century BC the settlement extended beyond these visible walls to the west and south of the mound. This appears to be a result of the city walls becoming obsolete after the general destruction suffered by the city at the beginning of the second millennium BC. The region experienced significant changes in terms of its city defence systems in the mid-second millennium BC. For example, the thick mudbrick city walls of the Middle Bronze Age settlement at Alalakh, which had undergone several renovations, were replaced in the Late Bronze Age with a thin city wall.31 Epigraphic evidence (Fig. 6) also suggests that Oylum, a part of the Yamhad Kingdom like Alalakh, was an administrative centre in the first half of the second millennium BC. The discovery of a lapis lazuli cylinder seal with a cuneiform inscription32 which belonged to the vizier Bitna, an Old Babylon tablet,33 a Hittite tablet (Fig. 6a)34 which was sent by the Great Hittite King to a local king, and the glyptic materials with Luwian hieroglyphic

30

 Engin and Helwing 2012, pp. 94–95, fig. 1.  See Heinz 2009, p. 51; Yener and Akar 2013a, p. 337; 2013c, p. 4, fig. 3; 2014b, p. 63; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010, p. 29, fig. 2.16. 32  Donbaz 2011; Özgen et al. 2013a, pp. 507–508, fig. 14. 33  Donbaz 2014; Özgen et al. 2013b, fig. 2. The small cuneiform tablet obtained in the dump of the early Middle Bronze Age II contains a provision concerning the employment of two harvest workers against the debt to be repaid with interest. Tablets with similar contents are known from Alalakh as well (see Mendelsohn 1955). 34  Ünal 2015. 31

282

A. ENGIN

Fig. 6. Oylum Va (Late Bronze Age II), Hittite cuneiform tablet and glyptic materials.

script (Fig. 6b–f)35 confirm this beyond a doubt. In the Hittite tradition, Luwian hieroglyphic seals and seal impressions belonged to people of the administrative or aristocratic classes. King Ini-Tešub of Carchemish’s bulla (Fig. 6f), a silver plated copper tripod seal (Fig. 6c) inscribed with the title of Nuli and GIŠBANŠUR (table-decker), and a marble, plano-convex stamp seal (Fig. 6b) with the double-headed eagle symbol of the Hittite royal family and the inscribed name Ara/inata are included in the glyptic materials from the Hittite reign.36 Recently, new items from Oylum have been added to these glyptic materials.37 The most important of all is the bulla from a Late Bronze Age II context of King Ini-Tešub of Carchemish, who ruled the Syrian region in the name of the Hittite Empire (Fig. 6f). Ini-Tešub, who ruled the area successfully for many years, was the great-grandson 35

 Dinçol and Dinçol 2011; Engin in press; Özgen and Helwing 2001, Abb. 31a.  Dinçol and Dinçol 2011; Engin in press. 37  Özgen et al. 2013b, fig. 10. 36

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

283

of Šuppililiuma I, grandson of Šarrikušuh (Piyaššili) and son of Šahurunuwa.38 Along with Emar and Ugarit, Oylum is now the third centre where a bulla of Ini-Tešub has been found.39 The Hittite tablet, as well as the Hittite King’s seal and seal impressions, suggest that the Hittite kingdom had authority over Oylum, and it appears to have been controlled from Carchemish, which ruled the area on behalf of the Hittite Empire at this time.

SECOND

MILLENNIUM BC STRATIGRAPHY IN THE

NORTHWEST AREA

Our studies in the Northwest Area of the mound identified five settlement layers dating back to the second millennium BC (Table 1). All five ended in destructive fires. During excavation, the northwestern section of a large monumental building with a courtyard belonging to Middle Bronze Age I (Oylum VIc) was revealed (Fig. 3). The monumental building was supported by a brick terrace on its west and north sides and appears to be a huge complex that came to an end in a fire. The brick walls, measuring 1.85 m in width, were preserved up to a height of 3.70 m in the west. A stairway and the traces of an upper floor show that the building was at least two storeys high on its western side. Two L-shaped corridor storerooms, two kitchens, three workshops and one cellar were uncovered within this complex.40 The presence of only rim pieces of pithos vessels in an L-shaped corridor, together with the burnt skeletons of two women in the kitchen, suggest an attack or plundering. The dates of the calibrated radiocarbon analysis conducted on olive seeds obtained from a cup within the cellar of the kitchen were in the range of 1900–1745 BC. An Old Babylonian seal impressed on a door bulla (Fig. 7) found in another L-shaped corridor further helps with dating, and the structure can be dated to the beginning of the second millennium BC. The monumental building reflects the architectural customs of northern Syria.41 At Alalakh, a thick-brick-walled structure was discovered in Local Phase 3 by Yener during her soundings in the Level VII palace courtyard.42 This building is very similar to the Oylum monumental building in terms of its architectural properties and, particularly, the kitchen, horseshoe-shaped oven and storage areas. The three-phase Alalakh structure also ended in a fire. The excavation team considered this new building to be a palace and administrative building, and it might have been a part of the city’s defence system, due to its proximity to the hillside.43

38

 Bryce 1998, p. 313.  See d’Alfonso 2001, pp. 267–274; Beyer 1982, pp. 67–69, figs. 1–5; 2001, pp. 47–49, A2a-b, A3; Dezzi-Bardeschi 2001, pp. 246–264; Schaeffer 1956, pp. 20–29, figs. 27–35. 40  See Engin et al. 2014, pp. 241–242, figs. 10–11; 2016, pp. 451–455, figs. 9–12; Özgen et al. 2013b, p. 324, fig. 3; 2014, pp. 166–167, figs. 12–14. 41  Similar monumental buildings are known in Qatna and Tall Bia (See Bonacossi 2009, pp. 156–159; Iamoni and Kanhouch 2009, pp. 161–164; Einwag 2002, pp. 143–146, fig. 2). 42  See Yener and Akar 2014b, pp. 62–63, figs. 3-4; 2014c, p. 99, fig. 5. 43  Yener and Akar 2014b, p. 62; 2014c, p. 99. 39

284

A. ENGIN

Fig. 7. Oylum VIc2 (Middle Bronze Age I), bullae from the Monumental Building.

The Middle Bronze Age II settlement at Oylum Höyük has two levels (OylumVIa-b). Both of these levels also underwent a renewal phase. It is understood that following the destruction of the Monumental Building, this area was not settled for a while during the early Middle Bronze Age II and was used as a dumpsite. In a layer of ash that extends in a westward direction, numerous parts of clay human and animal figurines, bone and bronze objects, and pottery sherds and animal bones were found. The calibrated radiocarbon results from sheep jawbone and carbon samples date this level to the range of 1880–1680 BC. It is understood that the settlement belonging to the dump phase later extended westward and spread onto the dumpsite layer. In Oylum VIb (early Middle Bronze II), single- or double-storey brick houses with multiple rooms and stone foundations opening onto narrow streets are evident. These structures were destroyed by fire and then there was a rebuilding stage. This traditional domestic architecture did not change in Oylum VIa (late Middle Bronze II). However, a rebuilding stage in this level is noteworthy because, in a marked difference, the houses in this late rebuilding stage were bigger. The radiocarbon results from this level, which also ended with a destructive fire, indicate that the early stage dates to the range 1765–1630 BC and the rebuilding stage to 1685–1530 BC.44 Recent studies in the Northwest Area have revealed very important information regarding the Late Bronze Age settlement. This period is represented by two layers at Oylum 44

 This level was discovered as a result of the works performed on the northeast side of the mound (see Özgen and Helwing 2001, pp. 70–71, Abb. 8).

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

285

Höyük. The Late Bronze Age layers were particularly damaged by Early and Middle Iron Age pits. As the Late Bronze Age I level (Oylum Vb) has been substantially destroyed by the Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age settlements, it was only possible to locate it in a few of our trenches. The fire that brought this level to an end may have been caused by the famous Syrian campaign of Šuppililiuma I. It is known from written history that local governorships resisted Hittite hegemony in this period. Various sculptural works in basalt and stelae belonging to this period were recovered from the spolia built into the structures of the following period.45 The Late Bronze Age II level (Oylum Va) was protected better than the Late Bronze Age I level (Oylum Vb), although it did become intermingled with the layers of settlements from later periods. The calibrated radiocarbon results for this period yield a date of 1410– 1225 BC. Hence, this level is contemporary with the period of the Hittite Empire. The most important architectural remains belonging to this level are those of a large building with a courtyard (Fig. 4). The western section of this building, which extends in a northwest–southeast direction, was partially revealed. A stone-lined channel toward the northern slope of the courtyard was particularly well preserved.46 The intensive use of wooden beams that can be seen on the protected mudbrick walls of the building is more reminiscent of central Anatolian Hittite architectural traditions than Syrian ones. The structure was razed by fire, and only a small section has been revealed, with no in situ finds as yet, save for some ivory plaques that were probably used as furniture inlays or attachments. The Hittite tablet, seals and seal impressions found in this level and around the structure suggest that this building might have been owned by a Hittite administrator, but it is not yet possible to make a final determination on this matter. A massive Hittite-style mudbrick structure dating to the Hittite period of the 14th–12th centuries BC was discovered at Alalakh during Woolley’s excavations of Levels II and III, and the structure, which is contemporaneous with the Oylum one, was re-examined by Yener.47 DATE c. 1400–1200 BC c. 1600–1400 BC c. 1700–1600 BC c. 1800–1700 BC c. 1900–1800 BC c. 2000–1900 BC (?)

Stratigraphy of the Northwest Area Oylum Va Oylum Vb Oylum VIa2 Oylum VIa1 Oylum VIb2 Oylum VIb1 Oylum VIc2 Oylum VIc1 (?)

PERIOD

Alalakh (Woolley 1955)

LBA II LBA I Late MBA II

II, III, IVA, IVB VA, VB VI

Early MBA II

VII

MBA I

VIII

Table 1. Stratigraphy of the second millennium BC in the Northwest Area at Oylum Höyük. 45

 Ay-Şafak 2014.  Similar channels are known in Alalakh (see Yener and Akar 2013a, fig. 10; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010, fig. 2.8). 47  Woolley 1955, pp. 166–171; Yener et al. 2005, p. 46; Yener 2008, p. 172; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010, p. 11, fig. 2.6. 46

A. ENGIN

286 MATERIAL

CULTURE OF

OYLUM

AND

ALALAKH IN THE

SECOND MILLENNIUM BC

Oylum and Alalakh are two centres within the same cultural region and, as a natural consequence of this co-existence, a strong connection can be seen between the two in their material culture. While a cultural affinity mainly with the Middle Euphrates region was present in the first half of the second millennium BC, urbanisation in the area and the growing population and intense commercial, political, and cultural relations that took place between the regions were reflected in the material culture of the second millennium BC.48 Northern Syria had a homogenous culture across a vast geographical area, especially in the Middle Bronze Age. Commodities such as metal, ivory and faience items that were once exclusively used by the local kings and elites expanded across a wider region through organised trade.49 Pottery is the best example of the homogenous culture in the region. Late Early Bronze Age production techniques and certain pottery forms continued into the Middle Bronze Age, and wheel-made production of monochrome standard ware increased in the region. The most popular forms were trefoil jugs, small jugs, shallow bowls, S-profile deep bowls, kraters and large storage pots.50 These pottery forms were used in the region for a long time. Apart from Standard ware, Combed ware, mineral-tempered cooking pot ware and Black Burnished ware types also reflect the late Early Bronze Age ceramic traditions of the region. Vessels with grooved rims also became popular in this period. A new ware group emerged in the region: Amuq-Cilician painted ware.51 Amuq-Cilician painted ware extended across a vast area from northern Syria to Cilicia.52 Oylum and Alalakh have similar pottery types and manufacturing techniques in the second millennium BC. Standard ware, cooking pot ware and Amuq-Cilician painted wares produced at Oylum in the Middle Bronze Age have strong connections with Alalakh.53 However, imported Cypriot and Mycenaean wares54 were rarely seen at Oylum, although they are evident at Alalakh; this can be explained by Alalakh’s association with maritime trade. Scarabs55 and findings at Oylum such as a limestone stele56 decorated with a portrayal of Baal-Seth suggest strong relations established with the eastern Mediterranean region. Besides ceramic material, elements that indicate a common culture are metal, stone, bone-horn-ivory, terracotta, vitrified and faience objects.57 Alalakh was particularly rich in glass, furniture, sculptures, ivory, bronze, gold, shell and onyx industries. A variety of craft workshops for earthenware, metal and glassware were discovered in facilities that were

48

 Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, pp. 288–326; Archi and Biga 2003; Klengel 1992, pp. 21–35, 44–83.  Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, pp. 297–326. 50  Özgen and Helwing 2001, pp. 78–81, Abb. 16–18. 51  Çatalbaş 2008; Özgen and Helwing 2001, Abb. 19. 52  Bagh 2003; Çatalbaş 2008; Özgen and Helwing 2001, pp. 76–81, Abb. 19. 53  See Woolley 1955, pls. CXXV-CXXXI; Yener 2006, fig. 7. 54  See Yener 2008, p. 177; Yener and Akar 2014a, fig. 2; 2014b, p. 64. 55  Özgen and Helwing 2001, Abb. 48; Özgen et al. 1997, Abb. 28.3. 56  See Özgen et al. 1997, Tafel 3.3. 57  See Collon 1975, fig. 1; Woolley 1948, p. 14; 1955, pl. 16; Yener 2007. 49

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

287

attached to the Middle Bronze Age city walls at Alalakh.58 Alalakh was an important production and commercial centre. The metal slag obtained in and around the long oval kiln in trench K21 in Oylum VIb demonstrates that the bronze and copper goods were of local production.59 Among the bronze artefacts found, many were grave goods, the most prominent Middle Bronze Age artefacts being the astral-headed pins that are also well known from Alalakh.60 Bone and horn ornaments, pins, boxes, and toys, as well as frit, glass and faience items (Fig. 8) are frequently seen in graves at Oylum and suggest the existence of remarkable local bone/horn and vitrified industries.61 Such luxurious commodities, of which examples are also known from Alalakh, appear in graves in the modest houses in Level VI at Oylum. There is a close and remarkable relationship between Oylum and Alalakh in terms of their Middle Bronze Age material culture. The nearest comparisons to the terracotta animal and human figurines (Fig. 9) from Oylum are to be found at Alalakh.62 One of the foundation votive offerings,63 whose upper section was made in the form of a god figurine, bears a remarkable similarity to one found during Wooley’s excavations,64 so much so that both examples look like they came out of the same mould. However, no earring is present in the Oylum example. The homogeneity of the region’s material culture continued into the Late Bronze Age. The Late Bronze Age pottery production techniques and vessel forms differ very little. Several mineral-tempered standard ware forms used in the Middle Bronze Age continued to be used in the Late Bronze Age and even on into Iron Age I.65 Large dishes with edges thickened inward and large pots with thickened or everted rims started to become common at Oylum in the Late Bronze Age. The clay fabric used for the majority of vessels incorporated crushed mussel shell. The same production technique was also used for Late Bronze Age vessels at Alalakh.66 However, although there were very few examples of Nuzi ware at Oylum at this time, it was one of the locally produced wares at Alalakh.67 Recent finds show that very few examples of Late Helladic and Cypriot wares were evident at Oylum, even though they are commonly seen at Alalakh,68 due to its active engagement with sea trade. Two Late Bronze Age basalt sculptures, resembling stele, found at Oylum69 suggest strong cultural connections with Alalakh. One of these sculptures is a male, while the other is a female figure. They are roughly crafted in a low relief technique. The male figure was

58

 See Yener and Akar 2014c, p. 100; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010, pp. 26–27, fig. 2.17; Dardeniz 2016, 2017. 59  Engin et al. 2016, p. 451, fig. 8. Analysis was conducted by Dr Ali Özer in the Department of Metallurgical Engineering Laboratory of Sivas-Cumhuriyet University. 60  Woolley 1955, pls. LXX: AT/38/274, LXXIII: P4, P18. 61  Özgen et al. 2011, fig. 5; 2013a, fig. 3. 62  See Woolley 1955, pls. LIV–LVII; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010, fig. 2.24. 63  Engin 2011, çiz. 2, fig. 2. 64  Woolley 1955, pl. LXX: AT/39/67. 65  Casana 2009, p. 12. 66  Yener and Akar 2014b, p. 65. 67  Woolley 1955, pp. 347–349, pl. CII–CVII; Yener and Akar 2013c, fig. 8; 2014b, p. 65. 68  Woolley 1955, pp. 354–376, pl. CXXV–CXXXI. 69  See Ay-Şafak 2014; Özgen et al. 2013a, fig. 2; 2014, p. 160, fig. 3.

288

A. ENGIN

Fig. 8. Oylum VIa-b (Middle Bronze Age II), faience objects.

Fig. 9. Oylum VIa-b (Middle Bronze Age II), terracotta figurines.

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

289

Fig. 10. Oylum Va, Late Bronze Age II miniature votive offering vessels.

found in a Late Bronze Age foundation wall.70 It is 47 cm high and the man is depicted as bearded, with a horned crown. The other sculpture was found in an Iron Age pit. The female figure, 27 cm high with an oval body, is depicted holding her breasts.71 Similar sculptures are seen at Alalakh in Level V.72 Miniature votive offering vessels (Fig. 10) are another group of finds paralleled at Alalakh during the Late Bronze Age. Alalakh Levels II and I have items that are similar to the votives resembling miniature bowls and sharp bottomed small pitchers found at Oylum in Level Va around the foundation walls of the monumental structure.73 Such miniature votive vessels, which are in a distinctively Hittite style, suggest that the Hittites were present at both centres during the Late Bronze Age II.

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

BURIAL PRACTICES AT

OYLUM

AND

ALALAKH

As can be seen in the excavations of northeast Oylum Höyük, the dead were buried under houses or in the courtyards and spaces between houses in the two layers of Middle Bronze Age II (Fig. 11).74 In the early Middle Bronze Age II, the dead were also buried in the ruins of the Middle Bronze Age I Monumental Building, especially in deep pits dug around the walls. There are no substantial or significant differences in terms of burial traditions between the two layers of Middle Bronze Age II. The dead were buried in the 70

 Ay-Şafak 2014.  Özgen et al. 2014, p. 160, fig. 3. 72  See Woolley 1955, pp. 238–239, pl. XLIV:a-c. 73  See Yener and Akar 2013b, pp. 267, 270, fig. 6; 2014c, p. 102. 74  See Engin et al. 2014, figs. 13–15; Özgen et al. 2011, fig. 4; 2013a, pp. 503–504, figs. 8, 10; 2013b, fig. 4; 2014, fig. 9; Özgen and Engin 2010, fig. 11. 71

290

A. ENGIN

cemetery in the northeastern slope of the mound in the Middle Bronze Age I.75 This cemetery was used from the middle of the third millennium BC through the beginning of the second millennium BC. However, in the Middle Bronze Age II, the dead were buried in the spaces between houses or inside the houses, in a radical change from previous practice. Even though the tradition of burying the dead in this way seems different from the necropolis at Alalakh (discussed below), grave types, grave objects, and the manner of burial were all quite similar. At Oylum, despite the presence of pot graves, pithos graves, shaft graves and chamber tombs, many burials consisted of simple inhumations. In the graves of babies, children, and adults laid in foetal positions in oval pits, no uniform orientation can be discerned.76 The skeletons were badly preserved. In graves with few grave goods, one or more pieces of pottery and astral-headed bronze pins, clay figurines, faience objects, bone objects, ornaments, and food were left. In some graves, bones belonging to the earlier occupants were stacked in a corner and the grave pits were then re-used for a second, or sometimes third, time. At Alalakh, the dead were buried in a necropolis on the eastern slope, outside the city walls, during the Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age I.77 More than 100 graves dated

Fig. 11. Oylum VIa-b (Middle Bronze Age II), a simple inhumation burial and grave goods assemblage.

75

 Engin 2008b, pp. 107, 114–115.  Engin et al. 2014, figs. 13–15; Özgen et al. 2011, fig. 4; 2013a, pp. 503–504, fıgs. 8, 10; 2013b, fig. 4; 2014, fig. 9; Özgen and Engin 2010, fig. 11. 77  Ingman this volume; Yener et al. 2005, pp. 47–48; 2006, p. 39; Yener and Akar 2013a, pp. 337–338; 2013c, p. 4, fig. 6; 2014b, pp. 64–66; 2014c, p. 100; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010, pp. 25–28. 76

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

291

to these periods have been unearthed there. In the Middle Bronze Age, the simple inhumation burials and grave goods such as pottery, personal ornaments and baked-clay female figurines are very similar to those seen at contemporary Oylum (Figs 9a, 11). In both centres, it was usual to place a few pottery vessels in the simple inhumation graves. The placement of the S-profile bowls78 in the Middle Bronze Age graves is an especially characteristic feature in both centres.

LOCATING OYLUM HÖYÜK: ULISUM/ULLIS/ULIZILA/ULLAZA/UKULZAT/KUILZILA Although the work conducted in the northeast area at Oylum Höyük in recent years suggests that it was an administrative centre in the second millennium BC, the available documentary evidence is not yet sufficient to securely identify a name for the site. However, some important clues suggest that Oylum was Ulisum/Ullis in the third millennium BC and Ullaza/Ukulzat/Kuilzila in the second millennium BC.79 The epigraphic materials discovered at Oylum itself do not allow for a secure identification. Ünal nevertheless argues that the centre could be the ancient Haššuwa, based on his reading of the Hittite tablet,80 but we do not agree with this suggestion. Rather, we believe that Haššuwa should be located to the north of Uršum (Gaziantep Kale Höyüğü?)81 and it, therefore, cannot be identified with Oylum. The most significant clue regarding the ancient name of Oylum appears on a map made by the German cartographer Richard Kiepert towards the end of the 19th century. In the Aleppo section of Kiepert’s map, the words “Illizi Baghtshesi” (Illizi Garden) are written to the immediate west of the name of Oylum Höyük.82 This name is phonetically similar to the name of Killizi/Killis in the Ottoman Period. The agricultural area of vineyards and orchards to the northwest of Oylum Höyük that carries this name is alternatively referred to by the old people in the area as “Illizi/Ellezi.83 Based on this review of historical documents, and bearing in mind that “Illizi” may be derived from an original ancient place name, Ulisum/Ullis now stands out as being the most likely name of Oylum. Ulisum/Ullis is also mentioned in a document about the Syrian campaign of Naram-Sin, king of Akkad.84 The original script comes from the base of the copper Bassetki Statue, discovered in 1960 during road construction around the modern village of Bassetki, 70 km northeast of Mosul.85 In this text, Naram-Sin’s conquest of the cities of Ebla and Armanum is described. The king was victorious thanks to the help of the god Dagan, who gave him 78

 Yener and Akar 2013a, p. 337; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010, p. 26, fig. 3.1:2-5.  See Engin 2014. 80  Ünal 2015. 81  Archi 2011, pp. 6, 11, 29. 82  Engin 2014, pp. 129–130, map 2; Kiepert 1907, D5 Haleb. 83  Personal communication; verbal information from Ahmet Ramazan Deliahmetoğlu, Bekir Gürbüz, Mithat Rıdvan and Osman Horoz, 84  Drower and Bottéro 1971, pp. 325–326; Engin 2014, pp. 131–134; Feliu 2003, p. 44; Foster 1982; Otto 2006, UET I 275 (U 7756), UET I 276 (U 7736), UET 8/2 13; Pettinato 1981, pp. 14–15. 85  Ayish 1972. 79

292

A. ENGIN

“the land extending from the bank of the Euphrates to Ulisum.” Of the three centres mentioned in the text, only Ebla’s location is known. The idea that Armanum was the name of Halpa in the third millennium BC is widespread,86 and Ulisum/Ullis has therefore been generally searched for in the eastern Mediterranean.87 However, the Dagan mentioned in the text is a god of the Middle Euphrates Region, which also includes Oylum,88 and in the eastern Mediterranean in this period, the cult of Baal was dominant. According to Naram-Sin’s text, Ulisum was a border town. If it is assumed that NaramSin preferred a southern route, like his grandfather Sargon, then it would appear that the capture of the 800 km stretch of land from Sippar to the Anatolian border — which means the whole of Syria — would indeed be a magnificent conquest. Accordingly, I think that it would be a more appropriate approach to look for Ulisum in the Anatolian border region. Alfonso Archi matched Ulisum with Uršum, which is thought to have been around Gaziantep.89 Following this approach, Uršum should be searched for in a region not too distant from Ebla and Halpa and also on the Anatolian border. Michael C. Astour argued that the Naram-Sin text does not imply that Ulisum should be found on the eastern Mediterranean coast, far away from Aleppo and Ebla.90 Locating Oylum at a place close to Aleppo and Ebla, therefore, supports the idea that Ulisum is located in the Ebla-Aleppo region. Documents from the third millennium BC confirm that the names of several places in the region are derived from plants, creatures, water resources, structures, topography and characteristics of the region, such as fertility and beauty.91 Astour proposed that Ulisum meant “rapid (steep).”92 This meaning seems quite appropriate, considering Oylum Höyük’s location. The plain of Kilis that includes Oylum Höyük increases in height towards the north and the Anti-Taurus Mountains. This topographical feature is noticeable in the form of a ramp when approaching from the south through Aleppo.93 Some researchers argue that the Ulisum mentioned in the Akkad document is actually the same place referred to as Ullaza in Egyptian documents of the second millennium BC.94 Ullaza is considered to be a port city located to the north of Lebanon, along the eastern Mediterranean coast.95 However, I believe that the most important clue about the location of Ullaza comes from the text on the statue of the Alalakh king Idrimi. The Idrimi statue, possibly from Level IV of Alalakh, was discovered in a pit of the Level I Temple.96 Idrimi, who ruled during the same era as the Egyptian pharaoh Thutmose III, was the son of the  Edzard et al. 1977; Foster 1982, p. 34; Gadd 1971, pp. 426, 442; Sollberger and Kupper 1971, p. 290.  Astour 1972b, p. 448; 1977a, p. 22, n. 105; 1989, p. 91; 2002, p. 67; Drower and Bottéro 1971, p. 326; Forlanini 2001, p. 556; Foster 1982, p. 33; Seton-Williams 1954, p. 159. 88  Archi 1998, pp. 39–41; Engin 2014, p. 140; Feliu 2003, pp. 7, 90–134. 89  Archi 2011, pp. 9, 29; Gadd 1971, p. 442, n. 2. 90  Astour 1992, pp. 30–31. 91  See Astour 1988, pp. 550–551. 92  Astour 1972b, p. 451. 93  See Engin 2014, p. 139, çiz. 1. 94  Astour 2002, p. 67, n. 68; Klengel 1992, p. 35. 95  Conder 2004, p. 10; Kuhrt 1995, pp. 193, 223; Spalinger 2005, p. 57. 96  Casana 2009, pp. 10–11; Fink 2008, 2010; Heinz 2009, pp. 51–52; Helck 1969, p. 27; Yener and Akar 2013c, pp. 2, 6; 2014a, p. 351; 2014c, p. 101. 86 87

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

293

Yamhad king Ilimlimma, father of Niqmepa and grandfather of Ilim-ilimma.97 Alalakh was a vassal of the Mitanni Kingdom at that time. The 104-line Akaddian cuneiform script on the throne of the statue is actually the king’s autobiography.98 The text mentions a city name that matches that of Ulisum. The city is also mentioned in Idrimi’s epitaph and is interpreted as ālú-lu-ziāliki by Smith, alÚ-lu-zi-laki by Goetze and Ulizina by Oppenheim.99 This city is described as being one of seven that king Idrimi took over from the Hittites.100 Astour argued that it is the same as the Ulisum mentioned in descriptions of Naram-Sin’s military campaigns and the Ukulzat mentioned in Hittite documents.101 Goetze also highlighted the resemblance between this pronunciation and the city of Ú-kul-za-at/Ú-gul-zi-it/ Ku-ul-zi-la mentioned in Hittite documents.102 Although Goetze made no suggestions about the location of this city, he argued that, according to the Idrimi inscription, the area controlled by the king reached from the Levant to Gaziantep in the east.103 However, these seven cities taken from the Hittites by Idrimi are considered to be within the territory of the Kingdom of Alalakh, around the Amanus and Cilicia.104 Some researchers have argued that the Ulizila mentioned in the Idrimi inscription is actually Ullaza and is to be located along the Syrian coast, as mentioned in the Amarna letters.105 I believe that the information about Ulizila, which is mentioned in the Idrimi inscription and can be considered to be Ulisum, supports the identification of Ulisum with Oylum. In fact, the Idrimi inscription explains that the king brought slaves and war booty from the seven cities, including Uluzila, from the Hatti country.106 In that case Uluzila, which was taken by Idrimi from Hatti, should be located closer to Hatti, in other words, closer to the Anatolian plateau, than to the south or west of Alalakh. Oylum is very suitable for such a location. Ullaza, which is also associated with Ulisum and Ulizila, is frequently mentioned in documentary sources about Egypt, and Egypt repeatedly tried to take over the city.107 This city is generally mentioned along with Smyrna/Šumur and Tunip in Egyptian documents, and the search for it has mainly focused on the eastern Mediterranean.108 However, searching for this town, which was used by the Egyptian army as a military base, south of Alalakh  97

 Casana 2009, pp. 10–11; Heinz 2009, p. 52; Helck 1969, p. 27.  Smith 1949, p. 78; Bülbül 2010, p. 21; Dietrich and Loretz 1981, p. 206; Oppenheim 1969, p. 249.  99  Smith 1949, p. 78; Goetze 1950, p. 230; Oppenheim 1969, p. 249. 100  The cities, which cannot be located precisely, are Ulizila (Ulisum?), Paššahe, Damarutla, Huluḫḫan, Zise, Ie and Zorunas. 101  Astour 1963, p. 225; 1989, p. 91; 2002, p. 67, n. 68. On the other hand, Alalakh documents mention a place called Ú-ul-za-at, which is considered to be Ukulzat (Astour 1963, p. 238). 102  Goetze 1950, p. 230. 103  Goetze 1950, pp. 230–231. 104  Astour 1972b, p. 448; Niedorf 1998; Von Dassow 2008, p. 37, n. 88. 105  Smith 1949, p. 78; Drower and Bottero 1971, p. 327; Gadd 1971, p. 442, n. 2. See also Conder 2004, pp. 10, 16, 29, 34, 37, 38; 51B, 91B, 45B, 60B, 97B. However, Astour and Klengel argue that matching Ulisum and Ullaza is farfetched (Astour 2002, p. 67, n. 68; Klengel 1992, p. 35). 106  Bülbül 2010, p. 21. 107  Conder 2004, pp. 10, 16, 34, 37, n. 7; Gabriel 2009, pp. 155–156; Na’aman 2005, pp. 57, 166; Redford 2003, pp. 73, 112, 218. 108  See Bryce 1998, p. 182, n. 57; Conder 2004, pp. 16, 34, 37, 38; 45B, 51B, 60B, 97B; Gabriel 2009, pp. 119, 148–156; Kuhrt 1995, p. 323; Na’aman 2005, pp. 166, 221; Petrie 2003, p. 161, text nos. 155, 162, 165, 188, 192; Redford 2003, pp. 73, 218; Spalinger 2005, p. 112.  98

294

A. ENGIN

in the Levant contradicts the reading of the Idrimi inscription as suggested above. This is because Ullaza is a town that had strategic importance for Egypt but over which it did not manage to keep control at all times. According to Egyptian documents, the city was sometimes ruled by Egypt and at other times by the Amorite and Mitanni kingdoms.109 For example, Pubalu, the son of the Amurru king Abdi-Ashirta, conquered the city in the mid-14th century BC. 110 There is an Egyptian document listing war booty taken from Ullaza following its invasion. The primary items on the list of spoils are horses, chariots, a range of weapons and gold-silver. This city served as a military base during Thutmose III’s Syrian campaigns,111 and Egypt left a small army there.112 One hundred and thirty years after Thutmose III, the 19th Dynasty pharaoh Seti I launched a military campaign to Syria in the first year of his reign and arrived at Harran via Kilis and Gaziantep to the north.113 According to Seti’s list at Karnak, the Egyptian forces arrived at Smyrna and Ullaza,114 and according to the records Seti I kept about the Syrian campaigns, after the Hittite forces conquered Qadesh, the Egyptian army headed north through the coastal towns of Amurru and arrived at Ullaza; this suggests that Ullaza was a border town located to the north.115 Ullaza was almost the target destination of these military campaigns. A text on a sphinx discovered in the temple at Karnak mentions Ullaza as one of the places conquered by Seti I during his Syrian campaigns.116 According to Egyptian army records, they travelled by chariots a distance of 774 km between Memphis and Thebes in a minimum of 13 days along the Nile Valley; therefore, it can be calculated that they travelled an average of 60 km a day.117 The Egyptian documents explain that Seti I’s army travelled from the Amurru region in west Syria to Ullaza in four days.118 By this reckoning, Ullaza should be around 240 km north of the Amurru region. Based on these calculations, the distance between Qadesh in the Amurru region and Oylum should be 250 km, and the distance between Hama and Oylum should be 175 km, which can be travelled in three to four days. The Hittite documents offer some clues about the location of Ulisum. Astour argued that Ukulzat (Ú-kul-za-at/Ú-gul-zi-it), mentioned in the document about the famous Syrian 109

 See Conder 2004, pp. 10, 16, 34, 37, 38, n. 7; Gabriel 2009, pp. 117–158; Na’aman 2005, pp. 45, 56, 57, 114, 166, 178, 221, 275; Petrie 2003, text nos. 155, 165, 188, 192; Redford 2003, pp. 64–65, 73, 112, 218; Spalinger 2005, p. 112. 110  Na’aman 2005, pp. 45, 57, 275. 111  See Gabriel 2009, pp. 117–134, 159–186; Spalinger 2005, pp. 130–140. The ultimate goal of Thutmose III was to rule the Syrian territory down to the Euphrates. It is known that the pharaoh had ships built in Byblos and used oxcarts to take them to Carchemish, as well as using them to attack Emar over the Euphrates and building a stela on the Euphrates in honour of his grandfather Thutmose I (Gabriel 2009, pp. 159–186; Kuhrt 1995, pp. 193, 323; Spalinger 2005, p. 130). Although these territories were ruled by Egypt from time to time, this reign did not last long. Thutmose III had to launch 23 military campaigns only in the Levant region during his 23-year reign (Kuhrt 1995, p. 193). 112  Spalinger 2005, pp. 132–133. 113  Breasted 1906, pp. 38–48. 114  Breasted 1906, p. 48; Spalinger 1979. 115  See El-Saady 1992, pp. 287–290. 116  Breasted 1906, p. 55. 117  El-Saady 1992, p. 288. 118  El-Saady 1992, p. 289.

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

295

campaign of Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I,119 is the same as the city of Ulisum mentioned on Naram-sin’s inscription, and the city of Ullaza mentioned in Alalakh documents.120 Ukulzat, which is referred to as Ku-ul-zi-la in documents from Boğazköy,121 is the capital or a significant province of the kingdom of Nuhašše and an important military base that must be occupied in order to control northern Syria. This place is referred to as Ú-ul-za-at in one of the documents discovered in Level IV of Alalakh.122 Ukulzat is mentioned as a city in Nuhašše in the treaty made between the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I and the Mitanni prince Šattiwaza.123 Before Šuppiluliuma I’s Syrian campaign, Nuhašše, as well as Mukiš and Nia/Nii, which might be in northwest Syria, had hostile attitudes towards the Hittites.124 Likewise, Qatna documents indicate the geographical proximity between Ukulzat and Nuhašše and mention that Ukulzat was also ravaged during Šuppiluliuma I’s Syrian campaigns.125 The Qatna documents mention this city with Yaruqad, the location of which is unknown. Astour argued that Ukulzat should be the capital of Nuhašše;126 however, based on these documents, Klengel argued that Ukulzat is not necessarily the capital of Nuhašše.127 Astour located Ukulzat at Tell Halawa, which is 52 km northeast of Hama,128 and according to Goetze, Ukulzat should be located further west, in the Orontes Valley.129

THE

QUESTION OF

NUHAŠŠE

The land of Nuhašše, which is generally mentioned in second millennium BC documents alongside Mukiš and Nia, is considered to be a country located west of the Euphrates that expanded through Aleppo and Hama down to the Orontes in the west; it also shared regional borders with Mukiš and Kadesh.130 This suggested location is neither definitive nor entirely convincing, and is based on the idea that Nuhašše, which is often mentioned in the El-Amarna documents, must have been nearer to the Levantine region controlled by Egypt. However, the identification of Ukulzat with Oylum would not fit with this putative location, because it would require Nuhašše to be located to the north of Aleppo in the Kilis Plain. I believe that the Hittite tablet discovered at Oylum Höyük during excavations in the northeast area supports the idea of associating Oylum with the most important city of Nuhašše — namely Ukulzat/Kuilzila. 119  See KBo I, nos. 1-2: Alp 2000, pp. 93–95; Bryce 1998, pp. 179–180; Freu 2009, pp. 12, 17, 19; Klengel 1969, p. 26; Luckenbill 1921. 120  Astour 1963, p. 238. 121  KBo II 9 I 5. The phonetic resemblance between Ku-ul-zi-la and today’s Kilis is striking. 122  Astour 1969, p. 409; AT 161:3. 123  Alp 2000, pp. 93–95; Bryce 1998, pp. 179–180; Freu 2009, pp. 12, 17, 19; Klengel 1969, p. 26; Luckenbill 1921. 124  Altman 1978, pp. 105–107; 2001; Astour 1969; 1972a, p. 108; 2002, pp. 124–125; Bryce 1998, pp. 179–180; Klengel 1969, pp. 20–26. 125  Freu 2009, pp. 16–17. 126  Astour 1969, p. 409; 2002, p. 125. 127  Klengel 1969, p. 48, n. 15. 128  Astour 1977b, p. 57, n. 56; 2002, p. 125, n. 441. 129  Goetze 1975, p. 4. 130  Alp 2000, p. 94; Astour 1963, p. 238; 1969, p. 386; 2002, p. 124; Casana 2009, p. 18; Freu 2009, p. 12; Goetze 1975, p. 4; Helck 1969, pp. 28–29; Klengel 1969, pp. 18, 33–37.

296

A. ENGIN

The Hittite cuneiform tablet from Oylum provides some important clues about Nuhašše. The tablet is the text of a treaty between a Hittite Great King, whose name is unknown, and a local king.131 The text is about the military and safety precautions demanded by the Great King from the local king. Unfortunately, the name of the place mentioned in the tablet is broken and illegible. The country name on the front of the tablet, which would appear exactly on the broken 11th line, was read by Ünal as Nuhašše.132 This interpretation reinforces the idea that Oylum can be equated with Ukulzat/Kuilzila. The written documents suggest that Nuhašše had several large central cities that were surrounded by city walls, such as Ukulzat, Barga, Musuni and Tunanabu.133 According to Astour,134 the king of Nuhašše was mentioned as being the most influential king of all the city kingdoms. As seen from the Old Babylonian documents, Nuhašše, as well as Mitanni and Aštata, played a significant role in the history of Syria.135 Although Nuhašše is considered by some to be the Lahutu country conquered in the first millennium BC by the Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal II in his ninth year, this identification is problematic.136 It has been argued that the country should be located in the Hurri region because the majority of the personal names used in Nuhašše were derived from the Hurrian language.137 On the other hand, however, the country’s name was derived from the word for “abundance, plenty prosperity” in Akkadian.138 According to a document discovered in Egypt, Akkizikin of Qatna defended Nuhašše against the Amurru king Aziru.139 It is clear that Nuhašše, which was frequently mentioned in the Qatna documents, had a close relationship with Qatna.140 Nuhašše, which, together with Mukiš and Nia, was a vassal of the Mitanni Kingdom during the reign of Šuppiluliuma I, was at war with the Hittites. The Alalakh Level VII archive also mentions Nuhašše.141 According to Astour,142 a Mukiš, Nia and Nuhašše confederation ruled the entire region from Carchemish to the eastern Mediterranean in the 14th and 15th centuries BC. It is believed that Nia was located in an area west of Aleppo that expanded as far as Idlib,143 and, according to the Idrimi inscription, Nia was a part of the kingdom of Alalakh.144 According to Hittite and Egyptian sources, Nuhašše was the key to controlling Syria, and it was, therefore, a primary target. Nuhašše, often mentioned in the Egyptian documents, is described as a key centre of political and military power. The Egyptian resources describe Nuhašše as a neighbouring country to Nia.145 131

 Ünal 2015.  Ünal 2015, pp. 24–27, KUR URU N[u-ḫaš-ša/i?…]. 133  Astour 1969, pp. 387, 409–414; 2002, p. 125; Klengel 1969, pp. 33–37. 134  Astour 1969, pp. 387–388. 135  Astour 1972a, pp. 103–107; Na’aman 1980, pp. 36–39. 136  See Cifola 1998, p. 156. 137  Klengel 1969, p. 20. 138  Astour 2002, p. 124. 139  Helck 1969, p. 28. 140  See Bryce 1998, p. 179; Klengel 1969, pp. 33–37; Na’aman 1980, p. 38. 141  Na’aman 1980, p. 38. 142  Astour 1972a, pp. 103–107. 143  Astour 1963, p. 238; Casana 2009, p. 18. 144  Astour 1963, p. 223, no. 8. 145  See Gustavs 1927, p. 9; Helck 1969, p. 28; Schulman 1978, p. 43. 132

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

297

Yamhad ruled the north and Qatna ruled the south of Nuhašše at the time of the Mari archive.146 Locating the country of Nuhašše in the region between Aleppo and the Orontes Valley is not as precise as the presumed locations of Mukiš and Nia. However, it is understood that Nuhašše, as well as Mukiš, was within the territory of the Yamhad Kingdom.147 According to Hittite documents, Nuhašše should be a neighbour of Mitanni, Mukiš and Halab.148 In the 15th century BC, Nuhašše, together with Aštata, was one of the most influential political powers in northern Syria.149 Nuhašše was the key for the Hittite army coming down from the north during the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I’s Syrian campaign, and it should have been the first stop on the Syrian plains, as well as a military base used by the Hittite army in order to control northern Syria and Aleppo. King Aziru of Amurru’s two letters to the Egyptian pharaoh mention that the Hittite army attacked Nuhašše and that the Hatti king lived in Nuhašše.150 In that case, locating Nuhašše south of Halab would seem to be problematic. Šuppiluliuma I gave some of the territories captured from Mukiš (probably the southern region) to Ugarit and territories taken from Aleppo he gave to Aštata and Nuhašše.151 Accordingly, the east of the territory previously ruled by Aleppo now belonged to Aštata and the west of the same territory to Nuhašše. According to Hittite documents, Nuhašše was not made a vassal kingdom by Šuppiluliuma I following his Syrian campaign, but rather it became a subjugated country and was ruled directly, just like Carchemish and Aleppo.152 Nuhašše was evidently difficult to control at this time. In a letter from the Hittite prince Šarrikušuh in Carchemish to Niqmadu, king of Mukiš, the latter was asked to help supress an uprising started by the Nuhašše king Tette against the Hittite king Muršili I, and he was to be punished if he refused.153 Although it was difficult to control Nuhašše, it was almost in the Hittites’ backyard. Hattušili III exiled his nephew Muršili III (Urhi-Tešub) to Nuhašše.154 In particular, the Egyptian and Hittite documents indicate that Nuhašše should be in a transitional border region which was important for the control of Syria and should be searched for further north. North of Aleppo, the Kilis region, a transit zone between Syria and the Anatolian peninsula, seems to be a very suitable place for the location of Nuhašše. The appearance of the name of Nuhašše on the Hittite tablet from Oylum155 strengthens this idea. In my opinion, it is a strong possibility that the settlement of Oylum Höyük, which controls the Kilis plain, was one of the most important cities of Nuhašše.

146

 Klengel 1969, pp. 33–37; Na’aman 1980, p. 38.  Helck 1969, p. 28. 148  Goetze 1950, p. 230; KBo X 7 IV 17; KBo I, nos. 1-2. 149  Alp 2000, pp. 93–95; Bryce 1998, pp. 179–180; Freu 2009, pp. 12, 17; Klengel 1969, p. 26; Luckenbill 1921, p. 165; Na’aman 1980, pp. 36–38. 150  Altman 1978, p. 106; Schulman 1978, p. 45, EA 164: 21-26, EA 165: 16-41. 151  See Altman 2003, p. 752; Helck 1969, p. 28; Na’aman 1980, pp. 38–39. 152  Altman 2003, pp. 742, 750, 752, n. 7 and n. 64. 153  See Altman 2003, p. 754, n. 82. 154  Van den Hout 2013, p. 37. 155  Ünal 2015, pp. 24–27. 147

A. ENGIN

298 CONCLUSIONS

Oylum and Alalakh, two administrative centres situated in the same region and similar locations, were under the influence of the same events in the second millennium BC and ruled by the same central governments as a part of similar political formations. The material culture of the Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age portray the common cultural structure of these two centres. Both centres, one in the east and one in the west, had active roles on the trade routes west of the Euphrates River and north of Aleppo. Although comprehensive research into Alalakh and the review of the second millennium BC layers provide information about the Mukiš kingdom and its capital Alalakh, only recently have similar studies examined the second millennium BC layers at Oylum. Monumental architectural ruins and epigraphic and glyptic materials from the second millennium BC settlements have been recovered, however, even from the limited number of studies. Oylum might be the Ulisum/Ullis referred to in the third millennium BC and the Ullaza/ Ukulzat/Kuilzila of the second millennium BC. In our opinion this idea is supported by: the path taken by the Akkadian army and clues about the location of Ulisum; the Idrimi inscription and modern phonetic, etymological and semantic clues about the name of Ulisum; connections between the god Dagan and the Middle Euphrates region; and the missing name interpreted as Nuhašše in the Hittite tablet from Oylum.156 We believe that this suggested location resolves contradictions about the place names of Ulisum, Ullaza, Ukulzat and Nuhašše. However, archaeological studies focusing on Oylum and other centres in the region must continue in order to arrive at a final conclusion and shed further light on the cultural history of the second millennium BC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AKKERMANS, P. M. M. G. and SCHWARTZ, G. M. 2003 The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ALKIM, U. B. 1969 “The Amanus region in Turkey: New light on the historical geography and archaeology,” Archaeology 22: 280–289. ALTMAN, A. 1978 “Some controversial toponyms from the Amurru Region in the Amarna Archive,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 94/2: 99–107. 2001 “EA59: 27-29 and the efforts of Mukiš, Nuhašše and Niya to establish a common front against Šuppiluliuma,” Ugarit-Forschungen 33: 1–25. 2003 “Rethinking the Hittite system of subordinate countries from the legal point of view,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123: 741–756. ALP, S. 2000 Hitit Çağı’nda Anadolu: Çiviyazılı ve Hiyeroglif Yazılı Kaynaklar. Ankara: TÜBİTAK.

156

 Ünal 2015, pp. 24–27.

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

ARCHI, A. 1998

299

“The former history of some Hurrian gods,” in III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri / Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology (Çorum, September 16-22/1996), edited by S. Alp and A. Süel, pp. 39–44. Ankara: Nurol Matbaacılık. 2011 “In search of Armi,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 63: 5–34. ARCHI, A. and BIGA, M. G. 2003 “A Victory over Mari and the fall of Ebla,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 55: 1–44. ARCHI, A., PECORELLA, P. E. and SALVINI, M. 1971 Gaziantep e la Sua Regione (Incunabula Graeca 48). Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo. ASTOUR, M. C. 1963 “Place-names from the Kingdom of Alalaḫ in the North Syria list of Thutmose III: A study in historical topography,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22: 220–241. 1969 “The partition of the confederacy of Mukiš-Nuhašše-Nii by Šuppililiuma: A study in political geography of the Amarna age,” Orientailia 38: 381–414. 1972a “Hattušiliš, Ḫalab and Ḫanigalbat,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31: 102–109. 1972b “Review article: Some recent works on ancient Syria and the sea peoples,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 92: 447–459. 1977a “Haššu and Hassuwan: A contribution in North Syrian history and geography,” Ugarit-Forschungen 29: 1–66. 1977b “Tunip-Hamath and its region: A contribution to the historical geography of Central Syria,” Orientalia 46: 51–64. 1988 “Toponymy of Ebla and ethnohistory of Northern Syria: A preliminary survey,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 108: 545–555. 1989 Hittite History and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology). Partille: Astroms Forlag. 1992 “The date of destruction of Palace G at Ebla,” in New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25), edited by M. W. Chavalas and J. L. Hayes, pp. 23–39. Malibu: Undena Publications. 2002 “A reconstruction of the history of Ebla (part 2),” in Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, edited by C. H. Gordon and G. A. Rendsburg, pp. 57–196. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. AY-ŞAFAK, F. 2014 “Oylum Höyük kazılarında ele geçen bir Geç Tunç Çağı steli / A Late Bronze Age stelae from Oylum Höyük excavations,” in Armizzi: Studies in Honor of Engin Özgen, edited by A. Engin, B. Helwing and B. Uysal, pp. 29–35. Ankara: Asitan. AYISH, A. H. 1972 “Bassetki Statue with an Old Akkadian royal inscription of Naram-Sin of Agade (2291-2255 BC),” Sumer 32: 63–75. BAGH, T. 2003 “The relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware and Khabur Ware and the chronological implications,” in The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000-Euro Conference, Haindorf 2nd of May-7th of May 2001, edited by M. Bietak, pp. 219–238. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. BEYER, D. 1982 “Le Sceau-Cylindre de Shahurunuwa, Roi de Karkemish,” in La Syrie au Bronze Récent (Éditions Recherche sur les civilizations mémoire 15), pp. 67–78. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 2001 Emar IV: Les sceaux (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 20). Fribourg: Fribourg University Press. BONACOSSI, D. M. 2009 “Der Unterstadtpalast (Qatna),” in Schätze des Alten Syrien: Die Entdeckung des Königreichs Qatna, edited by M. al-Maqdissi, D. M. Bonacossi and P. Pfälzner, pp. 156–159. Württemberg: Landesmuseum.

300

A. ENGIN

BREASTED, J. H. 1906 Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents, Vol. 3. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. BRYCE, T. 1998 The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BÜLBÜL, C. 2010 “Idrimi zamanında Alalah Krallığı / The Alalakh Kingdom during the reign of Idrimi,” History Studies 2/2: 15–27. CASANA, J. 2009 “Alalakh and the archaeological landscape of Mukish: The political geography and population of a Late Bronze Age kingdom,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 353: 7–37. ÇATALBAŞ, M. 2008 Evaluating the Oylum Höyük MBA Painted Ware within the Frameworks of the SyroCilician, Levantine and Khabur Painted Ceramic Cultures. Unpublished MA thesis. Bilkent University. CIFOLA, B. 1998 “Ashurnasirpal II’s 9th campaign: Seizing the grain bowl of the Phoenician cities,” Archiv für Orientforschung 44–45: 156–158. COLLON, D. 1975 The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 27). Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. CONDER, C. R. 2004 The Tell Amarna Tablets. Barcelona: Athena University Press. D’ALFONSO, L. 2001 “Further studies on the Ini-Tešub sealing, part II: A prosopographic approach,” Altorientalische Forschungen 28: 267–275. DARDENIZ, G. 2016 “Vitreous material crafting in the second millennium BC: Glass, faience and frit production at Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh.” Unpublished PhD dissertation. Koç University. 2017 “Sharing technologies and workspaces for ceramic and vitrified material production at Tell Atchana-Alalakh,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology. A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. S. Gilbert, pp. 139–157. Leiden: Brill. DEZZI-BARDESCHI, C. 2001 “Further studies on the Ini-Tešub sealing, part I: Aperçu sur les sceaux d’Ini-Tešub, roi de Karkemiš,” Altorientalische Forschungen 28: 246–266. DIETRICH, M. and LORETZ, O. 1981 “Die Inschrift der Statue des Königs Idrimi von Alalah,” Ugarit Forschungen 13: 201–268. DINÇOL, A. and DINÇOL, B. 2011 “Zwei hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel und ein Siegelabdruck aus Oylum Höyük,” Colloquium Anatolicum / Anadolu Sohbetleri 10: 87–94. DONBAZ, V. 2011 “A lapis-lazuli cylinder seal found at Oylum Höyük,” Colloquium Anatolicum/ Anadolu Sohbetleri 10: 95–102. 2014 “A tiny Late Old Babylonian tablet found at Oylum Höyük,” in Armizzi: Studies in Honor of Engin Özgen, edited by A. Engin, B. Helwing and B. Uysal, pp. 109–113. Ankara: Asitan. DROWER, M. S. and BOTTÉRO, J. 1971 “Syria before 2200 BC,” The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. I/2, edited by I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd and N. G. L. Hammond, pp. 315–362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

301

EDZARD, D. O., FARBER, G. and SOLLBERGER, E. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes I: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen 1977 der präsargonischen und sargonischen Zeit. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Rechert Verlag. EIDEM, J., FINKEL, I. and BONECHI, M. 2001 “Third Millennium Inscriptions,” in Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol. 2: Nagar in the Third Millennium BC, edited by D. Oates, J. Oates and H. McDonald, pp. 99–120. London: British Museum. EINWAG, B. 2002 “The early Middle Bronze Age in the Euphrates Valley: The evidence from Tuttul/ Tell Bi’a,” in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, edited by M. Bietak, pp. 143–161. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. EL-SAADY, H. 1992 “The wars of Sety I at Karnak: A new chronological structure,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 19: 285–294. ENGIN, A. 2008a “Kilis ili yüzey araştırması sonuçları,” in Anadolu/Anatolia, Supplement Series 2 (III. ve IV. Arkeolojik Araştırmalar Sempozyumu), pp. 93–108. Ankara: Dil Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Yayınları. 2008b “New evidence on Early Bronze Age burial customs from Oylum Höyük,” in Batı Anadolu ve Doğu Akdeniz Geç Tunç Çağı Kültürleri Üzerine Yeni Araştırmalar, edited by A. Erkanal-Öktü, S. Günel and U. Deniz, pp. 101–118. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hastaneleri Basımevi. 2011 “Oylum Höyük kazılarında ele geçen bir grup Orta Tunç Çağı yapı adak eşyası,” Belleten 75/272: 19–49. 2014 “Oylum Höyük için bir lokalizasyon önerisi / A localisation proposal for Oylum Höyük: Ulisum/Ullis/Illis,” in Armizzi: Engin Özgen’e Armağan / Studies in Honor of Engin Özgen, edited by A. Engin, B. Helwing and B. Uysal, pp. 129–149. Ankara: Asitan. 2016 “Yeni bulgular ışığında Kilis/Oylum Höyük’ün Hitit dünyasındaki yeri,” in Studies in Honour of Ahmet Ünal / Ahmet Ünal Armağanı, edited by S. Erkut and Ö. Sir-Gavaz, pp. 187–204. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. In press “Oylum Höyük kazısında ele geçen Karkamış Kralı Ini-Tešub’a ait bir bulla,” in Prof. Dr. Uğur Silistreli’ye Armağan (Festschrift for Uğur Silistreli; Anadolu/ Anatolia Supplement Series), edited by A. Öztan and L. Keskin. Ankara: Dil Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Yayınları. ENGIN, A. and HELWING, B. 2012 “The EBA-MBA transition in the Kilis Plain,” in Looking North: Socioeconomic Dynamics of the Northern Mesopotamian and Anatolian Regions during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC (Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens D), edited by N. Laneri, P. Pfälzner and S. Valentini, pp. 93–104. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. ENGIN, A., ÖZGEN, E., ZENGIN-KOŞAN, O., AY-ŞAFAK, F. and BOZKURT, A. 2014 “Oylum Höyük, 2013,” 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1: 235–254. 2016 “Oylum Höyük 2014,” 37. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1: 445–466. FELIU, L. The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria, translated by W. G. E. Watson. Leiden: 2003 Brill. FINK, A. S. 2008 “Where was the statue of Idrimi actually found? The later temples of Tell Atchana (Alalakh) revisited,” Ugarit-Forschungen 39: 162–245. 2010 Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana (Alalakh): Stratigraphy, Chronology, History (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2120). Oxford: Archaeopress.

302

A. ENGIN

FORLANINI, M. 2001 “Quelques notes sur la Géographie historique de la Cilicie,” in La Cilicie: Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C. - 4e siècle ap. J.-C.), edited by E. Jean, A. M. Dinçol and S. Durugönül, pp. 553–563. Istanbul: Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes - Georges Dumézil. FOSTER, B. R. 1982 “The Siege of Armanum,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 14: 27–36. FREU, J. 2009 “Qatna et les Hittites,” Studia Orontico 6: 9–23. GADD, C. J. 1971 “The Dynasty of Agade and the Gutian Invasion,” in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. I/2, edited by I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd and N. G. L. Hammond, pp. 417– 463. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. GABRIEL, R. A. 2009 Thutmose III: The Military Biography of Egypt’s Greatest Warrior King. Washington DC: Potomac Books. GOETZE, A. 1950 “Critical reviews: Sidney Smith, The Statue of Idrimi,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 4: 226–231. 1952 “The predecessors of Šuppililiumaš of Ḫatti (reviewed work),” Journal of the American Oriental Society 72: 67–72. 1975 “The struggle for the domination of Syria (1400-1300 BC),” in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. II/2: The Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380-1000 BC, edited by I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond and E. Sollberger, pp. 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. GUSTAVS, A. 1927 “Studien aus dem Deutschen evang. Institut für Altertumswissenschaft in Jerusalem. 38. Die Personennamen in den Tontafeln von Tell Ta’annek,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 50: 1–18. HEINZ, M. 2009 “Alalakh-Konkurrent oder Partner?” in Schatze des Alten Syrien: Die Entdeckung des Königreichs Qatna, edited by M. al-Maqdissi, D. M. Bonacossi and P. Pfälzner, pp. 51–53. Württemberg: Landesmuseum. HELCK, W. 1969 “Zur staatlichen Organisation Syriens im Beginn der 18. Dynastie,” Archiv für Orientforschung 22: 27–29. HELWING, B. and ÖZGEN, E. 2003 “Oylum Höyük,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10/1-2: 157–158. IAMONI, M. and KANHOUCH, Y. 2009 “Der Ostpalast (Qatna),” in Schätze des Alten Syrien: Die Entdeckung des Königreichs Qatna, edited by M. al-Maqdissi, D. M. Bonacossi and P. Pfälzner, pp. 161–164. Württemberg: Landesmuseum. KIEPERT, R. 1907 Karte von Kleinasien in 24 Blatt (1: 400.000). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. KLENGEL, H. 1969 Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 1992 Syria: 3000 to 300 BC: A Handbook of Political History. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. KUHRT, A. 1995 The Ancient Near East: 3000-330 BC, Vol. 1 (Routledge History of the Ancient World). London: Routledge. LUCKENBILL, D. D. 1921 “Hittite Treaties and Letters,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 37/3: 161–211.

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

303

JASINK, A. M. 1991 “Hittite and Assyrian routes to Cilicia,” Anatolia Antiqua 1: 253–259. MENDELSOHN, I. 1955 “On slavery in Alalakh,” Israel Exploration Journal 5: 65–72. NA’AMAN, N. 1980 “The historical introduction of the Aleppo Treaty reconsidered,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 32: 34–42. 2005 Canaan in the Second Millennium BCE: Collected Essays, Vol. 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. NIEDORF, C. F. 1998 “Die Toponyme der Texte aus Alalah IV,” Ugarit Forschungen 30: 515–568. 2002 “Ein hethitisches Brieffragment aus Alalah,” in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburstag (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 281), edited by O. Loretz, K. A. Metzler and H. Schaudig, pp. 517–526. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. OPPENHEIM, A. L. 1969 “Babylonian and Assyrian historical texts,” in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, edited by J. B. Pritchard, pp. 246–286. Princeton: Princeton University Press. OTTO, A. 2006 “Archaeological perspectives on the localization of Naram-Sin’s Armanum,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 58: 1–26. ÖZGEN, E. and CARTER, E. 1991 “Oylum Höyük, 1989,” 12. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1: 259–268. ÖZGEN, E. and ENGIN, A. 2010 “Oylum Höyük, 2008,” 31. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3: 1–20. ÖZGEN, E. and HELWING, B. 2001 “Ausgrabungen auf dem Oylum Höyük, 1997-2000: Zweiter Vorläufiger Bericht,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 51: 61–136. 2003 “On the shifting border between Mesopotamia and the west: Seven seasons of joint Turkish-German excavations at Oylum Höyük,” Anatolica 29: 61–85. ÖZGEN, E., HELWING, B. and TEKIN, H. 1997 “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen auf dem Oylum Höyük,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47: 39–90. ÖZGEN, E., HELWING, B., ENGIN, A., NIEWENHUYSE, O. and SPOOR, R. 1999 “Oylum Höyük 1997-1998: Die Spätchalkolithische Siedlung auf der Westterrasse,” Anatolia Antiqua 7: 19–67. ÖZGEN, E., HELWING, B. and ENGIN, A. 2002 “The Oylum Höyük regional project: Archaeological prospection 2000,” 19. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2: 217-228. ÖZGEN, E., HELWING, B., HERLING, L. and ENGIN, A. 2003 “The Oylum Höyük regional project: Result of the 2001 prospection season,” 20. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2: 151–157. ÖZGEN, E., HELWING, B. and ENGIN, A. 2004 “Kilis İli 2002 yüzey araştırması,” 21. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2: 87–94. ÖZGEN, E., ENGIN, A., UYSAL, B. and AY ŞAFAK, F. 2011 “Oylum Höyük 2009,” 32. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2: 56–69. ÖZGEN, E., ENGIN, A., UYSAL, B., ENSERT, H. K. and AY-ŞAFAK, F. 2013a “Oylum Höyük, 2010,” 33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1: 497–518. ÖZGEN, E., ENGIN, A., UYSAL, B., ENSERT, H. K., AY-ŞAFAK, F. and BOZKURT, A. 2013b “Oylum Höyük, 2011,” 34. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1: 323–334. 2014 “Oylum Höyük, 2012,” 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1: 159–174. PETRIE, W. M. F. 2003 Syria and Egypt from the Tell el Amarna Letters. London: Adamant Media Corporation.

304

A. ENGIN

PETTINATO, G. 1981 The Archives of Ebla: An Empire Inscribed in Clay. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Books. REDFORD, D. B. 2003 The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. Leiden: Brill. SALVINI, M. 1998 “New documents for the history of Anatolia and Syria in the Old Hittite Period,” in III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri (Çorum, 16-22 Eylül 1996) / Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology (Çorum, September 16-22, 1996), edited by. S. Alp and. A. Süel, pp. 497–504. Ankara: Uyum Ajans. SCHAEFFER, C. F. A., ed. 1956 Ugaritica III: Sceaux et cylindres Hittites, épée gravée du cartouche de Mireptah, tablettes Chypro-Minoennes et autres découvertes nouvelles de Ras Shamra (Mission de Ras Shamra 8). Paris: Geuthner. SCHULMAN, A. R. 1978 “Ἁnkhesenamūn, Nefertiti and the Amka Affair,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 15: 43–48. SETON-WILLIAMS, V. 1954 “Cilician Survey,” Anatolian Studies 4: 121–174. SINGER, I. 2014 “The boundaries of Hittite Syria and the historical context of KBo 16.32 + KBo 31.71,” Transeuphratène 46: 67–77. SMITH, S. 1949 The Statue of Idrimi (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, occasional publications 1). London: Harrison. SOLLBERGER, E. and KUPPER, J.-R. 1971 Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes. Paris: Edition du Cerf. SPALINGER, A. J. 1979 “The northern wars of Seti I: An integrative study,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 16: 29–47. 2005 War in Ancient Egypt. Malden, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell Publishing. SPEISER, E. 1954 “The Alalakh tablets,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 74: 18–25. ÜNAL, A. 2015 “A Hittite treaty tablet from Oylum Höyük in southeastern Turkey and the location of Ḫaššu(wa),” Anatolian Studies 65: 19–34. VON DASSOW, E. 2005 “Archives of Alalah IV in archaeological context,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 338: 1–69. 2008 State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalaḫ under the Mitanni Empire (Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 17), edited by D. I. Owen and G. Wilhelm. Bethesda: CDL Press. VAN DEN HOUT, T. P. J. 2013 “Hitit Krallığı ve İmparatorluğu’nun Kısa Tarihi / A short history of the Hittite Kingdom and Empire,” in Hititler: Bir Anadolu İmparatorluğu / Hittites: An Anatolian Empire, edited by M. Doğan-Alparslan and M. Alparslan, pp. 22–47. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. WISEMAN, D. J. 1953 The Alalakh Tablets (Occasional Papers of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2). London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. WOOLLEY, L. 1948 “Excavations at Atchana-Alalakh, 1939,” The Antiquaries Journal 28: 1–19. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949. Oxford: The Society of Antiquaries.

OYLUM HÖYÜK AND ALALAKH

305

YENER, K. A 2006 “Aççana Höyüğü: 2004 yılı kazı sonuçları,” 27. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1: 37–46. 2007 “The Anatolian Middle Bronze Age kingdoms and Alalakh: Mukish, Kanesh and trade,” Anatolian Studies 57: 151–160. 2008 “Alalakh (Aççana Höyüğü) 2006 yılı çalışmaları,” 29. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2: 171–186. 2014 “Geçmişi tekrar incelemek ve tekrar resmetmek: Alalah’taki Woolley ve Yener kazıları / Re-examining and re-imaging the past: The Woolley and Yener excavations at Alalakh,” in Unutulmuş Krallık: Antik Alalah’da Arkeoloji ve Fotoğraf / The Forgotten Kingdom: Archaeology on Photography at Ancient Alalakh, edited by M. Akar and H. Maloigne, pp. 46–65. Istanbul: Koç University Press. YENER, K. A., ed. 2005 The Amuq Valley Regional Projects, Vol. 1. Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995-2002. Chicago: The University of Chicago. 2010 Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh, Vol. 1: The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons. Istanbul: Koç University Press. YENER, K. A. and AKAR, M. 2013a “2011 Yılı Aççana Höyük, antik Alalah kenti kazı çalışmaları,” 34. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1: 335–348. 2013b “Alalakh-Tell Atchana,” in Hititler: Bir Anadolu İmparatorluğu / Hittites: An Anatolian Empire, edited by M. Doğan-Alparslan and M. Alparslan, pp. 264–273. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. 2013c “Aççana Höyük, antik Alalakh kenti çalışmaları 2012 / Excavations at Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh 2012,” ANMED: Anadolu Akdeniz Arkeolojisi Haberleri / News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas 2013-11: 1–9. 2014a “Aççana Höyük / antik Alalah kenti 2013 yılı çalışmaları,” 36. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2: 347–358. 2014b “Yeni kazılar ışığında Aççana Höyük, antik Alalah kenti Orta-Geç Tunç ve Demir Çağı tabakaları,” in Uluslararası Çağlar Boyunca Hatay ve Çevresi Arkeoloji Sempozyumu Bildirileri / The Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Archaeology of Hatay and Its Vicinity Through the Ages, edited by A. Özfırat and Ç. Uygun, pp. 61–84. Hatay: Mustafa Kemal University. 2014c “Unutulmuş Krallık Mukiş ve başkenti Aççana Höyük kazıları, antik Alalah,” in Hatay Arkeolojik Kazı ve Araştırmaları, edited by A. Özfırat and Ç. Uygun, pp. 95–106. Hatay: Mustafa Kemal University. YENER, K. A., DINÇOL, B. and PEKER, H. 2014 “Prince Tuthaliya and Princess Ašnuhepa,” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 4: 136–138. YENER, K. A., SCHLOEN, D. and SUMAKA’I-FINK, A. 2005 “University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Aççana Höyük (antik Alalakh) çalışmaları, 2003,” 26. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1: 45–53. YENER, K. A. and YAZICIOĞLU, G. B. 2010 “Excavation results,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh, Vol. 1: The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–49. Istanbul: Koç University Press.

Atilla ENGIN Gaziantep University Email: [email protected]

THE SACRED MOUNTAIN OF UGARIT AND ALALAḪ? MOUNT KASION AND RELATED ISSUES John HEALEY ABSTRACT This contribution reviews the evidence of contact between Alalaḫ and Ugarit, including political interaction in the context of the Hittite Empire. It also reviews the evidence for the regional importance of Mount Kasion as a sacred mountain with symbolic significance. While the evidence on the latter is clear on the Ugarit side and well documented in mythological and other texts, it is circumstantial on the Alalaḫ side: the inscription on the statue of Idrimi may suggest that Mount Kasion was also important at Alalaḫ, while an Akkadian text from Ugarit, which is of disputed meaning, was read by Nougayrol as implying a specific religious connection. The regional importance of Mount Kasion is also circumstantially suggested by its visibility from Tell Tayinat and Tell Afis.

I was especially grateful to the organisers of the Hatay conference, and specifically Professor Aslıhan Yener, for inviting me to participate, since my doctoral supervisor many years ago was Professor Donald J. Wiseman, who had published The Alalakh Tablets in 1953. My doctoral research, completed in 1977, was concerned with the religious texts from one of Alalaḫ’s near neighbours, the Syrian city of Ugarit (Ras Shamra). In 2007 I published an article on Mount Kasion, directly southwest of Alalaḫ, and discussed Ugaritic and later Greek references to this mountain.1 The mountain has a remarkable history as a religious centre, and my article surveyed this from Late Bronze Age Ugarit through the Hellenistic period and down to the 19th century AD, when the remaining sanctity of the mountain expired. It has had many names through its history: Mount Kasion in classical sources, Keldaǧ in Turkish, al-Jabal al-Aqra‘ in Arabic. It was known as Mons Parlerius to the Crusaders. It is historically one of the most sacred religious sites in the Middle East and was important over a very long period. It was also a focal point of the kind of East-West contact represented in the works of authors like Hesiod. In the present paper, I raise the question of the importance which the mountain may have had in the Late Bronze Age for other nearby kingdoms, including the kingdom of Mukiš, and suggest that the mountain already had an international significance as a sacred site. The evidence is circumstantial rather than decisive and involves much uncertainty. The context of the remarks that follow is the relationship between Ugarit and Alalaḫ. Despite the fact that they were near neighbours, the actual evidence of their interrelations is not extensive. In the context of international relations and history, we know that conflict arose between the two, and between Ugarit and other local states such as Amurru, as a result 1

 Healey 2007. Note additionally the discussions in Portnoff 2006 and É. Bordreuil 2006. A broader context is suggested in Lane Fox 2008, especially in his Chapter 15, “A Travelling Mountain”, pp. 255–272.

308

J. HEALEY

of the rise of Hittite power in the area under Šuppiluliuma I in the 14th century BC. Ugarit refused to join the resistance against the Hittites and as a result became (almost by accident?) their firm ally. A treaty of the Hittite king, later confirmed by his son Muršili II, delineated the border between Ugarit and Mukiš in some detail, evidently to protect the rights of its vassal.2 It appears that Ugarit was enlarged at the expense of Mukiš, and the Ugaritic king, Niqmaddu II, came to Alalaḫ (a-na alA-la-la-aḫ) to do obeisance to his new overlord.3 There are also texts referring to the demands made on Ugarit by its Hittite overlords, in which it was expected to act vigorously against Mukiš. Thus, in one text from Ugarit (RS 34.143) the king of Ugarit is accused by the king in Carchemish, a Hittite proxy acting as the agent of the Hittite king, of neglecting his duties:4 he was claiming that his troops were in Mukiš supporting the Hittite cause, when in fact they were in Apsuna. This throws light also on a letter from an official to the Ugaritic queen in connection with “the enemy in Mukiš” (’ib.d.b.mgšḫ: KTU [see fn. 2 above] 2.33 = PRU II, 12 = RS 16.402, a letter of Irri-Šarruma to the queen). He seeks her help in persuading the Ugaritic king to send military assistance against the enemy (which had been promised). The tablet is otherwise rather obscure, but it may refer to a revolt by Mukiš against the Hittites, into which Ugarit was drawn.5 Ugarit could hardly avoid military conflicts, since it played a key role in the transportation of goods, including grain, by sea, from Egypt to the port of Ugarit and onwards to the Hittite supply-port of Ura in Cilicia (perhaps near Silifke?).6 Mukiš too had an interest in this supply route, being cited as the source of the grain for Ura in a surviving letter sent by the Hittite court to the king of Ugarit (RS 20.212 = Ugaritica V, 33).7 Before this period of local conflict, relations may have been more peaceful, and this may be reflected in an Alalaḫ Level VII tablet (AT *358; Level VII = mid-18th to mid-17th centuries BC), which is a receipt for a delivery of wool from “the man of Ugarit” to the palace of Alalaḫ.8

2  Various texts in Akkadian and Ugaritic are involved here. See Lackenbacher 2002, pp. 71–85; Singer 1999, specifically pp. 634–636; Nougayrol 1956, pp. 35–52 (= PRU below). Main texts: RS (Ras Shamra) 17.132 = PRU IV, pp. 35–37 (a letter from Šuppiluliuma to Niqmaddu); 17.227 = PRU IV, pp. 40–44 (an agreement between Šuppiluliuma and the Ugaritic king, Niqmaddu); 11.772 + 780 + 782 + 802 = PRU IV, pp. 44–46 = KTU (that is, Dietrich et al. 2013) 3.1 (a more fragmentary Ugaritic version of the agreement between Šuppiluliuma and Niqmaddu); 11.732 = PRU IV, pp. 47–48 (an inventory of tribute to the Hittite court). Only 17.227 and 17.132 mention Mukiš directly in dealing with Hittite-Ugaritic relations contra Mukiš. RS 17.132 gives Ugarit authority over fugitives from Mukiš and assures Niqmaddu of support: on this, see Lackenbacher 2002, pp. 69–71. 3  See PRU IV, pp. 48–52 = RS 17.340, with p. 52 = RS 17.369 A; discussions in Lackenbacher 2002, pp. 71–73; Kuhrt 1995, vol. I, pp. 306–308. 4  Published by F. Malbran-Labat in P. Bordreuil 1991, no. 6, pp. 27–29; Singer 1999, pp. 723–724. See also PRU IV, pp. 48–52 = RS 17.340 noted above. 5  See J.-L. Cunchillos in Caquot et al. 1989, pp. 325–340; Dijkstra 1987, specifically pp. 42–46; Pardee 1984, specifically pp. 215–219; Lipiński 1981, especially pp. 99–109. 6  Singer 1999, p. 716. 7  Lackenbacher 2002, pp. 103–104. 8  Singer 1999, p. 619.

THE SACRED MOUNTAIN OF UGARIT AND ALALAḪ?

309

Also from the earlier period is RS 4.449, found in the Temple of Baal at Ugarit, which appears to be a letter from a king of Alalaḫ (possibly the successor of Idrimi) to a king of Ugarit, Ibiranu, about the extradition of a thief.9 The text, one of the oldest Akkadian texts from Ugarit, is discussed in detail by D. Arnaud in a legal context.10 We note also from Alalaḫ Level IV a damaged text (AT 4), possibly referring to the extradition of runaways crossing between the two kingdoms.11 It may be added in passing that the Ugaritic form of the name of Mukiš is Mugiš with an -ḫ suffix of Hurrian origin: mgšḫ,12 though it only appears clearly once in Ugaritic in KTU 2.33 10 = RS 16.402 = PRU II, no. 12, a diplomatic letter (see above).13 Originally it was read also in the phrase mlk mg]šḫ in KTU 3.1 6 = RS 11.772 + 780 + 782 + 802 (see above, fn. 2), but there appears to be too much space for such a restoration after mlk, and only ]šḫ survives. The Ugaritic spelling of the name, with medial G, suggested to Arnaud that the name should be more correctly read as Mugiš rather than Mukiš.14 In the Akkadian texts from Ugarit, it appears as kurMukish (KUR mu-kiš, KUR mu-kí-iš, KUR mu-kiš-ḫi15). Ugarit is well known, of course, for the survival of its extensive religious literature. Much less is known on the Alalaḫ side about religion. But in this context of discussion of Mount Ḫazzi, I mention two further texts, each ambiguous but potentially illuminating. (i) The first is a section of the text on the Statue of Idrimi. The consensus ascribes Idrimi himself to the early 15th century BC,16 though the text on the statue is somewhat later in date. Various allusions to religion are to be found in the text, including reference to “the gods of Alalaḫ” (in line 88), but what is of particular interest in the present context is that Idrimi, in his campaign to regain control of his kingdom, is said to have attacked Alalaḫ from the sea: The weather god (dIM — Adad/Baal/Teshub) turned to me in the seventh year and I built ships. … I caused [soldiers] to board the ships and proceed by sea to the land of Mukiš. I landed at Mount Ḫazzi. I went up (or went ashore) and my land heard of me. They brought oxen and sheep before me. In one day, like one man, Niya, Ama’u, Mukiš and Alalaḫ, my city, turned to me (29-39).17

 9

 Singer 1999, p. 620; Lackenbacher 2002, p. 191. See also RS 17.35, Lackenbacher 2002, p. 192.  Arnaud 1996, specifically pp. 47–54. 11  Singer 1999, p. 620. The interpretation of who is involved here is disputed. Singer notes also AT 442e. 12  del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín 2004, p. 532. 13  Virolleaud 1957, pp. 25–28. Identification was first established by M. Liverani in Liverani 1962, p. 39, n. 50. 14  Lackenbacher 2002, p. 35, n. 39, referring to D. Arnaud, who renders the name as Mugiš in his 1996 article, which includes discussion of RS 4.449 (for example, p. 53). I am not aware of any direct discussion of this elsewhere by Arnaud. Note also J.-L. Cunchillos in Caquot et al. 1989, p. 329, n. 13, and Rainey 1975, specifically p. 25: “kurMu-gišx(KIŠ)-ḫi is to be normalized according to mgšḫ (UT 1012:10 [=KTU 2.33 10 above]).” 15  See RS 17.132, RS 17.227, RS 34.143 and RS 20.212, all cited above. 16  See, for example, Klengel 1981, specifically p. 270: early 15th century BC. On the text’s history, see Durand 2011, pp. 124–125; von Dassow 2008, pp. 23–45 (specifically p. 42: roughly 1475 BC). 17  The English translation is based on that of Tremper Longman III found in Hallo and Younger 1996, 1.148, pp. 479–480. For the cuneiform text, see Smith 1949. Note also Greenstein and Marcus 1976; Oller 1977; Dietrich and Loretz 1981; Durand 2011. Smith had read Ḫa-zi as uš-zi. See also Lauinger 2015. 10

310

J. HEALEY

The text reads literally “And I landed at Mount Ḫazzi. I went up (e-li-ya-ku)”.18 The meaning of the latter phrase is probably simply “I went ashore.”19 Oller, on the other hand, has “I went up,”20 and the displays in the new Hatay Archaeology Museum imply that Idrimi climbed the mountain. The significance of Ḫazzi in religious terms is not made clear in this text. It could be just a matter of convenience or accident that Idrimi landed there. But it seems to me significant that it was the first step in Idrimi’s campaign, and that it was the weather god, Baal-Teshub, specially venerated at Mount Ḫazzi, who had become favourable to him (and who is mentioned as Idrimi’s master on Idrimi’s seal [see AT 71 and AT 99]). As we know from the Ugaritic evidence, the mountain was the locus of the cult of Baal-Teshub. It is hard to imagine that no religious significance was attached to Idrimi’s landing there. We may note also from the Idrimi inscription the importance the gods of heaven and earth have in the curses at the end. In Ugaritic god lists, ’arṣu wašamūmā, “Earth and Heaven,” have a prominent role and in the “canonical” god-list (see below), they appear first in the list after the line drawn under the names of the high gods, El, Dagan, Baal of Ṣapānu and the six other forms of the god Baal. They may have been as important at Ugarit as they were in Alalaḫ/Mukiš. (ii) A second text which may throw light on all this is a letter written by a Hittite governor of Mukiš, Šukurtešub, to his contemporary, the king of Ugarit, Ammištamru II (c. 1260–1230 BC). This text was found at Ugarit and was published by Jean Nougayrol as Ugaritica V, no. 26.21 After introducing himself as the new governor,22 and bearing in mind the difficult relationship between Mukiš and Ugarit, Šukurtešub asks for special treatment and exemption from tax for certain travellers, whose homes were in Šukurtešub’s territory, but who had gone into Ugaritic territory to make, according to Nougayrol, certain offerings (“les offrandes perpétuelles”) at a place called Beletremi: “Let nobody impose tax on them during the journey in/to the mountain (i-na ḫuršāni) …” As Nougayrol noted (93, fn. 5), ina is often used instead of ana, so that the meaning here could be “during their journey to the mountain.” According to Nougayrol, one could understand the meaning to be “to the sacred mountain.” If this were correct, we would have direct reference to pilgrimage from Mukiš to Ḫazzi or a site in Ugaritic territory close to it. Even without this specific interpretation, the text seems to imply that citizens of Mukiš were in the habit of going to the mountainous area southwest of Alalaḫ, where Ḫazzi lies.

18

 Greenstein and Marcus 1976, p. 65, line 33–34: ù pa-an ḪUR.SAG (ḫuršān) Ḫa-zi a-na ta-ba-lim ak-šu-ud e-li-ya-ku. 19  So in the translation of Durand 2011, p. 139, making a comparison with Greek ἀναβαίνω; Lauinger 2015, “I moved inland.” 20  Oller 1977, p. 11: “I set my course and before Mount Casius I landed. I went up and my land heard of me” (see also p. 204); Dietrich and Loretz 1981, p. 205: “Ich stieg hinauf”. 21  In Nougayrol and Schaeffer 1968, pp. 91–94, RS 20.03. See Lipiński 1981, pp. 90–91 and also pp. 113– 115 in relation to KTU 2.82 = RIH (= Ras Ibn Hani) 78/12, where Šukurtešub is mentioned (restored in part) in line 16 as having become governor (KTU: line 15). On RIH 78/12 see earlier Caquot 1978–79, specifically pp. 483–484. 22  See Singer 1999, p. 634, n. 93.

THE SACRED MOUNTAIN OF UGARIT AND ALALAḪ?

311

There are, however, several problems with the interpretation of this text, which might rule it out so far as our concern with the importance of Mount Kasion is concerned: (a) First, it may be noted that Pierre Bordreuil located the mountain of this letter not at Mount Kasion, but further east in the upper reaches of the Nahr el-Kabir.23 While plausible, his argument is not completely decisive. It is unfortunate, however, that this text is not explicit on the name of the mountain — it is just “the mountain.” (b) Secondly, and more seriously from the point of view of our immediate interest in this text, there is also doubt about the purpose of this group of travellers: rather than pilgrims, they may have been dyers of purple cloth.24 Also, Nougayrol’s translation, according to which they bring “perpetual offerings,” is a rather speculative one, and Sylvie Lackenbacher has it as a reference to the dying process: they would be tradesmen going to do their purple-dying inside Ugaritic territory. I can only tentatively conclude by saying that, given again the sanctity of Mount Kasion reflected in the Ugaritic texts, it is possible that the religious aspect of Ḫazzi was connected with this journey. If Bordreuil and Lackenbacher are right, however, the interest in the text would shift to centre on the regional cross-border economy. Seen from the Ugaritic perspective, Mount Ḫazzi was certainly very important from a religious point of view, and we are on much surer ground. In Ugaritic literature, the abode of the gods is Mount Ṣapānu/Ḫazzi. I will not repeat discussion of the identification or some of the subsequent debates.25 It is superfluous to cite all the instances of this in the Ugaritic mythological literature: one or two examples may suffice. Thus, in the Baal cycle of texts, the god Baal is seen to retreat to the mountain and to be located there: And Baal departed to the heights of Ṣapānu (wb‘l tb‘ mrym ṣpn) (KTU 1.4 iv 19) Then she [‘Anat] set her face towards Baal, in the heights of Ṣapānu (mrym ṣpn) (KTU 1.4 v 23).

Sometimes the phrase used is “the furthest parts of Ṣapānu (ṣrrt ṣpn)” (KTU 1.6 i 57, 62). It is noteworthy that the divine title b‘l ṣpn, “Baal of Ṣapānu”, appears mostly in the ritual texts and is not found (so far as I can see) in the Baal myths. Mount Ṣapānu is, however, closely associated with Baal in the Keret legend (KTU 1.16 i 6-9 and ii 45-47): They weep for you, father, the mountain of Baal, Ṣapānu, the holy stronghold of Nanaya,26 the mighty stronghold, the citadel of vast expanse.27

Note that Ṣapānu and Nanaya are paired here. Ugaritic Nanaya is the lower peak south of Mount Ḫazzi, called in classical sources Anti-Casius. 23

 P. Bordreuil 1984 and specifically p. 3. He refers to G. Saadé’s map in Saadé 1979–80, p. 230.  See Lackenbacher 2002, pp. 95–96, n. 276. 25  See Healey 2007 and, not available to me at that time, É. Bordreuil 2006. 26  The two are paired in Hittite treaties, for example, Singer 2000, p. 97, in the treaty between Muršili and Duppi-Tešub. 27  Translation from Wyatt 1998, p. 230. 24

J. HEALEY

312

More interesting for our purpose are the Ugaritic pantheon lists. One of these at least has a definite structure and appears both in Ugaritic and in syllabic cuneiform.28 The list is known in several versions and has been qualified with the title “canonical,” that is, it has some official status beyond a casual listing. The special character of the list is suggested by its title, which appears in one of the Ugaritic versions (KTU 1.47) and has been restored in another (KTU 1.148). This title is: ’il ṣpn = ilū ṣapāni = “Gods of Ṣapānu”

The fourth entry in the list after the title is: b‘l ṣpn = ba‘lu ṣapāni = (in the cuneiform version) dIM (= Adad) be-el ḫuršān ḫa-zi = “Adad, the Lord of Mount Ḫazzi”

The items lower down in the list of divine beings are often divinised natural phenomena and pieces of cultic equipment. Bearing this in mind, it is noteworthy that item fourteen in the list is the mountain itself: [ṣ]pn = ṣapānu = dḫuršān ḫa-zi29

It is clear, therefore, that Mount Kasion was of key importance in Ugaritic mythology and religious practice. The identification of the Ugaritic ṣpn with Ḫazzi/Mons Casius (which is about 40 km north of Ugarit) was established by O. Eissfeldt.30 Ḫazzi also figures in the Hurrian Kumarbi cycle in the Song of Ullikummi,31 so that the Greek name Kasion is based on the older name Ḫazzi.32 The mountain later had a central role in traditional accounts of the foundation of Seleucia in Pieria on the coast, just north of the mouth of the Orontes, and the foundation of Antioch by Seleucus Nicator.33 We owe the following account to the sixth-century AD Byzantine historian John Malalas: On 23rd Xanthikos [Seleukos Nikator] went to Mount Kasion to sacrifice to Zeus Kasios. After completing the sacrifice and cutting up the meat, he asked in prayer where he should build a city. Suddenly an eagle seized some of the sacrifice and carried it off … Seleukos and the augurs with him followed close behind and found the meat thrown down by the sea, below the old city at the trading-station known as Pieria. (Trans. E. Jeffreys et al. 1986, p. 105, Book 8, 12 [Greek pp. 198–199])

He continues with a description of the events surrounding the founding of his own native city of Antioch.34 Again, an eagle snatched a sacrifice to Zeus and dropped it where Antioch was to be founded below Mount Silpios (Book 8.13). 28

 See in some detail Healey 1985, a new edition in Pardee 2000, pp. 291–319, and in a broader context, del Olmo Lete 1999, especially pp. 308–310. 29  Note also line 18, ǵūrūma watahāmātu (in Pardee’s reading: 2000, pp. 292, 306–307; old reading ‘mqt) = dḫuršānuM u A-mu-ú (in Pardee’s reading, referring to D. Arnaud; old reading a-mu-tu[m]) = “Divine mountains and waters (of the abyss)”. 30  Eissfeldt 1932, pp. 5–6 and passim, followed by W. F. Albright (1950). 31  Hoffner 1990, p. 55; Walcot 1966, p. 10; Healey 1999, p. 54. 32  Goetze 1940, pp. 32–34. See more fully Healey 2007, p. 142. 33  Downey 1961, p. 67. 34  Downey 1961, pp. 67–68. A recent work identifies Mount Silpius with Mount Kasion: ChristensenErnst 2012.

THE SACRED MOUNTAIN OF UGARIT AND ALALAḪ?

313

It was also visited for religious purposes by Trajan and Hadrian. In 113, the former made a dedication of two silver bowls and a bull’s horn to Zeus Kasios on the mountain after his victory over the Getae and before setting off on his eastern campaign (Arrian, Parthica fr. 36). Hadrian too, when he embarked on his own eastern campaign in 129, sacrificed on Mount Kasion (Historia Augusta Hadrian xiv, 2-7): … as he was sacrificing on Mount Casius, which he had ascended by night in order to see the sunrise, a storm arose, and a flash of lightning descended and struck both the victim and the attendant.35

The reference to the sunrise is important, since it was known that one could from the top of the mountain observe both day and night simultaneously. Finally, a word on the archaeology of Mount Kasion. Claude Schaeffer worked there briefly in 1937. He describes a heap of ashes on the summit, taken to be the result of repeated use for sacrificial cult,36 and reports coin evidence from the site which suggests extensive use in the Greek and Roman periods, though the coin evidence is not, so far as I am aware, published anywhere in detail. Schaeffer also found a temple below the remains of the Monastery of St Barlaam near the summit (1500 m), and coin evidence suggesting a date in the Seleucid/Ptolemaic period.37 The monastery was later explored by W. Djobadze (1986), who records stamped tiles bearing the name of Zeus Kasios.38 There are many uncertainties in the above, but, given the international and local religious significance of Mount Kasion, it is likely that it was meaningful also for Idrimi and his entourage. He landed at the mountain, his first step towards regaining his kingdom, a major landmark then as now, dominating the topography of Hatay, Antakya and Alalaḫ itself. After reading this paper at the Hatay conference, I was approached by participants with local knowledge who drew my attention to aspects of the visibility of Mount Kasion in the region. Most importantly, Stephen Batiuk, Field Director of Excavations at Tell Tayinat, kindly drew my attention to the fact that he had noticed (and mentioned in a conference paper at the November 2012 American Schools of Oriental Research meeting in Chicago) that the peak of Mount Kasion is visible on a clear day from the steps of Tell Tayinat’s Temple XIV (uncovered in 2008–2009 and possibly dedicated originally to Teshub, though later converted to the worship of Nabu). Tell Tayinat is, of course, adjacent to Alalaḫ and may even have been part of the same larger complex to which Alalaḫ itself belonged.39 It has also been noted that Mount Kasion is visible from Tell Afis in Syria, a fact which again suggests its regional significance.40

35

 Trans. Magie 1922, p. 45.  Schaeffer 1938, pp. 223–273; see also successive editions of the Blue Guide to Syria. 37  For photographs, see Schaeffer 1938, pl. xxxvi, fig. 51. 38  H. Seyrig published this evidence in Djobadze 1986, pp. 201–205. See also, recently, Aliquot 2015. 39  I am grateful to Dr. Batiuk for summarising for me this aspect of his ASOR paper and providing the details cited here. 40  Professor Stefania Mazzoni, another participant in the Hatay conference, drew my attention to the Tell Afis case: see Mazzoni 2013, specifically p. 204. The view of Mount Kasion from the acropolis of Tell Afis is clear in the splendid photograph by S. M. Cecchini, p. 206, fig. 2. 36

J. HEALEY

314 BIBLIOGRAPHY ALBRIGHT, W. F. 1950 ALIQUOT, J. 2015 ARNAUD, D. 1996 BORDREUIL, É. 2006 BORDREUIL, P. 1984 1991 CAQUOT, A. 1978–79

“Baal-Zephon,” in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet von Kollegen und Freunden, edited by W. Baumgartner, O. Eissfeldt, K. Elliger and L. Rost, pp. 1–14. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). “A Laodicean on Mount Casius,” in Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed: Continuity and Change, edited by M. Blömer, A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja, pp. 157–165. Turnhout: Brepols. “Études sur Alalah et Ougarit à l’âge du Bronze Récent,” Studi Micenei ed EgeoAnatolici 37: 47–65. “La montagne d’après les données textuelles d’Ougarit,” Res Antiquae 2: 179– 191. “Arrou Ǵourou et Ṣapanou: circonscriptions administratives et géographie mythique du royaume d’Ougarit,” Syria 61: 1–10. Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 7). Paris: Éditions Recherches sur Civilisation.

“Nouveaux textes ougaritiques de Ras Ibn Hani,” Annuaire du Collège de France 79: 481–491. CAQUOT, A., DE TARRAGON, J.-M. and CUNCHILLOS, J.-L. 1989 Textes Ougaritiques II: Textes Religieux, Rituels, Correspondance (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient). Paris: le Cerf. CHRISTENSEN-ERNST, J. 2012 Antioch on the Orontes: A History and Guide. Lanham: Hamilton Books. VON DASSOW, E. 2008 State and Society in the Late Bronze Age. Alalakh under the Mittani Empire (Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 17). Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. DIETRICH, M. and LORETZ, O. 1981 “Die Inschrift der Statue des Königs Idrimi von Alalaḫ,” Ugarit-Forschungen 13: 201–269. DIETRICH, M., LORETZ, O. and SANMARTÍN, J. 2013 Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten. Dritte erweiterte Auflage (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 360/1). Münster: UgaritVerlag. DIJKSTRA, M. 1987 “Marginalia to the Ugaritic Letters in KTU (I),” Ugarit-Forschungen 19: 37–48. DJOBADZE, W. Archeological Investigations in the Region West of Antioch on-the-Orontes. Stuttgart: 1986 Franz Steiner Verlag. DOWNEY, G. 1961 A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DURAND, J.-M. “La fondation d’une lignée royale syrienne. Le geste d’Idrimi d’Alalah,” in 2011 Le jeune héros: Recherches sur la formation et la diffusion d’un thème littéraire au Proche-Orient ancien (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 250), edited by J.-M. Durand, T. Römer and M. Langlois, pp. 94–150. Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

THE SACRED MOUNTAIN OF UGARIT AND ALALAḪ?

315

EISSFELDT, O. 1932 Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer (Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums 1). Halle (Saale): Max Niemeyer. GOETZE, A. 1940 “The city Khalbi and the Khapiru people,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 79: 32–34. GREENSTEIN, E. L. and MARCUS, D. 1976 “The Akkadian inscription of Idrimi,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 8: 59–96. HALLO, W. W. and YOUNGER, K. LAWSON (eds) 1996 The Context of Scripture I. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden: E. J. Brill. HEALEY, J. F. 1985 “The Akkadian ‘Pantheon’ List from Ugarit,” Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 2: 115–125. 1999 “Between the Aegean and the Near East — Ugarit as point of contact,” in ‘Schnittpunkt’ Ugarit (Nordostafrikanisch/Westasiatische Studien 2), edited by M. Kropp and A. Wagner, pp. 47–57. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. 2007 “From Ṣapānu/Ṣapunu to Kasion: The sacred history of a mountain,” in “He Unfurrowed His Brow and Laughed”. Essays in Honour of Professor Nicolas Wyatt (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 299), edited by W. G. E. Watson, pp. 141–151. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. HOFFNER, H. A. 1990 Hittite Myths (SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series 2). Atlanta: Scholars Press. JEFFREYS, E., JEFFREYS, M. and SCOTT, R. 1986 The Chronicle of John Malalas (Byzantina Australiensia 4). Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies. KLENGEL, H. 1981 “Historischer Kommentar zur Inschrift des Idrimi von Alalaḫ,” Ugarit-Forschungen 13: 269–278. KUHRT, A. 1995 The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC. London: Routledge. LACKENBACHER, S. 2002 Textes Akkadiens d’Ugarit. Textes provenant des vingt-cinq premières campagnes. Paris: le Cerf. LANE FOX, R. 2008 Travelling Heroes: Greeks and their Myths in the Epic Age of Homer. London: Allen Lane. LAUINGER, J. 2015 19 August. The Electronic Idrimi. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/aemw/alalakh/ idrimi/ (7 September 2015). LIPIŃSKI, E. 1981 “Aḫat-Milki, reine d’Ugarit, et la guerre du Mukiš,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 12: 79–115. LIVERANI, M. 1962 Storia di Ugarit nell’Età degli Archivi Politici (Studi Semitici 6). Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici. LONGMAN, T. III 1996 “The autobiography of Idrimi (1.148),” in The Context of Scripture I. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, edited by W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, pp. 479–480. Leiden: E. J. Brill. MAGIE, D. 1922 The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vol. I (Loeb Classical Library 263). London; New York: W. Heinemann; G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

316

J. HEALEY

MAZZONI, S. 2013 “Tell Afis: History and excavations,” Near Eastern Archaeology 76: 204–212. NOUGAYROL, J. Palais royal d’Ugarit IV (Mission de Ras Shamra 9). Paris: Imprimerie nationale. 1956 NOUGAYROL, J. and SCHAEFFER, C. F.-A. 1968 Ugaritica V. Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit: commentaire des textes historiques (première partie) (Mission de Ras Shamra 16). Paris: Imprimerie nationale. OLLER, G. H. 1977 The Autobiography of Idrimi: A New Text Edition. Unpublished Ph.D. diss. University of Pennsylvania. DEL OLMO LETE, G. 1999 “The offering lists and god lists,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/39), edited by W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 305– 352. Leiden: Brill. DEL OLMO LETE, G. and SANMARTÍN, J. 2004 Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. PARDEE, D. 1984 “Further studies in Ugaritic epistolography,” Archiv für Orientforschungen 31: 213–230. 2000 Les textes rituels I (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12). Paris: Éditions recherches sur les civilisations. PORTNOFF, A. 2006 “Casius, le mont sacré de la Méditerranée orientale,” Res Antiquae 2: 271–290. RAINEY, A. F. 1975 “More gleanings from Ugarit,” Israel Oriental Studies 5: 18–31. SAADÉ, G. 1979–80 “À la recherche des villes et des villages du royaume ougaritien,” Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 29–30: 215–230. SCHAEFFER, C. F.-A. 1938 “Les Fouilles de Ras-Shamra-Ugarit. Neuvième campagne (Printemps 1937). Rapport Sommaire,” Syria 19: 193–255. SINGER, I. 1999 “A political history of Ugarit,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/39), edited by W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt, pp. 603–733. Leiden: Brill. 2000 “Treaty between Muršili I and Duppi-Tešub (2.17B),” in The Context of Scripture II. Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, edited by W. W. Hallo, and K. L. Younger, pp. 96–98. Leiden: Brill. SMITH, S. 1949 The Statue of Idri-mi (Occasional publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 1). London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. VIROLLEAUD, C. 1957 Palais Royal d’Ugarit (Mission de Ras Shamra 7). Paris: Imprimerie nationale. WALCOT, P. 1966 Hesiod and the Near East. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. WISEMAN, D. J. 1953 The Alalakh Tablets (Occasional publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2). London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. WYATT, N. 1998 Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

John HEALEY University of Manchester

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT – TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE HITTITE EXPANSION AND DISSOLUTION Federico MANUELLI ABSTRACT* Despite the differences in their geographical locations and cultural contexts, the sites of Alalakh and Arslantepe were both involved in the interaction network of the Late Bronze Age kingdoms and early empires. The historical events that affected the regions of south and southeastern Anatolia during the second half of the second millennium BC have especially left their imprint in the archaeological record of the two sites. This paper presents an overview of fortification systems and settlement management, luxury goods and iconography, as well as pottery production and glyptic material from Alalakh Periods 3-0 and Arslantepe IV-III, in order to analyse how these sites reacted to the impact of the expansion of the Hittite Empire and also how they developed after the collapse of the centralised polity, during a time frame stretching between 1400 and 1100 BC. The comparison offers new insights into the complexity of cross-cultural relations in the framework of imperial expansion and demise.

AN

IMPERIAL NETWORK AND ITS DISRUPTION

In the introduction of the first volume dedicated to the results of the renewed excavations at Tell Atchana, in the framework of early empires’ expansionist mechanisms, Aslıhan Yener poses the following question: “What are the archaeological cognates of empire?”1 The aim of this contribution is to explore this matter, offering an overview of the elements of the archaeological record that can be considered to be indicators of the materialisation of practices of power and forms of imperial expansion.2 The analysis focuses on Tell Atchana/Alalakh and Arslantepe/Malitya by comparing the evidence of the impact of Hittite material culture from these sites. Although characterised by remarkable differences, Alalakh and Arslantepe were both affected by the Hittite expansionist policy and, in specific phases of their history, were tangibly a part of Ḫatti. This chapter aims at stressing similarities and differences at the two sites, in order to provide a

* Acknowledgements: I wish to express my gratitude to Aslihan Yener for having given me the possibility to celebrate 15 years of excavations and research at Alalakh and for the support she had constantly offered me during the productive period I spent as a senior fellow at RCAC Koç University. Many people have offered advice, provided references and dedicated time for the realization of this article. I would particularly thank Mara Horowitz and Hasan Peker for the ideas and information they have kindly shared with me and Stefano de Martino, Nathalie Kallas and Dirk Paul Mielke for their suggestions to improve the final version of this text. Unless specified, images from Arslantepe are from the project´s archive (©Missione Archeologica Italiana in Anatolia Orientale). 1  Yener 2010, pp. 5–6. 2  For a discussion of the topic, see Matthews 2003, pp. 127–132.

F. MANUELLI

318

better comprehension of the complexity of Hittite cultural influence and political management in the southern and southeastern peripheries of the empire. Hittite imperial administration and territorial control beyond the central Anatolian plateau is a matter that nowadays is still difficult to define, since textual-historical sources supply only scattered information concerning management outside the Hittite homeland.3 Particularly rich instead is the documentation from Syrian archives, although this mostly shows aspects linked with local institutions and traditions.4 Remarkable insights into the topic can be drawn from the analysis of material culture, which provides valuable clues for the reconstruction of the various aspects of ancient societies. Changes in cultural traits, such as the arrival of new artefacts and the adoption of previously unknown means of production, as well as the introduction of foreign architectural layouts and techniques, can indeed be the result of external influences.5 Moreover, the materialisation of social distinction and the legitimisation of power, such as the erection of large-scale public works and high-profile projects, as well as the ostentation of new prestige and symbolic goods, can specifically reflect the emergence of new dominant groups and their need to display their social status.6 In this framework, several recent studies have focused on analysing the expression of political power and its manifestation in specific vehicles; for example, landscape management, iconography, ceremonial behaviours and monumentality.7 In the specific case of the expansion of the Hittite Empire, the intertwining material and textual evidence has recently been analysed to shed light on modes of imperial-local interaction.8 The examination of the weight of Hittite influence in the archaeological records of Alalakh and Arslantepe offers the possibility to better comprehend the relationships between the Hittite motherland and its borderlands. It furthermore allows us to inspect the differences in the interaction between the two sites and the imperial system and how each site developed after that system’s decay, improving our understanding of extra-regional relationships and the degree of centralised control.

ALALAKH VS. ARSLANTEPE DURING

THE

14TH–12TH

CENTURIES BC

The mounds of Tell Atchana and Arslantepe are separated by more than 400 km of road (Fig. 1). Tell Atchana is on a strategic passageway between Anatolia and Syria and, due to its connection to the sea via the Orontes River, belonged to a dynamic environment where the eastern Mediterranean and northern Mesopotamian cultures merged.9 On the other 3  See van den Hout (2012, pp. 44–47) and also the overview provided by Bryce (2011, pp. 89–97), with related bibliographies. 4  For a reconstruction of the development of the Hittite administration in Syria, see d´’Alfonso (2011, pp. 173–174). See Cohen (2009, pp. 13–18) and Neu (1995) for Emar and Ugarit, respectively. 5  See Gramsch 2015 for a wide discussion on the topic. 6  Daloz 2007, pp. 27–28. 7  See Casana 2013, Bonatz 2007, Gilibert 2011 and Osborne 2014, respectively. 8  See Glatz 2009. 9  Yener 2005, pp. 1–4.

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

319

Fig. 1. Map of the Anatolia plateau and northern Syria showing the places mentioned in the text.

hand, Arslantepe is the most important site in the Upper Euphrates region: it stands in the fluvial plain between the Taurus and the Anti-Taurus chains, a border zone where a variety of influences from the central Anatolian, Syro-Mesopotamian and Transcaucasian worlds converged.10 Routes and communication networks are essential in this scenario. The Amuq Valley and the Malatya Plain are both regions framed by highlands, but in both cases, they are accessible from the Hittite homeland through strategic passages. The Cilician Gates permit crossing the Taurus piedmont into Cilicia southwards, then proceeding through the Belen pass, which gives direct access through the Amanus range to the Amuq Valley.11 On the other hand, the small valleys south of the eastern part of the Kızılırmak River bend allow connections with the Kuru Çay and the Tohma Çay flows, reaching the northeastern part of the Malatya plain.12 The geographical location of the two sites, in regions standing between different natural and cultural environments, allowed over the centuries a spontaneous interaction with the surrounding regions and the penetration of foreign influences that merged with aspects of local traditions.

10

 Frangipane and Liverani 2013, pp. 349–350.  Gates 2013, pp. 96–97. 12  Ökse 2000, pp. 110–111. 11

320

F. MANUELLI

Field activities at Alalakh and Arslantepe have followed different paths, although with a common line of development. While excavations at Alalakh were fully interrupted for around 50 years after the expeditions of Sir C. Leonard Woolley, at Arslantepe, investigations have been continuously carried on by the Italian Expedition since 1961, after the c. 20 year break following the activities conducted at the site by Louis Delaporte.13 Research on the second millennium BC levels of Arslantepe was neglected due to the extraordinary findings belonging to the late-prehistoric phases, and has only recently resumed after almost 40 years.14 Although with notable distinctions, the renewed activities at both sites faced the enormous and sometimes insurmountable difficulty of anchoring the exceptional discoveries brought to light in the past within the reliable new sequences executed with modern methodologies. Historically, interest in controlling the two cities and their territories started at the time of the Old Hittite Kingdom, towards the end of the 17th century BC. Military expeditions in the Upper Euphrates are attested from the reign of Ḫattušili I, who states that he conquered and destroyed Alalakh.15 It was not until the military campaigns of Šuppiluliuma I that Alalakh and Arslantepe started to firmly orbit Hittite power. The conquest of Išuwa allowed the Great King to move down the Euphrates towards the lower territories, subjugating Karkemiš and northern Syria.16 The treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Šattiwaza provides information concerning the fate of northwestern Syria after these events, testifying to a transfer of the territories west of the Euphrates, including Alalakh, from Mitanni to Ḫatti.17 Moreover, cuneiform documents from Alalakh provide interesting clues about a direct connection between the Hittite sovereigns and those who governed the city, especially during the late 14th century BC.18 As for the Malatya region, it seems to have been assimilated into the Hittite Empire after the conquest of Išuwa.19 Nonetheless, the political situation remained unclear, and it seems probable that the territory was managed by the Hittites concurrently with local groups, as a frontier area.20 Indeed, the toponym Malitya is attested in a few tablets from Boǧazköy, always in connection with revolts and invasions in the region.21 These emerging different situations are a consequence of the dissimilar value conferred by the Hittites upon controlling these distinct regions. Their attention was primarily directed southeastwards, where establishing connections and communication roads with Syria and Mesopotamia was essential, while eastwards their interest was restricted to managing the frontier with the Mitannian and the Middle Assyrian powers. These historical and geographical circumstances are reflected in specific ways in the material culture from Alalakh and Arslantepe. The phases characterised by the highest visibility 13

 Delaporte 1940.  For old and new projects at Alalakh and Arslantepe, see Yener 2014 and Frangipane and Liverani 2013, pp. 349–353, respectively. 15  See de Martino 2010, p. 91; 2003, p. 125. 16  Torri 2007, pp. 236–237; van Exel 2010, p. 65. 17  See von Dassow 2008, pp. 62–64. 18  See Niedeorf 2002, pp. 521–524; von Dassow 2005, pp. 29–30. 19  See Glocker 2011, pp. 267–273. 20  Liverani 2004, pp. 162–163. 21  De Martino 2012, pp. 375–376. 14

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

321

Fig. 2. Sequences at Alalakh (left, courtesy of M. Horowitz) and Arslantepe (right). The grey rows indicate the periods focused on in the text.

of Hittite influence at the sites are the topic of this analysis (Fig. 2). Earlier stages, representing the genesis of this phenomenon, and later ones, following the collapse of the centralised polity, will also be taken into account. The study of the emergence in the archaeological records of Hittite influence, the peak of its impact, and the moment following its demise, is essential for the reconstruction of the development of relationships between the central Anatolian power and its peripheral territories during its expansion and after its dissolution.

ARCHITECTURE

AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS: A COMPLEX MERGING OF INFLUENCES

Architectural remains provide interesting cases of local adaptation of foreign layouts. Monumental and public building construction requires enormous inputs of labour and material, as well as planning, management and organisation. It consequently represents an expression of power by elites, displaying the capacity to realise specific massive projects.22 At Arslantepe, around the second half of the 17th century BC (late-Period VB1), an earthen rampart, consisting of dumped layers of clayey soil and stone packing, was erected to surround a great part of the mound (Fig. 3). The date of its construction is uncertain, since organic samples used for radiometric analyses, as well as material culture, have been found exclusively in association with structures connected with its final destruction, dated to the 15th century BC.23 At Alalakh, a huge step-faced rampart, built with earth and clay, also enclosed at least part of the settlement (Fig. 4). Its original plan is unknown but, 22

 See Heinz 2006, pp. 136–138.  Manuelli 2013, pp. 41–45, 404–406.

23

322

F. MANUELLI

Fig. 3. Arslantepe, the trench dug inside the late-Period VB1 earthen rampart.

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

Fig. 4. Alalakh, the trench dug inside the Period 7 earthen rampart. After Woolley 1955, pl. XXXIa.

323

324

F. MANUELLI

Fig. 5. Arslantepe, the early-Period VB2 gateway.

according to Woolley, it was re-arranged and widened several times, certainly from Levels VII to V, while its presence in the later Levels III-I is debatable.24 Along the top of these ramparts, a high mudbrick wall would have been built. The improvement of the defensibility of the settlements by elevating the base of the fortifications is known from some monumental cases in Hittite centres.25 Yet this arrangement of urban enclosures with earthen ramparts is an architectural device typical of the Levant and Syria, widely diffused from the Middle Bronze Age up to the mid-16th century BC.26 The strength of central Anatolian models is, however, clearly visible in structures incorporated into the city walls. The Arslantepe rampart was provided, probably during the first half of the 16th century BC (early-Period VB2), with a gateway that especially finds comparisons with the Hittite Imperial period.27 This gateway is embedded in the earthen embankment and consists of a large doorway flanked by protruding bipartite towers with mudbrick walls on stone foundations (Fig. 5). A more monumental and magnificent example of this architectural prototype has also been found at Alalakh Level VII.28 It consists of a tri-compartment gateway with massive protruding rectangular towers embedded in the earthen rampart.29 Recent campaigns in the area of Kesikkaya at Boǧazköy date the appearance of this type of architectural layout to the early 16th century BC, thus compatible with its adoption in the eastern and southeastern Hittite frontiers.30

24

 Woolley 1955, pp. 133–134, 137, 139, 144–145, 155.  See Mielke 2011a, p. 180. 26  See Burke 2008, p. 84 and Manuelli 2013, pp. 404–405 with references. 27  Manuelli 2013, pp. 41–45, 404–406. See a discussion in Mielke 2011b, pp. 91–95. 28  Woolley 1955, pp. 147–150, fig. 55, pl. XXIXa. 29  Dardeniz 2016, pp. 32–33, 40–41. 30  See Schachner 2012, pp. 97–99. 25

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

325

Moving to later phases, during the second half of the 14th century BC, Alalakh (Period 2) is marked by the fortification of the city with mudbrick fortresses, wherein multiple influences are reflected (Fig. 6).31 The Northern Fortress is an imposing defensive building (possibly never completed) erected on a large platform that incorporates casemate-style voids filled with rubble. The Southern Fortress is a solid construction reinforced by double walls with casemate chambers. From the point of view of their general layout, these fortresses resemble the typical administrative structures that were widespread in the Hittite homeland, characterised by assemblies of individual buildings connected by courts and using casemate-wall techniques and buttresses.32 However, it is important to stress that the tradition of building fortress-like structures integrated into the line of defence or as free-standing bastions set atop of mounds belongs to the military facilities of the Middle Bronze Age in the Syro-Palestinian region.33 In any case, the characteristics of the Alalakh fortresses, such as their multi-chambered arrangement and the use of mudbrick foundation platforms, clash with both the modular massive layout of the Syro-Levantine standard and the Hittite building tradition. Murat Akar has thus recently suggested a relationship with the Egyptian military fortresses established in the Levant.34 At a final Late Bronze Age stage, during late-Period IV at Arslantepe, dated to the 13th century BC, a new gate system was built (Fig. 7). Its layout, with a double-chambered gateway, is known from central Anatolian examples.35 However, once again, the arrangement is atypical, since the gateway, instead of being associated with a distinctive casemate wall, is connected with a single large mudbrick wall with a stone foundation.36 Its outline appears thus similar to the early-phase gateway of the “Burnt Level” at Tille Höyük, which has, however, recently been dated to a time following the Hittite collapse.37 The above-mentioned examples illustrate the variety of influences evident in monumental and public architecture, wherein typical Hittite layouts are adopted but, at the same time, merged with Syro-Levantine technologies. Some final hints for a better diachronic understanding of this phenomenon can be provided by taking into account the development of the two sites at the end of the Bronze Age. At Arslantepe, the southern part of the mound starts to be gradually abandoned and used exclusively for waste disposal after the destruction of the Period VB2 settlement, at around the end of the 15th century BC. As a consequence, the town fortification wall of the 13th century BC surrounds only a restricted part of the mound, stressing a definitive change of the settlement modality: from an urban small-sized town to a fortified military Hittite outpost.38

31

 See Akar 2013, pp. 42–46.  See the Hittite administrative buildings excavated at Maşat Höyük, Alaca Höyük and Ortaköy in the synthesis provided by Mielke (2011a, pp. 163–166), with relevant bibliographical references. 33  See Benati and Zaina 2013, pp. 16–26. 34  Akar 2013, pp. 46–50. 35  See the “Southern Gate” at Büyükkale in Bittel and Naumann (1952, Abb. 22). 36  See Manuelli 2013, pp. 32–34, 47–48, 406 with relevant bibliographical references. 37  Summers 2013, pp. 317–319. 38  Manuelli 2013, pp. 406–409. 32

326

F. MANUELLI

Fig. 6. Alalakh, the Period 2 Hittite Fortresses. After Yener and Akar 2014, p. 265, fig. 1.

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

327

Fig. 7. Arslantepe, the late-Period IV gateway. After the excavations (above) and after the cleaning of the area in 2010 (below).

The cusp of the 13th century BC signals an even more dramatic reorganisation and drastic change at Alalakh, marked by the new arrangement of the Ishtar Temple. It is followed by the almost complete abandonment of the settlement, with the exception of the temple itself and its immediate surroundings.39 The consequences of the above-mentioned changes are visible in the fate of both sites during the 12th century BC. Continuity of the Hittite citadel is attested at Arslantepe during Period IIIA, through a succession of new city walls that overlap the destruction level

39

 Yener 2013, pp. 18–19.

F. MANUELLI

328

of the Late Bronze Age II gateway.40 The continuation of the sequence, even if on a more modest scale, has been recently underlined also at Alalakh, where remains of residential architecture attest to a 12th–9th century BC use of the area near the temple.41

FIGURATIVE

RELIEFS AND PRESTIGE OBJECTS: INSIGHTS INTO HITTITE ROYALTY AND

POLITICAL AUTHORITY

The merging of local and foreign influences that appears in monumental architecture is probably connected to the fact that the buildings had to deal with specific utilitarian parameters, as well as geographical and environmental aspects, besides being an expression of the authority of the elites commissioning their creation. On the other hand, monumental art, considering its central role in public ceremonies, represents the full expression of a political power, supporting its ideology and contributing strategically to the consolidation of authority.42 The iconography of Hittite monumental art and its related ideology represents the most intriguing form of continuity of a Late Bronze Age tradition into the post-Hittite era. The weight and importance of the memory of the past is perfectly attested at Arslantepe by the presence of the figurative bas-reliefs re-used in the 8th century BC “Lions Gate”.43 The dating and original location of these reliefs have been long debated by scholars.44 In light of the new excavations and discoveries at the site, it is now possible to assert, with a certain margin of confidence, that at least some of these sculptures should be originally associated with the previously described Period IIIA and the 12th–11th century BC fortified citadel.45 The libation in front of the gods, as well as the rest of the religious themes depicted in the reliefs, follow an iconography attested during the Hittite Imperial period. The StormGod is the deity most frequently represented on the reliefs (Fig. 8). In the most renowned of them, he drives his eagle-chariot drawn by bulls, following a model well known from several types of media belonging to the Hittite heritage, from rock-monuments to seal impressions, and from ritual to luxury goods.46 The Arslantepe reliefs clearly evoke the existence of trends deliberately linked to the past, but why did this form of art develop at the site only during the post-Hittite era? The answer can be found in the geo-political circumstances characterising the site during the Hittite period. On one hand, its location, at the eastern frontier of the empire, did not render it worth the employment of workforces and expertise to build an appropriate ideological apparatus; while on the other, the absence of a local lineage of powerful elites meant that there was no favourable environment for the development of autonomist and self-celebratory 40

 Liverani 2012, pp. 336–338.  Yener 2013, pp. 11, 20. 42  See De Marrais et al. 1996, pp. 15–19. 43  See the classification provided by Orthmann (1971, pp. 91–100, 519–523). 44  The most up-to-date assessments are provided by Hawkins (2000, pp. 282–329) and Mazzoni (1997, pp. 310–318). 45  Manuelli 2016, pp. 28–29. 46  See Ehringhaus 2005, pp. 72–76, Abb. 133–136; Herbordt et al. 2011, pp. 60–61, Taf. 19, 57; Seeher 2007. See also Gilibert 2011, pp. 116–117. 41

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

329

Fig. 8. Arslantepe, “Lions Gate” relief K (approximate scale 1:6). After Delaporte 1940, pl. XXIV.

tendencies in art. It was only after the demise of Hittite authority that the new emerging ruling class had the need to legitimise their power, linking themselves with the prestigious memory of Hittite royalty. Completely different is the case of the bas-relief of Prince Tutḫaliya found at Alalakh, reused face-down, as part of the entryway of the Ishtar Temple in Period 1.47 Its original location is associated with the previous late-14th century BC phase of the temple’s cella itself, at the time of Great King Muršili II, according to a number of historical synchronisms recently corroborated by the discovery at the site of the new Tutḫaliya-Ašnuhepa seal.48 On the slab, Tutḫaliya is represented walking, followed by his wife and an attendant (Fig. 9). The gesture of adoration of the main figure, raising his fist with thumb forward as a form of greeting to the god, is identical to the one used by the Hittite kings on the reliefs at the “Sphinx Gate” at Alaca Höyük and at Sirkeli 1. According to Dominik Bonatz, the typical iconography of Hittite royalty was used in this context by the high-official regent at Alalakh, probably to demonstrate his respect for Hittite authority itself.49 It seems nonetheless difficult to disconnect the meaning of the relief from its final destiny. Why was this symbol of political power disregarded and subjected to a pure act of damnatio memoriae such a short time after its creation?50 It is of course not easy to determine whether this action of political iconoclasm was committed by the Hittites, locals governed by the Hittites, or locals rejecting Hittite control. The assumption of the transfer of the Hittite governor to another site, based on the fact that the settlement was abandoned during the 13th century BC, does not in any case imply a retraction of the Hittites’ authority from the Amuq region. This suggests that the disrespectful reuse of the slab is not likely

47

 Woolley 1955, pp. 241–242, pl. 48.  Yener 2013, pp. 18–19; Yener et al. 2014. 49  Bonatz 2007, pp. 131–132. 50  See Goedegebuure 2012, pp. 427–429 on the topic. 48

330

F. MANUELLI

Fig. 9. Alalakh, Prince Tutḫaliya relief (approximate scale 1:10). After Woolley 1955, pl. XLVIIIa.

attributable to locals celebrating the departure of the Hittite overlord, but more probably to an act of disapproval by the Great King of Ḫatti himself, concerning the actions of Tutḫaliya.51 The early dating of the relief, to the reign of Muršili II, also seems to support this hypothesis. It is recognised that the relief of Muwatalli II at Sirkeli is the first monumental representation of any Hittite sovereign.52 Indeed, very few reliefs carved on a stone block can be dated prior to the 13th century BC, taking into consideration the current inability of research to provide the “Sphinx Gate” at Alaca Höyük with a definitive chronological assessment.53 The Tutḫaliya relief at Alalakh seems thus to testify that the local dignitaries had already acquired, during the late-14th century BC, the symbols representative of the power of the monarchy in Ḫattuša.54 In light of these arguments, one can highlight

51

 See Niedorf 2002, pp. 521–524 and de Martino 2010, pp. 93–94 for further discussion.  Ehringhaus 2005, pp. 95–99. 53  Two fragmentary figurative blocks at Büyükkale seem to have been reused in a building dated to the 15th–14th century BC (Emre 2002, p. 219), while reliefs found in the 13th century BC Level 2 at Kayalıpınar are supposed to have been originally located in earlier structures (Müller-Karpe 2009, pp. 113–114). Moreover, different carved blocks coming from Ortaköy have been found incorporated into buildings dated to the Middle Hittite Kingdom (Süel 2009, pp. 193–194, 202–205). See also the synthesis provided by Gilibert (2015, pp. 137–138) about this topic. Regarding the reliefs from Alaca Höyük see, among the most recent discussions, Taracha (2011, pp. 142–147) with relevant bibliographical references. 54  In this framework, it is important to note that in the evolution of the landscape of Hittite monuments recently formulated by Glatz and Plourde (2011, pp. 56–57) using a Costly Signaling Theory approach, the monuments’ construction appears to have started as a strategy not of Hittite great kings, but of princes and officials. 52

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

331

the theory that the king of Ḫatti himself did not appreciate the self-adulation of the state official (by means of the relief) and ordered its removal, condemning it to rapid oblivion.55 Linked to the concept of the manifestation of power is also the circulation of specific metal artefacts, since prestigious items and ceremonial weapons can embed noteworthy symbolic values and testify to the exchange or movement of goods, as well as to emulation between elites.56 At Alalakh, several examples of ritual metal weapons were found by Woolley’s expedition.57 A very interesting object is the three-spiked shaft-hole axe that was found during the new excavations below the topsoil above the Southern Fortress (Fig. 10). It can be compared with a similar specimen of a shaft-hole axe brought to light at Arslantepe from one of the debris layers above the destruction of the Period VB gateway (Fig. 11). The two objects probably embody similar symbolic values of royal expression, despite the evident differences in the details of their execution and decoration.58 Based on comparisons with examples from mainly the central Anatolian world, both weapons can be easily dated to the 14th–13th century BC, and their small dimensions seem to indicate a ceremonial use. This is especially emphasised when taking into consideration the most renowned example of this type of axe, which is the weapon in the hand of the God-warrior carved at the “King’s Gate” at Boǧazköy.59 As has been underlined by Yener, there is no doubt that these objects, considered to be the personal property of a god, represent the materialisation of religious and royal aspects connected with supernatural powers.60

SEAL AND POTTERY

PRODUCTION: SYMBOLS OF POWER AND MARKS OF CONTROL

Similarly to monumental reliefs, seals are also bearers of symbols used to diffuse royal ideology. Furthermore, seals represent the political apparatus, as well as its management mechanisms, through visual media.61 The presence of an interesting quantity of biconvex Hittite-style seals, often bearing hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions, is attested from Arslantepe Period IV and Alalakh Periods 3-1, reflecting practices of Hittite administration and control at the sites between the 14th and 13th centuries BC (Figs. 12–13). It is especially their association with incised names and titles known from Hittite archives that emphasises the possible presence of officials, probably coming from the capital or from Karkemiš, involved in activities of management and control.62

55

 See de Martino 2010, p. 94.  See Yener 2011, pp. 269–270. 57  For the most significant objects, see Woolley 1955, p. 276, pl. LXX: AT/36/4, AT/39/305. 58  For description and comparisons, see Yener 2011, pp. 266–270 and Manuelli 2013, pp. 216–218, respectively. 59  See Lorenz and Schrakamp 2011, pp. 127–138. 60  Yener 2011, pp. 269–270. See also the contribution provided by Yener in this volume. 61  Mora 2014, pp. 435–436. 62  For Arslantepe, see Mora (2013, pp. 266–270). For Alalakh, see Woolley (1955, pp. 266–267, pl. LXVII: 155–157, 159, 161) concerning the old excavations and Dinçol (1983, pp. 200–201, 205–206, Taf. XX, XXVI) for seals possibly from Alalakh. 56

332

F. MANUELLI

Fig. 10. Alalakh, three-spiked shaft-hole axe from Period 2. After Yener 2011, 267, fig. 26.1.

Fig. 11. Arslantepe, shaft-hole axe from early-Period IV.

The use of biconvex seals is also attested during the 12th century BC in some of the provincial areas of the previous Hittite imperial peripheries. Within this category, a series of examples, produced in the Euphrates region, Cilicia and northern Syria, depict stylised figures and signs vaguely similar to hieroglyphs, as a sort of imitation of the earlier inscribed specimens, which have been interpreted as an “unintelligible” or “degenerative” evolution of hieroglyphic signs.63 Their occurrence at both Arslantepe and Alalakh testify to a continuity in the use of administrative practices, but also a possible loss of at least part of the associated symbolic meaning.64 63

 Mazzoni 2013, p. 575.  See Mora (2013, pp. 264–266) and Woolley (1955, pp. 266–267, pl. LXVII: 158, 160) for Arslantepe and Alalakh, respectively. 64

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

333

Fig. 12. Arslantepe, selection of biconvex Hittite-style seals from Period IV.

Fig. 13. Alalakh, selection of biconvex Hittite-style seals from Periods 3-1 (approximate scale 1:2). After Woolley 1955, pl. LXVII: 155, 156, 161.

Concerning this last issue, a noteworthy similarity exists between the development of seals and pottery production in the last centuries of the second millennium BC. During the 14th–13th century BC, the peripheral areas under Hittite control have in common the widespread use of standardised and mass-produced central Anatolian pottery types, usually defined by the term “drab ware”.65 Despite the inconsistency in the definition of “drab ware” — that is, the total lack of uniformity in its description and the fact that its characteristics correspond to the most generic traits of the pottery produced during the second half of the second millennium BC in the whole Near Eastern area — a close relationship between mass-produced ceramic shapes and political presence is usually assumed.66 Interpretations of the economic and administrative system have been built around this phenomenon, mostly with the (perhaps overly) ambitious aim of associating the spread of standardised artefacts to a single “model” of diffusion.67 65

 See Gates 2011, pp. 396–399.  See Pucci 2013, p. 100; Archi and Venturi 2012, pp. 9–13. 67  See discussion in Manuelli 2013, pp. 401–403. 66

334

F. MANUELLI

On the other hand, Arslantepe and Alalakh are just two examples illustrating how archaeological evidence is actually highly heterogeneous. The Hittite expansion at Alalakh during Period 2 seems to be exclusively associated with the presence of miniature vessels, pointed juglets, lentoid flasks and round-bottomed plates (Fig. 14).68 At Arslantepe, the central Anatolian component of the Period IV pottery horizon is, on the contrary, quite remarkable and noticeable especially in open shapes. Two important aspects can be observed: first, the importance of the local repertoire in this period is still widely visible, specifically through necked cooking pots and jars that are, in general, almost totally unknown in the Hittite inventory; and second, central Anatolian types were already abundant at the site during the 16th century BC, with the percentages increasing over time from Period VB to IV (Fig. 15).69 The comparison between Alalakh and Arslantepe is useful to illustrate how the intensity of the spread and the overlapping of central Anatolian pottery shapes in the peripheries is a highly complex and multifaceted phenomenon that can hardly be associated with the adoption of a restricted range of supposed diagnostic shapes or with a unique “model” of management. During the post-Hittite period, different levels of continuity in the conservation of the Late Bronze Age pottery production can be observed. The Alalakh Period 0 pottery horizon is characterised by a bulk of Early Iron Age ceramics with both a strong continuity from the advanced Late Bronze Age local tradition and imported or locally made Mycenaean wares.70 At Arslantepe, the comparison between the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age assemblages has revealed that some typical central Anatolian standardised and mass-produced pottery types were continuously produced until the end of the second millennium BC. Moreover, this continuity is combined with a decrease in the number of pottery shapes and a deterioration in the technical level compared with the Late Bronze Age assemblage, testifying to significant quantitative and qualitative changes in the processes of production.71

CONCLUDING

REMARKS: A DIACHRONIC OVERVIEW

The examination of the archaeological records taken into account deserves a final diachronic discussion, in order to sum up the compared features in a synthesised perspective (Fig. 16). Imperial expansion and control have been underlined through the analysis of cultural influences and the materialisation of Hittite political power evident at the sites of Alalakh and Arslantepe. Despite several similarities, the mechanisms of management at the two sites are deeply divergent. Indeed, Alalakh seems to be more involved in forms of emulation of royal prestige and the manifestation of the power of kingship than in an actual adoption of the means 68

 Yener 2013, pp. 17–18; Horowitz 2015, pp. 170–172.  Manuelli 2013, pp. 409–410. 70  Yener 2013, p. 20. See also the contributions presented in this volume by Marina Pucci and Mariacarmela Montesanto. 71  See Manuelli 2016, pp. 30–32 for a wider discussion on the topic. 69

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

Fig. 14. Alalakh, selection of the pottery assemblage from Period 2. Adapted from Yener 2013, p. 32, fig. 6: 4–7.

Fig. 15. Arslantepe, selection of pottery assemblage from Period IV.

Fig. 16. Diachronic table taking into consideration the topics discussed in the text.

335

336

F. MANUELLI

of production and administration that are, on the contrary, evident at Arslantepe. This difference is probably due to the fact that Arslantepe was subjected to actual Hittite “political control,” required by the nature of the settlement and its strategic location for monitoring Hurrian and Assyrian movements, while the Hittite relationship with Alalakh reflects the city’s “political power,” given its religious importance as a result of its cultural proximity to Karkemiš and Aleppo. New data from Alalakh shows that during at least the late 14th century BC, the site was governed by high officials resident in the city, with wide-ranging responsibility over the surrounding territory. Their lineage possibly derived from the Aleppo dynasty and, as a result, they may have been directly related to the royal family at Ḫattuša.72 The governor that ruled Alalakh was thus directly linked to Hittite royalty and used his lineage for a full expression of his power, which was exerted over a population still entrenched in its own means of production. On the contrary, texts from Boǧazköy suggest that authority at Arslantepe was in the hands of indigenous groups, administratively supported by Hittite officials.73 Indeed, the high number of standardised and mass-produced central Anatolian pottery shapes and the presence of Hittite-style biconvex seals attest to the presence of a limited number of individuals, probably public officials and artisans, that moved, even if temporarily, from the homeland to the Malatya plain. If the 13th century BC represents at Arslantepe the development of the above-mentioned system, at Alalakh it brings a drastic reshaping. At Arslantepe, we are aware that the increasing centralisation of the governmental nucleus, with the abandonment of part of the mound and the creation of a military outpost, and the surge in the use of Hittite-style biconvex seals and pottery types are a result of Hittite anxiety regarding the Assyrian threat along the eastern border of the empire. The reasons behind the abandonment of a greater part of the settlement at Alalakh are instead more enigmatic. The whole of that archaeological record attests to a sort of retreat of Hittite government from the site. The presence of seals, among which are the well-known examples belonging to the “Country Lord[s]” Paluwa and Pilukatuha, along with the sporadic occurrence of Hittite-style pottery shapes, are signs that, despite the possible relocation of Hittite governance somewhere not far from the city, some form of continuity existed, probably in association with the settlement’s religious prestige.74 These events evolve during the 12th century BC. Domestic remains associated with local and foreign Early Iron Age wares indicate continuity and change at Alalakh, but also a definitive rupture with the magnificence of the past. Completely different is the fate of Arslantepe. Here the ruling class, either the successors of the small group of Hittite administrators of the city in the previous centuries or the members of the Hittite elites that migrated from central Anatolia after the collapse of the empire, used the ideological vehicles preserved from the former polity, as well as their links to the Karkemiš kingship’s genealogy, to find legitimation of their own authority.  Yener et al. 2014.  Manuelli 2013, pp. 413–418. 74  Yener 2013, pp. 18–19. 72 73

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

337

In conclusion, in the framework of the Hittite Empire’s expansion and dissolution, the current picture seems to be anything but consistent. The main impact of Hittite material culture at Alalakh and Arslantepe is manifested in different phases of the history of the sites, in different ways and with different intensities. The 16th–15th centuries BC show that the Hittite component is already clearly visible at Arslantepe, especially through the presence of pottery types and architectural layouts, although these are merged with a variety of influences, while at Alalakh it is less perceptible. During the second half of the 14th century BC, Alalakh is instead an important governmental centre, wherein the Hittite domain seems to be especially related to its religious role. Nonetheless, in the 13th century BC, Alalakh sees its role within the mechanisms of the imperial management interrupted, or at least abruptly reduced, while Arslantepe acquires the position of an important military epicentre, with evidence of Hittite control over the means of production and administration, displaying a continuous development of the site after the collapse of the centralised power.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AKAR, M. 2013

“The Late Bronze Age fortresses at Alalakh: Architecture and identity in Mediterranean exchange systems”, in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1, 2010, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 37–60. Leuven: Peeters. ARCHI, A. and VENTURI, F. 2012 “Hittites at Tell Afis (Syria),” Orientalia 81: 1–55. BENATI, G. and ZAINA, F. 2013 “A Late Bronze Age I fortress at Taşlı Geçit Höyük and the defensive architecture of Anatolia and Northern Levant during the 2nd millennium BC,” OCNUS – Quaderni della Scuola di Specializzazione in Beni Archeologici 21: 9–30. BITTEL, K. and NAUMANN, R. 1952 Architektur, Topographie, Landeskunde und Siedlungsgeschichte (Boǧazköy - Hattuša: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. BONATZ, D. 2007 “The divine image of the king: Religious representation of political power in the Hittite Empire,” in Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East, edited by M. Heinz and M. H. Feldman, pp. 111–136. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. BRYCE, T. R. 2011 “Hittite state and society,” in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, edited by H. Genz and D. P. Mielke, pp. 85–98. Leuven: Peeters. BURKE, A. A. 2008 “Walled Up to Heaven”: The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. CASANA, J. 2013 “Settlement, territory, and the political landscape of Late Bronze Age polities in the Northern Levant,” Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 22/1: 107–125. COHEN, Y. 2009 Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

338

F. MANUELLI

D´’ALFONSO, L. 2011 “Seeking a political space: Thoughts on the formative stage of Hittite administration in Syria,” Altorientalische Forschungen 38: 163–176. DALOZ, J.-P. 2007 “Elite distinction: Grand theory and comparative perspectives,” Comparative Sociology 6: 27–74. DARDENIZ, G. 2016 “Cultic symbolism at the city gates: Two metal foundation pegs from Tell Atchana, Alalakh (Turkey),” Adalya – The Annual of the Suna & Inan Kıraç Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations 19: 31–50. DELAPORTE, L. 1940 Malatya: fouilles de la mission archéologique française. Arslantepe, La Porte des Lions. Paris: De Boccard. DE MARRAIS, E., CASTILLO, L. J. and EARLE, T. 1996 “Ideology, materialization and power strategies,” Current Anthropology 37: 15–31. DE MARTINO, S. 2003 Annali e Res gestae antico ittiti. Pavia: Italian University Press. 2010 “Symbols of power in the Late Hittite Kingdom,” in Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer, edited by Y. Cohen, A. Gilan and J. L. Miller, pp. 87–98. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz. 2012 “Malatya and Išuwa in Hittite texts: New elements of discussion,” in Fifty Years of Excavations and Researches at Arslantepe – Malatya (Turkey), Proceedings of the Conference held at Rome, 5th-8th December 2011, edited by M. Frangipane, pp. 375– 383. Rome: Gangemi. DINÇOL, A. M. 1983 “Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel in den Museen zu Adana, Hatay und Istanbul,” Anadolu Araştırmaları 9: 173–212. EMRE, K. 2002 “Felsreliefs, Stelen, Orthostaten,” in Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: Das Volk der 1000 Götter, edited by H. Willinghöfer and U. Hasekamp, pp. 218–233. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. EHRINGHAUS, H. 2005 Götter, Herrscher, Inschriften: Die Felsreliefs der hethitischen Groreichszeit in der Türkei. Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern. FRANGIPANE, M. and LIVERANI, M. 2013 “Neo-Hittite Melid: Continuity or discontinuity?,” in Across the Border: Late BronzeIron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1, 2010, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 349–371. Leuven: Peeters. GATES, M.-H. 2011 “Southern and Southeastern Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age,” in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (10,000-323 B.C.E.), edited by S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon, pp. 393–412. New York: Oxford University Press. 2013 “From Late Bronze to Iron Age on Syria’s northwest frontier: Cilicia and the Amuq,” in Syrian Archaeology in Perspective. Celebrating 20 years of Excavations at Tell Afis, edited by S. Mazzoni and S. Soldi, pp. 95–115. Pisa: Edizioni ETS. GILIBERT, A. 2011 Syro-Hittite Monumental Art and the Archaeology of Performance. The Stone Reliefs at Carchemish and Zincirli in the Earlier First Millennium BCE. Berlin: De Gruyter. 2015 “Religion and propaganda under the Great Kings at Karkemiš,” in Luwians: Proceedings of the International Conference in Honour of Franca Pecchioli Daddi: Florence, February 6th-8th 2014, edited by A. D’Agostino, V. Orsi and G. Torri, pp. 137–155. Florence: Firenze University Press.

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

GLATZ, C. 2009

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

339

“Empire as network: Spheres of material interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 127–141. GLATZ, C. and PLOURDE, A. M. 2011 “Landscape monuments and political competition in Late Bronze Age Anatolia: An investigation of costly signaling theory,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 361: 35–66. GLOCKER, J. 2011 “Ališarruma, König von Išuwa,” Altorientalische Forschungen 38/2: 254–276. GOEDEGEBUURE, P. T. 2012 “Hittite iconoclasm: Disconnecting icon, disempowering the referent,” in Iconoclasm and Text: Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond, edited by N. N. May, pp. 407–452. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. GRAMSCH, A. 2015 “Culture, change, identity – approaches to the interpretation of cultural change,” Anthropologie 53: 341–349. HAWKINS, J. D. 2000 Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Berlin: De Gruyter. HEINZ, M. 2006 “Architektur und Raumordnung. Symbole der Macht, Zeichen der Mächtigen,” in Constructing Power: Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice, edited by J. Maran, C. Juwig, H. Schwengel and U. Thaler, pp. 136–152. Berlin: LIT Verlag. HERBORDT, S., BAWANYPECK, D. and HAWKINS, J. D. 2011 Die Siegel der Grosskönige und Grossköniginnen auf Tonbullen aus dem NişantepeArchiv in Ḫattusa. Mainz and Rhein: Von Zabern. HOROWITZ, M. 2015 “The evolution of plain ware ceramics at the regional capital of Alalakh in the 2nd millennium BC,” in Plain Pottery Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East: Production, Use, and Social Significance, edited by C. Glatz, pp. 153–181. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. LIVERANI, M. 2004 “Gli Ittiti sulle rive dell’Eufrate,” in Alle origini del potere: Arslantepe, la collina dei leoni, edited by M. Frangipane, pp. 160–165. Milan: Electa. 2012 “Melid in the Early and Middle Iron Age: Archaeology and history,” in The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, edited by G. Galil, A. Gilboa, A. M. Maeir and D. Kahn, pp. 327–344. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. LORENZ, J. and SCHRAKAMP, I. 2011 “Hittite military and warfare,” in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, edited by H. Genz and D. P. Mielke, pp. 125–152. Leuven: Peeters. MANUELLI, F. (ed.) 2013 Arslantepe: Late Bronze Age: Hittite Influence and Local Traditions in an Eastern Anatolian Community. Sapienza Università di Roma: Rome. MANUELLI, F. 2016 “What remains when contact breaks off? Survival of knowledge and techniques in material culture of the peripheral regions of the Hittite Empire after its dissolution,” in Cultural & Material Contacts in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the International Workshop, 1-2 December 2014, Torino, edited by E. Foietta, C. Ferrandi, E. Quirico, F. Giusto, M. Mortarini, J. Bruno and L. Somma, pp. 26–35. Turin: Apice Libri. MATTHEWS, R. 2003 “The archaeology of empire,” in The Archaeology of Mesopotamia: Theories and Approaches, edited by R. Matthews, pp. 127–154. London; New York: Routledge. MAZZONI, S. 1997 “The gate and the city: Change and continuity in Syro-Hittite urban ideology,” in Die Orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch, edited by G. Wilhelm, pp. 307– 338. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.

F. MANUELLI

340 2013

“Seals and seal impressions of the Iron Age,” in Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie I. La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du fer, edited by W. Orthmann, P. Matthiae and M. al-Maqdissi, pp. 571–583. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

MIELKE, D. P. 2011a “Hittite cities: looking for a concept,” in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, edited by H. Genz and D. P. Mielke, pp. 153–193. Leuven: Peeters. 2011b “Stadttot. C. Archäologisch,” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Band 13:1/2, edited by M. P. Streck, pp. 90–97. Berlin: De Gruyter. MORA, C. 2013 “Seals and seal impressions,” in Arslantepe: Late Bronze Age: Hittite Influence and Local Traditions in an Eastern Anatolian Community, edited by F. Manuelli, pp. 251– 274. Rome: Sapienza Università di Roma. 2014 “Symbols of power in the kingdom of Karkamiš (13th–12th century BC),” in From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond. Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014, edited by S. Gaspa, A. Greco, D. Morandi Bonacossi, S. Ponchia and R. Rollinger, pp. 433–440. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. MÜLLER-KARPE, A. 2009 “Recent research on Hittite archaeology in the ‘Upper Land’,” in Central-North Anatolia in the Hittite Period: New Perspectives in the Light of Recent Research, edited by F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri and C. Corti, pp. 109–118. Rome: Herder. NEU, E. 1995 “Hethiter und Hethitisch in Ugarit,” in Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient, edited by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, pp. 115–129. Münster: UgaritVerlag. NIEDORF, C. F. 2002 “Ein hethitisches Brieffragment aus Alalah,” in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, edited by O. Loretz, K. A. Metzler and H. Schaudig, pp. 517–526. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ORTHMANN, W. 1971 Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst. Bonn: Halbelt. OSBORNE, J. F. 2014 “Monuments and monumentality,” in Approaching Monumentality in Archaeology, edited by J. F. Osborne, pp. 1–19. New York: SUNY press. ÖKSE, A. T. 2000 “Neue hethitische Siedlungen zwischen Maşat Höyük und Kuşaklı,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 50: 87–112. PUCCI, M. 2013 “Chatal Höyük in the Amuq: Material culture and architecture during the passage from the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1, 2010, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 89–112. Leuven: Peeters. SCHACHNER, A. 2012 “Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 2011,” Archäologischer Anzeiger 2012: 86–137. SEEHER, J. 2007 “Eine Kultvase mit der Darstellung des Wettergottes von Halab aus Hattuša,” in VITA Festschrift in Honor of Belkis Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, edited by M. Alparslan, M. Doğan-Alparslan and H. Peker, pp. 707–719. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. SUMMERS, G. D. 2013 “Some implications of revised C14 and dendrochronological dating for the “Late Bronze Levels” at Tille Höyük on the Euphrates,” in Across the Border: Late BronzeIron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at

THE DAWN AND DEMISE OF IMPERIAL IMPACT

SÜEL, A. 2009

–

TELL ATCHANA VS. ARSLANTEPE

341

the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1, 2010, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 311–329. Leuven: Peeters. “Another capital city of Hittite state: Šapinuwa,” in Central-North Anatolia in the Hittite Period: New Perspectives in the Light of Recent Research, edited by F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri and C. Corti, pp. 193–205. Rome: Herder.

TARACHA, P. 2011 “The iconographic program of the sculptures of Alacahöyük,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 11: 132–147. TORRI, G. 2007 “L’assetto geografico e le vicende politiche dell’Anatolia orientale nel medio regno ittita,” in Geografia e viaggi nell’antichità. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, edited by S. Conti, B. Scardigli and M. C. Torchio, pp. 231–239. Ancona: Affinità Elettive. VAN EXEL, V. J. 2010 “Social changes at Emar: The influence of Hittite occupation on local tradition,” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 104/1: 65–86. VON DASSOW, E. 2005 “Archives of Alalaḫ IV in archaeological context,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 338: 1–69. 2008 State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalaḫ under the Mittani Empire. Bethesda: University Press of Maryland. VAN DEN HOUT, T. 2012 “Administration and writing in Hittite society,” in Archives, Depots and Storehouse in the Hittite World. New Evidence and New Research, edited by M. E. Balza, M. Giorgieri and C. Mora, pp. 41–58. Pavia: Italian University Press. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. London: The Society of Antiquaries of London. YENER, K. A. 2005 “The Amuq Valley Regional Projects,” in The Amuq Valley Regional Projects. Vol. 1. Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 1–24. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2010 “Introduction,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 1–10. Istanbul: Koç University Press. 2011 “Hittite metals at the frontier: A three-spiked battle ax from Alalakh,” in Metallurgy, Understanding How, Learning Why: Studies in Honor of James D. Muhly, edited by P. P. Betancourt and S. C. Ferrence, pp. 265–271. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. 2013 “New excavations at Alalakh: The 14th-12th centuries BC,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1, 2010, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–36. Leuven: Peeters. 2014 “Re-examining and Re-imagining the past: The Woolley and Yener Excavations at Alalakh,” in The Forgotten Kingdom: Archaeology and Photography at Ancient Alalakh, edited by M. Akar and H. Maloigne, pp. 47–66. Istanbul: Koç University Press. YENER, K. A, DINÇOL, B. and PEKER, H. 2014 “Prince Tuthaliya and Princess Ašnuhepa,” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 4: 136–138.

Federico MANUELLI Freie Universität Berlin [email protected]

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN Stefania MAZZONI ABSTRACT Tell Afis and its plain (Jazr) were, and still are, a natural crossway linking the Mediterranean coast and inland Syria. The results of the excavations on the site and the survey in its region have yielded considerable evidence documenting a local process of settlement growth and cultural continuity over a lengthy period, from prehistory to the Medieval era. Afis emerged in the Late Chalcolithic as a major stronghold in the plain, connected with the Amuq and Cilicia. During the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, this plain was densely settled, and Afis was strongly fortified; in the Late Bronze Age and Iron I, a residential unit and a domestic district were built on the acropolis, which was then refurbished during Iron Age II-III with a sanctuary, including a temple and cultic annexes dedicated to a Storm-god. Afis and its plain always maintained close contacts with the Amuq and its sites, sharing common economic and cultural trends and often political events. However, even though many similarities can be singled out when comparing the relevant archaeological documentation from both areas, many traits in the artefacts and material culture seem to indicate alternate mechanisms of integration and distinction. In this paper, I will review the finds from Afis and its area from a regional perspective and examine the different dynamics of cultural orientation and their significance.

Northwestern Syria constitutes a distinct geographic unit in the northernmost sector of the northern Levant.1 Bordered (from east to west) by the Euphrates, the inner steppe (Badiyat ash-Sham), the Orontes and the Zawiye, el A’la and Seman mountain ranges (Fig. 1), it attained its own cultural identity and, over time, social and political cohesion. Crossed by the important communication route linking the Mediterranean coast with Mesopotamia, its cultural identity was forged by a substantial chain of contacts and exchanges with the adjacent regions. Connection with the Euphrates area and Mesopotamia, and their attractive economic and political foci, was certainly crucial for the cultural orientation and the political emergence and floruit of the region throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. Moreover, interaction with the nearby Amuq Plain represented a further and enduring element important in broadening the economic and social horizons of the local communities. By way of the plain, access to the neighbouring Anatolian region was ensured, with its resources and raw materials, as well as the coast and its network of long-distance 1

 Different terms and regional subdivisions can be employed for this area according to geographic, geological and environmental considerations. It is the northern stretch of Southwest Asia following Brice (1966, pp. 200–220); it belongs to both northern and western Syria, following the regional areas designated by Wirth (1971, pp. 19–23, figs 4–5). Suriano (2014, pp. 11–12) now divides a lower northern Levant (corresponding to the northern sector) and an upper northern Levant (corresponding to the southern sector) based on the flow of the Orontes (from south to north) and the elevation of the mountain ranges; according to this division, our area would pertain to the lower northern Levant.

344

S. MAZZONI

Fig. 1. Northwestern Syria with its geographical borders (Google Maps).

maritime trade. A flow of dynamic cultural contacts and economic exchanges was consequently conveyed in both directions, northeast and northwest, involving different partners, as well as competitors, in a system of reciprocal and profitable relationships. This process of interaction was certainly not unilinear and developed under different political circumstances and social pressures following the interchange of the relevant poles of attraction and dominance. The physical nature and geography of northwestern Syria was a primary, but not unique, factor that favoured the emergence and growth of this system of regional interaction, with its diverse orientations and directions. The network of low alluvial basins and rivers constituted, in fact, natural and easy crossways, but they were also zones of intense farming exploitation, both elements contributing to the social and cultural cohesion and the economic potential of these regions. The environmental conditions (with their economic potential for food supply) and the geography (with its permeable routes and crossroads) were essential dynamics in the process of settlement continuity and the historical relevance of this area from a longue durée perspective. A close look at the physical geography of northwestern Syria, with the sites and environmental zones settled and exploited during the Bronze and Iron Ages, can offer useful hints for exploring the mechanisms of territorial control and the changes in the orientation and interrelation between adjacent regions. The area between the Euphrates, the Orontes and the coast is composed of four different geographic and environmental units consisting of a series of individual alluvial plains, with their rivers and distinct drainage systems, running parallel from north to south: from east to west, they are the Nahr el Dhahab, the Nahr

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

345

Fig. 2. Northwestern Syria: the plains of Jabboul, Matkh, Jazr and Ruj (Google Maps).

el Quweiq, the Jazr and the Ruj with its eastern and western branches (Fig. 2). They each present different geographic and geomorphological characteristics with various resources and potentials to be exploited and, consequently, attest to different settlement processes and adaptive strategies. This was, and still is, the favourable belt for developing an integrated farming based on extensive rainfall agriculture, as well as intensive irrigation farming in the alluvial plains, horticulture, including the cultivation of vines and olive trees, pistachio and almond trees, and substantial livestock farming of cattle and sheep. Sheep breeding can be exploited in a sedentary system of micro-circuits around the villages and the adjacent steppe, as well as in a seasonal transhumant system of macro-circuits reaching as far as the Jebel Tadmor to the east in winter and into western areas after the harvest in late spring. Both systems with their daily micro-circuits and seasonal transhumant macro-networks are still today at the base of the economy of the villages in the local Mohafazeh (Idlib-Aleppo); additionally, this region was, before the ongoing political and social crisis, the leading production area in Syria of olives and olive oil. To the west of the Euphrates, the course of the Nahr al Dhahab flows from north to south into the Sabkhat Al Jabbul (Fig. 3), which drains other more modest streams from the north. This was a fertile land which can most probably be identified with the paradeisoi of the Achaemenid period, the Dardas of the satrapus Bélésys.2 In the third millennium BC, 2  See on the Nahr al Dhahab, Tefnin 1977–78, pp. 197–205; Mazzoni 1991–92, pp. 67–68. Lipiński (2000, p. 202, n. 38) identifies the Chalos with the river Afrin (also p. 202, n. 75). The map provided by the first survey of the Plain of Jabbul in 1939 shows the course of the river and its drainage system at that time

346

S. MAZZONI

Fig. 3. The plain of the Jabboul with the site of Umm el Marra (Google Maps).

the region was densely settled, as documented by the American survey in the eastern Jabbul plain and the excavations at Umm el Marra, probably ancient Tuba.3 This site, lying on the eastern shore, played an important role as a crossroads between the Euphrates and the steppe, and the material culture attests to a change of orientation over the course of (Maxwell Hyslop et al. 1942–43, pl. X). See also the map in Tefnin (1980, fig. 1). For the survey of the Jabbul connected to the renewed excavations at Umm el Marra, see Schwartz et al. 2000, pp. 447–457. 3   Recent reports in Schwartz et al. 2012.

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

347

Fig. 4. The course of the Nahr el Quweiq flowing from north (Azaz-Tell Rifa’at) to south (Aleppo/Halab) into the Matkh (Tell Tuqan) (Google Maps).

the period. During Early Northern Levant 2/3-Early Bronze II-III, the pottery assemblage from the graves (notably the champagne cups) shows a clear orientation towards the Euphrates and its emergent urban polities;4 during Early Northern Levant 4/5-Early Bronze IV A-B, at the time of the hegemony of Ebla, local assemblages show closer connections with the adjacent southwestern region.5 The area was certainly important for the production of salt (as it is nowadays). A further important resource was also the breeding of equids: the practice of burying these animals inside the cemetery, probably alongside their owners, documents the role that equids played in the local society.6 To the west flows the river of Aleppo, the Nahr el Quweiq, emerging at its southern end into the deep and marshy basin of the Matkh (Fig. 4). The Nahr el Quweiq and the Matkh have a north-south orientation and consist of three distinct units. To the north there is a quite large plain, dominated by the high mounds of ‘Azaz, with Tell al Rif‘at to the south, which has been identified with the Aramaean Arpad (Bit Agushi).7 Aleppo, still the main modern centre of northern Syria, dominated its middle course and the strategic junction  Schwartz et al. 2012, p. 160, fig. 5: in chronological sequence: Tombs 5, 8 and 6 containing painted fruit-stands belong to the course of Early Bronze III and show clear analogies with the Euphratean horizon. 5  Schwartz et al. 2012, pp. 162–163. Tombs 9, 10 and 3 containing corrugated chalices belong to Early Bronze IVA, while Tomb 7 (see fig. 9) shows goblets and bowls belonging to a later Early Bronze IVB horizon. 6  See for the installations with equids Schwartz et al. 2012, pp. 163–166. Interpretation of the data in Schwartz 2012. Zarins 2014 on the domestication of equids. 7  The region was surveyed by Matthers (1981). Historical and topographical considerations: Lipiński 2000, pp. 198–203, 208–211. 4

348

S. MAZZONI

which, in medieval times, was crossed by the Silk Road.8 From the Early Bronze Age on, it was a political and sacred pole, its Storm-god being renowned until the Iron Age.9 To the south, we find Tell Araane, which has been identified with Arne, the earlier capital of Bit Agushi, before Arpad.10 The southern course flows underground nowadays into the deep marshy plain called the Matkh, with its main sites, Tell Hadia/Qinnisrin, Tell Tuqan and, on its southwestern margin, Ebla.11 From the acropolis of Ebla, the fertile strip of the Matkh is sometimes visible and certainly played an essential role in supplying the city with its produce. This was the route linking Ebla with Aleppo, which was still the major northsouth trajectory in the Byzantine period, when the important town of Qinnisrin/Chalcis ad Belum was founded.12 The Jabbul and Matkh constituted areas of intensive farming but were also located on the inner route linking the central Orontes area with the Euphrates by passing via Qatna and, farther to the north, Ebla. From Ebla and Tuqan, the route reached Umm el Marra, skirting the Jebel el Hass to either the north or south. The mentioned surveys in the region around Umm el Marra, in the steppeland, and the survey in the Chora of Ebla have revealed a network of settlements which were located along a line running southwest to northeast, documenting the presence of an inland route. The sites of Tell Munbatah and Tell Sabkha to the south of the Jebel el Hass and Tell Anbara to the north of this mountain indicate that, in Early Northern Levant 4/5-Early Bronze IV, two main routes crossed the region in the direction of the Euphrates.13 This northeastern trajectory was used especially during the Early Bronze Age, the period to which most of the sites surveyed in the area can be dated. Its emergence is to be related with the intensification of interaction with the Euphratean towns and with the political foci of northern and central Mesopotamia, first and foremost Mari. This is, in fact, the network of relations depicted by the Ebla, Beydar and Mari archives.14 To the northwest, two alluvial plains present different characteristics and cultural and geographic orientations, the Jazr and the Ruj (Fig. 5). Immediately to the west of the Matkh, and partially adjoining it, we find the large alluvial plain of Idlib, which was known in medieval sources by the name of Jazr, with its renowned centre of philosophy at al-Fou‘a

 8

 Aleppo and the Silk Road was the theme of an International Symposium held at Aleppo in 1994, published in Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes XLIII.  9  For the cult of Hadda of Halab and its sanctuary in the Ebla period: Archi 2010. For the first millennium BC, the inscription found in the temple on the Aleppo citadel has added relevant new data (Hawkins 2011, 2013). Excavations by Kohlmeyer (2013). 10  Lipiński 2000, pp. 198–199. 11  The Matkh was surveyed by the team of the mission of Tell Mardikh from the start of the project of the University of Rome la Sapienza (Liverani 1965; De Maigret 1978). It is currently the object of the European project of multidisciplinary research, Ebla Chora: see the contributions of Ascalone and d’Andrea; Mantellini; and Mantellini et al. in Matthiae and Marchetti 2013. The mission of Tell Tuqan operated within this framework: Baffi and Peyronel 2014. 12  Surveyed since 1998 by a team of the General Directorate of Antiquities and Museums in Syria, The Sorbonne, Paris and the University of Chicago (see Whitcomb 1999). Rousset (2012) for the excavations at Qinnisrin. 13  Mantellini et al. 2013. 14  For a general outline, see Sallaberger 2011 and Archi 2013.

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

349

Fig. 5. The plain of the Jazr with Tell Afis and Tell Nuwaz (Google Maps).

(Fig. 6).15 The plain is a zone of intensive farming, especially of olives, on the western hills, and cereals, on a rainfall basis, thanks to its fertile soil, the presence of abundant underground water and a distinct rainfall regime. ICARDA (The International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas) was based in the region and had fixed experimental sites in the plain: one of these is on the outskirts of the village of Afis. The main multi-phase site of the region is Tell Afis,16 situated on the northern edge of the limestone plateau that borders the plain to the south and provides a prominent position for extensively guarding the surrounding region. From the northwestern summit of the acropolis, it is possible to have a wide-ranging view over the plain, with the Jebel Seman to the north and the Jebel el A’la to the northwest, while, on clear days, the pyramidal profile of the Jebel el Aqra’ stands out dramatically against the northwestern skyline (Fig. 7). To the west, the Jebel Zawiye and the plain of Idlib, and, to the east, the Matkh, are clearly visible. To the south, one can easily make out the contour of Ebla with the acropolis and the circuit of the ramparts walling the ancient town. The Jazr is crossed by the road connecting Hama to Aleppo (Fig. 8); the old national road skirted the centre of Saraqeb to reach the western edge of Tell Afis and then, to the north, Teftanaz and the crossing of Uram al Ghubra; here the route bends northeast towards Aleppo and northwest to Bab el Hawa, via el Athareb and ad-Dana. Nowadays, a network of highways crosses the area that substantially follows 15  The region is named Jazr in the medieval sources and, according to the historian Ibn Shaddad, was in the Jund of Qinnisrin: Eddé-Terrasse 1984, p. 30. Preliminary reports of the survey in Ciafardoni 1992; Boschian 2000; Giannessi 2000; Mazzoni 2000a, 2005; Melis 2005. 16  For a general outline of the excavations, Mazzoni 2013b.

S. MAZZONI

350

Fig. 6. Map of the Jazr with the sites surveyed by the Afis project, and the adjacent plains of Ruj and Matkh.

the old system, with limited variants. The Hama-Aleppo highway skirts the eastern suburbs of Saraqeb and crosses the eastern side of the Jazr, leaving Afis to the west. Immediately to the south of Tell Afis, it crosses the highway to Lattakie. Furthermore, a direct road leads from Idlib along the western side of the Jazr to Bab el Hawa, the region of Hatay in Turkey, and the Amuq (Fig. 9). This is why this region is so strategic, and disputed today by different forces competing for control of northern Syria. The second site of the region in terms of size and the length of its sequence of occupation (Late-Chalcolithic-Hellenistic-Roman period) is Tell Nuwaz, which is located in the northwestern zone of the plain, immediately east of el Athareb.17 Athareb is also an important site, although largely eroded; it has been identified with the Darib mentioned in the Ebla

17

 See report of the survey in Mazzoni 2005, pp. 5–14, fig. 3.1.

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

351

Fig. 7. View of the Jebel el Aqra’ from the acropolis of Tell Afis (photo by S.M. Cecchini).

Fig. 8. The main modern routes crossing northwestern Syria.

352

S. MAZZONI

texts as the seat of the cult of the deceased kings.18 The presence of pottery of Early Northern Levant 4/5-Early Bronze IVA-B date at the bottom of the tell and a stone head which came from the site, preserved in the Museum of Aleppo, document the importance of this place in the third millennium BC. The geographic distribution of sites in the Jazr (see Fig. 6) suggests that they were situated along a slightly different route from the modern road. This may have linked, from south to north, Afis, Teftanaz, Tell Shillak, and then Tell Nuwaz; from Tell Nuwaz the route divided into a northwestern direction towards the Amuq and a northeastern direction that reached Aleppo via el Athareb. The easiest and most direct way to reach the Amuq and its sites from inner Syria was across the Jazr. To the west of the Jazr, we find the plain of the Ruj, with its two branches separated by the high Jebel el A’la.19 The eastern branch of the Ruj opens onto the Jazr: this is the route followed by the old railroad line connecting Aleppo with southwestern Syria. The impervious chain of the Jebel Wastani and Jebel Dweili marks the border between the western branch of the Ruj and the Orontes Valley, the Ghab. However, at its southwestern end, the plain widens to the Ghab, and the large Neolithic site of Tell Kerkh is situated along the route leading to the Orontes Valley by skirting the Jebel Wastani to the south.20 Connections between the Ruj and the Amuq were neither direct nor easy. The modern road via Armanaz climbs into the Jebel Dweili, reaching the eastern edge of the upper Orontes Valley by way of Salqine, and continues up to the site of Tell Bek, from whence the road to the Amuq is easy. A further road to the north follows the steep ridges of the Jebel el A’la, reaching the medieval castle of Harim.21 The castle lies at the junction of a deep transversal valley that opens onto the Orontes Plain, and it is possible that in antiquity the route followed this passage instead of ascending the slopes of the mountain. However, Harim constituted an important stronghold founded on a natural rocky spur in the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. Connections with the Amuq via the Orontes Valley, from Jisr ash-Shuhur to Antakya, and from Tell Qarqour up to Tell Atchana, are (and were) not easy (see Fig. 9). The gorge of Darkoush is, in fact, quite arduous to follow, while to the north — that is, downstream of Alalakh — the route via Dalbiyah, on the eastern Syrian side of the river, is easily walkable and accessible also by carts. The western Turkish side is also easy to follow, but it is closed to the west by the eastern ridges of the Jebel el Aqra’. To conclude, the plain of Afis provided the only easy access from inner Syria to the Amuq. Tell Afis and the sites of the Jazr seem to fulfil the characteristics of crossroads of the plain. The evidence from the excavations carried out on the site, supplemented by the surface materials from the survey, shows different regional orientations emerging over a lengthy duration. It reflects a changing pattern of regional integration which follows the transformations of the socio-political and economic scenario, with its consequent shifting of 18

 Matthiae (1980) attributed a head found at the site to the period of Ebla; it wears a helmet and may have represented the image of a king of Ebla. For the cult of the deceased kings at Darib, see Archi 2012a, p. 9. 19  The Ruj was surveyed by the Japanese mission, which excavated the Neolithic site of Tell ‘Ain el Kerkh (Iwasaki and Tsuneki 2003). 20  Tsuneki (2012) speaks, in fact, of Tell Kerkh as a Neolithic megasite. 21  On the survey of the Syrian Lower Orontes region and the excavations at Harim, see Mazzoni 2017.

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

353

Fig. 9. The plain of the Jazr with Tell Afis and the northwestern routes to the Amuq region; note the difficult access to the Orontes from the west by the routes crossing the mountains (Google Maps).

the foci of relevance and attraction, and the related fluctuation of settlements and routes. However, in this variable and also unstable context, connections with the Amuq endured and developed continuously over time, constituting a fixed and durable factor in economic and social stability for both regions. Close cultural connections between the Amuq and the Jazr can be documented as early as the protohistoric period. The Late Chalcolithic stronghold of Tell Afis illustrates the process of integration of both plains into a wide, homogeneous, common cultural horizon emerging in the terminal and post-Ubaid phase.22 The diagnostic pottery of this horizon is represented by the Chaff Faced Ware and the ubiquitous “Coba bowl,” which can be documented over a fairly large area across southern Anatolia and northern Syria, including the Amuq, the Orontes area, the coast and the Jazr. Tell Afis presents lingering traits of the Terminal Ubaid with Painted ware, Chaff painted ware and Chaff ware, as well as Simple ware. The oldest assemblage documented (Group III) can be compared with the horizon documented at Kharaca Khirbet Ali, in the Amuq, probably belonging to the final E phase, but can also be associated with the assemblages of Ras Shamra IIIB and Hama L3b, indicating the pattern of regionalisation and the substantial homogeneity of northwestern Syria during this period. In Tell Nuwaz, surface materials of the Late Chalcolithic period were collected on the northwestern lower side of the mound,23 and the site may have been a stronghold on the route linking Afis with the Amuq.

22

 The following considerations are based on the analysis and evaluation of the materials offered by Giannessi (2002, 2012). For the emergence of regional identities in this period, see Mazzoni 2006a, pp. 329–332. 23  The materials are analysed and presented by Fiorelli in press.

354

S. MAZZONI

That Tell Afis and its area were closely integrated into this region is also indicated by the presence of the production of stamp seals, and especially gables, with a common repertory of animal designs and the same style in the rendering of the figures, with linear traits and mixed composition, such as the tête-bêche, often joining four heads to a single body.24 In a few exemplary cases, we can suggest production from a distinct workshop. The many gables found at Tell esh-Sheikh seem to indicate local production;25 they are mostly made of bone and present single animals. Moreover, there are also chlorite/steatite gables, like the Afis and Ebla examples; the source of this stone was probably on the Jebel el Aqra’. This may indicate local manufacture and certainly testifies to the close interaction between the Ebla/ Afis area and the Amuq during the Late Chalcolithic period. The connection with the Amuq was maintained also at the end of the period and probably at the beginning of the Early Northern Levant 1/Early Bronze I, which is less well documented throughout the region. Seals again provide evidence of a distinct process of diffusion of Uruk styles connected with the use of cylinder seals. One seal from Afis and one seal from Chatal Höyük are comparable in their style, their scenes of Uruk derivation and their loop-bore suspension.26 Another seal from Afis can also be compared with a seal from Chatal, both showing a row of animals rendered with linear traits.27 It is important to note that they show lingering traits from the earlier tradition. Furthermore, it is significant that impressions on vases appear in Early Bronze I in the Amuq and northern Syria that are also characterised by motifs of the earlier Late Chalcolithic tradition. These can be related to the Levantine Early Bronze I jar impressions spreading from coastal Lebanon to Palestine and northern Syria and, consequently, illustrate the directions of the cultural contacts at the beginning of the third millennium BC.28 We can add to the inventory of jar impressions of the Amuq a further impression on a platter which was found in the survey at Tell Saluq29 and finds direct comparisons with the fragments with spiral motifs on platters from Tell Judaidah, Phase G, and from Tell Tayinat.30 In the better documented Early Northern Levant 3/Early Bronze III phase, at least if we limit our analysis to the pottery, we face a different scenario, with the diagnostic Red-BlackBurnished ware marking, by sizeable percentages, the horizon of the Amuq and the Lower Orontes area, while its presence east of the river, in inland northern Syria, is rather infrequent.31 Were the connections between the Amuq sites and inner Syria reduced at this

24

 As already stressed in Mazzoni 2000b, figs. 4.1-3.  Aruz 1992, p. 16. For a regional evaluation of the gable seals, see Mazzoni 1980. 26  Mazzoni 2000b, fig. 4.6. 27  Mazzoni 2000b, figs. 4.4-5. 28  The emergence of this practice dates to Early Bronze I at Tell Arqa (see Thalmann 2013). In Byblos, they first appear in the Nécropole Énéolithique of Byblos IIB (Late Chalcolithic), but are also known in Late Chalcolithic 4-5 and Early Bronze I contexts in northern Syria (list in Mazzoni 2013c, pp. 193–195, 199) again pointing to the cultural homogeneity of the area. 29  Casana and Wilkinson (2005, p. 294, pl. 1A) from AS138B, see p. 230. 30  Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: Tell Judaidah, pp. 265, 296, figs. 235.7, 236; Tell Tayinat, p. 470, fig. 369.4, pl. 49.13. See Mazzoni (1992, pp. 118–119, 157–158, B 128–129) for the continuity from the Late Chalcolithic tradition. 31  See interpretation and distribution maps in Batiuk 2013. A tentative “Structural-Systemic” scenario was proposed by Wilkinson (2014). Materials from the Lower Orontes Valley in Mazzoni 2017. 25

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

355

time? Early Northern Levant 3/Early Bronze III at Umm el Marra, Tell Tuqan and Ebla corresponds to a phase of emerging centralisation and complexity, as well as one of economic prosperity, documented by storage areas, specialised containers and rich funerary equipment in the graves. As noted above, the presence of the champagne cups in the Early Bronze III tombs of Umm el Marra is symptomatic of direct contacts with the Euphrates area. The site stood, in fact, along the route to the Euphrates area, enjoying a profitable position also in terms of the exploitation of the agricultural potentials of the Nahr el Dhahab basin, which supplemented a limited rainfall regime. The foundation of this site in Early Northern Levant 1/2-Early Bronze I/II may have been connected with the increasing use of the east-west routes that crossed the Nahr el Dhahab and Nahr el Quweiq basins. The cultural and economic attraction that the towns of the Euphrates bend and the Khabur exerted over the adjacent regions at the time of the emergence of the “Second Urbanisation” was a beneficial component of the development of northwestern Syria. During Early Northern Levant 3/Early Bronze III, central and northern Syria certainly began to match the economic and cultural development of the northeast, this process culminating in Early Northern Levant 4/5-Early Bronze IV when a network of towns spread also along the margins of the inland steppe region, the Badiyat ash-Sham (Fig. 10). Connections with the Amuq region were probably intensified during this phase, as documented by the diffusion of the caliciform ware from inland Syria to the coast, and by the presence of vessels imported from Anatolia, Cilicia and the Amuq. The red slipped everted grooved rim jars found in Palace G at Ebla were imported from the Amuq region; a red slipped beaker from Tell Afis is of southern Anatolian provenance; and the two tankards found in Palace G at Ebla and at Tell Afis probably also came from Cilicia.32 Tell Afis and its plain maintained their importance as the main crossroads leading to the Amuq until the end of the third millennium. Early Northern Levant 5/Early Bronze IVB was a phase of intense settlement occupation in the Jazr, along the Euphrates and in the steppe land; the round cities in the steppe were probably founded in Early Northern Levant 4/ Early Bronze IVA, but flourished in Early Northern Levant 5/Early Bronze IVB. In this period, the Amuq was characterised by a major concentration of settlements around the main sites, such as Tell Tayinat. Following the collapse of the centres of the Jazirah and northern Mesopotamia in the last quarter of the third millennium BC,33 the political and economic epicentre shifted, and the main poles of attraction were represented by Mari on the Euphrates (Shakkanakku period) and Ebla (the “Second Ebla”) in northwestern Syria.34 The intensification of long-distance trade between southern Mesopotamia and Syria, documented by the Ur III textual sources, was a consistent factor in the prosperity of the northern Levant. Again, when the collapse of the system of states, the urban crisis, and 32

 For the red slipped everted rim jars from Ebla: Mazzoni 2013d, p. 92, fig. 5.27. For the tankards, p. 91, fig. 5.4. These find good comparisons in the tankards of Gedikli Karahöyük (Duru 2010, pp. 58–59, 148, fig. 23, pls. 58.5–6, 132/2–3) and Tarsus (Mallegni and Vacca 2013, p. 211, fig. 3.11). 33  See a reappraisal of the crisis question and bibliography in Weiss 2012. Discussion on the “Second Ebla”, the Early Bronze IVB/Early Northern Levant 5 period and the spread of the circular towns in the steppe in Mazzoni 2013a. 34  As defined by Dolce (1999, 2001, 2007). On the Early Bronze IVB/Middle Bronze I Ebla: Matthiae 2009; Pinnock 2009.

356

S. MAZZONI

Fig. 10. Map of Syria in third millennium BC.

the abandonment of the more marginal zones all affected the northern and central Levant, whatever may have been the causes and movers of this process, the “green” area did survive and enjoyed a phase of settlement growth and active transformation.35 This process can be precisely documented at Tell Afis and in its territory, which provide evidence of a transitional Early Bronze/Middle Bronze phase, Early Northern Levant 6, characterised by innovative traits in pottery production, as well as in the functional organisation of urban spaces.36 It was probably during this period that trade connections with central Anatolia were gradually intensified. Syrian centres were active partners in the trade network of the Old Assyrian Karum Kaneš; the impressions of the seal of Eb-Damu, ruler of Ebla from Kültepe II reveal, in fact, direct contacts between Kaneš and Ebla.37 Afis was probably a fortified stronghold on the route to the north: a fragment of a stele shows the “peaked cap”

35

 According to Finkelstein and Langgut 2014.  Materials, contexts and chronology were presented and discussed by Felli and Mazzoni 2007. 37  Teissier 1994, pp. 57–58, nos. 529a-b, 530, 533, 536; Matthiae 2003, p. 390, figs. 3–8; Archi 2015, p. 22, n. 21. 36

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

357

personage, identified with the king of Ebla, and the bull, sacred to the Storm-god.38 The fragment was found in the “Basalt Stratum” of the Iron Age III AI temple, which was probably dedicated to a Storm-god, maybe the Baal Shamin cited in the Aramaic inscription of the stele of Zakkur of Hamath and Lu’ash. Further testimony of the cultural links with Anatolia and the importance of the cult of the Storm-god in the region is offered by a cylinder seal in linear Cappadocian style, which shows a personage worshiping the image of a bull on an altar.39 The seal was found in the rural Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I-II site of Tell Suffane, northwest of Afis, in the direction of the Jebel el Aqra’. It is thus evident that connections with the coastal region were also promoted by the presence of cult places in the mountains which overlook the Lower Orontes Valley and the Amuq; ritual tours and processions across the area constituted cultic performances well established in the region since the Early and Middle Bronze Ages.40 In Hellenistic and Roman times, this tradition persisted, and Jebel el A’la, Wastani and Dweili were the seats of several monasteries and sanctuaries dedicated to the cult of Zeus.41 Moreover, a far from marginal component in the intensification of connections in northwestern Syria during the Middle Bronze Age was certainly represented by the consolidation of the Amorite kingdoms, with the political supremacy of Aleppo and the emergence of Mukish/Alalakh and its dynasty. These were actively integrated into a network of diplomatic and economic relations and international exchanges, which gradually attracted the ambitions of the neighbouring powers, especially Egypt and Hatti.42 Furthermore, the process of the dynamic cultural and economic interplay of this period may be considered the historical premise of the Late Bronze Age internationalism. Contacts between the Jazr and the Amuq were again developed during the Late Bronze Age, at the time of the Hittite conquest of northern Syria. Alalakh first and then Aleppo were conquered by Suppiluliuma I: a high Hittite official was installed in Alalakh, while Suppiluliuma’s son Telipinu became “priest” and “king” in Aleppo. The region was under Hittite control, including Mukish and Nuhashshe, which probably corresponds to the Jazr and the Ruj areas.43 Building F in Area E at Tell Afis, a large, well-planned residency of about 400 m2, has supplied documentary evidence of the late 13th century BC imperial control of the area with its archive, material culture and seals.44 Pottery with the diagnostic standardised types reveals the diffusion and advantage of a system of production which was introduced and widely diffused in Anatolia and northern Syria under the imperial dynamic, persisting to the end of the Late Bronze Age. The cuneiform tablets found in Building F 38

 Mazzoni 2005, p. 10, fig. 8.1; D’Amore 2005, p. 19, fig. 15.1.  Mazzoni 2005, p. 9, fig. 7.3; 2006b, pp. 386–387, pls. 8c-d. 40  See Ristvet 2011 regarding processions and ritual travelling in third millennium BC northern Syria. Catagnoti (2015) has dealt with the circumambulations and processions by Syro-Mesopotamian third and second millennium BC textual sources. 41  Mazzoni 2017, pp. 445–446. 42  Schwartz 2013. 43  On the problem of identification of Nukhashe/Lu‘ash/Luhuti with the Jazr, see Mazzoni 2001, pp. 110– 111. The area as defined by the sources by Hawkins (1987–1990, pp. 160–161) seems to correspond perfectly to the Jazr. Dion (2000) also located Luhuti east of the Orontes, reconsidering the Ashurnasirpal II incursions in the area. 44  Archi 2012b; Archi and Venturi 2013; Venturi 2014. 39

358

S. MAZZONI

supply information on the relations between Afis and Izziya, a coastal town of Cilicia, probably Kinet Höyük,45 which was under Hittite control, represented by a “Lord of the country” probably resident in Alalakh. In Iron Age I, the Jazr was again a connective route between the coast, the Amuq and inland northern Syria. The Storm-god temple in Aleppo and the Iron I sequence of Tell Afis with its Storm-god shrine (Area A, Temple AIII.1-2) and domestic quarters (Areas E, N) offer documents and materials which attest to the political and cultural integration of the area that included the Amuq and the Lower Orontes with Tell Tayinat, the Jazr with Afis and the Quweiq’s northern area with Aleppo. This territorial entity, stretching from coastal Cilicia to Hama on the Middle Orontes, corresponded to the kingdom of Palistin, according to Taita’s inscription from Aleppo and other Luwian sources, and had its capital at Kunalua/Tell Tayinat.46 Furthermore, the material culture from the Afis Iron I sequence, with its painted imported and local wares, and the relevant groups of cultic vases from the AIII.1-2 shrine, furnishes evidence of close contacts with the Amuq and the coast, and supports the consistency of this territory as a cultural and distinct entity. The relevant presence of Sub-Mycenaean coastal imports at Afis and in its region (Tell Nuwaz) testifies to the regional orientation of the Jazr towards the Amuq Plain.47 This territorial entity did not dissolve in Iron II when the Aramaeans seized political control of the area in the mid-ninth century BC with the Haza’el conquest of northern Syria and the replacement of the Luwian dynasty of Hamath with the Aramaean rulers of Zakkur in Hazrek/Tell Afis. Evidence of such persisting Afis-Amuq links can be gathered from different sources. The bronze frontlets with a dedicatory Aramaic inscription to Haza’el found at Eretria and Samos in Greece48 and the presence in Temple AI of Tell Afis of a fragment of an Aramaean inscription on a broken stele with the name of (probably the same) Haza’el49 seem to prove that Haza’el conquered Hazrek and then crossed the Orontes, where he probably received tribute from Unqi at Kunalua. The Afis inscription predates and belongs to the same scribal tradition as the inscription of Zakkur, which mentions the coalition led by Bar-Hadad, son of Haza’el, against Hazrek. It is also interesting to note that an ivory frontlet (of a group of the same manufacture) bears the Aramaean letters Lu‘ash inscribed on its back, a fact that indicates a local regional production of these decorated objects.50 Lu‘ash included the Jazr and probably the Ruj, likely corresponding to the Late Bronze Age Nukhashe, as mentioned above. With the Assyrian conquest in Iron III, Hazrek, with its surrounding region, was annexed into the Assyrian province, taking 45  On the excavations at Kinet Höyük, which is identified with Izziya mentioned in the Hittite sources, see Gates 2013. 46  Hawkins 2011, 2013; Harrison 2013, 2014. 47  Venturi 2013. 48  A bronze frontlet, found in 1984 in the sanctuary at Hera in Samos, bears the Aramaic dedication to king Hazael from ‘Umqi in the year he crossed the river (Kyrieleis 1988; Röllig 1988). The same inscription appears on a blinker found around 1900 near the temple of Apollo Daphnephoros at Eretria on Euboia. See recent reconsideration and bibliography in Gunter 2009, pp. 124–128; Feldman 2014, pp. 161–170. 49  Following the analysis by Amadasi 2009, 2014. 50  As convincingly argued by Georgina Herrmann (1986, p. 49) who speaks of a “Lu‘ash school” showing an elegant style and an “amalgamation of motifs from north and south.” (Also Mallowan 1966, pp. 592–593, 595, fig. 549; Orchard 1967, p. 27, no. 136, pl. XXIX.)

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

359

the name of Hatarikka. Again, the presence of the typology of the long-room in antis temples at Tell Tayinat and Afis, despite their regional variants, is further evidence testifying to their cultural connections and their strong local identity in the face of pervasive Assyrian influence. To conclude, Afis and the Jazr were the natural gateway to the Amuq and the Mediterranean from inland Syria, and reciprocal interaction was a persistent and stable factor of prosperity for both areas, despite the numerous changes undergone in the geopolitical situation of the region over the centuries.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AMADASI, M. G. 2009 “Un fragment de stele araméenne de Tell Afis,” Orientalia 78: 336–347. 2014 “Tell Afis in the Iron Age: The Aramaic inscriptions,” Near Eastern Archaeology 77: 54–57. ARCHI, A. 2010 “Hadda of Halab and his temple in the Ebla period,” Iraq 72: 3–17. 2012a “Cult of the ancestors and funerary practices at Ebla,” in (Re-)Constructing Funerary Rituals in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Tübingen Post-Graduate School “Symbols of the Dead” in May 2009 (Qatna Studien Supplementum 1), edited by P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka and A. Wissing, pp. 5–31. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2012b “The texts from Tell Afis: Evidence from the periphery of the Hittite empire,” Origini 34: 413–420. 2013 “History of Syria in the third millennium: The written sources,” in Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie I: La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du fer (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie I,I), edited by W. Orthmann, P. Matthiae and M. al-Maqdissi, pp. 75–88. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2015 “A royal seal from Ebla (17th cent. B.C.) with Hittite hieroglyphic symbols,” Orientalia 84.1: 18–28. ARCHI, A. and VENTURI, F. 2013 “Tell Afis in the thirteenth century B.C.E. under the rule of the Hittites,” Near Eastern Archaeology 76: 214–222. ARUZ, J. 1992 “The stamp seals from Tell esh Sheikh,” Anatolian Studies 42: 15–28. ASCALONE, E. and D’ANDREA, M. 2013 “Excavated sites dating from the Early Bronze Age in and around the Chora of Ebla,” in Ebla and its Landscape: Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East, edited by P. Matthiae and N. Marchetti, pp. 215–237. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. BAFFI, F. and PEYRONEL, L. 2014 “Tell Tuqan and the Matkh Basin in a regional perspective: Thoughts and questions raised by the international conference,” in Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th-17th 2013, edited by F. Baffi, R. Fiorentino and L. Peyronel, pp. 9–34. Galatina: Congedo Editore. BATIUK, S. D. 2013 “The fruits of migration: Understanding the «  longue durée  » and the socioeconomic relations of the Early Transcaucasian Culture,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32: 449–477.

360

S. MAZZONI

BOSCHIAN, G. 2000 “Ricognizioni geoarcheologiche nell’area del Jazr. Risultati preliminari,” in Tell Afis SIRIA 1999: Egitto e Vicino Oriente 22: 50–54. BRAIDWOOD, R. J. and BRAIDWOOD, L. 1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: The Earlier Assemblages Phases A-J (Oriental Institute Publications 61). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. BRICE, W. C. 1966 South-West Asia. London: University of London Press. CASANA, J. J. and WILKINSON, T. 2005 “Gazetteer of sites. Pottery assessments,” in The Amuq Valley Regional Project, Volume 1. Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995-2002 (Oriental Institute Publications 131), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 203–258. Chicago: Oriental Institute. CATAGNOTI, A. 2015 “Ritual circumambulations in the Syro-Mesopotamian cuneiform texts,” in Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East, edited by N. Laneri, pp. 134–141. Oxford: Oxbow Books. CIAFARDONI, P. 1992 “Insediamenti aramaici e pre-aramaici nella regione di Idlib,” in Tell Afis e l’età del Ferro (Studi di Orientalistica 2), edited by S. Mazzoni, pp. 37–74. Pisa: Giardini Editore. D’AMORE, P. 2005 “Area A1: il settore centrale,” Tell Afis Siria 2002-2004, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 28: 17–21. DE MAIGRET, A. 1978 “Fluttuazione territoriali e caratteristiche tipologiche degli insediamenti nella regione del Matah (Siria). Nota preliminare,” in Atti del 1° Convegno Italiano sul Vicino Oriente Antico (Roma 22-24 aprile 1976) (Orientis Antiqui Collectio 13), pp. 83–94. Rome: Centro per le Antichità e la Storia dell’arte del Vicino Oriente. DION, P.-E. 2000 “L’incursion d’Aššurnasirpal II au Luhutu,” Orientalia 69: 133–138. DOLCE, R. 1999 “The ‘Second Ebla’. A view on the EBIVB city,” ISIMU 2: 293–304. 2001 “Ebla after ‘The Fall’. Some preliminary considerations on the EBIVB city,” Damaszener Mitteilungen 13: 11–28. 2007 “Du Bronze Ancien IVB au Bronze Moyen à Ebla - Limites et problèmes pour une définition chronologique relative pendant la période de la ville protosyrienne récente,” in From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine (Contributi del Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare “Beniamino Segre” 117), edited by P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and L. Peyronel, pp. 171–194. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. DURU, R. 2010 Gedikli Karahöyük II: Prof. Dr. U. Bahadır Alkım’ın yönetiminde 1964-1967 yıllarında yapılan kazıların sonuçları. Gedikli Karahöyük II. The Results of Excavations Directed by Prof. Dr. U. Bahadir Alkim in the Years 1964-1967 (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinları 5. Dizi – Sa 51a). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. EDDÉ-TERRASSE, A.-M. 1984 ‛Izz al-Dīn Ibn Šaddād, Description de la Syrie du Nord. Damas: Publications de l’Institut français du Proche-Orient. FELDMAN, M. H. 2014 Communities of Style: Portable Luxury Arts, Identity, and Collective Memory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. FELLI, C. and MAZZONI, S. 2007 “Bridging the 3rd/2nd millennium divide: the Afis and Ebla evidence,” in Sociétés Humaines et Changement climatique à la fin du Troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

361

eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? (Varia Anatolica 19), edited by C. Marro and C. Kuzucuoğlu, pp. 205–224. Paris; Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil; De Boccard. FINKELSTEIN, I. and LANGGUT, D. 2014 “Dry climate in the Middle Bronze I and its impact on settlement patterns in the Levant and beyond: New pollen evidence,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 73: 219–234. FIORELLI, B. in press “La ceramica dal Tardo Neolitico alla fine del III millennio a.C. nei siti di ricognizione della piana del Jazr”, in Tell Afis e il suo territorio: la prospezione archeologica nel Jazr e dintorni (Studi di Archeologia Siriana 3), edited by S. Mazzoni. Firenze: Le Lettere. GATES, M.-H. 2013 “The Hittite seaport Izziya at Late Bronze Age Kinet Höyük (Cilicia),” Near Eastern Archaeology 76: 223–234. GIANNESSI, D. 2000 “Survey: i siti archeologici,” Tell Afis SIRIA 1999: Egitto e Vicino Oriente 22: 49–50. 2002 “Tell Afis: the Late Chalcolithic Painted ware,” Levant 34: 83–97. 2012 “Tell Afis and the northern Orontes region in the Post-Ubaid period,” in After the Ubaid: Interpreting Change from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Urban Civilization (4500-3500 BC). Papers from The Post-Ubaid Horizon in the Fertile Crescent. International Workshop held at Fosseuse, 29th June-1st July 2009 (Varia Anatolica XXVII), edited by C. Marro, pp. 261–274. Paris: De Boccard. GUNTER, A. G. 2009 Greek Art and the Orient. New York: Cambridge University Press. HARRISON, T. 2013 “Tayinat in the Early Iron Age,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31- June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 61–87. Leuven: Peeters. 2014 “Recent discoveries at Tayinat (ancient Kunulua/Calno) and their biblical implications,” in Congress Volume Munich 2013. Papers presented at the 21st Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament held in Munich, Germany, August 4 to 9, 2013 (Supplements to Vetus Testament 163), edited by C. M. Maier, pp. 396–420. Leiden: Brill. HAWKINS, D. 1987–1990 “Luhuti,” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7, pp. 159–161. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. 2011 “The inscriptions of the Aleppo temple,” Anatolian Studies 61: 35–54. 2013 “The Luwian inscriptions from the temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31- June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 493–500. Leuven: Peeters. HERRMANN, G. 1986 Ivories from Room SW 37 Fort Shalmaneser (Ivories from Nimrud (1949-1963), 4,1). London: The British Institute for the Study of Iraq. IWASAKI, T. and TSUNEKI, A. 2003 Archaeology of the Rouj Basin. Vol. 1. A Regional Study of the Transition from Village to City in Northwestern Syria (Al Shark 2). Ibaraki: University of Tsukuba.

362 KOHLMEYER, K. 2013

KYRIELEIS, H. 1988 LIPIŃSKI, E. 2000 LIVERANI, M. 1965

S. MAZZONI

“Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo,” in Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.-13. Oktober 2009, München (Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 7), edited by K. Kaniuth, A. Löhnert, J. L. Miller, A. Otto, M. Roa and W. Sallaberger, pp. 179–218. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. “Ein altorientalischer Pferdeschmuck aus dem Heraion von Samos,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 103: 37–61. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 100). Leuven: Peeters.

“I tell pre-classici,” in Missione archeologica italiana in Siria: Rapporto preliminare della campagna 1964 (Tell Mardikh) (Centro di Studi Semitici), edited by G. Castellino, S. M. Cecchini, A. Davico, M. Floriani Squarciapino, P. Fronzaroli, M. Liverani and P. Matthiae, pp. 107–133. Rome: Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente. MALLEGNI, CH. and VACCA, A. 2013 “Connections between Syria and Anatolia in the second half of the third millennium BC: The Tarsus sequence,” in SOMA 2012. Identity and Connectivity. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Florence, Italy, 1-3- March 2012. Vol. I (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2581), edited by L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci, V. Orsi and S. Valentini, pp. 209–214. Oxford: Archaeopress. MALLOWAN, M. E. L. 1966 Nimrud and its Remains. London: Collins. MANTELLINI, S. 2013 “Regional approach and archaeological survey in northern Syria. An overview,” in Ebla and its Landscape: Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East, edited by P. Matthiae and N. Marchetti, pp. 238–256. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press Inc. MANTELLINI, S., MICALE, M. G. and PEYRONEL, L. 2013 “Exploiting diversity. The archaeological landscape of the Eblaite Chora,” in Ebla and its Landscape: Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East, edited by P. Matthiae and N. Marchetti, pp. 163–194. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press Inc. MATTHERS, J. 1981 The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria and its Catchment: Studies Arising from the Tell Rifa’at Survey 1977-79 (British Archaeological Reports International Series 98). Oxford: Archaeopress. MATTHIAE, P. 1980 “Appunti di iconografia eblaita, II,” Studi Eblaiti 2: 41–47. 2003 “Ishtar of Ebla and Hadad of Aleppo: Notes on the terminology, politics and religion of Old Syrian Ebla,” in Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues, edited by P. Marrassini, pp. 381–397. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2009 “Crisis and collapse: Similarity and diversity in the three destructions of Ebla from EB IVA to MB II,” Scienze dell’Antichità 15: 43–83. MATTHIAE, P. and MARCHETTI, N. 2013 Ebla and its Landscape: Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press Inc. MAXWELL HYSLOP, R., DU PLAT TAYLOR, G., SETON WILLIAMS, M. V. and WAECHTER J. D’A. 1942–43 “An archaeological survey of the Plain of Jabbul, 1939,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 74: 8–40.

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

MAZZONI, S. 1980 1991–92 1992 2000a 2000b

2001

2005 2006a

2006b 2013a

2013b 2013c

2013d

2017

MELIS, S. 2005 ORCHARD, J. J. 1967 PEYRONEL, L. 2014

363

“Sigilli a stampo protostorici di Mardikh I,” Studi Eblaiti 2: 53–80. “Lo sviluppo degli insediamenti in Siria in età persiana,” Egitto e Vicino Oriente 14–15: 55–72. Le impronte su giara eblaite e siriane nel Bronzo Antico (Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla 1). Rome: Missione Archeologica Siria. “La prospezione del bacino del Jazr,” Tell Afis SIRIA 1999: Egitto e Vicino Oriente 22: 47–48. “From the Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze I in north-west Syria: Anatolian contact and regional perspective,” in Chronologie des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millénaires (Varia Anatolica 11), edited by C. Marro and H. Hauptmann, pp. 97–109. Paris: De Boccard. “Tell Afis and the Lu‘ash in the Aramaean period,” in The World of the Aramaeans II. Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 2), edited by P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers and M. Weigl, pp. 99–114. Sheffield: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. “Tell Afis, the survey and the regional sequence,” Tell Afis Siria 2002-2004, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 28: 5–14. “Syria and the emergence of cultural complexity,” in INA KIBRAT ERBETTI. Studi di Archeologia Orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae, edited by F. Baffi, R. Dolce, S. Mazzoni and F. Pinnock, pp. 321–347. Rome: Università La Sapienza. “Tell Suffane, an Early and Middle Bronze Age site in the Idlib Plain,” in Vorderasiatische Beiträge für Uwe Finkbeiner, Baghdader Mitteilungen 37: 381– 392. “Tell Afis and the Early-Middle Bronze Age transition,” in Syrian Archaeology in Perspective: Celebrating 20 Years of Excavations at Tell Afis (Ricerche di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente 4), edited by S. Mazzoni and S. Soldi, pp. 31–80. Pisa: ETS. “Tell Afis history and excavations,” Near Eastern Archaeology 76: 204–213. “Seals and visual communication across the 3rd millennium Mediterranean,” in Φιλική Συναυλία. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology for Mario Benzi (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2460), edited by G. Graziadio, R. Guglielmino, V. Lenuzza and S. Vitale, pp. 193–203. Oxford: Archaeopress. “Centralization and redistribution. The pottery assemblage of Royal Palace G,” in Ebla and its Landscape: Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East, edited by P. Matthiae and N. Marchetti, pp. 89–110. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press Inc. “Upstream from Alalakh: The Lower Orontes area in Syria,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslihan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. S. Gilbert, pp. 444–456. Leiden: Brill. “Note geo-morfologiche e ipotesi geoarcheologiche sulla piana del Jazr”, Tell Afis Siria 2002-2004, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 28: 14–17. Equestrian Bridle Harness Ornaments. Ivories from Nimrud I,2. London: The British Institute for the Study of Iraq. “Living near the lake. The Matkh region (Syria) during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages,” in Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives: Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th-17th 2013, edited by F. Baffi, R. Fiorentino and L. Peyronel, pp. 115–161. Galatina (Lecce): Congedo Editore.

364 PINNOCK, F. 2009

RISTVET, L. 2011 RÖLLIG, W. 1988 ROUSSET, M.-O. 2012

SALLABERGER, W. 2011 SCHWARTZ, G. M. 2012

S. MAZZONI

“EB IVB-MB I in northern Syria: Crisis and change of a mature urban civilisation,” in The Levant in Transition: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20-21 April 2004 (The Palestine Exploration Fund 9), edited by P. J. Parr, pp. 69–79. Leeds: Palestine Exploration Fund. “Travel and the making of north Mesopotamian polities,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 361: 1–31. “Die aramäische Inschrift für Haza’el und ihr Duplikat,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 103: 62–75. “Chalcis/Qinnasrin: From Hellenistic city to the Jund capital of north Syria,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 12 April – 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, Vol. 2, edited by R. Matthews and J. Curtis, pp. 551–567. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. “History and philology,” in Jezirah (ARCANE I. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean), edited by M. Lebeau, pp. 327–342. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers.

“Era of the living dead: Funerary praxis and symbol in third millennium BC Syria,” in (Re-)Constructing Funerary Rituals in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Tübingen Post-Graduate School ‘Symbols of the Dead’ in May 2009 (Qaṭna Studien Supplementa 1), edited by P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka and A. Wissing, pp. 59–77. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2013 “An Amorite global village: Syrian-Mesopotamian relations in the second millennium B.C,” in Cultures in Contact from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., edited by J. Aruz, S. B. Graff and Y. Rakic, pp. 2–11. New Haven: Yale University Press. SCHWARTZ, G. M., CURVERS H. H., DUNHAM, S. S. and WEBER, J. A. 2012 “From urban origins to imperial integration in western Syria: Umm el-Marra 2006, 2008,” American Journal of Archaeology 116: 157–193. SCHWARTZ, G. M., CURVERS H. H., GERRITSEN F. A., MACCORMACK J. A., MILLER N. F. and WEBER J. A. 2000 “Excavations and survey in the Jabbul Plain, western Syria: The Umm el-Marra Project 1996-1997,” American Journal of Archaeology 104: 419–462. SURIANO, M. J. 2014 “Historical geography of the ancient Levant,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000-332 BCE, edited by M. L. Steiner and A. E. Killebrew, pp. 9–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. TEFNIN, R. 1977–78 “L’or et le sel. Note sur l’écologie d’une région de l’ancienne Syrie,” Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 27/28: 197–207. 1980 Les niveaux supérieurs du Tell Abou Danné. Chantier A – 1977/78 (SyroMesopotamian Studies 3.3). Malibu: Undena Publications. TEISSIER, B. 1994 Sealing and Seals on Texts from Kültepe Karum Level 2 (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 70). Leiden: The Nederlands Institute for the Near East.

TELL AFIS AND ITS PLAIN: A ROUTE TO THE AMUQ AND THE MEDITERRANEAN

365

THALMANN, J.-P. 2013 “Le lion, la chèvre et le poisson. À propos d’une jarre à empreintes de sceaux-cylindres de Tell Arqa (Liban),” Syria 90: 255–312. TSUNEKI, A. 2012 “Tell el-Kerkh as a Neolithic mega site,” Orient 47: 29–66. VENTURI, F. 2013 “The transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age at Tell Afis, Syria (Phases VII-III),” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31- June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 227–244. Leuven: Peeters. 2014 “The Late Bronze Age sequence at Tell Afis,” in Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th-17th 2013, edited by F. Baffi, R. Fiorentino and L. Peyronel, pp. 297–323. Galatina (Lecce): Congedo Editore. WEISS, H. (ed.) 2012 Seven Generations Since the Fall of Akkad (Studia Chaburensia 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. WHITCOMB, D. 1999 “Discovering a new city in Syria. Hadir Qinnasrin 1998,” The Oriental Institute News and Notes 163: 1–5. WILKINSON, T. 2014 “The Early Transcaucasian phenomenon in structural-systemic perspective: Cuisine, craft and economy,” in The Kura-Araxes Culture from the Caucasus to Iran, Anatolia and the Levant: Between Unity and Diversity, edited by C. Chataignier and G. Palumbi. Paléorient 40(2): 203–229. WIRTH, E. 1971 Syrien: Eine Geographische Landeskunde. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ZARINS, J. 2014 The Domestication of Equidae in Third-Millennium BCE Mesopotamia (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 24). Bethesda: Capital Decisions Ltd.

Stefania MAZZONI University of Florence – Italy [email protected]

THE TWO SIDES OF THE AMANUS: CILICIA AND THE AMUQ: A COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY Mirko NOVÁK in collaboration with

Ekin KOZAL, Sabina KULEMANN-OSSEN and Deniz YAŞIN ABSTRACT* Based on the stratigraphical sequence of Sirkeli Höyük, a new regional chronology has been proposed for Plain Cilicia, covering the third, second and first millennia BC. Apart from the material culture, namely (but not exclusively) the ceramics, historical benchmarks and general cultural orientations and impacts from outside have also been taken into consideration. In this paper, the chronology itself and its correlation to its counterpart in the neighbouring Amuq, with its key sites Alalakh and Tell Tayinat, will be presented.

INTRODUCTION The goal of the present article is to synchronise the chronologies of the neighbouring regions of (Plain) Cilicia and the Amuq,1 situated to the west and the east of the Amanus range, respectively (Fig. 1). Without question, both regions shared a common history in peace or war and they had close cultural and economic contact for long periods of time. Sometimes they both belonged to the same empire, such as that of the Hittites, the Mittanni or the Assyrians, and at other times they were both independent, being either peaceful neighbours or competing enemies. Although both regions have been, and still are, intensively investigated by archaeological excavations and historical research, the synchronisation of their history and chronology has not yet been established in a comprehensive and satisfying way. Of course, the present article cannot fill this gap, but it might at least stimulate further, more specific studies. Chronology has caused numerous controversial discussions since the beginning of archaeological research in the Near East. Irrespective of the problem of absolute chronology, even the relative chronology of the Near East in general, and the comparative interregional chronologies in particular, is still much debated. Sometimes different terminologies are used

* A more detailed version will appear in the first volume of the Sirkeli Höyük publication Sirkeli Höyük: Ein urbanes Zentrum am Puruna-Pyramos im Ebenen Kilikien. Vorbericht der schweizerisch-türkischen Ausgrabungen 2006 bis 2015 soon. I thank Dr. Johanna Tudeau (Bern) for improving the English manuscript, and Prof. Dr. Aslıhan Yener and her team for inviting me to contribute to the present symposium and publication. 1  The common expression “Amuq Valley”, Turkish “Amik Ovası”, is redundant since Arabic cAmq already means “depression,” “valley”.

M. NOVÁK

368

– E.

KOZAL

– S. KULEMANN-OSSEN – D.

YAŞIN

Fig. 1. Map of Cilicia and the Amuq (© Susanne Rutishauser, IAW, Bern University).

for one and the same timespan (for example, “Old Syrian”, “kārum-Period” and “Middle Bronze Age”), sometimes the same terminology can describe different periods (for example, “Late Bronze Age I” in Anatolia and the Northern Levant, having different durations) and sometimes, owing to misunderstood conventions, periodisations are still in use which were established decades ago, based on limited knowledge of the material culture, and which are obviously no longer valid. However, solid chronologies must be taken into consideration, which are based on thorough analyses of all kinds of information; this includes historical sources, typology of material culture, analyses of socio-economic evolution and changes, written documents, architecture, ceramics and objects of all other kinds, but also information on subsistence strategies, generated by palaeobotanical and archaeozoological studies, or radiocarbon and other scientific datings. A good example of a complex methodology that was successful in generating new solid regional chronologies is the international project “Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (ARCANE)”, which challenged the conventional third millennium BC chronologies.2 A continuation of the project for later periods would be a very desirable undertaking. A major focus of ARCANE was to replace conventional interregional terminologies like 2

 Lebeau 2011.

THE TWO SIDES OF THE AMANUS: CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

369

“Early Bronze Age”, which had different meanings in various regions, with regional terminologies like “Early Jezirah”, “Early Middle Euphrates”, “Early Northern Levantine” or “Early Central Anatolian”, including independent and divergent subdivisions. Only the final stage of the project synchronises the regional chronologies and establishes an overall new interregional chronology.3 Moreover, for the comparative chronology of Cilicia and the Amuq, umbrella terminologies such as “Late Bronze Age” or “Iron Age” are not really helpful, since the designated periods are obviously not exactly the same in the two neighbouring regions: the historical benchmarks, the dates, and the development of material culture differ in detail between Anatolia and the Levant in general, and Cilicia and the Amuq in particular. To cite just one example, the Hittite Old Kingdom Period is attributed to the Late Bronze Age I in Anatolia4 but corresponds to the Middle Bronze Age IIB in Syria and the Levant,5 since the raids of Hattušili I and Muršili I mark the end of the Syrian Middle Bronze Age, due to the destructions caused at Alalakh (Level VII and perhaps also Level VI), Ebla (Period Mardikh III B2)6 and Aleppo (Kingdom of Yamkhad).7 Hence there is some confusion when talking about the beginning of the “Late Bronze Age” for the areas at the junction of Anatolia and the Northern Levant, such as Plain Cilicia (or similarly the Upper Euphrates Valley). Is the “Late Bronze Age” marked by the appearance of Old Hittite pottery or sealings? Should the Anatolian chronology then be used, although for the previous phases of the Middle Bronze Age, the Levantine chronology makes much more sense, due to the close ties between Cilicia and Syria? But how shall we then explain the seemingly missing “Middle Bronze Age IIB” in Cilicia when shifting from the Middle Bronze Age IIA (Levantine) to the Late Bronze Age I (Anatolian)? In the Amuq, Hittite pottery was not adopted at the time of the Old Hittite Kingdom at all: its material culture continued to be part of the Northern Levantine system, strongly influenced by Mittanni art and ceramic production during the 15th and 14th centuries BC. The obvious solution of course would be to use independent regional chronologies for each region and synchronise them only in a second stage, such as was the goal set by the ARCANE project for the third millennium BC. For the Amuq, such a regional chronology does exist and is widely accepted. It was established already in the 1930s by Robert and Linda Braidwood.8 Additionally, the Alalakh stratigraphic sequence serves as a chronological backbone as well.9 In Cilicia, however, the chronology proposed by Hetty Goldman, the excavator of Tarsus, was borrowed from European prehistory, and is characterised by a rather stereotyped periodisation and subperiodisation.10 The characteristic tripartite system defines Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages 3  The final version is yet to be developed. For a first provisional version see Novák and Rutishauser 2013, p. 71, Abb. 2. 4  See, for example, the chart in Manuelli 2013, p. 394, fig. IX.5. 5  See, for example, the charts in Nigro 2002 (p. 306, table 1) and Orthmann et al. 2013 (p. 584). 6  Matthiae 2013, p. 302; Nigro 2002, p. 322. 7  Klengel 1997, p. 368. 8  Braidwood 1937; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960; Yener 2005, pp. 4–5. 9  Yener 2013, with reference to and reflections on Woolley’s Alalakh chronology in Woolley 1955. 10  Goldman 1956.

M. NOVÁK

370

– E.

KOZAL

– S. KULEMANN-OSSEN – D.

YAŞIN

with further tripartite subdivisions such as Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age; Early Bronze Age I, II, III; Early, Middle and Late Iron Age, et cetera, most of them with equal durations. How artificial this classification is can be demonstrated by the Iron Age subdivision made up of three equal portions of three centuries each. Looking at the ceramic sequence, the largest fracture happened within the sub-phase Iron Age II in the late eighth century BC with the massive intrusion of Assyrianizing pottery.11 In contrast to this, the respective transitions from Iron Age I to II and from II to III show rather continuous developments of the ceramic production with just slight changes rather than clear breaks, sometimes very difficult to grasp. More than 80 years after the creation of this chronology system and due to the current state of research, we are left to deal with its problems rather than its benefits, trapped as we are in a stereotyped terminology and chronology cage. Another problem of the chronology of (Plain) Cilicia and, to a lesser extent, also of the Amuq, lies in the scarcity of written sources providing political information from inside. The region’s political history was always written from an external viewpoint, namely Babylonian, Assyrian or Hittite. Hence, in contrast with the situation in Mesopotamia or Egypt, chronologies mainly based on history are not yet appropriate. The backbone must still be a comparative stratigraphy of the excavated sites, combined with the sparse historical information.

A

NEW

CILICIAN REGIONAL CHRONOLOGY

The first task for generating a valid and solid chronology is a comparative stratigraphy of all relevant sites in Cilicia, based not only on the ceramics but on all aspects of the material culture. A second step would be to date the phases and benchmarks with the help of historical considerations and scientific data, such as radiocarbon dating. So far, the first step has been taken within the framework of three Cilician Chronology Workshops, organised in 2014 in Sirkeli, in 2015 in Tatarlı and Sirkeli, and in 2017 in Tarsus. The outcome was published to provide a solid base for further research.12 The members of the Cilician Chronology Workshops agreed to focus on a comparative stratigraphy and not to propose a new chronology yet. Hence the following suggestions do not represent the opinion of all the workshop participants and are not yet based on the outcome of common efforts. Instead, a rather provisional proposal is offered for further discussion. Nevertheless, it seems justified already at this early stage, to increase possibilities for an interregional synchronisation with the Amuq. Within the ARCANE framework, Cilicia was officially included in the Northern Levant, as was the Amuq. However, unlike the Amuq, it did not contribute registered inventories and, as such, is not really represented in the outcome of the ARCANE Northern Levantine group. In any case, since there are significant differences between the material culture of Cilicia and that of the Northern Levant, it is not easy to include the material culture of 11

 Kulemann-Ossen and Mönninghoff in preparation.  Cilician Chronology Group 2017.

12

THE TWO SIDES OF THE AMANUS: CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

371

Bronze and Iron Age Cilicia in the Northern Levantine sequence. The same is true for the Central Anatolian material culture, because the highlands show for many periods only few connections to Cilicia. In many respects, Cilicia represents a separate region, which deserves and requires its own regional chronology and terminology, called Early, Old, Middle and Neo Cilician, abbreviated as ECI, OCI, MCI, and NCI, respectively, after the system of ARCANE. In the following paragraphs, the classification, with its individual subdivisions, will be presented and defined on a very preliminary basis. Since this undertaking suffers from the currently insufficient dataset, it should be understood as a suggestion and the start to an extended discussion. Early Cilician (ECI):13 c. 3100–2050 BC Our knowledge about the third millennium BC in Cilicia is based mainly on the published material from Tarsus-Gözlukule and, to a much smaller extent, from Mersin-Yumuktepe. Although levels of that period were also reached in Kinet Höyük, Tatarlı Höyük and Sirkeli Höyük, the materials and the available data are still too meagre for a more accurate analysis. Therefore, for the time being, we have to rely on the results of the ARCANE regional group Northern Levant. This provides a subdivision of the period “Early Northern Levant” into six phases. Whether this reflects the situation in Cilicia will have to be clarified by future research. Old Cilician (OCI):14 c. 2050–1560 BC15 The period “Old Cilician” covers the first half of the second millennium BC. It is commonly understood as the “Middle Bronze Age” without its terminal phase (according to the Levantine variation), the latter corresponding for certain reasons to “Middle Cilician 1” (see below the argument of the impact of Hittite-style pottery in the late Middle Bronze Age). While the end of the period is defined with relative certainty by the massive political and cultural changes associated with the conquest of Cilicia by the Hittite Old Kingdom and the subsequent realignment of the political situation, its beginning remains historically vague. Already during this period, a Hurrian presence in Cilicia may be considered on the basis of personal names and Hurrian ritual texts, which were created in that period.16 Old Cilician 1 corresponds more or less to the Ur III period in Mesopotamia,17 the initial Middle Bronze Age (IA) or Old Syrian Period in the Northern Levant, and the “Intermediate Phase” and Alişar III-Period in Central Anatolia. This time was characterised 13

 The Early Cilician material from Sirkeli Höyük is studied by Dr. Deniz Yaşin Meier (Bern), who will provide a material-based subdivision of the period. 14  The Old and Middle Cilician material from Sirkeli Höyük is analysed by Doç. Dr. Ekin Kozal (Çanakkale). She will present a more comprehensive study on the ceramic sequences from these periods. 15  The absolute dates follow the proposal of Mebert 2010, who dates the fall of Babylon to 1521 BC. 16  Miller 2004. 17  On the Ur III period as the earliest phase of the Middle Bronze Age see Pruß 2007, p. 497 and Pfälzner 2017, p. 175.

372

M. NOVÁK

– E.

KOZAL

– S. KULEMANN-OSSEN – D.

YAŞIN

by far-reaching de-urbanisation processes and upheavals in the Levant and large parts of Anatolia. The ceramic production in Cilicia is characterised by the first appearance of new decoration styles such as comb-incising and painting. The Syro-Cilician pottery points to strong ties between Cilicia and the Northern Levant (Fig. 2). The following stage, Old Cilician 2, corresponds to the kārum-period in Anatolia. The Near East saw a recovery of urban settlements in this period, connected with the establishment of a vast trade network, first dominated by the Assyrians, and later increasingly by Syrian merchants. In Cilicia, there is no evidence so far for the activities of Assyrian merchants. Many indicators, however, hint at an ongoing and deepened connection between Cilicia and the Northern Levant: besides the painted Syro-Cilician ware, Levantine-styled terracotta figurines (Fig. 3) and seals18 were discovered on many Cilician sites. Some objects like stamp seals do nevertheless also show affinities with Central Anatolia (Fig. 4). The phase Old Cilician 3 covers the period between the end of the kārum-period and the growth of the Hittite Old Kingdom in Anatolia, and the dominance of the kingdom of Yamkhad in the Northern Levant. Old Cilician 1, 2 and 3 levels were discovered in Mersin-Yumuktepe,19 Tarsus-Gözlükule,20 Sirkeli Höyük, Tatarlı Höyük and in Kinet Höyük.21 Middle Cilician (MCI): c. 1560–1190 BC The Middle Cilician period is the first to reveal historical information from and about Cilicia. For most of this time, the region was named Kizzuwadna, and its major cities were Adana, Tarsus, Kummanni and Lawazantiya.22 The transition from Old to Middle Cilician is marked by a clear break in the material culture, particularly in the ceramics. The ceramics now possessed a Central Anatolian (better: Hittite) character, instead of a Northern Levantine one. This process seemed to be connected with the spread of the Hittite Old Kingdom to Cilicia and northern Syria. Already, the early Syrian campaigns of Hattusili I presupposed a solid control of Cilicia, which held an important position as a strategic base.23 By what mechanisms the rapid “Hittitisation” of Cilicia was stimulated cannot be studied for the time being. The fact is that in the following phase the independent kings of Kizzuwadna used stamp seals in Hittite style with Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions and the ceramic production continued to emulate unpainted “Hittite” pottery.24 Middle Cilician 1 covers the time of Hittite domination under Hattusili I and Mursili I and is represented, presumably, at Kinet Höyük Level 16 and 15C25 and Mersin-Yumuktepe Level IX or VIII.26 Middle Cilician 2, the first part of the Levantine Late Bronze Age, 18

 Girginer and Collon 2014.  Jean 2006, p. 319. 20  Slane 1987. 21  Cilician Chronology Group 2017, p. 182. 22  Novák and Rutishauser 2017. 23  See in general Klengel 1999. 24  See the overview given by Özyar 2017. 25  Gates 2006, p. 298. 26  Jean 2006. 19

THE TWO SIDES OF THE AMANUS: CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

Fig. 2. Old Cicilian 1 and 2: Syro-Cilician pottery from Sirkeli Höyük.

Fig. 3. Old Cicilian 2. Terracotta figurine in Syrian style from Sirkeli Höyük.

Fig. 4. Old Cicilian 2 or 3. Stamp seal in Anatolian style from Sirkeli Höyük.

373

374

M. NOVÁK

– E.

KOZAL

– S. KULEMANN-OSSEN – D.

YAŞIN

begins after the end of the dominance of the Old Kingdom of the Hittites shortly after Mursili’s campaign to Babylon and his assassination upon return. Cilicia gained its independence as Kizzuwadna soon after the death of Mursili under the Hittite kings Ammuna and Telipinu,27 and several treaties with Hatti testify to the parity between both partners. The ceramics appear to continue the Hittite-influenced repertoire, apart from a few special products and shapes such as the black impressed ware (Fig. 5). The cultural affinity with Central Anatolia is also confirmed by the seal of King Išpudaḫšu discovered in Tarsus.28 It is one of the earliest pieces of evidence for Luwian hieroglyphic writing, produced in a milieu of Luwo-Hurrian interaction. At that time, the Hittites started to adapt Hurrian cults from Kizzuwadna.29 During the phase Middle Cilician 3, the political dominance of the Mittanni over Kizzuwatna alternated with that of the Hittites. While the Mittanni were overlords in the decades between 1420 and1400 BC, they were replaced in the time of King Šunaššura (c. 1400) by the Hittites. The following phase, Middle Cilician 4, is the time when Kizzuwadna was firmly incorporated into the Hittite Empire and became one of the “Inner Countries”. It covers the time from the reign of Suppiluliuma I until the collapse of the empire. The architecture (Fig. 6) and ceramics (Fig. 7) reveal an extremely strong Anatolian character, which is particularly evidenced by the “drab ware”, the most distinctive feature of Hittite ceramic production of the imperial period. It is dominant in the repertoire of all Cilician sites: Kinet Höyük Levels 14 and 13.1, Sirkeli Phase Z VII, Tarsus-Gözlükule Levels A.VIII and Mersin-Yumuktepe Levels VI-V. In Kinet Höyük, a “sub-Hittite” phase in Level 13.2 from the terminal Late Bronze Age was recognised, dating to the time immediately after the disintegration of the Hittite Empire.30 Neo Cilician (NCI): c. 1190–330 BC31 The period “Neo Cilician” largely corresponds to the “Iron Age”, the period when Cilicia first became an independent “Neo-Hittite” principality and apparently a province of the Neo-Assyrian, Late Babylonian and Achaemenid Empires in turn. A clear break with the Late Bronze Age was marked by both the material culture and the re-naming of the country as the “Plain of Adana”, Hiyawa and Qawa/Que. The former name Kizzuwadna only survived in the name of the city Kisuatni, presumably the former Kummanni, mentioned by Shamlanesser III.32

27  The first revolts took place in Adaniya during the reign of Ammuna, later, in the time of Telipinu, also in Lawazantiya. Telipinu was then forced to sign the first treaty with independent Kizzuwadna. See Carruba 1974. 28  Orthmann 1975, p. 448, fig. 142a and Özyar 2017, p. 287, fig. 16. 29  Miller 2004. 30  Gates 2006, p. 304. 31  The Neo Cilician material from Sirkeli Höyük is analysed by Dr. Sabina Kulemann-Ossen and Dr. Hannah Mönninghoff, who will present the ceramic sequence in detail. 32  Yamada 2000, pp. 203, 220. On the history, see the overview in Novák 2010 with further reading.

THE TWO SIDES OF THE AMANUS: CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

375

Fig. 5. Middle Cilician 2. Black Impressed ware from Sirkeli Höyük.

Fig. 6. Middle Cilician 4. Hittite temple architecture from Tarsus (from: Goldman 1956, pl. 2).

376

M. NOVÁK

– E.

KOZAL

– S. KULEMANN-OSSEN – D.

YAŞIN

Fig. 7. Middle Cilician 4. Late Bronze Age Standard ware from Sirkeli Höyük.

THE TWO SIDES OF THE AMANUS: CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

377

Most distinctive in the material culture was the decline and abandonment of Hittite standard pottery in the repertoires of Cilician sites and the revival of painted wares. The phase Neo Cilician 1 started with the fall of the Hittite Empire and is a short transitional phase in which Middle Cilician pottery traditions were still in use, alongside Late Helladic IIIC pottery, which is often taken as an indicator for Aegean immigrants. It is attested in Soli Höyük (Period LB IIb), Tarsus (Level A.IX-B.IX) and Kinet Höyük (Level 13.1 to 12).33 The subsequent phase, Neo Cilician 2, saw, in addition to the survival of some Late Bronze Age vessel shapes, the appearance of wares with painted decoration, such as the cross-hatched pottery, and ended with the appearance of the distinctive painted CyproCilician pottery. The following phase, Neo Cilician 3, was characterised by the strong convergence of the Cilician ceramic repertoire with that of Cyprus, a circumstance that can be described as a kind of ceramic koine (Fig. 8). Whether this also implies a temporary political union cannot be determined, since there are no historical sources available for this period. The only evidence is the Assyrian designation of Cyprus as Yadnana “(island) belonging to Ad(n)ana”. Remains of this period were explored in Mersin-Yumuktepe (Level IV),34 Tarsus (“Early Iron Age” layers and the first half of the “Middle Iron Age” layers),35 Sirkeli Höyük (Phase Z VI and V / U V), Kinet Höyük (Levels 11-9)36 and Karatepe (Palace Levels 1-2).37

Fig. 8. Neo Cilician 3. Cypro-Geometric pottery from Sirkeli Höyük.

33

 See Gates 2013.  Sevin and Özyadin 2004, pp. 85–101. 35  Goldman 1963. 36  Hodos et al. 2005. 37  Darga 1986; Fischer-Bossert 2014. 34

M. NOVÁK

378

– E.

KOZAL

– S. KULEMANN-OSSEN – D.

YAŞIN

Fig. 9. Neo Cilician 4. Assyrian-related pottery from Sirkeli Höyük.

Phase Neo Cilician 4 is characterised by the distinct appearance of Assyrianising ceramics (Fig. 9). Although the painted Cypro-Cilician wares continued to be in use, the quantity of unpainted ceramics increased, accompanied by some hybrid products, such as vessels with Assyrian forms but painting in Cypro-Cilician style. Remains are known from Kinet Höyük (Levels 8–6), Sirkeli Höyük (Phase Z V, P IV und U III) and Tarsus (later “Middle Iron Age”).38 The beginning of this phase was likely associated with the political annexation of Que by the Assyrians around 720 BC, and its end was the fall of Assyria. It is followed by the phases Neo Cilician 5 and 6, corresponding to the Late Babylonian and Achaemenid periods, respectively. The ceramic repertoire shows some of the so-called post-Assyrian forms, connected with an increasing number of Greek imports. Summary The following chart sums up the chronological periodisation proposed here: (Table 2)

38

 Goldman 1963.

THE TWO SIDES OF THE AMANUS: CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

Ḫatti ~ 1540

Kizzuwatna

Mittanni

Ḫattušili I

“King of the Hurrians”

Muršili I

Kirta (?) Pariyawatri

~ 1500

~ 1470

Status of Cilicia

Telipinu

Išpudaḫšu

Taḫurwaili

Eḫeya

Ḫantili II (?)

Paddatiššu

Zidanta II

Piliya

Muwattalli I (?)

Talzu

~ 1420 ~ 1400

Tutḫalia I

~ 1350

Suppiluliuma I

~ 1190

Suppiluliuma II

Šunaššura

379

Conventional Cilician Chronology Chronology

Province of Hittite Old Kingdom

MBA IIB

MCI 1

Šuttarna I (?) Independent Kingdom

(?)

LBA I

Parrattarna Parsatatar

MCI 2

Vassal of Mittanni

MCI 3a

Vassal of Ḫatti

MCI 3b

Šauštatar

Inner Land of Ḫatti

LBA II

MCI 4

Table 1. Chronological chart of Hittite, Kizzuwadnaean and Mittanni rulers. Grey marks the attested synchronisms.

Cilician Chronology

Approximate Date1

Conventional Dating

OCI 1

2050–1950

OCI 2

1950–1700

Middle Bronze Age I (corresponds to Ur III/Isin-Larsa and Alişar III/Kārum-Period)

OCI 3

1700–1560

MCI 1

1560–1522-x

MCI 2

After 1522–1420

MCI 3a

1420–1400

MCI 3b

1400–1350

MCI 4

1350–1190

Late Bronze Age II Part of Hittite Empire

NCI 1

1190–1130

Late Bronze Age III

NCI 2

1130–950

Iron Age I

NCI 3

950–720

NCI 4

720–609

NCI 5

609–539

NCI 6

539–330

Middle Bronze Age II (corresponds to Babylon I and Hittite Old Kingdom) Late Bronze Age I (Kizzuwadna) Subsequent Mittanni and Hittite Dominance

Iron Age II Iron Age III

1

 Absolute dates following Mebert 2010.

Table 2. Chart showing the Cilician chronology.

M. NOVÁK

380 CILICIA

AND THE

– E.

KOZAL

– S. KULEMANN-OSSEN – D.

YAŞIN

AMUQ: SYNCHRONISTIC CHRONOLOGY

The historical and chronological correlation of Cilicia and Alalakh during the second millennium BC has been treated elsewhere in more detail.39 Hence, a short summary should be sufficient here. In contrast with the situation in the second half of this millennium, there are no written sources available for the first half. However, material culture indicates very close ties between Cilicia and the Amuq: they shared the same distinctive pottery named “Syro-Cilician” or “Amuq-Cilician”.40 The terracotta figurines belong to the same types. The second half of the second millennium BC provides much better datasets, both textual and material, which helps to establish both historical and archaeological synchronisations. For a short period, Alalakh and Kizzuwadna were both under the supremacy of Mittanni, but the character of the material culture of Cilicia remained predominantly Hittite, whereas in Alalakh the Mittanni influence was much more dominant. However, from the mid-14th century BC onwards, both regions became part of the Hittite Empire. Still, there were differences insofar as Cilicia became one of the “Inner Lands”, reigned over by a Hittite governor, whereas the Amuq, named Mukiš, was one of the Syrian vassal states and, hence, the “Hittitisation” of the material never reached the same degree there as in Cilicia. The Iron Age sequence of the Amuq is best attested at Tell Tayinat and Chatal Höyük41 and covers the Periods Amuq N and O. In the last few excavation seasons, Alalakh surprisingly revealed material from the Early Iron Age characterised by Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC pottery. The occupation of the site thus continued into Period Amuq N and overlapped with the early settlement in neighbouring Tell Tayinat.42 In general, Amuq N is characterised by a significant appearance of locally produced Late Helladic IIIC pottery, indicating an immigration of people from the Aegean.43 One of the tribes was presumably named P/Walastineans, a designation that was later frequently used by the rulers of the newly established principality in the Amuq.44 This country was called Pattin or simply Unqi (meaning in Aramaic the same as Amuq in Arabic: “plain”) by the Assyrians. Its capital was Kunulua (Tell Tayinat). To the north, Śam’al was the neighbour of Palastin. There is only sparse information concerning the history of the three principalities of the region, Kawa/Hiyawa/Que in Cilicia, Palastin/Unqi in the Amuq and Śam’al/Bīt-Gabbār in the İslahiye plain, most of it deriving from Assyrian sources with a few additional inscriptions from the three sides. There were surely many military conflicts between them, as reflected by several inscriptions on victory stelae or border stones like the Arsuz monuments45 and the stelae of Hasanbeyli46 and İncirli.47 Only occasionally did they form an

39

 Kozal and Novák 2017.  Bagh 2003. 41  Pucci 2013. 42  Harrison 2013. 43  Pruß 2002. 44  Dincol et al. 2015. 45  Dincol et al. 2015. 46  Lemaire 1983. 47  Kaufmann 2007. 40

THE TWO SIDES OF THE AMANUS: CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

381

alliance against the expanding Assyria, as was the case in their resistance against Shalmanesser III in 858 BC.48 But from the late ninth century BC on, they had to pay tribute to Assyria. During the eighth century BC, the Assyrian pressure became stronger, and in the last quarter of the century, all of the polities were incorporated into the Assyrian Empire, their local kings being replaced by Assyrian governors. This situation is reflected by the material culture: the tenth to ninth centuries BC were characterised by local ceramic productions, which differed from each other but shared a regional appearance. At the same time, sculptures in a “Neo-Hittite”49 style were produced in the cities of each of the three entities.50 These sculptures consisted mainly in architectural decoration on the outer façades of the palaces or inside the city and citadel gates. Starting in the late ninth century BC, the increasing impact of Assyrian art can be observed. It was stimulated by the political and economic dominance of the growing empire. In the seventh century BC, Neo-Hittite art was abandoned and replaced by a style of provincial Assyrian art and architecture, which concentrated first in the seats of the governors. Moreover, ceramic production saw a growing adaptation of Assyrian-style pottery, locally produced but clearly following Assyrian patterns. This situation did differ slightly in each of the entities but followed the same outline in general. We can therefore synchronize the stratigraphies of the sites according to the style of architecture, sculpture and ceramics, distinguishing between a period of total independence within a “Neo-Hittite” framework, a phase of growing Assyrian impact, and a period of provincial Assyrian power. Amuq N, characterised by the Late Helladic IIIC pottery and the formation of what later became the kingdom of the P/Walataeans, can be synchronised with the phases Neo Cilician 1 and 2, as well as with the art style “Neo-Hittite I”; Amuq Oa and b with Neo Cilician 3 and the styles “Neo-Hittite II and III”; Amuq Oc with Neo Cilician 4, and Amuq Od with Neo Cilician 5, corresponding to the period of the Neo-Assyrian and, subsequently, the Late Babylonian Empires, respectively. Summarising the synchronization, we can propose the following comparative chronology of the Amuq and Cilicia in Table 3.

48

 Yamada 2000, pp. 78–79 and Novák 2010, p. 406.  The term “Neo-Hittite” is reduced to a style of art and self-representation in iconography and designates a cultural koiné. It has no ethnic or linguistic implications, since different peoples and languages (such as Aramaic, Luwian and Phoenician) were represented within the “Neo-Hittite” cultural zone. In the second millennium BC, the strong influence of Hittite art on style and iconography, as well as the usage of Luwian hieroglyphs, were characteristic features. 50  Until now, no monumental sculptures have been discovered in Adana, the capital of Hiyawa/Que. But the existence of Cilician sculpture art is attested in Karatepe, ancient Azatiwataya. 49

382

M. NOVÁK

– E.

KOZAL

– S. KULEMANN-OSSEN – D.

YAŞIN

Date

Conventional

Cilicia1

Sirkeli Höyük

Kinet Höyük

Alalakh

2050-1950

Middle Bronze Age I (Ur III/Isin-Larsa) (Kārum-Period)

OCI 1

?

↑

XVII

1950-1700

OCI 3

1700-1560

1560–1522

1522–1420

OCI 2

Middle Bronze Age II (Babylon I ) (Hittite Old Kingdom)

Late Bronze Age I (Kizzuwatna)

MCI 1

MCI 2

1420–1400

Mitanni Dominance

MCI 3a

1400–1350

Hittite Dominance

MCI 3b

1350–1190

Late Bronze Age II Part of Hittite Empire

MCI 4

1190-1130

Late Bronze Age III

NCI 1

1130-950

Iron Age I

NCI 2

NCI 3

950-720 Iron Age II

NCI 4

720-609 609-539 539-330

Iron Age III

NCI 5 NCI 6

ZX Syro-Cilician

18–17 Syro-Cilician; MC II–III/LC I imports

Z VIII

Amuq2 K

XVI-XII XI-IX VIII-VII

L

Z IX MC II–III/LC I imports

Z IX (?) Black impressed North-Central Anatolian forms

Tayinat

VI / 63

16–15C-A MC II–III/LC I imports; North-Central Anatolian forms

V/5 M

IV / 4

IV late / 14–13.1 3 LC I–II imports; Drab Ware III-II / 2 I/1 13.2 ↓? LH IIIC 0 early-middle 12.1-3 Z VI, U V LH IIIC late Cross-hatched Phoenician and Ware Cypriot Imports Z V, U IV 11–9 Cypro-Geo- Cypro-Geometric metric III P IV, U III 8–7 Neo-Assyrian Neo-Assyrian Z IV, U II 6 Post-Assyrian gap P III 5—3B Z VII, P VI Drab Ware

1

 On Cilicia and the sequences of Kinet and Sirkeli see Cilician Chronology Group 2017.  On the Amuq sequence see Pruß 2010, p. 10. 3  Latin numbers reflect Woolley’s (1955) chronology, Arabic numbers Yener’s (2013) new chronology. 4  “FP” means “Field Phase”. On the stratigraphy see Harrison 2012, p. 4 and 2013, p. 65. 2

Table 3. Comparative chronology of Cilicia and the Amuq.

Post-M

FP 6-34 Building Period I (?) Building Periods II and III Building Period IV

N

O a-b Oc Od Q

THE TWO SIDES OF THE AMANUS: CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

383

As already mentioned, this proposal is only a first draft and requires more comprehensive analyses of the material and interdisciplinary discussions among all scholars working in the two regions. However, we hope that this chapter might start that discussion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY BAGH, T. 2003

“The relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware and Khabur Ware and the chronological implications,” in The Synchronisation of Civilisations £in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000—EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001, edited by M. Bietak, pp. 219–237. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. BRAIDWOOD, R. J. 1937 Mounds in the Plain of Antioch: An Archaeological Survey (Oriental Institute Publications 48). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. BRAIDWOOD, R. J. and BRAIDWOOD, L. S. 1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Vol. 1. The Earlier Assemblages, Phases A–J. (Oriental Institute Publications 61). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CARRUBA, O. 1974 “Tahurwaili von Hatti und die hethitische Geschichte um 1500 v. Chr. G.,” in Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néderlandais de Stamboul 35), edited by K. Bittel, Ph. H. J. Houwink Ten Cate and E. Reiner, pp. 73–93. Istanbul: Institut historique-archéologique néderlandais. CILICIAN CHRONOLOGY GROUP 2017 “A Comparative Stratigraphy of Cilicia. Results of the first three Cilician Chronology Workshops,” Altorientalische Forschungen 44: 150–186. DARGA, A. M. 1986 “Karatepe–Azatiwattaya Kalesinin Çanak Çömlek Buluntuları,” Anadolu Araştırmaları 10: 371–415. DINCOL, B., DINCOL, A., HAWKINS, J. D., PEKER, H. and ÖZTAN, A. 2015 “Two new inscribed Storm-God Stelae from Arsuz (Iskenderun): Arsuz 1 and 2,” Anatolian Studies 65: 59–77. FISCHER-BOSSERT, E. 2014 “Keramik,” in Karatepe-Aslantaş: Azatiwataya, Vol. 2 (Archäologische Forschungen 29), edited by H. Çambel, pp. 136–149. Wiesbaden: Reichert. GATES, M.-H. 2006 “Dating the Hittite levels at Kinet Höyük: A revised chronology,” in Strukturierung und Datierung in der Hethitischen Archäologie (Byzas 4), edited by D. P. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop and J. Seeher, pp. 293–309. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. 2013 “From Late Bronze to Iron Age on Syria’s northwest frontier: Cilicia and the Amuq,” in Syrian Archaeology in Perspective. Celebrating 20 Years of Excavations at Tell Afis, edited by S. Mazzoni and S. Soldi, pp. 95–116. Pisa: Edizioni ETS. GIRGINER, K. S. and COLLON, D. 2014 “Cylinder and stamp seals from Tatarlı Höyük,” Anatolian Studies 64: 59–72. GOLDMAN, H. 1956 Excavation at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II. From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1963 Excavation at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus III. The Iron Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

384

M. NOVÁK

– E.

KOZAL

– S. KULEMANN-OSSEN – D.

YAŞIN

HARRISON, T. 2013 “Tayinat in the Early Iron Age,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31–June 1, 2010, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 61–87. Leuven: Peeters. HODOS, T., KNAPPETT, C. and KILIKOGLOU, V. 2005 “Middle and Late Iron Age painted ceramics from Kinet Höyük: Macro, micro and elemental analyses,” Anatolian Studies 55: 61–87. JEAN, É. 2006 “The Hittites at Mersin-Yumuktepe: Old problems and new directions,” in Structuring and Dating in Hittite Archaeology: Requirements, Problems, New Approaches; International Workshop, Istanbul, 26-27 November 2004 (Byzas 4), edited by D. P. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop and J. Seeher, pp. 311–332. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. KAUFMANN, S. A. 2007 “The Phoenician inscription of the Incirli Trilingual: A tentative reconstruction and translation,” Maarav 14.2: 7–26. KLENGEL, H. 1997 “Die historische Rolle der Stadt Aleppo im vorantiken Syrien,” in Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch, edited by G. Wilhelm, pp. 359–374. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. 1999 Geschichte des Hethitischen Reiches (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/34). Leiden: Brill. KULEMANN-OSSEN, M. and MÖNNINGHOFF, H. In Preparation  “Hybridity of style: Iron Age pottery from Sirkeli Höyük,” in Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici N.S., Vol. 4/2018 (will appear in 2019). KOZAL, E. and NOVÁK, M. 2017 “Alalakh and Kizzuwatna. Some Thoughts on the Synchronization,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, A. Gilbert and M. T. Horowitz, pp. 296–317. Leiden: Brill. LEBEAU, M. (ed.) 2011 Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean I. Jezirah. Turnhout: Brepols. LEMAIRE, A. 1983 “L’inscription phénicienne de Hassan-Beyli reconsidérée,” Rivista de Studi Fenici 11: 9–19. MANUELLI, F. 2013 Arslantepe. Late Bronze Age. Hittite Influence and Local Traditions in an Eastern Anatolian Community. Rome: Sapienza Università di Roma. MATTHIAE, P. 2013 “North-Western Syria in the Old Syrian Period. Stratigraphy and architecture,” in Archéologie et Histoire en Syrie I. La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du fer (Schriften zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie 1.1), edited by W. Orthmann, P. Matthiae and M. al-Maqdissi, pp. 283–307. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. MEBERT, J. 2010 Die Venustafeln des Ammī-ṣaduqa und ihre Bedeutung für die astronomische Datierung der altbabylonischen Zeit (Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 31). Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. MILLER, J. 2004 Studies in the Origin, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatna Rituals (Studien zu den Boghazköy-Texten 46). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. NIGRO, L. 2002 “The MB pottery horizon of Tell Mardikh / ancient Ebla in a chronological perspective,” in The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant, edited by M. Bietak, pp. 297–328. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

THE TWO SIDES OF THE AMANUS: CILICIA AND THE AMUQ

NOVÁK, M. 2010

385

“Kizzuwatna, Ḥiyawa, Quwe – Ein Abriss der Kulturgeschichte des Ebenen Kilikien,” in Kulturlandschaft Syrien: Zentrum und Peripherie. Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 371), edited by J. Becker, R. Hempelmann and E. Rehm, pp. 397–425. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. NOVÁK, M. and RUTISHAUSER, S. 2013 “Eine neue Chronologie des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr.,” Antike Welt 1/13: 70–73. 2017 “Kizzuwatna. Archaeology,” in: Hittite Landscape and Geography (Handbuch der Orientalistik I/121), edited by M. Weeden and L. Z. Ullmann, pp. 134–145. Leiden: Brill. ÖZYAR, A. 2017 “Contributions of Tarsus-Gözlükule to Hittite Studies,” in The Discovery of an Anatolian Empire, edited by M. Doğan-Alparslan, A. Schachner and M. Alparslan, pp. 279–292. Istanbul: Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü. ORTHMANN, W. (ed.) 1975 Der Alte Orient (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte, Band 14). Berlin: Propyläen. ORTHMANN, W., MATTHIAE, P. and AL-MAQDISSI, M. (eds) 2013 Archéologie et Histoire en Syrie I. La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du fer (Schriften zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie 1.1). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. PFÄLZNER, P. 2017 “Ḫabur Ware and Social Continuity: The Chronology of the Early to Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Syrian Jezireh,” in The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East Chronology C14, and Climate Change, edited by F. Höflmayer, pp. 163– 203. Chicago: Oriental Institute. PRUß, A. 2002 “Ein Licht in der Nacht? Die Amuq-Ebene während der Dark Ages,” in Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr., edited by H. Matthäus and E. A. Braun-Holzinger, pp. 161–176. Mainz: Bibliopolis. 2007 “Comb-incised Pottery in Syria and Mesopotamia and its Relevance for Chronology”, in Proceedings of the International Colloquium ‘From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine’, edited by P. Matthiae, pp. 473–497. Rome: Bardi Editore. PUCCI, M. 2013 “Chatal Höyük in the Amuq. Material culture and architecture during the passage from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age,” in Across the Border: Late BronzeIron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31–June 1, 2010, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 89–112. Leuven: Peeters. SEVIN, V. and ÖZYADIN, T. 2004 “The Iron Age Levels,” in Mersin-Yumuktepe. A Reappraisal, edited by I. Caneva and V. Sevin, pp. 85–102. Lecce: Congedo Editore. SLANE, D. A. 1987 Middle and Late Bronze Age Architecture and Pottery in Gözlü Kule, Tarsus: A New Analysis. Unpublished PhD diss. Bryn Mawr College. WOOLLEY, L. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949. London: Society of Antiquaries. YAMADA, S. 2000 The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC) Relating to his Campaigns to the West (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 3). Leiden: Brill.

386

M. NOVÁK

– E.

KOZAL

– S. KULEMANN-OSSEN – D.

YAŞIN

YENER, K. A. 2005 The Amuq Valley Regional Projects Volume 1. Surveys in The Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002. Chicago: Oriental Institute. 2013 “New excavations at Alalakh. The 14th–12th centuries BC,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31–June 1, 2010, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–35. Leuven: Peeters.

Mirko NOVÁK Bern in collaboration with

Ekin KOZAL Çanakkale Sabina KULEMANN-OSSEN and Deniz YAŞIN Bern

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS AT ALALAKH

MORTUARY PRACTICES AND GIS MODELLING AT TELL ATCHANA, ALALAKH Tara INGMAN ABSTRACT The burial record of Tell Atchana, Alalakh, is one of the largest in the region, with over 300 individuals excavated to date. This large corpus displays a wide variety of burial practices dating to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, and its study provides valuable insight into the mortuary rituals of the second millennium BC. This contribution represents an initial analysis of the burials at the site, including the three-dimensional GIS model of the extramural cemetery area, created to facilitate the analysis of the graves. Insights and preliminary interpretations of observed trends are discussed, in particular, the use of specific vessels in the graves, here identified as ‘funerary vessels.’*

INTRODUCTION The unusually large burial record of Tell Atchana presents a continuous sequence from the end of the Middle Bronze Age through the end of the Late Bronze Age and includes a wide variety of burial locations, positions, goods, et cetera, making the corpus a valuable tool for analysing mortuary practices in the second millennium BC. To begin studying the Tell Atchana burials in depth, however, it was necessary to synthesise both previously published and unpublished data, in order to provide insight into the funerary practices as a unified whole.1 Previous treatments of the burials have focused on straightforward description,2 osteological analyses of portions of the corpus,3 and individual graves,4 and there has been little analysis of the burial record in its entirety. A comprehensive analysis of the graves, therefore, provides insight into the funerary practices at Alalakh and reveals mortuary trends and preferences in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.

* I would like to thank the organisers of this conference, and Aslıhan Yener in particular for her constant support and encouragement, without which this research would not have been possible. My sincere thanks and gratitude go especially to Co-Assistant Director Murat Akar for the training he provided me in GIS, as well as his insights and comments throughout the research. Deepest thanks also go to Mara Horowitz for her comments and observations, particularly during the editing of my MA thesis, which serves as the basis of this contribution. 1  Ingman 2014, 2017. 2  Woolley 1955; Yener 2010; Yener et al. in press. 3  Boutin 2008, 2010; Shafiq, this volume. 4  Yener 2013b.

T. INGMAN

390 THE

BURIALS AT

TELL ATCHANA

Graves have been found in every excavated area of the site, and 306 burials have been documented to date. Just under half (126 burials) were found during the excavations of Sir Leonard Woolley in the 1930s–1940s in the Royal Precinct area in the northeast of the mound (Area 1 of the renewed excavations, see Fig. 1), where Woolley’s excavations uncovered two palaces, a series of temples, and associated gate complexes.5 Woolley, unfortunately, did not publish all the burials he found, however, and did not include those he considered to be “poor” or which, he believed, did “not repay publication.”6 Judging by the numbering system used in his final publication, which includes the year the burial was excavated and the grave number (e.g., ATG/37/1, the first grave excavated in 1937, or ATG/39/95, the ninety-fifth grave excavated in 1939),7 there may be as many as 105 burials that he did not publish, and therefore no record currently exists of these. Graves have also been found in the renewed excavations, led by K. Aslıhan Yener, in all excavated areas.8 The majority of the graves discovered by the Alalakh Excavations team have been found on the northeast slope of the mound in Area 3, where an extramural cemetery was discovered just outside the city fortification wall (134 burials), although other intramural burials (46 burials) have been found in Areas 1, 2, and 4, as well (Fig. 1),9 including, in the last several years of excavation, what appears to be another cemetery area in Area 4 that dates to Late Bronze I, although this one is intramural.10 Seventeen new burials have been discovered in two of the squares here (Squares 64.72 and 64.73) and, when excavation in the surrounding squares is continued to expose these levels, it is expected that the limits of this burial ground will grow. The presence of both intra- and extramural burials therefore provides a rare opportunity to compare the two traditions at a single site. Taken as a whole, the earliest burials at the site date from Woolley’s Level VIII in the late Middle Bronze Age (Middle Bronze II).11 Due to the limited exposures of pre-Period 8 contexts in both Woolley’s and Yener’s excavations, no burials from before this Period have been discovered.12 The burial sequence continues uninterrupted to Woolley’s Level O, which he ascribed to the arrival of the Sea Peoples at the end of the Late Bronze Age.13  5

 Woolley 1955.  Woolley 1955, pp. 201–202.  7  Woolley 1955.  8  Ingman 2014; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010. For more details on the excavation Areas, see Yener et al. in press. 9  Akar 2017; Ingman 2014, 2017; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010. 10  For an initial analysis of the skeletal material from this cemetery, see Shafiq 2018. 11  Until calendar dates can be firmly established by the Alalakh Excavations team, the current Yener terminology is taken here to refer to eras at the site. Thus, Period 7 is taken as the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and Period 6 is referred to as early Late Bronze I, rather than Middle Bronze IIc, which had been used previously in various publications (see, for example, Gates 1981; Yener 2010). Late Bronze I is taken to end with the destruction of Period 4, and Late Bronze II includes Periods 3–1. For more details on the dating of Periods at the site, see Yener et al. in press; also Yener et al., this volume. 12  In line with the phasing system of the renewed excavations, ‘Period’ is used here to refer to site-wide phases that correspond to Woolley’s ‘Levels’ and are represented with Arabic numerals, rather than his Roman numerals, where Woolley’s Level VIII is equivalent to Period 8 (Yener 2013a, p. 13). For more details on the phasing system in use at the site, see Yener et al. in press. 13  Woolley 1953, 1955.  6

MORTUARY PRACTICES AND GIS MODELLING AT TELL ATCHANA, ALALAKH

Fig. 1. Map of Tell Atchana with excavation squares in grey. White squares indicate where graves have been found. Map by M. Akar.

391

392

T. INGMAN

Given the recent discovery of Iron Age levels, though,14 some of these late burials may actually belong to the Iron Age, and this remains a subject for further research. Here, these Level O graves have been grouped with Woolley’s Level I burials, with the understanding that their dating is problematic and tentative. Several different types of burials are attested at the site, in both the intra- and extramural areas.15 The vast majority are simple pit burials in flexed positions. There is a wide range of positions in this group, from very tightly flexed to only loosely flexed legs (Figs. 2.1 and 2.2). Additionally, the positioning of the upper body varies, from placement with the back flat on the ground and the legs flexed to one side (Fig. 2.1) to a traditional hocker position, with the upper body placed on its side (Fig. 2.2). The arms are typically bent upwards towards the face when the body is positioned on one side and usually crossed over the chest or stomach when the individual is deposited on its back.16 In addition to these flexed pit graves, there are also burials in extended positions, although this type is much less common than the flexed one (Fig. 2.3). This position seems to be particularly associated with adult males, and it is possible that it conveyed a particular ideological attitude.17 This suggestion is supported by the fact that the adult male in the elite ‘Plastered Tomb’ was deposited in this position (see below).18 There are 14 examples of secondarily treated burials in the cemetery and one example in the intramural cemetery in Area 4, as well as two additional burials from the Royal Precinct, which, based on Woolley’s descriptions, may have been secondarily treated, although they were not identified as secondary burials by him.19 Among the 14 graves from the cemetery that show some sign of secondary treatment, the nature of this treatment varies: several of them are graves made up of two or three adult skulls, some consist of disarticulated bones that appear to have been deliberately arranged (Fig. 2.4), and others are disarticulated piles of bones that are associated with articulated individuals.20 This last type of secondarily treated burial seems to be the result of disturbing older graves in the cemetery, where graves are often very close together; in the process of digging new graves, the disturbed bones presumably were collected and reburied with the recently deceased individual.21 Typically, these burials have no grave goods accompanying them, although both of the potential secondary burials from the Royal Precinct were found with grave goods,22 perhaps indicating that they were disturbed, rather than deliberately secondarily treated. Multiple burials have also been found — ten in the cemetery and ten among the intramural graves — typically of an adult and an infant or small child, raising the possibility that these represent parents and children buried together.23 This pairing is more common 14

 Yener 2013a.  Ingman 2014, 2017. 16  See Ingman 2014, table 6 for a complete list of burial positions. 17  Ingman 2014, pp. 125–126. 18  Boutin 2008; Yener 2013b. 19  Ingman 2014, p. 128. 20  For more details, see Ingman 2017. 21  Ingman 2017, pp. 247–248. 22  Ingman 2014, table 2; Woolley 1955, pp. 211, 221. 23  Ingman 2014; 2017, p. 247. 15

MORTUARY PRACTICES AND GIS MODELLING AT TELL ATCHANA, ALALAKH

393

Fig. 2. Selected burial types at Tell Atchana. 1. Pit burial, very tightly flexed legs (Square 45.44, Locus 106); 2. Pit burial, loosely flexed legs (Square 44.86, Locus 18); 3. Pit burial, extended (Square 45.44, Locus 71); 4. Deliberately secondarily arranged burial (Square 45.44, Locus 115). Photographs by M. Akar.

394

T. INGMAN

in the intramural burials, although there is one instance in the cemetery. Two mature individuals in the same grave are also attested in both intra- and extramural areas.24 These may also be family relations — parent-child pairings, spouses, siblings, et cetera — as is postulated for the adult male and three females buried in the Plastered Tomb (see below).25 While pit burials continue throughout the burial sequence at Tell Atchana, including both the multiple and secondary pit burials, there are two additional types of graves that appear only in certain levels. Pot burials of infants or young children are attested from both Middle Bronze II and Late Bronze I levels (Periods 7-4), and almost all of the 16 pot burials found were excavated in the Royal Precinct area: only three have been excavated in the cemetery area, and they were all near ground level and badly preserved.26 The burials are found in large cooking pots and storage jars, and grave goods were often placed inside the urn, with ceramic goods sometimes placed outside it.27 Particularly interesting among the pot burials is ATG/39/93, from Level IV: inside a Canaanite-style transport amphora, Woolley found a Base Ring II jug, eight bronze earrings, and the bones of an adult and an infant, which were apparently “inserted in [the vessel] after the removal of the flesh; the two skulls lay on the top, the other bones in confusion beneath them.”28 This multiple burial, which seems to represent a combination of the pot burial tradition and a secondary burial treatment, is unique among the graves at Tell Atchana. Infant pit burials are common in the cemetery and in the intramural graves, but infant pot burials are also attested in both groups, indicating a distinction in funerary practices, rather than a difference in infant burial types according to location. Since the vast majority of the infant burials reported from the region appear to be pot burials with few or no grave goods,29 the infants at Tell Atchana that are not buried this way seem to be from a different group. They may belong to families of a different religion or ethnicity, for example, although this possibility needs to be investigated with further research.30 At the same time that pot burials disappeared at the site, cremations began to become more common.31 There are 11 cremations in total, and all of them were found by Woolley in the Royal Precinct. The earliest example was dated by Woolley to Level V (Late Bronze I), but most were from his Levels III-O (Late Bronze II).32 The cremations were found inside a wide range of vessels, including large jugs, pitchers and kraters, unlike the pot burials, which were found in more limited vessel types. Also unlike the pot burials, the cremations tend to be very rich, containing jewellery in gold, silver and bronze, as well as cylinder seals, ivory combs, bronze vessels, knives and Mycenaean pottery (e.g., ATG/38/2 and ATG/39/68).33 Although there are examples of pot burials with up to eight or nine grave 24

 For a list of burial types, see Ingman 2014, table 6.  Boutin 2008; Yener 2013b. 26  Ingman 2014, table 6; 2017, p. 245. 27  Ingman 2014; Woolley 1955. 28  Woolley 1955, p. 211. 29  See, for example, Carter and Parker 1995; Kulemann-Ossen and Novak 2000; Ingman 2014, pp. 94–123 and references therein. 30  Ingman 2014, pp. 126–127. 31  Ingman 2014, pp. 50–51. 32  Ingman 2014, p. 129. 33  Woolley 1955, pp. 204–205. See Ingman 2014, table 7 for a complete list of grave goods. 25

MORTUARY PRACTICES AND GIS MODELLING AT TELL ATCHANA, ALALAKH

395

goods, they more typically have fewer goods, which tend to be ceramic vessels and beads of various stones, rather than precious metals (e.g., ATG/38/15 and ATG/38/17).34 Cremations are the only burial type found exclusively in the Royal Precinct. Though there are 11 in total, six of them come from Levels I-O, and thus may actually belong to the recently identified Iron Age occupation. Because of the Late Bronze Age cremation cemeteries found in Central Anatolia, cremations elsewhere in the Late Bronze Age have often been pointed to as indicators of Hittite influence or as belonging to Hittite individuals.35 However, isolated cremations have been found in Palestine, the Aegean, and across Syria in the later second millennium BC.36 Cremation may be practised for many different reasons, including death from disease or in childbirth, as a way to distinguish criminals, or for reasons of race, religion, or social standing.37 The Tell Atchana cremations may be examples of this type of phenomenon, though at this point it is not possible to say exactly what they indicate. Given that they are not an isolated incidence, a local tradition of disposing of specific members of the community by cremating their remains apparently existed in the region before the Iron Age, when this burial type became common.38 As the Tell Atchana cremations are very rich in grave goods, especially metal goods, it is also possible that this was a way for the highest levels of the elite, or perhaps for specific elite individuals, to distinguish themselves. In general, less variation is observed among the cemetery burials at Tell Atchana than the intramural burials in terms of burial types and positions, as well as of grave goods. Throughout the cemetery’s use, the majority of the graves are oriented northwestsoutheast, although this seems to be in reference to the nearby city wall that also runs in this direction, while the intramural graves do not show any consistent pattern in orientation.39 The intramural graves have a significantly higher average number of grave goods than the cemetery: over three objects (3.58) per grave, on average, with several exceptional graves containing up to 30 objects. In the cemetery, however, the average number of grave goods is only 0.68 objects per grave.40 Additionally, only 22 intramural graves contain no grave goods (12.7 per cent), while 82 graves in the cemetery, likewise, have no grave goods (61 per cent).41 This suggests that the extramural cemetery was perhaps used mostly by the city’s non-elite population.42 However, as discussed above, Woolley published only selected graves that he considered informative or exceptional, perhaps artificially inflating these numbers for the intramural burials. If many or all of his unpublished graves contained no grave goods, then the averages for the intra- and extramural burials may, in reality, be more similar. Assuming that there 34

 Woolley 1955, pp. 212–213.  Akyurt 1998; Bienkowski 1982; Emre 1991; Gilmour 1995, p. 169. 36  Bienkowski 1982; Gilmour 1995, pp. 167–169. 37  Bienkowski 1982, p. 86; Gilmour 1995, p. 169. 38  Bienkowski 1982; Ingman 2014, pp. 129–130; for recent overviews of cremations in the early first millennium BC, see Kreppner 2014, p. 181; Tenu 2013. 39  Ingman 2014, p. 125; 2017, p. 247. 40  Ingman 2017, p. 248. 41  Ingman 2017, p. 248. 42  Akar 2017, p. 220; Ingman 2014, pp. 130–133; 2017, p. 254. 35

396

T. INGMAN

are an additional 105 intramural graves (the minimum number of unpublished Woolley burials, based on his numbering system), all of which contained no grave goods, then the average number of goods per grave intramurally would be 2.22 — significantly lower than the average that we have evidence for, but still much higher than the average among the extramural cemetery burials. This suggests that the distinction between the two areas is indeed valid, if potentially not as dramatic as it currently seems. Unless any details of these unpublished graves can be discovered, the exact numbers will remain unclear, and we must proceed with the documentation at hand. The Shaft Grave and the Plastered Tomb Finally, there are two potentially monumental tombs at Tell Atchana. The first was found by Woolley and has been dubbed the ‘Shaft Grave’, although this name is something of a misnomer, since it was, in actuality, a stone-built chamber tomb. Part of the Level VII palace, and entered from the southern part of the palace — the more domestic and workshop area — a flight of stairs descends between plastered limestone walls to a door of basalt, which opens onto the chamber.43 In the north corner of the chamber, Woolley found a pile of “wood ash and charred wood, numerous animal bones, most of them heavily burnt, four alabaster vases of which one was destroyed by fire, and three clay vessels; there were no marks of burning on the floor, so that everything here must have been collected from a pyre elsewhere and been deposited here.”44 In the southwest corner, four individuals were placed into a wooden box with the skulls in the corners and a fragmentary child’s skull in the centre above the crossed legs. The rest of the chamber was empty. Following the deposition of the bodies and the burnt material, and while the palace was still in use, the chamber was blocked from the inside by large stones, and the shaft was filled with “peculiarly clean earth” that was found undisturbed and “had been beaten hard.”45 A ceiling was built over the stairway, which was left empty, and the doorway leading to it was blocked; a concrete floor was laid, and a new doorway was opened into this room from the northeast.46 Woolley pointed out parallels between the Shaft Grave and the chamber tombs at Ugarit, which are later in date, but concluded that there were too many constructional differences.47 Most importantly, the uses of the Ugarit tombs and the Shaft Grave appear quite different. The Ugarit tombs were meant to be reused over presumably long periods of time,48 and the construction of the Shaft Grave, built as part of the palace with a stairway and door leading down to it, suggests that it was also originally intended for reuse, perhaps along the lines of the Royal Hypogeum and Tomb VII at Qatna, both apparently in use during Middle Bronze II.49 However, unless it was later looted or disturbed, a possibility

43

 Woolley 1955, p. 95.  Woolley 1955, p. 96. 45  Woolley 1955, p. 96. 46  Woolley 1955, p. 97. 47  Woolley 1955, p. 97. 48  See, for example, Keswani 2012, p. 185. 49  See Pfälzner 2012; 2014, pp. 141–142; Pfälzner et al. 2011. 44

MORTUARY PRACTICES AND GIS MODELLING AT TELL ATCHANA, ALALAKH

397

that Woolley rejected, based on the undisturbed soil filling the chamber,50 it seems that the chamber was used only for a short time, perhaps even for a single burial event. The context and construction of the tomb make it tempting to interpret the Shaft Grave as a royal tomb, but the lack of elaborate grave goods, the fact that the chamber appears to have been undisturbed, and the careful blocking-up of the chamber suggest this may not be the case. Woolley ventured that the tomb may represent “an elaborate foundation-sacrifice,” but admitted that he remained unconvinced,51 and, indeed, this seems an unsatisfactory explanation. It is difficult to know what to make of the Shaft Grave. Superficially, the construction resembles the roughly contemporary early chamber tombs at Ugarit or shaft graves from the Aegean.52 Its location recalls the royal tombs under palaces at, for example, Middle Bronze Age Ebla, Middle-Late Bronze Age Qatna, and Late Bronze Age Ugarit.53 The lack of ‘royal’ grave goods, though, and the in-filling of the tomb leave it without solid parallels to date.54 The Plastered Tomb is the other example of a unique and potentially monumental grave at Tell Atchana. Dated to the end of Late Bronze I and found in the extramural cemetery, this plaster-encased tomb contained four individuals — an adult male and three females. The individuals were buried in pairs, with a layer of plaster above each pair, all on top of a foundation (also plastered) of stones and large pithos fragments.55 Two columns of mudbricks bolstered the structure and perhaps supported a superstructure that was later destroyed. At least part of the tomb was above ground and, as it was placed on the edge of the mound, it would have been visible from a distance.56 The grave goods in the Plastered Tomb were rich and varied and included pairs of both imported and local ceramics.57 The most notable feature of the ceramic assemblage is this pairing, which occurs occasionally in the intramural graves, but is not a common feature. Each of the individuals wore jewellery made of gold and carnelian, glass and vitreous beads, and bronze and silver pins.58 This is the single richest tomb found at Tell Atchana, and it presents an interesting puzzle, as the plastering appears to be unique in the region and time period.59 Although it was found in the extramural cemetery, where the graves are generally poorer than the intramural graves, this seems to be an elite grave, given the very rich goods and the elaborate construction.60

50

 Woolley 1955, p. 96.  Woolley 1955, p. 98. 52  For example, Belli 2003; Keswani 2012. 53  See, for example, Matthiae 1984; Pfälzner 2012; Pfälzner et al. 2011; Yon 2006, p. 40 and references therein. 54  See Ingman 2014, pp. 132–133 for further discussion on possible interpretations and parallels for the Shaft Grave. 55  Boutin 2008; Yener 2013b; Yener and Yazıcıoğlu 2010. 56  Yener 2013b, p. 265. 57  Yener 2013b, pp. 275–276. 58  Yener 2013b, pp. 273–275. 59  Yener 2013b, pp. 272–273. 60  For further discussion, see Ingman 2014, pp. 58–60, 131. 51

T. INGMAN

398 THE

CONTRIBUTION OF

GIS MODELING

In order to move beyond initial assessments of the burial corpus, however, the first step to a more in-depth analysis of the burial practices at the site was dating the graves in the cemetery as accurately as possible. While the intramural graves can be dated with reference to the surrounding architecture, the lack of architecture that characterises the extramural cemetery makes dating the graves there, comprising close to half the burial corpus of the site (43.7 per cent), extremely difficult. Therefore, in an effort to clarify both the vertical and the horizontal relationships of the graves to each other and to nearby architecture, a threedimensional model was created using Geographic Information System (GIS) software of two of the excavation squares (Squares 45.44 and 45.45) where the cemetery has been discovered (Fig. 3).61 The fortification wall that bounds the cemetery was included in the model to give reference points, since the phases of the wall had already been preliminarily dated during excavation, and, using these points, along with the clustering of burials that became apparent in the final GIS model, it was possible to suggest tentative dates for the cemetery burials. This provisional dating, which will be further refined and updated as research and excavations continue, suggests that, while the earliest cemetery graves thus far excavated date to Middle Bronze II, the majority of the cemetery burials date to Late Bronze I, and the latest preserved graves in the area are from Period 4. Post-Period 4 levels are not preserved in the Area 3 squares excavated to date, raising the question of whether the cemetery went out of use at the end of Late Bronze I or whether any use in Late Bronze II has merely been destroyed.62

Fig. 3. Three-dimensional GIS model of cemetery, Squares 45.44 and 45.45. 61

 See Ingman 2017 for details.  For further discussion, see Ingman 2017.

62

MORTUARY PRACTICES AND GIS MODELLING AT TELL ATCHANA, ALALAKH

399

Funerary Vessels Considering the assemblage of grave goods as a whole, the most common goods are pottery vessels (46 per cent of the grave goods). The most common vessel shapes are shoulder goblets (31 examples), the closely related short-neck jars (29 examples), and piriform juglets (28 examples; Fig. 4). The piriform juglet and shoulder goblet, in particular, are shapes that are found throughout Syria in the Middle Bronze Age and have been closely dated to Middle Bronze II,63 the period when the earliest graves uncovered at Tell Atchana were dug. As all of these are closed shapes, they may have contained liquids which were involved in the funerary rituals at the site, since closed shapes are more suited to liquids, rather than solid products, such as food. Together, these three shapes make up slightly more than a quarter of the pottery assemblage from the graves (26.7 per cent; Table 1), and examples and sherds of all three shapes have also been found in the cemetery fill layers, probably displaced from disturbed graves.64 The only other shape that is attested as often as these is the Red Lustrous Wheel-made ware spindle bottle, nearly all examples of which come from Level IV, some of which are imported and some of which are locally produced.65 Other common grave goods include toggle pins, metal bracelets and earrings, and necklaces and bracelets made of beads of different materials.66 In the GIS model, it is possible to display which graves these three shapes are present in, as well as where more than one of these vessels was found (Fig. 5). It is immediately clear that shoulder goblets continued in use in the cemetery well after the end of Middle Bronze II until the end of Late Bronze I, based on the preliminary phasing established. The case is the same with piriform juglets. If these graves were dated on the basis of pottery alone, they would probably be assigned to Middle Bronze II. However, given that the latest of them lie slightly above the preserved height of the fortification wall, which dates to Late Bronze I, a Middle Bronze II date for these graves is impossible.67 This is a key point, as it illustrates the danger of dating graves solely by their grave goods. The GIS model thus demonstrates the long-lived use of these shapes in funerary rituals at Alalakh, with all three vessel shapes continuing in use from Middle Bronze II to the end of Late Bronze I. This conclusion is supported by the data from the Woolley graves, where examples of all three shapes are found until Level IV.68 Mortuary practices at the site, therefore, seem to have been essentially conservative, as least as regards funerary vessels, for a period of several centuries.

63

 Horowitz 2015.  Ingman 2014, p. 140; see also Akar 2017. 65  Ingman 2014; Yener 2013b, pp. 275–276. 66  For a list of grave goods, see Ingman 2014, table 7. 67  Ingman 2014, pp. 139–140. 68  Woolley 1955, pp. 201–223. The shoulder goblet is Type 106b in Woolley’s typology, the piriform juglet is Type 137, and the short-neck jar is Types 100 and 102. For a list of the Woolley types found in the graves and their corresponding type names and codes in the new typology developed by M. Horowitz, see Ingman 2014, table 1. 64

400

T. INGMAN

Fig. 4. ‘Funerary vessels’. 1. AT 4991; 2. AT 8839; 3. AT 7378. Photographs by M. Akar. Drawings by S. Hawley and Ö. Yarma.

44.68%

19.15%

63

6

3

2

8

3

5

4

1

2

2

3

9

3

2

1

Level V

12.16%

40

14

4

8

1

1

1

1

2

2

Level VI

7.60%

25

3

6

1

6

3

2

1

Level VII

3.04%

10

3

1

3

2

1

Level VIII

Table 1. Distribution of vessel shapes, including all shapes with more than five examples attested.

3.34%

6.69%

% of Total 3.34%

11

22

Total Vessels 147

 25

 1

spindle bottle

11

  6

short-neck jar

  6

shallow bowl  1

 13

shoulder goblet

  6

 1

s-curve cup

  7   6

 1

  5

piriform juglet

 2

 5

Late Helladic IIIA flask  2

 1

high-neck pitcher

narrow-necked jug

 2

high-neck jug   5

  6

 3

high-neck jar  1

  4

globular pitcher  2

  1

  3

  9

Level IV

globular juglet

 4

Level III

  6

 1

1

Level II

Base Ring II jug

biconical jug

biconical jar

biconical cup

Level O-I

329

32

29

12

31

11

28

17

5

8

10

15

8

15

9

7

5

14

Total

9.73%

8.81%

3.65%

9.42%

3.34%

8.51%

5.17%

1.52%

2.43%

3.04%

4.56%

2.43%

4.56%

2.74%

2.13%

1.52%

4.26%

% of Total MORTUARY PRACTICES AND GIS MODELLING AT TELL ATCHANA, ALALAKH

401

402

T. INGMAN

Fig. 5. GIS cemetery model, displaying graves with funerary vessels.

In the cemetery, shoulder goblets are typically either the sole vessel or are accompanied by a piriform juglet.69 A close correlation between shoulder goblets and burials is also noted by Woolley,70 and they are almost exclusively associated with burials in the renewed excavations as well.71 The fact that these vessels seem to be of a non-functional shape, and could not have been easily eaten or drunk from (based on the high shoulder and constricted neck), may also indicate that they had a particular ritual or symbolic function.72 Their close correlation to burials implies that they were specifically linked to funerary rituals. The only other context shoulder goblets have been recovered from at Tell Atchana is a phase in Area 1, Square 32.57 that seems to date to a Middle–Late Bronze Age transition period.73 Given that the shoulder goblets seem to be specific to funerary contexts, this may indicate that the Middle Bronze Age apsidal building in this square, where the shoulder goblets likely originated and which has been identified as a temple by Yener,74 was associated with funerary rituals, but this suggestion is tentative and must be tested with further research. The piriform juglets are the second distinctive vessel type associated with the burials at Alalakh. Nearly every example at the site is in Syrian Brown-Grey Burnished Ware, a ware type that seems specific at Tell Atchana to piriform juglets.75 The only other examples of this ware at the site are two cylindrical cups from the Plastered Tomb.76 This ware does not seem to be local and may have been imported.77 All the vessels in this ware, then, have been 69

 Ingman 2014, p. 139.  Woolley 1955, p. 328. 71  Mara Horowitz, personal communication. 72  Ingman 2014, p. 140. 73  Ingman 2014, pp. 140–141. 74  Yener 2015. 75  M. Horowitz, personal communication; Ingman 2014, p. 141, table 11. 76  Ingman, p. 141; Yener 2013b, p. 276. 77  Mara Horowitz, personal communication. 70

MORTUARY PRACTICES AND GIS MODELLING AT TELL ATCHANA, ALALAKH

403

found in graves, indicating that these were imported specifically for funerary rituals, most likely from elsewhere in Syria, given that they are also common in funerary contexts at other Syrian sites.78

CONCLUSIONS This overview of burial practices at the site demonstrates the diversity of burial types, most of which were in use contemporaneously and in both intra- and extramural burial areas. The GIS model demonstrates in particular the long life of the funerary vessels, both the shoulder goblet and the piriform juglet, which continued in use far beyond the time when they are traditionally thought to have gone out of use, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The strong link between mortuary rituals and the shoulder goblets and piriform juglets identified here as funerary vessels represents an important guide for future work that may allow the identification of buildings related to funerary rituals and cult, such as the apsidal building in Area 1. This project representing an initial synthesis and analysis of the 306 burials from Alalakh therefore opens new avenues on the remarkably rich funerary rituals at the site. In particular, the three-dimensional GIS model lays out new perspectives on the extramural cemetery at Tell Atchana. The ability to view the cemetery both horizontally and vertically allows greater detail and precision in looking at the burials from various angles, including dating and grave goods. This is especially important in the Alalakh cemetery because of the long use of this area as a burial ground. This model enables us to look at burial practices in the cemetery from a diachronic perspective with greater clarity and ease and will be an essential tool in continuing research on the graves at Tell Atchana as it raises questions for future research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AKAR, M. 2017

“Late Middle Bronze Age international connections: An Egyptian style kohl pot from Alalakh,” in Questions, Approaches and Dialogues in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology: Studies in Honor of Marie-Henriette Gates and Charles Gates (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 445), edited by E. Kozal, M. Akar, Y. Heffron, Ç. Çilingiroğlu, T. E. Şerifoğlu, C. Çakırlar, S. Ünlüsoy, and E. Jean, pp. 215–228. Münster: UgaritVerlag.

AKYURT, I. M. 1998 M.Ö. 2. Binde Anadolu’da Ölü Gömme Adetleri. Bestattungssitten Anatoliens im zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend (Zusammenfassung). Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

78

 For a review of second millennium BC burial practices and associated grave goods, see Ingman 2014, pp. 94–123; forthcoming.

404 BELLI, P. 2003

T. INGMAN

“Aspects of monumental funerary architecture in LBA Crete,” in Sea Routes: from Sidon to Huelva. Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th-6th c. BC, edited by N. C. Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis, pp. 325–338. Athens: Museum of Cycladic Art. BIENKOWSKI, P. A. 1982 “Some remarks on the practice of cremation in the Levant,” Levant 14: 80–89. BOUTIN, A. T. 2008 Embodying Life and Death: Osteobiographical Narratives from Alalakh. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. 2010 “The Burials,” in The Amuq Valley Regional Projects: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch: Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavations Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 111–121. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi. CARTER, E. and PARKER, A. 1995 “Pots, people, and the archaeology of death in Northern Syria and Southern Anatolia in the latter half of the third millennium BC,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (Oxbow Monography 51), edited by S. Campbell and A. Green, pp. 96–116. Oxford: Oxbow Books. EMRE, K. 1991 “Cemeteries of second millennium B.C. in Central Anatolia,” in Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and 1st Millennium B.C., edited by T. Mikasa, pp. 1–15. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. GATES, M.-H. C. 1981 “Alalakh Levels VI and V: A chronological reassessment,” Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4(2): 1–40. GILMOUR, G. 1995 “Aegean Influence in Late Bronze Age Funerary Practices in the Southern Levant,” in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (Oxbow Monography 51), edited by S. Campbell and A. Green, pp. 155–170. Oxford: Oxbow Books. HOROWITZ, M. T. 2015 “The evolution of plain ware ceramics at the regional capital of Alalakh in the 2nd millennium BC,” in Plain Pottery Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East: Production, Use, and Social Significance, edited by C. Glatz, pp. 153–181. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc. INGMAN, T. 2014 Mortuary Practices at Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Unpublished MA thesis. Koç University. 2017 “The extramural cemetery at Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh and GIS modeling,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology. A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. Gilbert, pp. 245–259. Leiden: Brill. Forthcoming “Death and Burial in the Ancient Near East in the 2nd Millennium BC.” KESWANI, P. 2012 “Urban mortuary practices at Enkomi and Ugarit in the second millennium BC,” in (Re-)Constructing Funerary Rituals in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Tübingen Post-Graduate School “Symbols of the Dead” in May 2009 (Qatna Studien Supplementa 1), edited by P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, and A. Wissing, pp. 182–203. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. KREPPNER, F. J. 2014 “The new primary cremation custom of Iron Age Tell Sheikh Hamad/Dūr-Katlimmu (north-eastern Syria),” in Contextualising Grave Inventories in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of a Workshop at the London 7th ICAANE in April 2010 and an International Symposium in Tübingen in November 2010, Both Organised by the Tübingen Post-Graduate School “Symbols of the Dead” (Qatna Studien Supplementa 3), edited by P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, S. Lange and T. Köster, pp. 171–185. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

MORTUARY PRACTICES AND GIS MODELLING AT TELL ATCHANA, ALALAKH

405

KULEMANN-OSSEN, S. and NOVÁK, M. 2000 “dKubu und das ‘Kind im Topf’: Zur Symbolik von Topfbestattungen,” Altorientalische Forschungen 27(1): 121–131. MATTHIAE, P. 1984 “New discoveries at Ebla: The excavation of the Western Palace and the Royal Necropolis of the Amorite Period,” Biblical Archaeologist 47: 18–32. PFÄLZNER, P. 2012 “How did they bury the kings of Qatna?” in (Re-)Constructing Funerary Rituals in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Tübingen Post-Graduate School “Symbols of the Dead” in May 2009 (Qatna Studien Supplementa 1), edited by P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, and A. Wissing, pp. 204–220. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 2014 “Royal funerary practices and inter-regional contacts in the Middle Bronze Age Levant: New evidence from Qatna,” in Contextualising Grave Inventories in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of a Workshop at the London 7th ICAANE in April 2010 and an International Symposium in Tübingen in November 2010, Both Organised by the Tübingen Post-Graduate School “Symbols of the Dead” (Qatna Studien Supplementa 3), edited by P. Pfälzner, H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, S. Lange and T. Köster, pp. 141–156. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. PFÄLZNER, P., DOHMANN-PFÄLZNER, H., WITZEL, C., FLOHR, S., DEGENHARDT, S. and AHRENS, A. 2011 “Die Gruft VII: Eine neu entdeckte Grabanlage unter dem Königspalast von Qatna,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 143: 63–139. SHAFIQ, R. 2018 “Evidence of a possible elite cemetery at Alalakh / Tell Atchana,” Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantası 33, pp. 193–209. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü. TENU, A. 2013 “Funerary practices and society at the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age transition. A view from Tell Shiukh Fawqani and Tell an-Nasriyah (Syria),” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 423– 448. Leuven: Peeters. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1953 A Forgotten Kingdom: A Record of the Results Obtained from the Recent Important Excavation of Two Mounds, Atchana and al Mina, in the Turkish Hatay. Baltimore: Penguin Books. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). London: Oxford University Press. YENER, K. A. 2013a “New excavations at Alalakh: the 14th–12th centuries BC,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31-June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–35. Leuven: Peeters. 2013b “A plaster encased multiple burial at Alalakh: Cist Tomb 3017,” in Amilla: The Quest for Excellence. Studies Presented to Guenter Kopcke in Celebration of his 75th Birthday (Prehistory Monographs 43), edited by R. B. Koehl, pp. 263–279. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. 2015 “A monumental Middle Bronze Age apsidal building at Alalakh,” in Nostoi, Indigenous Culture, Migration + Integration in the Aegean Islands + Western Anatolia During the Late Bronze + Early Iron Ages (Koç University Press 58), edited by N. Chr. Stamppolidis, Ç. Maner and K. Kopanias, pp. 485–497. Istanbul: Koç University Press.

406

T. INGMAN

YENER, K. A., ed. 2010 The Amuq Valley Regional Projects: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch: Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi. YENER, K. A. and YAZICIOĞLU, G. B. 2010 “Excavation results,” in The Amuq Valley Regional Projects: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch: Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–49. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi. YENER, K. A., AKAR, M. and HOROWITZ, M. T., eds. In press Tell Atchana, Alalakh, The 2006-2010 Seasons. Volume 2: The Late Bronze Age II City. Istanbul: Koç University Press. YON, M. 2006 The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Tara INGMAN Koç University [email protected]

SPEISS’ING THINGS UP: IRON ARSENIDE IN A SECONDARY PRODUCTION CONTEXT AT TELL ATCHANA Michael A. JOHNSON ABSTRACT Excavations in the new Temple Sounding, Square 42.10, during the 2014 excavation season at Tell Atchana brought to light a plate-like fragment of iron arsenide, otherwise known as speiss. This material has been given relatively little attention in archaeological circles, in part because of its classification as a waste product of copper or silver production. Recent work in Iran has begun to call this interpretation into question, putting forward speiss as an intentional product used in the manufacture of arsenical copper. The find context of the sample from Tell Atchana as well as its chemical composition does not seem to support the interpretation of this material as an unintentional by-product of copper or silver manufacture. Rather, its location near what we interpret as a secondary production furnace points to its involvement in secondary metallurgical activities.

At the current state of research into the earliest periods of iron-based metallurgy, the developmental trajectory of this technological suite from about 2300 BC to the present is rather poorly understood. By now it has become well established that the predominant means of primary production for iron in antiquity was via the direct method, resulting in a spongy mass of iron called a bloom.1 Following recovery from the furnace, this bloom would be hot-forged to expel slag and other macro-impurities such as charcoal and to consolidate the metal, making it into ingots for forging into a final form. This cursory description is only relevant for the production of wrought iron, while research in recent years from across the Near East and the Aegean has revealed increasing evidence for a separate branch of iron-based metallurgy, involving what increasingly seems to be the intentional production of iron arsenide — otherwise known as speiss. Until quite recently, ferrous speiss has received little attention in archaeological circles. Most often, it is seen as a thoroughly loathsome byproduct of copper and silver production, notorious for its capacity to absorb both materials, which may then only be recovered through considerable effort.2 In their assessment of the production of speiss on the Iranian Plateau, Thornton et al. (2009) make the salient observation that societies of the region had been successfully smelting copper for centuries before the first extensive finds of speiss are reported from the third millennium BC, running counter to a narrative of accidental speiss production. A limited but steadily increasing number of finds of both more or less pure iron arsenide (less than 2–3 per cent wt. of other base metals, in keeping with

1

 Pleiner 2000; see also Wertime 1980; Coghlan 1977.  Thornton et al. (2009) provide an excellent overview on the technical problems with speiss and its occurrences in archaeological contexts. 2

408

M. A. JOHNSON

Thornton et al. 2009’s classification), as well as slags from deliberate production activities, are beginning to clarify the picture, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that speiss should probably be considered an intentional product in its own right.3 To date, finds of speiss and/or its related production debris have occurred at sites across the Near East and Aegean from the late fourth–early third millennium BC through the Greco-Roman period. Thus far, the most significant evidence has largely derived from the Iranian Plateau. From Tepe Hissar in northern Iran, Thornton et al. (2009) analysed a series of slags originating from the 1976 restudy project,4 three of which were determined to be from the production of speiss. In their evaluation of copper metallurgy at Shahr-i Sokhta in Iranian Sistan, Hauptmann et al. (2003) reported several fragments of speiss, one of which was analysed and included in their assessment. Most recently, the analyses of slags from Early Bronze Age Arisman A in western Iran have provided perhaps some of the most impressive evidence, yielding an estimated 2–3 tons of slag related to the production of iron arsenide.5 Additional finds have also included significant examples from Poros-Katsambas in Crete, mid-second millennium Boğazköy, Arslantepe, and Late Helladic IIIB contexts at Tiryns,6 to name just a few. The uses to which speiss may have been put in antiquity unfortunately continue to elude us. It is a notable feature of ancient Iranian metallurgy that there was a distinct dependence on arsenical copper into the later second millennium BC.7 Increasingly, it seems that a similar situation is developing in the Anatolian milieu, as it appears that tin bronzes do not comprise the primary portion of the assemblage until the Late Bronze Age.8 In cases where arsenical coppers dominate, it has typically been thought that these were natural alloys resulting from the smelting of arsenic-bearing copper ores, in part due to the high levels of variation in the arsenic content of arsenical coppers. In light of an increasing number of iron arsenide artefacts, however, there has been the suggestion that speiss may have been used as an alloying agent in the production of arsenical copper.9 An alternative option that has been proposed is that, in light of the low melting point of speiss (between 218 and 1020°C) and its fluidity in the molten state, this material may have been used in the production of iron figurines mentioned in Hittite texts.10 As finds of speiss and its related production debris increase in number, what had originally been thought of as an unfortunate byproduct is gaining increasing importance, showing itself to have been an active component in ancient metallurgical practice.

 Thornton et al. 2009; see also Rehren et al. 2012.  Dyson and Howard 1989.  5  Thornton et al. 2009, p. 315, note that Pernicka estimated 10 per cent of the 20–30 tons of slag at Arisman A to be related to speiss smelting.  6  Doonan et al. 2007 (Crete); Muhly et al. 1985 (Boğazköy); Palmieri et al. 1993 (Arslantepe); Waldbaum 1999 (Tiryns).  7  Stech and Pigott 1986.  8  Lehner 2015.  9  Rehren et al. 2012, p. 1726. 10  Thornton et al. 2009, p. 309.  3  4

SPEISS’ING THINGS UP

409

To this list we may now add a substantial example of relatively pure iron arsenide from the new Temple Sounding, Square 42.10, at Tell Atchana. This particular piece is one of only a handful of examples of such material that is neither horribly corroded nor embedded in a larger slag matrix. For the remainder of this chapter, I will present a summary of the new sounding at Tell Atchana, followed by a discussion of its associated pyrotechnical installation. I will then close with a brief presentation and discussion of the currently available analytical data on the speiss fragment from the sounding.

TELL ATCHANA NEW

TEMPLE SOUNDING

During the 2012 field season, a new sounding was started just to the south of the palace area near Woolley’s original temple sounding with the expressed goals of elucidating the Iron Age strata of Alalakh, gaining further insight into the Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age transition on the site, and developing an improved stratigraphic connection between the temple area, the palace, and areas further south on the mound. By the end of the 2012 season, what had been excavated in this trench consisted of an uninterrupted, albeit somewhat enigmatic, sequence of occupational debris running from the twelfth–eighth centuries BC, punctuated by the find of a clay sealing attributed to the Great Priest Pilukatuha.11 The continuation of excavation in Square 42.10 during the 2014 season began with the removal of Local Phase 3a, which consisted primarily of a curvilinear mudbrick wall in the northern section of the trench, as well as a few sherds. The character of the soil separating sub-Phases 3a and 3b appears to suggest that the remains of 3b were levelled off prior to the construction of 3a. The structure of Phase 3b recalls something akin to a residential building, however, its position high on the mound near the temple precinct, which appears to have been continuously occupied during the general abandonment of the 13th century BC,12 would suggest a more important function beyond common habitation. This suggestion is further reinforced by the discovery of a furnace in Phase 3b (Figs. 1 and 2), the fill of which contained a small amount of slag, as well as a more substantial amount of magnetic detritus. Finally, a thin fragment of what appeared to be iron was also recovered from the same context, the metallographic analysis of which will be discussed in more detail below. As to the dating of Phase 3b, it has been attributed to the Late Bronze/Early Iron transitional period by virtue of the presence of both Late Bronze Age carinated bowls and pithoi alongside pottery forms of Late Helladic IIIC date. The subsequent Local Phase 4 yielded a wealth of material dating from the Late Bronze Age II. Architecturally, this phase seems quite similar to that of Phase 3b and also yielded a pair of tandır ovens. Small finds included a number of lithics, animal remains, vitrified oven fragments, and miniature Hittite juglets. Most spectacular among the finds of this period was the recovery of a seal impression attributed to Great Priest/Great Prince Tudhaliya and

11

 Yener 2014, p. 61; 2017, p. 216.  Yener 2014, p. 61.

12

410

M. A. JOHNSON

Fig. 1. Square 42.10, Local Phase 3b, with furnace installation and ash trail on the left.

Fig. 2. Close view of Square 42.10 furnace, prior to reaching underlying ash lens.

SPEISS’ING THINGS UP

411

his wife Ashnu-Hepa dating to the time of Mursili II’s reign (1320–1295 BC).13 The discovery of this seal alongside characteristic Late Bronze Age II pottery forms provides us with an excellent terminus post quem for the aforementioned iron-related materials, placing their likely date between 1295 and 1140 BC. If we may consider ferrous speiss as part of the repertoire of materials referred to under the heading of ‘iron’ in ancient texts, as suggested by Thornton et al. (2009), this date range opens up a particularly enticing possibility regarding iron manufacture — namely, that this context could be attributed to the time of Hattusili III and his oft-cited letter KBo I 14.14 In this particular document, the Hittite king Hattusili III apologises to the king of Assyria, commenting that he has no iron in the storehouse at Kizzuwatna because the current conditions are not proper for the production of iron. Relating to the organisation of ancient iron manufacture, this document has two important implications: a) the production of iron was a seasonal affair, potentially related to the needs of charcoal production, but in any case supported by the evidence of seasonal production from Tell Hammeh later in the first millennium BC15 and b) that iron production seems to have been a decentralised activity, with local production in the southeastern reaches of the Hittite Empire contributing a portion of their output to the storehouse at Kizzuwatna. That this should be the case is also supported by the fact that iron does appear as a tax item in inventory lists.16

SECONDARY METALLURGICAL PROCESSES

AT

TELL ATCHANA

Having considered the excavated material from the 2014 season, it seems unlikely that this context is related to the primary production of iron or other materials, appearing more closely related to secondary production. A few factors go against the interpretation of this installation as a smelting furnace, most noticeable of which is the conspicuous lack of slag in the area. What is currently being considered as lead slag has been recovered in small quantity, but is of little importance in the current discussion, except to suggest that this furnace may have been used for a range of different metallurgical operations. The excavation of a significant quantity of magnetic detritus in the furnace is very promising in terms of linking the installation with iron work of some description; however, until it has been analysed it cannot be said whether it is a smelting byproduct such as cinder (burnt ore) or forging detritus such as hammerscale.17 Finally, a range of other metallurgical debris was excavated here, including casting spill, as well as hammer and anvil stones. The furnace was located at the southwest corner of Square 42.10 in a lens of ash and other material, including magnetic debris similar to that inside the furnace. The lens may be seen in the stratigraphy to be convex in shape, with its bottom slightly above the floor of  Yener et al. 2014, pp. 137–138.  Siegelova and Tsumoto 2011; see also Siegelova 2001, 1984. 15  Veldhuijzen and Rehren 2007. 16  Siegelova and Tsumoto 2011. 17  Hammerscale is an oxide crust that forms on iron and iron-based alloys during the forging process. As the object is hammered, this crust is shattered and scattered around the work area. 13 14

M. A. JOHNSON

412

Fig. 3. Square 42.10 stratigraphic profile. Ash lens immediately left of scale bar.

Local Phase 4, while the upper edges are clearly associated with Phase 3b (Fig. 3). The reason for this particular morphology is not necessarily clear, although it is possible to imagine that it is the result of continual activity around the furnace compressing the surrounding earth. Alternatively, it could be seen as a deliberately constructed feature designed to shape the angle of entry for blast air into the furnace, should a bellows system have been in place. The internal dimensions of the furnace are approximately 30 × 50 cm with a wall thickness of at least 10 cm (Fig. 2). According to the work of J. D. Rehder, such dimensions begin to achieve an ideal profile for maintaining high temperatures with a minimum of fuel consumption.18 In form it appears as a typical shaft furnace constructed with a river-stone foundation packed with clay, while the upper portion of the structure is pure clay with small calcareous inclusions and a consistency typical of the material used in the construction of the ‘Southern Fortress’ at Alalakh. Unfortunately, with a preserved height of approximately 30 cm and no tuyères or other paraphernalia associated with forced draft systems, the method for inducing air into the furnace remains a mystery — although the strong winds of the Amuq Valley do provide the potential for a substantial natural draft system.

IRON

ARSENIDE AT

TELL ATCHANA

In connection with this furnace, an exceptional discovery was made in 2014, namely the excavation of a substantial fragment of pure iron arsenide in a metallic state.19 This material is generally rare in archaeological contexts, with the notable exception of several instances in Iran, where substantial evidence for its intentional production has been uncovered.20 To date, however, I am unaware of the discovery of such a large fragment from archaeological contexts of the Late Bronze Age, and only recently has discussion of speiss as an intentionally produced product come to the fore. In the studies conducted by Rehren et al. (2012) and Thornton et al. (2009), all of the considered material appeared as slag with 18

 Rehder 2000.  Yener 2010 discusses the discovery of a chunk of iron arsenide ore (Lollingite, FeAs2) at Tell Atchana during the 2008 field season. Should evidence for the smelting of this material be found, such as slag or matte, this would represent the most secure evidence for intentional Bronze Age speiss production to date. 20  Rehren et al. 2012; see also Thornton et al. 2009. 19

SPEISS’ING THINGS UP

413

a few small prills of metallic speiss. As a material, speiss has a melting point between 218 and 1020°C and tends to be very hard and brittle, giving it an exceptionally limited number of potential uses. Indeed, the majority of modern industrial literature, surveyed at a glance, only discusses its usefulness as a superconductor of electricity, giving us little guidance for its potential in ancient contexts. The fragment recovered in 2014 is 3 cm long and, quite uniformly, 0.75 cm thick (Fig. 4). The edges tend to be fairly straight, intersecting with one another at clear angles, giving the impression that this piece may be a fragment of a larger item that shattered during working or perhaps was broken to use smaller pieces for alloying. Compositional analyses conducted after the 15th Anniversary of Alalakh symposium on a Bruker Tiger S8 X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer at the Koç University KUYTAM lab yielded values of 69 per cent iron (Fe), 25 per cent arsenic (As), 1 per cent antimony (Sb), 1 per cent sulphur (S), 1 per cent copFig. 4. Iron arsenide (speiss) fragment. per (Cu), 0.2 per cent molybdenum (Mo), 0.2 per cent nickel (Ni), 0.2 per cent lead (Pb), and 0.05 per cent zinc (Zn). In addition, portions of the sample were also examined metallographically. Samples were taken from either end of the object and mounted in a two-part epoxy resin. They were then polished to 0.1μm using a diamond polishing suspension. Following observation at 40× and 100× magnification on an MTI MM500T Advanced Metallurgical Microscope, the samples were etched using FeCl2 and re-examined. Falling in line with the pattern observed in other studies of speiss from the ancient Near East, it is probable that this fragment was a result of intentional production. In cases where speiss appears as a byproduct of base metal operations, there is usually a significant component of such metals (that is, copper or lead) entrapped in the speiss. Based on the currently available elemental analyses, it is fairly clear that elements aside from iron and arsenic are a minor component of the sample. As such, it is highly unlikely that this material was produced unintentionally in the course of copper or lead smelting. Simple macroscopic examination reveals one of the most notable features of this fragment, in particular that there is a minimum of corrosion, presenting a bright, homogeneous surface. After etching with FeCl2 (Fig. 5), a typical ferrous speiss microstructure was revealed, with plates of Fe2As (white) interleaved with areas dominated by α-Fe containing small amounts of arsenic (eutectic and dendritic structures). At 10x magnification (Fig. 6) it is possible to see where some of the dendritic areas have begun to preferentially corrode, matching the pattern seen in samples from Arisman A, wherein the same pattern is seen in the α-Fe phases.21 Based on current documentation, the observed microstructure appears to  Rehren et al. 2012.

21

414

M. A. JOHNSON

Fig. 5. Upper edge of sample at 40× magnification. Etched with alcoholic FeCl2. White laths are Fe2As, while dendritic structures and stippled areas are α-Fe. Note the strong directionality in the laths suggesting a steep cooling gradient at this surface. Some light grain structure is apparent in the α-Fe dendrites. Striped multi-coloured areas toward the top of the image are due to tarnishing.

support the elemental analyses given above, presenting little evidence for other intermetallic compounds. Nonetheless, further analyses including LA-ICP-MS and SEM-EDX evaluation are planned for the future to confirm the present results and provide a more detailed account of the chaine opératoire related to the production of this sample.

CONCLUSIONS During the 2014 field season, the continued excavation of Square 42.10 adjacent to the Woolley temple sounding yielded a context containing a pyrotechnic installation and a fragment of ferrous speiss in what appears to have been a residential compound. Although it is not presently possible to definitively state the purpose of the installation in this unit, the discovery of lead slag, magnetic detritus, and several small metal objects, as well as hand stones, may be seen to support the assertion that this area was related to secondary production activities. This represents a relatively new development in the investigation of speiss-related metallurgy in as far as finds of speiss in secondary production contexts have

SPEISS’ING THINGS UP

415

Fig. 6. Bottom surface of the sample at 40× magnification. Unetched. First and foremost, preferential corrosion of the α-Fe phase it apparent, particularly at the centre-left of the image. Further, note the less marked directionality and generally smaller number of Fe2As laths, pointing to a slower cooling process than that seen at the upper surface. The grey region at the upper portion of the image is of significant interest for future research as it contains a number of phases not seen in the speiss matrix and will be dealt with in a later publication.

proved relatively rare thus far, appearing at Kamid el-Loz22 and Poros-Katsambas23 in Lebanon and Crete, respectively. Instead, we have tended to see evidence for its production, with an increasing degree of certainty that such production activities were indeed deliberate. This claim of deliberate production appears to find further support in the compositional analysis of the object at hand. As this fragment was part of a larger whole that appears to have had at least a regular thickness, it seems reasonable to assert here that we may be dealing with a portion of an ingot. In this case, we are obliged to consider that speiss may have been among the materials being transported along Near Eastern trade routes, and in that respect, there is the question of whether or not it may have found expression in textual records. Given that classificatory language tends to be culturally specific, it is possible that speiss could have 22

 Frisch and Thiele 1985.  Doonan et al. 2007.

23

416

M. A. JOHNSON

fallen under the heading of another material which to the modern eye may appear distinct. In this respect, the assertion put forward by Thornton et al. (2009) that speiss could have fallen under the heading of iron in the Hittite context, related to the manufacture of small figurines, gains some prominence, and by extension we may begin to wonder what was being stored at the royal storehouse in Kizzuwatna. There is, furthermore, the question that has already been raised as to whether or not speiss represents an alloying component in the production of arsenical copper. Unfortunately, it is not currently possible to make a definitive comment on that particular topic. Nonetheless, we are fortunate in that small amounts of copper were recovered from the same context as the sample, and analyses are planned for the future to investigate whether these are arsenical copper, or some other copper-based material, if not pure copper. BIBLIOGRAPHY COGHLAN, H. H. 1977 Notes on Prehistoric and Early Iron in the Old World (Pitt Rivers Museum Occasional Papers on Technology 8). Oxford: Oxprint Limited. DOONAN, R., DAY, P. and DIMPOULOU-RETHEMIOTAKI, N. 2007 “Lame excuses for emerging complexity in Early Bronze Age Crete: The metallurgical finds from Poros-Katsambas and their context,” in Metallurgy in the Early Bronze Age Aegean, edited by P. Day and R. Doonan, pp. 98–122. Oxford: Oxbow Books. DYSON Jr., R. H. and HOWARD, S. M. 1989 Tappeh Hesar: Reports of the Restudy Project, 1976. Florence: Casa Editrice le Lettere. FRISCH, B. and THIELE, W.-R. 1985 “Die Innere Typologie der Metallurgischen Funde von Kamid el-Loz,” in Kamid el-Loz 6: Die Werkstätten der Spätbronzezeitlichen Paläste, edited by B. Frisch, G. Mansfeld and W.-R. Thiele, pp. 123–146. Bonn: R. Habelt. HAUPTMANN, A., REHREN, Th. and SCHMITT-STRECKER, S. 2003 “Early Bronze Age copper metallurgy at Shahr-i Sokhta (Iran), reconsidered,” in Man and Mining – Mensch und Bergbau: Studies in Honour of Gerd Weisgerber on Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 16), edited by Th. Stöllner, G. Körlin, G. Steffens and J. Cierny, pp. 197–213. Bochum: Deutsches BergbauMuseum. LEHNER, J. W. 2015 Cooperation, the Craft Economy, and Metal Technology during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Central Anatolia. Unpublished PhD diss. University of California Los Angeles. MUHLY, J. D., MADDIN, R., STECH, T. and ÖZGEN, E. 1985 “Iron in Anatolia and the nature of the Hittite iron industry,” Anatolian Studies 35: 67–84. PALMIERI, A. M., SERTOK, K. and CHERNYKH, E. 1993 “From Arslantepe metalwork to arsenical copper technology in Eastern Anatolia,” in Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains: Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, edited by M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae and M. Mellink, pp. 573–599. Rome: Università di Roma La Sapienza. PLEINER, R. 2000 Iron in Archaeology: The European Bloomery Smelters. Prague: Archeologický Ústav AVČR. REHDER, J. E. 2000 The Mastery and Uses of Fire in Antiquity. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

SPEISS’ING THINGS UP

417

REHREN, Th., BOSCHER, L. and PERNICKA, E. 2012 “Large scale smelting of speiss and arsenical copper at Early Bronze Age Arisman, Iran,” Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 1717–1727. SIEGELOVA, J. 1984 “Gewinnung und Verarbeitung von Eisen im Hethitischen Reich im 2. Jahrtausend v. u. Z.,” Annals of the Náprstek Museum 12: 71–168. 2001 “Treatment and usage of iron in the Hittite Empire in the 2nd millennium BC,” in The Origins of Iron Metallurgy: Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on The Archaeology of Africa and the Mediterranean Basin held at The Museum of Natural History in Geneva, 4-7 June 1999 (Mediterranean Archaeology 14), edited by J.-P. Descoeudres, E. Huysecom, V. Serneels and J.-L. Zimmermann, pp. 189–193. Sydney: Meditarch. SIEGELOVA, J. and TSUMOTO, H. 2011 “Metals and metallurgy in Hittite Anatolia,” in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, edited by H. Genz and D. P. Mielke, pp. 275–300. Leuven: Peeters. STECH, T. and PIGOTT V. C. 1986 “The metals trade in Southwest Asia in the third millennium B.C.,” Iraq 48: 39–64. THORNTON, C. P., REHREN, Th. and PIGOTT, V. C. 2009 “The production of speiss (iron arsenide) during the Early Bronze Age in Iran,” Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 308–316. VELDHUIJZEN, H. A. and REHREN, Th. 2007 “Slags and the city: Early iron production at Tell Hammeh, Jordan and Tel BethShemesh, Israel,” in Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy, edited by S. La Niece, D. R. Hook and P. T. Craddock, pp. 189–201. London: Archetype Publications in Association with the British Museum. WALDBAUM, J. C. 1999 “The coming of iron in the Eastern Mediterranean: Thirty years of archaeological and technological research,” in The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World, edited by V. C. Pigott, pp. 27–59. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. WERTIME, T. A. 1980 “The pyrotechnological background,” in The Coming of the Age of Iron, edited by T. A. Wertime and J. D. Muhly, pp. 1–24. New Haven: Yale University Press. YENER, K. A. 2010 “Bulgarmaden: Thoughts about iron, Bolkardağ and the Taurus Mountains,” Iraq 72: 183–191. 2014 “Re-examining and re-imagining the past: The Woolley and Yener excavations at Alalakh,” in The Forgotten Kingdom, Archaeology and Photography at Ancient Alalakh, edited by M. Akar and H. Maloigne, pp. 46–65. Istanbul: Koç University Press. 2017 “Cult and ritual at Late Bronze II Alalakh,” in Hittitology Today: Studies on Hittite and Neo-Hittite Anatolia in Honor of Emmanuel Laroche’s 100th Birthday, edited by A. Mouton, pp. 215–224. Istanbul: Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes. YENER, K. A., DINÇOL, B. and PEKER, H. 2014 “Prince Tuthaliya and Princess Ašnuhepa,” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 4: 136–138.

Michael A. JOHNSON University of Chicago Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations

A GENERAL OUTLOOK ON THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ALALAKH AND CYPRUS IN THE MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGES: TEXTUAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOMETRIC STUDIES Ekin KOZAL Sinem HACIOSMANOĞLU Mustafa KIBAROĞLU Gürsel SUNAL ABSTRACT This paper deals with connections between Cyprus and Alalakh in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in terms of different types of evidence (textual, archaeological and archaeometric), as they provide complementary information. These projects and ongoing studies are presented with some preliminary results. Although written documents with reference to Alašia are few in number, they show that people from Alašia were living in Alalakh by at least Level VII. Pottery is the main source of information for this article, because it is plentiful and informative. It is being studied by means of typological, stratigraphical and contextual criteria. In this respect, the initiation, phases and end of connections with Cyprus can be examined accordingly. Moreover, archaeometric analysis (both elemental and mineralogical) have been conducted in order to trace back to the raw material from the finished product. One of the aims of archaeometric analysis is to define the characteristics of clay through instrumental analyses, in addition to archaeological definitions. Another important aim is to contribute to provenance studies with respect to defining the regions in Cyprus from which the clay sources and other materials came.*

INTRODUCTION Cypriot pottery is a widely distributed ware in the eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age. Therefore, it points to cultural interconnections between Cyprus and different regions of the eastern Mediterranean. Alalakh plays an important role in this interaction, as it is one of the sites that has yielded Cypriot pottery in large quantities. Besides imported pottery from Cyprus and the Aegean, luxury goods in ivory, metal, glass and stone, as well as Aegean style frescoes, demonstrate the intensive relations between the * We would like to thank K. Aslıhan Yener, Murat Akar, Mara Horowitz and Müge Bulu Akar for their manifold support on the study of Cypriot pottery. Archaeological analysis of Cypriot pottery is supported by Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University (BAP no. 2010/31), archaeometric analysis of White Slip I, II and Monochrome by İstanbul Technical University (BAP nos. 36390, 37429), archaeometric analysis of Red Lustrous by DFG (project no. 11112018), and archaeometric analysis of paints used in White Slip I-II by Tübitak (project no. 114K766).

420

E. KOZAL

– S.

HACIOSMANOĞLU

– M.

KIBAROĞLU

– G.

SUNAL

site and the Mediterranean world. The site offers undisturbed layers of Middle and Late Bronze Age date, making the settlement one of the key sites in examining interregional chronological connections.

TEXTUAL EVIDENCE During the Woolley excavations at Alalakh, three tablets were found that mentioned Alašia, which is considered the ancient name for Cyprus in the second millennium BC. Two tablets belong to Level VII, whereas one dates to Level IV: 1. ATT/39/112 (Wiseman cat. no. 269)1: According to Woolley, this tablet was found in the Level VII palace, room 11 in the ashy deposit on the burnt floor.2 However, re-examination of the excavation documents by Jacob Lauinger demonstrates that the tablet was recovered in room 12.3 The text is about the distribution of grain as wages for craftsmen and the employees of the palace. A-ra-am-mu of A-la-ši-i is mentioned in the list, in the 33rd line of the text.4 Astour reports: “The 17th century immigrant from Alasia thus bore a name that was well attested in Mesopotamia and North Syria at that very time and even many centuries before.”5 2. ATT/47/3 (Wiseman cat. no. 385): This tablet was found in the Level VII palace shrine (i.e., Level VII temple) in the upper level (the top floor, according to Lauinger).6 The receipt of 15 shekels of silver from A-la-ši-ia, son of I-ri-ba is mentioned in the text. According to Astour, A-la-ši-ia can be considered to be a personal name derived from the land from which the person comes. He argues that such a tradition is very common in the second millennium BC.7 3. ATT/8/218 (Wiseman cat. no. 188, same tablet as ATT/8/173): This tablet was found in the Level IV Castle in room W1, in grid square V7. It mentions a personal name (A-ri-mu-ra-te) from Alašia in the list of householders of two villages.8 The earliest mention of Alašia at Alalakh dates to Level VII, dating to the Old Babylonian period (c. 2000–1600). This coincides chronologically with references to Alašia in the texts from Mari, Babylon and Kaneš also dating to the Old Babylonian period.9 Connections between Alalakh and Cyprus are evident in both written documents and pottery. However, the textual evidence contradicts the archaeological evidence in two ways. The two tablets from Level VII and one tablet from Level IV report that there are people from Alašia living 1

 Wiseman 1953, p. 85, cat. no. 269, pl. 32; Wiseman 1959, pp. 28–29; Astour 1964, pp. 241–242; Hellbing 1979, pp. 56–57. 2  Woolley 1955, p. 102, fig. 35. 3  Lauinger 2011, p. 41. 4  Wiseman 1953, p. 103; Astour 1964, pp. 241–242; Hellbing 1979, pp. 56–57. 5  Astour 1964, p. 241. 6  For Temple VII, see Woolley 1955, pp. 59–65, fig. 35; Lauinger 2011, p. 43. 7  Astour 1964, p. 242. 8  Von Dassow 2005, pp. 13, 21, 34, 38, 62, 64; Wiseman 1953, pp. 73, 120; Astour 1964, pp. 241–242; Hellbing 1979, pp. 56–57. 9  Hellbing 1979, pp. 56–57; Günbattı 1997.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ALALAKH AND CYPRUS

421

in the city and villages of Alalakh, as well as the fact that there is another Alašian who works in palace construction. While the first appearance of texts relating to Cyprus dates to Level VII, the first appearance of archaeological material from Cyprus dates to Level VI. Such contradictions are common at other places in the eastern Mediterranean. At Mari and Babylon, texts refer to Cyprus, but there is no Cypriot pottery found at these sites. At Kaneš, the text referring to Cyprus was found in the lower town (karum) Level II,10 whereas the Cypriot jug comes from Level Ib.11 The second contradiction is related to the number of tablets concerning Cyprus and the amount of Cypriot pottery found at Alalakh: there are only three texts related to Alašia, and only one tablet mentioning Alašia in Level IV, whereas Cypriot pottery in Level IV is very plentiful.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES Previous Work Woolley’s excavations yielded a great quantity of Cypriot pottery. His work showed that Cypriot pottery appeared first in his Level VI and continued to exist till the end of the settlement.12 Later, Woolley’s Cypriot pottery was studied by Marie-Henriette Gates and Celia Bergoffen,13 as thoroughly as the documentation and preservation from the first half of the 20th century allowed.14 This new study is crucial in understanding the scope and character of the relations between Cyprus and Alalakh, as it represents a diachronic complete assemblage from stratified contexts. Woolley’s work was partially revised by Gates in her doctoral dissertation. She dealt with Woolley’s Levels VI and V, which did not yield archives. She synchronised the end of Level VII with the destruction of Hattušili I and dated Levels VI-V to between 1575 and1460 BC in terms of the associated finds, but especially Cypriot pottery. The presence of Bichrome ware in Levels VI and V and their absence in Level IV played a significant role in Gates’ dating of these levels, according to the occurrence of Bichrome ware in Cyprus and at other Mediterranean sites (for example, Megiddo IX).15 However, Middle and Late Cypriot wares occur over a long time span, so that they provide only a terminus post quem date. Bergoffen re-examined the Cypriot pottery found in Woolley’s excavations that was kept at the Ashmolean, British, University College London and Hatay Archaeology Museums. Her study however, does not include the material from the Woolley dig house, and therefore her results are not based on the study of the entire collection. She presents a catalogue 10

 Günbattı 1997.  Åström 1989. 12  Woolley 1955, pp. 354–369. 13  Gates 1981; Bergoffen 2005. 14  The access to Woolley collections in the Woolley dig house was very limited, so that the material could not previously be studied. Now the collection is kept in the official depot of the recent Alalakh excavations, and will be studied by the current team. 15  Gates 1981. 11

E. KOZAL

422

– S.

HACIOSMANOĞLU

– M.

KIBAROĞLU

– G.

SUNAL

of the selected pottery that she studied. Her re-assessment of this pottery showed that there is no clear evidence of the presence of Cypriot pottery in Level VII, so that Cypriot imports appear first in Level VI, but the amount of Cypriot pottery in Levels VI and V is very small. However, the Cypriot pottery was concentrated in the Level IV Palace and tombs.16 These results have to be re-considered by including the entire collection in the analysis. New Excavations The new excavations conducted since 2003 have provided the opportunity for the independent re-analysis of Cypriot pottery at Alalakh. The analysis of the material showed that there should have been much more Cypriot pottery known from the Woolley excavations, but it was obviously not kept or identified. More Cypriot pottery was found from the 2003–04 seasons alone than from all of Woolley’s campaigns.17 Up until 2015, a total of several thousand sherds and a few complete vessels of Cypriot pottery had been found in the recent excavations, including Red, Black and White Lustrous Wares, which number around 100. Apart from the typological analysis, the emphasis of the ongoing study is placed on the chronological and spatial distribution of different wares and types, as well as their quantification at the site. This study will deal with the following issues from those perspectives: • First appearances of wares and types according to the site stratigraphy • Time spans of their occurrence • Quantity of different wares and types in each assemblage, phase and level, as well as the changes in their frequency through the architectural strata • Chronological consistency of the assemblages in and of themselves; for example, whether the pottery in an assemblage has a consistent date (e.g., Late Cypriot I) or a has a long time span (Late Cypriot I-II) • Comparison between the date of the Cypriot assemblage and the latest datable material in the context • Contextual analysis; for example, frequent appearance of Base Ring ware in funerary contexts in contrast to other Cypriot wares • Comparison of Alalakh findings with other sites in Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean • Re-evaluating the results of the Woolley excavations and studies of his material It should be stated here that the local chronological sequence of the new excavations will be established based on the architectural strata, carbon dating, and the local pottery sequence supported by other datable finds, such as tablets and seals. Imported pottery will be incorporated secondarily into this chronological frame in order to be cautious and to avoid circular arguments regarding dating. Methodologically, only sealed floors are taken into consideration. 16

 Bergoffen 2005.  Kozal 2010.

17

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ALALAKH AND CYPRUS

423

Cypriot Wares (Figs. 1–2) Cypriot wares found in the Yener excavations are Red-on-Black (ROB), White Painted (WP) V-VI, Black Lustrous Wheel-made (BL), Red Lustrous Wheel-made (RL), White Lustrous Wheel-made (WL), Bichrome (BIC), Monochrome (MON), Base-Ring (BR) I-II, White Slip (WS) I-II and White Shaved (WSh). Although the origin of RL is apparently Rough Cilicia,18 they will still be treated here. Monochrome is the second most common ware after WS II. Monochrome bowls were found in all phases and in all types of contexts. The third most common ware is BR I, which is represented by bowls and jugs. It is also found in all contexts; however, it appears more often in burial contexts compared to other wares. Moreover, BR I from burial contexts is more elaborate than from other contexts; for instance, relief-decoration appears more often. BR II is rarer than BR I. Jugs, bowls and bull-shaped vessels of BR II are found, some of which have white painted decoration on the slip. A white painted BR I fragment is also noted. WS I bowls are a small group, like BR II. Proto-White slip has not been discovered so far. WS II comprises the largest group of Cypriot pottery. It consists of bowls, with the one exception of a krater. WS IIA is detected as well. WS II is more common in the contexts dating to Late Bronze II. The Earliest Appearance of Cypriot Pottery in Period 6 (Figs. 3–4) Square 33.32 was opened in the courtyard of the Level VII palace to investigate the pre-Level VII phases. No Cypriot pottery has been found in this square dating to Level VII and prior to Level VI (c. mid-16th century). The earliest appearance of Cypriot pottery can be examined in two squares, which are still being excavated. These squares were opened to explore Late Bronze I layers, and they might have already reached or are reaching Middle Bronze II layers. These are Squares 45.44 and 32.57. The first is at the eastern edge of the mound, placed to examine the workshops, city wall, and the cemetery outside the city wall. The second is located in the courtyard of the Level IV palace in order to investigate pre-Level IV deposits. The earliest occurrence of Cypriot pottery in Square 45.44 was detected in Local Phase 3/4, which corresponds to Period 6,19 and no Cypriot wares have been found prior to this phase. The earliest finds can be dated into two typological groups. One is the group of BR I, WS I, MONO and RL that appear first in the Late Cypriot IA2 period in Cyprus (c. first half of the 15th century). Aside from these, there are also wares that appear first in the Middle Cypriot III period (c. 1700–1550), but continue to exist in the Late Cypriot IA2; these are WP V, BOB, and ROR. Since they are found together with wares that make their first appearance in Late Cypriot IA2, this indicates that their importation took place during the last phase of their occurrence and not at the time of their initial production phase at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. 18

 Kozal 2015.  In the new periodisation, Arabic numerals are used to distinguish the recent work from the Woolley excavations, which used Roman numerals. 19

424

E. KOZAL

– S.

HACIOSMANOĞLU

– M.

KIBAROĞLU

– G.

SUNAL

Fig. 1. Some examples of Cypriot pottery at the site (1: Bichrome, 2: White Painted V, 3–6: Bichrome, 7: Black Lustrous, 8: White Slip I with white fabric).

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ALALAKH AND CYPRUS

425

Fig. 2. Some examples of Cypriot pottery at the site (9: White Slip I, 10–11: White Slip II, 12–13: Monochrome, 14: Base Ring I, 15: White Shaved).

426

E. KOZAL

– S.

HACIOSMANOĞLU

– M.

KIBAROĞLU

– G.

SUNAL

Fig. 3. Absence and presence of Cypriot pottery in Squares 33.32, 32.57, 45.44 and Area 4.

Fig. 4. Chart showing the appearance of Cypriot pottery in Square 32.57 and Area 4.

The earliest occurrence of Cypriot pottery in Square 32.57 was found in Local Phase 4, which corresponds to Period 6. Local Phase 5, which belongs to Period 7, yielded substantial remains of architecture, in which no Cypriot pottery was discovered. Local Phase 3 produced greater amounts of Cypriot pottery. The earliest wares are again those that appear first in the Late Cypriot IA2 period. Bichrome ware, which was first produced in the Middle Cypriot III period, is found here together with the later wares.

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ALALAKH AND CYPRUS

427

Accordingly, there is no evidence of contact between Cyprus and Alalakh in the Middle Cypriot or the very beginning of the Late Cypriot period, in other words in Late Cypriot IA1 (c. second half of the 16th century). Wares belonging to this period have so far not been found at Alalakh. As also mentioned by Bergoffen, Proto white slip, proto base-ring and early monochrome wares are missing at the site.20 Periods 5-4 (Late Bronze I) and 3-1 (Late Bronze II) Late Bronze II levels at Alalakh are being investigated in two areas. These are Area 1 (Royal Precinct) and Area 4. Area 4 is located in the southern portion of the mound and consists of six adjacent squares representing large buildings and a street during different phases.21 This area was chosen as a case study for this chapter. In the Late Bronze II period, most of the earlier wares such as monochrome, RL, BR I and II continue to be imported. ROB, BIC, WP V, BL are only found in Late Bronze I contexts. WS II makes its appearance in later phases, when it is represented in smaller amounts (Period 5). It shows a contrasting correlation with the amount of White Slip I. As WS I decreases in Period 4, White Slip II increases in number. Figure 4 shows clearly that there is not an abrupt change and absolute division line in the distribution of the wares according to the periods. In other words, wares do overlap, and therefore chronological comparisons between sites determined only according to their occurrences can be misleading. A ware that appears only in Late Bronze II contexts is White Shaved ware. These juglets are associated with temple offerings at Tell Kazel. There, a thin sheet made of copper was found in each vessel. Apparently, they served as a container for copper sheets.22 Here, the association of White Shaved Juglets with copper and ritual activities is evident. Its connection to ritual practices and international relations have been studied by Akar.23 ARCHAEOMETRIC STUDIES There are three ongoing studies: 1. Provenance study of Black/Red Lustrous Wheel-made ware The provenance of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware (RL) is a subject of debate among scholars. Eriksson proposed Cyprus as the origin of the ware, whereas Kozal argues on the basis of recent evidence from Anatolia that the ware could have been produced in Rough Cilicia.24 This ongoing project aims to investigate the possible source of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware using methods of trace elements, strontium (Sr) and neodymium (Nd) isotopic analysis and petrographic thin-section, as well as mineralogical analysis (X-ray 20

 Bergoffen 2005, p. 71.  Yener and Akar 2014, p. 42. 22  Badre 2006. 23  Akar 2017. 24  Eriksson 1993; Kozal 2015. 21

E. KOZAL

428

– S.

HACIOSMANOĞLU

– M.

KIBAROĞLU

– G.

SUNAL

diffraction). It is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and conducted by Mustafa Kibaroğlu. The main aim of the project is to analyse a large number of local clays from the areas where RL is found in greater quantities, particularly southern Anatolia and northern Cyprus, as well as central Anatolia. Accordingly, RL sherds were also collected from various sites in Anatolia (i.e., Alalakh, Boğazköy and Kilise Tepe). 2. Provenance study of three Cypriot wares found at Alalakh This project aims to complement the comprehensive study of typology and chronology. Pottery is characterised by archaeological methods in terms of ware, form and surface treatment. Macroscopic ware definitions can be very subjective. In order to have science-based definitions, characterisation of clay paste by means of geochemistry and mineralogy is necessary. When the clays are classified in this way, the groups which are distinguished by archaeometric methods can be indicators for possible production centres. In the case of Alalakh, it is significant to understand whether Cypriot pottery is coming from one region (or centre) in Cyprus or if it has multiple raw material sources in Cyprus.25 By linking ceramic production with raw materials, the provenance of the pottery can be examined. The analysed samples are WS I (7 samples), WS II (30 samples), and MON (20 samples). Additionally, 60 clay samples from all over the Amuq Plain were collected during the 2012 and 2013 summer seasons in order to examine the compositional characteristics (using X-ray fluorescence [XRF] and Inductively Coupled Plasma — Mass Spectrometer [ICP-MS]) and mineralogical characteristics of the local clay deposits in the vicinity of Alalakh and throughout the Amuq Valley. These clay samples are considered to be comparative material (the reference group) in the provenance identification of the sampled ceramics. This project was conducted by Sinem Hacıosmanoğlu, Mustafa Kibaroğlu and Gürsel Sunal, supported by Istanbul Technical University (BAP no: 36390, 37429).26 The preliminary results of this study are presented here. White Slip I and II Examples of WS I and II wares from Alalakh show similar petrographic characteristics and predominantly consist of mafic and ultramafic mineral assemblages (e.g., clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene) with grains ranging from fine to medium in size. WS I samples have a non-calcareous matrix with a pale brownish grey and reddish brown colour. WS II ware also shows non-calcareous clay features with reddish brown and greyish brown paste colour. The results of XRF (Bruker S8 Tiger wavelength dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer [WDXRF]) and ICP-MS analysis (Perkin Elmer Elan 6100 DRC) show that the WS I and WS II ware are characterised by concentrations of low CaO (1.39–5.54 wt. per cent) and SiO2 (51.23–61.00 wt. per cent), high Al2O3 (16.89–20.48 wt. per cent) and Fe2O3 (8.70– 12.48 wt. per cent). The MgO concentrations vary from 2.11–9.11 wt. per cent. Trace element geochemistry also shows similar compositional patterns comparable to the major elements. The elemental and mineralogical characteristics of the analysed WS I and WS II 25

 Knapp and Cherry 1994.  Gutsuz et al. 2017.

26

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ALALAKH AND CYPRUS

429

examples from Alalakh suggest that the raw clay of this ware group was derived predominantly from ultramafic and mafic rock types. The comparison of the results of chemical analysis of the WS I and WS II with those of the local clay samples from the Amuq Valley show no well-defined matches with local clays (Fig. 5), which demonstrates that they were not produced at Alalakh or in the Amuq Valley.27

Fig. 5. Plot of major (Al2O3, SiO2, CaO) and trace elements (Rb, La) of WS I, II and MON samples from Alalakh and the local clay samples from the Amuq Valley.

MONOCHROME All MON samples selected from Alalakh show similar petrographic features to each other. They are characterised by a clay fabric with low inclusions (c. 5 vol. per cent), namely a composition of mudstone, sandstone fragments, and quartz and iron (Fe)-rich opaque minerals. The fabric colour of MON is red, brown and reddish-brown, and the  Hacıosmanoğlu et al. 2018.

27

E. KOZAL

430

– S.

HACIOSMANOĞLU

– M.

KIBAROĞLU

– G.

SUNAL

clay has a non-calcareous matrix. The results of XRF and ICP-MS analysis show that the MON has a homogeneous compositional pattern, characterised by concentrations of low SiO2 (53.61–59.05 wt. per cent), moderate Al2O3 (14.03–16.81 wt. per cent), moderate MgO (3.64–4.88 wt. per cent) and moderate to high Fe2O3 (6.82–7.85 wt. per cent). The CaO concentration shows variations ranging from 3.33 to 9.16 wt. per cent. The result of trace elements also yields similar results, comparable to major elements. The comparison of the chemical composition of MON with those of the local clay samples from the Amuq Valley show clear dissimilarity, suggesting that MON ware was not produced at Alalakh or in the Amuq.28 The results presented above are preliminary. Further investigations — for example, comparisons with previous archaeometric studies of clays and ceramics from Cyprus and the Levant — will provide additional results. In addition to the chemical and petrographic analysis, WS I and WS II sherds will be inspected with Raman spectroscopy to examine the composition of pigments used for brown, black and brownish-black coloured decorations on the Cypriot wares. This ongoing study is part of a larger project, which is funded by TÜBİTAK (Project number: 114K776), and will be published elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS The studies that are discussed in this chapter are ongoing, and therefore only preliminary results can be presented here. Although written documents with reference to Alašia are few in number, they show that people of Alašia were living in Alalakh by Level VII. However, material evidence (that is, pottery from the recent excavations) only began to be imported to the site from Level VI onwards. The first appearance of Cypriot pottery correlates with Period 6 in the Yener excavations. The earliest assemblage of Period 6 is found in Squares 32.57 and 45.44, and this assemblage dates to Late Cypriot IA2, since it includes wares (e.g., MON) that began to be produced in Cyprus in Late Cypriot IA2. Therefore, Late Cypriot IA2 is a terminus post quem dating for Period 6. The first results of archaeometric studies show that there is a clear distinction between the modern clays of the Amuq and the Late Cypriot pottery. In addition, MON and WS I-WS II show compositional differences from each other. This indicates that their production centres in Cyprus could be different. In the Late Bronze Age II period, the Uluburun shipwreck illustrates the scope of the movement of materials involving mainly the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean cultures. It provides evidence that the main bulk of transported goods were comprised of raw materials, primarily copper and tin, and secondarily, glass and ivory.29 Raw material is detected in the archaeological record generally under special circumstances, for instance in shipwrecks and temple offerings. In settlement contexts, raw materials are very rarely discovered. Therefore, it is highly probable that the archaeological record does not reflect the scope of the transfer of raw materials. However, if the conditions of the Uluburun shipwreck are applied to the  Hacıosmanoğlu et al. 2018.  Yalçın et al. 2005.

28 29

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ALALAKH AND CYPRUS

431

Late Bronze II connections in the Mediterranean, it can be concluded that raw materials are the main import, whereas pottery and other finds are subsidiary. Therefore, it should be emphasised here that the movement of raw materials should not be underestimated due to the lack or scarcity of evidence. Most of the Uluburun copper ingots are consistent with the copper sources of Cyprus, as determined by means of lead isotope analysis.30 Cypriot pottery was only a secondary commercial good. The question about the importation of Cypriot copper along with Cypriot pottery should also be considered at sites that yield Cypriot pottery.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AKAR, M. 2017

“Pointed juglets as an international trend in Late Bronze ritual practices: A view from Alalakh,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz and A. S. Gilbert, pp. 1–24. Leiden: Brill. ASTOUR, M. C. 1964 “Second millennium B.C. Cypriot and Cretan onomastica reconsidered,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 84: 240–254. ÅSTRÖM, P. 1989 “Early connections between Anatolia and Cyprus,” in Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, edited by K. Emre, B. Hrouda, M. Mellink and N. Özgüç, pp. 15–17. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu. BADRE, L. 2006 “Tell Kazel-Simyra: A contribution to a relative chronological history in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343: 65–95. BERGOFFEN, C. J. 2005 The Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery from Sir Leonard Woolley’s Excavations at Alalakh (Tell Atchana) (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 5). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ERIKSSON, K. 1993 Red Lustrous Wheel-Made Ware (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 103). Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. GALE, N. H. and STOS-GALE, Z. A. 2005 “Zur Herkunft der Kupferbarren aus dem Schiffswrack von Uluburun und der spätbronzezeitliche Metallhandel im Mittelmeerraum,” in Das Schiff von Uluburun, Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, edited by Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak and R. Slotta, pp. 117– 131. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum. GATES, M.-H. C. 1981 Alalakh Levels VI and V: A Chronological Reassessment (Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4.2). Malibu: Undena. GÜNBATTI, C. 1997 “Kültepe’den Akadlı Sargon’a Ait Bir Tablet,” Archivum Anatolicum 3 (Emin Bilgiç Anı Kitabı): 131–155. GUTSUZ, P., KIBAROĞLU, M., SUNAL, G. and HACIOSMANOĞLU, S. 2017 “Geochemical characterization of clay deposits in the Amuq Valley (Southern Turkey) and the implications for archaeometric study of ancient ceramics,” Applied Clay Science 141: 316–333.

30

 Gale and Stos-Gale 2005.

432

E. KOZAL

– S.

HACIOSMANOĞLU

– M.

KIBAROĞLU

– G.

SUNAL

HACIOSMANOĞLU, S., KIBAROĞLU, M., SUNAL, G., KOZAL, E., GUTSUZ, P., 2018 “Geochemical and Petrographic Analysis of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Ceramics (White Slip I and II and Monochrome) from Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Hatay) in the Amuq Valley,” Archaeometry 60/3: 471–488. HELLBING, L. 1979 Alasia Problems (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 57). Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. KOZAL, E. 2010 “Cypriot pottery,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavations Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 67–80. Istanbul: Koç University Press. 2015 “A discussion of the origin and the distribution patterns of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware in Anatolia: Cultural connections across the Taurus and Amanus Mountains,” in La Cappadoce Méridionale: de la Préhistoire à la Période Byzantine. 3èmes Rencontres d’Archéologie de l’IFÉA - Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes Georges Dumézil, Istanbul 8-9 Novembre, 2012, edited by D. Beyer, O. Henry and A. Tibet, pp. 53–64. Istanbul: Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes Georges Dumézil. KNAPP, A. B. and CHERRY, J. 1994 Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Production, Exchange and PoliticoEconomic Change (Monographs in World Archaeology 21). Madison: Prehistory Press. LAUINGER, J. 2011 “An excavated dossier of cuneiform tablets from Level VII Alalaḫ?” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 362: 21–64. VON DASSOW, E. 2005 “Archives of Alalah IV in archaeological context,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 338: 1–69. YALÇIN, Ü., PULAK, C. and SLOTTA, R., eds 2005 Das Schiff von Uluburun: Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum. WISEMAN, D. J. 1953 The Alalakh Tablets (Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2). London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. 1959 “Ration lists from Alalakh VII,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 13: 19–33. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay,1937-1949, (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). London: Society of Antiquaries. YENER, K. A. and AKAR, M. 2014 “Aççana Höyük, Antik Alalakh Kenti 2012 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları,” 35. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2: 37–51.

Ekin KOZAL Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University [email protected]

Sinem HACIOSMANOĞLU Istanbul Technical University Email: [email protected]

Mustafa KIBAROĞLU University of Tübingen Email: [email protected]

Gürsel SUNAL Istanbul Technical University Email: [email protected]

COME AND HEAR MY STORY: THE ‘WELL-LADY’ OF ALALAKH Rula SHAFIQ ABSTRACT The skeletal remains of an adult female (aged 40–45 years old) were found at the bottom of a well that dates to the early Late Bronze I period at Tell Atchana/Alalakh. Being found in a well, the excavation team named this individual the ‘Well-Lady’, thus, the name is applied in this paper. This individual was found face down with the left upper limb under the torso, right upper limb elevated and abducted at the shoulder, and the elbow strongly flexed. The right lower limb was externally rotated and flexed at the hip and knee. The left lower limb is extended and slightly flexed at the knee. The positioning of the upper and lower limbs with the face down are indicative of one of three forensic conditions: accidental death, suicide or homicide. Of the three, this study favors homicide as the suggested manner of death. This paper will examine the available evidence consisting of body position, location of the interment, and skeletal pathological conditions. The presence of antemortem healed trauma found on two fractured ribs and cranial trauma, along with a pattern of degenerative joint disease particularly emphasised on the right side of the ‘Well-Lady’, are being proposed here as evidence of structural violence that might have contributed to the manner of death — that is, homicide.1

INTRODUCTION The study of human skeletal remains from archaeological contexts (bioarchaeology) is considered today to represent the basis from which information about past populations can be reconstructed.2 The use of different types of evidence is essential for the bioarchaeologist to understand and reconstruct what actually occurred in the lives of past people.3 Of particular interest to this study is the subject of violence and its connection with the social, political and ideological situations and conditions of different cultures. The strongest motivations for acts of violence can be summarised in a few words: power, control and inequality shaped within ideology, all of which play a part in the survival or death of individuals.4 There is ample evidence in the scientific literature that people in the past committed acts of violence towards others. Human skeletal remains retrieved from cemeteries exhibiting antemortem (during life) injuries represent those who survived traumatic violent encounters 1

 The author thanks Professor Dr. Aslıhan Yener for the opportunity of studying and access to the human skeletal remains of Tell Atchana. Thanks also go to Professor Dr. Christopher Knüsel (Université de Bordeaux) for his valuable feedback and expertise given, as well as to Assistant Professor Dr. Murat Akar (Mustafa Kemal University) for his appreciated help and structural comments, and to Professor Dr. Aslıhan Yener and Tara Ingman for their constructive editorial comments. The author thanks Yeditepe University for the academic and financial support that went into conducting research in Hatay. 2  Knüsel and Smith 2014, p. 6. 3  Walker 2001, p. 579. 4  Martin et al. 2012, pp. 3–9.

R. SHAFIQ

434

and lived well beyond their ordeal to die later in life. Contrary to these are skeletal remains exhibiting perimortem (at the time of death) injuries, which are either found in cemeteries or left where they fell, indicating some sort of social disorder.5 Violent traumatic injuries sustained during life have been attributed by Klaus6 to the presence of structural violence in past societies — discussed further below. This study deals with the skeletal remains of an adult female found at the bottom of a well in Area 1, Square 32.57 at Tell Atchana, Hatay, Turkey. The proposed violence will be investigated by the application of modern forensic methodologies in an attempt to explain what might have happened to this female. The location of the burial, along with the positioning of the body and antemortem traumatic injuries on her skeleton, are suggested here as being indicative of a case of structural violence.

MATERIAL

AND METHODS

Archaeological Context and Skeletal Sample During the 2011 season of excavation at Tell Atchana, the skeletal remains of a female (Locus 247) were found at the bottom of a well (Locus 65), in Area 1, Square 32.57. The well is associated with Period 6,7 which corresponds roughly to the early Late Bronze I period, a period that is little understood due to the limited exposure at the site. The top level of the well was discovered during the 2006 season of excavation, but it was not until 2011 that the skeletal remains were uncovered at the bottom. The archaeological context of the well is rather different and contradictory to a well designated for drinking purposes; in other words, there does not appear to be a stone lining or plastering around the edges of the well or along the bottom that ensures clean drinking water (Fig. 1). At the bottom level, the soil is composed of silty deposit with organic residue, possibly phytoliths. What is being proposed here is that the well was dug for water that might have been used for domestic purposes or by animals. The well was circular, with a diameter of 2.5 m, and according to site stratigraphy, its depth during usage would have been at least between 5 and 6 m.8 At some point during Period 6, while the well was probably filled with water or at least water-logged, the female’s body was deposited at the bottom of the well. This is indicated by the soil silt matrix that surrounded the skeletal remains. With the passage of time, the body was covered by additional soil seeping through with the water. It is unclear when, exactly, the function of the well changed to a trash pit, as evident by the scatter of basalt stones found in the upper layers (Fig. 2). The last stage of the well’s usage was as a silo during Period 5, when its opening was small and characteristic of other silos in the area dating to the same period.9 5

 Knüsel and Smith 2014, p. 4.  Klaus 2012. 7  The new phasing system of Tell Atchana divides the sites into Local Phases, which correspond to square stratigraphy, and Periods representing correlation within the site, whilst maintaining and often corresponding to the original Levels of Woolley (1955), see Yener 2013. 8  Personal communication, Murat Akar, December 2015. 9  Personal communication, Murat Akar, May 2015. 6

COME AND HEAR MY STORY: THE ‘WELL-LADY’ OF ALALAKH

435

Fig. 1. Local Phase 3 (Period 6), showing the bottom of the well with no evidence of any stone lining or wall plastering. The white colouring at the bottom is composed of silty deposit with organic residue, possibly phytoliths (Alalakh Excavation Archive, Murat Akar, 2011).

Fig. 2. Local Phase 2, showing the usage of the well as a trash pit, as evident in the presence of these broken basalt stones (Alalakh Excavation Archive, Murat Akar, 2011).

436

R. SHAFIQ

Methods The skeletal remains having been found in the well, the members of the excavation team nicknamed this individual the ‘Well-Lady’. This name will be used from here forward in referring to this individual. The Well-Lady’s skeletal remains have been fully analysed by the author, with age estimation and sex determination conducted using the standardised methodologies outlined by Buikstra and Ubelaker,10 degenerative joint diseases examined using the works of Rogers and Rogers and Waldron,11 and trauma following the works of Byers and Lovell.12 Attention is also given here to body position, location, and cause and manner of death. Burial practices vary between archaeological periods and between the different cultural practices of each particular society. Burials are often viewed today as a window into the past, reflecting a society’s belief systems and ritualistic ideologies concerning death.13 Generally, after death and according to cultural understanding of burial practices, the deceased receive burial treatment and go through different ritualistic stages before, during and after burial. Archaeologically, the burial stage itself is the one that leaves the most cultural evidence for the treatment of the dead. Generally, burial position consists of four main types: tightly flexed, flexed, semi-flexed and extended. These types are represented by the different arrangements of the arms and legs in relation to the torso and the head, along with the direction of the head/face.14 At Tell Atchana, excavations between 2003 and 2012 have uncovered over 150 graves, in which most of the dead were buried in shallow pit graves that are located in an extramural cemetery. The common burial position is usually flexed at the lower limbs to varying degrees, with only 52 out of 134 cemetery graves exhibiting associated burial goods, composed mainly of pottery vessels.15 All of this indicates the ‘careful treatment’ of the dead by family members.16 Contrary to the above-mentioned burial positions are forensic cases which do not exhibit formal burial practices or delicate treatment of the dead. The burial position, if this term applies in these cases, shows no special care for the dead, and the body is usually deposited in a hurry and found in a hole or some other place that hides forensic evidence. The placement of the arms and legs are a good forensic indicator that the body received no formal burial, but instead was deposited in haste.17 Related to burial position are the cause of death and manner of death, both of which are examined and applied in forensic cases, as well as in archaeological skeletal remains when possible, depending on the availability of evidence. Death can result from various causes, such as heart disease, malnutrition or trauma. Of these three, trauma, if it involves the 10

 Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994.  Rogers 2002; Rogers and Waldron 1995. 12  Byers 2011; Lovell 1997, 2008. The assessment of general health was conducted by analyses of dental pathological conditions, including carious lesions and dental enamel hypoplasia, following the works of Hillson (2000, 2001); this will not be discussed here, however, due to space limitations. 13  Andrews and Bello 2012, p. 14. 14  Byers 2011, pp. 71–73. 15  Ingman this volume, 2017. For a full discussion of Tell Atchana burial practices, see Ingman 2014. 16  Byers 2011, pp. 71–73. 17  Byers 2011, pp. 71–73. 11

COME AND HEAR MY STORY: THE ‘WELL-LADY’ OF ALALAKH

437

bones, can be detected and attributed as the cause of death. The manner of death indicates the method that caused the individual’s death. Forensic standardised methodologies have classified the manner of death in five ways: accident, homicide, suicide, natural or unknown. The first three can involve the skeletal remains and leave detectable evidence. However, if the actual cause of death is violent trauma involving only soft tissue, there will be no detectable evidence on the skeletal remains; therefore, the manner of death will be attributed as ‘unknown’.18 Degenerative joint disease is usually the most frequently encountered pathological condition in archaeological skeletal assemblages.19 There are different types of degenerative joint diseases found in the archaeological record. The differences in the distribution of the pathological changes within the skeleton are the basis from which diagnosis can be assigned. In this study, two joint diseases were investigated: osteoarthritis and spondylosis, or degenerative disease of the spine. Osteoarthritis is one of the most common types of joint disease.20 Spondylosis or degenerative disease of the spine is found in the vertebral bones. The occurrence of this condition is very common, and it affects mostly the lower cervical, upper thoracic and lower lumbar vertebrae.21 The reasons behind the development of osteoarthritis are rather difficult to determine, but most probably it is the outcome of multiple elements interacting simultaneously. It is believed that practised/repetitive activities contribute immensely to the development of osteoarthritis. However, it is extremely difficult to determine occupations or mode of life in past populations based on the prevalence and distribution of osteoarthritis. When attempting to link osteoarthritis with practised activities, several factors should be taken into consideration, such as age, sex and genetic predisposition, all of which affect the degree and expression of osteoarthritis.22 Trauma is the result of external force applied directly or indirectly to the soft tissue and underlying bone. An injury causes either accidental trauma, such as fractures and dislocations, or intentional trauma, such as weapon/warfare injuries. Trauma analysis takes into account the following variables in the interpretation of fracture patterns: type of bone affected, location and type of fracture on the bone, left and right sides, males and females, and different age cohorts,23 in relation to the political, cultural and social surrounding that might have contributed to the cause of trauma.24 Certain types of fractures, along with the bones involved, are usually indicative of a social pattern. For example, adult fractured ribs and crania are usually the result of directly applied force, which may be interpreted as an indication of interpersonal violence.25 Direct evidence of violence is represented by the presence of traumatic injuries found on skeletal remains.26 Forensic anthropological methodologies evaluate the occurrence of 18

 Byers 2011, p. 233.  Waldron 2001, p. 83. 20  Rogers 2002, pp. 163–164. 21  Waldron 1991, pp. 106–107. 22  Waldron 2001, pp. 84–88. 23  Lovell 1997, pp. 139–144. 24  Lovell 2008, p. 341. 25  Lovell 1997, pp. 164–167. 26  Knüsel and Smith 2014. 19

438

R. SHAFIQ

trauma in relation to the time of death as antemortem, perimortem or postmortem trauma. Antemortem trauma is defined as healed injury sustained during life, well before the time of death. Traumatic injuries occurring at the time of death with no signs of bone healing are termed perimortem trauma, whilst postmortem trauma happens after death. Additionally, forensic methodologies have made the distinction between three types of trauma based on the object used: blunt, sharp or projectile. Instruments with a wide radius, such as hammers, are considered blunt trauma, sharp trauma is inflicted by the use of narrow and pointed objects, such as knifes and axes, whilst projectile trauma is mostly associated with modern-day events,27 and accordingly will not be considered here.

RESULTS Age estimation of the Well-Lady is based on the changes occurring to the pelvic auricular surface28 and gives a range between 40 and 45 years old, corresponding to auricular age phase 5. Sex determination was based primarily on sex features found in the pelvic region: pubic ventral arc, subpubic concavity, ischiopubic ridge, greater sciatic notch, preauricular sulcus,29 and pelvic arc composé,30 all of which indicate a female. Sex determination of the cranium of the Well-Lady was conducted by examining the features listed by Buikstra and Ubelaker:31 occipital nuchal crest, mastoid process, frontal supra-orbital margin and frontal supra-orbital ridge. The scores obtained tended to be on the male scale, thus indicating a rather robust female, coupled with heavy muscular attachments of the deltoid muscles on the humerus bones. The body position and location are rather exceptional and do not comply with the burial practices found at Alalakh, mentioned above.32 The Well-Lady was found face down with the left upper limb under the torso, right upper limb elevated and abducted at the shoulder, and the elbow strongly flexed. The right lower limb was externally rotated and flexed at the hip and knee. The left lower limb was extended and slightly flexed at the knee. The skeleton was located at the southwestern edge of the well at a depth of around 5–6 m from the top. There are no grave goods or personal belongings associated with this individual (Figs. 3 and 4). Evidence of degenerative joint disease was present on the vertebral bones, sacrum, clavicles, ribs and tarsal bones. For ease in examining the distribution of the pathological conditions on the skeletal remains of the Well-Lady, this study has provided a skeletal diagram with all the lesions indicated, mostly concentrated in the vertebral column (Fig. 5). Spondylosis, or degenerative disease of the vertebral column, was found on six of the cervical (C) vertebrae, with C7 being the exception. Spondylosis was found in the form 27

 Byers 2011.  After Meindl and Lovejoy 1989, cited in Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994, pp. 24–32. 29  Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994, pp. 17–19. 30  Sjovold 1988, p. 447. 31  Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994, p. 20. 32  Ingman this volume; 2017. 28

COME AND HEAR MY STORY: THE ‘WELL-LADY’ OF ALALAKH

439

Fig. 3. The body position of the Well-Lady, as she was uncovered at the bottom of the well (Alalakh Excavation Archive, Murat Akar, 2011).

Fig. 4. Detail of the body position, showing the pelvic region and the vertebra from the posterior view, as the torso of the Well-Lady was prone (Alalakh Excavation Archive, Murat Akar, 2011).

440

R. SHAFIQ

Fig. 5. A skeletal diagram showing the distribution of the pathological conditions on the remains of the Well-Lady, mostly concentrated in the vertebral column.

COME AND HEAR MY STORY: THE ‘WELL-LADY’ OF ALALAKH

441

Fig. 6. Showing the C2 (left) with osteoarthritis and C6 (right) with spondylosis on the body of the Well-Lady.

Fig. 7. T1 (left) with marginal osteophytes and porosity of the left articular facet for rib one, along with marginal osteophytes on the transverse process of the Well-Lady. The right photo, also of the same individual, is the unaffected articulation on the right side of the T1 for the first rib, for comparison.

of marginal osteophytes and porosity around the vertebral bodies of C2–C6. The dens articulation joint between C1 and C2 exhibits osteoarthritis in the form of marginal osteophytes, porosity and eburnation (Fig. 6). The thoracic (T) vertebrae follow the same pattern observed on the cervical vertebrae. Of particular interest is the articular facet for the first rib of T1 showing evidence of joint enlargement and the formation of marginal osteophytes and porosity on the left side for the articulation of the first rib head. There is also marginal osteophytes growth on the articular facet for rib one on the transverse process; this is evident when compared to the right side of T1 (Fig. 7). Starting from T4, all bones (T4–7) exhibit marginal osteophytes of upper and lower margins of the vertebrae bodies.

442

R. SHAFIQ

The lower part of the vertebral column starting with T12, and the five lumbar (L) vertebrae, all exhibit heavy degenerative joint disease, emphasised on the right side only. The right inferior articular facet of L12, with L1, exhibits osteoarthritis with eburnation. Following the same pattern is the right superior articular facet of the L1 and T12 joint area with osteoarthritis, L1 and L2, L2 and L3, L3 with L4, and L4 and L5, all of which show degenerative joint disease of the superior and inferior articular facets of the right side (Fig. 8). On L3, the right superior articular facet exhibits osteoarthritis and the formation of a new joint area distally to the superior facet, the articulation area between L2 and L3, seen in red boxes in Figure 9. In addition, the spinous process of both L3 and L4 exhibit evidence of adventitious bursa,33 clinically known as Baastrup disease — or the Kissing spine syndrome (Fig. 10). Adventitious bursa is a disease that affects the lumbar vertebrae, specifically L4 and L5, where the spinous processes abnormally come in contact.34 The most probable cause of such a disease has been identified as the consequences of general degenerative joint disease of the lumbar vertebrae.35 Baastrup disease can also develop as a result of continuous pressure on the lower back region, in particular the interspinous ligaments, causing degeneration and damage to the spinous processes of the lumbar vertebrae. The percentage of Baastrup disease increases sharply within older age groups (70 years and above) for both males and females. Kwong et al. also reported the occurrence of Baastrup disease within younger age groups, below 70, but in much lower percentages.36 Trauma results show the presence of three well-healed fractures on the skeletal remains of the Well-Lady. Two fractures are located on rib seven, one on each side (Fig. 11). The fractures are located on the anterior side of the body around the abdominal region. Evidence of antemortem cranial blunt force trauma is present on the anterio-lateral part of the right frontal bone. The fracture is oval-shaped with a maximum length of 11.3 mm and a minimum width of 7.5 mm (Fig. 12).

DISCUSSION The Well-Lady was discovered at the bottom of a well that was in use during Period 6. The body position and location of the ‘Well-Lady’ are rather unusual and are being proposed here as indicative of a forensic case. There are several lines of evidence on which this argument is based. The position and location of the ‘Well-Lady’ indicate that she did not receive the proper burial treatment that would have been expected from family members. The position does not correspond to the four major burial positions mentioned above, in the methods section, and does not fit with the formal burial practice at Tell Atchana,37 or, it is safe to say, at any other site (Fig. 13). At Tell Atchana, the majority of the burials

33

 Thanks to Professor Dr. Christopher Knüsel for his guidance.  Filippiadis et al. 2015; see also Kwong et al. 2011. 35  Kwong et al. 2011. 36  Kwong et al. 2011. 37  Ingman this volume; 2017. For a full discussion of Tell Atchana burial practices, see Ingman 2014. 34

COME AND HEAR MY STORY: THE ‘WELL-LADY’ OF ALALAKH

443

Fig. 8. Degenerative joint disease of the lumbar vertebrae located on the superior and inferior articular facets of the right side of the Well-Lady, outlined in the red box.

Fig. 9. Degenerative joint disease of L1-3, located on the superior and inferior articular facets of the right side (indicated in blue boxes) of the Well-Lady. The red boxes indicate the compressed joint areas between L2 and L3.

Fig. 10. The spinous process of both L3 and L4, exhibiting the evidence of adventitious bursa of the Well-Lady (outlined in red boxes).

444

R. SHAFIQ

Fig. 11. Rib 7, left and right side, respectively, showing the well-healed fracture located on the anterior side of the body in the abdominal area of the Well-Lady.

Fig. 12. The cranium of the Well-Lady, showing well-healed depressed blunt force traumatic injury of the frontal bone (outlined in black).

found show careful planning and delicate handling of the dead.38 However, the Well-Lady did not have any cultural objects or personal ornaments buried on or in association with her body. The burial location, not being in the extramural cemetery of Tell Atchana or with any evidence of grave preparation, also points to a forensic case. One could argue that the well was the prepared burial ground for the Well-Lady, as a convenient structure; however, this study argues to the contrary, as the body was deposited while the well was functioning for the purpose of supplying water, or at least was most probably waterlogged, based on the silty soil matrix associated with the skeleton. 38

 A total of 134 burials were excavated between 2003 and 2012 in the associated extramural cemetery, of which 52 (38.8%) contained grave goods in the form of pottery, metal objects and beads, whilst the remaining 82 (61.2%) graves had no associated goods. The majority of the burials found are represented by shallow pit graves, with the exception of one rich grave termed the ‘Plastered Tomb’ and two infant pot burials. For detailed analyses of burial practices at Tell Atchana, see Ingman this volume, 2017, 2014; Yener 2010.

COME AND HEAR MY STORY: THE ‘WELL-LADY’ OF ALALAKH

445

Fig. 13. The Well-Lady, showing the body position, as indicative of homicide as the manner of death (Alalakh Excavation Archive, Murat Akar, 2011).

R. SHAFIQ

446

It is worthwhile at this point in the study to elaborate on the taphonomy of bodies found in watery conditions. Taphonomy is referred to as the changes occurring to the body after death, during the decay and skeletonisation processes. Due to the differences between soil and water environments, taphonomic observations of skeletal remains differ accordingly. Fresh water, such as that found in the well, lacks animal or fish activity, thus reducing the speed of decay. Once deposited in water, the body usually sinks to the bottom. During the decomposition process, the accumulation of gas within causes the body to bloat and float. Once on the water surface, the body is exposed to insects and bird activity, that is, feeding. As the soft tissues decay, the body parts, especially the head and upper and lower limbs, start to separate from the torso, later to sink again to the bottom.39 Depth of burial plays a major role in the speed of decomposition and the effects of taphonomic conditions on the body. Usually, shallow graves or floating bodies have a much higher rate of decomposition and body part separation, along with animal and insect activities. Contrary to this are bodies deposited deep in the ground, or in this case, in muddy, waterlogged conditions: decomposition in these conditions takes much longer, with minimal tissue loss for several years, leaving the body intact.40 With this in mind, turning to the intact body position of the Well-Lady and the depth of the well, there is clear evidence of the lack of body part separation, as well as no evidence of bird or animal feeding marks on the bones; this is based on the full and complete articulation of the skeleton. This study proposes that the body of the Well-Lady, once deposited in the water, sank and was trapped in the waterlogged environment at the bottom of the well, keeping the body well-secured within the mud, soil and silt matrix. This indicates that the well might not have contained fresh drinking water per se, but as proposed here, was waterlogged for domestic purposes. The positioning of the upper and lower limbs, with the face down, are all indicative of one of three forensic conditions: accidental death, suicide or homicide. Of the three, this study favours homicide as the suggested manner of death. Natural and unknown manners of death do not apply here, as these are used in modern forensic cases, where the body is fresh. It is further hypothesised by this study that the Well-Lady was already dead before being thrown into the 5–6 m deep waterlogged well. This view is based on the position of the body, and in particular, the face being down, indicating no movement once the body hit the water. In cases of suicide or accidental falls, the body would react naturally in an attempt to breathe, and thus the face would not be down, preventing any access to oxygen. Therefore, these two manners of death are excluded here, in favour of homicide. It is also being proposed here that death was inflicted on the Well-Lady by some sort of method that did not leave any detectable traces on the skeletal remains, and was probably due to softtissue-related injuries. In cases of confirmed violent trauma, these are usually represented by cranial vault fractures with no evidence of bone healing. Furthermore, based on the body position, it is proposed here that the Well-Lady was thrown into the well in a hurry to hide the body, as would be expected in a forensic case: it seems that the assailant(s) wanted to hide the body by throwing it into the well.  Boyle et al. 1997, pp. 605–606.  Rodriguez 1997, pp. 459–461.

39 40

COME AND HEAR MY STORY: THE ‘WELL-LADY’ OF ALALAKH

447

In addition to the proposed manner of death by homicide, it is also suggested by this study that the Well-Lady was exposed to some form of structural violence during her lifetime. According to Haagen Klaus, structural violence is when individuals or societies are dominated by higher powers and control mechanisms in the society at large. The results are that the subordinate groups cannot achieve their full potential in terms of basic human requirements such as health, certain social statuses and opportunities to reach higher economic standards. The term ‘structural’ is used here to indicate the socioeconomic levels in a certain society that in turn becomes violent, since the complications of such suppressive structures cause harm or death to individuals and or a group. The effects of structural violence can be seen as a long-term process, and therefore it is characterised as being invisible.41 Structural violence is mostly a feature of stratified societies, when a certain class exercises its power and privilege over lower social classes. When interpreting structural violence in class-based societies, the historical aspect in terms of social, political and economic systems present in the studied sites should be taken into account. For archaeologically identified political-social structures of band and tribal societies, it is rather difficult to apply the term ‘structural violence’, as the majority of these societies practised equalitarian political systems. Modern structural violence is manifested in certain social problems, such as lack of access to health care, poverty, racism and colonisation. Within this framework, structural violence has been found in bioarchaeological skeletal samples by H. Klaus and used in an attempt to explain the differences in data between different study groups. He argues that structural inequality within a culture is visible in stressors among the subordinate social group or class. These inequalities are manifested in the area of basic human requirements, such as lack of access to clean water and unequal distribution of resources (including food) in favour of the controlling and powerful superior class. The consequences of this long-term inequality in almost every aspect of human needs causes widespread differences in terms of malnutrition, pathological conditions and diseases.42 Bioarchaeologically speaking, inequality under structural violence is manifested and can be observed in a higher prevalence of dental enamel hypoplasia, higher rates of mortality and morbidity, and infectious diseases, along with growth retardation, and violent traumatic injuries. Thus, during the overall life course, individuals subjected to structural violence will show an accumulation of several disturbances on their skeletal remains, reflecting the conditions under which they lived. However, it should be noted that not every discrepancy found in bioarchaeological skeletal material data can be attributed to structural violence, and thus such material needs to be examined within the context of the social, political and economic structures of the studied society.43 This study proposes that the pathological changes found on the Well-Lady skeletal remains are a suggestive case of structural violence. The exhibited pattern of degenerative joint changes found is proposed here as a representation of the socio/economic level of this individual, meaning the physical-labour working class. The suggested presence of a working 41

 Klaus 2012, pp. 31–32.  Klaus 2012, pp. 32–33. 43  Klaus 2012, pp. 32–33. 42

448

R. SHAFIQ

class is supported here by the written material found in the Level IV archives, reported by Wiseman44 and later detailed by von Dassow,45 who noted that Alalakh had a four-class society during the Late Bronze Age. The highest elites, called the maryanni, owned horses and chariots; they were followed by the ehelle, classified as a class of craftsmen, and then the ḫupše and ḫaniaḫḫe, both of which are grouped as one social class representing the poor and peasants of the society. The fourth social class was the foreigners, called the ḫabirū. Of particular interest here are the ḫupše and ḫaniaḫḫe, both categories representing the majority of the population who were involved in physical labour, which the other classes refrained from.46 The presence of a stratified class society at Alalakh is a precursor to the development of structural violence, in which the higher classes, the maryanni and ehelle,47 maintained certain privileges over the lower class, the ḫupše and ḫaniaḫḫe. The pattern and accumulation of degenerative joint disease (the neck and lower back regions) and healed trauma found on the skeletal remains of the Well-Lady represent a longstanding process of hard physical labour, reflecting the conditions of structural violence under which she lived. The skeletal changes found on the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae exhibiting joint enlargement and the formation of adventitious bursa all represent a longstanding type of activity in the form of carrying heavy objects concentrated on the neck region and the lower back. It is hypothesised here that heavy weights must had been carried on the head from an early age, thus causing damage to the cervical vertebrae. In addition to this, heavy weights were also carried on the shoulder region, with some kind of strap extending from the left side, leaving the majority of weight on the right side. This activity must have been repeated on a daily basis for a long time, enough to cause the left side rib joint enlargement. This weight, repeatedly carried on the right side, caused degenerative joint disease to the lower lumbar facets. The presence of well-healed fractures found on the left and right seventh ribs, along with cranial blunt force trauma on the right frontal bone, all testify to a violent act inflicted on the Well-Lady. The rib fractures are located in the middle abdominal region, the result of direct force, caused either accidentally or intentionally. It can be speculated that, if intentional, the blows to the abdomen and head may have been inflicted during an instance of violence, such as face-to-face interpersonal conflict. It is rather difficult to say if all fractures occurred at the same time, as all three fractures are well healed; however, it is a possibility to ponder upon. There were no pathological changes found on the long bone joint surfaces, the shoulders, elbows, hips, or knees, as would have been expected to occur with activity-related mobility, and mostly, with the progression into older age — that is, her determined age, between 40 and 45 years old. This evidence supports the proposed concept of work-related and long-standing activities in the form of carrying heavy objects, concentrated on the neck and the lower back regions, in particular, on her right side. 44

 Wiseman 1953, pp. 10–12.  Von Dassow 2008. 46  Von Dassow 2008, pp. 335, 340. 47  Shafiq 2018: It has been proposed after analysis of 16 individuals found in an intramural cemetery at Alalakh that this represents an ehelle cemetery for craftsmen and their extended families. The lack of degenerative joint disease along with the presence of DISH have been taken to indicate the lack of hard physical labour for the males and females, as supported by the Level IV texts. 45

COME AND HEAR MY STORY: THE ‘WELL-LADY’ OF ALALAKH

449

CONCLUSION This study represents an attempt to incorporate modern forensic methodologies into past archaeological cases. The combination of several lines of evidence that this study has found and examined on the skeletal remains of the Well-Lady support the notion of a possible forensic homicide case propagated by, and the consequence of, societal structural violence. The location of the interment in the well and the body position are indicative of a forensic case, whilst the pattern of degenerative joint disease, particularly emphasised on the right side of the lumbar vertebrae, the degenerative joint disease of the neck, Baastrup disease of the lumbar vertebrae, the presence of two fractured and healed ribs, and blunt force cranial antemortem trauma on the frontal bone, are all being proposed here as evidence of societal structural violence that might have contributed to the manner of death — that is, homicide. It is possible to say that this case gives some insights into aspects of the social and cultural life of which the Well-Lady was a part at Tell Atchana during the early Late Bronze I. The accumulation of several disturbances on the skeletal remains is a reflection of the conditions during her life, demonstrating the possible presence of structural violence in a stratified society, in particular directed at members of the lower class, in this case the ḫupše and ḫaniaḫḫe, who were engaged in physical labour. The degenerative joint disease and healed trauma of the Well-Lady are a reflection of hard labour, beginning at an early age, and interpersonal violence.48 Her death, suggested as a homicide, in which she was thrown into the well with no personnel ornaments or careful treatment of her body, further supports these conclusions. It is impossible to know the antecedents that led up to the death of the Well-Lady or the motives of the attacker(s). Can the political/social situation existing at Tell Atchana throughout the different archaeological periods be considered as a precursor to the suggested presence of structural violence, facilitating the Well-Lady’s murder? Or is the case of the WellLady to be viewed as an isolated incident? It is also difficult to know which group of the lower class she belonged to, the poor or the peasants, the ḫupše or ḫaniaḫḫe.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ANDREWS, P. and BELLO, S. 2012 “Pattern in human burial practice,” in Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains, edited by R. Gowland and C. Knüsel, pp. 14–29. Oxford: Oxbow Books. BOYLE, S., GALLOWAY, A. and MASON, R. 1997 “Human aquatic taphonomy in the Monterey Bay Area,” in Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, edited by W. Haglund and M. Sorg, pp. 605– 614. London: CRC Press LLC.

48

 Ongoing analyses conducted by this researcher on the human remains from Tell Atchana have revealed the presence of an additional six cases of cranial force trauma indicating interpersonal violence (three females and three males) dating to Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze I and Late Bronze II–Iron Age I Periods. Of the six individuals, two females and two males exhibited well-healed antemortem injury, whilst two individuals (one female and one male) showed perimortem cranial force fracture (unhealed). One female had evidence of two well-healed cranial force traumas.

450

R. SHAFIQ

BYERS, S. 2011 Introduction to Forensic Anthropology, 14th ed. London: Pearson Education, Inc. BUIKSTRA, J. and UBELAKER, D. 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains (Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series 44). Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey. FILIPPIADIS, D., MAZIOTI, A., ARGENTOS, S., ANSELMETTI, G., PAPAKONSTANTINOU, O., KELEKIS, N. and KELEKIS, A. 2015 “Baastrup’s disease (Kissing spines syndrome): A pictorial review,” Insights Into Imaging 6.1: 123–128. HILLSON, S. 2000 “Dental pathology,” in Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton, edited by M. Katzenberg and S. Saunders, pp. 249–286. New York: Wiley and Sons. 2001 “Recording dental caries in archaeological human remains,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11: 249–289. INGMAN, T. 2014 Mortuary Practices at Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Unpublished MA Thesis. Koç University. 2017 “The extramural cemetery at Tell Atchana, Alalakh and GIS modeling,” in Overturning Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology: A Festschrift in Honour of K. Aslihan Yener, edited by Ç. Maner, M. T. Horowitz, and A. Gilbert, pp. 245–259. Leiden: Brill. KLAUS, H. 2012 “The bioarchaeology of structural violence: A theoretical model and a case study,” in The Bioarchaeology of Violence, edited by D. Martin, R. Harrod and V. Perez, pp. 29–62. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. KNÜSEL, C. and SMITH, M. 2014 “Introduction: The bioarchaeology of conflict,” in The Routledge Handbook of the Bioarchaeology of Human Conflict, edited by C. Knüsel and M. Smith, pp. 3–24. Abingdon: Routledge. KWONG, Y., RAO, N. and LATIEF, K. 2011 “MDCT finding in Baastrup disease: Disease or normal feature of the aging spine?” American Journal of Roentgenology 196: 1156–1159. LOVELL, N. 1997 “Trauma analysis in paleopathology,” Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 40: 139–170. 2008 “Analysis and interpretation of skeletal trauma,” in Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton, edited by M. Katzenberg and S. Saunders, pp. 341–386. New York: Wiley and Sons. MARTIN, D., HARROD, R. and PEREZ, V. 2012 “Bioarchaeology and the study of violence,” in The Bioarchaeology of Violence, edited by D. Martin, R. Harrod and V. Perez, pp. 1–10. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. MEINDL, R. S. and LOVEJOY, C. O. 1989 “Age changes in the pelvis: Implications for paleodemography,” in Age Markers in the Human Skeleton, edited by M. Y. Iscan, pp. 137–168. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. RODRIGUEZ, W. 1997 “Decomposition of buried and submerged bodies,” in Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, edited by W. Haglund and M. Sorg, pp. 459–468. London: CRC Press LLC. ROGERS, J. 2002 “The palaeopathology of joint disease,” in Human Osteology in Archaeological and Forensic Science, edited by M. Cox and S. Mays, pp. 163–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ROGERS, J. and WALDRON, T. 1995 A Field Guide to Joint Disease in Archaeology. Chichester: Wiley.

COME AND HEAR MY STORY: THE ‘WELL-LADY’ OF ALALAKH

SHAFIQ, R. 2018

451

“Evidence of a Possible Elite Cemetery at Alalakh / Tell Atchana,” 33. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 2. Cilt. Bursa. Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, pp. 193–210.

SJOVOLD, T. 1988 “Geschlechtsdiagnose am Skelett,” in Anthropologie. Handbuch der Vergleichenden Biologie des Menschen, edited by R. Knussmann, pp. 444–480. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlage. VON DASSOW, E. 2008 State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalakh Under the Mittani Empire (Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 17). Bethesda: CDL Press. WALDRON, T. 1991 “The prevalence of, and the relationship between some spinal diseases in a human skeletal population from London,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 1: 103– 110. 2001 Shadows in the Soil: Human Bones and Archaeology. Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing Ltd. WALKER, P. L. 2001 “A bioarchaeological perspective on the history of violence,” Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 573–596. WISEMAN, D. 1953 The Alalakh Tablets (Occasional publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2). London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). Oxford: University Press, London. YENER, K. A. 2010 “Introduction,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Volume 1: The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 1–9. Istanbul: Koç University Press. 2013 “New excavations at Alalakh: The 14th – 12th centuries BC,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–35. Leuven: Peeters.

Rula SHAFIQ [email protected]

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM ALALAKH VIA ICP-MS Sıla MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA and Cansu YILDIRIM ABSTRACT A total of 90 Late Helladic IIIA2 and Mycenaean IIIC-style ceramic samples from the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age levels of Tell Atchana, Alalakh, were analysed via Inductively Coupled Plasma – Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) in order to distinguish their production areas. The results indicate three primary groups within the analysed samples. Two of the groups deviate by only a few elements, while the third group is distant from the other two. The results are compared with the Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) values of contemporary Mycenaean pottery samples, as well as clay samples taken from the Amuq Valley. This ICP-MS analysis on Alalakh pottery was the first of its kind, accomplished at the Surface Science and Technology Center (KUYTAM) of Koç University.*

INTRODUCTION Research Motivation The main scope of this project was to elucidate the provenance of the Late Helladic IIIA2 and Mycenaean IIIC-style1 pottery groups found in Alalakh, by determining the structure and range of elemental compositions of the analysed pottery. This would contribute to the understanding of the local, regional and long-distance patterns of production and exchange at the site and in the region. Significant quantities of Late Bronze Age pottery in the Mediterranean, especially Mycenaean pottery, have been analysed via Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA, NAA for short) in the last 50 years,2 which has created a large and reliable databank.3 However, as it is predicted that many university research reactors will face closure in coming years, and other techniques such as Inductively Coupled Plasma – Mass Spectrometry

* The authors are grateful to Aslıhan Yener for her permission and support throughout the project. The authors are also grateful to Müge Bulu, Robert Koehl, Mara Horowitz, Murat Akar, Özgür Birer, Penelope Mountjoy and Gonca Dardeniz, for their help and suggestions, and Steve Karacic and William Gilstrap for helping with GAUSS 8.0 software related questions. This project was made possible by TÜBİTAK’s (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) post-doctoral fellowship fund 2218. 1  Since it is argued that the pottery in the Levant has more parallel stylistic developments with Cyprus, and fewer with the Aegean, “Late Helladic IIIC” may be a misleading term and, therefore, the term Mycenaean IIIC-style is used instead. For this issue, see D’Agata et al. (2005, p. 371, n. 1), Sherratt (2009, pp. 493–495, especially n. 2), Sherratt and Mazar (2013, pp. 378–379) and Lehmann (2007, p. 516; 2013, pp. 322–323). 2  See Glascock and Neff (2003) and Speakman and Glascock (2007) for a brief history of NAA. 3  Perlman and Asaro 1969; Harbottle 1970; Hein et al. 1999, 2002a; French and Tomlinson 2004; Jones and Tomlinson 2009; Mommsen et al. 1992, 2002, 2009, 2011; Mommsen and Maran 2000–01; Mommsen and Sjöberg 2007; Mountjoy and Mommsen 2001, 2015; Zuckerman et al. 2010.

454

S. MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA

– C. YILDIRIM

(ICP-MS) are becoming more accessible to archaeologists, a shift towards these other techniques has taken place in recent years.4 In particular, the last decade has seen a great increase of ICP-MS measurements for material analysis. As demonstrated by various researchers, mean concentrations of many elements are comparable between NAA and ICP-MS.5 Therefore, this project using ICP-MS analysis was also anticipated to demonstrate compatibility between the two techniques regarding Mycenaean type pottery. Geography of the Site Alalakh, at the crossroads between Anatolia, Mesopotamia and maritime trade routes, has a unique location. It is situated alongside the Orontes River in the Amuq Plain. Three river systems contribute water and sediment to the plain: the Orontes to the south, the Afrin to the east, and the Kara Su to the north.6 The Orontes is the largest of these rivers. In contrast to the primarily sedimentary basin of the Orontes, the Afrin gathers its waters from a complex catchment of ultrabasic and sedimentary rocks, whereas the Kara Su drains a complex of sedimentary and basaltic rocks.7 The flat Amuq Plain displays diverse environments with varying rates of accumulation. Sedimentation varies across the plain; in some places, such as active alluvial fans, colluvial areas and floodplains, it is rapid, while in others, such as the valley floor or the actual lake basin, which are distant from major sedimentary sources, it is slow.8 Especially in parts of the Afrin fan, the original surface remains visible today, and therefore the maximum concentration of archaeological sites were recorded in this area.9 Alalakh is one of the sites that has yielded the most significant number of imports, including Mycenaean pottery, in the Eastern Mediterranean.10 Alalakh and the Aegean have “five centuries of shifting but enduring contacts,”11 which provide invaluable information regarding their cultural connections, as well as the synchronisation between these two regions. The recent geological information deriving from sediment cores taken near the site of Sabuniye in the Orontes Delta indicate that Alalakh’s maritime connections westward were perhaps formed using the Orontes River as a mode of transport.12 Now a landlocked site, 6 km inland from the Mediterranean coast, with imported Cypriot and Mycenaean ceramics, Sabuniye was most likely the main port town for Alalakh and other settlements in the Amuq Plain prior to Al-Mina.13

 Glascock et al. 2004, pp. 103–104; 2007, p. 345.  Kennett et al. 2002, pp. 447–448, 452, table 3; Tsolakidou and Kilikoglou 2002; Little et al. 2004, pp. 108–109, fig. 5, table 1; Tsukada et al. 2005.  6  Yener et al. 2000, p. 164, fig. 1; Wilkinson 2000, p. 169; Wilkinson et al. 2001, p. 213.  7  Wilkinson et al. 2001, p. 213.  8  Wilkinson 2000, p. 178, table 3; Edens and Yener 2000, p. 212; Wilkinson et al. 2001, p. 213, table 1; Casana and Wilkinson 2005, pp. 30–31, table 2.2. 9  Wilkinson 2000, pp. 173–174; Casana and Wilkinson 2005, pp. 30–31. 10  Woolley 1955; Crouwel and Morris 1985; Koehl 2005, 2010, in press. 11  See Koehl this volume. 12  Yener 2010, p. 4. 13  Pamir 2005, 2013.  4  5

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM ALALAKH VIA ICP-MS

455

Contexts of the Pottery Samples A total of 90 samples were taken from chosen sherds for ICP-MS analysis, all of which were found during Yener’s excavations (Table 1). The sample from a Vapheio cup sherd is the earliest in the assemblage. Seventy of the samples came from the post-Level IV sequence, namely from Level III to Level I, and all are dated to the 14th century BC, contemporary with Late Helladic IIIA2.14 Excavations of Levels III and II produced one of the largest Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery assemblages found in the Levant from this period. Most of the analysed sherds are amphoroid kraters, globular flasks and stirrup jars, as they are the most common shapes in the Alalakh Mycenaean assemblage.15 New excavations suggest that the site was abandoned around 1300–1290 BC, except for the temple area and its immediate surroundings.16 Therefore, apart from a few sherds, the site lacks Late Helladic IIIB pottery.17 One of the analysed samples, a “Simple Style”18 sherd, is the only probable Late Helladic IIIB example from the 13th century BC which derives from this area. After a period of abandonment, the site was re-occupied briefly in the mid-12th century BC.19 The assemblage belonging to this time period at the site was discovered in 2007 in stratified deposits in Area 1 and further excavated in 2011.20 The remaining 18 analysed samples are Mycenaean IIIC-style, and dated to the 12th century BC. Unlike the Late Helladic IIIA2 and B type pottery, Mycenaean IIIC-style pottery was locally produced at many sites, mostly due to the collapse of the Late Bronze Age trade system. Mycenaean IIIC-style pottery is known from several sites in the Eastern Mediterranean, including the Amuq Valley, corresponding to the Amuq N horizon.21

METHODOLOGY

AND SAMPLE PREPARATION

The analyses were carried out in the laboratory facilities of Koç University’s Surface Science and Technology Center (KUYTAM). In preparation for the analysis, the desired quantity of each sample (roughly 0.5 g) was cut, and the inner and outer surfaces of all samples were cleaned with a tungsten-carbide Dremel tool to remove the slip, paint and soil, all of which could potentially cause contamination. The samples were subsequently washed with de-ionised water and dried. They were powdered with a synthetic agate mortar, which was cleaned with water, nitric acid, de-ionised water and ethanol between each sample. 14

 For more details on the contexts of these samples, see Koehl (2005, 2010, in press) and Akar (2012, pp. 237–239). 15  Koehl 2005; 2010, p. 82; Koehl in press. 16  Yener 2013, 2014; Yener and Akar 2014. 17  One sherd from the Woolley excavations is also dated to the Late Helladic IIIB (P. Mountjoy and R. Koehl, personal communication). See Woolley 1955, p. 371, pl. CXXIX, ATP/38/209A. 18  See Koehl and Yellin (2007) for the “Simple Style” pottery. 19  Yener 2013, 2014; Yener and Akar 2014. 20  Yener 2013, p. 20. 21  Verstraete and Wilkinson 2000, pp. 188–189; Janeway 2006–07, 2011; Harrison 2010, 2013; Pucci 2013; Lehmann 2013.

456

S. MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA

– C. YILDIRIM

Since ICP-MS requires samples to be completely dissolved, the powdered samples were dissolved in the required acid mixture using a Microwave Digestion System prior to ICPMS analysis. After considering a variety of dissolution techniques,22 the method of Little and colleagues,23 which is a modified version of the method of Kennett and colleagues,24 was chosen. For the microwave digestion, a Milestone SK-10 microwave was used, which allows digestion of ten samples on each run. One hundred mg of the dried powdered sample was weighed into individual Teflon vessels, and 1 ml HCl (37%), 3 ml HNO3 (65%) and 6 ml HF (48%) were added on top of each. A total of eight samples, one reference material (SRM-679 brick clay) and one “blank”, which only contains the acid mixture, were digested on each run. The samples were digested in the microwave with the following program: 20 minutes to reach 200°C and then digested at 200°C for 30 minutes. After they were cooled, 25 ml of 4% Boric acid solution was added into each vessel, and they were digested again with the same program. Subsequently, they were transferred (approximately 37 g) into polypropylene bottles and topped up to 50 g with 2% nitric acid. Samples were further diluted to desired concentrations before the measurements. Measurements were performed with the ICP-MS Agilent 7700x (Agilent Technologies Inc., Tokyo, Japan), equipped with octopole reaction system Helium collision cell for spectral interference removal. The ICP-MS was operated with a HF resistant sample introduction kit (Agilent Technologies, Inc.) and Ni sampler/skimmer cones. Daily instrumental optimisations were performed using 1 μg/L tuning solution for the short-term stability of the instrument. Calculations of the analytical results were completed using Mass Hunter software. Statistical calculations were performed using MS Excel.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SRM-679 Brick Clay, supplied by the National Institute for Standards (NIST), was used as the reference material during the analysis. Constituents of SRM-679 samples are compared with SRM-679 certified values provided by NIST in Table 2. The non-certified values are compared with the results from other publications, which are generally compatible.25 The elements of Li, Y, La, Ce, Nd and Th, although their SRM-679 results are also compatible, were discarded from the statistical analysis, as they did not contribute to a pattern for the analysed samples, and even scattered the data. Calcium concentrations were problematic as well: since the most abundant isotope of Calcium (mass 40) interferes with Argon (mass 40), the plasma gas for the ICP-MS torch, we were forced to measure rare isotopes of Calcium, mass 43 and 44. Since the most abundant isotope, Ca 40, is measured in NAA analysis, the ICP-MS measurements are not comparable to NAA concentrations. Moreover, just as  Tsolakidou et al. 2002; Klein et al. 2004; Tschegg et al. 2008.  Little et al. 2004. 24  Kennett el al. 2002. 25  Hein et al. 2002b, p. 544, table 1; Kennett et al. 2002, p. 446, table 1; Grave et al. 2008, p. 1977, table 1. 22 23

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM ALALAKH VIA ICP-MS

457

noted by Kennett et al.,26 their recovery was poor and highly variable, and they did not contribute to the data, but further scattered it; therefore, these were discarded from the statistical analysis as well. Following the ICP-MS analysis, the data was subjected to an array of multivariate statistical analyses, such as principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical cluster analyses. For statistical analysis, GAUSS 8.0, a software program developed by the Archaeometry Laboratory of the University of Missouri’s Research Reactor Centre (MURR) was utilised. Extraneous information (time period, find spot, ceramic characteristics, et cetera) of the samples were ignored, in order to prevent any biases. The first and second Principal Components, which cover 77.2% of the samples, indicate three groups within the data (Fig. 1). Hierarchical cluster analysis supports the PCA results (Fig. 2). Groups 1 and 2 generally have similar elemental compositions except for Na, K, Ba and Rb (Table 3). It has been demonstrated by various scholars that single clay deposits may be represented by more than one chemical signature.27 It has also been argued that

Fig. 1. Principal component analysis plot of the first two components of the ICP-MS data with 90% confidence intervals for ellipses.

 Kennett et al. 2002, p. 449.  Buxeda i Garrigós et al. 2001, 2003; Hein et al. 2004; Hein and Kilikoglou 2017.

26 27

458

S. MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA

– C. YILDIRIM

Fig. 2. Dendrogram of hierarchical cluster analysis of the ICP-MS data.

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM ALALAKH VIA ICP-MS

459

groups which deviate in only a few elements are not separate groups when there is also no archaeological motivation for separating them.28 Previous NAA analyses indicated that a group named MBKR, similar to the Mycenae/Berbati group (MB), which is one of the most important reference groups of Mycenaean pottery, only differed from it in Na, K, and Rb values.29 It has been suggested that these differences were “due to selective alteration and contamination processes that are indirectly determined by the original firing temperature,” and therefore, these two groups were considered to be a single reference group.30 It is also stated that a large dispersion is often seen for the concentrations of As, Ba, Ca and Na in the data.31 Based on this circumstance, it can be argued that Groups 1 and 2 here most likely belong to a single group. Although some of the elements, such as Cs and Zr, are lower and Zn is higher in comparison to NAA results, most probably due to different measuring techniques, the element compositions and general patterns of Groups 1 and 2 are comparable to the Mycenae/Berbati (both MB and MBKR) reference group. A total of ten Late Helladic IIIA2 Mycenaean ceramic samples from Woolley’s excavations at Alalakh, now stored in Oxford, were previously subjected to OES (Optical Emission Spectrometry), and the results indicated a provenance in the Argolid region as well.32 The Mycenae/Berbati group is the main provenance for most of the Late Helladic IIIA2 pottery seen in the Eastern Mediterranean.33 Therefore, it is not surprising that the analysis results here indicate the same area. As mentioned above, except for possibly a few sherds, the site lacks Late Helladic IIIB period pottery, due to the 13th century BC hiatus. One possible Late Helladic IIIB pottery sample analysed (sample no. 34) displays a similar elemental composition to Group 1. The last group, Group 3, is easily separated from the other two groups, especially with its high Cr, Ni and Sr values (Table 3, Fig. 1). All of the Mycenaean IIIC-style sherd samples fell into this group. Sample AT006, with a peculiar fabric, has displayed elemental composition similar to Group 3 as well. Geochemical analysis of the clay deposits from various locations within the Amuq Basin, although they show variations in terms of stratigraphic depth and locality, indicate a prevalent influence of mafic and ultramafic rocks exposed within the Amanus Mountains and the catchment of the Orontes River on the Amuq deposits.34 Gutsuz et al. note that, “Due to these prevalent source rock types, chemical compositions of the Amuq deposits are characterized by high to very high CaO and MgO and trace elements, which are related to these major elements, such as Sr, Cr, and Ni.”35

28

 Mountjoy and Mommsen 2015, pp. 424–425.  Buxeda i Garrigós et al. 2002. 30  Buxeda i Garrigós et al. 2002; for other possible reasons for intra-group variations, see also Kennett et al. 2004, pp. 41–42; Hein and Kilikoglou 2017. 31  Buxeda i Garrigós et al. 2002. 32  Catling et al. 1963, p. 102; Jones 1986, pp. 561–562, figs. 7.13, 7.3 a-b, pp. 608–609. 33  See, for instance, Mommsen et al. 1992; Hoffmann and Robinson 1993; Badre et al. 2005; Zuckerman et al. 2010. See also Leonard 1994; van Wijngaarden 2002. 34  Gutsuz et al. 2017, p. 329. 35  Gutsuz et al. 2017, p. 318, fig. 2, p. 331. See also Wilkinson et al. 2001 (pp. 216–220) for geochemical analysis results of the samples taken from cores within the Amuq Basin, for their high Cr and Ni values. Hein and Kilikoglou (2017) also provide similar information for the Eastern Mediterranean. 29

460

S. MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA

– C. YILDIRIM

NAA results carried out on Mycenaean IIIC-style pottery samples from Tell Gindaris, located alongside the Afrin River, in the Western Afrin Valley, just to the northeast of the Amuq Valley, also display a similar pattern.36 Moreover, NAA analysis performed on six unpublished sherds from Oylum Höyük in Kilis province, situated alongside the Akpınar River, a tributary of the Orontes River, also shows a similar pattern.37 Both the Tell Gindaris and Oylum Höyük samples are interpreted as demonstrating local patterns, also displaying low values for Cs, often encountered in the Levant.38 Our Group 3 samples likewise display low Cs levels, although they are lower in comparison to the NAA analysis results of Tell Gindaris and Oylum Höyük, as well as the ICP-MS analysis results for the Amuq clay samples; nevertheless, a similar pattern is apparent. Although only a few elements are comparable, the NAA results on locally made Cypriot pottery from the Amuq Valley settlements of Tell Tayinat, Chatal Höyük and Tell Judaidah display a similar pattern as well.39 Considering this information, it can be concluded that the Mycenaean IIICstyle pottery samples demonstrate local production. Linking the chemical composition of ceramics directly to specific raw material sources is usually not possible, mainly because the raw materials are processed before the ceramics are manufactured in order to achieve a workable clay paste.40 Since the Amuq Basin displays a mosaic of environments, with three river systems contributing sediments from different geologic regimes, it is even more difficult to pinpoint a narrower area for provenance than within the vicinity of the Amuq Valley broadly. There are also a few analysed samples which do not fit into either of the groups and therefore can be considered as outliers. Samples AT009 and AT070 have different chemical compositions than all of the groups. While Samples AT002, AT022 and AT023 were initially clustered with Group 1, and AT072, AT082 and AT083 with Group 3, some of their elements display very different values, and, therefore, they were excluded from those groups and treated separately (Table 3). Thirty-six of the samples, of which 21 are Late Helladic IIIA2 and 15 are Mycenaean IIIC-style, were also chosen for petrographic analysis. It was not possible to produce thin sections for all of the samples, because some of them were too small to do so. The thin sections have recently been completed, and it is hoped that their petrographic analysis will yield supplementary information in the near future. Other local pottery groups in Alalakh and its vicinity are also being investigated both mineralogically and chemically, which will give us a better understanding of the relations between different pottery groups, local and regional pottery production, and a fuller chaîne opératoire. This project of archaeological pottery analysis via ICP-MS was the first of its kind at KUYTAM, Koç University, and as the analyses increase and diversify, we hope to develop a methodology for improved standardisation and comparability with other techniques and laboratories in the future.  Mühlenbruch et al. 2009; Mommsen 2012.  Mommsen 2012. 38  Mommsen 2012. 39  Karacic and Osborne 2016, S2 table. 40  Kilikoglou et al. 1988; Neff et al. 1988; Hein and Kilikoglou 2017. 36 37

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM ALALAKH VIA ICP-MS

461

BIBLIOGRAPHY AKAR, M. 2012

The Late Bronze Age II City of Alalakh and Its Social Context in the Northern Levant: A Re-Examination of the Post-Level IV Stratigraphic Sequence (I-III) based on New Excavation Results (2003-2010). Unpublished PhD diss. University of Florence. BADRE, L., BOILEAU, M.-C., JUNG, R., MOMMSEN, H. and KERSCHNER, M. 2005 “The provenance of Aegean- and Syrian-type pottery found at Tell Kazel (Syria),” Ägypten und Levante 15: 15–47. BUXEDA I GARRIGÓS, J., CAU ONTIVEROS, M. A. and KILIKOGLOU, V. 2003 “Chemical variability in clays and pottery from a traditional cooking pot production village: Testing assumptions in Pereruela,” Archaeometry 45: 1–17. BUXEDA I GARRIGÓS, J., KILIKOGLOU, V. and DAY, P. M. 2001 “Chemical and mineralogical alteration of ceramics from a Late Bronze Age kiln at Kommos, Crete: The effect on the formation of a reference group,” Archaeometry 43: 349–371. BUXEDA I GARRIGÓS, J., MOMMSEN, H. and TSOLAKIDOU, A. 2002 “Alterations of Na, K and Rb concentrations in Mycenaean pottery and a proposed explanation using X-Ray diffraction,” Archaeometry 44: 187–198. CASANA, J. J. and WILKINSON, T. J. 2005 “Settlement and landscapes in the Amuq Region,” in The Amuq Valley Regional Projects. Vol. 1. Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995-2002 (Oriental Institute Publications 131), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 25–65. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. CATLING, H., RICHARDS, E. E. and BLIN-STOYLE, A. E. 1963 “Correlations between composition and provenance of Mycenaean and Minoan pottery,” The Annual of the British School at Athens 58: 94–115. CROUWEL, J. H. and MORRIS, C. E. 1985 “Mycenaean pictorial pottery from Tell Atchana (Alalakh),” The Annual of the British School at Athens 80: 85–98. D’AGATA, A. L., GOREN, Y., MOMMSEN, H., SCHWEDT, A. and YASUR-LANDAU, A. 2005 “Imported pottery of LH IIIC Style from Israel. Style, provenance, and Chronology,” in EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean: Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference / 10e Rencontre égéenne internationale Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004 (AEGAEUM 25), Vol. 1, edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco, pp. 371–379. Liège: Université de Liège. EDENS C. and YENER, K. A. 2000 “Excavations at Tell Kurdu, 1996 and 1998,” American Journal of Archaeology 104: 198–215. FRENCH, E. and TOMLINSON, J. 2004 “Investigating the provenance of some Aegean-type potsherds found in the Near East: Results from Neutron Activation Analysis” in Le céramique mycénienne de l’Égée au Levant. Hommage á Vronwy Hankey, edited by J. Balensi, J.-Y. Monchambert and S. Müller Celka, pp. 15–25. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée-Jean Pouilloux. GLASCOCK, M. D. and NEFF, H. 2003 “Neutron activation analysis and provenance research in archaeology,” Measurement Science and Technology 14: 1516–1526. GLASCOCK, M. D., NEFF, H. and VAUGHN, K. 2004 “Instrumental neutron activation analysis and multivariate statistics for pottery provenance,” Hyperfine Interactions 154: 95–105. GLASCOCK, M. D., SPEAKMAN, R. J. and NEFF, H. 2007 “Archaeometry at the University of Missouri Research Reactor and the provenance of obsidian artefacts in North America,” Archaeometry 49: 343–357.

462

S. MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA

– C. YILDIRIM

GRAVE, P., KEALHOFER, L., MARSH, B. and GATES, M.-H. 2008 “Using neutron activation analysis to identify scales of interaction at Kinet Höyük, Turkey,” Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1974–1992. GUTSUZ, P., KIBAROĞLU, M., SUNAL, G. and HACIOSMANOĞLU, S. “Geochemical characterization of clay deposits in the Amuq Valley (Southern Turkey) 2017 and the implications for archaeometric study of ancient ceramics,” Applied Clay Science 141: 316–333. HARBOTTLE, G. 1970 “Neutron activation analysis of potsherds from Knossos and Mycenae,” Archaeometry 12: 23–34. HARRISON, T. 2010 “The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age transition in the North Orontes Valley,” in Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze II and Early Iron Age. Papers Presented on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the New Excavation in Tell Afis: Bologna, 15th November, 2007, edited by F. Venturi, pp. 83–102. Bologna: CLUEB. 2013 “Tayinat in the Early Iron Age,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31–June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 61–87. Leuven: Peeters. HEIN, A., MARAN, J. and MOMMSEN, H. 1999 “Element concentration distributions and most discriminating elements for provenancing by Neutron Activation Analyses of ceramic from Bronze Age sites in Greece,” Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 1053–1058. HEIN, A., BEIER, Th. and MOMMSEN, H. 2002a “A complete chemical grouping of the Perlman/Asaro Neutron Activation Analysis Databank on Mycenaean and Minoan pottery,” in Modern Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics. Papers Presented at the 5th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Athens 1999 (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1011), edited by V. Kilikoglou, A. Hein and Y. Maniatis, pp. 143–150. Oxford: Archaeopress. HEIN, A., TSOLAKIDOU, A., ILIOPOULOS, I., MOMMSEN, H. and BUXEDA I GARRIGÓS, J. 2002b “Standardisation of elemental analytical techniques applied to provenance studies of archaeological ceramics: an inter laboratory calibration study,” The Analyst 127: 542–553. HEIN, A., DAY, P. M., CAU ONTIVEROS, M. A. and KILIKOGLOU, V. 2004 “Red clays from central and eastern Crete: Geochemical and minerological properties in view of provenance studies on ancient ceramics,” Applied Clay Science 24: 245–255. HEIN, A. and KILIKOGLOU, V. 2017 “Compositional variability of archaeological ceramics in the eastern Mediterranean and implications for the design of provenance studies,” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 16: 564–572. HOFFMANN, S. M. A. and ROBINSON, V. J. 1993 “Neutron activation groupings of imported material from Tell Abu Hawam,” in Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939– 1989, edited by C. Zerner, pp. 7–10. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. JANEWAY, B. 2006–07 “The nature and extent of Aegean contact at Tell Ta’yinat and vicinity in the Early Iron Age: Evidence of the Sea Peoples?” Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: 123–146. 2011 “Mycenaean bowls at 12th/11th century BC Tell Tayinat (Amuq Valley),” in On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions: An International Archaeological Symposium held in Nicosia, November 6th–7th 2010, edited by V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, pp. 167–185. Nicosia: A. G. Leventis Foundation.

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM ALALAKH VIA ICP-MS

JONES, R. E. 1986

463

Greek and Cypriot Pottery. A Review of Scientific Studies (Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 1). Athens: The British School at Athens. JONES, R. E. and TOMLINSON, J. E. 2009 “Appendix G: Chemical analysis of Mycenaean pottery from the Menelaion and its vicinity,” in Sparta: Menelaion I. The Bronze Age (British School at Athens Supplementary volume 45), edited by H. W. Catling, pp. 147–169. London: British School at Athens. KARACIC, S. and OSBORNE, J. F. “Eastern Mediterranean economic exchange during the Iron Age: Portable 2016 X-Ray Fluorescence and Neutron Activation Analysis of Cypriot-style pottery in the Amuq Valley, Turkey” Plos One 11(11): e0166399. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0166399. KENNETT, D. J., ANDERSON, A. J., CRUZ, M. J., CLARK, G. R. and SUMMERHAYES, G. R. 2004 “Geochemical characterization of Lapita pottery via Inductively Coupled PlasmaMass Spectrometry (ICP-MS),” Archaeometry 46: 35–46. KENNETT, D. J., SAKAI, S., NEFF, H., GOSSETT, R. and LARSON, D. O. 2002 “Compositional characterization of prehistoric ceramics: A new approach,” Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 443–455. KILIKOGLOU, V., MANIATIS, Y. and GRIMANIS, A. P. “The effect of purification and firing of clays on trace element provenance studies,” 1988 Archaeometry 30.1: 37-46. KLEIN, M., JESSE, F., KASPER, H. U. and GÖLDEN, A. 2004 “Chemical characterization of ancient pottery from Sudan by X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF), Electron Microprobe Analyses (EMPA) and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS),” Archaeometry 46: 339–356. KOEHL, R. B. “Preliminary observations on the unpublished Mycenaean pottery from Woolley’s 2005 dig-house at Tell Atchana (ancient Alalakh),” in EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean: Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference / 10e Rencontre égéenne internationale Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004 (AEGAEUM 25), Vol. 1, edited by R. Laffineur and E. Greco, pp. 415–421. Liège: Université de Liège. 2010 “Mycenaean pottery,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavations Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 81–84. Istanbul: Koç University Press. In press “The Mycenaean pottery,” in Tell Atchana, Alalakh, The 2006-2010 Seasons. Volume 2: The Late Bronze Age II City, edited by K. A. Yener, M. Akar and M. T. Horowitz, Istanbul: Koç University Press. KOEHL, R. B. and YELLIN, J. 2007 “What Aegean ‘Simple Style’ pottery reveals about interconnections in the 13thcentury Eastern Mediterranean,” in Krinoi kai Limenes: Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw, edited by P. P. Betancourt, M. C. Nelson and H. Williams, pp. 199–207. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press. LEHMANN, G. 2007 “Decorated pottery styles in the Northern Levant during the Early Iron Age and their relationship with Cyprus and the Aegean,” Ugarit-Forschungen 39: 487–550. 2013 “Aegean-style pottery in Syria and Lebanon during Iron Age I,” in The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology, edited by A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann, pp. 265–328. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. LEONARD, A. 1994 An Index to the Late Bronze Age Aegean Pottery from Syria-Palestine (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 114). Jonsered: Paul Åström. LITTLE, N. C., KOSAKOWSKY, L. J., SPEAKMAN, R. J., GLASCOCK, M. D. and LOHSE, J. C. “Characterization of Maya pottery by INAA and ICP-MS,” Journal of Radio2004 analytical and Nuclear Chemistry 262: 103–110.

464 MOMMSEN, H. 2012

S. MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA

– C. YILDIRIM

“The importance of a reliable grouping – Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) data of Mycenaean pottery sherds re-evaluated with the Bonn Filter Method,” Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 704–707. MOMMSEN, H., BEIER, T., DIEHL, U. and PODZUWEIT, C. 1992 “Provenance determination of Mycenaean sherds found in Tell el-Amarna by Neutron Activation Analysis,” Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 295–302. MOMMSEN, H., BEIER, T. and HEIN, A. 2002 “A complete chemical grouping of the Berkeley Neutron Activation Analysis data on Mycenaean pottery,” Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 613–637. MOMMSEN, H., D’AGATA, A.-L. and YASUR-LANDAU, A. 2009 “Neutron Activation Analysis of Mycenaean IIIC-style pottery,” in Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996. Vol. 3. The 13th-11th century BCE strata in areas N and S, edited by N. Panitz-Cohen and A. Mazar, pp. 510–518. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. MOMMSEN, H. and MARAN, J. 2000–01 “Production places of some Mycenaean pictorial vessels: The contribution of chemical pottery analysis,” Opuscula Atheniensia 25–26: 95–106. MOMMSEN, H., MOUNTJOY, P. and ÖZYAR, A. 2011 “Provenance determination of Mycenaean IIIC vessels from the 1934–1939 excavations at Tarsus-Gözlükule by Neutron Activation Analysis,” Archaeometry 53: 900–915. MOMMSEN, H. and SJÖBERG, B. L. “The importance of the ‘best relative fit factor’ when evaluating elemental 2007 concentration data of pottery demonstrated with Mycenaean sherds from Sinda, Cyprus,” Archaeometry 49: 359–371. MOUNTJOY, P. and MOMMSEN, H. 2001 “Mycenaean pottery from Qantir-Piramesse, Egypt,” The Annual of the British School at Athens 96: 123–155. 2015 “Neutron Activation Analysis of Aegean-style IIIC pottery from 11 Cypriot and various Near Eastern sites,” Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 25: 421– 508. MÜHLENBRUCH, V. T., STERBA, J. H. and SÜRENHAGEN, D. “Neutronenaktivierungsanalysen an Keramik aus Tell Djinderis/Gindaros,” Ägypten 2009 und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 19: 219–227. NEFF, H., BISHOP, R. L. and SAYRE, E. V. 1988 “A simulation approach to the problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics,” Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 159–172. PAMIR, H. 2005 “The Orontes Delta Survey,” in The Amuq Valley Regional Projects. Vol. I. Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995-2002 (Oriental Institute Publications 131), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 67–98. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 2013 “Sabuniye: A Late Bronze-Iron Age port settlement on the northeastern Mediterranean coast,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31–June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 173–194. Leuven: Peeters. PERLMAN, I. and ASARO, F. 1969 “Pottery analysis by Neutron Activation,” Archaeometry 11: 21–52. PUCCI, M. 2013 “Chatal Höyük in the Amuq: Material culture and architecture during the passage from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age,” in Across the Border: Late BronzeIron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM ALALAKH VIA ICP-MS

465

at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31–June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 89–112. Leuven: Peeters.

SHERRATT, S. 2009 “Imported Mycenaean IIIC pottery,” in Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996. Vol. 3. The 13th-11th Century BCE Strata in Areas N and S, edited by N. PanitzCohen and A. Mazar, pp. 478–499. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. SHERRATT, S. and MAZAR, A. 2013 “‘Mycenaean IIIC’ and related pottery from Beth Shean,” in The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology, edited by A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann, pp. 349–388. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. SPEAKMAN, R. J. and GLASCOCK, M. D. 2007 “Acknowledging fifty years of neutron activation analysis in archaeology,” Archaeometry 49: 179–183. TSCHEGG, C., HEIN, I. and NTAFLOS, TH. 2008 “State of the art multi-analytical geoscientific approach to identify Cypriot Bichrome Wheelmade Ware reproduction in the Eastern Nile Delta (Egypt),” Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1134–1147. TSOLAKIDOU, A., BUXEDA I GARRIGÓS, J. and KILIKOGLOU, V. 2002 “Assessment of dissolution techniques for the analysis of ceramic samples by plasma spectrometry,” Analytica Chimica Acta 474: 177–188. TSOLAKIDOU, A. and KILIKOGLOU, V. 2002 “Comparative analysis of ancient ceramics by Neutron Activation Analysis, Inductively Coupled Plasma–Optical-Emission Spectrometry, Inductively Coupled Plasma– Mass Spectrometry, and X-ray Fluorescence,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 374: 566–572. TSUKADA, H., TAKEDA, A., HASEGAWA, H., UEDA, S. and IYOGI, T. 2005 “Comparison of NAA and ICP-MS for the determination of major and trace elements in environmental samples,” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 263: 773–778. VERSTRAETE, J. and WILKINSON, T. J. 2000 “The Amuq Regional Archaeological Survey,” American Journal of Archaeology 104: 179–192. VAN WIJNGAARDEN, G. J. 2002 Use and Appreciation of Mycenaean Pottery in the Levant, Cyprus and Italy (16001200 BC). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. WILKINSON, T. J. 2000 “Geoarchaeology of the Amuq Plain,” American Journal of Archaeology 104: 168–179. WILKINSON, T. J., FRIEDMAN, E. S., ALP, E. and STAMPFL, P. J. 2001 “The geoarchaeology of a lake basin: Spatial and chronological patterning of sedimentation in the Amuq Plain, Turkey,” Cahiers d’archéologie du CELAT 10: 211– 226. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). London: Society of Antiquaries. YENER, K. A. 2010 “Introduction,” in Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Vol. 1. The 2003-2004 Excavations Seasons, edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 1–9. Istanbul: Koç University Press. 2013 “New excavations at Alalakh: The 14th–12th centuries BC,” in Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations Between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul May 31– June 1, 2010 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42), edited by K. A. Yener, pp. 11–37. Leuven: Peeters.

S. MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA

466

– C. YILDIRIM

2014

“Geçmişi Tekrar İncelemek ve Tekrar Resmetmek: Alalah’taki Woolley ve Yener Kazıları,” in Unutulmuş Krallık / The Forgotten Kingdom. Antik Alalakh’ta Arkeoloji ve Fotoğraf, edited by M. Akar and H. Maloigne, pp. 46–65. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. YENER, K. A. and AKAR, M. 2014 “Yeni Kazılar Işığında Aççana Höyük, Antik Alalah kenti Orta-Geç Tunç ve Demir Çağı Tabakaları,” in Uluslararası çağlar boyunca Hatay ve çevresi arkeolojisi sempozyumu bildirileri. 21-24 Mayıs 2013 Antakya, edited by A. Özfırat and Ç. Uygun, pp. 61–84. Antakya: Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Yayınları. YENER, K. A., EDENS, C., HARRISON, T. P., VERSTRAETE, J. and WILKINSON, T. J. 2000 “The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995-1998,” American Journal of Archaeology 104: 163–220. ZUCKERMAN, S., BEN-SHLOMO, D., MOUNTJOY, P. A. and MOMMSEN, H. 2010 “A provenance study of Mycenaean pottery from Northern Israel,” Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 409–416.

Sıla MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA and Cansu YILDIRIM Koç University [email protected] [email protected]

AT001 AT002 AT003 AT004 AT005 AT006 AT007 AT008 AT009 AT010 AT011 AT012 AT013 AT014 AT015 AT016 AT017 AT018 AT019 AT020 AT021 AT022 AT023 AT024 AT025 AT026 AT027

21.39 262.128 281.4&28 281.11 281.25 382.4 914.17 & 23 918.12 925.300 935.1 935.3 935.40 935.200 444.1 553.202 605.25 649.68 859.1 901.7 910.15 935.2 940.5 940.6 960 1629.2 1935.1 2403.1

SAMPLE AT. NO. NO.

64 64 64 64 64 32 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 32 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64

82 82 82 82 82 57 82 82 82 82 82 72 82 72 72 82 82 57 82 82 82 82 82 82 72 83 73

GRID SQUARE  2  2  8  8  8  2  3  3  8  3  3  3  3  4  4  3  3 28  8  3  3  3  3  3 25  2 14

LOCUS   5   9  25  25  25  34  43  45  46  49  49  49  49  18  21  30  37  70  39  41  49  51  51  51  88  10  14

LOT NO. LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 Myc IIIC LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIB LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2

DATE Open shape Krater? Krater? Stirrup jar? Krater? Closed vessel Krater? Piriform jar Closed vessel Amphoroid krater FS 53-54 Krater? Alabastron FS 94 Closed vessel Vertical globular flask FS 188 or 189 Alabastron Amphoroid krater FS 53-54 Open krater FS 7-8 Vapheio cup FS 224 Krater? Amphoroid krater FS 53-54 Vertical globular flask FS 188 or 189 Krater? Krater? Krater? Krater? Krater? Krater?

SHAPE

Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press

Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press

Koehl in press Koehl in press

Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press

Koehl in press

Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press

PUBLICATION INFO 1 — 1 1 1 3 1 1 — 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 — — 2 1 1 1

ICP-MS GROUP

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM ALALAKH VIA ICP-MS

467

2468.1 2468.2 2786.1 3254.3 3787.1 3787.2 18878.1 4415.900 4783.1 7166

7182.1 7515.1 7856.1 8291.1 9730.2 10104.2 10107.1 10152 & 11065.1 & 2 10170

11074.1 14087.1 10190 16088.1 16236.1 17204.1

AT028 AT029 AT030 AT031 AT032 AT033 AT034 AT035 AT036 AT037

AT038 AT039 AT040 AT041 AT042 AT043 AT044 AT045

AT046

AT047 AT048 AT049 AT050 AT051 AT052

SAMPLE AT. NO. NO.

43 44 43 44 44 64

54 94 54 85 86 84

54

54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54

83 83 83 83 94 94 10 82 54 54

33  8 33 29 26 11

33

14 14 19 18 36 36 36 33

 8  8 17 12  2  2 16 12  7 19

LOCUS

241  44 205 115 101  34

205

 97 109 122 145 185 190 191 203 & 237

 20  20  45  52  10  10  89 122  44  91

LOT NO.

Stirrup jar Amphoroid krater FS 53-54 Vertical globular flask FS 188 or 189 Stirrup jar Amphoroid krater FS 53-54 Krater? Krater? Vertical globular flask FS 188 or 189

Vertical globular flask FS 188 or 189 Krater Krater? Stirrup jar Open vessel Flask? Simple style stirrup jar Alabastron FS 94 Krater? Amphoroid krater FS 53-54 Krater

SHAPE

LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2

Flask Stirrup jar Stirrup jar Stirrup jar Krater FS 54 Stirrup jar

LH IIIA2 Stirrup jar

LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2

LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIB LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2

DATE

Koehl in press

Yener 2013, p. 33, Fig. 6.10; Koehl in press

Koehl in press Koehl in press Yener 2013, p. 33, Fig. 6.9 bottom; Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press

Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press Koehl in press

PUBLICATION INFO

1 1 1 1 2 1

1

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ICP-MS GROUP

S. MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA

43

43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

64 64 64 64 64 64 42 64 43 43

GRID SQUARE

468 – C. YILDIRIM

19061.2 45.71#8-200 44.45#122-200 2045.2 44.55#1-200 44.55#2-200

44.55#9-200 44.79#13-200 44.79#5-200

44.79#5-202 44.79#7-200 44.8#8-200 2027.1 2045.7 2045.88 2600.1 2612.4 2615.3 11148.2 13354.1 44.80#19-200 44.80#45-200 45.71#5-200 45.71 and 44.80#2-200

AT053 AT054 AT055 AT056 AT057 AT058

AT059 AT060 AT061

AT062 AT063 AT064 AT065 AT066 AT067 AT068 AT069 AT070 AT071 AT072 AT073 AT074 AT075 AT076

SAMPLE AT. NO. NO.

44 44 44 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 44 44 44 45 44&45

44 44 44

64 45 44 32 44 44

79 79 80 52 52 52 52 52 52 42 95 80 80 71 71&80

55 79 79

84 71 45 52 55 55

GRID SQUARE

04-2001 04-2004 04-2002  1  3  3  3  3  3  5  2 04-2001 04-2001 03-3001 03-3001& 04-2001

03-2002 04-2001 04-2001

11 03-3001 03-2117  3 03-2001 03-2001

LOCUS

  5   7   8  12  18  18  20  24  26  23  14  19  45   5   2

  9  13   5

 84   8 122  18   1   2

LOT NO. Flask? Closed vessel Closed vessel Jug/Hydra Globular flask? Alabastron FS 94

SHAPE

LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2

Open vessel Krater? Krater Bowl Shallow Basin FS 293 Handle of a large closed vessel Deep bowl FS 284 Deep bowl FS 284 Kylix FS 274 Rounded kylix Conical bowl FS 242 Closed vessel Stirrup jar Krater? Krater?

LH IIIA2 Stirrup jar LH IIIA2 Krater? LH IIIA2 Amphoroid krater FS 52-55

LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 Myc IIIC LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2

DATE

Yener 2013, p. 34, Fig. 7.1a-b

Koehl 2010, p. 82, 84, Fig. 5.1,4 and 5.2,4

Koehl 2010, p. 81, 84, Fig. 5.1,3 and 5.2,3

PUBLICATION INFO

2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 — 3 — 1 1 2 2

1 2 2

1 1 2 3 1 2

ICP-MS GROUP

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM ALALAKH VIA ICP-MS

469

AT090

AT077 AT078 AT079 AT080 AT081 AT082 AT083 AT084 AT085 AT086 AT087 AT088 AT089

44.46#10-200 44.45#2-200 44.54#31-200 18878.2 11164.19 11932.1 13420.2 18516.2 18866.2 18868.3 18878.3 18889.2 45.71 and 45.72#3-20 44.45#124-200

SAMPLE AT. NO. NO.

44

44 44 44 42 32 44 44 42 42 42 42 42 45 45

46 45 54 10 42 85 94 10 10 10 10 10 71&72

GRID SQUARE 03-2001 03-2001 03-2013 16 5 2 1 14 14 14 16 16 03-3001& 3002 03-2095

LOCUS Krater Vertical Globular flask FS 189 Stirrup jar Deep bowl FS 284 Jug Deep bowl Deep bowl? Deep bowl? Shallow angular bowl FS 295 Shallow rounded bowl Shallow angular bowl Bowl Krater

SHAPE

LH IIIA2 Vertical globular flask FS 189

LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 LH IIIA2 Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC Myc IIIC LH IIIA2

DATE

Koehl 2010, p. 81, 84, Fig. 5.1,1, 5.2,1

Yener 2013, p. 34, Fig. 7.2

PUBLICATION INFO

1

2 1 1 3 3 — — 3 3 3 3 3 2

ICP-MS GROUP

S. MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA

Table 1. Catalogue of analysed samples.

124

 10   2  31  89  30  13   6  70  85  86  89  93   3

LOT NO.

470 – C. YILDIRIM

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF MYCENAEAN POTTERY FROM ALALAKH VIA ICP-MS

471

ICP-MS results of reference material SRM-679 (n=13) Element 7 Li 23 Na % 24 Mg % 27 Al % 39 K % 47 Ti % 51 V 52 Cr 55 Mn 56 Fe % 59 Co 60 Ni 63 Cu 66 Zn 71 Ga 85 Rb 88 Sr 89 Y 90 Zr 133 Cs 137 Ba 139 La 140 Ce 146 Nd 208 Pb 232 Th 238 U

Avg. 68.553 0.137 0.772 10.766 2.439 0.558 176.498 115.242 1886.717 9.493 29.073 65.494 39.729 132.682 33.815 185.551 76.989 29.542 146.300 10.538 491.370 40.036 94.604 39.323 27.958 11.703 2.390

S.D.

% CV

Certified Values

13.750 0.009 0.053 0.722 0.211 0.038 11.838 7.507 124.934 0.522 2.561 4.400 3.319 9.189 3.753 23.827 6.433 3.615 10.933 1.768 33.596 4.229 8.124 3.652 2.746 2.179 0.876

20.06 6.62 6.81 6.71 8.67 6.89 6.71 6.51 6.62 5.49 8.81 6.72 8.35 6.93 11.10 12.84 8.36 12.24 7.47 16.78 6.84 10.56 8.59 9.29 9.82 18.62 36.67

71.7 0.1304 0.7552 11.01 2.433 0.577 –– 109.7 1730 9.05 26 –– –– 150 –– 190 73.4 –– –– 9.6 432.2 –– 105 –– –– 14 ––

Table 2. ICP-MS results of reference material SRM-679. Results are reported in μg/g unless stated otherwise (Avg = Average, S.D. = Standard Deviation, CV = Coefficient of variation).

0.50 2.13 7.12 2.47 0.46 166.37 232.79 961.65 5.09 28.25 173.25 50.93 129.80 18.12 130.28 354.44 82.46 5.58 531.34 19.73 2.29

0.09 0.32 2.37 0.22 0.04 17.18 24.05 82.52 0.55 2.54 19.31 7.79 14.07 2.39 24.51 96.09 8.36 3.50 127.93 2.78 0.53

1.08 2.05 6.19 1.16 0.47 188.37 252.79 977.63 4.96 31.18 210.61 53.79 144.85 18.00 81.87 357.52 88.33 5.96 351.30 16.30 2.12

0.14 0.30 1.61 0.21 0.03 16.30 19.59 83.92 0.45 2.38 25.60 5.87 13.40 1.90 17.45 104.44 4.96 2.22 102.11 3.02 0.33

S.D. 0.32 2.41 3.72 1.02 0.38 116.56 502.65 1002.48 4.08 31.96 343.13 37.66 104.01 9.35 26.52 565.71 82.96 0.53 573.35 9.24 1.27

Avg.

GROUP 3 15 samples

0.06 0.47 0.98 0.19 0.04 12.94 118.65 143.79 0.51 3.79 48.26 5.55 11.04 1.47 7.08 123.99 11.58 0.36 194.25 0.99 0.29

S.D. 0.34 3.12 3.95 1.16 0.45 139.05 371.84 1376.45 4.69 36.27 317.51 55.87 109.84 13.57 47.42 435.40 101.69 3.53 558.13 13.20 2.48

AT009 0.68 2.10 7.58 2.82 0.56 147.94 151.29 1009.60 4.94 21.62 102.91 50.84 141.97 19.18 94.11 298.75 116.55 3.67 582.07 22.29 2.68

AT070 0.71 2.94 13.70 2.53 0.46 143.18 277.69 1067.61 6.47 28.24 179.10 51.98 121.24 23.25 184.43 560.58 86.10 12.68 1024.96 20.02 1.98

AT002 0.66 1.90 4.20 2.37 0.47 145.17 230.50 1087.36 5.04 27.56 169.85 63.48 127.54 18.26 98.47 242.06 78.80 4.23 317.98 44.05 2.73

AT022 0.68 2.05 5.05 2.37 0.50 142.55 237.47 949.63 5.27 27.99 176.02 172.40 128.78 18.65 114.71 232.73 74.05 5.53 491.14 19.55 2.14

AT023 0.38 2.52 2.79 0.85 0.43 121.91 713.75 675.32 4.56 32.95 407.47 25.20 76.91 8.01 28.60 967.10 81.56 0.65 1028.80 1.45 1.95

AT072 0.32 2.64 3.94 1.20 0.36 118.48 644.95 1066.75 3.91 32.23 362.07 33.47 101.42 10.15 31.18 637.90 77.81 1.18 367.26 1.62 1.41

AT082

0.30 1.77 2.90 0.78 0.28 117.02 530.26 540.04 3.61 29.17 475.82 45.24 91.08 7.00 12.24 1153.76 38.15 0.26 278.22 4.28 1.87

AT083

S. MANGALOĞLU-VOTRUBA

Table 3. Element concentrations of analysed samples. Results are reported in μg/g unless stated otherwise (Avg = Average, S.D. = Standard Deviation).

Na % Mg % Al % K% Ti % V Cr Mn Fe % Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Rb Sr Zr Cs Ba Pb U

Avg.

Avg.

S.D.

GROUP 2 18 samples

GROUP 1 49 samples

472 – C. YILDIRIM

SUMMARY

FIFTEEN YEARS OF RENEWED RESEARCH AT TELL ATCHANA: SOME FINAL THOUGHTS1 Geoffrey D. SUMMERS

Perhaps somewhat foolishly, I succumbed to Aslıhan Yener’s emotional blackmail by agreeing to attempt a final summing up of the 42 papers delivered over the three days of the highly successful and stimulating 15th Anniversary of the Alalakh Excavations workshop held in the splendid new Hatay Archaeological Museum.2 Revising my off-the-cuff remarks into a more considered and formal text has proved even more challenging than making them in the first instance. What follows is of a general nature and, the reader might think, somewhat superficial, but the extensive breadth and academic depth of the papers delivered leaves the discussant with no option but to paint with a broad brush. Having centred my own research on the settlement archaeology of the Central Anatolian Plateau in general, and the Iron Age at Kerkenes Dağ in particular, for more than 20 years, it could legitimately be asked by what right I was selected to perform this onerous task.3 Well, there is one surprising connection. Charles Leonard Woolley, better known as Sir Leonard Woolley,4 excavated at Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh, for three years between the First and Second World Wars, 1937–39, at a time when Hatay was under French mandate, and again after World War II, for four seasons between 1946 and 1949, by which time Hatay had become a part of the Republic of Turkey. This in itself was remarkable, given Woolley’s earlier prejudices against Turkey, as expressed for instance in his popular 1920 book Dead Towns and Living Men: Being Pages from an Antiquary’s Notebook,5 as well as his close association with T. E. Lawrence, better known as ‘Lawrence of Arabia’. Woolley himself engaged in intelligence activities during World War I, and had been rescued by a Turkish ship off the coast of the Levant in 1916 when the vessel in which he was travelling struck a mine. Incarcerated at Kastamonu he took the lead in encouraging other captured British officers to engage in a variety of literary endeavours, some of which he later edited for publication in 1921 as: From Kastamuni to Kedos: Being a Record of Experiences of Prisoners of War in Turkey, 1916-1918. Written by Many Hands and Edited bv C. L. Woolley. Contained therein were several references to the awful conditions to which ordinary troops, and occasionally others, were subjected as prisoners of war. The quote given below, which provides a good 1  This contribution is an expanded and more thoughtful version of the more or less spontaneous remarks made by the discussant at the end of three days of formal presentations. 2  The conference took place from 10–12 June 2015. Deep appreciation is due to the Director and staff of the Hatay Archaeological Museum for hosting the conference, to the T.C. General Directorate of Museums and Cultural Resources for its support, not only of the conference, but of the Alalakh excavations and research, and to the organisers of the conference, especially Gonca Dardeniz. 3  www.kerkenes.metu.edu.tr. 4  Leonard Woolley deserves a better biography than that of Winstone 1990. 5  Woolley 1920.

476

G. D. SUMMERS

indication of the book itself, as well as of the British reaction to it, is taken from the Times of London: Captain Woolley himself, an archaeologist when not engaged in battle fighting, alas! found little in his own line, but what he did find he has included. Yet with all the brave show of light-heartedness the day was “one long round to be got through as best one could”; and every now and then their cheerfulness was turned to depression when bad news came. “Our spirits were not raised by hearing … that of all the British troops who surrendered at Kut only about 600 remained alive.” Again, when Lieutenant Sweet was recaptured after an abortive attempt to escape, his treatment was monstrous: he was sent to Angora and put into the common gaol for two months, in a filthy cell which he shared with four condemned murderers, and fed on bread and water, the Turks allowing him to receive no money and not even water to wash in. Ultimately he was removed to Yuzgad [Yozgat] Camp, where he died of influenza nine months later. Future historians of the war with Turkey, in their description of the conditions of the long captivity of our men in Anatolia, will find many details in this book to fill out their pictures. The story told of the treatment of our soldiers by the Tartar is, to use a mild expression, not pleasant reading, even when it is written in lighter vein.6

Thus Woolley’s return to Hatay in 1946 demonstrates both his own faith in the enlightenment of the young Turkish Republic and a degree of cultural and academic liberalism on behalf of the Turkish government of the day in granting permission to the only foreign archaeologist to return to the Hatay at that time. In addition to his academic publication, Woolley wrote popular books on his discoveries including: A Forgotten Kingdom: Being a Record of the Results Obtained from the Excavation of Two Mounds, Atchana and al Mina, in the Turkish Hatay, of which he said in the introduction on page xiii:7 The book that follows is by way of being an apologia. I have tried to prove that today, when the cost of foreign excavation has increased ten-fold, when it might be thought that all the best sites, those of the most famous cities of the past, had already been exploited and perhaps exhausted and when, therefore the public might excusably turn a deaf ear to the horseleech demands of the field archaeologist, there is yet a vast amount of digging to be done whose results will not merely intrigue the specialist but will open before the eyes of all of us new windows on our common past.

These words ring equally true today when Aslıhan Yener and her team have taken up the challenge to return to Tell Atchana where they have of necessity expended great effort to skilfully approach many of the outstanding issues raised by Woolley’s own work. This is most laudable, for it is far more difficult, and generally less exciting, to sort out the problems raised by older excavations than it is to begin something entirely new. Aslıhan and her team are deserving of our thanks for taking up not only the tasks of reanalysis, but also for addressing that most difficult of problems, that of preserving the ancient mudbrick architecture. Re-examination of Woolley’s trenches is, after 15 years, naturally drawing towards a successful conclusion. Doubtless the next 15 years will see dramatic and unexpected discoveries that will equal and hopefully surpass those made by Woolley.8  Quoted from a review published in The Times newspaper, 24 March 1921.  Woolley 1953a. 8  At the twin site of Tell Tayinat, Timothy Harrison and his team have also returned to re-examine and expand earlier excavations, this time those of the Oriental Institute. The much shallower Iron Age deposits have presented different, but equally testing, challenges, while the monumentality of newly discovered Iron Age sculpture has tended to overshadow the scientific achievements attained by the fruitful collaboration of both 6 7

FIFTEEN YEARS OF RENEWED RESEARCH AT TELL ATCHANA

Fig. 1. Sir Leonard and Lady Woolley on the veranda of the Atchana dig house © UCL Institute of Archaeology Collections. See also Maloigne 2014, p. 42, cat no. 12.

477

478

G. D. SUMMERS

Sir Leonard Woolley, following the exemplary lead of Austin Henry Layard, better known to the British public of his day as “Layard of Nineveh”, was intently aware of the necessity to bring the results of his archaeological discoveries to the widest possible audience in the days before television became ubiquitous.9 A Forgotten Kingdom never, for obvious reasons, became as widely read as his popular account of Ur, Ur of the Chaldees,10 or his autobiography Spadework: Adventures in Archaeology,11 but it sold sufficiently well to merit a second edition. Of course Woolley also published a full and still very valuable final report on his excavations.12 The papers that were presented at the workshop, and which are published in this volume, demonstrate how good we have become at communicating with each other. Philologists, art historians, dirt archaeologists, climatologists, and specialists in various branches of archaeometry are all able to converse fully with one another in ways that are mutually intelligible. We are not, however, nearly as successful in communicating with a general public, with what might be called “the common man”. This is more true perhaps in the Eastern Mediterranean that it is in Western Europe or North America, where standards of schooling are more advanced, although in those places too, the challenges are formidable and growing. It is essential that we as academics, in both the humanities and the sciences, and in all subjects over and above our beloved archaeology, rise to meet these challenges. I do not underestimate the scale of the difficulties, but if we do not educate, and particularly do not strive to educate the youth, while such plentiful opportunities exist as they do now in Turkey, the kinds of dreadful phenomena occurring at this very moment, as I am writing, just across the border from Tell Atchana, and indeed elsewhere in the world, will proliferate. In times of civil unrest and war, it goes without saying that the human tragedies are the greatest. There are, however, additional losses to our fragile world, irreparable damage of natural and cultural environments, historic monuments and works of art. No mention was made at the workshop, and I myself was not aware until I began preparing these few notes, that Woolley himself had played a very large and important role in the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives (MFA&A) work during World War II. Some of his achievements are summed up in his 1947 Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Branch of Civil Affairs, War Office: A record of the work done by the military authorities for the protection of the treasures of art & history in war areas. Today, not many kilometres from where the Atchana Workshop was held in the splendid and convivial Hatay Archaeological Museum, ancient monuments and works of art barely a stone’s throw away are subject to accidental teams, not least because of the media coverage of the spectacular colossal statue of a Neo-Hittite king called Suppiluliuma. The Tayinat homepage is at: http://sites.utoronto.ca/tap/; users of Facebook can also find images of the discoveries together with media hype at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/23037082237. See also Harrison 2014; Harrison and Osborne 2012. In his workshop presentation on the relationship between Alalakh and Carchemish, Nicola Marchetti likewise demonstrated the difficulties of returning to older work, also, as it happens, largely conducted by Woolley. Publications of ongoing work directed by Marchetti are available for free download at: http://www.orientlab.net/pubs/.  9  His Digging up the Past, first published in 1930 with a Second Edition in 1954 and reprinted many times, was based on a series of six talks broadcast by the BBC. Atchana, however, is barely mentioned (pp. 34–36 and 56). 10  Woolley 1929. Ur of the Chaldees became, perhaps, the most popular book on archaeology ever published. 11  Woolley 1953b. 12  Woolley 1955.

FIFTEEN YEARS OF RENEWED RESEARCH AT TELL ATCHANA

479

and deliberate destruction, sometimes for profit, while at other times as a result of twisted ideologies. The importance of documenting and, where possible preserving, the material remains of what we study is paramount. Turning now in a more positive vein to the proceedings of the workshop itself, there are a number of important areas worthy of emphasis and discussion. It would be impossible to comment individually on every paper, and invidious to select but a few, so my remarks will be of a more general kind. Firstly, the Atchana project has, under Aslıhan’s firm guidance and, where required, with the full support of the impressive laboratory facilities at Koç University, nurtured a good number of young Turkish scholars in different fields of archaeometry, that is, in the application of hard science to archaeological issues. The scope and depth of the work impresses, as do the polished performances of individual presenters. Secondly, while on the theme of scientific approaches to archaeology, central to the methodology developed and imposed by Aslıhan Yener is the clear strategy in which local sequences within discrete areas of the site are first developed. In the next stage, correlations between these different areas are made during the processes of working towards a sequence and stratigraphy for Atchana as a whole.13 In an entirely separate exercise, attempts are made to correlate the Atchana sequence with those constructed at other sites, both in the Amuq and beyond. With regard to chronologies, once the stratigraphic sequences have been worked out, thereby creating relative dates, local rather than imported pottery sequences are used in conjunction with absolute dating methods. This most laudable strategy is fine in theory, but in practice it must be very difficult to ignore the distinctive imports with their attendant problems of residual sherds in complex stratigraphy, and it must be yet more difficult to embrace satisfactorily rival chronologies and their advocates. With regard to absolute dating, radio-carbon is the most extensively used method in the absence of wellpreserved carbonised timbers for dendrochronology. That the radio-carbon dates do not turn out as expected is disturbing not only for Atchana itself, but also for wider issues of Mediterranean chronology — not the least of which is continuing controversy over the date of the Thera eruption. Further radio-carbon dating at Atchana and Tayinat will define these issues more closely and, hopefully, resolve them. If this cannot be done at Atchana itself, as well as elsewhere, disagreement over regional and international chronologies will continue to absorb a disproportionate amount of intellectual, practical and financial resources. Regional chronologies are occasionally aided by textual evidence, especially documents concerning the relationships between Halab and its vassal Alalakh.14 At best, however, these provide only a very few points within one period. In other areas of interest, textual evidence sheds light on subjects not generally susceptible to investigation through the study of material culture alone. Tell Atchana will doubtless yield much more written and glyptic evidence. Having begun this all too brief review with some comments on the importance of Sir Leonard Woolley, the first excavator of Tell Atchana, and the role of those excavations in the history of Near Eastern archaeology, it is appropriate to end it with some comments 13

 Horowitz 2015.  Lauinger 2015.

14

480

G. D. SUMMERS

on the position of ancient Alalakh in the period of its apogee, the second millennium BC. Papers presented at the workshop gave prominence to the international position of Alalakh with regard to North Syria, the Levant, Cyprus and the Aegean. Indeed, evidence for close contacts with these regions is ubiquitous. It is the nature of these contacts, the directions in which cultural influences spread, the causes of the changing fortunes of Alalakh and its neighbours in relation to historical, cultural, geographic and environmental factors that are central concerns of our discipline. Here geography is crucial, but so too must be the technologies of transport by sea and over mountains, the locations of sources of raw materials, and the development of territorial states. What came over to your commentator above anything else in the papers presented was how the Amuq, and to a slightly less extent Cilicia, belonged to the northern Levant and North Syria in particular and, more generally, to the Eastern Mediterranean.15 Only in the later part of the Hittite Empire is there clear evidence in the material culture of influences from and contacts with the Anatolian Plateau. In earlier periods, Halaf, Ubaid and Uruk, this separation of the Levant and what can be called in this context Greater Mesopotamia from the Anatolian Plateau is stark and well known. At a later period, the Iron Age, architecture and sculpture from Tayinat and other Syro-Hittite centres appears to be markedly different from what little is known of NeoHittite centres on the Anatolian Plateau, for instance, at the mountaintop cult centre on Göllü Dağ.16 It is of not inconsiderable interest to see that this separation continues throughout the second and first millennia, perhaps down until the Persian period or even the Hellenistic. The footprint of Imperial Hittite control seems light, while earlier second millennium Anatolian influences appear to be very thin. Very recent discovery of huge palatial-looking buildings at Kültepe Kanesh, and also at Yassı Höyük near Kırşehir, with clear evidence of trading contacts with the south show that there is much to learn about international trade in the later part of the Early Bronze Age.17 In the years to come, continued excavation at Atchana and elsewhere will elucidate relationships with Ebla, as well as with centres in Anatolia. The future of Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh is, then, every bit as exciting as its past.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARUZ, J., GRAFF, S. B. and RAKIC, Y. (eds) 2013 Cultures in Contact: From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. ATICI, L., BARJAMOVIC, G., FAIRBAIRN, A. and KULAKOĞLU, F. (eds) 2014 Current Research at Kultepe/Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and Integrative Approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism, and Identity (Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series 4). Atlanta: Lockwood Press.

 See, for instance, Aruz et al. 2013.  Schirmer 2002. 17  For recent research at Kültepe Kanesh see Kulakoğlu and Michel 2015 and Atici et al. 2014. Preliminary reports of Japanese excavations at Yassihöyük near Kırşehir can be found in the Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı. 15 16

FIFTEEN YEARS OF RENEWED RESEARCH AT TELL ATCHANA

481

HARRISON, T. P. 2014 “Recent discoveries at Tayinat (ancient Kunulua/Calno) and their Biblical implications,” in Congress Volume Munich 2013, edited by C. M. Maier, pp. 396–425. Leiden: Brill. HARRISON, T. P. and OSBORNE, J. F. 2012 “Building XVI and the Neo-Assyrian sacred precinct at Tell Tayinat,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64: 125–143. HOROWITZ, M. 2015 “The evolution of Plain Ware ceramics at the regional capital of Alalakh in the second millennium BC,” in Plain Pottery Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East Production, Use, and Social Significance, edited by C. Glatz, pp. 153–182. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. KULAKOĞLU, F. and MICHEL, C. (eds) 2015 Proceedings of the 1st Kültepe International Meeting. Kültepe, September 19-23, 2013. Studies Dedicated to Kutlu Emre (Kültepe International Meetings 1) (Subartu 35). Turnhout: Brepols. LAUINGER, J. 2015 Following the Man of Yamhad: Settlement and Territory at Old Babylonian Alalah. Leiden: Brill. MALOIGNE, H. 2014 “Sör Leonard Woolley ve Aççana Höyük, Alalah (1935-49): Sir Leonard Woolley and Tell Atchana, Alalakh (1935-49),” in Unutulmuş Krallık. Antik Alalah’ta Arkeoloji ve Fotoğraf / The Forgotten Kingdom. Archaeology and Photography at Ancient Alalakh, edited by M. Akar and H. Maloigne, pp. 35–45. Istanbul: Koç University Press. SCHIRMER, W. 2002 “Stadt, Palast, Tempel: Charakteristika Hethitischer Architektur im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,” in Die Hethiter und ihr Riech: Das Volk der 1000 Götter, edited by H. Willinghöfer, pp. 204–217. Stuttgart: Theiss. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1920 Dead Towns and Living Men: Being Pages from an Antiquary’s Notebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1929 Ur of the Chaldees. A Record of Seven Years of Excavation. London: Ernest Benn. 1930 Digging up the Past. Second Edition 1954. London: Ernest Benn. 1947 Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Branch of Civil Affairs, War Office: A Record of the Work Done by the Military Authorities for the Protection of the Treasures of Art & History in War Areas. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office. 1953a A Forgotten Kingdom: Being a Record of the Results Obtained from the Excavation of Two Mounds, Atchana and al Mina, in the Turkish Hatay. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Revised edition 1959. London: Max Parrish. 1953b Spadework: Adventures in Archaeology. London: Lutterworth. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). London: Society of Antiquaries of London. WOOLLEY, C. L. (ed.) 1921 From Kastamuni to Kedos: Being a Record of Experiences of Prisoners of War in Turkey, 1916-1918. Written by Many Hands and Edited bv C. L. Woolley. Oxford: Blackwell. WINSTONE, H. V. F. 1990 Woolley of Ur. London: Secker and Warburg.

Geoffrey D. SUMMERS University of Mauritius, [email protected]

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES (FORMERLY ABR-NAHRAIN) Supplement Series Series Editors: Andrew Jamieson & Claudia Sagona

 1. 2.  3. 4.  5.

6.  7.  8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

Mayer L.A., Bibliography of the Samaritans, 1964, 50 p. Bunnens G., Tell Ahmar, 1988 Season, 1990, 151 p. Muraoka T., Studies in Qumran Aramaic, 1992, 167 p. Muraoka T., Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics, 1995, VIII — 107 p. Bunnens G., Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Near East. Papers Read at a Symposium Held at the University of Melbourne, Department of Classics and Archaeology (29-30 September 1994), 1996, VIII — 155 p. Muraoka T., Semantics of Ancient Hebrew, 1998, 151 p. Bunnens G., Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, 2000, X — 557 p. Adamthwaite M.R., Late Hittite Emar. The Chronology, Synchronisms and SocioPolitical Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town, 2001, XXIV — 294 p. Sagona C., The Archaeology of Punic Malta, 2002, XIV — 1165 p. Sagona C., Punic Antiquities of Malta and Other Ancient Artefacts Held in Ecclesiastic and Private Collections, 2003, XXII — 374 p. Hopkins L., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, VI. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Sos Höyük and Yigittasi Village, 2003, XXVII — 184 p. Sagona A., A View from the Highlands: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Charles Burney, 2004, XX — 743 p. McConchie M., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, V. Iron Technology and Iron-making Communities of the First Millennium BC, 2004, XXIV — 393 p. Sagona A., Sagona C., Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, I. An Historical Geography and a Field Survey of the Bayburt Province, 2004, XXIV — 600 p. Çilingiroğlu A., Derin Z., Abay E., Sağlamtimur H., Kayan İ., Ulucak Höyük. Excavations Conducted between 1995 and 2002, 2004, XII — 162 p. Payne M., Urartian Measures of Volume, 2005, XX — 387 p. Stoop-van Paridon P.W.T., The Song of Songs. A Philological Analysis of the the Hebrew Book jiriwe riw, 2005, XVI — 540 p.

30 EURO 38 EURO 45 EURO 35 EURO

40 EURO 35 EURO 105 EURO 70 EURO 160 EURO 105 EURO 90 EURO 120 EURO

90 EURO

110 EURO 60 EURO 95 EURO 90 EURO

18. Sagona C., Vella Gregory I., Bugeja A., Punic Antiquities of Malta and Other Ancient Artefacts Held in Private Collections, 2, 2006, XXII — 276 p. 77 EURO 19. Sagona A., Abramishvili M., Archaeology in Southern Caucasus: Perspectives from Georgia, 2008, VIII — 477 p. 94 EURO 20. Çilingiroğlu A., Sagona A., Anatolian Iron Ages 6: The Proceedings of the Sixth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Eskis¸ehir, 16-20 August 2004, 2007, X — 348 p. 85 EURO 21. Azize J., Weeks N., Gilgameš and the World of Assyria. Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21-23 July 2004, 2007, VIII — 240 p. 84 EURO 22. Wightman G., Sacred Spaces. Religious Architecture in the Ancient World, 2007, XX — 1156 p. 120 EURO 23. Aitken J.K., The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew, 2007, XVI — 306 p. 85 EURO 24. Steiner M., van der Steen E.J., Sacred and Sweet. Studies on the Material Culture of Tell Deir {Alla and Tell Abu Sarbut, 2008, VIII — 286 p. 85 EURO 25. Yagodin V.N., Betts A.V.G., Blau S., Ancient Nomads of the Aralo-Caspian Region. The Duana Archaeological Complex, 2007, VIII — 138 p. 65 EURO 26. McGeough K., Exchange Relationships at Ugarit, 2007, XVIII — 438 p. 95 EURO 27. Rubinson K.S., Sagona A., Ceramics in Transitions. Chalcolithic Through Iron Age in the Highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anatolia, 2008, VI — 364 p. 90 EURO 28. Sagona C., Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology, 2008, VIII — 655 p. 98 EURO 29. Bienkowski P., Studies on Iron Age Moab and Neighbouring Areas in Honour of Michèle Daviau, 2009, XIV — 273 p. 87 EURO 30. Kuty R.J., Studies in the Syntax of Targums Jonathan to Samuel, 2010, XIV — 285 p. 85 EURO 31. Redford S., Ergin N., Perceptions of the Past in the Turkish Republic: Classical and Byzantine Periods, 2010, X — 236 p. 79 EURO 32. McGeough K., Smith M.S., Ugaritic Economic Tablets. Text, Translation and Notes, 2011, XXVI — 625 p. 98 EURO 33. Hartley J.E., The Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Colour Lexemes, 2010, XVI — 247 p. 78 EURO 34. Connor S.E., A Promethean Legacy: Late Quaternary Vegetation History of Southern Georgia, the Caucasus, 2011, XII — 419 p. 94 EURO 35. Jamieson A., Tell Ahmar III. Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area C, 2012, XVIII — 385 p. 105 EURO 36. Sagona C., Ceramics of the Phoenician-Punic World: Collected Essays, 2011, X — 450 p. 95 EURO

37. Ergin N., Bathing Culture of Anatolian Civilizations: Architecture, History, and Imagination, 2011, X — 329 p. 38. Muraoka T., A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, 2011, XLVI — 285 p. 39. Çilingiroğlu A., Sagona A., Anatolian Iron Ages 7: The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at Edirne, 19-24 April 2010, 2012, X — 332 p. 40. Redford S., Ergin N., Cities and Citadels in Turkey: From the Iron Age to the Seljuks, 2013, X — 346 p. 41. Summers G.D., Yanik Tepe, Northwestern Iran. The Early Trans-Caucasian Period. Stratigraphy and Architecture, 2013, XXXII — 217 p. 42. Yener K.A., Across the Border. Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia, 2013, VIII — 542 p. 43. Pappa E., Early Iron Age Exchange in the West: Phoenicians in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, 2013, XX — 373 p. 44. De Cupere B., Linseele V., Hamilton-Dyer S., Archaeozoology of the Near East X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South-Western Asia and Adjacent Areas, 2013, X — 420 p. 45. Tebes J.M., Unearthing the Wilderness. Studies in the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age, 2014, X — 306 p. 46. Kennedy M., The Late Third Millennium BCE in the Upper Orontes Valley, Syria. Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural Connections, 2015, XXII — 495 p. 47. Magdalino P., Ergin N., Istanbul and Water, 2015, X — 274 p. 48. Bonanno A., Vella N.C., Tas-Silġ, Marsaxlokk (Malta) I. Archaeological Excavations Conducted by the University of Malta, 1996-2005, 2015, XXXII — 496 p. 49. Bonanno A., Vella N.C., Tas-Silġ, Marsaxlokk (Malta) II. Archaeological Excavations Conducted by the University of Malta, 1996-2005, 2015, XXXII — 666 p. 50. Mizzi D., Vella N.C., Zammit M.R., “What Mean these Stones?” (Joshua 4:6, 21). Essays on Texts, Philology, and Archaeology in Honour of Anthony J. Frendo, 2017, VI — 286 p. 51. Thys-Şenocak, L., Of Vines and Wines. The Production and Consumption of Wine in Anatolian Civilizations through the Ages, 2017, VIII — 235 p. 52. Muraoka T., Jacob of Serugh’s Hexaemeron, 2018, XVI — 229 p. 53. Verduci J.A., Metal Jewellery of the Southern Levant and its Western Neighbours. Cross-Cultural Influences in the Early Iron Age Eastern Mediterranean, 2018, XVIII — 435 p. 54. Vella N.C., Frendo A.J., Vella H.C.R., The Lure of the Antique. Essays on Malta and Mediterranean Archaeology in Honour of Anthony Bonanno, 2018, VIII — 391 p.

84 EURO 70 EURO

87 EURO 86 EURO 89 EURO 98 EURO 98 EURO

105 EURO 90 EURO 110 EURO 95 EURO

105 EURO

120 EURO

115 EURO 98 EURO 98 EURO

130 EURO

110 EURO

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706