Hittite Landscape and Geography 9789004349391, 9004349391

Citation preview

Hittite Landscape and Geography

Handbook of Oriental Studies section 1

The Near and Middle East Ancient Near East

Editor-in-Chief M. Weeden (London) Editors C. Leitz (Tübingen) H. Gzella (Leiden) C. Waerzeggers (Leiden) D. Wicke (Mainz) C. Woods (Chicago)

VOLUME 121

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ho1

Hittite Landscape and Geography Edited by

Mark Weeden and Lee Z. Ullmann With maps by

Zenobia Homan

BRILL LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: The Approach to Hattusa from the North Copyright German Archaeological Institute Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Weeden, Mark, edtior. | Ullmann, Lee Z., editor. | Homan, Zenobia,  cartographer. Title: Hittite landscape and geography / edited by Mark Weeden and Lee Z.  Ullmann ; with maps by Zenobia Homan. Other titles: Handbook of Oriental studies. Section one, Near and Middle East  (2014) ; v. 121. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2017. | Series: Handbook of Oriental  studies. Section 1, The Near and Middle East ; volume 121 | Includes  bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2017023170 | ISBN 9789004341746 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Hittites—Civilization. | Landscape archaeology—Turkey. |  Turkey—Historical geography. Classification: LCC DS66 .H547 2017 | DDC 939/.3—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017023170

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0169-9423 isbn 978-90-04-34174-6 (hardback) Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

This book is dedicated to the memory of Mustafa Süel and Tony Wilkinson

∵

Contents List of Figures ix List of Sigla and Abbreviations xii Textual and Bibliographical Abbreviations xiii 1 Introduction 1 Mark Weeden and Lee Z. Ullmann

Part 1 Perspectives based Primarily on Archaeological Evidence 2

The Land of the Hittites: Airs, Waters and Places 17 Neil Roberts

3

The Discovery of a Hittite City Developments in Hittite Geography based on the Identification of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa 28 Aygül Süel and Mustafa Süel

4

Hattusa and its Environs: Archaeology 37 Andreas Schachner

5

Central East: Archaeology. Alacahöyük, Eskiyapar, Ortaköy, Maşathöyük 50 Mustafa Süel, Aygül Süel, Tunç Sipahi and Mark Weeden

6

The East: Archaeology. The Upper Land, Azzi-Hayaša, Išuwa 58 Andreas Müller-Karpe

7

The North: Archaeology 75 Claudia Glatz

8

South-Central: Archaeology 89 Alvise Matessi and Bianca Maria Tomassini Pieri

9

Central West: Archaeology 106 Kimiyoshi Matsumura and Mark Weeden

10

The West: Archaeology 119 Sevinç Günel

11

Kizzuwatna: Archaeology 134 Mirko Novák and Susanne Rutishauser

12

The Euphrates States and Elbistan: Archaeology 146 Michael Brown and Tony J. Wilkinson

13

The Northern Levant: Archaeology 159 Jesse Casana



Color Plates after 175

viii

Contents

Part 2 Perspectives based Primarily on Philological Evidence 14

Hattuša and Environs: Philology 179 Özlem Sir Gavaz

15

Central East: Philology 200 Aygül Süel and Mark Weeden

16

The East: Upper Land, Išuwa-Malitiya, Azzi-Hayaša Philology 209 Metin Alparslan

17

The North: Hanhana, Hattena, Ištahara, Hakpiš, Nerik, Zalpuwa, Tummana, Pala and the Hulana River Land 219 Carlo Corti

18

South Central: The Lower Land and Tarḫuntašša 239 Massimo Forlanini

19

Central West: Philology 253 Stefano de Martino

20 The West: Philology 262 Max Gander 21

Kizzuwatna and the Euphrates States: Kummaha, Elbistan, Malatya: Philology 281 J. David Hawkins and Mark Weeden

22 The Historical Geography of Hittite Syria: Philology 295 Yoram Cohen 23 A Commercial Geography of Anatolia: Integrating Hittite and Assyrian Texts, Archaeology and Topography 311 Gojko Barjamovic 24 Moving through the Landscape in Hittite Texts 319 Jürgen Lorenz Bibliography 325 Index 388

List of Figures 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1

2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

Map 1 from Garstang and Gurney 1959. 10 Map 2 from Garstang and Gurney 1959. 11 Map after Cornelius 1973. 12 Map from Forlanini and Marazzi 1986. 13 General location map for the eastern Mediterranean showing selected archaeological sites, and the approximate maximum extent of Hittite imperial control. The boxed area is shown in greater detail in figure 2. 26 Topographic map and major rivers of central Anatolia, along with major tectonic fault zones and rain/snowfall isohyets. 27 Map of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa, showing the extent of the archaeological site. 33 The Ağılönü region of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa. 34 The Tepelerası region of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa. 35 A view of the Lower City of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa looking south, with Ağılönü and Tepelerarası excavated areas, the Özderesi river passing east-west, and Yuğtepe on its far bank (top-right). 36 General view of Hattusha as seen from the Budaközü plain (near Ahmet Can Tarlası) from the North; Yerkapı is dominating the urban scenery in the center of the picture (© Archive of the Boğazköy-Expedition of the German Archaeological Institute). 47 General view of the Upper City of Hattusha with Yerkapı at the right (South) (© Archive of the Boğazköy-Expedition of the German Archaeological Institute). 47 Distribution and density of Hittite pottery sherds on the fields in the immediate surroundings of Hattusha (Documentation: R. M. Czichon, Drawing: N. Timuçin, Layout: A. Weiser; additions: A. Schachner). 48 The greater vicinity of Hattusha in Hittite times (Original documentation: R. M. Czichon, Drawing: N. Timuçin, Layout: A. Weiser; final preparation: S. Küçük; additions: A. Schachner). Key to map: Numbers according to the catalogue by Czichon 2003; 21: Gülçebağları Mvk; 36; 47: Ahmet Can Tarlası = URUTippuwa (?); 55: Kocakaya = HUR.SAG Tippuwa (?); 59; 61: Kaleciktepe; 66; 161; 179: Emirler Kale; 182: Karakaya/Yazır; 183; 210; 216; 228: Büyükkaya-North; 236; 238: Çoran Göl Mvk; 253: Korumkaya; 337: Sarı Taş Mvk; 353: west of Tilkili Tepe; 382; Çıradere-Sivirtepe; 390: Sarıbaba/ Sarı Tepe; 396: Çamlı Tarla; 398: Çeçbel; 424; 429:

5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3

8.4

Çardak Tepe; 436: Külahtepe; 440: Höyüktepe near Salman; 444; 453: Mezarlık Mvk.; 472; 475: Çevizli Köm; 486: Kayalı Boğaz; 488–489: Göl Mvk.; 492; 529; 556: west of Çeçbel; 559; 565; 566–567; 574: near Bişek; 581. 49 Map of Central East area with surveyed potential LBA sites and excavated LBA sites. 57 View from hill above Eskiyapar to the southwest. 57 Map of the main archaeological sites in the Upper Land, Azzi-Hayaša and Išuwa. 68 Map of the main archaeological sites in central Cappadocia in Hittite Times. 69 Map of the main archaeological sites in Eastern Cappadocia / the Upper Land in Hittite Times. 69 Rock reliefs: a. Fraktin; b. Altınyayla; c. Taşçı; d. İmamkulu; e. Gezbeli (Hanyeri). Börker-Klähn 1982: 314–318; Müller-Karpe 2003. 70 Plan of Kuşaklı-Šarišša. 71 Plan of Kayalıpınar-Šamuha. 72 Plan of Kayalıpınar-Šamuha, southeastern hill. 72 Hittite sites in Altınova-Išuwa: a. Korucutepe; b. Tepecik; c. Norşuntepe. Same Scale. Müller-Karpe 1994; Korbel 1985. 73 The vicinity of Kuşaklı-Šarišša. Müller-Karpe 2013a. 74 The physical and modern political geography of the Central Black Sea Region. 87 Sites with evidence for LBA occupation. 88 View of Okçular Kale in Cide, Kastamonu. 88 General map of the South-Central Anatolia, with highlight of the research area dealt with in this chapter. 103 Survey areas and excavated Late Bronze Age sites in South-Central Anatolia. Background map: Bing Road Map—© Microsoft Corporation. 103 Distribution of possible Late Bronze Age (LBA) sites and Hittite monuments in South-Central Anatolia as drawn from previous archaeological research, with highlight of the hypothetical routes discussed in the text. 104 Main Late Bronze Age ceramic typologies from South-Central Anatolia and the Central Taurus. a) “Hittite” pottery from Porsuk, Level V (Dupré 1983: 242). © Mission archéologique de Zeyve Höyük (Porsuk). b) RLW-m ware from Kilise Tepe, Level III (Postgate and Thomas 2007a: Fig. 391). With permission from the publisher. c) Lentoid flask (Postgate and Thomas 2007a: Fig. 392) and

x 9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 11.1 11.2 11.3 12.1 12.2

12.3 12.4

13.1

List of Figures

Cilician Red Painted ware (Postgate and Thomas 2007a: Figs. 398 and 396) from Kilise Tepe, Level II. With permission from the publisher. 105 Map of the western Kızılırmak area. 117 Map of the area from the Kızılırmak to the Porsuk. 118 Most frequently attested sealing from Round Structure 1 at Kaman-Kalehöyük. 118 Map of western Anatolia. 131 Çeşme-Bağlararası: Minoan cups. 132 Çine-Tepecik: Anthropomorphic pithos. 132 Vessels from Level II, Building 1, Çine-Tepecik. 132 Mycenaean Pictorial Krater from Çine-Tepecik. 133 Çine-Tepecik; seal impressions, Günel, Herbordt 2010; Günel, Herbordt 2014. 133 Map of Cilicia with major modern cities and excavated Late Bronze Age sites (© Susanne Rutishauser). 143 Map of Kizzuwatna with major ancient cities and roads (© Susanne Rutishauser). 144 Map of Cilicia showing registered Late Bronze Age settlements in Plain Cilicia (© Susanne Rutishauser). 145 Principal sites mentioned in the text. 155 Agro-ecological zones in the Middle Euphrates region of Syria and Turkey. The zone of relatively stable settlement and agriculture (mean annual rainfall > 300 mm per annum) is indicated to the north; the ‘zone of uncertainty’ (rainfall between 180–300 mm p.a.) where agro-pastoralism is more common, is to the south. The indicated sites are some of the main Late Bronze Age sites discussed in the text. 156 Late Bronze Age settlement in the Middle Euphrates Valley around Carchemish and Aštata. 157 The number of occupied sites from c. 3000 BC to 600 BC estimated for the Land of Carchemish Project. The dark grey columns indicate the minimum counts of sites estimated from the site data base; the pale grey indicates the maximum estimate following re-analysis of the pottery records. Note how a slight (or significant) decline in the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), leads to a more significant decline in the Late Bronze Age (LBA), followed by a major phase of re-settlement in the Iron Age (Neo-Hittite and Assyrian periods). 158 Map illustrating location of major sites discussed in the text. 170

13.2

13.3

13.4

13.5

13.6

14.1 15.1 16.1 17.1 17.2 18.1 19.1 20.1 20.2

Tell Judaidah, a major site in the Amuq. Excavations by an Oriental Institute team in the 1930s found Late Bronze Age levels at more than 10m depth, a situation that is common throughout the northern Levant. (Photo by author; Section drawing adapted from Braidwood and Braidwood [1960]). 171 Map illustrating all sites likely to have been occupied during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages as recorded by the Amuq Valley Regional Project (Casana and Wilkinson 2005) and the Northern Ghab Regional Survey (Graff 2006). All settlement during these periods appears to have been concentrated at nucleated tell sites in lowland areas of high agricultural potential. 172 Bronze Age archaeological sites are particularly easy to recognize on declassified CORONA satellite imagery from the 1960s. Essentially all Bronze Age sites, from the largest, at Tell Atchana (22ha), to intermediate mounds as at Tell Salihiyyah (8ha), to the smallest sites reveals of Atchana, Salihiyyah and small site. 173 The largest known Late Bronze Age sites in the northern Levant include (A) Tell Mishrifeh/ Qatna (120ha), (B) Tell Acharneh (80ha), and (C) Tell an-Nasiryah (70ha). Late Bronze Age Tell Afis was likely smaller than its Early and Middle Bronze Age maximal extent of 30ha. 174 Top: Late Bronze Age palace, fortifications, and elite houses at Ugarit (Ras Shamra) as seen on a 2015 satellite image (Imagery © Digital Globe 2015). Lower left: photo of gateway leading to the palace. Lower right: entrance to the excavated palace compound (Photos by author). 175 Map showing main locations mentioned in the central area. 199 Map showing possible locations of main places mentioned in the central east. 208 Map showing selected locations in the east. 218 Map showing proposed locations over northern Anatolia. 237 Map showing detail of northern Anatolia. 238 Map showing proposed locations in the Lower Land and Tarhuntassa. 252 Map showing selected locations in the central western area. 261 Map showing the prevalent reconstruction of the west. 279 Map showing an alternative reconstruction of the west. 280

xi

List Of Figures

21.1 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 23.1

Map showing proposed locations in Kizzuwatna and the Euphrates States. 294 Map showing locations in the Upper Euphrates. 307 Map showing locations in northwest Syria. 308 Map showing locations on the Mediterranean coast and the Orontes valley. 309 Map showing locations in the mid-Euphrates area. 310 An impossible route: the minimalist model (with localizations proposed by Forlanini 2008a

23.2

shown here) requires a position of Purušhaddum vis-a-vis Šalatuwar that is incompatible with a regular traffic measured in tons of copper. 317 The maximalist model (from Barjamovic 2011), which integrates topographical details (bridges, rivers, inns) and the commercial logic of the Assyrian trade (routes, volume, and a smuggler’s route that connects the Euphrates to Durhumit but avoids Kaneš). 318

List of Sigla and Abbreviations > greater than ± more or less than ’ line number after start of broken tablet ” line number after second break in tablet :word word in Hittite text preceded by Glossenkeil / new line of text on cuneiform tablet / alternate personal or geographical name / subdivision of journal volume // duplicate tablet i/I column one (of cuneiform tablet) ii/II column two iii/III column three iv/IV column four v/V column five vi/VI column six akk. akkadisch Ass. Assyrian BC Before Christ BCE Before Common Era Bd Band BO Beyşehir Occupation (Phase) Bo. excavation number for tablets from 1906–1912 excavations at Boğazköy BP Before Present Byz. Byzantine c. circa (= approximately) Cal. BC (Date) Calibrated to BC Cf. compare Class. Classical dupl. duplicate δ13C delta 13 C, standard used for determining accuracy of results from Mass Spectroscopy E East E (of tablets/artefacts on site) Etütlük (= for study) EB(A) Early Bronze (Age) ead. the same (female author) ed. editor/editorial comment eds editors e.g. exempli gratia (= for example) et al. et alii = and other (authors) f. and following page ff. and following pages fig. figure fn. footnote fnn. footnotes Fs. Festschrift (edited volume in honour of scholar) GAP Göksu Archaeological Project GSCA General Survey of Central Anatolia

ha hectare Hitt. Hittite id. idem (= the same male author) iid. iidem (= the same collective authors) i.e. id est (= that is) İK İnandık Kazı (Inandık excavation number) JIAA Japanese Institute of Anatolian Arcaheology ka kilo-annus (thousand years) km kilometre KPSP Konya Plain Survey Project Kt—k Kültepe (tablet) from lower city (kārum) L Catalogue number for Hieroglyphic sign from Laroche 1960 LBA Late Bronze Age LGASS Lower Göksu Archaeological Salvage Survey LHA Late Helladic LM Late Minoan loc. cit. loco citato m metre Ma Mega-annus (million years) masl metres above sea-level MBA Middle Bronze Age MM Middle Minoan MŠT Mašat Mt Mount N North NAFZ North Anatolian Fault Zone NCA North Central Anatolian No. Number obv. obverse op. cit. opere citato, in the work cited pers. comm. personal communication pl. plate pl. plural PS Paphlagonia Survey pXRF portable X-Ray Flourescence rev. reverse RLW-m Red Lustrous Wheel-made RS Round Structure sg. singular s.v. sub voce TAY Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri/The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey Tr Turkish YHSS Yassı Höyük Stratigraphic Sequence YYALRP Yalburt Yaylası Archaeological Landscape Research Project

Textual and Bibliographical Abbreviations ABoT

Ankara Arkeologji Müzesinde bulunan Bogazköy Tabletleri (Bogazköy Tablets in the Archaeological Museum in Ankara) AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AhT Ahhiyawa Texts, see Beckman, Bryce and Kline 2011 AKT Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri AlT Alalah Texts, see Wiseman 1953 AM Annals of Mursili II, see Goetze 1933 ANMED News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediter­ ranean Areas AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament ARCANE Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East BAH Beyrouth Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, Institut français d’archéologie de Beyrouth BAR(-IS) British Archaeological Reports (International Series) BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient BIAA(M) British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (Monograph) BT Bronze Tablet, see Otten 1988. BIN Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J. B. Nies BYZAS Publication series of the German Archaelogical Institute, Istanbul CDOG (Internationales) Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East CHD The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago CNIP Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications CTH Catalogue des textes hittites, cf. Laroche 1971 DBH Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie DMOA Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui DS Deeds of Suppiluliuma EA Text from El-Amarna HANE/M History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs HHCT Hittite and Hurrian Cuneiform Tablets from Ortaköy, see Ünal 1998 HBM Hethitische Briefe aus Maşathöyük, see Alp 1991b HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik Hdt. Herodotus HKM Hethitische Keilschrifttafel aus Maşathöyük, see Alp 1991a

HSS HT IBoT

Harvard Semitic Series Hittite Texts, see King 1920 Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri (Boğazköy Tablets in the Archaeological Museums in Istanbul) ICAANE International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East IM Museum siglum of the Iraq Museum in Baghdad JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JSOTS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi/Boğazköy KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi KuSa Kuşaklı-Sarissa, see Wilhelm 1997 LAPO Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient LSU Landschenkungsurkunde MARI Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires MVAeG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires NS Neue Serie OAAS Old Assyrian Archives Studies OBO (SA) Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis (Series Archaeologica) OIP Oriental Institute Publications OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia periodica OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung PIHANS Publications de l’Institut Historique-Archéologique Néderlandais de Stamboul PRU Le Palais Royale d’Ugarit, Mission de Ras Shamra RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale RGS Royal Geographic Society RGTC Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes RHA Revue Hittite et Asianique RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie RS Ras Shamra RSO Rivista degli Studi Orientali SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin SBL Society for Biblical Literature SCCNH Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians SCIEM Synchronization of the Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd Millennium BC SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici

xiv StBoT TAD TAVO TC 3

Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten Türk Arkeologji Dergisi Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Textes Cunéiformes du Louvre 3, cf. ThureauDangin 1912. TTKY Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları TÜBA-AR Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi

Textual and Bibliographical Abbreviations UISK

Untersuchungen zur Indogermanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft UT Ulmi-Teššub Treaty VBoT Verstreute Boğazköy-Texte VS NF Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler Neue Folge WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft

CHAPTER 1

Introduction Mark Weeden and Lee Z. Ullmann The past 30 years have seen a surge of interest in what is commonly referred to as landscape archaeology. This is a field of investigation which seeks to understand the place of human beings within the physical landscape, to illuminate how they interacted with their concrete, physical environment and to reconstruct what that might have looked like. Landscape archaeology has profoundly influenced the way any archaeology is done, being partly a result of the movement towards attempting to reconstruct ancient mentalities that is sometimes referred to as postprocessual archaeology, and partly rooted in the marriage of archaeological method with natural science approaches from disciplines such as geology, human anthropology, climate studies and botany. This book does not attempt to provide a landscape archaeology of ancient Anatolia in the manner that T. J. Wilkinson’s book did for Mesopotamia and Syria, although that is a promising line of future research.1 Rather the inclusion of landscape in the title of this work pays tribute to the fact that landscape studies cannot be ignored in the study of historical geography. In fact, in the case of Hittite historical geography it is quite clear that study of the landscape has been a constant factor since the very beginning. For us, as for the ancients, the imposing landscape of central Anatolia is impossible to ignore. Far from being an inert background against which historical events are played, the landscape is itself an actor in the drama, attracting and transforming varieties of meanings that have been projected by different human interlocutors through time. The landscape is historically determined through human interaction in terms of deforestation and soil erosion, for example, but it is also historically determining, in that its natural features, from mountainous massifs to volcanic peaks and from alluvial plains to lakes, pools, rivers and springs, invite human settlement and engagement of particular kinds. Economic factors doubtless played a role in the choice of Hattusa as main city, with its position in the centre of Anatolia, right in the middle of what had previously been the Anatolian trade circuit covered by Assyrian merchants. But its difficult, rocky and craggy situation, in a place where no other 1  Wilkinson 2003. Closely related is the notion of an archaeology of place that is being developed by Ömür Harmanşah (2014a; 2014b); also Ullmann 2010.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_002

pre-modern civilisations have built a centralised state, is a recurring theme of many of the contributions to this book, and may well have had other motivations. The study of the landscape thus becomes an integral part of understanding the kind of political formation that underlay the Hittite state. The Historical Geography of Anatolia as a topic of investigation begins with European visitors to the area in the 19th century.2 These men were usually trying to reconstruct or re-trace the footsteps of the classical authors that formed the bedrock of European education at the time, albeit mostly only for the privileged few. Such endeavours did not always have solely antiquarian interests in view. Thus W. M. Ramsay saw himself as charting the history of roads and routes in the direct shadow of the various railway projects that were advancing into the Middle East in the late 19th century.3 It is clear that these visits were integrally related to the inter-imperial conflicts that eventually resulted in World War I, the pursuit of knowledge in itself subordinated to the political interests of the day. The discovery of the Hittites through a series of lucky guesses by W. Wright in 1874 and then A. H. Sayce in 1876, who both connected the Hittites of the Bible with the hieroglyphic inscriptions of northern Syria, made this “lost civilisation”, a phrase still echoed by N. Roberts in chapter 2 of this book, the subject of academic research for the first time.4 This meant that the study of the distribution of “Hittite remains” could begin in earnest, which initially entailed identifying a combination of “Hittite” hieroglyphic inscriptions, sculptural artefacts in the style of the reliefs at Gavur Kalesi and later the characteristic redslip ware found at Boğazköy (nowadays Boğazkale), which was excavated in earnest from 1906 (see Schachner this volume, chapter 4). Boğazköy itself was variously identified as Roman Tavium or Median Pteria prior to excavation. The decisive development in identifying it as Hattusa, the capital of an Empire which was conspicuously absent 2  For example: Ainsworth 1842; Hamilton 1842; Texier 1842–52; Barth 1860; Tschihatscheff 1867; Ramsay 1890; Hogarth 1893; Chantre 1898; Anderson 1903; the posthumously published Mordtmann 1925, containing letters from journeys 1852–57, is also important. 3  Ramsay 1890: 25–26. 4  Alaura 2015; Weeden in press.

2

Weeden and Ullmann

from the classical sources used by Europeans for orientation in the Middle East, came with the discovery of large amounts of cuneiform tablets at the site, including international treaties and diplomatic correspondence between the land of Hatti (Hattusa) and the other great powers of the time. Besides the name of Hattusa, the documents brought to light at the city also contain thousands of other place-names that fell within the Hittite sphere of influence. This added an entirely new dimension to the historical geography of Anatolia and northern Syria, by encouraging scholars to try to match the names in the documents with physical places.

Hittite Historical Geography

The first comprehensive work on this topic was that of A. Goetze in 1924. E. Forrer began with his works attempting to identify the western lands mentioned in Hittite texts with those known from classical texts, particularly Arzawa, Wilusa, Lukka, Ahhiyawa, Millawanda, all of which led to controversies which are partially not resolved to this day.5 See Max Gander, chapter 20 in this volume. After this he turned his attention to central Anatolia and undertook an extensive journey in 1926 visiting sites. In the same year H. H. von der Osten also undertook a journey in Anatolia for the University of Chicago and visited some of the same sites as well as spending time in Forrer’s company.6 Some of the early identifications included such as Ankara with Ankuwa, both on the basis of similarity of names and locations on Roman or Byzantine roads.7 In this particular case von der Osten’s excavations at Alişarhöyük, which produced Old Assyrian tablets containing the name Ankuwa beside that of Kaneš, were the catalyst for shifting Ankuwa to this locality, although the debate is in no way closed either on the name of Alişarhöyük or the location of Ankuwa.8 The thesis that it was anywhere near Ankara is no longer defended. See Sir Gavaz in this volume. Another early identification was that of the mound of Kültepe near Kayseri with ancient Kaneš on the basis of Old Assyrian tablets belonging to traders who lived there that had been recovered firstly in illicit excavations at the site, then in Czech excavations in 1925, and afterwards in regular Turkish excavations from 1948 to the present day. For half a century Hattusa (= Boğazköy) and Kaneš (Hittite Nesa, = Kültepe) remained the only fixed points 5  Forrer 1926. 6  Forrer 1927; von der Osten 1927. 7  Forrer 1926b: 4; von der Osten 1927: 65. 8  Lewy 1934: 7 with fn. 30.

on the map of Hittite historical geography in the central area, and these on the basis of incontrovertible evidence gained from extensive excavation. The Kaneš (= Kültepe) fixed point allowed the identification of the Kızılırmak, classical Halys, as the Hittite river Marassanta due to the Kaska enemy having had to cross it in order to attack Kaneš as narrated in the Apology of Hattusili III.9 Other proposals for locations had to proceed through a careful weighing of the evidence provided by (groups of) toponyms preserved in classical or even modern sources, as against the evidence provided by a source-critical reading of the Hittite texts themselves, in particular campaign reports, oracles for future campaigns, cult journeys and letters, consideration of pre-modern roads and networks, all combined with an evaluation of what could be possibly achieved on the basis of the real topography. With each of these fields of evidence there are serious issues regarding their trustworthiness. (a) The same name might move over the millennia, or be replicated somewhere else. Names also change their sound and may end up sounding completely different from how they started out. This is not to mention the very real possibility that different localities had the same name in the Hittite period, although this assumption is to be excluded on methodological grounds until all other avenues of explanation have been exhausted. (b) The Hittite texts tend to present the evidence in a telescoped fashion that suits narrative purpose or genre convention. The reasons for listing cities in particular orders may have been anything other than geographical. As pointed out in a recent book, it is quite likely that texts name places on itineraries only when they are deviating from a norm that would otherwise be assumed and therefore not mentioned.10 A source-critical analysis of a text’s function and genre must be performed before its contribution to a geographical discussion can be evaluated, and the particular dimensional phrases in which a place-name occurs have to be considered in the context of other occurrences of the same phrases elsehwere in the corpus of Hittite texts. In many cases our texts are too fragmentary even to perform these tasks satisfactorily. (c) The basic topography might not change too much, unless in the case of some river-courses, but the landscape certainly does, whether that has to do with anthropogenic or taphonomic processes such as deforestation, erosion and alluviation or to do with the social and cultural construction that people attach to the landscape. The people who chose to set up their capital precisely in the difficult 9  Hattusili Apology ii 3ff. (Otten 1984: 10). 10  Kryszeń 2016.

introduction

area of Hattusa—Boğazköy may not have always chosen the most usual, simple and easy routes to travel or to establish settlements. Religious associations or others born of cultural memory may also have played an important role.11 One of the major early developments in the historical geography of the Hittite Empire used a judicious combination of all of these methods. Goetze’s work Kizzuwatna moved the eponymous country attested in Hittite texts from the north where it had been placed due to an association with Comana Pontica down to where it is nowadays located in the plain of Adana, classical Cilicia.12 Key here was the find of the sealing of Isputahsu, a treaty-partner of the Hittite king Telipinu. However, this re-location is one of the few achieved without direct evidence from excavated tablets that receives universal recognition today, although many of the details remain to be worked out. See Novák and Rutishauser (chapter 11) and Hawkins and Weeden (chapter 21) in this volume. The 1950s saw the publication of two synthetic studies of Hittite historical geography. The first took the form of two articles by F. Cornelius which argued mainly using the evidence of various lists in cuneiform documents, which he and others assumed to be organised in geographical order: the prayer of Muwatalli II to the Storm-god of lightning (KBo 6.45 // 46), the offering list KBo 4.13, the oracle-text KUB 5.1, the Annals of Mursili II, as well as the tablet KBo 6.28, which detailed the so-called concentric invasions in the reign of Tudhaliya II (otherwise known as Tudhaliya III).13 The second was the book by J. Garstang and O. R. Gurney, which appeared only the year after Cornelius’ synthetic articles and presented a quite different view of Hittite geography based largely on similar evidence.14 It is superfluous to list the specific differences in localisations here, although they can be illustrated bv reference to the map 1 from Garstang and Gurney’s work, in comparison to the maps in Cornelius’ Geschichte der Hethiter from 1973 (see figs 1.1–2 and 1.3). Yet another view of the geographical arrangement of the central Hittite area, with a significant movement of many of the main locations to the north of Hattusa, was presented in H. G. Güterbock’s published reaction to Garstang and Gurney’s Geography, which appeared in 1961 and has also proven influential.

11  For an inquiry into methodological problems associated with Hittite Historical Geography see Kryszeń 2014; id. 2016. 12  Goetze 1940. 13  Cornelius 1958a; 1958b. 14  Garstang and Gurney 1959.

3 Although much more clarity has been gained in the time since these works were published, the differing results based on much the same evidence give an idea of the limits of the exploitation of the philological material. Garstang had an excellent knowledge of the Anatolian landscape, and Cornelius also made voyages to see it in person, but no matter how well one knows the area, a name in a text simply cannot be attached to a physical place with any degree of certainty without special circumstances, or unequivocal testimony from texts excavated on site. The seven springs at Tatarlı Höyük in the Adana region can be compared with the seven pure springs of Lawazantiya known from tablets excavated at Boğazköy, when considered along with all the other corroborating evidence.15 This might qualify as a good example of an identification made likely by a comparison of place with text, although it is not absolutely certain, but such are extremely rare. Even when cuneiform tablets are excavated at a site and they mention a particular name, one needs to be careful. It is sometimes more likely that the isolated mention of a name at a site will be referring to somewhere else, as there is no need to refer to the place where one is or where one’s correspondent in a letter knows that one is.16 The occurrence of a toponym in a cuneiform document found at a site can only be considered as one element of proof along with others, one that is to be regarded critically.17 Another major development in the philological investigation of Hittite historical geography was the publication in 1978 of the sixth volume of the Répertoire Geographique des Textes Cunéiformes by G. del Monte and J. Tischler. This volume and the successor volume published by del Monte in 1992, form the basis of philological research, collecting all attestations of Hittite placenames in texts published until 1992, with an overview of 15   See Hawkins and Weeden (chapter 21) and Novák and Rutishauser (chapter 11) this volume. 16  An example is given by the excavation of a fragment of a Middle Hittite letter at Eskiyapar, which some have thought to be Hittite Tahurpa, containing the names Tahurpa and Arinna (Sipahi 2012b: 50). This is an extraordinary find and a remarkable coincidence, but one cannot exclude that the letter was talking about somewhere else. Note the cautious remarks of Sipahi loc. cit. See Sir Gavaz this volume. 17  The multiple attestations of the name Samuha in a document excavated at Kayalıpınar (Rieken 2014) along with an evaluation of the place-name’s hierarchy with regard to other place-names in the same document, coupled with the position of Kayalıpınar in the local settlement hierarchy is a good example of a convincing, although still strictly speaking hypothetical, use of evidence from a cuneiform tablet. See Müller-Karpe in this volume.

4 the relevant theories to date concerning localisations.18 In the late 1970s one also begins to see contributions appearing in widely disparate publication venues by M. Forlanini, of whose works some forty-four are cited in this volume. Forlanini tended to espouse a substantially different view of Hittite geography to that represented by either Garstang and Gurney or Cornelius, using a detailed appreciation of the most up-to-date textual information combined with an unparalleled knowledge of classical and late antique place-names throughout Turkey. The contributions in this volume demonstrate the influence of his analyses among Hittitologists.19 In 1986 M. Forlanini and M. Marazzi presented Fascicle 4.3 of the Atlante Storico del Vicino Oriente Antico, Anatolia: L’impero Hittita. This useful publication contained a map of archaeological sites known to have been occupied between 1700 and 1200 BC, mostly concentrating on the Anatolian Plateau, with further maps elucidating issues such as the presence of the king, Mycenaean presence, plans of excavated buildings, landscape monuments and surveys conducted in Anatolia. A further series of maps detailed the distribution of Hittite place-names through the successive centuries from the formation of the Hittite state to the 13th century BC (see fig. 1.4). A useful list of equivalences gives Forlanini’s thinking at the time on the location of 187 Hittite placenames along with possible classical or other cognates. A collection of essays dedicated to the LBA historical geography of Hittite Anatolia was published by K. Strobel in 2008, which gives a useful update on research into a number of geographical areas from an assortment of archaeological and philological perspectives.20 The most recent larger work dedicated to Hittite historical geography is that of Adam Kryszeń.21 This book deals with the central area of Hittite occupation, the so-called “Hittite Heartland”, which essentially means all locations mentioned in Hittite texts that are supposed to be reachable within three days from the capital. One major methodological principle lying behind his research is that Hittite texts, especially the cult journeys, will not as a rule mention place-names in the natural or usual order that they 18  A. Kryszeń from Warsaw is working on an updated version of this catalogue, as referred to by C. Corti in this volume. Kryszeń informs us that there are currently 2,278 separate toponyms in published Hittite texts with c. 18,615 attestations, and 167 hydronyms with c. 690 attestations (e-mail 3.05.2016). These numbers are growing. 19  It is high time that a “Collected Works” of this prolific scholar was made available in some form. 20  Strobel 2008. 21  Kryszeń 2016.

Weeden and Ullmann

might occur in if one were to travel to them by the most direct route. This, so Kryszeń’s intriguing hypothesis, is because the normal route would have been taken for granted. Only exceptional routes are supposed to be mentioned explicitly, noting deviations from the route one would usually take. This is certainly a perspective that should attract more attention than it has previously. Furthermore, Kryszeń argues that research on Hittite historical geography is not well enough developed to be able to posit direct identifications with parts of the physical landscape in the vast majority of cases. This means that he proposes only a topological reconstruction of geographical relations, largely ignoring the concrete topographical features on the ground. Kryszeń’s careful sifting of the evidence for clusters of toponyms on both the immediately local and wider regional levels leads him to propose a shift of the localisations that some have made to the south of Boğazköy/Hattusa, such as Zippalanda, Ankuwa and Tawiniya, into the area to its north. He thus presents a very different view of the geography of the central Hittite area to that presented in this volume (chapter 14, Sir Gavaz). Kryszeń’s method is meticulous, its application largely consistent, and his perspective self-aware of its own limitations. His work thus represents an important contribution to the discussion, whether it is ultmately convincing to conduct geographical investigation on the basis of texts alone or not. It is hoped that some of the archaeological contributions in this volume in particular will provide the framework for a perspective beyond topology, although it has not proven possible to provide detailed archaeological coverage of the area immediately to the south of the capital.22 From the 1970s the decipherment of the Anatolian hieroglyphic script had also been gaining momentum, which renewed emphasis on the role that could be played by the Hittite landscape monuments with hieroglyphic inscriptions in determining historical geography. The publication of newly discovered Empire period inscriptions contributed not only new attestations of names 22  The author of chapter 4, which was planned by the editors as the archaeological pendant to chapter 14 on the central area, in the end limited his contribution to the area directly around Hattusa and thus gave it a welcome, far more detailed focus. It was possible to compensate for this towards the northeast (chapters 5, 7), but it was not possible to cover the area directly to the south around Yozgat. To a certain extent this is compensated for by the philological contribution in chapter 14, which makes extensive reference to archaeological sites, although solely as the basis for advancing philologically based identifications. For recent survey work to the southeast of the capital, see Mazzoni and Pecchioli Daddi 2015.

introduction

but in some cases new sites to the discussion, with a concrete physical position in the geographical landscape.23 A large boost to the discussion of the geography of western Anatolia was made by the further decipherment by J. D. Hawkins of the Karabel inscriptions, one of the earliest recognised Hittite relief monuments, which seemed to indicate a border between the land of Mira and the Seha river land, and had consequences for the location of the land of Wilusa.24 However, this example illustrates very well the way in which the function and situation of the landscape monuments as part of the Hittite interaction with their physical environment, whether as an emblem of their political structure, of their cultural memory or of their landscape planning and route management, need to be taken into account when evaluating their significance for historical geography. It is not agreed by all that the monument at Karabel serves as a boundary marker, for example. See Gander in this volume. Similar discussions on the function of these momuments, which may be different in each case, need to accompany any reading or geographical interpretation.25

Progress on the Basis of Tablet Finds

From the 1980s and 90s many new archaeological projects began which were to add a new dimension to the historical geographical project. Especially those which produced clay tablets in large numbers have secured identifications. The excavations at Ortaköy-Sapinuwa, then Kuşaklı-Sarissa and now Kayalıpınar-Samuha, possibly Oymaağaç-Nerik as well, have all contributed more or less fixed points to the map which can be used to hypothesise further locations. Hittite cuneiform tablets have now been found at a number of sites apart from Boğazköy-Hattusa, where some 30,000 tablets and fragments have been retrieved mostly in temple, palace and other official contexts.26 First and foremost is Ortaköy-Sapinuwa, where some 4,000 tablets and fragments have been found since 1991 in 23  Yalburt (Poetto 1993); Südburg (Hawkins 1995a); Hatip (Dinçol 1998b). 24  Hawkins 1998b. 25  The general bibliography on this topic is rich: Kohlmeyer 1983; Rossner 19882; Emre 2002; Ehringhaus 2005; Bonatz 2007; Seeher 2009; Ullmann 2010 and 2014; Glatz and Plourde 2011; Simon 2012; Harmanşah 2014b. 26   The website www.hittiteepigraphs.com of the University of Florence keeps a map and linked database detailing the findspots of all LBA Hittite inscriptional finds, currently with the exception of the southern Levant.

5 an administrative building, especially belonging to ritual genres including Hurrian and Hattic, but also many royal letters and state correspondence. Again mainly ritual in nature are the tablets found at Kuşaklı-Sarissa, near Sivas, dating from the Middle Hittite period to the 13th century. The presence of two fragments of tablets of a festival of Sarissa, the frequent mention of Sarissa in cult inventories found there and a sealing with the name Sarissa managed to establish the identification of the site. The small archive from Maşathöyük, most likely ancient Tapikka, contains state letters and economic documents dealing with distribution of rations from the early 14th century BC. More recently, undisclosed numbers of tablets have been found at Kayalıpınar-Samuha, mostly cult inventories from the 13th century BC, one of which appears to give convincing evidence for the identification of this mound on the Kızılırmak near Sivas with ancient Samuha (see MüllerKarpe, this volume). The site of Oymaağaç near the Black Sea coast has also delivered significant tablet finds dating to later, middle and earlier Hittite periods, which mention the city of Nerik, plausibly identified with Oymaağaç even before its excavation. See Corti and Glatz in this volume. Fragments were found prior to excavation, and have continued to be found since the beginning of work at the site of Kuşaklı/Uşaklı near Yozgat, which has been identified by some with the holy city of Zippalanda. Small numbers of tablets have also been found at Alacahöyük, which has been associated with Arinna, although the debate is not closed. A fragment has also been retrieved at Yassıhöyük, also in the Yozgat region. On all three of these see Sir Gavaz in this volume. The most westerly find of any cuneiform tablets in Anatolia are thus far the three fragments retrieved at Büklükale on the Kızılırmak (see Weeden and Matsumura, this volume). Outside of Anatolia proper in southeastern Turkey— northern Syria, specifically Hittite tablets (i.e. Hittite language, Hittite style of cuneiform script) have been found at Alalakh on the Orontes (one omen text and a fragment of a letter), in Ugarit (one trilingual literary text, beside numerous Akkadian diplomatic texts which seem to be written in a more local style of cuneiform), Emar (two Hittite letters), Tell Afis (two Hittite letters) and Oylumhöyük (one fragment of a Hittite treaty). Letters and other documents involving Hittites may well be found at other sites, such as Qaṭna, but appear to be written in a more local style, like the ones from Ugarit. Two Hittite-language documents were also retrieved from Amarna in Egypt, the famous Arzawa-letters. The further textual source for evidence about Hittite geography comes from the c. 23,000 tablets associated with the Old Assyrian trading network with its base at

6 Kültepe-Kaneš. This is of relevance to Hittite Geography as a number of the place-names which are attested in the Assyrian trade documents are also attested in Hittite texts. There is also a significant overlap between these places and those that were of significance for the beginning of the Hittite kingdom. Assyrian itineraries provide some indication of the relative order in which towns might be encountered on a journey, although these are difficult texts to use and interpretation of individual itineraries has varied considerably. A recent book has tried to apply a modified statistical gravity method to the occurrences of place-names in Old Assyrian texts, combined with consideration of factors that might distort such a model. G. Barjamovic (2011) sets at the basis of his method the collection of co-occurring place-names. Sites are excluded which might be transit stations as these might be mentioned next to other sites more frequently irrespective of geographical proximity. Such co-occurrences are built up into clusters which can be transferred onto a map taking into account the topography and even geology of the area in which the clusters of toponyms are thought to occur. One of the very different results coming from the use of this method is that the town of Šalatuwar (Hittite Salatiwara) is pushed much further north and east, while Purušhattum (Hittite Parsuhanda), the position of which is dependent on that of Šalatuwar according to the results of the statistical method, is pulled into the region of Bolvadin. Barjamovic also saw Old Assyrian Durhumit needing to be be pulled back to the position in the northeast where Garstang and Gurney and Cornelius had located it, due to its association with the “narrow track” which passed east of Kaneš taking its starting point from Luhuzattiya and Hurama (fairly securely located in the region of Elbistan). This conflicts with the more westerly location given it by many Hittitologists, mainly following Forlanini’s later thoughts on the issue. This dispute is alive in this volume. See Barjamovic (chapter 23) for further developments on this theme, as well as de Martino (chapter 19), Forlanini (chapter 18), and with a slightly modified view Corti (chapter 17). Such statistical models for placing geographical names have not been applied to the Hittite texts, and it is unclear to what extent they would work. In a case where trade is the underlying reason for mentioning places in communication a much stricter mathematical or economic model can be applied to statistical co-occurrence, as opposed to the Hittite situation, where the motivation behind the co-occurrence of names is frequently not known and is demonstrably multi-facetted: religion and

Weeden and Ullmann

cult, military engagement, diplomacy to mention but a few.27 Barjamovic’s book remains, however, whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, a solid sourcebook on the Middle Bronze Age geography of Anatolia and is indispensable for anyone studying Hittite historical geography.

Archaeological Developments

Thus it seems that the only secure advances in putting names on the map have come from the discovery of inscriptional evidence, usually in large quantities. All else remains hypothetical, and even when cuneiform tablets are found, there is much that remains hypothetical too, or rather new problems may be created. However, putting names on the map is not the only goal of historical geography. Not all digs produce cuneiform tablets, and indeed we would not expect them to. According to one hypothesis, Hittite cuneiform is restricted to those sites where a royal presence can otherwise be attested, e.g. in the form of royal seals or sealings.28 The vast majority of sites will never deliver evidence as to their nominal identity. This does not mean that they were not important for social, political and religious life in the Late Bronze Age, and not part of the same world as the Hittites. In fact it is the archaeological picture that has really changed since Garstang and Gurney wrote their Geography of the Hittite Empire. Text interpretations may change in details, especially when new textual discoveries are available, but this is nothing compared to the extraordinary increase in archaeological material available over the last 30 years. There have been more excavations, but more crucially a dramatic rise in the number of surveys undertaken which are allowing us an ever clearer view of settlement distribution in different archaeological periods. Both excavations and surveys are available in the annual publications of the Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı and Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı that are produced by the Turkish Ministry for Culture and Tourism.29 With some significant exceptions, in the west for example, there are now very few areas of Turkey that have not had at least 27  Note the mathematical statistical models used for modeling place-name distribution in northern Syria at Waefler 2000; id. 2001; Chambon 2009. Cf. the critique of these at Brunke 2012. 28  Weeden 2011b. This does not of course mean that all sites with royal sealings also should produce cuneiform tablets. 29  These are available for download at http://www.kulturvarliklari .gov.tr/TR,44760/kazi-sonuclari-toplantilari.html, and http:// www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,44761/arastirma-sonuclaritoplantilari.html, as of 4.02.2017.

introduction

some survey work conducted.30 The distribution of surveyed areas are uneven, however, with the central area within the arc of the Kızılırmak clearly having had more surveys performed than elsewhere. The research goals of survey-work are manifold and not every survey can be exploited for the same kind of data as any other. Sometimes they are pursued with a view to starting an excavation, sometimes with survey as a primary goal, and sometimes with goals that change and adapt during the survey process. The latter seems to have been the case, for example, during the field-work that led to the excavation of the large site at Ortaköy (Süel and Süel, chapter 3). In this case the conditions for survey-work were so attractive that more than one archaeological team was in the field in the same place at the same time, apparently both eventually pursuing the goal of excavation.31 The quality of the information can be uneven in survey reports, frequently due to circumstances beyond the archaeologist’s control, or to the methods of survey employed. However, despite the varied and uneven conditions under which survey work is conducted and distributed, a more extensive picture is beginning to emerge of Hittite settlement in Anatolia, but there is still much to be done. There may be many limits to the kind of information that can be gleaned from survey, but it remains the most effective tool we have for gaining a wider overview. On occasion in this book archaeologists have good cause to doubt results achieved on the basis of surface survey through collecting pottery sherds. Andreas Schachner (chapter 4) mentions the case of Çamlıbel Tarlası, where Hittite pottery was picked up on the surface, but no Late Bronze Age occupation found on excavation. Many large mounds, once excavated, reveal only limited occupation from periods that might appear well represented in the surface pottery. Mound size is frequently not a reliable guide to a site’s importance at any particular time. It should thus be remembered that the activity of survey itself is complex and multilayered, with insights to be 30  The foundation and associated website “Luwian Studies” seeks to address the lack of excavation and survey in the west. The synthetic map of sites in the west carried on their website (http://luwianstudies.org/sites/) is useful, but must be used with caution as it consistently labels sites as having MBA and LBA remains, when the survey reports only mention “2nd millennium” finds. See for example the entry on Hebilin Höyük, which is reported as having EBA 2, EBA 3, MBA, LBA (http://luwianstudies.org/ sites/hebilin-hoyuk/) while only EBA 2–3, and 2nd millennium artefacts are reported at Efe 1993: 351, the source cited for the information. Luwian Studies website last accessed 4.02.2017. 31  Müller-Karpe 2000b: 110 (reference courtesy A. Müller-Karpe).

7 gained from site morphology, remote sensing techniques, geological and botanical investigations besides the traditional collection of pottery. Only in the rarest of cases is it possible to combine insights from all these perspectives. Repeated trips to the same sites over many years also increase the reliability of the evidence, as does the comparison of results gained by different investigators. This model of repeat visits and continual re-evaluation is a hallmark of the Central Anatolia Survey Project carried out since 1984 by the Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology, to name a particularly egregious example. Abstractions made on the basis of survey results are always temporary and provisional. The Project Paphlagonia Survey led by Roger Matthews and Claudia Glatz with its recognition that there is very little built settlement north of the Ilgaz mountains, has laid out a concrete framework for our conception of Hittite relations with the north. See Glatz, Chapter 7 in this volume. The review of R. M. Czichon’s survey work carried out in the immediate vicinity of Boğazköy that is presented by Andreas Schachner (chapter 4) leads him to the conclusion that the Hittite settlement pattern indicates an urban outlook largely based on much smaller distances between places than we have been accustomed to think about, which fits with the contraction of the Hittite world towards the north that we see in chapter 7 (Glatz). The surveys conducted especially by the Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology in the area of the southwestern Kızılırmak show according to the interpretive scheme offered in chapter 9 (Matsumura and Weeden) that LBA Hittite settlement was thin in some parts, i.e. to the direct north of the Kızılırmak, despite there being numerous sites, but in others, south of the Kızılırmak and to the northwest of the Tuz Gölü, sites with larger quantities of LBA pottery appear to have been available. A different pattern of site distribution also appears to be given for these neighbouring areas. The reasons for these distributions, which sometimes appear to be planned to an extent, are difficult to fit with the historical record. A population decrease going into the Late Bronze Age is occasionally observed in this volume (Matsumura and Weeden, chapter 9), although it is currently difficult to quantify this. Such a decrease in settlement density might be associated with the growth of a transregional political entity for which particular areas had less economic relevance and thus less appeal as habitations, or it may even yet have something to do with the need to feed imperial expansion, although parts of northern Syria also seem to suffer population decline, here possibly due to urbanisation (Casana, this volume).

8 In the south-central area (Matessi and Tomassini-Pieri, chapter 8) an increase in settlement numbers alongside a decrease in settlement size is observed from the Middle to the Late Bronze Ages, corresponding in their view to the development of a more evenly organised large polity from the nucleated city-states of the preceding period. Contrast also the LBA increase in population noted by Novák and Rutishauser in Kizzuwatna/Plain Cilicia (chapter 11). In the East, however, a repeated pattern of settlement hierarchy and urban landscape planning appears to be established, with a firm Hittite imprint (Müller-Karpe, chapter 6). At this stage of the process of research it is difficult to tell whether these are actual differences on the ground or differences in perspective rooted in archaeological method. The image of the Hittite Empire that is thus starting to emerge from the archaeological evidence is a variegated one. The picture sometimes transmitted by the texts might give the impression of a fully functioning bureaucratic imperial machine with blanket totalitarian coverage of its diverse areas, whereas what we see on the ground is typical of differential and inconsistent structures of control. In some parts settlements are strategically placed or preserved, in others they inherit the settlement structure of previous eras. Interesting here is the difficulty that archaeology has had trying to identify Hittite roads, even in those areas where urban planning is at its most organised (Müller-Karpe, chapter 6). A functioning road system with provision for its maintenance is a pre-requisite for a strong and coherent state system. The texts tell us that such existed, but archaeology has not managed to provide clear evidence.32 On the other hand archaeological excavation reveals an organised economy with extensive grain storage and water management capacities. The juxtaposition of clearly well organised aspects of archaeologically attested infrastructure and what appears to be a more haphazard organisational model sits rather uncomfortably at the moment and signals future potential for research. A further archaeological field that has seen an immense surge over the last decades is that involving the archaeological sciences: geological, palaeobotanical, osteoarchaeological, zooarchaeological and palaeoclimatic studies are contributing new and important dimensions to the way we conceive of the ancient landscape and the lives of the people who lived in and with it. Most excavations now include archaeological scientists within their staff and 32  A road leading from a building complex at Ortaköy-Sapinuwa along the Öz Deresi doubtless had a Hittite origin, but would appear to have been significantly overlaid by later, for example Roman, construction. Reyhan, Ozulu and Tombuş 2012.

Weeden and Ullmann

interesting and surprising collaborations are developing everywhere. This is a relatively new trend for archaeology in Turkey, as elsewhere, and results are reflected in many of the archaeological chapters of this book. An introductory overview of the contribution that can be made by the archaeological sciences to questions relating to the palaeo-environment is given by Neil Roberts in chapter 2.

This Volume

We have organised this book into two major sections. One presents perspectives on Hittite geography using primarily archaeological evidence, the other uses primarily philological evidence. None of the chapters uses solely either archaeological or philological evidence, and the distinction is to an extent artificial. Both archaeologists and philologists are after all talking about the same subject-matter. However, there is little doubt that specialists in archaeology and specialists in texts have different methodologies that they bring to the material, and even those rare individuals who excel in both fields would not apply the methods of one discipline to the analysis of the other. This is simply as basic as the fact that no amount of grammatical training will help one date a Late Helladic IIIb vase, different techniques are learned to do different things. In the best scenario we wish to be able to apply an archaeological method to the archaeological evidence, a philological method to the textual evidence, and then compare the results reached by the two. For a successful combination of archaeological and philological evidence in the planning and execution of a survey project which led to a significant excavation, see chapter 3 (Süel and Süel). As such the volume does not provide a ready answer to the questions of Hittite historical geography, but only a series of views based on sections of the evidence signalling the state of research and the areas where disagreement persists and some agreement can be reached. Naturally, in having the different areas written by specialists there has been a restriction of focus which will have led to some sites or place-names falling through the cracks in the interstices between one chapter and another. Furthermore, the discussion of Hittite place-names attested in texts and the conduct of surveys and excavations do not always produce isometric content. A name may need to be discussed with another one because they occur in the same text, the archaeological investigation of an area may be inspired by the desire to understand one part of it the better rather than another. Many surveys start from excavations, for example, just as they may be conducted in order

9

introduction

to find prospective excavation-sites. In some areas there is a dearth of proposals for localisations, which makes the philological discussion less relevant. It has thus not always been possible to fit the archaeological and philological chapters as neatly as one might have wanted in this volume. Lack of symmetry between the two is apparent especially in the central areas as well as in the Levant and northern Syria. We feel that a good coverage has been achieved between both archaeological and philological chapters, while respecting the judgement of the specialist authors to define their own areas. There is still plenty of space for synthetic monographs presenting particular views of Hittite Geography, whether from archaeological, philological or combined perspectives. This volume can also not pretend to give a blanket overview of all Hittite period sites in Turkey, this must be the job of another work, quite possibly of one with an internet base, such as the important TAY-project, or the Istanbul-based Hittite Historical Atlas project.33 Such projects with an extendable database have to be key to the progress of the research. Most importantly more work, particularly archaeological research, needs to be done before any more clarity can be achieved. This book should provide an in-depth and authoritative entry to and reference work for the field at this stage in its development. There is still a long way to go. Acknowledgements There are many who need to be thanked for their help with this volume, not least the authors who have waited patiently during delays and in some cases suffered what must have seemed like interminable demands for changes or additions. Those authors who offered spontaneous comments and corrections to other chapters are particularly to be thanked, without naming names. J. D. Hawkins offered detailed comments on a number of the chapters, even before becoming involved as an author himself, and has been a great support throughout the project. Similarly G. Beckman and D. Schwemer read individual chapters, and G. D. Summers not only read through all the archaeological and several philological chapters and passed on detailed comments to us but also shared unpublished material with authors. Further anonymous readers also spent their valuable time on this and made bibliographical and other contributions for which we are grateful. Katelyn 33  See Alparslan and Alparslan 2015. TAY: http://www.tayproject .org, last accessed 21.01.2017.

Chin at Brill is to be thanked for all her hard work in bringing this volume to completion, without her it would not have happened at all, and we are very grateful to Zenobia Homan, who patiently negotiated with authors and with editors until the maps, so crucial to a geography book, were in order. The Oliver Gurney Fund of the British Institute At Ankara is to be thanked for a generous grant of £1,000 towards the costs of producing the maps for the volume. Thanks are also due to Philip Alves de Sousa for expert help with the indexing. Two contributors to this volume who have added greatly to the expansion of our knowledge of landscapes and the Hittite World died before its completion: Tony Wilkinson and Mustafa Süel. The book is dedicated to their memory.

Note on Transcription Conventions

Across the field of Hittitology scholars employ differing conventions for the rendering of Hittite sounds. These have not been standardised across the whole of this book, although they have been regularised within the individual chapters. The Hittite cuneiform script only has one sign for the sibilant /s/, which is the sign used for the sibilant /š/ in much of the rest of the cuneiform world. Most chapters in this book render this as /š/, while some render it as /s/ for Hittite words and names at least, but not for names from outside the Hittite realm or words from foreign languages: thus Hattuša vs Hattusa, Šarišša vs Sarissa and so on, but, as in chapter 21, which uses Hattusa and Sarissa consistently, Išuwa rather than Isuwa, as this is not thought to be a Hittite name. A difference in spelling is not indicated by this divergence, these are the same names. A similar case arises for the representation of dental consonants, which are not distinguished consistently in Hittite cuneiform writing. Thus one can find the spellings Maraššanda, Maraššanta, Marassanta, Marassanda, all referring to the same river. Furthermore, some scholars prefer to transcribe the Semitic phoneme /ḫ/ when writing out a Hittite word or name, others use /h/, as in Hattuša vs Ḫattuša. Again, these sounds are not distinguished in Hittite, and the transliteration conventions are entirely the result of a combination of interpretation and convention as used by individual scholars. They thus refer to the same places. Similarly, geographical and personal names can appear in different forms and there can be good reasons for choosing one form over another, or not doing so. Thus Marassanta also appears as Marassantiya, Kurunta as Kuruntiya. These are the same names as realised according to different traditional streams of scholarship.

Figure 1.1



Map from Garstang and Gurney 1959. Reproduced with kind permission of the British Institute At Ankara.

10 Weeden and Ullmann

figure 1.2

Map from Garstang and Gurney 1959. reproduced with kind permission of the BIAA.

introduction

11

figure 1.3

Map after Cornelius 1973.

12 Weeden and Ullmann

figure 1.4

Map from Forlanini and Marazzi 1986. Reproduced with kind permission.

introduction

13

Part 1 Perspectives based Primarily on Archaeological Evidence

∵

CHAPTER 2

The Land of the Hittites: Airs, Waters and Places Neil Roberts Introduction The Hittites emerged during the course of the second millennium BC in a topographic and environmental setting that was in marked contrast to neighboring Bronze Age civilizations. They occupied neither the maritime setting of the first Aegean civilizations, nor the riverine lowlands of Egypt and Mesopotamia, but instead were centered upon the upland terrain of central Anatolia. How did this distinctive geographical context influence the development of the Hittite Empire, and how, in turn, did Bronze Age peoples of Anatolia transform the natural world around them? Environment and society were linked in numerous ways, through the agrarian economy, military logistics, trade and communications, among others, and their relations can be reconstructed from archaeological settlement patterns, site economies and built structures, along with Hittite textual sources. The natural resources used by the Hittites included freshwaters, soils, minerals, fauna and vegetation, and their exploitation can be reconstructed from environmental analysis of excavated materials such as animal bones, timbers and sediments,1 along with off-site records of past environmental conditions. The latter come from lake, cave and alluvial sediments, which can also provide evidence of past climatic changes.2 Comparing and synthesizing different sources of information presents a number of challenges, not least chronological. There are significant uncertainties both in absolute age determination, for example by radiocarbon dating, and in the duration and temporal resolution of different archives. Thus, pollen diagrams typically have a time interval of about two centuries between samples, and a similar dating precision (i.e. ±200 years). This lack of temporal precision can make it difficult to correlate precisely between different pollen records or between pollen data and excavated archaeological finds. Correlation * I am grateful to Walter Dörfler, Catherine Kuzucuoğlu, Peter Kuniholm, Naomi Miller, Sam Allcock, Sturt Manning and an anonymous reviewer for information and helpful comments. Tim Absalom re-drafted the figures. 1  E.g. Dörfler et al. 2011. 2  Roberts et al. 2011.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_003

and dating can be improved where evidence comes from the same stratigraphic context (e.g. archaeological excavation), or where there exist time-synchronous marker horizons, such as volcanic ash from the mid-second millennium BC eruption of the Aegean island of Thera/ Santorini.3 However, even with this additional help, there remains a significant age offset between historical-archaeological chronologies based on Egyptian king lists and those derived from dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating.4 In this chapter, I firstly review the natural and geographical setting of the Hittite world compared to adjacent polities, then discuss the on-site and off-site evidence for human impact on the landscape and use of natural resources, before assessing past changes in climate and their possible societal impacts. While discussion focuses on central Anatolia in the second half of the second millennium BC, it is contextualized in the longer time frame of the Bronze and early Iron Ages and the wider geographical frame of the ancient Near East.

The Geographical Foundations of the Hittite Empire

Most of the first-wave Old World civilizations, in Egypt, Mesopotamia, South Asia and China, developed in the context of a specific physical environment, namely major alluvial river valleys under climates of low or unreliable rainfall. Karl Wittfogel proposed that the agricultural potential of these fertile lands could only be realized by large-scale manipulation of their soil and water resources, which in turn encouraged the development of hydraulic irrigation schemes, constructed by centralized, state-based polities.5 This created a distinctive and potent mode of production that transformed nature so completely that little now remains of the original alluvial landscape in river valleys such as the Nile and the Indus. By contrast, the first great imperial power to emerge in Anatolia was not a “hydraulic civilization”, but instead 3  Kuniholm et al. 1996; Eastwood et al. 2002; Badertscher et al. 2014. 4  Manning et al. 2006; James 2012. 5  Wittfogel 1956; 1957.

18

Roberts

emerged in a different geographical context. Rather than occupying the lower part of a major drainage basin, the Hittite Empire was founded on the high ground of north central Anatolia, mostly between 800 and 2000m above sea level (Fig. 2.1). This region forms the headwaters of several important, but largely un-navigable, rivers that debouch into the Black Sea (Kızılırmak, Yeşilırmak), the eastern Mediterranean Sea (Ceyhan and Seyhan rivers) and the Persian-Arabian Gulf (Euphrates). A significant portion of south central and southwestern Anatolia does not drain into the sea at all, but instead ends in inland lakes like Tuz Gölü (Great Salt Lake). Rivers and lines of communication for the Hittites therefore radiated outwards in centrifugal fashion, rather than focusing inwards, as was the case in Egypt’s Nilotic civilization. These topographic and hydrographic constraints would have had important consequences for Hittite economic geography; for example, the lack of navigable rivers or easy access to the sea meant that the Hittites were unable to use water-borne transport in the same way as could Aegean or Nilotic economies. Anatolia’s upland terrain did, however, make it far easier to establish natural defensive sites than in the low-lying floodplains such as those of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This is most obviously manifest in the Hittite capital at Boğazköy-Hattuša with its great gates and protective walls which follow topographic high ground. The harsh Anatolian winter, with its extensive snow cover, doubtless also played a part in deterring potential invaders. Consequently, whatever underpinned the emergence of the Hittite imperial polity in central Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age, it was not the allocation of irrigation water or the maintenance of canals by a professional bureaucratic ruling class, as may have been the case in southern Mesopotamia. There were some areas of central Anatolia where irrigation agriculture was locally significant during the LBA, such as the Çarşamba river lands south of Konya,6 but the principal basis of the Hittite agrarian economy was rain-fed farming, principally of wheat and barley, along with livestock herding.7 In contrast to both Egypt and southern Mesopotamia, almost all of the Hittite Empire lay inside the modern climatic limits of dry farmed cereals and pulses; that is, an average precipitation exceeding ~300mm pa. As today, so too in the past, the amount of rain and snowfall varied significantly from one year to the next, often involving runs of “good” and “bad” years, to create times of feast and times of famine.

The direct dependency of Anatolian crop harvests on weather conditions had socio-economic adaptive consequences, for example in the need for food storage and redistribution. It is also reflected in the religious importance of weather gods such as Tarhu(nt) (= Teššub), held responsible for assigning rain to the Hittite croplands. In contrast, the success or failure of the harvest in Egypt and Mesopotamia depended not on local rainfall, but on the seasonal flood of the Nile and Tigris-Euphrates rivers, along with other environmental problems such as soil salinization and periodic changes in the course of river channels. There is an intimate upstream-downstream linkage between lowland Mesopotamia and highland Anatolia, because it is the winter rains and snow-melt in the latter that create the spring flood of the Euphrates. It is therefore hardly surprising that the oldest written archives from central Anatolia come from Assyrian traders at Kültepe-Kaneš who would have utilized the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys as corridors for transport and communications.8 Unreliable rainfall and a short growing season, coupled to limited soil fertility and terrain that is often steep and rugged, meant that crop yields in the uplands of Anatolia did not produce food surpluses on the same scale as those which fed the urban populations of Sumer, Akkad, Memphis and Thebes. Similarly, the dispersed nature of good agricultural land and of rural settlement in central Anatolia were not naturally conducive to the creation of large, centralized city-states. On the other hand, Anatolia possessed natural resources that the Nilotic and Mesopotamian worlds required and lacked. In this, it was not alone. The cities of Egypt and Mesopotamia had need of timber and metals, and it is not surprising that the “second-wave” of Bronze Age civilizations, among them the Hittites, Minoans and Myceneans, all possessed resources that were required by the older-established hydraulic civilizations to the south and east. These included cedar wood from the Taurus mountains and the Levant, and copper from central Anatolia and Cyprus, with inter-regional transport of the former attested in the 11th-century BC Egyptian text of Wenamum’s, albeit interrupted, trading journey to Byblos, and the latter attested by ingots found in the Bronze Age shipwrecks at Uluburun and Gelidonya, and by ancient mining sites such as found in the Faynan orefield of southern Jordan.9 In this sense, it could be argued that the new polities of the second millennium BC, the Hittites among them, emerged because they were economically complementary to the pre-existing states and

6  Baird 2001. 7  Dörfler et al. 2011.

8  Barjamovic 2011. 9  Braudel 2001; Hunt et al. 2007.

19

The Land Of The Hittites

powers in Egypt and Mesopotamia. In this relationship, both trade and warfare played essential roles.10 The Hittite territories are a complex mixture of rock types and relief. The western half of the Anatolian plateau is dominated by shallow sedimentary basins of late Miocene to Pleistocene age, lying at ~1000 metres above sea level (Tuz Gölü, Konya-Ereğli, Sakarya, etc). These include the Hittite “Lower Lands” and are among the driest parts of inner Anatolia, with large areas at, or even below, the agro-climatic limit for rain-fed farming, and with vegetation dominated by chenopod-Artemisia-grass steppe. Further east, in Cappadocia, the terrain becomes more diverse as a result of geologically recent volcanic activity that has created the strato-volcanic peaks of Erciyes Dağ (3916 metres) and Hasan Dağ (3268 metres). The higher topography leads to higher precipitation and lower temperatures, and so here oak parkland replaces steppe vegetation. In addition to deciduous oak, other woody taxa including juniper, terebinth (Pistacia), and wild almond form part of the tree/shrub flora, which may have been managed as a parkland since Neolithic times.11 As today, these lands provided excellent seasonal pastures for sheep and goatherds. To the south and east of Cappadocia lies the eastern arm of the Taurus mountain chain (Bolkar and Ala Dağları, peaks at 3585 and 3756 metres respectively), dominated by hard limestone that once supported important forests of conifer trees (pine, cedar, fir among others). These mountains separate inner Anatolia from the coastal lowlands of the Seyhan and Ceyhan river plains (part of Kizzuwatna), with the narrow Cilician Gates as a principal communications route through the mountains. North Central Anatolia, corresponding to Hatti and the Hittite Upper Lands, is topographically diverse and includes important areas of metamorphic bedrock, some of which are metalliferous. It is encircled by the northward draining Kızılırmak, which cuts through Miocene gypsum formations, causing the river water to become saline and in places undrinkable; hence its ancient name, “Halys”. The forests of the Pontic mountains of northern Anatolia are mixed conifer-broad leaf, reflecting the fact they receive summer as well as winter rainfall. The easternmost part of the Hittite empire (“Išuwa”) occupied the upper course of the Euphrates river and its tributaries, which provided an important corridor southeastwards towards the northern arm of the “Fertile Crescent” (Mittani) and beyond to the Mesopotamian lowlands.

10  Broodbank 2013. 11  Asouti and Kabukcu 2014.

Finally, at its greatest extension in the 14th-century BC, the Hittite empire occupied much of the northern Levant, where topographic, climatic and vegetation zones lie parallel to the north-south coastline. Inland from the Levantine coastal plains are well-wooded uplands (Jebel Ansariyeh, Amanus mountains (Nur Dağları)), which drop sharply into a graben representing the northernmost part of the Jordan rift valley. This is occupied by the Orontes River which flows northwards through the Ghab marshes before turning sharply westwards to reach the Mediterranean coast. There are similar alluvial lowlands in the Amuq plain, which are marshy but with the potential to be agriculturally productive. East of the rift valley are hills that slope gradually eastwards to the rain-fed croplands of the Fertile Crescent around Bronze Age sites such as Ebla (Tell Mardikh). Tectonically, the core area of the Hittite world lies on the Anatolian micro-plate between the north Anatolian and Southeast Anatolian transform faults (Fig. 2.2). While not immune to earthquakes, it was seismically at lower risk than these two fault zones, or the tectonically-active rift valley of the northern Levant. As noted above, the Hittites and other Bronze Age polities of Anatolia possessed some economically significant earth resources, including building stone, metals and other minerals.12 They included silver from the southern side of the Taurus mountains, tin from the Kayseri-Niğde area,13 and copper, including at Hattuša.14 Many are associated geologically with ophiolite deposits, which often led to ore mineralization. Anatolia’s complex geology and tectonic setting have influenced regional groundwater circulation and indirectly led to the creation of numerous springs, especially in fault zones and/or at sharp transitions in bedrock lithology, some of which are geothermal (e.g. around Nar lake in Cappadocia). These locally important sources of available water were clearly significant for the Hittites and Neo-Hittites, both practically and symbolically,15 and they are the setting for some important archaeological sites, such as the rock-cut frieze next to the large spring at Ivriz southeast of Ereğli16 and the monument at Eflatun Pınar east of Lake Beyşehir.

12  Siegelova and Tsumoto 2011. 13  Yener and Vandiver 1993. 14  Marsh 2010. 15  Harmanşah 2014. 16  Dinçol 1994.

20

Roberts

The Rural Economy and its Environmental Impact

The Hittite rural economy was based on agriculture and the exploitation of available natural resources and ecosystem services. These can be reconstructed from a variety of different sources of data, including bio-archaeological studies of excavated Late Bronze Age settlement sites. Recovery and laboratory analysis of charred samples of crop and other plant remains, along with animal bones, provide detailed insights into the Hittite agrarian system, which can be compared against written textual accounts. Dörfler et al. (2011) provide a review of bio-archaeological evidence from two excavated Hittite cities, BoğazköyHattuša itself and Kuşaklı-Sarissa. Botanical remains from these sites show that crop production was based on rain-fed cultivation of barley and several species of wheat (emmer, einkorn and breadwheat), with other crops, such as pulses, playing a secondary role. Barley was used for animal fodder as well as for human consumption (as beer, as flour and as a kind of bulgur), and provided a guaranteed minimum harvest, because it resists frost and can be grown on poor soil. On the other hand, wheat could produce higher yields than barley under good growing conditions. The grain of both cereal crops was stored in special subterranean rooms at Hattuša as well as in pithoi, and was kept in good condition and free of pests by sealing in oxygen-free silo chambers.17 These stored grain samples contained many weed seeds, whose species composition provides information about crop growing conditions. They indicate, for example, that crops were grown locally rather than being imported, and that cereal fields were not carefully weeded and were often grown under drought-tolerant conditions. There are historical accounts of Hittite kings reportedly sowing weed seeds on rebellious cities as a punishment for their disloyalty. This idea is given support by the finding of two potentially ruinous weeds, bearded darnel (Lolium temulentum) and greater dodder (Cuscuta europaea), in excavated archaeo-botanical samples.18 Charred plant remains can also be recovered from other stratigraphic contexts, such as middens, by use of flotation techniques. Many of these seeds are likely to have originated from animal dung that was burned as fuel rather than linked to human consumption,19 and they may therefore indicate the diet of livestock rather than people. At Gordion, which was a small regional centre at

the edge of the Hittite Empire from the 15th to 12th centuries BC, Miller et al. (2009) used a combined analysis of plant and animal bone remains to establish the balance between crop cultivation and pastoralism, which was here based mainly on sheep and goat herding (>80% according to the number of individual specimens). Using the ratio between wild seeds and cereals, they inferred that the local economy at this time was primarily agro-pastoral rather than focused on cereal crop production. Animal husbandry was well developed in the Hittite core region too. Sheep, goat and cattle were the most common domestic animals, with others including horses, mules, donkeys, pigs, fowl (e.g. geese) and dogs. During the Old Kingdom at Boğazköy-Hattusa and Kuşaklı-Sarissa, the ratio of cattle to sheep-goat was 2 to 3 based on bone remains from domestic refuse, but by the Imperial period, the number of small ruminants increased to become twice that of cattle.20 Cattle, of course, have much larger body masses than sheep or goat, so that they may have been the most important animal in terms of urban meat supply. In smaller, more rural communities, the ratio may have been different again; at LBA Gordion, for example, there was a >4 to 1 ratio between sheep-goat and cattle.21 At Kilise Tepe in the lower Göksu river valley, analysis of excavated animal bones has shown temporal shifts in the sheep-goat ratio, reaching a minimum (1:3) during the first part of the LBA (1500–1350 BC), when goats may have been kept a specialist local economy for high-quality goat-hair.22 All three of the primary domestic animals provided numerous other products as well as meat, both for food (notably milk and milk products) and for clothing (leather, wool, goat hair, etc). Already during the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, the production of cereals and livestock-keeping had led to the transformation of rural Anatolia from a landscape that had been largely natural to one in which the Œcumene (or recognizable cultural landscape) was prominent. In many areas, forest cover diminished dramatically during the course of the Bronze Age and it was replaced especially by grazing land, including the precursors of today’s upland yaylas. The systematic exploitation of natural resources in the 3rd millennium BC was maintained and intensified during the subsequent Middle and Late Bronze Ages, and probably reached a peak under Hittite imperial rule. This human transformation of the landscape is clearly evident in pollen diagrams from central Anatolia (table 2.1).

17  Dörfler et al. 2011. 18  Dörfler et al. 2011. 19  Miller and Smart 1984.

20  Dörfler et al. 2011. 21  Miller et al. 2009. 22  Baker 2008; Bouthillier et al. 2014.

21

The Land Of The Hittites Table 2.1  Selected pollen types (per cent) from Eski Acıgöl, Cappadocia, for three time periods, in all cases based on the average of two samples (data from Woldring and Bottema, 2003, Roberts et al. 2001)

Pollen types

Deciduous oak Steppic herbs Grass

Quercus robur type Chenopods, Atriplex & Artemisia Poaceae/Gramineae

In Cappadocia, woodland cover during the Late Bronze Age was already more akin to that in Ottoman times than it had been during the preceding Chalcolithic (Roberts et al. 2001, in press). The timing of deforestation varied regionally, although there are currently too few published pollen diagrams to be able to map this process in detail. At Šuppitaššu lake near Kuşaklı-Sarissa, Dörfler et al. (2011) describe pollen results which show that tree cover was still extensive during MBA times, but that woodland retreated substantially during the Hittite period, to be partly replaced by steppe-like vegetation. Pollen records from Ladik and Kaz in north central Anatolia are unfortunately either poorly resolved or badly dated for the second millennium BC.23 However data are better for both northwest and southwest Anatolia, even if both regions lay at the limit of Hittite control. At Abant in northwest Anatolia, there is pollen evidence of cereal cultivation and grazing in a largely forested environment during the 2nd millennium BC (sub-zone 3a).24 Even today, this region is one of the wettest and most densely forested regions of Turkey, and it would certainly have offered an abundant timber supply in Bronze Age times. Southwest Anatolia has a relatively dense network of pollen sites, with a dozen records covering Bronze Age times.25 This region, which broadly corresponds to the Lukka Lands of Hittite texts, shows one of the most clearly marked phases of cultural landscape change. The so-called Beyşehir Occupation (or BO) phase is characterized, in particular, by evidence of tree crops such as olive and walnut. At most sites, the BO phase began during the 1st millennium BC, but at some others it began earlier. Confirmation that human land-use impact began during the Late Bronze Age is provided by the presence of a volcanic ash layer from the 23  Bottema et al. 1993/4. 24  Bottema et al. 1993/4. 25  van Zeist et al. 1975; Bottema and Woldring 1984; Vermoere 2004.

Late Chalcolithic (~3300 BC)

Late Bronze Age (~1350 BC)

Ottoman (~1500 AD)

31 9 26

3 19 39

3 17 11

eruption of Thera/Santorini, around 1600 BC, just before the beginning of the BO pollen phase at Gölhisar and other sites;26 that is, at some sites the onset of the BO phase can be confidently dated to Late Bronze Age times. Further to the east, pollen from alluvial deposits of the Rumailiah River, north of Gibala-Tell Tweini in northern coastal Syria shows the presence of cereal-type pollen and indicators of cultivation during the Late Bronze Age.27 Inland in the Ghab valley, deciduous oak forests had already been greatly reduced in extent prior to the second millennium BC, whereas at Gölbaşı oak woodlands were still extensive during the Late Bronze Age before subsequently declining.28 In both of these areas, abundant olive pollen implies cultivation of this tree crop at this time, along with that of manna ash (Fraxinus ornus), walnut (Juglans regia) and vine (Vitis).29 Evidence of Bronze Age exploitation of timber resources comes also from wood charcoals found at archaeological sites, used either as building timbers or as wood fuel. Some of the individual timbers must have been large and taken from old-growth trees, to judge from their narrow rings.30 These would only grow back slowly, and in practice this process would have impeded by pressures of grazing/browsing livestock. At Kuşaklı pine was the main tree used during Hittite times, along with faster-growing poplar wood from river valleys, as based on identification of charcoals.31 At Gordion, juniper was the principal source of wood fuel in Late Bronze and early Iron Age times, before being replaced in the Phrygian period by oak, plausibly because the supply of slow-growing juniper

26  Eastwood et al. 1998. 27  Kaniewski et al. 2010. 28  Adiyaman province; van Zeist et al. 1968. 29  van Zeist and Woldring 1980; Yasuda et al. 2000. 30  Dörfler et al. 2011. 31  Dörfler et al. 2011.

22 trees near to the site had been exhausted.32 At KamanKalehöyük oak was dominant throughout, although there was a decline in tree species diversity through time, again possibly linked to over-exploitation of local timber sources.33 A distinctive signature of woodland modification at Kaman-Kalehöyük during the LBA may indicate a specialized pattern of land use and timber exploitation under Hittite imperial rule. Another line of evidence comes from the analysis of animal bone remains, because alongside the dominant domesticated animals wild animals have also been identified in excavated finds. At sites including Gordion, Hattuša, Kuşaklı, Korucutepe, Kilise Tepe and Kaman-Kalehöyük, the main wild species found were red deer, wild boar and hare.34 A wide variety of carnivores have also been recorded, including bear, wolf, lion, leopard and lynx. Together these indicate that woodland habitats must still have been common in Hittite times, despite evidence of Bronze Age deforestation in some areas. Other animals and birds that were present are associated with steppe rather than wooded environments. In summary, pollen, charcoals and animal bones together indicate that the landscape of central Anatolia in the 2nd millennium BC must have been a mosaic of different habitat types. In some areas, deforestation was already well under way prior to the Hittite period, while in other regions the first clear cultural landscape phase, including cultivation of tree crops, began in Late Bronze Age times. There is also evidence that some environmental resources, such as timber, were already being degraded by this time. Large-scale forest loss and land-use conversion to pasture and arable land during the Bronze Age would undoubtedly have accelerated rates of soil loss through erosion. Geoarchaeological evidence for increased soil erosion comes mainly from changing sedimentary regimes in river valleys, along with higher influx of eroded mineral elements, such as titanium, into lake basins. Erosion rates are influenced both by climate and land-use changes of human origin, and it is often difficult to separate these two factors. In principle, erosion rates reach their maximum under semiarid climatic conditions.35 Consequently the overall trend towards drier climatic conditions across the Hittites lands between ~4500 and 1000 BC should have led to higher rates of erosion.36 On the other side, human clearance of forests would have had similar geomorphological consequences, especially for removal of topsoil, as opposed to 32  Miller 1999. 33  Wright et al. 2015. 34  Miller et al. 2009; Dörfler et al. 2011; Bouthillier et al. 2014. 35  Langbein and Schumm 1958. 36  Roberts et al. 2011; see discussion below.

Roberts

bedrock. In practice, climatic and anthropogenic factors probably operated synergistically during this time period. In some of the drier regions, such as the Sakarya river catchment around Gordion,37 the Konya basin38 and the tributary valleys of the middle Euphrates,39 erosion rates started to rise in the Late Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age. In these areas, some soils were already degraded prior to Hittite times, with consequences for crop yields and quality of grazing land. In Cappadocia, influx of indicators of soil erosion also started to rise during the Bronze Age, but the main increase did not occur until the Iron Age,40 as was also the case in parts of southwest Anatolia.41

Climate Change and its Consequences

There has been considerable interest and debate about the role that climatic changes played in the rise and fall of Bronze Age civilizations in the Near East.42 They include the so-called 4.2ka mega-drought event, which broadly coincided with the demise of the Akkadian Empire and other complex Early Bronze Age societies. This section will therefore briefly review the proxy-climate records presently available from Anatolia and adjacent regions for the 2nd millennium BC, and their possible implications for our understanding of Hittite history. The longer-term context for these changes is that the eastern Mediterranean climate experienced an overall drying trend between the mid-Chalcolithic (5th millennium BC) and the end of the Bronze Age. This decline in rain and snowfall was not gradual, but oscillatory, with periods of climatic aridity occurring towards the end of the fourth, third and second millennia BC.43 These arid phases coincide approximately with major breaks in the eastern Mediterranean archaeological record, namely Chalcolithic/EBA, EBA/MBA, and LBA/Iron Age. Overall, the climate of central Anatolia during MBA and LBA times was among the driest of the Holocene (last ~12 millennia), although there were periods of more, as well as less, favourable conditions. For example, during the early part of the second millennium BC, the climate of the eastern Mediterranean region became somewhat wetter, as indicated by lake isotope records from Cappadocia 37  Marsh and Kealhofer 2014. 38  Boyer et al. 2006. 39  Wilkinson 1999. 40  Allcock 2013; Roberts et al. 2016. 41  Dusar et al. 2011. 42  E.g. Dalfes et al. 1997; Rosen 2007; Kuzucuoğlu 2009. 43  Finné et al. 2011; Roberts et al. 2011.

The Land Of The Hittites

23

and elsewhere.44 Within the MBA, a short drier episode has been identified at some sites; for example, at Ebla in the northern Levant this has been identified from stable carbon isotope analysis of plant remains and radiocarbon dated to 1700–1600 BC.45 A short-lived dry period at this time is also indicated in the δ13C record from Sofular cave in northwest Turkey,46 although it should be noted that this site receives summer rainfall from the Black Sea, so its climate is not typical of Anatolia as a whole. By the LBA and the beginning of the main expansion of the Hittite Empire from around 1430 BC, average rainfall levels had once again returned to slightly higher levels according to lake and cave isotope data. One potential source of evidence for past climatic change comes from tree rings, based on the fact that tree growth and ring widths depend partly on the prevailing weather conditions. However, so far, tree ring studies of Bronze and Iron Age Anatolia have focused on dendrochronology (i.e. dating) rather than dendroclimatology.47 The most important tree ring series for this time period derive from wood found during the excavations at Gordion.48 The chronology of this ~1000 year-long composite series is “floating” rather than fixed in terms of absolute age, with a current best estimate indicating a time span between ~1729 to ~751 Cal. BC. Ring widths would have been affected not only by climatic changes but also by tree growth dynamics (e.g. juvenile trees) and other factors. Nonetheless, the majority of the Gordion tree-ring series show a period of enhanced growth during the 14th century BC, which could plausibly be explained by several decades of above-average precipitation levels, as proposed by Müller-Karpe.49 These climatic conditions would have led not only to successful harvests of rain-fed cereal crops and for productive livestock in Hatti and surrounding vassal states, but also created the agricultural surpluses that facilitated Hittite military campaigns and specialist and/or elite activities such as mining, trading and religious cults. Between 1200 and 1100 BC, archaeological and textual evidence indicates widespread disturbance to states, empires and societies across the eastern Mediterranean.50 The disintegration of high-level polities and decline in inter-regional trade affected Egypt, the Aegean, Anatolia,

the Levant and Mesopotamia; among the most dramatic events was the collapse of the Hittite state after almost four centuries of existence.51 The Hittite capital at Boğazköy-Hattuša was burnt and textual records become silent, although other urban centres such as Gordion and Kaman-Kalehöyük appear to show greater continuity of occupation into the subsequent “Dark Ages”. At least both of these sites experienced important Early Iron Age as well as LBA occupations.52 The collapse of the eastern Mediterranean World System at the end of the second millennium BC has been linked to population displacements, including the invasion of the so-called ‘Sea Peoples’, but it also coincided with a period of climatic aridity. It has therefore long been suggested that extended drought played in a role in destabilizing Late Bronze Age societies and economies.53 Drought episodes at the end of the second millennium BC are recorded in the stable isotope records from lakes, marine cores and cave speleothems.54 At the same time lake water levels declined,55 while river dynamics changed dramatically in the Middle Euphrates valley between the LBA and Iron Age.56 Tree-ring series from Gordion show a sustained period of narrow ring widths during the 12thcentury BC, with several records (e.g. Sofular cave) indicating that rainfall began to decline from the middle of the 13th-century. It should be borne in mind, however, that none of these sequences is currently dated with sufficient precision to permit a decade-by-decade match to the historical and archaeological records, let alone year-by-year correlation. Kaniewski et al. (2010, 2013) have used pollen analysis and radiocarbon dating from sedimentary records adjacent to excavated settlement sites in the Levant and Cyprus to argue that climate-driven famine lay at the roots of the LBA societal crisis. Texts from Hattusa and Ugarit refer to grain shortages from the second half of the 13th century on,57 and while famine can have many causes, poor rains are among the most common of reasons. It should be borne in mind, however, that vegetation changes inferred from pollen data (e.g. deforestation) could have resulted from human activities as well as climatic changes, and that without an independent source

44  Roberts et al. 2011. 45  Fiorentino et al. 2008; Roberts et al. 2011. 46  Göktürk et al. 2011. 47  E.g. Kuniholm 1993; Newton and Kuniholm 2004; Manning et al. 2010. 48  Kuniholm et al. 2011. 49  Müller-Karpe 2009. 50  Cline 2014.

51  Klengel 2011. 52  Voigt and Henrickson 2000; Omura 2011; Mora and d’Alfonso 2012. 53  E.g. Carpenter 1966; Weiss 1982. 54  See Roberts et al. 2011 for details. 55  E.g. Kuzucuoğlu et al. 2011. 56  Kuzucuoğlu et al. 2004. 57  Warburton 2003; Klengel 1974.

24 of data it may be difficult to separate climatic causes from agrarian consequences. To what extent did geography, climate and environment influence the eventual fate of the Hittites? What is clear is that after the collapse of the empire’s high-level politico-military structures in the 12th-century BC, a new polity of comparable power failed to emerge in the same geographical region of Anatolia during the early first millennium BC. In this, the region stands in marked contrast to Egypt, Mesopotamia and mainland Greece, where new Iron Age civilizations rose from the ashes of the Bronze Age World System. The major post-Hittite geo-political powers of inner Anatolia were located either further west (Phrygia) or east (Neo-Assyria, Urartu among others), and the Hittite heartland inside the great bend of the Kızılırmak River instead became a border region. When Boğazköy re-emerged as significant urban centre in the Late Iron Age it was no longer a major regional power and the site was abandoned again thereafter.58 All of this could potentially be taken to mean that the economic and demographic basis of the Hittite Empire as configured between ~1600 and 1200 BC was not sustainable in the longue-durée. Were the Hittites therefore a historically short-lived super-nova who succeeded despite, rather than because of, their geographical setting and economic resource base?59 A somewhat different view emerges if we turn to the evidence from archaeological site surveys and palaeoecology. Both of these sources suggest that, rather being a short-lived success story, the Hittites represented the culmination of a much-longer demographic-economic cycle that began in the Late Chalcolithic and continued for approximately two millennia up until the end of the Late Bronze Age. Systematic archaeological site surveys in Paphlagonia,60 Konya,61 Cappadocia62 and the Djezirah63 indicate that rural population and settlement increased to reach an initial peak in the mid-third millennium BC (EBII). This may have coincided with the first significant loss of forests in central Anatolia.64 Geo-archaeological evidence suggests an increase in soil erosion at this time, which has been linked to human-induced changes in land cover.65 The erosion of soil from hill slopes and 58  Kealhofer et al. 2009. 59  Cf. Schachner 2011a. 60  Matthews and Glatz 2009. 61  Baird 2001. 62  Allcock and Roberts 2014. 63  Wilkinson 2003. 64  Roberts et al. 2001; Woldring and Bottema 2003. 65  Marsh and Kealhofer 2014.

Roberts

post-Chalcolithic climatic desiccation meant that trees did not easily re-establish themselves, and vegetation in some parts of central Anatolia never returned to its previous mid-Holocene state. The “crisis” at the end of the Early Bronze Age, partly triggered by extended drought conditions, does not seem to have fundamentally altered the nature of the rural economy in central Anatolia, however. Archaeological survey evidence from Cappadocia suggests a similar density of settlement in the second millennium BC to that witnessed in the EBA, with a clear dominance of settlement mound type sites, and strong continuity in site locations (table 2.2). Thus, rather than representing a short-lived socio-demographic “explosion”, the Hittites built on an economic structure that had developed over many centuries prior to ~1600 BC. Consequently, the economic basis of rural Anatolian societies may have not been fundamentally different during the LBA from the preceding EBA and MBA. What was added was higherlevel political superstructure organized by militarized elites, possibly originating outside Hatti. These elites may have been capable of extracting increasing, but ultimately unsustainable, levels of resource extraction from the natural environment, which led to over-reach and eventual imperial collapse at the end of the LBA. The proximal causes of the end of the Hittite state system were almost certainly complex and multi-faceted. However, extended climatic droughts during the late second millennium BC are likely to have threatened food security at a time when the empire’s resources were stretched to a maximum in military struggles with Pharaonic Egypt and Assyria. In this “over-reach”, there may be parallels with the Ottoman Empire during the late 16th-century AD, whose armies were engaged in distant wars in central Europe at a time when drought and famine in central Anatolia prompted a crisis in domestic security, the Celâli rebellion.66 Archaeological site surveys show widespread abandonment of rural settlement at the end of the second millennium BC (60% of all sites in Cappadocia, Table 2.2) linked to demographic decline. When a coherent rural settlement system re-emerged in this region during the Middle Iron Age (9th-century BC onwards) it involved the foundation of new sites, many occupying defensive locations, and a new agrarian economy. In some pollen records this is associated with the start of the Beyşehir Occupation phase, with tree crops being grown alongside cereal cultivation and livestock.67 Thus, the Hittite world seems to have represented the final phase of a longer-term demographic 66  White 2011. 67  Eastwood et al. 1998.

25

The Land Of The Hittites Table 2.2  Archaeological sites in Cappadocia (per cent of total numbers) showing establishment, continuity and abandonment by cultural phase (data from Allcock and Roberts 2014)

New Continued Abandoned

EBA

MBA

LBA

Iron Age

57 32 11

12 42 46

12 28 60

69 26 5

cycle that lasted throughout the Bronze Age. In contrast to Mesopotamia, Egypt and the circum-Aegean, however, it did not prove possible to recreate a new Iron Age society in central Anatolia on the same foundations that had supported its geographically specific Bronze Age socioecological system. Conclusions The Hittites are one of the great “lost civilizations”. A principal reason why the Hittites were lost to history and only re-discovered at the end of the nineteenth century is that an imperial successor state did not re-emerge in the same geographical space (i.e. central Anatolia) to continue into Iron Age times. Without temporal continuity and the kind of historical memory recorded by Homer’s Iliad, Hittite stories were lost and the Hittite Empire was wiped from the map of the known Bronze Age world. Neo-Hittite successor states were displaced southwards and eastwards from the Hittite heartlands around the Kızılırmak River, for example, to Carchemish on the Middle Euphrates. The absence of a successor imperial power begs the question of whether the Hittites should be viewed as the result of a historically and geographically specific set of economic, geo-political and environmental conditions. If so, then these conditions should be viewed over the timescale of the whole of the Bronze Age, not just over four centuries during the second millennium BC. At the start of the third millennium BC, central Anatolia was a land that was well-wooded and well-watered. The climate was at least as favorable for farming as it is today, and in most areas soils were relatively un-degraded and hence agriculturally fertile. Even if it was no Garden of Eden (if for no other reason than the severity of the Anatolian winter!) it was nonetheless rich in exploitable natural resources. Over the course of the following two millennia, these

resources were exploited for the first time on a large-scale systematic basis. Pollen records from Cappadocia show that during the course of the Bronze Age trees were cut down for timber, wood fuel and to make way for pasture land, with forests never subsequently recovering their former extent. Geomorphological and geo-archaeological evidence indicates that this land-cover conversion in turn led to an increasing problem of soil degradation, erosion and seasonal drying-up of streams. These human-induced environmental changes were exacerbated by progressive, but cyclical, climatic desiccation, which reached a climax with repeated drought events at the end of the second millennium BC. At the same time, archaeological site surveys point to a major demographic increase in central Anatolia, reaching peaks during the middle of the third millennium BC, and then again in Middle and Late Bronze times. Bioarchaeological and textual evidence shows that rural economy was based on rain-fed cultivation of wheat and barley, and on herding of sheep, goat and cattle. The economic surplus that these generated supported the emergence of urban-based polities, supplemented by trade, for example, in metals such as copper and silver. This economic, geo-political and environmental system, established between the late fourth and mid-second millennia BC, provided the base on which the imperial Hittite superstructure was created after ~1600 BC. While this humanecological system permitted the Hittite Empire to succeed politically and militarily, it also led to even greater exploitation of people and natural resources, in a spiral that may ultimately have proved unsustainable. The climatic downturn during the late second millennium BC, and especially repeated droughts after 1200 BC, appear to have exposed the Hittites’ socio-economic and environmental over-reach, in a “perfect storm” of causal convergence.68 By then the vulnerability of the Hittite Empire may have been related, not just to the speed or magnitude of climate change, but also to internal factors, such as a rigid system of resource distribution, centralized decisionmaking, elite groups seeking to preserve and increase their privileges, wealth, land ownership, and so forth.69 And even if there may have been continuity of occupation at some Late Bronze Age settlements after the 13thcentury BC, such as Kaman-Kalehöyük, archaeological site surveys make clear that the collapse of the Hittite imperial super-structure was associated with a major decline in rural population across Anatolia, and that this persisted for several centuries. Although rural abandonment must 68  Cline 2014. 69  Kuzucuoğlu 2015.

26

Roberts

have led to a partial recovery of environmental resources, such as woodland, this recovery was hindered by climatic aridity that continued until the early-mid 1st millennium BC. Pollen, geomorphological, charcoal and other records

Figure 2.1

show that the richness of renewable resources that had existed at the start of the Bronze Age were no longer available to Iron Age Hittite successors. Sic transit gloria mundi was, it seems, as true for the Hittites as for the Romans.

General location map for the eastern Mediterranean showing selected archaeological sites, and the approximate maximum extent of Hittite imperial control. The boxed area is shown in greater detail in figure 2.2.

The Land Of The Hittites

Figure 2.2

Topographic map and major rivers of central Anatolia, along with major tectonic fault zones and rain/snowfall isohyets.

27

CHAPTER 3

The Discovery of a Hittite City Developments in Hittite Geography based on the Identification of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa Aygül Süel and Mustafa Süel

The Discovery of the City of Ortaköy

Early in the Anatolian urbanisation process, nearly four thousand years ago, the Hittites built the first political unity in Anatolia by forming a collection of city-based principalities into a state. The Hittite cuneiform archives surviving today are a veritable library consisting of texts of laws, historical texts, omens, mythological, religious and instruction texts and many other genres. Many thousands of geographical names are attested in these archives.1 Naturally the question arises of where these rivers and mountains are to be located in today’s Anatolian geography. In contrast to the multitude of city names the number of archaeological sites that have been identified is small. There is a fundamental problem attached to much research that looks to find these cities by looking for the locations of ancient settlements in Höyüks (mounds). Due to the fact that a number of Hittite cities clearly had a large population capacity, it is necessary to look for city locations precisely outside of and apart from Höyüks. The most important support for our viewpoint is to be found in the Hittite cuneiform tablets. From written documents we learn that more than 700 people worked in a temple, and that as many as 208 staff could be found in a workshop or production centre.2 For example, when we look at the colophon of the inventory text of the city of Karahna we learn that 775 people were employed as staff in one temple. The colophon of the text in question is as follows:3 First tablet relating to the city of Karahna is finished: 537 temple officials. Later 141 will be given (i.e. newly assigned). Of these 34 have died. Additionally 131 “tapanawant-” officials, of these six remain from before, 26 are female religious officials. Sum total: 775 temple officials. Female and male religious officials * This contribution was translated into English by M. Weeden, we would like to thank him for this. 1  Del Monte and Tischler 1978; del Monte 1992. 2  Süel 1998: 38. 3  Darga 1973: 4.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_004

are included in this total. The town of Hurma and the town of Kumma are not included. If we draw out the simple calculation: 537 (temple officials) + 141 (newly assigned temple officials) 638–34 (deceased) = 644 second group of officials (6 old, 26 new, 32 female, leaving 99 male) 644 + 131 = 775 As we can see, the sum total is given at the end of the text. In this case, we can roughly estimate that taken together with their families the city population associated with just one institution must have comprised 2–3,000 people. Considering the fact that Hittite cities must have had several administrative and religious buildings, which would make the city even more populous, the view that one should concentrate on the flat settlements rather than on the Höyüks in the search for the big Hittite cities is given added support. Hittite cuneiform tablets were found in excavations at Maşathöyük in the province of Tokat, district of Zile, which suggested that the name of this town in the Hittite period was Tapikka.4 Among the tablets there was one particular letter (Mşt 75/11), later published as HKM 15, in which the Great King addressed his officials as follows:5 My Sun (i.e. the Great King) (speaks) thus: Speak to Gaššu and Zilapiya! As soon as this tablet reaches you, bring the chariot-fighters you have with you into the presence of My Sun (i.e. the Great King) together with the soldiers that are gathered there within three days. This letter made us very excited, as it meant that the chariot-fighters and soldiers written about in a letter sent to officials at Tapikka had to reach the king, presumably 4  Alp 1991a; 1991b. 5  Alp 1979: 179; Alp 1991b: 140.

Discovery of a Hittite City

at Boğazköy-Hattuša, within three days. So the distance between Boğazköy-Hattusa and Maşathöyük-Tapikka should have been a journey of three days. The question thus arises where the officials would have stayed on the first, second and third days on their way from Maşathöyük to Boğazköy and which roads would they have used. This was the motivation for starting a survey project, originally intended to last many years, in which we took the threeday journey between Maşathöyük and Boğazköy as a starting point to locate the names known from Hittite texts in the physical geography by identifying which centres of settlement were in a one, two or three day’s radius from Boğazköy-Hattuša and how the road system connected Maşathöyük to the surrounding regions. Associated questions concerned Hittite road maintenance, road safety and accommodation. Assuming a distance of 25–30km per day one can divide up the region around Boğazköy into 10–15km wide sections and thus provide a powerful material resource to make experimental localisations of the names attested in Hittite texts by achieving a composite picture gained from both field-work and textual research. Maps are used prior to setting out into the field to identify possible centres and draw routes and this work is then tested in the field. For our work we used sections of a 1/5000 map from the ministry for Land Registry, an 1893 Ottoman military ordinance map and a 1/800000 topographical map of the Ministry of Cartography printed in 1932. We used country roads that are not used anymore or old roads used by villagers in order to join up the centres with each other, which in many points overlapped with Roman roads. Roman milestones that can be found on these roads indicate that perhaps Hittites roads were also used in the Roman period, in those cases where settlement continuity can be attested. By surveying this area in sections within the framework of this project we were able to identify a number of settlements.6 It turned out that even if the topography was a little different the three-day division made on the map effectively corresponded to the evidence on the ground. The plain of Ortaköy was reached as the limit of a two-day journey from Boğazköy in the survey of 1989. In the Teperlerarası region of Ortaköy massive blocks were found in survey that must have belonged to a large architectural feature.7 The height of the area where the stones were found was 4m. Some 600m from the area with the stones, in the Ağılönü region, mud-brick was found on the 6  Süel 1990: 341–359; Süel 1991: 91–110. 7  Here the building later known as “Building A” was revealed prior to excavation.

29 surface over a 40×40m area. Broken stones that had fallen from this part filled the bank of a stream. Research by survey had established settlements at Yuğhöyük and Fığla Tepesi in the region of Ortaköy.8 It was clear that these were part of the remains of a large city. It was necessary to deepen our understanding of the settlements identified in our publications relating to the survey by effecting some new settlement locations and for the 1990 survey we announced a new direction, that we would concentrate on the important centre of Ortaköy. Having identified a site with ancient artefacts it was on the one hand necessary to conduct further research there to prevent destruction, of which we had already seen some evidence, as well as due to the fact that a regional centre was likely to be discovered. Thus we made it known that we were going to continue our work the following year in this clearly important settlement location.9 The following year we established that the children of a field-owner in Ortaköy had found two tablet fragments, one Hittite one Hurrian, which we brought to the museum. After the buildings, these two tablet fragments were the next indication of a large city and archive. That year the first International Hittite Congress was happening in Çorum (19–21 September). We announced our discovery there along with the intention to excavate. The excavations in Ortaköy began, after the formal procedures had been completed, at the highest point of the city and in the Tepelerarası region at the point where the remains of the big architectural feature had been found in the survey (see fig.3.3). At the beginning we were brought another 14 tablets by the children of the owners of the local field, by the time of the meeting of the Turkish Historical Society (6–9 September), we were able to report that 600 tablets had been found after 20 days of excavation, and by the end of the first season we had discovered a monumental building including important small finds along with 1867 cuneiform tablets belonging to two archives After this systematic excavations began.10 It was clear that Ortaköy was a large Hittite city. It was spread over every part of the plateau including the slopes of the hills above it. When the Hittites arrived, they did not settle among the already existing villages, instead they constructed this large city by terrassing and leveling the land on top of the plateau. The city turns out to be one of the largest in size of its age, based on present information the 8  Süel 1990: 95. These two settlements are located at the bottom (southwest, 755m above sea-level) and top (northeast, 1050m) of the main settlement areas at Ortaköy. 9  Süel 1990: 96. 10  Süel 1993: 495–508.

30

Süel and Süel

site covers an area of 9km2 including upper and lower city, and is thus a gigantic ancient settlement (see fig. 3.1).11

The Identification of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa

After work started on the excavation of Ortaköy in 1990, we were soon able to establish its ancient Hittite name. The number of tablets and tablet fragments that have been found at this large Hittite city is over 4,000. The discovery of these archives has produced the second largest archive belonging to the Hittite period in Anatolia. From our work on the available tablets and on other archaeological finds it has been demonstrated that Ortaköy was the Hittite city Šapinuwa.12 The land of Šapinuwa was already known to scholars from the sources that have been available from the capital Boğazköy since the beginnings of Hittite research at the start of the 20th century. However, we were not all that well informed about this city from these documents. From the Boğazköy texts Šapinuwa is understood to have been an important religious centre standing under heavy Hurrian influence. We learn from these that the texts of the Hurrian mouth-washing rituals (itkalzi) were prepared there and sent out to the rest of the Hittite world.13 Due to the general information gleaned from the texts, scholars understood that Šapinuwa had a Hurrian religious association and thus must be located closer to the Hurrian area, to the southeast of Boğazköy-Hattuša and Mašathöyük-Tapikka.14 However, with the site identified on the basis of archaeological survey as well as the evidence from the archaeological research carried out there, it is in fact located in northern Anatolia, 55km southeast of Çorum.

Changes and Advances in Hittite Geography

In the Boğazköy texts the name is written URUŠapinuwa (“Šapinuwa city”) or KUR Šapinuwa (“the land of Šapinuwa”). In these texts other city, river and mountain names from the area occur together with Šapinuwa. Therefore, after it had been established that the

11  Contrast comments of Mielke 2011: 1037. 12  Süel 1995: 271–283; Süel 1999: 117–128. 13  See most recently de Martino and Süel 2015. 14  Alp 1991a: 36; del Monte and Tischler 1978: 347; del Monte and Tischler 1992: 80.

contemporary name of Hittite Ortaköy was Šapinuwa, Šapinuwa and all the other geographical locations associated with it were pulled into the north of Central Anatolia. The identification of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa has led to the reshaping of the historical geography associated with the Hittite land and opens new dimensions for the historical geography of Anatolia. From this perspective a number of place names that occur in the same geographical context in the written text as Šapinuwa also need to be sought out in northeastern Anatolia: Hanziwa, Šahumiša, Dahašda, Kammama, Hutpa, Tata, Šapantalliya, Malazziya, Šuppiluliya, Šulupašši and others. A letter (Mşt 75/157) sent by the Great King to officials at Tapikka reads as follows: My Sun (Great King), (speaks) thus: Speak to Kaššu and Pipappa: when this tablet reaches you, send those 1701 soldiers from the city of Išhupitta in a hurry and bring them into My Sun’s presence in the city of Šapinuwa within two days.15 This letter shows that the distance between Tapikka and Šapinuwa amounted to two days, which corresponds to the geographical distance between Ortaköy and Maşathöyük. As known from the cuneiform archives, Šapinuwa filled the role of capital for the Hittite state at that time and was almost 9km2 in size, extending over a wide geographical area together with the cities in its own administrative area.16 Great importance is attached to the localisation of the toponyms found in the Ortaköy tablets and they are likely to throw light on many questions discussed in the geography of Anatolia in the Hittite period. We have also learned about a number of new geographical names from the Ortaköy tablets.17 The following are examples of city names: Alhuittiya, Alimna, Anana, Arha, Arišša, Ayaranašša, Hammaha, Hanzittaruanda, Hatila, Hulša, Immeha, Ipruma Kaltarša, Kazalaša, Kupana, Mezzulla, Palama, Pithilwa, Šara, Tarapšaia, Taššanna, Tayapra, Uppara, Zahuna, Zimmala, Zuntila.

15  HBM 21; Alp 1991b: 154–155. 16  On the issue of capital cities see Süel 2009; Doğan-Alparslan and Alparslan 2011; Süel and Süel 2011. 17  Süel 2005: 679–685.

31

Discovery of a Hittite City

Then there are also mountain names: Mt Iyahattateši, Mt Iyamahhalaštigailulu, Mt Haluna, Mt Kuhammiššeni, Kuššuruhšini Mountains, Mt Udhaiiškarrišši, Mt Ušhupitiša, Mt Ušnaittena, Mt Zazzihina, Mt Kappiunaz. Furthermore there are numerous names attested at Boğazköy and Maşat which are also attested at Ortaköy. Here are a few examples: Ahhiya, Alalha, Alašiya, Ankuwa, Anziliya, Arinna, Aššuwa, Attarimma, Arzawa, Dahaišša, Gagadduwa, Galzana, Gaštaharuga, Gašga, Gazalaša, Hakmiš, Halpa, Hapara, Happuriya, Harrana, Hatti, Hayaša, Hanhana, Hanziwa, Himmuwa, Hurri, Hurna, Hušura, Hutpa, Iškamaha, Išhupitta, Išmeriga, Išuwa, Iškila, Iškuruha, Ittuma, Iyakkuena, Kaltarša, Kammama, Karahna, Karduniaš, Kariuna, Kaššiya, Katapa, Kummaha, Kizzuwatna, Kašepura, Kašula, Kutupitašša, Kuwaliya, Lalanda, Lukka, Lulluwa, Maldiya, Maša, Mizri, Mukiš, Makuwaliya, Malazziya, Neya, Palhuišša, Paraštuwata, Piškurunuwa, Pitašša, Pišunupašši, Pittakalaišša, Šallapa, Šanhara, Šapantalliya, Šanahuitta, Šulupašši, Taggašta, Tahazzimuna, Talmaliya, Tapapanuwa, Tapikka, Tarukka, Tašmaha, Tata, Tipiya, Tiwara, Uraši, Ukarit, Waratta, Zallara, Zalpa, Zaruna, Zanipura, Ziharziya, Zithara, Zuntila Mountain Names: Mt Haharwa, Mt Harranašši, Mt Hazalmuna, Mt Lapašunuwa, Mt Maršuna, Mt Piškurunuwa, Mt Šarwa, Mt Tahanzi River Names: Hulana, Zuliya The occurrence of these known geographical names in the Ortaköy documents will help to establish connections between names known for Šapinuwa and its surroundings and other names and throw light on future work on the localisation of many important place names. Furthermore, without the discovery of the archives at Ortaköy-Šapinuwa, we would not have known that the Hittite state had another capital city.

The Hittite City of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa

Ortaköy-Šapinuwa is situated 60km to the northeast of Boğazköy-Hattuša. To the south are located the Alan

Dağları, in the north the town of Ortaköy is situated on the Karadağlar. The site is on a steadily west-east sloping terrassed plateau. This is an important entry to Anatolia, and a natural route stretching almost from the Caucasus finds its end here in the Kelkit-Yeşilırmak valley. This geographical location ensures that the city has an important strategic significance. The hills to the west which support the ridge on which the Hittite city of Ortaköy is built are steep and covered with forests. The city must have made use of these hills to the west in every respect possible: besides the water that emanates from the hills, fuel and timber sources are in abundance. If we follow the still visible architectural remains there must have been an important area with religious, military and/or administrative buildings up in these hills. This area, which was stituated on defensive fortifications and we believe made up the upper city, had a direct connection with the lower city as established in the course of our investigations. Quarries were identified southwest of Fığla Tepesi which provided the stone materials used for the buildings of the city together with an ancient road linking the lower city with the upper city. An ancient trading road was found, whose traces could be identified following the meanders of the present stream in front of the terraces south of the city.18 To the east, a series of fortified areas and advance guard-posts is to be found extending in a corridor. In this way a security belt was constructed about 15–20km in front of the city. Another characteristic of the city was that it was particularly well fortified, as indicated by those parts of the city with the characteristics of a military stronghold and a suitably advantageous geographical position. From the still visible defensive measures of the upper city and the advance fortification works in the Çekerek valley, to the western military constructions, the city could easily become a fortress for its own protection. As long as Hittite control remained in the region, the city also continued to be well populated. The exceptional climate of Šapinuwa, with its natural water resources and strategic location, meant that it served as an administrative centre for the surrounding territories. It also emerges as an important centre which brought Hittite civilisation together with the contemporary culture and political concepts of the Hurrian civilisation. Extending directly east from Šapinuwa in the form of a corridor is the Yeşilırmak/Kelkit valley, one of the most fertile plains in Turkey. This valley is south of the Karadeniz mountains and enables the formation of an east-west corridor parallel to the mountains. There is no 18  See Reyhan, Ozulu and Tombuş 2014.

32

Süel and Süel

denying that this road is one of the most convenient trade routes of Anatolia and is still used until this day. The road taken by the refugees from the Caucasus-Erzurum-Kars areas when they were seeking shelter in Anatolia from the Turkish-Russian war in 1878 passed by Šapinuwa on the way to Central Anatolia. Taking advantage of the opportunities offered by this centuries old trading route the city of Šapinuwa grew and became rich, and must have found it easy to establish contact with the Hurrian area to the east. As much as Šapinuwa was an administrative and religious centre it also had military importance. Here was a military centre in which was found an army headquarters. As far as can be understood an important military force must have been kept at the ready in this large city. The Hittite king Mursili II even says “I inspected the units in Šapinuwa and went in front of my army.”19 Important buildings and finds have come to light in the excavations at this Hittite city which was found at Ortaköy in the Çorum area.20 The royal stores and cuneiform archives found in the Tepelerarası region are not just relevant for Šapinuwa, but for all of Anatolia (fig. 3.3). Building A is very large, containing more than 70 storage jars, Building B was used for storage and functional purposes, and buildings C and D are religious buildings. A section of the defensive walls surrounding this important area has been revealed. Another area at Ortaköy which has an important religious identity is the Ağılönü region (fig. 3.2), which is spread over a wide area some 600m uphill to the north of Tepelerarası. Here a massive, stepped stone platform was excavated, as well as buildings associated with cult activity, be they workshops or storage facilities, some of which are placed along a paved road. Large numbers of sealimpressions were also found here, which are now in the process of publication.21 Directly beside the stone

platform numerous sacrificial pits were excavated containing the remains of burnt bird and other animal offerings.22 Recent excavations have concentrated in the Tepelerarası region once more, where further workshop areas with various architectural levels have been revealed, containing among other things a large quantity of finely crafted clay moulds. Ortaköy-Šapinuwa is a Hittite city that was found as a result of a survey project and is not situated on a höyük (mound). The Hittite city of Ortaköy demonstrates that we can find large Hittite cities in expansive settlements that are spread over the landscape rather than being restricted to easily identifiable mounds. For now only the Hittite capital at Boğazköy (Hattuša) which was found at the beginning of the last century and Ortaköy (Šapinuwa) which was found at its end, represent this type of settlement. Multiple place-names are found in Hittite cuneiform documents and important countries and cities are mentioned, but up until the present we have been unable to find these important cities. We think this may be due to an erroneous perspective of where they should be located in the landscape. The story of the discovery and excavations at OrtaköyŠapinuwa also illustrates the results of a close collaboration between Archaeology and Hittitology. Even if in recent years there has been a tendency in some scholarship to separate results achieved by archaeological research from those achieved by philological investigation, the discovery of Ortaköy shows the advantages of planning archaeological survey in harmony with data concerning distances and mobility that have been recovered from the study of cuneiform texts. It is to be hoped that further study of the texts recovered from Ortaköy and elsewhere will lead to yet more such identifications.

19  KBo 7.17+, 3ff. 20  Süel 2008. 21  See Süel 2011; Süel and Weeden in press.

22  M. Süel 2008; 2010; 2014.

Figure 3.1

Map of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa, showing the extent of the archaeological site.

Discovery of a Hittite City

33

34

Figure 3.2

Süel and Süel

The Ağılönü region of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa.

Discovery of a Hittite City

Figure 3.3

The Tepelerarası region of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa.

35

36

Figure 3.4

Süel and Süel

A view of the Lower City of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa looking south, with Ağılönü and Tepelerarası excavated areas, the Özderesi river passing east-west, and Yuğtepe on its far bank (top-right).

CHAPTER 4

Hattusa and its Environs: Archaeology Andreas Schachner The identification of the Hittite capital city of Hattusa with the ancient settlement near the modern village of Boğazköy (Boğazkale) is one of the very few undisputed equations in the field of Hittite historical geography. For this reason I understand the topic of “the historical geography of the Hittite capital and its environs” in a broad sense. My focus will be on the setting of the urban environment within its natural habitat, the city’s mutual relations with and its influences on the landscape intra and extra muros and, as part of a wider perspective, the general setting of the settlement within Anatolia given the fact that the city functioned as the metropolis of one of the most important empires of the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. The following discussion will mainly draw upon the results of archaeological excavations, field surveys, and geophysical research in the immediate vicinity of the city as well as the scientific analysis of different groups of archaeological materials. Given the general focus of the archives at Hattusa, cuneiform texts only randomly allow us to approach the question how the Hittites themselves may have seen the natural environment they lived in and how the relation between the complex urban structure and the surrounding country may have been organized.

The Geographical Setting of the Hittite Capital

The spectacular setting of Hattusa on a slope descending over more than 2km from south to north over a difference in altitude of more than 350m is dominated by large outcrops of limestone rocks between which naturally defined and separated terraces of different sizes are located (Fig. 4.1). It is this natural frame which, depending on one’s point of view, either forced or enabled Hittite urban planners to create a city of unique appearance in the Ancient Near East. Although at first sight the rough landscape seems to present an obstacle to the construction

* I want to thank R. M. Czichon cordially, who most generously facilitated access to his unpublished work including his maps which form the basis for many of the statements made here.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_005

of a large and well planned city, these geographical features are crucial to the development and the appearance of the Hittite metropolis. The location on a high plateau safeguarded by deep river valleys on either side, the Büyükkaya Deresi on the east and the Yazır Deresi on the west, guarantee the city an important strategic advantage. On the other hand, the region’s geology, which is characterized by alternating limestone outcrops and impervious layers of clay embedded within the soil, secures a constant flow of subsurface water feeding numerous wells.1 This availability of water all year long makes Hattusa a favorite location for a large city in contrast to the plains immediately to its north where the surface water flows irregularly and where the dense layers of alluvial soils exclude access to the subsurface water table.2 Moreover, by choosing this location the inhabitants of Hattusa were able to avoid the risks of intermittent and sudden inflows of surface waters, e.g. by rivers or creeks, which would have endangered a settlement in the plain to the north of Hattusa. The natural division of the settlement into physically independent sections either by differences in elevation or by topographical features such as rocky outcrops or natural ridges made it impossible for the Hittite urban planners to develop an overall structure covering the city as a whole. But, from the earliest phases of the settlement onwards the differences in elevations were obviously used to control access as well as the flow of people and goods and moreover to differentiate functions within the settlement. With the development of the city from being the center of an average Anatolian principality into a metropolis of international stature during the 16th century BC these natural features were turned into a major means of planning and organizing the urban environment.3 The physically separated parts of the city 1  Wittenberg and Schachner 2013: 695 Fig. 4. 2  Hütteroth 1982: 57–61. This is the reason why villages were traditionally located on the fringes of Anatolian plains (ova) until the expansion of modern production methods and lifestyles into rural areas in the mid-20th century (Hütteroth 1982). Remarkably the distribution of possible settlements as attested by surveys around Hattusa follows this rule in Hittite times (Fig. 4.4). 3  Schachner 2009, 2011b.

38 allow a clear differentiation between various functions; these are best illustrated by the examples of the palace area on Büyükkale,4 the different terraces in the Lower Town, the temple area in the central plain of the Upper City,5 the valley west of Sarıkale6 and of course the various rocky outcrops (e.g. Sarıkale, Yenicekale, Taanıkkaya, Kızlarkayası, Kesikkaya, Ambarlıkaya), which in one way or another were used for different official and representative purposes.7 But not only on the general scale of the settlement as a whole were separations achieved by using topographical features; even within building complexes such as the palace on Büyükkale or the area of the Great Temple in the Lower Town differences in elevation were especially used to physically differentiate functions, to control access, to organize the flow of visitors and to emphasize certain parts of the buildings.8 Clearly the Hittite planners not only passively lived within the given environment, but for the first time in Anatolian history they actively shaped and used the landscape according to their culturally and/or politically motivated desires, thereby creating an artificial and thus anthropogenically controlled habitat. Although this approach can be studied in Hattusa at its best, a similar method of planning and structuring settlements can be observed at other Hittite urban sites on a slightly smaller scale (e.g. Ortaköy/Sapinuwa or Kuşaklı/Sarissa). In Hattusa the best example of this achievement may be the central plain of the center of the Upper Town (Fig. 4.2). Here, an individual standing in the middle of the functioning temple area would not have had any visual contact with the surrounding countryside;9 instead one would only see the features of a manmade civilization, which would also function only according to anthropogenic rules such as juridical laws and/or social order. This intention is even reinforced by the large-scale shaping of the natural landscape by either cutting natural structures (like the rocky outcrops e.g. Ambarlıkaya) or by banking up artificial ramparts such as the most prominent one at Yerkapı (Fig. 4.2). This intended settlement structure is not only the expression of an architectural planning process and of technical necessities, abilities or achievements but clearly reflects the will to create an ordered and controlled environment subordinated to rules defined by 4  Schachner 2012a. 5  Neve 1999. 6  Seeher 2006. 7  Schachner 2011c. 8  Schachner 2012a. 9  Schachner 2011a: 163–164 Abb. 75.

Schachner

humans and clearly separated from the outside, which in the view of the ancients signified chaos and unpredictable nature. The location of Hattusa on a plateau rising up to 400m above the plain of the Budaközü river north of the town allows the city and its buildings, and thus their functions and symbols, to be seen from up to 20km from the north (Fig. 4.1). A person approaching through the wide plain would have clearly seen the city and its buildings prominently located on different heights, many of them nestled on the above-mentioned rocky outcrops within the urban context for at least the last day of his or her journey. Since these areas each stand for a different political and/or religious symbolism this settlement structure and the intended use of the natural habitat clearly transports the ideological meanings of the buildings as well as a general impression of the might of the Hittite civilization into the surrounding country. The general appearance of the city may therefore be interpreted as a means to exercise power over its hinterland, especially over the arable part of the northern landscape which fed the metropolis, from which the city’s northern face was visible. In contrast, reaching the city from the south through a mountain range with narrow valleys both possible routes suddenly open only a very short distance ahead of Hattusa. Here the traveler is confronted even today with the massive fortifications of the Upper Town, with the unique structures of the huge gates, e.g. the King’s Gate on the eastern and the Lion’s Gate on the western side, and especially with the artificial structure of Yerkapı (Fig. 4.2), which one might understand as the “crown of the city” (in an architectural as well as a figurative sense as defined by B. Taut).10 There is a clear difference in the appearance of the city to the south in contrast to the north, which may be interpreted as the attempt to convey different messages to different audiences by using comparable means in a human-engineered landscape. Whereas on the north face the city is open to its main agricultural hinterland facilitating a direct contact between the achievements of the urban civilization and its agricultural foundations, the southern side clearly pronounces military aspects of power and might. This weighting may not be accidental since the regions of essential political importance to the Hittites were located in the south and possible envoys are to be expected to have reached the city from this direction.

10  Taut 2002.

Hattusa and its Environs: Archaeology



The Immediate Vicinity of Hattusa

As a given fact any ancient city does not immediately end at its fortifications. As proven also by other examples from the Hittite period (e.g. at Kuşaklı/Sarıssa11) there is an area of transition outside the city walls where the dense building structure of the fortified town continues fluidly into the natural environment. After the first archaeological investigations beyond the city walls of Hattusa during the early decades of excavations and research,12 a regional survey by R. M. Czichon has considerably and systematically contributed to our understanding of the settlement history of the region.13 Geophysical research and the search for possible sources of different raw materials have also added to this picture in recent years.14 As an archaeological tool surface surveys are known for their capabilities as well as for their limits. In the case of the Budaközü valley the complex and still not fully researched geomorphological history of the landscape is one reason for unknowns. As B. Marsh has shown by the example of the Karakeçili valley, a western side-valley of the Budaközü plain (Fig. 4.3),15 and as indicated by several unsystematic observations in the course of excavations within the city (e.g. in the northwestern Lower Town;16 in the valley of Sarıkale17) as well as accidental observations in the region, the landscape underwent considerable changes and shifts during millennia of anthropogenic use. Accumulations of meters of sediment at a given location as well as the complete erosion of cultural materials at other places indicate the impact of mainly humangenerated erosion;18 moreover the course of the Budaközü and its changes through time especially in the plain north of the city are still unknown. Therefore it is difficult and possibly sometimes also misleading to take sherd scatters exclusively as hints for settlement activities per se.19 11  Jean 1998; Stümpel 1998. 12   Bittel and Naumann 1952: 15–20, 124–125, 161; Bittel 1958; Hauptmann 1969; Schirmer 1969a, 1969b; Seeher 1995; Czichon 1997: 93 Abb. 3. 13  Czichon 1997; 1999a; 1999b; 2000; 2003. 14  Schachner 2011a: 99–109. 15  Marsh 2010. 16  Bittel 1957. 17  Seeher 2003: 1–3. 18  Marsh 2010: 203–206 Abb. 60–61. 19  The case of Çamlıbel Tarlası illustrates the possible misunderstandings of solely interpreting sherd scatters. Although a small amount of Hittite sherds were attested here (Fig. 4.3), recent excavations by U. Schoop have shown that apart from an exclusively Chalcolithic occupation no Hittite activities at all can be attested here (Schoop 2011). One may thus assume that Hittite

39 Additional topographical observations and especially recent geophysical surveys added much to a more detailed understanding of the city’s immediate surroundings, but final conclusions are only possible with more material dated through archaeological excavations in hand. A major obstacle for the reconstruction of the surroundings of Hattusa is the question how to date settlement features. Pottery has been proven to be typologically much too indifferent as to allow any secure approach to dating of even excavated Hittite contexts.20 A secure approach to a dating based on pottery is only possible using stratigraphically secure, excavated contexts containing a significant enough amount of sherds to allow statistical evaluations. Since at the present state of research such a methodological approach is impossible with material collected only from the surface, only a rough separation into older and younger material of the Hittite period seems justifiable at best. Nevertheless, a thus far not complete but already nuanced picture of the area extra muros of Hattusa may be reconstructed based on the results of early excavations, surface and geophysical surveys as well as analytical research. In the case of the Hittite capital city we have to distinguish between the area immediately outside the city walls (Fig. 4.3) and the wider region in an ambit of approximately 10–15kms, i.e. the area of a maximum two hours walking distance from the city (Fig. 4.4). Moreover the area around Hattusa is very much fragmented into topographically defined subdivisions, which should be taken into account. Although generally comparatively low, the densities of sherds found in the fields around Hattusa vary considerably. The north and the east gradually seem to show higher amounts of pottery than the areas west and south of the city (Fig. 4.3). Accordingly one might tend to assume a potentially dense occupation north and east of the city.21 The long-known open-air sanctuary of Yazılıkaya and the necropolis of Osmankayası seem to support this view archaeologically. But geomagnetic surveys in this area reveal a more complex picture.22 Among the rocks of Osmankayası and Bağlarbaşı the only known necropolis of Hattusa has been unearthed covering the 17th to 14th centuries BC;23 immediately east of Osmankayası, on a slightly higher terrace, at least two pottery was scattered almost everywhere through time, as remains of the most intensive settlement period in the region. 20  Schoop 2006. 21  Czichon 2003. 22  Schachner 2011a: 99–109; Schachner 2008: 142–146 Abb. 46–49. 23  Bittel 1958.

40 large, well planned and thus probably official structures are visible in the geomagnetic survey indicating that official buildings, possibly functionally connected with the nearby necropolis, might have been located here.24 Judging from the location of the cemetery among large rocky outcrops countless comparable locations especially in the eastern vicinity of Hattusa stretching from Ballıkaya in the north as far south as the vicinity of Kayalı Boğaz might be identified as possible burial grounds (Fig. 4.3), which were only verified by accidental discoveries.25 Further east, at the foot of the elongated rock of Büyükkaya a high density of small and medium sized buildings are attested by geophysical research.26 Judging from the geomagnetic results at least two different chronological settlement phases can be differentiated, which date to the Hittite and Byzantine periods as indicated by the potsherds found here in a comparatively high density (Fig. 4.3). The architectural layout of the mainly small and structurally simple houses of the lower level with two or three rooms, which are grouped in a loose and not regular settlement structure, is by no means comparable to the large dwelling structures in the Lower Town. Possibly comparable stand-alone structures, some of them maybe destroyed by fire, are occasionally scattered in the fields north of Hattusa.27 Together with a comparatively higher concentration of potsherds they may indicate the continuation of a low-density occupation as visible in the geomagnetic pictures. Along the meandering valley of the Budaközü certain clusters of Hittite pottery sherds and especially today a shallow mound (Ahmet Can Tarlası, No. 47) indicate that this loose settlement structure stretched out northwards along the river (Fig. 4.3–4). Without excavations and no supportive results from the geomagnetic surveys one can only speculate whether these areas might have been used for industrial activities like pottery making, dye works, tannery or similarly dirty industries. Although in most cases no structural details are detectable, the small edifices north and east of Hattusa mark a clear difference to the possibly official structures around Osmankayası and Yazılıkaya as well as to the so-called dwellings in the Lower Town; tentatively the majority of them may be interpreted as small farmsteads scattered

24  Schachner 2008: 142–146 Abb. 49. 25  Czichon 2003. 26  Schachner 2008: 144–145 Abb. 48; Schachner 2011a: 106–107 Abb. 47–48. 27  Schachner 2008: 145 Abb. 49.

Schachner

in the plains around the city.28 One may compare these houses with the farms which were home to the small households which are described in Hittites texts as being the backbone of agricultural production.29 Although this hypothesis must be tested by future excavations, in comparison to the results from Kuşaklı30 rather low quantities of potsherds have been found in the fields around Hattusa (Fig. 4.3), which may indicate that they might have been spread out together with settlement waste which was used as fertilizer.31 By way of contrast, the open-air sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, approximately 2km east of the northeastern limits of the city at Büyükkaya suggests a long cultic tradition connected with nature. On the other hand the monumental architecture of the holy precinct as well as its elaborated decoration with reliefs depicting the Hittite pantheon of the 13th century B.C. indicate the direct influence of the central power on the appearance of this place of worship.32 East of the groups of houses at the foot of Büyükkaya but still west of the sanctuary, just south of the route to Yazılıkaya two large water reservoirs were found by recent geophysical investigation.33 A third reservoir, parts of which had been described as a “Hittite stone pavement” by Schirmer,34 was relocated with high probability a few hundred meters further to the north in 2013.35 From a structural point of view these installations, which are all connected to geological formations, technically resemble the Eastern ponds in the Upper City of Hattusa36 and dams like those at Kuşaklı or Karakuyu respectively.37 Whereas the ponds within the city have sometimes been interpreted as cultic installations, those outside the walls clearly show that in the vicinity of the town smallscale irrigation of gardens and fields was practised, as is textually attested;38 a different use of the ponds, especially of the shallow southeastern one might have been to facilitate access to water for large flocks of animals.39 28  Already proposed by Bittel and Naumann 1952: 25; Czichon 2003. 29  Klengel 1986: 25–27. Alternatively one may think of small barns or similar installations described in several texts (e.g. Alp 1991: 183). 30  Jean 1998. 31  Wilkinson 1990. 32  Bittel et al. 1975. 33  Schachner 2008: 143 Abb. 46; Schachner 2011a: 228 Abb. 111. 34  Schirmer 1969b. 35  Schachner, Stümpel and Erkul 2014: 117–118 Abb. 48. 36  Wittenberg and Schachner 2013. 37  Hüser 2007. 38  Ünal 1977: 450 Fn. 18; Klengel 2006: 3–5. 39  Schachner and Wittenberg 2013: Fig. 17.

41

Hattusa and its Environs: Archaeology

Although the often-postulated “processional road” between the northern city and Yazılıkaya has not been identified as a built road so far, the presently available evidence shows that especially the immediate north and east of the city were intensively used in various ways. Obviously the Hittites tried their best to improve agricultural productivity by establishing physical control over the water resources not only within but also outside the city. The location of irrigated gardens and fields embedded in a loose structure of farming installations on the eastern slopes of the Budaközü plain outside the guarded city may be taken as an indication of a peaceful hinterland of Hattusa under full Hittite control during the time of their existence, presumably during the 15th to late 14th or early 13th cent. BC. One may assume that most decades of the 13th century BC, when the capital was moved to Tarhuntassa and back and when in the meantime industrial activities, which had not yet been located within the city until that time, were established in the Upper City, might have been a more unsettled period.40 But although some areas might have been negatively affected during this period at least Yazılıkaya (and its surroundings?) experienced its zenith and was upgraded to its final and still today visible status. As a corollary to this one should expect an even more dynamic development of the areas surrounding Hattusa than what is visible in the available and datable archaeological material. The archaeological evidence points to an intensive civil use of the immediate northern and northeastern surroundings of the town (Fig. 4.3). By contrast the remains on top of the shallow rocky outcrop of Kayalı Boğazı (No. 486) just north of the entrance to the canyon through which the road from Hattusa to the southeast leads may be interpreted as a military point of control to secure the approach to the city based on its strategic position.41 However, geophysical research has not presented a clear picture. Similarly, assumed outposts guarding the city have been identified by R. Czichon along the routes through the southern mountain range in varying distances from the city (Fig. 4.4): one may be identified southeast of the city near Çıradere (No. 382), others in the southwest along the route through the mountains, e.g. Korumkaya approx. 800m southwest of the Lion’s Gate (No. 253), located in a comparable relation to the gate as Kayalı Boğazı is in respect to the King’s Gate, and the sites at the mountain pass of Çeçbel (No. 398, 556).42

40  Schachner 2011a: 94–98. 41  Naumann 1971: 326, 328 Abb. 442. 42  Czichon 2003; Czichon 2000: 273.

In contrast to the northern and eastern parts just described the picture gained so far on the western side of Hattusa seems to be different (Fig. 4.3–4). Despite the long-standing building activities of the modern village of Boğazkale virtually no archaeological remains of the Hittite period have been encountered immediately west of the Yazır Deresi. Therefore it is highly probable that the area occupied by the present village was not settled during the Bronze Age despite the accidental find of a single blow pipe which according to metallurgical analyses was used in a context of metal smelting,43 and which has been interpreted as evidence for metal hand production on the western side of the river by some scholars. The general impression gained from surface surveys is that the density of Hittite sherd scatters on the western slopes of the valley is even lower compared to the northern and eastern sides of Hattusa (Fig. 4.3–4). Moreover, geophysical research west of the modern village did not produce evidence for a built environment. Apart from very randomly scattered traces, which are only tentatively identifiable as architecture, large ovoid structures, which are attested by geophysical research, may be interpreted as silos with caution.44 These results might indicate that the western slopes of the Budaközü plain, immediately west of Hattusa, were probably mainly used for agricultural fields and only randomly for a very few scattered buildings or barns. Apart from different kinds of built environments, monuments of art found in the wider surroundings of Hattusa and other Hittite cities in Central Anatolia (e.g. Kuşaklı/Sarissa) indicate a different level of ideological marking and shaping of the landscape.45 Chance finds of bull-shaped fountain stones (e.g. at Derbent (Fig. 4.4), Arifegazili) and freestanding stelae (e.g. the stele from Delihasan46 (Fig. 4.4, No. 556, Altınyayla), together with the so-called ḫuwasi-stones, which are only attested through texts if one disregards the archaeological exception immediately east of Kuşaklı, as well as numerous rock reliefs and inscriptions show that the Hittite central administration tried hard to establish not only physical but also mental and ideological control over the territory around the cities by using images which were stylistically and iconographically related to the central political and religious ideas of the Hittite state.47 In contrast to the fountain stones and stelae which generally were found out 43  Bachmann 1984: 109–110. 44  Schachner 2013: 156–157 Abb. 18. 45  Schachner 2011a: 212–215. 46  Hawkins 1996a. 47  Schachner 2012c: 148–150.

42

Schachner

of their original contexts, especially the rock reliefs and inscriptions are often strategically located at important mountain passes or along routes. This clearly indicates the intention of controlling the countryside politically, by depictions of the king, and religiously by numinous representations.48

Feeding the City: Urban Access to Natural Resources

Our understanding of the economic relationship between this extraordinarily large city, at least for its time by Anatolian standards, and its hinterland is still fragmentary. However, some preliminary considerations concerning the use of natural resources and raw materials may be addressed. Apart from the changing landscape the fact that Anatolia in general, but especially the core land of the Hittite Empire, is divided by countless mountain ranges into small topographical units is another geographical feature which until early modern times strongly influenced human activities. Overland travel is limited in a country without built roads and limited to routes determined by topography. Accordingly long distance trade was restricted to commodities that were easy to carry and/or of high value. Hence the subsistence economy of the Hittite cities was most probably organized on a regional scale.49 Although a detailed discussion of the outreach of this system is not possible some general hypotheses can be drawn up. Ethnographical observations indicate that intensive agriculture was in an acceptable cost-income balance only within a radius of not more than c. 10km, which equates to a walking distance of c. 2 hours around a given site.50 In the case of Hattusa this calculation cannot simply be adopted to estimate the extent of the land under the plow since mountains are located south of the city. Apart from small fields located on suitable terraces in the mountainous areas one may assume that first and foremost the plains north and northwest of Hattusa were cultivated. In contrast the areas northeast and east of the city were more actively used for settlement activities probably due to the vicinity of the holy precinct of Yazılıkaya (Fig. 4.4). Taking into account the described distribution and structure of settlement activities in the plains north of Hattusa it is understood that the lack of a densely built up and 48  Glatz and Plourde 2011; Seeher 2009; Seeher 2012. 49  Schachner 2011a, 2012b. 50  Hütteroth 1968: 120 Abb. 15.

populated towns immediately outside the fortifications is explained by the need of these valuable areas for intensive agriculture. Judging from a text describing the household and family size of a certain Tiwatapara an average Hittite estate might have been able to cultivate about 3 to 5ha a year just like the small manors of the Byzantine and Ottoman periods in Central Anatolia.51 Given the above-mentioned limits of the outreach of a pre-industrial settlement and the topographical features around Hattusa one can calculate that hardly more than 3500 to 5000 hectares, most of which were located in the Budaközü plain and the adjacent slopes could have been used to feed the city. Taking a yield of c. 500kg of grain per ha into account52 the assumption is that not more than 1750 to 2500 tons of wheat and barley were harvested around Hattusa in an ordinary year. If we accept an average yearly need of c. 1200kg per family of 5 persons this crop would hardly supply a population of 10000–12000 inhabitants. This admittedly simplified calculation not only shows the limits of the Hittite economy around Hattusa in terms of supplying the population but also clearly explains the need of complex storage systems as documented by the large granaries on Büyükkaya and the northwest slope of Büyükkale as well as the extended store rooms around the Great Temple in the Lower Town.53 In parallel the higher altitudes of the mountains and more distant areas especially in the south may have been used for seasonal grazing of animals54 as well as at least partly to supply wood as fuel, for construction and also to produce charcoal for the metal and pottery industries. But since especially beams for construction are a bulky good which is difficult to transport over large distances or through rough terrain one would look in the relatively close vicinity of the town for at least those forests which are mentioned in the texts as being specially guarded and thus having probably a serious economic (?) importance.55 In general one may conclude that the natural setting and the habitat forced the people of Hattusa to practice an integrated combination of rain fed agriculture and intensive animal husbandry supplemented by small irrigation of fields and gardens wherever possible. Probably we can assume a more or less balanced spatial distribution between the different economic interests based on the topographic opportunities. 51  Klengel 1986. 52  Wilkinson 1994; see also Hunt 1995. 53  Seeher 2000. 54  Klengel 2007a: 155–156. 55  Klengel 2006: 16.

43

Hattusa and its Environs: Archaeology

Nevertheless, the intensive use of the landscape around the city must have rigorously exploited and degraded the natural options during the time of the high-point of the Hittite settlement during the 16th to 13th cent. BC. It might have led to an over-stressing of the resources, which then could well have been one of the reasons for the decline especially of the core area of the Hittite empire at the turn of the 13th to the 12th century BC. Apart from natural resources, access to raw materials is crucial for every economy. Although metals are a commodity which is comparatively easy to transport over long distances one would always prefer sources close to the consumer. The sources of the metals the Hittite smiths used in Hattusa are still to be discovered. But ongoing analytical research indicates a wide range of different alloys and sources.56 This may point to at least a partial use of metal sources of different geochemical compositions within the geologically extremely heterogeneous region of Hattusa. The discovery of copper sources in the close vicinity of the city of Hattusa, which are unproductive in modern industrial terms but which were used for the Chalcolithic metallurgy in the region57 may indicate that the Hittite metallurgists could have exploited such small sources within the surrounding of the city avoiding long distance transport for the majority of the most commonly used copper. Other resources extensively used by the craftsmen of Hattusa were for example clay, various types of soils and stones. Clay was used not only for pottery production but was one of the major materials for construction. The reconstruction of a section of the Hittite city wall indicates the enormous amount of material which was necessary to execute the extensive building programs.58 Although the sources for the clay for the bricks are not yet located this experiment showed that clay of different origins does have varying technical characteristics of which the Hittite builders must have been aware.59 Analytical research on the clay of the excavated pottery indicates the exploitation of sources along the rivers in a distance of not more than 5–7km from the city.60 Remarkably the majority of the clay of the bullae from the Nişantepe archive seems to have been taken from similarly close sources as shown by the preliminary results of recent pXRF analysis by P. Grave and L. Kealhofer.61 Among 56  Lehner 2011; Lehner and Schachner in press. 57  Marsh 2010: 207 Abb. 62; Rehren and Radivojevic 2010. 58  Seeher 2007: 211–224. 59  Seeher 2007: 29–53 esp. 32–34. 60  Hashimoto et al. 2013. 61  Grave and Kealhofer 2014.

the different soils the Hittites used for their constructions a certain kind can easily be recognized during the excavations as alien due to its gray-greenish color. Today locally called çorak this material which is serpentinite is a distinctive component of the ophiolite geology of the region, but it does not occur within the limits of the ancient city.62 Used especially for insulating roofs etc. against water and humidity as well as for large scale leveling, this material was brought into the city from sources within the closer vicinity. As pointed out above, the shaping of the rocky terrain in Hattusa to create spectacular building grounds was one of the features of the urban landscape of the capital after the 16th century BC. Although mainly limestone was used for Hittite buildings it is possible to distinguish different compositions of the worked limestone blocks by analyzing their mineralogical inclusions, their microfacies and the lithologic composition of the rocks63 By this means different sources for the stones within and outside the city have been identified in a study of the worked stones of the hilltop building of Yenicekale: a major quarry lay approximately 2km southeast of the city at Kayalı Boğaz (Fig. 4.4).64 Hittite quarrying benefited from the structure of the limestone formations in the region, which are characterized by being naturally cracked into pieces of manageable size. Thus the Hittites most probably could simply pull out stones which seemed suitable for their purposes, leaving no cuts or alike visible in the present landscape. By contrast granite was only rarely used, mainly to emphasize the importance of certain parts of selected temples. The most prominent example is the holy precinct of the Great Temple in the Lower Town. Since no granite can be found within the city or in its immediate vicinity, this material has to be brought in from outside. The closest sources to be considered are located about 10–15km to the southeast in a side valley to the Budaközü near the village of Çıradere (Fig. 4.4). Their geological composition is comparable macroscopically to one of the stones used within the Great Temple. But further analysis is needed to confirm this assumption, which is supported by the find of broken granite blocks along the river indicating a transport using the frozen stream during winter.65

62  Seeher 2007: 95–99. 63  Yılmaz and Altıner 2016. 64  Yılmaz and Altıner in 2016: Abb. 74. 65  Neve 1995/96.

44

Schachner

Hattusa—A Metropolis Embedded in the Wider Context of the Anatolian Landscape

This preliminary overview gives an impression of the intensive use of the immediate surroundings as well as the wider hinterland of the Hittite metropolis. Different types of architecture ranging from single houses, which may be interpreted as farms, to large, complex and probably official structures with civil as well as military purposes were alternating with hydrological installations and large areas which probably have been used as fields and gardens. In contrast the areas along the valleys of the Budaközü and Yazır streams might have been used as sources especially of clay whereas the mountainous areas in the south and east of Hattusa functioned as sources of raw materials, different kinds of stones as well as possibly metals, and wood as well as grazing grounds for the animal flocks on higher altitudes. Within a close radius of approximately not more than 10–15km around Hattusa a complex integration of various economic strategies and crafts emerges in connection with features of the state’s power as well as religious beliefs as attested by the open-air sanctuary of Yazılıkaya or the necropolis of Osmankayası. All these features were integrated into the landscape by carefully calculating the benefits and accordingly making the best of each ecological and economic niche. Remarkably the immediate surroundings of the city seem to have been reserved for either religious functions or work-intensive agricultural production (e.g. irrigated fields or gardens and the grazing of the valuable milk cows). The lack of a densely built environment surrounding Hattusa is justified by the need of an economically balanced distance between the intensively used fields and the consuming city.66 These observations in general correspond with models of the land use in the vicinity of Anatolian villages and small towns until early modern times.67 Only in a greater distance of more than 5km did the surveys attest more substantial pottery scatters which might point to larger settlements (Fig. 4.4), like those at Emirler Kale (No. 179), Külahtepe (No. 436), in the Beygirsöğüdü-Deresi (No. 559), both settlements at the important mountain pass of Çeçbel (No. 398, 556), a site 66  If the identification of large ovoid structures visible in geophysical investigations west of the modern village of Boğazköy as Hittite grain silos proves to be correct one may interpret these structures as depots to store seed material in a close vicinity to the fields in order to avoid unnecessary transport (Schachner 2013b: 156–157 Abb. 18–19). A similar system is attested in Northern Mesopotamia during the Middle and Neo-Assyrian period (Simpson 1990). 67  Hütteroth 1968: 120 Abb. 15.

on a plateau near Çıradere (No. 382) or possibly the valley west of Tilkilitepe (No. 353).68 Apart from general remarks in different categories of texts and in contrast to the archaeological record only a limited number of written sources allow us to describe the relationship between Hattusa and its hinterland. Judging by a text found in the plain west of Sarıkale several settlements (in this case: Anta[…], Tasli, Dupura and a central site not mentioned by name) formed a district whose head reported to the capital.69 Possibly the mentioned villages were located somewhere in the mountainous area south of Hattusa since there seems to be only one topographically possible connection between Tasli and Dupura. Although these settlements cannot be equated with the known archaeological evidence their hierarchal grouping and organization around a central place generally matches with results from surface surveys in the eastern part of the Hittite Upper Land where similar structures were attested archaeologically.70 Additional information comes from a list (HT 2) which mentions a possibly comparable structure in which district capital cities govern other cities and numerous villages.71 Apart from the otherwise unattested toponyms we understand that the area around Hattusa probably was rather densely populated although we have virtually no idea of the size of the sites the Hittites called district or city. In the middle of an amorphous mountain range on whose northern slopes Hattusa was built, several singular mountains are prominently located in the region (Fig. 4.4): e.g. the İbikçam (also known as Türbe Tepe, 1558m) in the south, the Nöbeti Baba Tepesi (also known as Yağmur Baba Tepesi, 1629m) in the west or a high standing rocky outcrop between Emirler and Mahmutbeyli in the northeast of the city. Since several of them are visible from Hattusa it is difficult to decide which of them might be identified with mountains mentioned in the Hittite texts to be close to the city, like the site and/or mountain of Tippuwa.72 68  Czichon 2003; Schachner 2013b: 157 Abb. 20; Schachner 2014b: 118–120 Abb. 49. 69  Wilhelm 2007: 87–88. 70  Ökse 2006. 71  Crasso 2008: 93. 72  Popko 1999: 101. R. Czichon suggests the rocky outcrop of Kocakaya (Fig. 4.3–4 No. 55; c. 2.5km northeast of the city) as a possible candidate for an identification of the mountain HUR.SAG Tippuwa (Czichon 2003; Czichon 2000: 272), where so called “Schalensteine” might point to religious function. A few hundred meters west lies a medium-sized site in the plain immediately east of the Budaközü (Ahmet Can Tarlası) (Fig. 4.3–4, No. 47), where considerable Hittite activities are attested by

45

Hattusa and its Environs: Archaeology

Approaching from the north through the Budaközü plain and looking from a certain distance the İbikçam appears to be the most prominent mountain in the region. It is positioned slightly higher and behind Hattusa as seen from the plain forms a hierarchically rising line with the city laying on the slope and the numerous outcrops in the front, Yerkapı as the most prominent point of the city in the middle and the İbikçam enthroned above (Fig. 4.4). Due to this visual importance we must assume that this mountain was of considerable importance to the Hittites. A mountain mentioned in the texts to be within seeing distance of Hattusa was HUR.SAGTapala which served as a place of worship according to the AN.TAḪ.ŠUMSAR rituals and which might be identified with one of the numerous outcrops west or southwest of the city such as the Karakaya near Yazır (No. 182) or a site (No. 556) on the northwestern side of the Çeçbel facing Hattusa (Fig. 4.4).73 In order to understand how the Hittites recognized their environment the complex picture reconstructed so far may be compared with a text written in Hattusa and excavated in the plain west of Sarıkale. It systematically describes the surrounding of the still unlocated town of Sassuna in northern Central Anatolia. The text gives a vivid impression of in how much detail the Hittites were aware of different types of landscapes, settlement structures, sources of raw materials and especially religious places.74 Although such a “map” of the region of Hattusa has not been unearthed yet it is obvious from the archaeological material and its setting within the topography that the city was incorporated in a comparable mental map, since it was part of an environment that was actively molded according to ideological and economic prerequisites. The density and the entangled variety of the different features surface material (Czichon 2000: 272), and which might be identified as the settlement URUTippuwa (Czichon 2003). The particular topographic situation and proximity between the two spots could explain why the toponym was used for a settlement as well as for a mountain (Popko 1999: 101–102). R. Czichon’s suggestion seems much more convincing especially when considering the topographical peculiarities concerning the connection to Hattusa (Popko 1999: 102) than other equations like for example the İbikçam (Fig. 4.4) or the like (Ünal 1987: 476; Forlanini 2008b: 155). Recent geophysical surveys at both sites indicate anthropogenic activities at Ahmet Can Tarlası without allowing the identification of outlines of buildings which were most probably destroyed by modern ploughing. By contrast the area around Kocakaya seems not to have been a scene of larger buildings or intensive settlement activities (Schachner, Stümpel and Erkul 2014: 115–118 Abb. 45–47, 46). 73  Czichon 2003. 74  Lorenz and Rieken 2007.

not only point to a very intensive use and exploitation of the region around Hattusa but also indicate a high degree of ideological planning in this respect. Thus we must assume a very detailed awareness of the Hittites concerning the natural habitat and its economic as well as political opportunities for exploitation. From a methodological point of view our findings in the region of Hattusa may raise the principal question of the limits of attempted equations of attested toponyms and the still only sparsely known archaeological settlement system. Even in a clearly defined small region there are obviously so many possible known and many more unknown sites to fit a given toponym that it seems not wise to decide without archaeological excavations and applicable hard facts. The mentioned results seem moreover to indicate that the modern understanding of distances in a given landscape does not fit well with the real outreach of the ancient people and that therefore distances between attempted allocations proposed on maps should be calculated much shorter than is often done in scholarship.

The Context of Hattusa within the General Geographical Setting of Central Anatolia

We can assume an intensive contact and constant flow of goods and people between areas intra and extra muros. In this context the city gates must be seen as the most important places of transition not only for traffic but between different and above all rival ideological and mental spheres: the organized and thus controlled area of the city (happira-) and the uncontrollable wilderness of the outside (ḪUR.SAG). The cultivated fields (A.ŠÀ) around the city form a kind of a buffer zone (gimra-) between the two spheres75 differing in depth and possibly depending on the outreach of the military power of the city’s guards, which might vary from time to time.76 Despite the fact that we can differentiate several architectural types, their size and, at least with respect to the gates of the Upper City, their design, which is unique in the Old World, indicate that they not only functioned as simple passages but that they conveyed the characteristics of Hittite culture, beliefs and political ideology, thus trying to transmit at least parts of the ideals of the controlled city into the urban hinterland. The same function may be attributed to the fact that the city can be seen far from the north as described above. Therefore the transition between the mental spheres of happira- and gimra- might 75  Beckman 1999b: 165. 76  Klengel 2006: 4.

46 have been fluid, with a subjective feeling of security rising the closer an individual approached the city (Fig. 4.1). Textual evidence indicates that each gate had an individual name but only a few are known and none of them can be attached to one of the excavated structures with certainty. The known labels mention certain cities like the “Zippalanda-Gate” or the “Tawiniya-Gate”.77 The roads starting at the gates of Hattusa are also named after places, like the “Tippuwa-Road” or the “Road of the stormgod of Nerik”. If we accept these labels not to be accidental but as the expression of a concept meaningful to the Hittite inhabitants of Hattusa, this nomenclature is instructive in different respects: since the place-names are known as important cult centers, or at least as geographical locations with religious connotations, numinous places may be interpreted as at least one of the mental anchors of Hittite geographical thought. Moreover one may assume that these labels give a clue on how far the geographical network and its understanding of the residents of the capital reached. Apart from Nerik (present day Oymaağaç near Vezirköprü) all other places are located in a day’s marching distance or even less from Hattusa.78 Remarkably the names mentioned refer only to locations in the old Hattian core land whereas the textually attested incorporation of Hattusa into a supra-regional Anatolian and even international network covering the whole Eastern Mediterranean during the 14th–13th cent. BC is not reflected. Thus the geographical understanding and the outreach at least of the ordinary inhabitant of Hattusa was probably comparatively limited. By contrast the historical and diplomatic Hittite texts show that at least the elite must have had a much wider sense of the geography of Anatolia and beyond. Although Hattusa is located in a remote area, off the major overland routes, its unique geographical position and strategic location allow direct and easy access to all 77  If we accept the equation of Tawiniya with the Roman site at Büyük Nefesköy c. 30km southwest from Boğazköy, which produced Hittite pottery (Gerber 2008; Strobel 2008), this gate should lie on the western or southwestern side of Hattusa. 78  Sir Gavaz 2012.

Schachner

parts of Anatolia (Fig. 4.4). South of the city two major routes cross the mountain range which otherwise serves as a natural barrier. Through a natural and narrow canyon (present-day Kayalı Boğaz Fig. 4.3–4, No. 486) a road leads to the southeast into the region of modern Yozgat where the medium-sized Hittite site of Uşaklı among others controls the southern entrance to this passage. A second path following the Yazır Deresi southwest of Hattusa, passing a guarding site at Karakaya/Yazır (No. 182) then crossing the mountains over the Çeçbel pass (No. 398, 556) connects the Hittite capital to the plains of the southern and western parts of Central Anatolia (Fig. 4.4).79 The southern exit of this route is controlled by the ancient site of Büyük Nefesköy (Roman Tavium) which contains Hittite settlement remains.80 The route to the northeast in the direction of Alacahöyük (Arinna?) and Eskiyapar (Taḫurpa?) either followed the Budaközü valley until turning east at the modern village of Yekbaz81 or might have taken a track which turns east in the vicinity of Yazılıkaya (Fig. 4.4).82 The northern part of the Hittite core land can easily be reached following the Budaközü to the north and into the plain of the Delice river where the Old Hittite settlements of Yörüklü-Hüseyindede and Boyalı Höyük83 as well as the rich salt deposits on the northwestern side of the Kızılırmak valley are as easy to reach as the contemporary sites of İnandıktepe84 and Bitik85 a short distance further northwest. Along the Kızılırmak river (Marassantiya) this route naturally takes the traveler up to Oymaağaç (Nerik)86 and as far as the Black Sea coast.

79  Strobel 2008: 284–288. 80  Gerber 2008: 202–203, 228 Map 4. 81  If the location of URUTippuwa (see above note 5) is correct this road should be identified with the “Tippuwa-Road” mentioned in the texts (for a map see Sir Gavaz 2012: 40 Map). 82  Sir Gavaz 2012: 40. 83  Sipahi 2000; Yıldırım 2000; Sipahi 2010. 84  Özgüç 1988. 85  Özgüç 1957. 86  Czichon et alii 2012.

Hattusa and its Environs: Archaeology

Figure 4.1  General view of Hattusha as seen from the Budaközü plain (near Ahmet Can Tarlası) from the North; Yerkapı dominates the urban scenery in the center of the picture. © Archive of the Boğazköy-Expedition of the German Archaeological Institute.

Figure 4.2

General view of the Upper City of Hattusha with Yerkapı at the right (South). © Archive of the Boğazköy-Expedition of the German Archaeological Institute.

47

48

Figure 4.3

Schachner

Distribution and density of Hittite pottery sherds on the fields in the immediate surroundings of Hattusha (Documentation: R. M. Czichon, Drawing: N. Timuçin, Layout: A. Weiser; additions: A. Schachner).

Hattusa and its Environs: Archaeology

Figure 4.4  The greater vicinity of Hattusha in Hittite times (Original documentation: R. M. Czichon, Drawing: N. Timuçin, Layout: A. Weiser; final preparation: S. Küçük; additions: A. Schachner). Key to map: Numbers according to the catalogue by Czichon 2003; 21: Gülçebağları Mvk; 36; 47: Ahmet Can Tarlası = URUTippuwa (?); 55: Kocakaya = HUR.SAG Tippuwa (?); 59; 61: Kaleciktepe; 66; 161; 179: Emirler Kale; 182: Karakaya/Yazır; 183; 210; 216; 228: Büyükkaya-North; 236; 238: Çoran Göl Mvk; 253: Korumkaya; 337: Sarı Taş Mvk; 353: west of Tilkili Tepe; 382; Çıradere-Sivirtepe; 390: Sarıbaba/Sarı Tepe; 396: Çamlı Tarla; 398: Çeçbel; 424; 429: Çardak Tepe; 436: Külahtepe; 440: Höyüktepe near Salman; 444; 453: Mezarlık Mvk.; 472; 475: Çevizli Köm; 486: Kayalı Boğaz; 488–489: Göl Mvk.; 492; 529; 556: west of Çeçbel; 559; 565; 566–567; 574: near Bişek; 581.

49

CHAPTER 5

Central East: Archaeology

Alacahöyük, Eskiyapar, Ortaköy, Maşathöyük Mustafa Süel, Aygül Süel, Tunç Sipahi and Mark Weeden The geographical scope of this chapter reaches from the Alaca region as far as Turhal and the Çamlıbel pass, where it meets the border with the area treated in the chapters on the East (archaeology chapter 6; philology chapter 15). The region concentrates on the area of the intersection of the Turkish vilayets of Çorum (north), Yozgat (south) and Tokat (east). It includes the important excavated sites of Eskiyapar, Ortaköy/Šapinuwa (see chapter 3) and Maşathöyük. The following chapter will look at the evidence from this region for the geography of the Hittite state as derived from consideration of topography, archaeological survey and archaeological excavation.1 Topography The topography of the region is tectonically defined by its location to the south of the North Anatolian Strike-slip Fault Zone, specifically on a splay of the same extending northeast to southwest along three parallel fault lines in a “fishbone” arrangement.2 In the east of the region these fault lines accompany the narrow valleys and plains between the parallel northeast to southwest oriented mountain ranges of the Kırlar Dağı (highest point 1790m), Karadağ (highest point 1532m), Buzluk Dağları (otherwise referred to as the Otogeçe Dağları and the Alan Dağları at their southern end, highest point 1403m), and the Deveci Dağları (highest point 1638m), each with multiple peaks. The mountains and their surrounding plains are rich in sandstone, marl and limestone, and contain both lower and higher plateaus over which settlements are spread today. This is a different terrain to that of the area directly to the west towards Alaca. * This contribution arose from numerous separate discussions between the authors, was gathered into a collective first draft by M. Weeden and then commented and corrected by T. Sipahi and A. Süel. 1  Thanks are due to Professor M. Drahor of Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Izmir, for consultation on questions of physical geography. 2  The Almus Fault Zone, the Ezinepazarı(-Sungurlu) Fault Zone (also referred to as Kırıkkale-Erbaa) and the Taşova-Çorum Fault Zone. Koçbulut, Kavak and Tatar 2015. The site of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa is located only 10km away from the Kırıkkale-Erbaa faultline.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_006

The west of the region consists of the high plains on the Central Anatolian plateau at an average height of around 1100m and presents quite a different topographical setting. Volcanic igneous rocks including augite and hornblende andesites characterise the geology of the western side of the area around the sites of Alacahöyük and Eskiyapar.3 The two sites are separated by the ridge of the Elmalı Dağı, over which a route most likely led passing near the Hittite dam at Gölpınar.4 This dam is watered by underground springs. To the east flows the Çorum Çayı, a tributary of the Çekerek, and into it from a south-north direction run its own tributaries, the Alaca Çayı and the Büyüköz. However, from Alaca through to Tokat, along the Çorum Çayı and then the Çekerek, the main topographical orientation of the whole region is broadly from west to east rather than north to south. The landscape of the area between the Zile-Buzluk Dağları to the north and the Deveci-Akdağları to the south is a complex patchwork of plains and rocky outcrops characterised by limestone, marl and gypsum sediments through which numerous rivers have cut their way. In the west, where the region is defined by the middle course of the Çekerek, extends the Maşat Plain bordering to its southeast the Boztepe depression and the Silisözü Valley, to its north the Reşadiye depression. To its west beyond Çekerek the Dagni Dağı provides a limit, which also funtions as a massive dividing feature between north and south. To the east there is the plain of Zile, geographically separated off from the Maşat plain by the Karayün and İtyelmez ridges. Through the latter of these runs the Honar Boğazı, following the Honar Çayı into the area of the Zile plain, which it drains. The two areas, Zile and Maşat, thus form quite different geographical areas, although it should not be understood from this that they are in any sense disconnected from each other by impassable terrain.5 The whole region is bordered by the basin of the Yeşilırmak (Hittite Kummešmaha?) to the east, while the main riverine feature is provided by its tributary, the 3  Atakay Gündoğdu 2009. 4  E.g. Çınaroğlu and Çelik 2006. 5  Özçağlar 1989; 1990.

51

Central East: Archaeology

Çekerek (classical Skylax, possibly Hittite Zuliya?). This waterway flows from the area of Çamlıbel in the Deveci Dağları along the southern flank of the Deveci mountains before turning sharply north round the western end of the Deveci ridge towards the modern town of Çekerek and then looping west by Reşadiye, before taking another sharp turn to the north at Kazankaya. Here it cuts through the outlying highground of the southeastern Buzluk Dağları (specifically the Alan Dağları) in an impressive snaking canyon from Kazankaya through to Incesu, where it opens out once again into a fertile although narrow alluvial plain and turns northeast to continue up past modern-day Göynücek and the site of Oluz Höyük to the point at which it joins the Yeşilırmak just south of Amasya. There are several tributaries of the Çekerek, including the Özderesi, which flows parallel to the southeastern slopes of the Karadağ range past Ortaköy (Hittite Šapinuwa) to join the Çekerek north of İncesu. By flowing parallel to the Karadağ, as well as to the Çekerek, the Özderesi valley provides a passable route to the northeast (eventually Amasya), whereas the canyon on the Çekerek prevents large-scale land-based traffic. Another tributary, the Aştavul, flows down from the Karadağ near Cevizli to join the Çekerek only 1.5km north of its meeting with the Özderesi. Just 1km north of the confluence with the Aştavul a further tributary joins the Çekerek, this time from the northern reaches of the Karadağ. This is also the point where the Çekerek turns northeast. Although the region is mountainous in the classic “horst and graben” style, the low-lying graben between the long mountainous ridges of the Karadağ and Buzluk Dağları are considerably lower than the land to the west towards Hattusa on the plateau. Building A at Ortaköy stands at 788m above sea-level on an intermediate plateau on the mountain side, while the floor of the Özderesi valley in which it is situated is 700m. Kazankaya in the Çekerek valley is at 720m, but north of the Çekerek canyon up towards Göynücek, the valley-floor quickly reaches as little as 400m. By contrast, only 7km to the southwest of Šapinuwa, in the area of Baydiğin, the general elevation of the land reaches the more normal Central Anatolian plateau level of 1000–1100m (compare Eskiyapar 979m, Boğazkale village 1025m, Hattuša-Büyükkale 1142m). Following the Çekerek back eastwards from Kazankaya the valley floor stays at around 700m until it reaches the area of Reşadiye and the Maşat plain where the flat areas have elevations of around 900–1000m, before decreasing again through the Boztepe depression and towards the Zile region. This discrepancy in elevation between the Ortaköy region together with its hinterland to the northeast and the rest of the plateau region to the west is reflected in a

different, slightly milder climate, especially in winter, as characteristic of the Black Sea region to which it is closer. The valleys of the Özderesi and the northern Çekerek may thus during certain times of year have been a more attractive place to live than Boğazköy-Hattuša, 60km to the southwest and some 300m higher. In terms of climate this is the area where the Mediterranean and Pontic weather systems meet. According to information from the weather stations at Yozgat (1298m above sea-level) and Tokat (608m above sea-level) rainfall can currently average at 630.4mm (Yozgat) to 480.5mm (Tokat) per annum, with 74.4 and 64mm falling during the summer months respectively. Temperatures fall to –5.6° C (Yozgat) or –2° C (Tokat) during winter. The mountain slopes of the Deveci range are well covered with pine forests (pinus sylvestris) at around 14–1500m, beech, juniper and various forms of oak.6 A similar picture emerges for the area north of the Buzluk Dağları around Ortaköy, with 450mm rainfall yearly over the Çekerek valley, increasing to 550mm on the mediumlevel mountains, and only 62mm falling over the summer. Pine trees (pinus sylvestris at 12–1400m as well as pinus nigra) grow abundantly alongside juniper, oak, willow and poplar on the slopes of the Karadağ range.7 The marl and limestone soils of the alluvium deposited by the rivers are well suited to agriculture, even if there is not a great deal of agricultural land in the direct vicinity of Ortaköy itself.8 Despite the fertile valleys with fruit trees and vines along their slopes and the plains with space for cereals in fields, this area is unlikely to have been important on the grounds of the production of agricultural surplus. Recent evidence for copper-working at Alacahöyük may suggest that the exploitation or processing of mineral deposits for metals was underway here, but the archaeological evidence is otherwise thin on the ground and difficult to interpret.9 The region’s main importance presumably comes from its function as a corridor towards the northeast. Surveys After frequent visits by early travellers, sections of the western part of the area have been surveyed in recent times by A. and M. Süel in the survey which preceded the excavations at Ortaköy-Šapinuwa, and by T. Sipahi and 6  Bingöl et al. 2010. 7  Kurt et al. 1998; Gülersoy and Gülersoy 2016: 493–496. 8  Süel 2005a: 679. 9  Atakay Gündoğdu 2009.

52 T. Yıldırım, who have surveyed extensively around Çorum, whereas the eastern part was surveyed by T. Özgüç, in the course of the excavations at Maşathöyük, as well as by M. and N. Özsait as part of their extensive surveys in the Tokat and Amasya regions.10 The survey of G. and F. Summers in the course of the excavations at Kerkenes Dağı also touched on the southwestern parts of the region extending as far as Çekerek and Aydıncık.11 In the following a brief review of the routes and networks of possible LBA sites is given, with the caveat that the dates of the sites are almost entirely established by survey and that the picture could change dramatically after excavation. The area directly to the east of Hattuša would appear to have been quite densely populated during some parts of the 2nd millennium BC, with at least thirty sites currently attested between Boğazköy and Ortaköy.12 Whether one starts east from Hattuša, taking the steep road up over Yüksekyayla, or leaves from Eskiyapar, it appears that there are two routes to reach Ortaköy, one higher and one lower. Only the latter of these leads also to Maşat. From Hattusa to Eskiyapar a route passes over an initially steep climb eastwards to Yüksekyayla, Küçükhırka, then north via Suludere, Perçem, Eren/Dedepınarı and then Eskiyapar.13 Only a few kilometers further east another three 2nd millennium höyüks are arranged in a south-north line parallel to the route to Eskiyapar: Kıplanpınarhöyük, Bayındırhöyük, Yatankavak Kayapınarhöyük.14 The traveller probably headed east from Yatankavak, traversing the Alaca Çayı to reach the site of Demircihöyük and then Örükkayahöyük and Bağınardıhöyük (north of Akörenköyü), all three of which are set in the space of 10km.15 The way is a good deal easier from Eskiyapar over the plain of Alaca. From Eskiyapar one can take a more northerly route towards the east, passing sites at Alaca üzeri, Hışırhöyük, Aktoprakhöyük, Akpınarhöyük and Yaylacık Tekke, from where one is on a higher altitude road round 10  See references in following paragraphs. 11  The report from the survey is available in the online excavation report of the Kerkenes excavation team, Summers 1998. 12  M. Yılmaz and H. Serinci (2010: 992) conducted a survey of the literature which counted 26 potentially Hittite period sites in the Alaca region alone that had been recorded in archaeological surveys. 13  Sipahi 2013b: 73; Dedepınarıhöyük, Süel 1991: 93. 14  Kıplanpınarı at Büyük Hırka and Bayındırhöyük noted at Süel 1991: 92–93; an Iron Age tumulus at Yatankavak is also mentioned there. Three sites are documented around Yatankavak at Sipahi and Yıldırım 2010: 448–449, of which only Kayapınarhöyük was recorded as showing Hittite ceramics. 15  Süel 1990: 343–344.

süel et al. to approach Ortaköy from above (via Fığla Tepesi).16 Directly parallel in a southerly direction to this route eastwards, another route passes the sites of Çalköy, Gökören, Soğucak and Kızılhamzahöyük, and further south again via Kızıllı and Çöplühöyük.17 The sites appear to cover the Alaca plain in quadratic formations, allowing at least two routes in each direction, southwest to northeast and northwest to southeast. From Bağınardıhöyük at the latest, and if coming from Hattusa already at Örükkayahöyük, the traveller has the choice of three directions. Either one proceeds immediately southeast passing Bolatçıkhöyük, Tumbulhöyük at Killik and Mercantepehöyük at Belpınar, and then onwards in the direction of Sorgun.18 Or one heads east or northeast in order to try to enter the valley of the Özderesi, or again after a little while southeast in order to enter the Maşat Plain by heading to link up with the Çekerek river. From the region of Bağınardıhöyük a line of höyükstyle settlements leads via Çöplü Höyük (6km), Soğucak­ höyük (another 8km) to Kızılhamzahöyük (another 4km) at the head of the Özderesi valley. The way down the Özderesi valley is at one point not impossible but quite difficult (coming down to the modern village of Karahacıp), so travel along the upper road without descending to Kızılhamza would be a possibility, as noted above. However, it is possible that there was an alternative, more direct route. Starting from Bozdoğanhöyük (8km northeast of Bağınardıhöyük),19 or indeed from Çöplü Höyük, and proceeding directly via the modern village of Baydiğin, down the admittedly steep slope into the Özderesi valley at modern-day Karahacıp, could theoretically bring one to Ortaköy in less than a day (18km).20 The route northeast from Ortaköy along the Çekerek and via the Göynücek plain to Amasya would have been used especially in times when control of the areas of the 16  Alaca üzeri and Yaylacık Tekke: Sipahi and Yıldırım 2012: 205, 208; Hışırhöyük, Akpınarhöyük, Aktoprakhöyük: Süel 1991: 94–95. 17  Çalköy, Sipahi and Yıldırım 2005: 357; 2nd millennium BC ceramics were found both at Gökörenhöyük and in the fields around (Yıldırım and Sipahi 2011: 39–40); Soğucak, Sipahi and Yıldırım 2012: 206; Kızılhamzahöyük, Süel 1991: 95; Kızıllı, Süel 1991: 94; Çöplühöyük, Süel 1990: 343. 18  Surveyed by A. Süel 1990: 344–345; Sipahi and Yıldırım 2010: 451. See Sir Gavaz (chapter 14, this volume) for discussion of this route in connection with the identification of Hittite Katapa. 19  Süel 1990: 343–344, noting 2nd millennium BC ceramics scattered around Bozdoğanhöyük as well as on it. 20  According to currently available information, further sites have not been identified on this route. The slope descends from 1021m at Baydiğin to 930m at Karahacıp in just under 4km.

Central East: Archaeology

northeast was not secure, as it is well shielded by the Karadağ range. It is populated with large sites, especially at its northern end, that display pottery dating to Middle and/or Late Bronze Age periods, one of which is being excavated. This was clearly an important thoroughfare: Kocamantepe, Ayvalıpınar, Gediksaray, Oluz Höyük (excavated by Ş. Dönmez) and Doğantepe.21 Turning southeast from Bozdoğanhöyük leads one after 9km to another potentially Hittite period site, Zidankuyuhöyük,22 from where one can either travel to the group of large sites at the south of the Kazankayaİncesu canyon or to the similarly large site of Aydıncık in the plain of Kümbet. Kazankaya was surveyed by T. Özgüç and several mounds as well as an early Hittite cemetery were found nearby.23 It has been identified with the Hittite toponym Šuppiluliya by J. Börker-Klähn, which also occurs in Old Assyrian documents from Kültepe and Alişarhöyük and is supposed to have hosted a wabartum during the period of Kültepe Level II and a kārum during the later Kültepe Ib era.24 Kale/Aydıncık is only 8km to the south of Kazankaya as the crow flies, and the two may have formed a unit of some kind.25 The chronological orientation of the complex of mounds at Kazankaya seems to have been rather Middle Bronze Age or Old Hittite, while Middle Bronze Age through to Iron Age ceramics were found at Aydıncık, which is supposed also to have had a lower city.26 The route from Ortaköy through to either Kazankaya or Aydıncık, on the other hand, is likely to have been rather more strenuous, as it needed to negotiate the southern end of the Buzluk Dağları or Alan Dağı.27 From Aydıncık or Kazankaya one can head southeast towards the town of Çekerek, on the eponymous river, with a medium-sized mound (180×300m).28 The orientation of this mound is rather south, eventually towards Kültepe/Kaneš, than east into the Maşat Plain. For the 21  For these sites see Özsait 1991; Barjamovic 2011: 386. For Oluz Höyük see Glatz (chapter 7 this volume) and Corti (chapter 16 this volume). 22  See Süel 1990: 344 for the find of a ceramic fragment with a bull’s head relief in the fields around Zidankuyu Höyük, near the village of Küçük Dona. 23  Mounds at Kazankaya: Sarıbaba, Göktepe, Karagözlük, cemetery at Güllük, 3km further south small mound at Kümbethöyük. See Özgüç 1978: 69; Özgüç 1982: 143; Börker-Klähn 2014: 137. 24  Börker-Klähn 2014: 138. See Barjamovic (2011: 283–284). 25  Börker-Klähn 2014: 138 (13km). 26  Özgüç 1982: 143; Börker-Klähn 2014: 139. 27  Börker-Klähn 2014: 134. 28  Özgüç 1982: 143; the Kerkenes survey team (Summers 1998) found that there did not seem to be a major site in the vicinity of Çekerek.

53 latter direction the small site of Acıpınarhöyük seems as though it could have been a station on the way, if it can be dated to the Hittite period.29 Almost directly to the east by 15km is the excavated medium-sized site of Maşathöyük (400×225m), and from here a suite of three possibly LBA sites leads further east, parallel to the Deveci mountains and on into the Silisözü valley: Küçüközlü,30 Höyük,31 Sinnelik.32 From there one passes between the Deveci and Akdağlar through into the plain of Artova and the site of Boloshöyük situated at the Çamlıbel pass facing south.33 South of Maşathöyük, directly abutting the mountains, is the small site of Alime Tepesi.34 Occupying a pass leading south through the Deveci range is the site of Hanözü/ Ortaburun, where a caravanserai was located, and which was investigated by K. Emre.35 To the northwest of Reşadiye on the lower slopes of the Buzluk Dağları there is a significant site in the region of İğdir, although it is unclear whether this is a settlement that was occupied during the Hittite period.36 A further cluster of potentially LBA sites can be found to the north of the Maşat Plain, between Reşadiye and Zile. Some doubt is now attached to the location of the Çerkezhöyük named by T. Özgüç as the 2nd höyük after Çekerek in the direction of Zile, between Reşadiye and Zile.37 M. Özsait tentatively supposes it might have been the site of Karayünhöyük (also locally known as Eski Köy Yeri Tepesi or Höyük Tepesi), while stressing that this cannot be known.38 Also in the area, a number of smaller sites are clustered around the Karayün ridge: Dökmetepe, Okçutepe, Gavur Kalesi 29  Özsait 1999: 75; Özsait and Özsait 2001: 543 (2nd millennium BC attested, 90m diameter, 4m high). 30  Özsait 1999: 77. 31   The small to medium-sized site of Höyük/Üyük (mound 170x200m) is mentioned in survey literature as one of the more significant in the region: Özgüç 1982: 141; Özsait 1999: 80. 32  Sinnelik, Özsait 1999: 80; Özsait and Özsait 2001: 544–545 (most of the ceramics Colony and Old Hittite periods). Further 2nd millennium BC sites in this area are Destimelik and Taşlıca (Özsait 1999). 33  For this site see Alparslan (ch. 15, this volume). 34  Özsait 2000a: 76. 35  Özgüç 1982: 142; Emre 1992. 36  Börker-Klähn 2014: 137, 141 (= Karahna?); Cilağıntepe: M. Özsait notes few but mainly EBA ceramic finds (2007: 455). The other sites in the plain of İğdir apear to be mostly EBA and Roman according to what has been observed so far (Özsait loc. cit.). 37  Özgüç 1982: 71. See also reference to Çerkezhöyük at BörkerKlähn 2014: 137. 38  Özsait 1999: 77. Dimensions (loc. cit.) 90×125m, 12m high, although from the image on Google Earth the site looks as though it could be slightly larger, possibly even including a demarcated lower city area to the west (40° 14ʹ 01" 35° 44' 20").

54 and Kayapınarın Tepe.39 One might cautiously suppose that the Karayün ridge, around and on which these sites are clustered, had some kind of significance. Northeast from this group and only 10km west of Zile is the multiperiod site of Akdoğan-Kaletepe, at the feet of the Buzluk Dağları, which has now apparently been damaged by illegal diggings.40 The medium-sized mound at Zile (Roman Zela) is the same size as that at Maşat, if not even a little larger, and must have been of some importance.41 It has been associated with Hittite Anziliya.42 The three largest sites in the area are Maşat and Höyük/Üyük, the two of which are close to each other in the southwest near to the Deveci Dağları, and Zile to the northeast close to the Buzluk Dağları, with Boloshöyük being a large site at the border to the next region towards the south. Excavations Excavations have been conducted at four sites in this region, which are also among the most significant Hittite sites in central Anatolia next to Boğazköy-Hattuša: Alacahöyük, Eskiyapar, Maşathöyük and Ortaköy. The excavations at Alacahöyük are among the most iconic and significant in the history of the Turkish Republic.43 The original excavations at Eskiyapar and those at Maşathöyük belong to an earlier phase of archaeology and have provided the bedrock for much of what we know about the Hittite state. New excavations at Eskiyapar (directed by T. Sipahi since 2010) offer the opportunity to revisit and clarify with modern methods some of the material of the previous excavations as well as bringing a wealth of new information. The excavations at Ortaköy have been ongoing since 1990 to the present day and have produced startling results, for an assessment of some of which and further literature the reader is referred to chapter 3, this volume. After numerous visits by the early foreign travellers from W. J. Hamilton (1835) onwards, some preliminary excavations on the mound of Alacahöyük (277×310m) had partially cleared the Sphinx Gate (Perrot and Guillaume in 1872) at the south and revealed a postern gate at the west of the mound (Winckler and Makridi in 1908). Turkish excavations at Alacahöyük started under R. Arık 39  Özsait 1999. 40  Özsait 1999: 78; Özsait 2007: 456. 41  Özsait 2007: 452–3. 42  Alp 1991b: 9. 43  Çınaroğlu and Çelik 2010.

süel et al. and H. Koşay in 1935, were continued until 1948, and resumed from 1963 to 1978.44 One motivation for the excavations was to find if the ruins corresponded to the Hittite city of Arinna.45 The mound was covered with a village of some 200 households, which was gradually removed until 1968. The extensive and famous Early Bronze Age remains including significant tombs finish with level 5. The Hittite levels (2, 3a, 3b, 4) were sealed in parts by extensive burning at both beginning and end and in addition level 4 appears to have been largely destroyed by a fire with extensive in situ finds signalling an abrupt end, although at least one part of the mound was spared.46 Level 4 contained among other things a group of three large stone and plaster-lined silos. Level 3 contained to the northwest of the Sphinx gate a “small palace”, the earlier phases of which appear to have been occupied by workshops including remains of iron slag.47 A sewage system made of clay pipes in channels lined and covered with stone slabs was continually in use between levels 2–3b, and an earlier sewage system with the same orientation was found in level 4.48 A “templepalace” complex to the northeast of the Sphinx Gate was uncovered, the column-bases of the palace hall being contemporaneous with the Sphinx gate, both belonging to level 2.49 This has more recently been argued to be a regular palace rather than a combination of temple and palace, although the current excavator still retains this label.50 The new excavations conducted since 1997 under the direction of A. Çınaroğlu have done much to deepen and expand the perspective produced by the earlier excavations.51 New silos have been discovered that belong to the level 2 “temple-palace” building, reinforcing its function as a distributive palatial centre. The excavation of a 44  Main publications of the earlier excavations: Arık 1937a; Koşay 1938; 1951; Koşay and Akok 1966; 1973; For brief summaries see Gürsan-Salzman 1992: 2–3; Özgüç 2002; Mielke 2011: 1039–1042. 45  Arık 1937b: 211. 46  Burning was absent for the transition between EBA Level 5 and Hittite Level 4 in Trench B, Squares 40–42/XXXVI–XL, GürsanSalzman 1992: 29–30. Similarly the Building E Complex appears to have escaped the burning of level 4, Gürsan-Salzman 1992: 35–36. 47  Gürsan-Salzman 1992: 25. 48  Gürsan-Salzman 1992: 50. 49  Gürsan-Salzman 1992: 24. 50  Mielke 2011: 1041–42, with previous literature; Çınaroğlu and Çelik 2011: 186. 51  Reports from the excavations can be found in the series Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı from 1999 onwards.

Central East: Archaeology

metal-workshop has also been conducted over a number of years. It appears to have been in use at least in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC and quite possibly also in the Middle Hittite period, if references to “Hittite period slag” in the provisional reports can be interpreted in this way.52 The excavation team has also done much to investigate and restore the Hittite dam at Gölpınar to the southeast of the site, on the way to Eskiyapar. Eskiyapar is situated 10.5km southeast of Alacahöyük, 20.7km from Boğazköy and 42km from Ortaköy.53 After a sondage made by E. Akurgal, who was working at Alacahöyük in 1945, excavations under R. Temizer of Ankara Museum of Anatolian Civilisations began in 1968 and continued through until 1983. The impulse for the excavations came from the find of a relief vase with four bulls on the mound, which was at that time covered with a modern village. Much of the effort during the early excavations was associated with moving the village, as had also been done at Alacahöyük, off the mound. Further excavations on the north of the mound were conducted by Çorum Museum from 1989–1992. The most recent excavations have been conducted by T. Sipahi of Ankara University since 2010. Two Early Bronze Age levels were uncovered, yielding a number of items of metalwork with connections from the Aegean to Mesopotamia.54 A large Old Hittite residential area was revealed in the northeast sector of the mound, Eskiyapar first excavation levels VIa–c.55 Here a large inventory of different types of Old Hittite ceramic vessels were found, including some of the classic and defining forms of the Old Hittite ceramic repertoire.56 Notable is the cup enclosing a naked seated female figurine with a headdress consisting of discs, found in the earliest phase VIc.57 Furthermore a seal-impression corresponding to the style of the well-known Tyskiewicz group was found on a bulla in area T/6.58 This type can now be dated with more precision due to the find of a similarly styled sealing from Büklükale from a layer dated to the early 16th century BC or earlier.59 52  Çınaroğlu and Çelik 2011: 190. 53  Sipahi 2011: 80. 54  Özgüç and Temizer 1993; Sipahi 2011: 81. 55  Temizer apud Özgüç 1988: XXVIII; Özgüç 1999a: 1. VIa–c included two Old Hittite levels and one Middle Hittite, while Level V was considered Empire Period. 56  Özgüç 1999a. 57  Özgüç 1999a: 3–4; Sipahi 2013b. 58  Dinçol and Dinçol 1988. 59  Weeden 2016.

55 The new excavations have aimed at refining the stratigraphy.60 A tablet found in North Sector level K2 (Middle Hittite) in 2011 contains, according to the assessment of A. Süel, part of a letter that mentions both Arinna and Tahurpa, the latter being one proposal for the Hittite name of Eskiyapar.61 Of course, this find does not prove the identification, at least for the time being. A number of seal-impressions have also been found at Eskiyapar in the new excavations, which further illustrate the early use of hieroglyphic writing at Eskiyapar as well as documenting a close connection with seal-use at Boğazköy-Hattuša.62 Preliminary excavations at Maşathöyük 20km southwest of Zile were conducted by E. Akurgal in 1944, after a clay tablet was found on the surface site.63 They were resumed by T. Özgüç during the 1970s and 1980s, and are primarily published in two volumes as well as several articles.64 The most significant philological finds from the site are dealt with in chapter 15.65 The site is built onto a limestone outcrop on top of a 30m high natural mound and contains a citadel and a lower city, which is partially spread over the slope of the hill on three terraces.66 Four Hittite levels were uncovered at Maşathöyük, with a Middle Bronze Age/kārum period level V, with the most impressive finds being associated with Level III, dated to the end of the 15th/ beginning of the 14th centuries BC. The palace building with two wings preserved flanking a large colonnaded courtyard is built to fit the contours of the bedrock. According to Özgüç’s interpretation, the palace would have had two floors above ground level towards the northwest and northeast, where it was built directly onto the bedrock at the highest point of the mound, thus presenting an imposing aspect to anyone approaching from Boğazköy, by extension also to anyone approaching from the northeast.67 The east side of the palace contained rooms with large storage pithoi, four of which showed notations incised after firing, possibly indications of quantity.68 The Middle Hittite archive from

60  The stratigraphy of the recent excavations is still provisional, but excavations in the North Sector have three Old Hittite levels, K3–5, and a Middle Hittite level K2. Sipahi 2014: 49–50. 61  Sipahi 2012b: 50 with fn. 9. 62  Sipahi 2013b: fig. 1; Sipahi and Weeden in press. 63  Güterbock 1944. 64  Özgüç 1978; 1982. 65  Özgüç 1982: 73. 66  Özgüç 1982: 73. 67  Özgüç 1982: 76. 68  Özgüç 1982: 77.

56 Maşat comes from two rooms and the courtyard on the eastern side, and was presumably kept in an upper storey.69 Much of the western part of the palace was overlaid and may have been destroyed by part of a large building containing an altar belonging to Hittite Level II, which should had been built by Šuppiluliuma I, according to the find of a seal-impression of that ruler, after the violent destruction of Maşat level III.70 Later Hittite buildings on the eastern side of the complex (“Buildings of Group A”) are much smaller and not so monumental, but also seem to have been destroyed by fire, with various cooking pots left intact, around 1200 BC (Maşat Hittite Level I).71 Here a number of seal-impressions from the 13th century BC were found which have yet to be published. Lower City Level V (17th century BC, according to the excavator) on the slopes of the citadel shows smaller houses with mainly timber-beam construction. Again this level, which seems to have spread all around the slopes, was destroyed by fire. Further Hittite levels through to level I were also identified in these terraced slope areas, but a level corresponding to V in the lower city does not appear to be attested yet on the citadel itself. A large building with a courtyard was excavated in southeast sector level III (corresponding to level II on the citadel) and appears to have continued in use until the end of Hittite level I, when it also appears to have been burned. Conclusions Interpretation of the philological data has suggested that Maşathöyük-Tapikka was a border town, due to the fact that it was the seat of a BĒL MADGALTI, “watchpost commander”, and it is sometimes labelled as such in archaeological literature.72 If Maşathöyük was a border town, only 116km from Boğazköy-Hattuša as the crow flies, then other mounds in the region that were inhabited at the same time, may equally have to be considered border installations, particularly Zile, which is considerably more exposed towards the northeast. In the parallel-running 69  Özgüç 1978. 70  Özgüç 1982: 78. 71  Özgüç 1982: 77. 72  Özgüç 1980: 308; Mielke 2011: 1045.

süel et al. valleys of the Çekerek and Özderesi on the other side of the Buzluk Dağları, it may also be necessary to consider those settlements too as essentially occupying border positions, at least during some historical phases: Ayvalıpınar, Oluz Höyük, Gediksaray, Kocamantepe, Ortaköy-Šapinuwa. In the last case the capital city status that the king and government’s presence during the reign of Tudhaliya II (III) accords the settlement attests to an aggressive executive mobility that can perhaps be compared to Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II’s attempt to move to a capital at the northern Dūr-Šarrukīn (Khorsabad) at the height of his altercation with Urartu. The number of settlements between Boğazköy-Hattuša and Ortaköy-Šapinuwa (56km) that have been established by survey as being likely to belong to the LBA is considerably higher than the number of settlements thus far detected between the complex Aydıncık-Kazankaya and Zile (52km). According to the current count there are roughly thirty-five settlements that may be attributable to the Hittite period to be found in the first group, and only fifteen in the second.73 The settlements in the MaşatZile area are also clustered into four main groups (Maşat, the group around the Karayün ridge, Zile, the group on the route out into the Artova plain), rather than being spread relatively equally over the landscape as they are in the Alaca plain and up the Özderesi valley. Naturally this may be a problem of perspective due to the nature of the survey evidence, but there does appear to be a different profile to the settlement distribution of the Alaca plain, which may itself also support the idea of the Maşat-Zile area as a border region, facing the central Hattusa area on the west, concentrations of Kaška to the northeast, and the provincial Upper Land to the southeast and east.

73  This figure is arrived at for the Maşat-Zile area by counting those sites that are either explicitly mentioned as Hittite or Late Bronze Age in the survey literature referred to above, as well as those that mentioned as being second millennium, but excluding those which are specified in the literature as Middle Bronze Age without referring to Late Bronze Age. It is clear that this is an imperfect tool. However, the impression is quite apparent from the surveys conducted by M. and N. Özsait that the majority of sites in the Maşat-Zile region are Early Bronze Age and/or Roman.

Central East: Archaeology

Figure 5.1

Map of Central East area with surveyed potential LBA sites and excavated LBA sites.

Figure 5.2

The view from the hill above Eskiyapar to the southwest.

57

CHAPTER 6

The East: Archaeology

The Upper Land, Azzi-Hayaša, Išuwa Andreas Müller-Karpe Like most Hittite geographical terms, no exact definition can be given for KUR AN.TA / KUR ELITI (“Upper Land”) and its Eastern neighbours, KUR Azzi, KUR Hayaša and KUR Išuwa. Therefore these terms will be used here in a wider sense, including the entire region northeast from Central Anatolia’s highest mountain, the Erciyes Dağı (mons Argaios/ Ariyattis Harharrayis; Fig. 6.2).1

History of Research

Hittite Archaeology started in the region with exploration traveling and the documentation of monuments which were never buried beneath the earth like the Fraktin Relief (Fig 6.4a). This was first noticed by A. H. Sayce in 1880.2 For a long time research was concentrated on the central parts of the Hittite Empire, more eastern regions had been almost ignored. Only some survey projects had been undertaken by the Alişar Expedition team 1927–31 (Oriental Institute Chicago), in 1940 by Kılıç Kökten (University of Ankara) and then in 1950 by Charles Burney (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara).3 But these expeditions brought only very little progress to our knowledge of the 2nd millennium BC settlement in this vast region. The first substantial progress was reached, when salvage excavations in the context of the construction of the KebanDam (Elazığ prov.) started in 1968. In the Altınova, most probably the heartland of Išuwa, several mounds were excavated systematically.4 One of the astonishing results: pottery, metal objects and sealings were almost the same as in Hattuša, 450km away. This proves that the KebanUpper Euphrates Region temporarily not only belonged politically to the Hittite Empire, as already known from

1  Generally the “Upper Land“, is defined as the “Northeastern Part of the Hittite Empire” (Wilhelm 2003:7). Sometimes the region around Kayseri, with the Erciyes Dağı at its center, is included here (Ünal 2002:136). 2  Sayce 1880; Ramsay and Hogarth 1893: 87f.; Kohlmeyer 1983: 67–74; Ehringhaus 2005: 59–64. 3  For references see Ökse 1993: 21–22. 4  van Loon 1980; Korbel 1984; Esin 2001.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_007

written sources, but also culturally. Central Anatolian, Hittite Culture obviously spread up to this area. Far more to the east and northeast, in the Azzi-Hayaša, region, a comparable Hittite influence is lacking. But only very little research of 2nd millennium sites had been done up to now in this region: Antonio Sagona excavated Büyüktepe Höyük (39°54ʹ51.79ʺE; 40°11ʹ53.05ʺN— Çiftetaş Köyü, Bayburt prov.) in 1990–1992, then 1994– 2000 Soshöyük (41°31ʹ20.01ʺE; 39°59ʹ37.40ʺN—Yığıttaşı Köyü Erzurum prov.) and Aynur Özfırat carried out several survey projects including small rescue excavations in the Highlands of Eastern Anatolia with a special focus on the 2nd millennium BC.5 In the “Upper Land”, Eastern Cappadocia or modern Sivas Province with some adjacent regions, archaeological research also began with surveys. Jak Yakar and Ayşe Gürsan-Salzmann worked in this area in 1975 but it was first Tuba Ökse who tried to record systematically all findspots during her survey in 1992– 1999.6 Atilla Engin has carried on her work since 2007.7 In 1993 excavations started at Kuşaklı (36°54ʹ35.68ʺE; 39°18ʹ29.47ʺN), which shortly later turned out to be the Hittite city Šarišša, and since 2005 Kayalıpınar (36°31ʹ40.70ʺE; 39°37ʹ10.34ʺN) has been excavated by the same team from Philipps University, Marburg, Germany.8 During the 2014 season the decisive tablet was discovered, furnishing the proof for the identification of Kayalıpınar with ancient Šamuha, the capital of the “Upper Land” in Hittite times.9 This identification offers the key to understanding more of Hittite Geography of the region and helps to localize also other toponyms. Origins According to archaeological evidence, Late Bronze Age Hittite culture developed from the Central Anatolian Early 5  Sagona, Pemberton and McPhee 1993: 74; Sagona 2000: 66; Özfırat 2001a; id. 2001b. 6  Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1979; Ökse 1998; 2000; 2001; 2014. 7  Engin in press; Engin et al. 2014. 8  Müller-Karpe 2000; 2002; 2006; 2007; 2009. 9  Rieken 2014.

59

The East: Archaeology

and Middle Bronze Age without a significant break. The forerunners of the Hittite language might be of foreign origin, but material culture shows long lasting local traditions. Architecture, metalwork and pottery from times of the Hittite Kingdom all had their roots in the era of the Old Assyrian Trade Colonies, which consequently is called also “Early Hittite”.10 The heartland of these developments seem to be the Middle and Upper Kızılırmak (Maraššanta/ Halys) Region: during the first quarter of the second millennium the greatest diversity of types of pottery and other goods can be noticed in Alişar, Kültepe-Kaneš/Neša and Kayalıpınar. Only a limited range of types reached Boğazköy-Hattuš(a), which belonged to the northern peripheral zone of Early Hittite Culture in this time. Also later the dynasty of Hittite Kings derived from the “Upper Land”, the city of Kuššara,11 which might be located at the site Kalkankaya (36°40ʹ29.08ʺE; 39°46ʹ38.65ʺN—Yıldızeli, Bayat Köyü), 9km north of the Kızılırmak Valley. The region of this river valley and its cultural heritage played an important role for “Hittite Identity” as can be seen by the fact, that the writing elite of the Hittite State and most probably normal people also, called their own language našili / nešumnili (derived from Neša) in contrast to hattili, the ancient non-Indo-European language, spoken by the former natives of the Land of Hatti.12 With good reason the long-standing excavator of Kültepe, Tahsin Özgüç, calls Kaneš/Neša “the oldest capital city of the Hittites”.13 Important steps of the formation process of Hittite culture took place in this region of the middle and upper Kızılırmak Valley. But the city Kaneš/Neša itself was destroyed at the end of the Early Hittite Period and could not play a role any more in the time of the Hittite Kingdom.

Landmarks, Rock Reliefs and Boundaries

Concerning the former geographical or political units only very little archaeological information is available. From second millennium Anatolia no traces of fortified borderlines are known and it is highly improbable, that such limes-like fortifications ever existed here at this time. The “Cappadocian Wall”, erected right on the watershed between the Pontic River-System in the north and rivers flowing into the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea in the south cannot be dated exactly until now. One of 10  Sometimes the misleading expression “Pre-Hittite” is still used. 11  Bryce 1998: 37, 65. 12  Bryce 1998: 10–20. 13  Özgüç 2003.

the best preserved parts of this borderline had been discovered up in the mountains just 2.5km south of Šarišša (36°54ʹ52.98ʺE; 39°16ʹ57.84ʺN). It might be interpreted in context with the Neo-Hittite States, defeated by Sargon II of Assyria, who subsequently established a strongly fortified frontier against Muski, Kasku and Urartu in the late 8th century BC, as he reports proudly in his annals. The wall on top of the mountain range in Eastern Cappadocia could have marked this northern frontier of the Assyrian Empire.14 But as a geographically very important watershed, which divides Anatolia into three parts, this landmark most probably already had a special importance during the time of the Hittite Kingdom: within its range at least two sanctuaries were established. Furthermore in the district town Altınyayla/Tonosa, just at the foot of the Karatonus Dağı (36°43ʹ7.27ʺE; 39°11ʹ46.85ʺN), thought to be Mount Sarissa in Hittite times, a sculptured stele with a relief was found, showing a person, probably the Great King, offering a libation to the God on a Stag, Kurunta (Fig. 6.4b). There might be a connection of the erection of this stele with a Hittite text, telling that Tuthaliya IV used to come to the region for hunting.15 We have to interpret this hunting not only as a royal amusement but also as a symbolic act, mentioned in a religious text. The origin of the stele and the royal hunting at this mountain of all mountains is more than mere chance: The former volcano is indeed a key-point of Near Eastern geography, the only place from which water flows to the three seas, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and via the Euphrates as far as the Persian Gulf. Tuthaliya IV could not find a better place to demonstrate his claim to be šar kiššati “King of the whole (world)”.16 Since early times the vision that the seas should be ultimately the boundaries of the empire, was a fundamental part of the ideology of the Hittite Kingdom,17 although this aim was never completely achieved. Interior boundaries continued to play a role during the entire second millennium. The only traces of these borders are the supposed rock reliefs. Some scholars interpret the famous relief of Great King Hattušili III and his wife Puduhepa at Fraktin (35°37ʹ46.56ʺE; 38°16ʹ8.11ʺN—near Develi) as a marker of the northern borderline of Kizzuwatna.18 The scene shows the royal couple in the course of a ritual. Both are pouring libations, the king to the Storm-God and the queen to the goddess Hepat (Fig. 6.4a). To the right of the reliefs, an 14  Müller-Karpe 2009c. 15  Hawkins 2006: 53, 62, 63. 16  Herbordt et al. 2011: 19. 17  Bryce 1998: 68. 18  Ehringhaus 2005: 64.

60 inscription refers to Puduhepa’s country of origin: “daughter of the country of Kizzuwatna, beloved of the gods” (kázu(wa)-na REGIO FILIUS DEUS á-zi/a-mi). Probably to the same borderline belong reliefs at three more find spots in this region south of Erciyes Dağı: At Taşçı in the Zamantı valley of the Yenice river, only 15km downstream from Fraktin a procession of several persons is depicted (Fig. 6.4c). Each of them is combined with their name and title, but without any sign of a land.19 They belong to the time of Hattušili III as well. At İmamkulu the motif is once more different.20 The Storm-God in his bull drawn chariot is supported by (or better drives above) three mountain gods (Fig. 6.4d). He moves towards a goddess on eagles. Behind him there is the picture of a prince or local king with a bow, named Kuwalanamuwa. This person alone with a similar pose and inscription, is shown also at the roadside of Gezbeli (36°0ʹ53.63ʺE; 38°12ʹ48.81ʺN; Fig. 6.4e). The place is a quite typical one for Hittite rock reliefs, right at a natural borderline, in this case a mountain pass. It demonstrates to travellers from the outside, that they are now entering the territory of the ruler depicted at the rock. Also some monuments from the Neo-Hittite Period were found at comparable topographic locations but taken all together are not enough to allow any reconstruction of extension and limits of former territories. Cities The first phase of urbanization can be dated already to the late 4th millennium in the Upper Euphrates Valley, i.e. Malatya. But in Central Anatolia this development took place not until about one millennium later. This second phase of urbanization came to an end with the destruction of the Middle Bronze Age / Early Hittite centers Kültepe, level Kārum Kaneš Ib, Kayalıpınar level 5, Malatya period VA and Korucutepe Phase H at about the mid 18th century BC. Some of the cities of this period were abandoned completely, others regained their importance in the time of the Hittite Kingdom, the Late Bronze Age. Typical topographic positions of Middle Bronze Age Cities are mounds on flat plains or in valleys. Mostly they had forerunners at the same place; smaller settlements from which they gradually grew and developed into urban centres. In contrast Late Bronze Age Cities were constructed on top of natural hills or mountains more frequently 19  Ehringhaus 2005: 65–70. 20  Ehringhaus 2005: 70–75.

Müller-Karpe

and only some of them have characteristics of mounds (höyük). These sites normally show a topographical division into an upper part, called “acropolis” or “citadel” and lower terraces, the “lower town”. Slopes in between usually were used as building ground too. Hittite architects developed a great mastery in building on rocky scarps and steep slopes. An impressive example is the Hittite city of Kalkankaya (Yıldızeli, Bayat Köyü), which is located in a mountainous region.21 Like in Hattuša, both sides of a deep gorge are integrated into the city area. In alluvial plains sometimes an old höyük was used as a citadel, while the proper city area or “lower town” expanded into the surrounding plain, but now lies below the actual surface. Its former extension is difficult to detect, due to later sediments, which buried Hittite strata. This should be the case at Malatya-Arslantepe, Korucutepe and probably also Norşuntepe (39°28ʹ12.35ʺE; 38°37ʹ6.75ʺN).22 As archaeological research normally is concentrated just on the mounds, flat settlements were not recognized in most cases. Only very few sites were investigated by excavations. More urban centres, as well as smaller settlements, are known from surveys but the greatest amount is still to be discovered. The most detailed information is available from Kuşaklı-Šarišša.23 The site is situated on a promontory at the southern edge of a high valley, called “Altınyayla Ovası”. The uppermost point of the acropolis has an altitude of 1665m above sea level, the surrounding mountains are about 2000m high. Correspondingly the climate is very harsh with short hot and dry summers and long winters with severe frost and heavy blizzards. Only two months a year are completely free of frost. During the city’s floruit environmental conditions were somewhat better than today, but there is no doubt that it was was an ecologically risky region. In contrast to other urban centres, Šarišša did not emerge from a smaller settlement, its existence is thought to be a result of a royal foundation act. This act took place during the Old Hittite Period in the early twenties or thirties of the 16th century BC.24 The fortifications and main buildings were erected according to a sophisticated master-plan oriented according to the cardinal points of the compass, to the axis northwest/southeast and northeast/

21  Ökse 2000: 92 - 96. 22  Di Nocera 1998; Esin 2001; Korbel 1985; van Loon 1980; Manuelli 2013. 23  Müller-Karpe 2002. 24  Müller-Karpe 2009b.

61

The East: Archaeology

southeast respectively.25 The city area is divided into lower parts, terraces, slopes and a central elevation, the acropolis (fig. 6.5). Most areas were built up with domestic architecture, houses of various sizes, closely packed, leaving only small and irregular roads or footpaths. But the northern terrace and the entire acropolis were reserved for public buildings, mainly temples and adjoining buildings. Therefore from the beginning various districts with specific functions can be distinguished inside the city. Not only extensive excavations but also the combination with area-wide geophysical survey allows one to recognize these basic structures of urban geography. There are also interesting turning points within the urban development of the city. During the 15th or early 14th century BC large parts of the city were destroyed by a severe earthquake. Walls not only collapsed but even foundations were cracked and shifted partially. Within a temple the earthquake left a cleft in the natural rock beneath the floor. Later this cleft was covered up with slabs of stone in the course of the reconstruction of the building after the catastrophe. When the slabs were removed during the excavation, the cleft was found still empty, it had not been filled up with earth since the event. With the exception of a horse stable and one of the public buildings on the acropolis (called Building E), which were abandoned after the disaster, presumably most of the city was rebuilt immediately and maintained its role as a regional centre (Kuşaklı Period II). Towards the end of the Middle Hittite Period, shortly before the mid 14th century BC, Šarišša was conquered, looted and partly burned down. Especially important public buildings, like temples, became victims of the looters and burning. A bulla with a seal impression of Tuthalija II/III (?) and fragments of a Mycenean LH III A2-jar from the destruction level help in dating the event. Once more the city recovered (Kuşaklı Period III). It was rebuilt and even enlarged, probably at some point during the 13th century BC, Šarišša grew to a size of 46 ha. Like most Hittite cities, Šarišša suffered its final destruction in the time around 1200 BC. Again it was looted and burned down. In contrast to earlier disasters, now most of the inhabitants left the city, were killed or deported. Only a small part of them remained or survived and returned to dwell in the ruins of the mostly destroyed city (Kuşaklı Period IV). Most probably these people lived here for not more than some decades. This period is called “SubHittite” and not “Early Iron Age” because traditions from times of the Hittite Empire are still dominant. But Šarišša 25  Müller-Karpe, Müller-Karpe and Schrimpf 2009.

had lost its urban character, a poor settlement with small huts between ruins remained until it too was abandoned. Kayalıpınar-Šamuha has had a different development and one of the reasons is its geographical situation.26 The site is located at the northern bank of the Kızılırmak (Maraššanta/Halys) 45km southwest of modern day Sivas (fig. 6.6). The river valley, which is upstream and downstream mostly about 1–2km broad in this region, becomes wider at Kayalıpınar. The ancient city lies just at the center of this very fertile plain. The environment is therefore favourable for agricultural use and is also advantageous for transport. It is no surprise that such a favourable place was settled since the late 5th millennium BC. The nucleus of the Hittite city is formed by an old höyük, the so-called South-Eastern Hill, one of several elevations within the city area. This mound at the southern edge of a glacial river terrace produced remains from the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. During the Middle Bronze Age the settlement expanded substantially to the north and East and developed an urban character. This period is represented by layer 5 and 6 at the South-Eastern Hill (fig. 6.7). These layers are partially disturbed or even destroyed by later Hittite occupation, but some areas show also a very good preservation with walls still standing up to a height of 1.3m. The architecture is well planned with a regular, right-angled layout. Up to now, no public building but only domestic architecture of this period was excavated. Two fragments of Old Assyrian trade documents, referring to local Anatolian merchants, one of them named Tamura, as well as a good amount of clay sealings from various containers with impressions of Mesopotamian style cylinder seals and local stamp seals are clear evidence for commercial activities in this district,27 which can thus be interpreted as part of the Assyrian trading base in the city of Šamuha. According to texts from Kültepe, this base first had minor importance as a “wabartum”, but developed later to a “kārum”.28 Like other cities of this period, Kayalıpınar was sacked and burned down. But in contrast to e.g. Kültepe and Acemhöyük the place was not abandoned but resettled at the beginning of the Old Hittite Kingdom. Now, the district at the South-Eastern Hill of Kayalıpınar changed its character completely: The ruins of the Early Hittite houses were levelled and a palace complex consisting of at least three buildings (A–C) connected to each other, was erected over them (level 4). The main building (A) lies in 26  Müller-Karpe 2000; 2006; 2009a. 27  Müller-Karpe 2009a. 28  Barjamovic 2011: 150–154.

62 a controlling position, right at the southern edge of the hill, looking over the river valley (fig. 6.6). Massive walls and a staircase indicate a monumental and relatively high construction with at least two superimposed storeys. The entrance is situated at the northern side. It was framed by sculptured blocks of limestone. The right hand block shows a seated goddess with a drinking bowl in one hand and a bird in the other. Traces of a broken second figure might be restored as standing person in front of the goddess, probably the Great King. Scattered finds of more badly damaged sculpture indicate a façade with reliefs. At a right angle to this northern façade, building B and C were erected. They had more serving functions as estate buildings for economic purposes. Building B might have been a royal “Seal House” (É NA4.KISIB), a depot under official control.29 Clay sealings from various containers with impressions of stamp seals from the Great Queen (Tawananna), discovered in the debris of this building, are important for its interpretation. In contrast to the main building (A) with its more complicated ground plan, building B is structured in a simple rectangular fashion (slightly oblique) with a ladder shaped plan. Its outer wall showed narrow projections and alcoves. During the Middle Hittite Period the palace was destroyed by a disastrous fire. It might be dated by seal impressions to the Great King Tuthalija I/II together with his wife Nikalmati from the late 15th century BC.30 There are some indications for an earthquake as source of the fire. Presumably, but not necessarily it was the same earthquake event, which damaged the temples in Šarišša and destroyed also other buildings there (end of Kuşaklı Period I). But this disaster did not interrupt urban development. In Kayalıpınar-Šamuha the palace complex was rebuilt only with small changes immediately after the destruction. This younger phase of the complex belongs to level 3, which ended in a conflagration as well. But in this case the buildings had been plundered systematically before they were burned down, a clear sign of a hostile conquest. A seal-impression from Kantuzzili, commander of the Royal Bodygard (GAL.MEŠEDI), a brother or uncle of Šuppiluliuma I (first half 14th century BC) and some fragments of Hittite and Hurrian tablets in late Middle Hittite writing ductus indicate a connection of this event with the so called “concentric invasion” during the reign of Tuthalija II/III, when “from afar, the Azzian enemy came and sacked all the Upper Lands and he made Šamuha his

29  Mühlenbruch 2014: 291. 30  Müller-Karpe and Müller-Karpe 2009:189.

Müller-Karpe

frontier”.31 This invasion should have been also responsible for the destruction of Šarišša at the end of period II. Both cities were rebuilt very shortly after the disaster and Šamuha even temporarily assumed the function of a royal residence. A new palace was erected, Building D (level 2), eastward adjacent to the old palace complex (A–C). Like most of the Hittite cities, Šamuha suffered its final destruction at the end of the 13th or beginning of the 12th century BC. None of the other Hittite cities in the “Upper Land” have been the object of any excavation up to now. Only very limited sondages without any significant results were carried out in the centre of modern Sivas at Topraktepe.32 Some of the other places only known from surveys, are even bigger than Šamuha, like Kalkankaya (Kuššara? c. 24 ha).33 Of special importance is Gökdin Kale (c. 28ha), 20km East-north-East from Sivas immediately at the northern bank of the Kızılırmak—Maraššanta (37°15ʹ10.55ʺE; 39°48ʹ5.17ʺN).34 This site is a good candidate for Pitiyarik, which is linked to Šamuha in several texts.35 From the East Anatolian Azzi-Hayaša region no Late Bronze Age sites are known that can be called “cities”. But in Išuwa, Korucutepe as the centre of the Altınova probably had an urban character.36 In fact the mound measures only 190m in diameter, but the Hittite settlement may have been much bigger (fig. 6.8a). During the rescue excavations in context of the Keban-Dam Salvage Program 12 phases could be distinguished at the 16m high mound, labelled with letters A–L. The Middle Bronze Age is represented by the Phases G and H, Late Bronze Age by the phases I and J. Beside typical Hittite pottery, bronze tools, needles and weapons 5 stamp seals with hieroglyphic inscriptions and a series of clay bullae and lumps with impressions from 25 different Hieroglyphic seals were found, among them one of a local King Ari-Šarruma with his wife Kilušhepa.37

Rural Settlements, Agriculture and Pastoralism

Crop production and stock-breeding was the major economic activity in Hittite times, like in all pre-industrial 31  According to the historical preamble to a decree of Hattusili III: Bryce 1998: 158. 32  Özgüç 1947: 164–166. 33  Ökse 2000; 2001; 2014. 34  Engin 2015 in press. 35  del Monte and Tischler 1978: 319–320. 36  van Loon 1980. 37  Güterbock 1980: 129; Ertem 1988: 5–11; Hawkins apud Herbordt 2005: 252; Glocker 2011.

63

The East: Archaeology

societies. By far the greatest part of the population was engaged in food production, which became also one of the dominant shaping factors of the landscape. Most of the sites known from the Middle and Late Bronze Age belong to small rural settlements but only very little archaeological work has been done on these kinds of places. One of the few excavated sites is Tepecik on the Altınova.38 Remains of three or four houses as part of a village were unearthed (fig. 6.8c). Seals with hieroglyphic inscriptions might indicate knowledge of writing even in rural settlements.39 Another site in the same region, just 4.5km to the southeast from Tepecik, is Norşuntepe, a huge oval shaped mound, 25m high, which covers an area of 150×130m including a wide stretching terrace at the south.40 Though the site is considerably larger, it is doubtful that the Late Bronze Age settlement had an urban character (fig. 6.8b). No trace of a fortification was detected.41 During the third millennium BC Norşuntepe was the central place of the Altınova, but in the Hittite Period it lost this function to Korucutepe, 5.5km to the east. On top of the mound there is no longer a palatial complex, like in the Early Bronze Age, but a farmstead.42 It is about 16m long and 9.5m wide and consists of at least 5 rooms. Other buildings were only partly preserved. From Norşuntepe seals with hieroglyphic inscriptions are known as well.43 On the Altınova a clear hierarchy of settlements can be observed. The urban centre Korucutepe stood at its top, Tepecik and Norşuntepe were secondary or tributary places. Such a structure is typical also for other regions, like the Kızılırmak-Valley. A special situation can be seen on the Altınyayla Ovası with Kuşaklı-Šarišša as the principal town. In its vicinity some smaller find spots were discovered but not excavated until now. According to their extent most of them even cannot be called villages, they would have been single farms. On this high valley not only the principal town owes its existence to a deliberate foundation act and was erected according to a sophisticated plan, its vicinity was artificially structured as well. The geometrical planning axis, decisive for the foundation phase of Šarišša, can also be observed outside the city (fig. 6.9). Some country lanes, field boundaries and edges still in use show exactly the same orientation as the public buildings 38  Müller-Karpe 1994: 90f. 39  Esin 2001. 40  Korbel 1985: 12. 41  There might have been a casemate-wall in the Middle Bronze Age: Di Nocera 2001: 90 - 91. 42  Korbel 1985: 19–38. 43  Schmidt 2002: 110.

from the Old Hittite Period inside the city. It is hard to believe this is a mere coincidence. Obviously some traces of a Hittite parcelling are preserved on the Altınyayla Ovası. It seems to be a kind of a partially “fossilised landscape”, like some regions in the Mediterranean with remains of Roman centurationes. In the case of the Altınyayla Ovası a Roman origin of these structures can be excluded. In fact we have here an example from a Bronze Age forerunner of the agrarian planning system of the Classical Period. In contrast to southern Mesopotamia, agriculture in Central and Eastern Anatolia was based not on irrigation but dry farming, which implies dependence on rainfall. The region is affected by a continental climate however; mountain ranges close to the coasts prevent maritime influence with its rainfall from extending inland. The consequences are low rates of precipitation with annual averages of about 400 millimeters up to 560 millimeters in the higher regions of Eastern Anatolia. Water supply was especially a problem during hot and dry summers. But in general the irregularity of rainfall, also during the other seasons, meant a substantial risk for agriculture and people. The Hittites tried to minimize these risks by developing sophisticated methods of water management. They were the first ones in Anatolia to build dams and water reservoirs extensively. In the vicinity of Kuşaklı-Šarišša remains of no less than six dams, up to 60m long and associated artificial basins have been discovered.44 Most of them were completely silted up but could be detected with geophysical methods and two of them were excavated. Their construction, however, is quite ingenious: first of all the Hittite engineers made a ditch by digging. It was filled up with impermeable clay. Then normal earth was heaped up, always with the clay-core inside the dam in order to prevent a leakage of water. Subsequently the earth of the dam was covered with a layer of gravel and in the end the two outer sides of the dam were paved with stone blocks. The gravel under the blocks was necessary to prevent damage by frost. This special method of constructing a dam seems to be a Hittite invention but remained in use until recent times. Another Hittite dam in the Upper Land is Karakuyu (36°43ʹ56.01ʺE; 38°53ʹ11.95ʺN) which contains a hieroglyphic inscription of Tuthalija IV.45 We should expect that many more Hittite dams and artificial ponds are still to be discovered. They were a formative feature of the cultivated landscape at this time. The ponds were necessary primarily for livestock and to irrigate gardens. As we know from investigations in Kuşaklı-Šarišša, for drinking people 44  Hüser 2007. 45  Hüser 2007: Plate 12.

64

Müller-Karpe

normally used fresh water, transported from sources in the mountains to the settlement by means of pipes made of pottery. Besides archaeological features, archaeobotanical research on carbonised seeds in the Altınova, especially Korucutepe and in Kuşaklı-Šarišša provide insight into the Hittite agriculture of the Upper Land and Išuwa.46 Barley is always the most common cereal in contexts of this time, represented with two species: hordeum distichon and hordeum vulgare. Also several sorts of wheat were grown: dominant was bread wheat (triticum aestivum) which is difficult to distinguish from macaroni (durum) wheat (triticum durum) when carbonised. But archaic cereals, known from Neolithic times, like Einkorn wheat (triticum monococcum) and Emmer wheat (triticum dicoccum) were still cultivated in the Late Bronze Age as well. Despite the fact, that they are less high-yielding these sorts were grown because they are very resistant to fungal diseases such as stem rust. Rarely spelt (triticum spelta), Sanduriwheat (triticum timopheevi) and foxtail bristlegrass (setaria italica) are documented in Hittite settlements. This astonishingly broad spectrum of cereals can be interpreted as a strategy in minimizing the hazard of crop failure and hunger. Especially barley and hulled wheat (Emmer and Einkorn) are the most drought-tolerant species. Another strategy in minimising agricultural risk is the construction of large silos for storing grain. Two examples were excavated in Kuşaklı-Šarišša. One of them is 50m long and 30m wide and had a capacity of up to 820 tons of grain.47 About 5000 persons, the approximate total number of the inhabitants of this town, could have been fed with this amount for one year. But every private household and every temple also had its own stock. Therefore the large, state-owned granaries served as an emergency reserve in case of crop shortfall and supposedly also to supply troops during a campaign. In addition to the cereals, growing of pulses played a certain role as well: Lentil (lens culinaris), bitter vetch (vicia ervilia), grass pea (lathyrus sativus) and pea (pisum). As bitter vetch and grass pea contain toxins, they need a special manner of preparation and cooking to be used as food for humans. Today they are grown only as fodder crops but in ancient times these pulses were eaten by people as part of a normal mixed diet. These vegetables were cultivated in gardens and usually needed irrigation in Central and Eastern Anatolia. It is at least partially also the case for fruit trees and the grape-vine.

Stock-breeding was the second pillar of Hittite food production. Archaeozoological research on animal bones from Korucutepe and Kuşaklı-Šarišša gives detailed information on the economic role of the different species.48 Sheep were the most frequently used farm animals with a portion of about 60%. They were bred together with goats, which were less frequent (10–20%). For pasture these animals needed large areas of grassland and when trees had been cut off for fuel or construction timber, the grazing of sheep and especially goat prohibited a natural regeneration of forests. They were responsible for an increasing steppe forming on the Central Anatolian Plateau and the Eastern Anatolian mountains. The pastoral economy had a long lasting influence on the landscape and regional climate. Beside sheep and goat also cattle breeding played an important role at this time. About a quarter of all animal bones, found in settlements mentioned above, came from cows, bulls and oxen. As a single bovine provides at least four times more meat and milk than a sheep, their importance for the Hittite diet was correspondingly high. Not less than a half of all meat and milk came from cattle. Pork played a minor role with less than 10% of the meat supply. The situation outside the Hittite centres might have been different, especially in the Eastern Anatolian highlands of Azzi/Hayaša. Presently only very few and small settlements are known in the region. Most of the find-spots are graveyards with tumuli, linked to the Kurgan-Cultures of the Eurasian steppe-zone.49 The environmental conditions and the archaeological record indicate transhumance and nomadism based on a pastoral economy. The material culture is also almost completely different from the Hittite core areas. Pottery from the so-called Araxes Culture is frequently painted with linear motives, sometimes also with stylised figures and produced without a pottery wheel.

46  Dörfler et al. 2011; van Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1975. 47  Müller-Karpe 2002: 182.

48  Dörfler et al. 2011. 49  Özfırat 2001a; id. 2001b.



Temples and Sanctuaries

Detailed information concerning sacred buildings and installations is available from Kuşaklı-Šarišša. The largest and presumably most important complex at the site is Building C, which should have been the temple of the major deity of the city, the “Storm-God of Šarišša”, also mentioned in the peace-treaty, signed by Ramses II and Hattušili III (Treaty of Qadeš) in 1259 BC. Among the finds from the temple there are a pair of bulls made of terracotta

65

The East: Archaeology

(Hurri and Šerri, companions of the Storm-God), two tablets with middle Hittite cuneiform inscriptions (letters) and the pottery inventory of a temple brewery.50 As part of the sanctuary several auxiliary buildings (A, B, D, E) were erected at the acropolis of Kuşaklı-Šarišša. Inside Building A the remains of an archive of cuneiform tablets from the second half of the 13th century BC were discovered. 48 fragments of tablets had been preserved, mainly cult inventories and oracles.51 Most important are two fragments with the description of the spring festival of Šarišša. In Building D remains of a Middle Hittite Archive were found, inter alia the description of a festival in honour of the Storm-God of Zippalanda in its temple in Hurma, which should have been not so far from Šarišša.52 Presumably the buildings had been apartments of priests and other cult personnel. Another temple was unearthed at the northern terrace. Like Building C it belongs to the oldest buildings of that city, founded c. 1530 BC and was dedicated presumably to the Goddess Anzili (Ištar). The Temple was destroyed and rebuilt several times until it found its final end during a conflagration c. 1200 BC that also spelled the end of the entire city. In the basement the temple had 50 rooms which were arranged around an inner court. The northeastern wing of the building had two storeys. There the main cult room was situated. Beside pottery and arrowheads made of bronze, c. 60 clay-sealings with imprints from hieroglyphic stamp seals were found. Up in the mountains, two more sanctuaries were discovered. One, at a distance of 2.3km to the south of the city, seemingly the Huwaši-sanctuary with the Šuppitaššu spring-fed pond (36°54ʹ54.47ʺE; 39°17ʹ6.97ʺN), mentioned in the Šarišša Ritual.53 The other was found at a distance of 9.5km to east furnished mostly with terracotta figurines of bulls as votive offerings.54 It is situated just at the watershed at Geven Gediği (37°1ʹ18.02ʺE; 39°18ʹ45.17ʺN). A place similar to the Šuppitaššu source-pond, was discovered 2km east of Saraç Köyü (36°13ʹ15.07ʺE ; 39°19ʹ39.60ʺN— Şarkışla—Sivas prov.) at Göllüce Mevkii at an altitude of 1480m.55

50  Müller-Karpe 2002. 51  Wilhelm 1997. 52  Wilhelm 2002b. 53  Ökse 1999; 2011: 227–8. 54  Miller 1999. 55  Ökse 2011: 228.



Fortifications and Military Facilities

City walls with their towers and gates are one of the most imposing Hittite remains. Their function was not limited to military purposes as defensive walls to protect the inhabitants, they are also demonstrations of power and should impress visitors. City walls also had a juridical function by dividing the urban and extra-urban sphere and last but not least they had a symbolic or even religious meaning.56 Hittite city walls usually were constructed as casemate walls. An early example is known from Korucutepe/Elazığ in Išuwa (fig. 6.8a). During excavations conducted by M. van Loon a 240m long section, of a wall of this type, was unearthed. It belongs to the earlier Middle-Bronze Age Phase H in the Korucutepe stratigraphy, but presumably the Late Bronze Age settlement was surrounded by such a wall as well.57 The entire site is now flooded by the Keban-dam. Traces of a city wall can still be seen at KayalıpınarŠamuha.58 According to observations on the terrain, topographical conditions and results of an extensive geomagnetic survey, the Late Bronze Age city wall enclosed an area of 23.1ha. The outer wall had a length of about 1.8km, in addition also interior walls had been detected, comparable with the situation in Boğazköy. The chronology of these several alignments is not yet investigated. The casemate walls are on average 6.5m wide. The outer wall showed four gates, arranged according to the cardinal points of the compass. It should have been this wall, which Hattušili III described in the context of his struggle for the throne, c. 1265 BC. His nephew, the legitimate Great King Muršili III/Urhitešup fled to Šamuha and while he was bottled up there (“like a pig in a hog house”) by the troops of Hattušili, a part of the wall, 40 gipeššar (c. 20m) long, suddenly collapsed, opening the way for Hattušili to arrest him.59 Apart from the general aid of the goddess Ištar of Šamuha to Hattušili, no special explanation concerning the reason of the unexpected collapse is given in the text. A. Ünal assumed an earthquake.60 Certainly the city wall was rebuilt after this event. The magnetic gradiometer map indicates, that the city gates were burned down during the final destruction, most probably around 1200 BC. This feature is very typical for Hittite cities. During a siege, city gates are the most vulnerable points of the fortification and it is more than only coincidence, that all Hittite 56  Beckman 1999b; Müller-Karpe 2013. 57  Yiğit 1995: 242; Di Nocera 2001: 91–92. 58  Müller-Karpe and Müller-Karpe 2009: 228. 59  Lebrun 1976: 13. 60  Ünal 1977: 445.

66 city gates known up to now, be it in Boğazköy, Kuşaklı, Tille or Porsuk, show traces of a destruction by fire. More detailed information about the fortifications exist from the site of Kuşaklı-Šarišša. Also here the city wall was constructed in the manner of a casemate wall with towers at equal distances of ca 25m from each other.61 In the first phase, dated by dendrochronology to the beginning of the final third of the 16th century BC, it was 1.5km long and enclosed an oval shaped area of 18ha (fig 6.5). Large parts of the wall were erected on top of a previously heaped up embankment with paved slopes, preventing the wall from attacks with a battering ram. The wall itself had only a low base of stone but mainly was made of mud-bricks and wooden framework. Fragments of city-shaped cult vases give an impression of the former appearance of such a Hittite city wall. According to these models the fortifications had a battlement with semi-circular pinnacles and the towers, which always loomed above the wall, had exterior windows. Four city gates, each framed by two strong towers, allowed traffic also for chariots and wagons. The northern two city gates seem to be orientated to the rising point of the sun at the summer solstice (northeastern gate) and the setting point at the same day (northwestern gate) respectively.62 This orientation cannot be explained by any practical purpose, it must have had a symbolic or religious meaning. It is also indicated by the close connection of the northeastern gate with the temple nearby, which shows the same orientation. They are both part of the same urban master plan of the Old Hittite Period. Later, during the Imperial Period, Šarišša was enlarged towards the north and east. An annex to the city wall was erected in the same manner like the primary wall. The total length of the city wall became c. 2.6km. But only very few traces of this later wall are left, because it was erected without an embankment and the area is used as farmland today. Only the east flank of the old city wall was used again as part of the new fortification, which now expanded to the plain. Very impressive remains from Hittite fortification walls are also preserved at Kalkankaya, Sur Tepesi (36°46ʹ33. 91ʺE; 39°31ʹ5.14ʺN) and Kahvepınar (36°26ʹ27.41ʺE; 39° 27ʹ55.94ʺN) but detailed research at these sites is still lacking.63 Only at Gökdin-Kale a geophysical survey furnished some information on a casemate-wall.64 In the mountainous region of Azzi-Hayaša hillforts were very typical: “… they held fortified settlements, the rocks, 61  Müller-Karpe 2002: 177. See also Weeden 2011a: 182. 62  Müller-Karpe, Müller-Karpe and Schrimpf 2009. 63  Ökse 2000; 2001; 2014. 64  Engin 2015 in press.

Müller-Karpe

the high mountains, places difficult to reach …”.65 We have to suppose that some of the Urartian Castles had Bronze Age forerunners. One of the few examples of a second millennium castle is Haydarkalesi near Develik, 21km to the West of Ahlat, in the province of Bitlis (42°30ʹ18.71ʺE; 38°54ʹ29.68ʺN).66 Beside fortification walls other military facilities are much more difficult to detect. At Kuşaklı-Šarišša parts of the northeastern district of the Old and Middle Hittite city seemed to have been reserved for military purposes. A building used as a stable for horses had been excavated there.67 It can be interpreted as a royal stud, which served also as barracks for the chariot-troops. Originally it was erected for a military unit of 10 chariots (20 horses), later it was enlarged to a maximum capacity of 15 chariots. Immediately adjacent to the building an artificial pond served as a watering place for the horses. Other installations further south within this district might have been more barracks, but they have yet to be excavated. Ruins of isolated towers up in the mountains in the vicinity of Kuşaklı-Šarišša might have served as watch-towers to control the surrounding area. In Kayalıpınar-Šamuha Building B, part of the Middle Hittite palatial complex, contained dozens of bronze arrow-heads and parts of scale armour. It is obvious, that weapons had been stored there. The building served at least partly as an arsenal.

Roads, Transport and Traffic

At least since the period of the old Assyrian merchants a system of trading routes with distinctive roads, mountain passes, fords through rivers, bridges, rest houses etc. existed in Anatolia, but archaeological evidence of all this is very scarce. We know for instance from an Old Assyrian text, that for reaching Šamuha from the south, a bridge had to be passed and a toll for the crossing had to be paid.68 This proves the existence of such an ambitious construction crossing the Kızılırmak already in the 19–18th century BC. Furthermore, a Hittite text, recently discovered in Kayalıpınar, mentions a bridge crossing the Maraššanta in

65  KBo 4.4 IV 29–31; del Monte and Tischler 1978: 59. The sign URU usually is translated with “Stadt” (city). As we have no evidence of an urban culture in Eastern Anatolia at this period, the expression “settlement” or “hillfort” fits better. 66  Özfırat 2001a: 41; 2001b: 80. 67  Müller-Karpe 2007. 68  Veenhof 2006.

67

The East: Archaeology

the late 13th century BC.69 But in contrast to Mycenaean Greece, where some bridges from the Bronze Age are still preserved, no trace of such an installation from this period has been discovered in Anatolia up to now. As most of the transport operated with donkey-caravans, no specially levelled or paved roads were needed for them. Their paths can hardly be traced archaeologically. But also traffic with chariots and carts played a role; their roads should have been at least partially reinforced. As paved roads are very rare even inside cities, we cannot expect them in the countryside.70 Some of the scarce examples of evidently Hittite roads are the passage-ways through city gates. Even these roads show no pavement or special gravelling. Traffic with chariots is attested by a broken pommel from a yoke found at the floor of the gateway of the southeastern city gate in Kuşaklı-Šarišša.71 From this gate a road led up to the Huwaši-Sanctuary at an altitude of c. 1900m, as we learned from the description of the fourth day of the “Šarišša-Festival”.72 In the same ritual text another mountain-road is also mentioned: LUGALuš ša-ra-az-zi-in KASKAL-an … pa-iz-zi: “The King took the upper way …”73 This way leads from modern Altınyayla/Tonos via Paşaköy up into the mountains directly to the sanctuary. Beside land transport, a role was also played in Hittite times by river-transport by boat. Primarily the EuphratesMala and the Kızılırmak-Maraššanta were suitable for 69  Kp 15/6+, courtesy E. Rieken. 70  For an attempt to reconstruct Hittite roads in the “Upper Land”: Ökse 2000: 106, 108–111. 71  Müller-Karpe 2002: 187 fig. 6.7b. 72  Wilhelm 1997: 13. 73  Wilhelm 1997: 17.

boats. An explicit document is KUB 31.79, 4’–20’: “The boats brought the harvest from Pitiyarik to Šamuha”.74 This transport of grain and bread may be reconstructed now: it started presumably at Gökdin-Kale and led 96km down the river Kızılırmak to Kayalıpınar. The distance as the crow flies is only 65km. As the river meanders, the real distance for boats is about one third longer but more comfortable for bulk cargo. An impression of what such river-boats looked like comes from terracotta models from Kültepe.75 They had a flat bottom, a ram-shaped stern, a straight bow and short paddles were used. For the way upstream one supposes that hauling was practised. Conclusion In conclusion, despite some progress concerning the Hittite Geography of the “Upper Land” and its Eastern neighbours reached during the last decades, much more fieldwork has to be done. In view of continuous destruction of the sites, efforts of research and protection should be intensified. Further information on Hittite Geography can be expected from a recently discovered cuneiform archive at Kayalıpınar-Šamuha. As the “capital” of the Upper Land and temporarily royal residence of the Hittite GreatKing this site will have a major importance to solve questions concerning Eastern Cappadocia and beyond.

74  del Monte and Tischler 1978: 319f. 75  Özgüç 2003: 215–219.

Figure 6.1

Map of the main archaeological sites in the Upper Land, Azzi-Hayaša and Išuwa.

68 Müller-Karpe

The East: Archaeology

Figure 6.2

Map of the main archaeological sites in central Cappadocia in Hittite Times.

Figure 6.3

Map of the main archaeological sites in Eastern Cappadocia / the Upper Land in Hittite Times.

69

70

Müller-Karpe

Figure 6.4  Rock reliefs: a. Fraktin; b. Altınyayla; c. Taşçı; d. İmamkulu; e. Gezbeli (Hanyeri). Börker-Klähn 1982: 314–318; Müller-Karpe 2003.

The East: Archaeology

Figure 6.5

Plan of Kuşaklı-Šarišša.

71

72

Müller-Karpe

Figure 6.6

Plan of Kayalıpınar-Šamuha.

Figure 6.7

Plan of Kayalıpınar-Šamuha, south eastern hill.

The East: Archaeology

Figure 6.8  “Hittite sites in Altınova-Išuwa: a. Korucutepe; b. Tepecik; c. Norşuntepe. Same scale. Müller-Karpe 1994; Korbel 1985.”

73

Figure 6.9

The vicinity of Kuşaklı-Šarišša. Müller-Karpe 2013a.

74 Müller-Karpe

CHAPTER 7

The North: Archaeology Claudia Glatz The Central Turkish Black Sea Region is a large, topographically complex and ecologically diverse region, where relatively few archaeological projects have ventured and whose local societies and cultural traditions of many periods, but especially those of the Late Bronze Age (LBA), remain little understood. For the Hittites, the north was both fascinating and intimidating. It held great spiritual significance and served as ‘the other’ against which Hittite identity1 and territory could be defined.2 Although cultural contact between the eastern part of the Central Black Sea Region and the Central Anatolian Plateau is well attested for the first few centuries of the second millennium BC,3 its northern and northwestern portion, which is characterised by densely forested mountains, appears to have had only very limited interaction with the Hittite South. From the 15th century BC onwards,4 the southernmost landscapes of this region became the battlegrounds of an enduring conflict between Hittite kings and their armies and a series of groups collectively referred to as the Kaška in Hittite sources.5 Archaeological traces of this tempestuous relationship include LBA fortresses in Çankırı Province,6 while a general retreat of settlements with recognisable LBA ceramic traditions characterises the eastern portion of the Central Black Sea Region.7 Kaška settlements and material culture, by contrast, remain as yet elusive, posing perhaps the most intriguing challenge for Anatolian archaeology.8 In this chapter, I will review the available archaeological evidence for LBA settlement and activity in the Central Black Sea Region and the clues that these provide for the puzzle of Hittite historical geography.

1  Klinger 2010. 2  Zimansky 2007. 3  Müller-Karpe 2001; Dönmez 2004. 4  Klinger 2005. 5  von Schuler 1965. 6  Glatz et al. 2009. 7  Dönmez 2002b. 8  Glatz and Matthews 2005.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_008

1

The North: An Anatomy

The region covered in this chapter encompasses the northern limits of the Central Anatolian Plateau and the Central Turkish Black Sea Region from Samsun in the east to Ereğli in the west and from the Black Sea coast in the north to the plains and rolling hills between the Kızılırmak and the Yeşilırmak (Fig. 7.1). This includes the modern Turkish Provinces of Samsun, Amasya, Sinop, Kastamonu, Bartın, Zonguldak, Karabük, Çankırı and the northern portion of Çorum. Two major tectonic processes fundamentally define the physiography of the Central Black Sea Region, influencing patterns of connectivity and remoteness, the development of cultural traditions and economic strategies, today and in the past. This includes the palaeotectonic processes that underlie the orogeny of the Pontic Mountains,9 which consist of the coastal Küre Range rising steeply from the Black Sea with peaks between 800 and 1200m above sea level, the Daday-Devrekani and Ilgaz Massifs, which run parallel to the Küre mountains, and the Köroğlu Range, which marks the transition to the Central Anatolian Plateau. The second feature is the north Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ), an intracontinental strike-slip fault, along which the Anatolian Plate moves westwards and away from the collision zone between the Eurasian and Arabian plates, the result of interaction between the northward moving African and Arabian plates and the comparatively stable Eurasian Plate. Proposed dates for the appearance of the NAFZ range widely, but recent consensus seems to point to the Early Pliocene (c. 5 Ma) for the western part.10 The NAFZ remains active to this day and frequent and often substantial earthquakes accompany its movement. The NAFZ’s principal branch runs over 1200km from Karlıova in eastern Turkey to the Mudurnu Valley in western Turkey, where it splays into three strands in the Marmara and north Aegean. In the central portion of Turkey, the NAFZ runs along the southern edge of the Ilgaz Massif from Kargı via Tosya, Ilgaz and Gerede. Several secondary fault zones are located in the Kızılırmak and Gökırmak 9  Okay 2008. 10  Bozkurt 2001.

76 Valleys. Landscape features, which are a direct result of this recent faulting, include linear valleys, ridges and drainage patterns running parallel to the fault.11 Much of the Central Black Sea Region is, thus, characterized by narrow east-west oriented valleys, which are interspersed with sedimentary basins including the Gökırmak Valley, the Sinop, Devrekani, Vezirköprü, Kargı, Tosya, Ilgaz, and Çankırı Basins.12 Smaller, usually very narrow, valleys run in a north-south direction. The Kızılırmak (Hittite Maraššantiya) is the longest river in Turkey and sweeps across the Central Anatolian Plateau in a wide clockwise arch, before forming a large delta north of Bafra and discharging into the Black Sea. The general course and characteristic changes in flow direction of the Kızılırmak are due to the NAFZ. Major drainage to the north of the Kızılırmak also flows in an east-west direction, including its main northern tributaries, the Devrez Çay and the Gökırmak (Greek Amnias). A few major streams and much secondary drainage run in a north-south direction, including the Filyos (Yenice), Bartın, Devrekani and Karasu rivers, which discharge directly into the Black Sea. Coastal deltas are formed by the Bartın, Filyos, and Karasu,13 but the narrow Black Sea shelf off the coast of Kastamonu prevents the accumulation of fluvial sediments and delta formation. Important rivers in the southern part of the region include the Delice Çay, which crosses the northern part of the Central Anatolian Plateau before discharging into the Kızılırmak. The Yeşilırmak (Hittite Kummešmaha?), a second major river in the southeast of the area of interest here flows into the Black Sea south of Samsun. All along the Black Sea coast, processes of tectonic uplift and subsidence and sedimentation have produced micro-regional sea-level changes and transformations of coastal landscapes that affect the visibility and preservation of Bronze Age sites.14 Examples include the burial of Bronze Age coastal landscapes along the coast of Kastamonu,15 and the gradual drowning of sites due to coastal erosion in Sinop.16 The Central Turkish Black Sea Region encompasses much climatic variation and diverse ecological zones. The coastal region is characterised by a humid, sub-tropical climate with annual precipitation in excess of 1000mm including summer rains, which results in a lush, year-round 11  Marsh et al. 2009: 37. 12  Ardos 1984: 89–96 cf. Johnson 2010. 13  Yılmaz 2005; Doonan 2004: 12–17. 14  Govedarica 2003; Yanko-Hombach 2007; Brükner et al. 2010. 15  Glatz et al. 2011; Düring et al. 2012; Düring and Glatz 2015. 16  Bauer 2006: 236.

Glatz

vegetation cover of deciduous forests and, due to the relief of the Pontic Mountains, marked vertical zoning.17 In the past, this forest cover would have extended as far south as the Kızılırmak and from the Filyos region in the West to the Kızılırmak delta in the East, with alder and ash forests in the delta regions, montane forests in the DadayDevrekani and Ilgaz Massifs and more mixed broad-leaved and needle-leaved woodlands in the lower elevations of intermontane valleys and the region to the south of the Ilgaz Massif. To the south of the main Pontic Mountains, precipitation decreases to around 400mm annual rainfall and forests give way to the open, steppic landscapes characteristic of the Central Anatolian Plateau.18 The region’s best agricultural land is concentrated in the broader river valleys and sedimentary basins, as well as in the coastal regions of Sinop, the Bafra and Çarşamba plains. Easily accessible arable land is scarce in secondary valleys and takes the form of small river terraces and plateaus. Thus, although the larger coastal plains and basins could have sustained more sizeable settled agricultural communities, mixed agricultural and pastoral strategies, supplemented by hunting, fishing and forestry activities, as practiced until recently in the Black Sea region,19 would have no doubt been important to sustain local communities in the more mountainous parts of the region during the Bronze Age. Pollen and erosion records from northern Turkey appear to support this hypothesis. Lake cores from the Central Anatolian Plateau show increasing signs of deforestation and subsequent erosion as a result of agricultural intensification around 1500 BC,20 the onset of the so-called Beyşehir Occupation Phase.21 While there are no pollen records from the central part of the Black Sea Region, cores from Lake Abant in northwest Turkey indicate a later onset of this phase around c. 1200 BC closer to the Black Sea.22 Some degree of deforestation may be expected as a result of mining and smelting activities attested in the region since prehistory,23 but, observations in the Cide region of Kastamonu, for instance, would suggest 17  Zohary 1973: 31, 118–123; Alex 1985; van Zeist and Bottema 1991: 27–8. 18  Bottema et al. 1993/1994: 16–20; Yakar 2000: 283–284; Matthews and Glatz 2009a: 69–73. 19  Yakar 2000; 2006. 20  Bottema et al. 1993/1994. 21  Eastwood et al. 1998. 22  Bottema et al. 1993/1994. 23  Late EBA and early MBA metallurgical activities are attested at Kınık-Kastamonu (Çınaroğlu and Genç 2004, 2005) and Boyabat-Kovuklukaya (Dönmez 2004); prehistoric metallurgical activities are also attested at İkiztepe (Özbal et al. 2001). Kuzucuoğlu et al. 1997: 287; Özdoğan et al. 2000: 43 suggest a

The North: Archaeology

that the humid climate allows cleared forest batches to regenerate fully within a decade or two when not interfered with.24 The north is rich in natural resources. Metals, in particular copper ores, are abundant in the Küre range and the Taşköprü area.25 In the case of the Küre deposits, prehistoric mining may be indicated by the presence of narrow, irregular mining shafts, but archaeological evidence, radiocarbon dates and historical sources securely document mining activities from the medieval period only.26 Direct archaeological evidence for the involvement of third and early second millennium BC communities in metal processing comes from the site of Kınık in the Devrekani district of Kastamonu, 15km from the Küre mines, in the form of kilns, crucibles, slag and metalworking tools.27 BoyabatKovuklukaya in the Sinop hinterland also points to a rather substantial metallurgical enterprise during the late third and early second millennium BC, including smelting ovens, stone and clay moulds for casting axes and arrowheads, and a range of processing tools.28 Lead isotope analyses from stratified artefacts from Kaman-Kalehöyük, Troy, Mersin and further afield, moreover, would suggest the export of Küre copper to other parts of Turkey and the Aegean during the Bronze Age.29 More dispersed copper ore deposits also exist around Taşköprü and in the Köroğlu Range30 which were also exploited in antiquity, but there is as yet no direct evidence for Bronze Age mining.31 Copper ore deposits are also attested to the southeast in the so-called Pontic Group (Amasya-Tokat-Sivas),32 and recent isotopic analysis would support a second millennium BC exploitation of the copper in the Çorum-Merzifon region.33 Arsenic deposits exist at Durağan, near the Gökırmak-Kızılırmak confluence, which may have been used for arsenic bronze alloys.34 Lead and perhaps also silver was being mined near Gümüşhaciköy since at least the Roman period, but again, there is no direct evidence for Bronze Age exploitation.35 prehistoric metallurgical region around the Köçekli Plateau in Kastamonu; see also discussion in Johnson 2011. 24  Düring and Glatz 2015. 25  De Jesus 1980; Wagner and Öztunalı 2000: 63. 26  Wagner and Öztunalı 2000: 41. 27  Çınaroğlu and Genç 2004, 2005. 28  Dönmez 2004: 44–45, pls. 6–9. 29  Summary in Sayre et al. 2001. 30  De Jesus 1978; 1980: Yapraklı Group. 31  De Jesus 1978: 101. 32  Koçak 2006: 40. 33  Poursat and Loubet 2005: pl. XVa cf. Bajramovic 2008: 97. 34  Özbal et al. 2001: 49–53. 35  De Jesus 1980: 91, 196, 263; Özbal et al. 2001: 48.

77 Abundant salt deposits can be found in a siltstone/ gypsum plateau southeast of Çankırı, where evidence of modern and ancient mining as well as the nearby LBA site of Sariçi Höyük (Çivi 05S01) would indicate LBA exploitation of this resource.36 Classical sources mention boxwood and timber as coveted resources from the region, alongside a range of forest products.37 A Middle Bronze Age (MBA) Assyrian text talks of shrimps being transported probably from the Black Sea to inner Anatolia,38 but fish and seafood is rarely found at LBA Central Anatolian sites or in Hittite texts.39 The Black Sea or Mediterranean origins of small quantities of oysters, sea snails and fish bones at Boğazköy-Hattusa, Kuşaklı-Sarissa and elsewhere remain to be determined.40 The topography of the Central Black Sea Region encourages access and movement along two main east-west routes. North of the Kızılırmak, a major route follows the Devrez-Çerkeş-Gerede Valleys and represents one of the main east-west communication corridors in northern Turkey. Today, the Istanbul-Samsun highway connects Istanbul with Iran as part of the Silk Route network.41 The second, more northerly route runs along the GökırmakDaday-Araç Valleys. A third east-west route is the maritime route along the Black Sea coast, whose outermost gyre favours eastward movement. Near İneblolu, the western inner gyre trends northwards, providing the opportunity to cross the Black Sea to the Crimean with relative ease. A second, eastern current allows a return journey to Sinop.42 While there is little doubt that small crafts would have been used along the Turkish Black Sea coast in the Bronze Age to fish and for cabotage, there is as yet no convincing evidence for maritime trade as we know it from the Mediterranean during this period.43 Nor is there any 36  Marsh et al. 2009; Matthews and Glatz 2009a: 59. 37  Johnson 2010: 96. 38  Dercksen 2001: 59–60; but see Barjamovic 2011: 118–120. 39  Hoffner 1974a: 124–125. 40  Boğazköy-Hattusa: Büyükkaya (von den Driesch and Pöllath 2004: 6–8), Quadratgebäude (Seeher 2003: 9; 2004: 65); Building E at Kuşaklı-Sarissa (von den Driesch 2009: 144). 41  Mason 1943: 383 cf. Matthews 2009. 42  King 2004: 16. 43  In the past researchers have proposed the existence of LBA circumpontic maritime connections as well as between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean (e.g. Buchholz 1983: 90–94; Bouzek 1985: 35–45; Hillier 1991; Korfman 1995). David French (1982), for instance, proposed a Black Sea route for the transport of a small number of Mycenaean and Cypriot vessels found at Maşathöyük (Özgüç 1978: 66, 127–28, pls. 83–84; Özgüç 1982: 102–03, pl. 47.5–6.). These hypotheses, however, are being increasingly challenged due to lack of convincing evidence (e.g. de Boer 2007; Leshtakov 2007). This includes the Turkish Black

78

Glatz

evidence for Hittite interest or control over the Black Sea during the LBA. Further to the south and east, major communication routes link the Merzifon, Havza and Verzirköprü plains and provide access to Amasya. From Verzirköprü, a route leads north across the Kızılırmak and from Havza via Kavak to Samsun. In the central part of the region, a route would have led northwards from the Central Plateau, crossing the Kızılırmak River at Kızılırmak and leading northwards along the Acıçay, passing by İnandıktepe, and then along the Tatlı Çay towards Ilgaz. A second route taken by the modern railway and Roman-Byzantine road crosses the Eldivan plain and leads northwards from Çankırı to Korgun and Kurşunlu. From Ilgaz, this route continues over the Ilgaz Massif, and along the Gök Çay to Kastamonu and from threre on towards the Black Sea coast along smaller plains and valleys.44 A Roman bridgehead at Atköprü along the Devrekani in the Loç Valley, for instance, indicates a route connecting the coast with the interior of Kastamonu that broadly followed the course of the Devrekani.45 The Bartın and Filyos Valleys to the west also provide access to the Black Sea coast. There is no doubt that the often dramatic physical topography of the Central Black Sea Region significantly structures and constrains patterns of movement, especially the movement of Hittite armies and their chariots. This does not mean, however, that it equally constrained the movement of members of local communities who are intimately familiar with their surrounding landscapes or those able to tap into this local knowledge. The same applies to the movement of goods, ideas and cultural traditions, which no doubt travelled with shepherds and on donkey’s backs on routes not necessarily identified as major thoroughfares on topographic maps, through costsurface models, or indeed by the road-networks of other empires which sought, more successfully than the Hittites, to extend their control over the region in later periods. 2

The Late Bronze Age in the North: Some Issues

The Central Black Sea Region is one of the archaeologically least explored regions of Turkey. This is especially the case for the densely forested Pontic Mountains and the northern and northwestern coastal region. Here archaeological surveys and a small number of excavations Sea coast. No doubt both MBA and LBA textual sources would have mentioned a burgeoning Black Sea maritime trade. 44  Matthews and Glatz 2009a: 60. 45  Marek 1993: 10, 92; Düring et al. 2011: 169; Düring and Glatz 2015.

have only recently begun to shed light onto the region’s Bronze Age past. Areas to the south and east have seen more long-standing, if not, for the most part, more intensive archaeological interest. One reason for the scarcity of archaeological work in northern Turkey is a sense among modern scholars, encouraged no doubt by Hittite and Classical accounts, of the region’s ‘barbarous’ character,46 that it is peripheral and its past inhabitants of little, and mostly negative, consequence to the social, political and cultural developments taking place in the urban centres further to the south or indeed along and across the Black Sea. A more practical reason is to do with the nature of Bronze Age sites in the region and the difficulties they pose for traditional archaeological survey methods. Unlike in most other parts of Turkey and the Near East, settlement mounds (Turkish höyüks) are absent in much of the western and central part of the Black Sea Region.47 They are more abundant in the southern provinces of Çankırı and Çorum and in the eastern part of the region in Samsun and Amasya, where they are easily recognised during traditional, extensive, vehicle-based archaeological surveys. Surface scatters and flat sites may be occasionally detected with the help of local guides, but for the most part the discovery of less prominent archaeological features requires the use of intensive pedestrian survey, particularly in areas as densely vegetated as the Central Black Sea Region.48 Although it is likely that some höyüks have fallen victim to taphonomic processes, social organisation, subsistence strategies and cultural traditions of Bronze Age Black Sea communities, such as the Kaška of Hittite sources, are the most convincing explanations for their general scarcity in the northern parts of the region. The little that can be gleaned about Kaška economic organisation from Hittite texts would point towards sedentary farmers and pastoralists with an element of mobility such as seasonal transhumance.49 Such practices are attested in the region until modern times50 and isotopic analyses of skeletons at İkiztepe, for instance, indicate a transhumant element among the site’s Chalcolithic population.51 It is not 46  See Matthews 2009 for a summary. 47  Marro et al. 1996: 273; Glatz et al. forthcoming; Bauer pers. com. December 2012. 48  For a discussion of survey methodology in the context of the central Black Sea region, see Glatz et al. 2015. 49  Yakar 2000: 295–300; Glatz and Matthews 2005. 50  Yakar 2000. The presence of recent transhumant groups in the region of course does not in itself provide evidence for such practices in the past (Potts 2014 for a recent discussion of this issue). 51  Welton 2010.

79

The North: Archaeology

possible from textual sources to reconstruct the size and nature of Kaška communities, but a seemingly low degree of social centralisation and the ease with which whole communities disappear from the reach of approaching Hittite armies,52 point towards small to very small settlements. Settlement sizes across northern Anatolia tend to be much smaller than on the Central Plateau and further south. In inner Çankırı, for instance, most second millennium BC sites range between 0.5 and 1.5 ha in size.53 Regional centres such as Maltepe (PS183) in Çankırı and Oymaağaç Höyük in Samsun seem to be c. 6ha in size and comparable to the district centre of Maşat Höyük.54 Along the mountainous coastal zone of the Central Black Sea Region, we are, thus, likely looking for sites below 1ha for the small-scale communities that this rugged, mountainous region would have sustained. The use of stone and wood as principal building materials attested for instance, at late EBA and early MBA Boyabat-Kovuklukaya,55 explains the absence of mound-formation. This left us until recently with the vexing problem of being unable to identity material culture that may be associated with groups referred to as Kaška in Hittite sources, or other, contemporary northern groups,56 and to define their relationship with the well-studied cultural traditions of LBA Central Anatolia. This means that only materials attested in the LBA cultural repertoire of the Central Plateau can be recognised and dated with relative confidence to the period in question. In other words, archaeology, much like the textual sources, conveys an essentially Central Anatolian, and, until recent finds of distinctive northern traditions can be examined in more detail, arguably Hittite perspective of settlement and cultural processes in the Central Black Sea Region. It is possible that Kaška groups or individuals adopted LBA (North-)Central Anatolian (NCA, ‘Hittite’) material culture, including pottery, and the swords and metal objects from Kınık and Mızrak Mağarası, discussed below, would no doubt have constituted sought after prestige goods and military equipment. As recent postcolonial approaches have demonstrated, however, it is unlikely that KaškaHittite interaction would have resulted in the wholesale adoption of, for instance, NCA pottery types and modes of production. Instead the outcome of such interaction would be expected to be new, hybrid, cultural forms and 52  See von Schuler 1965 for relevant text passages. 53  Glatz et al. 2009. 54  Glatz 2009: 134. 55  Dönmez 2004: 38, figs. 5–6. 56  For a tentative suggestion, see Glatz et al. 2011; Glatz 2015a; see also discussion below on recent finds from Oymaağaç Höyük.

practices on both sides of the encounter.57 Thus, while chaîne opératoire studies to shed light onto LBA pottery from this region and its technological identity58 are as yet outstanding, the presence of standard NCA pottery in the region is most likely representative of communities, if not Hittite in ethno-linguistic terms, then culturally and probably also politically strongly affiliated with them. Beyond providing only one side of the story, this focus on NCA(-style) material culture, especially pottery, also has its own set of methodological problems. These stem from the inherent conservatism of the NCA ceramic tradition, which changes little over more than six-hundred years and which poses significant problems for the reconstruction of a relative chronological framework at excavated sites and exponentially more so in the case of surface collections. The NCA ceramic tradition lacks distinctive type fossils, whose discovery would allow a more precise chronological classification.59 As will be discussed in more detail below, drastic recent chronological revisions at Boğazköy-Hattusa60 and an increased availability of absolute dates have also had a knock-on effect on the chronology of sites located in the north.61 Thus, there are a number of significant archaeological caveats any attempt to reconstruct the region’s LBA historical geography has to be conscious of. However, as we shall see in the following section, the existing archaeological evidence nevertheless provides a clear geographical framework for the placement of northern toponyms. 3

Archaeologies of the North

3.1 Surveys Regional surveys, in particular geographically lager-scale and methodologically extensive long-term projects make up the majority of archaeological work in the region. On the one hand, these projects have provided a general picture of settlement trends (Fig. 7.2), but on the other have also resulted in gaps in survey coverage which are difficult to quantify. Moreover, broad and often idiosyncratic

57  E.g. Dietler 2010; van Dommelen 2006. 58  E.g. Gosselain 2000. 59  See Schoop 2006, 2011: 242: identifies three developmental stages: an early stage that stretches from the 17th to the early 16th century BC, a middle phase that includes the later 16th and 15th centuries BC, and a final phase dating to the 14th and 13th centuries BC. 60  Mielke et al. 2006. 61  Mielke 2006.

80 chronological frameworks and divisions,62 differential detail in the presentation of primary data and the overwhelming dominance of short preliminary reports make results difficult to integrate into a regional synthesis. In recent years, surveys with more intensive fieldwalking, palaeo-environmental and geo-archaeological components have begun to yield more detailed perspectives on settlement and landscape development in particular micro-regions.63 Beginning in the East, Samsun province has been investigated by a series of extensive surveys since 1974.64 Excavated sites in the coastal region include İkiztepe,65 Dündartepe and Tekkeköy,66 none of which, however, have yielded evidence for LBA occupation.67 The socalled transitional layer from Mound I at İkiztepe produced pottery dating to late EBA and early MBA.68 MBA pottery including cups with string-cut bases and spouted vessels (‘tea-pots’) show strong cultural connections to the Central Anatolian Plateau69 as does the architecture of the transitional layer.70 Comparable material comes also from Layer III at Dündartepe, Tekkeköy, Kavak71 and a further 30 surveyed sites in Samsun Province.72 Since 2004, 62  This includes, for instance, the use of ‘Early Hittite’ to describe materials dating to the Middle Bronze Age, including very early second millennium BC materials (Kökten et al. 1945; Yakar and Dinçol 1974; Müller-Karpe 2001), or, conversely, the inclusion of both the late or transitional Early Bronze Age phase as well as the Old Hittite period into the Middle Bronze Age (Dönmez 2002b). An artificial enlargement of the MBA, however, is not borne out by the NCA ceramic sequence (Schoop 2011). 63   Kastamonu survey (Marro 2000; Marro et al. 1996, 1998; Kuzucuoğlu et al. 1997; Özdoğan et al. 2000), the Sinop Regional Archaeological Project (Doonan 2004). Project Paphlagonia (Matthews and Glatz 2009b), and the Cide Archaeological Project (Düring and Glatz 2010; Glatz et al. 2011; Düring et al. 2012; Düring and Glatz 2015). 64  Alkım 1972a,b; 1973a–c; 1974a–b; 1975; 1976; 1978; Kızıltan 1992; Dengate 1978; Bilgi 1998; Bilgi et al. 2002–2005; Dönmez 1999; 2000a, b; 2002 a, b; 2008. 65  Alkım et al. 1988; 2003. 66  Kökten et al. 1945. 67  In the light of this evidence, we may also need to rethink the identification of İkiztepe with the Zalpa of LBA sources. See also Dönmez and Beyazıt 2008. 68  Alkım et al. 1988: 145, 149. 69  Müller-Karpe 2001. 70  Alkım et al. 1988; Dönmez 2002b: 247. 71  Kökten et al 1945. 72  Middle Bronze Age sites in Samsun province: Kel(e)beş Tepe; Azay Tepe, Tepe Tarla, Tedigün Tepe, Elmacık Tepe, BafraTepecik Tepe, Paşaşeyh Tepesi, Şirlek Tepe, Bafra-Hacıbaba Tepesi, Sivri Tepe, Dedetepe, Gökçeboğaz Tepe (Ali Osman Tepesi), Bağ Tepe, Gök Tepe, Akalan, Çam Tepe, Havza-Tepecik

Glatz

excavations at the inland site of Oymaağaç Höyük have begun to shed light on a substantial, but seemingly isolated, LBA settlement of distinctively Central Anatolian character.73 Similarly extensive surface surveys have been carried out in Amasya province74 and over 50 sites with traces of occupation in the earlier part of the second millennium BC have been recorded.75 LBA occupation is securely attested at 11 sites.76 The only second millennium BC site in Amasya province currently being excavated is Oluz Höyük.77 Archaeological work in Sinop province includes extensive reconnaissance by Mehmet Işın78 between 1987 and 1990 and a combined extensive and intensive approach by the Sinop Region Archaeological Project since 1996.79 (Belalan Tepe), Çeş Tepeb Dökme Tepe II, Hakim Tepe, Cin Tepe, Taşkaracaören Tepe, Tombul Tepe, Kümbet Tepe, Köyiçi Tepesi (Yurtyeri Tepesi), Yük Tepe (Salur), Kavak-Hacıbaba Tepesi, Kaleyeri Tepesi, Kale Tepe, Oymaağaç Höyük and Kurudere. For a detailed bibliography see Dönmez and Yurtsever Bayazıt 2008: 103–104. 73  Czichon 2009; Czichon et al. 2012; see below for a more detailed discussion of Oymaağaç Höyük. 74  Bilgi 2001; Dönmez 1999, 2000ab, 2001, 2002ab; Kökten et al. 1945; Özsait 1989, 1990ab, 1991, 1004, 1998, 1999, 2000a,b, 2001, 2003, 2004; Özsait and Dündar 1997; Özsait and Koçak 1996; Özsait and Özsait 1998, 2002. 75  Sites with evidence for occupation in the earlier half of the second millennium BC or with pottery difficult to assign a more precise date within the pottery sequence include: Karacaören I, Kadimpınarı, Selçuk, Gevron, Kalecik Tepe, İsmail Pınarı, Kabalak Deresi, At Ağılı, Susuz Tarla, Kayabaşı I-IIb, Bekçitepesi, Kaletepe, Paralıtepe I, Karataş Tepe I, Büyük Küllük Tepe, Küçük Küllük Tepe, Onhoroz Pınarı, Aliağa Pınarı, Karatepe-Büyüktepe, Mercimekli Tepe, Kocatepe, Aksungur Höyük, Tilki Tepesi, Kavakpınarı, Hamam Tepesi, Küçük Tepe, Altın Tepe, Körceviz, Sarımeşe Tepesi and Gökhöyük, Kocamantepe, Toklutepe, Cinlitepe and Ayvalıpınar I, Sonusa-Kabayar Höyük, Mülkbükü, Ekiztepe, Kuş Tepesi, Ansar Kalesi, Yenipınar, Kütüklük, KaleHızarönü Tepe. cf. Dönmez and Yurtsever Bayazıt 2008. 76  LBA: Onhoroz Tepe, Samadolu Höyük, Alıcık Höyük, Alacapınar Tepe (Hayrettin I), Delicik Tepe (Hayrettin II), Kümbet Tepe, Dereağıl Tepesi, Yoğurtçubaba, Oluz Höyük, Gediksaray Höyük (?), Doğantepe. For a detailed bibliography see Dönmez 2002b. Alparslan (2010) recently suggested the site of Doğantepe as a candidate for the Hittite city of Hakmiš, after excavations in Amasya yielded no LBA evidence to support Albrecht Goetze’s (1930: 18) identification of Hakmiš. A survey of Doğantepe recovered a statue of the Hittite weathergod (Alp 1961/1962). 77  Dönmez 2013. 78  Işın 1998. 79  Doonan 2004; Doonan and Bauer 2005; Doonan et al. 2000, 2001a,b, 2008, 2014.

The North: Archaeology

Several sites with MBA pottery are located along the coast and on access routes to the interior80, including BoyabatKovuklukaya excavated by Şevket Dönmez in 200281 and the illegally excavated Hıdırlı cemetery.82 There are as yet no sites with convincing evidence for an LBA presence in Sinop, in particular any with NCA cultural affiliations.83 The Gökırmak and Daday valleys, alongside much of northern Turkey, were first investigated by Charles Burney in the 1950s. Burney identified three second millennium BC sites in the Gökırmak-Daday region and a further site near the Devrekani River. Of these two, Tepecik and Taşköprü Yolu Höyük, show signs of occupation during the LBA, most likely the late 16th-15th centuries BC.84 Pauline Donceel-Voûte’s survey in 1977 also identified possible second millennium BC sites in the Gökırmak Valley, but no pottery illustrations are included in her short report.85 The Gökırmak, Araç, Daday Çay and Karaçomak Valleys were investigated by the Kastamonu Survey Project between 1995 and 1998, using a systematic extensive field methodology reliant primarily on local guides to identify 80  Işın 1998: pl. 10; Doonan 2004: 52 and Fig. 3.1. Doonan (2004): lists Gulluavlu, Köşk Höyük and Gerze. Işın (1998, Table 1) lists a total of eight sites, three of which are questionable: Köşk Höyük (No. 12), Tıngıroğlu Tepesi (No. 25), Maltepe-Emiryayla (No. 30), Kadı Mezarı (?) (No. 33), Maltepe-Burumcuk (No. 35), Maltepe-Sarımasak (No. 40), Kargalo Tepesi (?) (No. 41), Karamkuru Tepe ? (No. 45). 81  Dönmez 2004. 82  Bilgi 2001; Dönmez 2012. Bilgi (2001: Nos. 76–77) proposed an LBA date for two unprovenanced lugged axes in the Sinop museum. 83  A LBA-EIA occupation has been suggested for the sites of Gerze and the Sinop Bus Station, whose rope-impressed pottery has been compared to contemporary traditions on the north-Pontic steppes (Doonan 2004: 52; Bauer 2006: 236). 84  Burney (1965: 189–193, figs 115–151): Çengelli (Daday) (No. 28) late EBA or early MBA; Tepecik (Kastamonu) (No. 29) MBA and LBA (probably 15th century BC), revisited by Donceel-Voûte and by the Kastamonu Survey (Özdoğan et al. 2001: 42, Çizim 5.2–5); Imren Tepe (Devrekani) (No. 30); Taşköprü Yolu Höyük (Kastamonu) (No. 33) LBA (probably 15th century BC). The dating of these sites is based on two types of bowls, the ‘bead-rim’ bowl typical of the early MBA and the shallow bowl with inverted and occasionally slipped rim, dating to the LBA and focusing on the 15th century in particular (see Schoop 2011). 85  Donceel-Voûte (1979) lists a number of finds spots with second millennium BC pottery apparently present, but a range of chronological labels and lack of pottery illustrations make it difficult to assess this data: Urancı (Taşköprü) described as ‘second half of the second millennium BC’, Tepecik (Karamuk Molla, Kastamonu) described as ‘Hittite sherds’, Karacaoğlu (Taşköprü) ‘2nd millennium BC red with occasioanal burnish’; Kastamonu Kalesi ‘Middle Bronze Age potsherds’.

81 sites, and subsequent intensive surface collections at sites of particular interest.86 Initially focusing on the main river valleys, later seasons also include higher altitudes (up to 1350m) and forested areas87 as well as geomorphological assessments, including coring at several locations in the alluvial fill of the Gökırmak Valley.88 Of the 159 sites recorded in this manner, 11 yielded evidence for a second millennium BC presence.89 The pottery from these sites is NCA in character and dates mainly to the first part of the NCA ceramic sequence (later 17th—early 16th century BC).90 Pottery typical of the middle part of the sequence is much more rare and found at Höyükdoruğu, Kayabaşı, Üyüktepe and possibly also Gâvureleri. Höyükdoruğu dominates the communication routes in the Araç Valley and together with Kayabaşı access to the West.91 Evidence for an LBA presence in the western part of inland Kastamonu is a small bronze sword from Mızrak/ Buz Mağarası in Pınarbaşı district, which was found by a British speleological expedition.92 The dating of the sword is based on its similarities with a sword from Boğazköy-Hattusa, which carries an inscription mentioning Tudhaliya I/II.93 Just to the north of where the sword was found, The Cide Archaeological Project explored the coastal district of Cide and adjacent Şenpazar between 2009 and 2011 using both intensive and extensive survey methods.94 In addition to signs of an early second millennium BC presence at two cave sites, Kılıçlı Mağarası, and Derebağ Köy Mağarası, and surface finds from the multi-period focus of Okçular Kale, the Cide Archaeological Project also recorded the only near-coastal LBA site identified thus far in the Central Turkish Black Sea Region.95 Although finds numbers are small, the LBA surface cluster at Okçular firmly ties this distant coastal region into the Central Anatolian 86  Marro et al. 1996 and 1998; Kuzucuoğlu et al. 1997; Marro 2000; Özdoğan et al. 2000. 87  Kuzucuoglu et al. 1997: 275. 88  Özdoğan et al. 2000: 45. 89  Marro et al. 1996: Höyüktepe (D31/2), Üyüktepe (C32/1), Maltepe (B31/4). Kuzucuoglu et al. 1997: Kâhintepe (D30/1), Höyüdoruğu (D30/4), Kayabaşı (D30/6), Türbetepe (B33/13), Tepekaya (C34/4), Patdağısırtı (C34/10). Marro et al. 1998: Gâvurevleri (C31/16) MBA and early LBA, Eylekderesi (C29/2) MBA. 90  Marro et al. 1996: 282; Fig. 9; pl. III. 91  Kuzucuoglu et al. 1997: 288. 92  Harris 1992: 35, 41; 1993: 25. 93  There is however no convincing need to identify either sword as Mycenaean in origin (see Taracha 2003 contra Hansen 1994; Ünal 1999). 94  Düring and Glatz 2010; Glatz et al. 2011; Düring et al. 2012; Düring and Glatz 2015. 95  Glatz et al. 2010; Glatz 2015a.

82 cultural sphere. The pottery types represented such as inverted rim and carinated bowls and jars with funnel necks point to the middle part of the NCA ceramic sequence (Fig. 7.3). Also at Okçular were collected several diagnostic pieces and many fragments of a localised and hitherto unknown hand-made ceramic tradition which may be representative of local Bronze Age communities. Further to the west, recent extensive survey and excavations in Zonguldak Province yielded no indications of a second millennium BC presence,96 while Burney reports two inland sites in the vicinity of Eflani.97 Burney also surveyed the Gerede-Devrez corridor south of the Ilgaz Massif and recorded a number of second millennium BC sites.98 Systematic extensive survey and intensive tract sampling were subsequently carried out in Çankırı and southern Karabük by Project Paphlagonia between 1997 and 2001.99 Unlike in the more northerly regions, Project Paphlagonia recorded a relative abundance, 29 in total, of second millennium BC sites, several of which appear to have been occupied until the end of the LBA. In contrast to the rest of the north (and most other regions of Turkey), Çankırı experienced an increase in settlement sites in the course of the second millennium, growing from 14 datable to the early part of the ceramic sequence to 21100 substantive settlements in the LBA. The latter include 16 höyüks, two of which were fortified, and four fortified lowland sites arranged along a defensive line following the Devrez River.101 Small and medium-sized settlements, including the regional centre of Maltepe (PS183), are located to the south of this defensive line.102 A long-term extensive survey by Tayfun Yıldırım and Tunç Sipahi has investigated the southern part of Çankırı and northern Çorum Province.103 In the case of Çankırı, the survey added another 6 second millennium BC sites 96  Efe 2004; Karauğuz and Düring 2009. 97  Burney 1965: Ören Höyük (Eflani) (No. 31); Semercitepe (Eflani) (No. 32) MBA and LBA, probably 15th century BC. Further to the west, the site of Halaşlar (Gerede) (No. 15) is also reported to have yielded MBA and LBA pottery. 98  Burney 1965: Salman Höyük (No. 16, PS016 in the Project Paphlagonia classification, see below) (Ilgaz), “Km.208Tepe” (No. 17) (Ilgaz) and Dümeli (No. 18). (Çankırı). 99  Matthews and Glatz 2009b. 100  PS005, PS013, PS015, PS016, PS033a, PS040, PS050, PS052, PS057, PS113, PS122, PS155, PS156, PS162, PS169, PS170, PS171, PS176, PS178, PS183, PS198, PS218, PS219, Çivi 05S01, Dumanlı 02S05, Eldivan 04S01, Mart 01S01, Mart 01S02 cf. Glatz et al. 2009: Table 4.2. 101  PS016, PS050, PS057, PS122, PS218, Çivi 05S01. 102  Glatz et al. 2009: Table 4.2; Fig. 4.1. Matthews and Glatz 2009a. 103  Sipahi and Yıldırım 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2009; 2012; Yıldırım and Sipahi 1999, 2004, 2006, 2008; see also Süel 1990, 1991. It is

Glatz

to those explored by Project Paphlagonia, three of which are dated more closely to the LBA.104 In Çorum around 80 second millennium BC sites have been recorded to date, 19 of which are more closely dated to the LBA.105 Most prominent among these is the site of Yörüklü-Hüseyindede located 45km northwest of Boğazköy-Hattusa, which has since been partially excavated alongside three other sites (see below).106 3.2 Excavations A total of eight sites in the Central Black Sea Region with evidence for LBA occupation have been investigated through excavation. They include Oymaağaç Höyük in Samsun Province, Oluz Höyük in Amasya, Kınık in Kastamonu, İnandıktepe in Çankırı, and YorüklüHüseyindede and several adjacent sites in Çorum. Oymaağaç Höyük is located c. 7km north of the town of Verzirköprü amidst a large (375km2) and fertile plain, whose sub-humid climate permits not only the cultivation of cereals but also of wine and supports the growth of wild olives.107 The site strategically controls a Kızılırmak crossing and communication route leading northwards to the Gökırmak confluence and towards the Black Sea coast. This route, which was still well travelled up until the construction of the Alınkaya-dam, however, is difficult and time-consuming due to the mountainous terrain, making riverine transport downstream from Oymaağaç at least a plausible option.108 The site was first recorded by Bahadır Alkım109 and soon after Ali Dinçol and Jak Yakar suggested an identification of the site with the Hittite cult city of Nerik.110 often difficult from the published photograph to assess the proposed dating of sites. 104  Çankırı: Askerboğan Tepe, Tuzdamınkaşı Mevkii, Şeker Höyük (note that none of the pottery illustrated suggests a Hittite Empire date) cf. Yıldırım and Sipahi 2008. 105   Çorum: Merkez: Hantepesi, Hacı Musa, Top Tepe, Boğaz, Elvan Çelebi, Körkü Köyü Güney Mevkisi; Sungurlu: Çayhatap Höyüğü, Hacıköy Höyüğü, Yörüklü/Hüseindede, Boyalı Höyük, Fatmaören Höyük, Ecerintepe, Tokullu/Aşağıbağlar, Kırankışla/ Killiktepe; Bayat: Tepekütüğün (Kültepe); Ugurludağ: Kültepe (2), Fehatlı Höyük; Alaca: Küçük Hırka, Yatankavak Kayapınar Höyük, Tahirabad Höyüğü, Eskiyapar Çevresi, Soğucak Höyük. cf., Sipahi and Yıldırım 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2009; 2012; Yıldırım and Sipahi 1999, 2004, 2006, 2008. 106  Sipahi 2000; Yıldırım 2000. 107  Kürschner 2006. 108  Czichon 2009: 26. 109  Alkım 1973a. 110  Dinçol and Yakar 1974. This identification finds broad consensus today: see e.g. Forlanini 1977: 201; Haas 1999: 229; Czichon and Klinger 2005, but see Bilgi (1998: 69) who suggested the site

The North: Archaeology

83

The site consists of a c. 3ha central settlement, which is built on the slopes of a natural hill and surrounded by a lower town that spreads on terraces to the north, south and west. Already in the 1970s Alkım reported monumental wall remains on the surface of the central settlement and a possible postern gate;111 systematic archaeological work began in 2005 under the aegis of the Oymaağaç-Nerik-Forschungsprojekt.112 A geophysical prospection in 2006 identified the outlines of two monumental structures similar to the temples at Boğazköy-Hattusa and Kuşaklı-Sarissa on the summit of the central hill, as well as the remains of a casemate fortification wall. Excavations have since begun to unearth the remains of the two successive monumental structures, which are separated by a 50cm thick burnt horizon. The more recent of the two buildings, whose respective inventories of bull-figurines and miniature cups would support a ritual function, is dated to the end of the LBA on the basis of a text fragment from the time of Suppiluliuma II. The earlier structure probably dates to the beginning of the Hittite Empire Period (late 15th– early 14th century BC).113 Thus, the finds from Oymaağaç Höyük point towards a substantial LBA settlement, dominated by a monumental temple structure, which was destroyed by fire and subsequently rebuilt, seemingly in line with what we know of the history of the cult city of Nerik. Recent text finds from Oymaağaç would seem to confirm this identification (see Corti this volume). Survey in the vicinity of the site revealed neither MBA nor LBA sites.114 Several pits containing hand-made and, in some cases, painted pottery attest to the presence of an Early Iron Age (EIA) occupation.115 More recent finds from Oymaağaç also include wheel-made pottery with similar geometric painted decorations from contexts dating from the 17th/16th century BC to possibly the 13th, where they occur together with standard NCA ceramics.116 Once published, this material will no doubt require the re-dating of other painted pottery from surveys in the Black Sea Region, which have thus far been thought to belong exclusively to the LBAEIA transition.

Oluz Höyük, a c. 4.5ha mound, is located in the fertile Geldingen plain, c. 4km north of the Çekerek River (Hittite Zuliya), a tributary of the Yeşilirmak (Hittite Kumešmaha) in Amasya province. Survey at the site recorded pottery dating to both the MBA and LBA.117 Excavations since 2007 have begun to yield LBA architectural levels (Stratum III, Layers 7 and 8) and materials, such as an LBA biconvex seal,118 but conclusions about the nature and identity of Oluz’s LBA settlement will have to await further research. Interesting to note is the apparent absence, at least for now, of evidence for occupation during the first half of the second millennium BC. Kınık-Kastamonu. In 1990 a metal hoard comprising 32 vessels was discovered near the village of Kınık in Kastamonu Province in the course of construction works for the Kulaksız dam.119 In 1994, a survey and excavations were carried out at the finds location of the hoard, which added 230 metal objects to the original finds and identified three architectural levels. They include an EBA workshop area with crucibles and slag as well as evidence for pottery production and storage. A wall-feature was dated to the early second millennium BC and an Iron Age occupation level was also identified by the excavators.120 In the absence of a final report and the full presentation of stratigraphic associations and illustrations of ceramic data, it is currently impossible to fully assess the dating of the site and the cultural affiliations of its Bronze and Iron Age occupants. Among the metal objects recovered from Kınık are three bull-headed cups, which are well known from ceramic counterparts throughout the second millennium BC in Anatolia and the wider Near East121 and are mentioned in LBA ritual texts and correspondence.122 A silver bowl decorated with a hunting frieze also fits well into the NCA iconographic tradition and its hieroglyphic Luwian inscription can be dated on palaeographic grounds to the 13th–14th centuries BC.123 Interpretations of the Kınık hoard include the extrapolation of a significant Hittite presence in this region,124 against which, however, speaks the absence of cultural material other than the metal vessels with NCA cultural affiliations. An alternative theory is that the hoard presents

may be the city of Zalpa instead and Macqueen (1980), who suggested a location near Havza. 111  Alkım 1973: 64–65; also Yakar 1980: 82 Fig. 6. 112  Czichon and Klinger 2005; Czichon 2008, 2009; Czichon et al. 2012. 113  Czichon 2011; Czichon et al. 2012. 114  Czichon et al. 2006. 115  Czichon et al. 2011: 243–244. 116  D. Mielke, personal communication 11.05.2016.

117  Dönmez 2002b. 118  Doğan-Alparslan and Alparslan 2010. 119  Emre and Çınaroğlu 1993. 120  Gates 1997; Bilgen 1999; Çınaroğlu and Genç 2004; 2005; Greaves and Helwing 2001: 498−499. 121  E.g. Özgüç 1991: 320; 2002b; Heffron 2014. 122  E.g. Moran 1992: EA 25 and EA 41. 123  Emre and Çınaroğlu 1993; Hawkins 1993. 124  Forlanini 1998: 221.

84 not the remnants of a Hittite settlement, but a deliberate deposition made by Kaška individuals of loot taken from Hittite settlements or temples.125 The bronze sword from Mızrak/Buz Mağarası may also have been deposited in a similar manner. A counter argument here is the fact that several objects from the Kınık hoard, such as a small warrior figurine for instance, do not date to the LBA,126 putting in question the chronological integrity of the hoard and its LBA deposition. Alternative scenarios, not directly related to the Hittite—Kaška conflict, are therefore not to be discounted. A number of late second and first millennium BC metal hoards in the Mediterranean and Europe, for instance, are composed of objects of different date and often origin.127 In short, a confident interpretation of the hoard remains hamstrung until more contextual information becomes available. İnandıktepe is located 115km northwest of BoğazköyHattusa on a natural hill-top location overlooking the modern Ankara-Çankırı road. The site together with the nearby mound of Termehöyük was excavated in 1966 and 1967 by Raci Temizer and published by Tahsin Özgüç.128 Altogether five building phases were identified at İnandıktepe of which levels V, IV and III date to the LBA. Finds from level V include the foundations of a series of small structures built on virgin soil. The few pieces of pottery found in level V were dated to the Old Hittite period by the excavator129 but no examples have been published. The subsequent level IV presents the main occupation phase at the site, which is dominated by a relatively small building (c. 2000m2), which occupies the entire hill-top, and includes a series of small rooms clustered around one, possibly two courtyards.130 This structure is referred to as monumental in the original excavation report and traditionally interpreted as a Hittite temple on the basis of architectural considerations and its inventory, which includes the famous İnandık relief vase depicting a religious festival. A date in the incipient Old Hittite Period was assigned on the basis of a land-grant document131 found in one of the storage rooms and the stylistic features of the relief vase, which were interpreted as ‘early’ also on the basis of this land-grant document.132 Level IV at İnandık and the 125  Matthews 2000: 1017. A practice well attested in texts such as the Prayer of Arnuwanda I and Ašmunikkal (CTH 375). 126  Gates 1996, 1997. 127  Sherratt 2012. 128  Özgüç 1988. 129  Özgüç 1988: 76. 130  See Mielke 2006: Fig 1. for a reconstructed plan. 131  CTH 222, 28. 132  Balkan 1973; Easton 1981; Carruba 1993; Özgüç 1988: 110.

Glatz

contemporary settlement at Termehöyük, whose details remain unpublished, were destroyed by fire. At İnandık there are signs of a small-scale and short-lived re-occupation (Level III) and modifications to the Level IV architecture in the central courtyard and the southern rooms and other structural remains.133 A pit belonging to Level III dug into the floor level of the main structure is reported to have contained parts of a terracotta bull figurine and a bathtub.134 There was apparently no evidence for later occupation during the Hittite Empire Period.135 Both the traditional chronological assessment and the interpretation of the building of Level IV as a Hittite temple have been convincingly challenged in recent years on historical, philological as well as archaeological grounds.136 The arguments in favour of a lowering of the İnandıktepe Level IV dating closer the end rather than the beginning of the Old Hittite Period include the affirmation of land-grant documents as a category of the late 16th and 15th centuries BC.137 Architecturally the İnandık complex does not conform to the layout typical for Hittite temples resembling more closely palatial structures. Due to its modest size, however, it may best be seen a rural estate.138 Archaeologically, there exist numerous parallels between the pottery from İnandıktepe and the earliest levels of Kuşaklı-Sarissa, which has been dated to the last quarter of the 16th century BC by dendrochronology.139 At İnandıktepe an external ceramic terminus post quem for the destruction of level IV is a burnt Red Lustrous Wheelmade ware spindle bottle.140 This revised chronology of İnandıktepe would bring the destruction of level IV and the temporary reoccupation of the ruins in level III closer to a phase of incipient Hittite-Kaška hostilities sometime during the 15th century,141 which echoes the fluidity with which settlements and landscapes are described in the texts to have passed from Hittite to Kaška control and back, even if a lack of detail in the publication of level III prevents a more comprehensive assessment.142 Yörüklü-Hüseyindede Tepesi is a small mound located 2km south of the town of Yörüklü and 45km northwest of Boğazköy-Hattusa. The site was first recorded in 1997 133  Özgüç 1988: 69, 74. 134  Özgüç 1988: 74. 135  Özgüç 1988: 110. 136  Mielke 2006. 137  Klinger 1995; Wilhelm 2005. 138  Mielke 2006: 255. 139  Mielke 2006. 140  Mielke 2006; originally published as a ‘light grey slipped’ spindle bottle: Özgüç 1988: 79; pl. 27.1. 141  von Schuler 1965; Klinger 2002; Singer 2007. 142  Glatz and Matthews 2005.

85

The North: Archaeology

by Tayfun Yıldırım and Tunç Sipahi and drew attention due to a surface scatter of LBA relief sherds.143 Rescue excavations commenced in 1998, which revealed the partial plan of two rooms filled with pottery, including two relief vases, which were destroyed by fire.144 One of the relief vases has scenes in four panels similar to the İnandık vase, the other has a single decorated panel with scenes of dancers, musicians and a bull with acrobats.145 The remaining vessels include mainly closed shapes such as a lentoid flask, a spouted jug, tall jars with long, constricted necks, jars with everting rims and funnel-shaped necks as well as shallow bowls, a plate fragment and a cup with handle. With over 30 vessels found partially in situ in the two rooms, their functions as storage spaces is clear. The initial identification of the structure as a temple, parallel in dating to İnandık,146 however, is not borne out by the available evidence as subsequent seasons revealed additional free-standing structures147 and the pottery also fits better into the middle part of the sequence. Hüseyindede, similar to İnandıktepe, was probably one of several rural estates, which seem to have populated the region northeast of Boğazköy-Hattusa in the 15th century BC. Over the past decade, additional nearby sites with evidence for LBA occupation, including Boyalı, Fatmaören Höyüğü and Eskiyapar, have also been subject to archaeological investigations, but await more extensive publication.148 4

A Historical Geography of the North—The Archaeological Framework

The available archaeological evidence, thus, points to two rather striking settlement trends in the Central Black Sea Region during the final MBA and the first century and a half of the LBA. The first is the apparent attrition of settlements with recognisable NCA material culture from the more northerly and coastal parts of the region. In the East, this process appears to take place slightly earlier, during the MBA or the first decades of the LBA, while in the West, settlements with NCA pottery are attested until the 15th century BC. This settlement retreat is particularly evident in coastal Samsun which is relatively densely settled during the MBA. Chance finds, such as the LBA metal

143  Sipahi and Yıldırım 1998: 19–20. 144  Yıldırım 2000; Sipahi 2001. 145  Sipahi 2001. 146  Yıldırım 2000; Sipahi 2001: 117. 147  Sipahi 2005. 148  Sipahi 2006, 2010. See chapter 5, this volume.

axes recorded by Dengate149 in Samsun or glyptic finds at Dündartepe,150 much like the metal finds in Kastamonu, suggest LBA presence and activity in the more northerly regions, but permanent settlements are not attested for this period. This settlement retreat comes to a halt in inner Samsun, Amasya and Çankırı Province; the latter region even experienced an increase in settlement sites during the LBA, some of which continue to be occupied during the Hittite Empire Period. The linear arrangement of fortified sites along the Devrez Çay in Çankırı and a similar trend in inner Samsun and Amasya151 demarcate a border zone south of which is found a thriving LBA settlement and agricultural landscape. Toponyms and events associated with the north and the Hittite-Kaška conflict will have to be sought in the general region of this border zone. Beyond the Devrez-Kızılırmak line, most traces of settlements with NCA cultural affiliations seem to have disappeared by the 15th century BC. Three main hypotheses have been put forward to explain this development. Due to the seemingly sudden appearance of the Kaška on the Hittite historical stage, most likely in the second half of the 15th century BC, it has been widely assumed that they are newcomers to the region, who upon arrival began to displace communities with Central Anatolian cultural connections.152 In archaeological terms, this would mean the sudden appearance of new cultural elements, which we have not been able to identify or at least securely date so far. Others see the Kaška as autochthonous to the region. Based on prevalent suffixes in Kaška place, personal and divine names, Itamar Singer suggested that they constitute the mobile elements of Hattian society, which were pressured into the mountainous margins of central Anatolia by increasingly dominant Hittite populations.153 Paul Zimansky moves beyond questions of ethnic or cultural difference and suggests that both the northern frontier of the Hittite empire and, at least to some degree, the Kaška as the barbarous northern enemy are the products of Hittite imperialism.154 With the Pontic mountains a zone of greatly diminishing returns for Hittite military ventures and governance, a frontier and the enemies beyond were created to limit Hittite expansion more so than keep the Kaška out, much like Hadrian’s Wall marked the northern limit of the Roman Empire. İlgi Gereçek also 149  Dengate 1978: III. 6–8, figs. 12–13. 150  Yakar and Dinçol 1974: 86. 151  See also Dönmez 2002b: 276. 152  von Schuler 1976–80: 451; Klinger 2005: 451. 153  Singer 2007. 154  Zimansky 2007.

86

Glatz

recently proposed that Kaška was a purely social term with which Hittite sources described political dissidents with no real cultural implications.155 Although both seem attractive explanations, as they remove the need to ‘find’ the Kaska in material culture terms, such a text-focused explanation also oversimplifies the cultural trajectories expected of a borderzone over time. Even if culturally ‘Hittite’ populations formed part of the Kaška side, their cultural traditions cannot be expected to remain static or indeed in sync with those of Central Anatolian urban centres over several centuries. Networks of craft production, skill and knowledge must be expected to transform as a result of border-relations, resulting both in new and hybrid cultural practices in the interaction zone and the development of greater cultural difference at some distance from it. Recent finds in the Black Sea Region of localised cultural traditions also confirm that at least some inhabitants of the Pontic Zone practised distinctive cultural traditions. Whether Hattian or not, an autochthonous Anatolian population, which seemingly bursts onto the historical stage when hostile conflict with its neighbours flares up, can be expected to show some degree of cultural continuity as well as affinity with neighbouring regions. This scenario would fit with recent suggestions that EBA pottery may have continued to be produced in some parts of Anatolia throughout the second millennium BC. This is based on the observation that hand-made EIA (1200/1180–800 BC) pottery found at Boğazköy and other Central Anatolian sites often resonates with earlier EBA forms156 and recent finds in the LBA Quadratgebäude in the Boğazköy-Hattusa Upper City of hand-made pottery

of distinctively EBA west Anatolian affinities.157 If correct, this scenario of cultural continuity would make an already difficult ceramic sequence even less reliable and would certainly not make the identification of LBA sites in the north any easier. It would, however, potentially fill an empty LBA archaeological landscape. The answer to this question and much else regarding Kaška communities will have to await excavations at one of the few northern LBA sites and the careful study of their material culture for signs of local and hybrid cultural practices and technological traditions in combination with the collection of absolute dates.

155  Gerçek 2012. 156  Genz 2004: 37.

157  Seeher 2004: 65; 2010. 158  Matthews and Glatz 2009a.

5 Conclusion The archaeological patterns and developments presented in this chapter present a spatial framework for the placement of toponyms associated with the north and the Hittite-Kaška conflict. LBA settlement patterns and defensive measures suggest a localisation of much of the northern toponyms in relative proximity to the Hittite heartland and well inland from the Black Sea coast,158 as there are simply no substantial LBA settlements beyond the Devrez-Kızılırmak line to which place names could be pinned. The difficult, mountainous and densely forested terrain of much of this region, furthermore would have significantly curtailed the mobility of an army such as the Hittite, while the more gentle and open landscapes of Çankırı, for instance, would permit marching speeds in line with those implied in Hittite sources.

Figure 7.1

The physical and modern political geography of the Central Black Sea Region.

The North: Archaeology

87

88

Figure 7.2  Sites with evidence for LBA occupation.

Figure 7.3  View of Okçular Kale in Cide, Kastamonu.

Glatz

CHAPTER 8

South-Central: Archaeology Alvise Matessi and Bianca Maria Tomassini Pieri Introduction Ever since the development of the earliest farmer and proto-urban communities, so grandiosely witnessed by the remains of Çatal Höyük, South-Central Anatolia has been an area of lively cultural interactions and movements. The region was absorbed into the Hittite domain during the Old Kingdom, at the very beginning of the Late Bronze Age, and soon became the locus of constant political and military opposition between the Hittites and their western rivals of Arzawa and Lukka. South-Central Anatolia is far from being a homogeneous geographic unit, and comprises several zones defined by a number of topographic features. At its centre lies the Konya plain, i.e. the plateau extending between Konya itself, the Tuz Gölü and the small volcanic group of the Melendiz mountains. The southwestern continuation of the Konya plain, extending around the upper course of the Çarşamba river, is occupied by the so-called “Lake District”, defined by the lakes of Beyşehir and Eğridir. The impervious Taurus Mountain ranges form the southern edge of the Konya plain, and feasible access to the Mediterranean is available only via two passages: the famous Cilician Gates (Turkish: Gülek Boğazı), connecting Central Anatolia to the Cilician plain by way of the narrow gorge of the Gökoluk river, and the broader valley of the Göksu river, providing the link between the Karaman area and Silifke. Finally, moving to the western limit of the area here described, we encounter the Aksu river which, after gaining a narrow passage through the western Taurus, forms the broad alluvium of the Pamphylian plain, extending around the gulf of Antalya. In light of such an extreme geographical diversity, the treatment of South-Central Anatolia as a single target area finds full historical justification in its political layout under the Hittite Empire. In fact, since the 14th century BCE at least, most of this region was occupied by a unitary province, the Lower Land, whose extension, despite many uncertainties, likely included a great portion of the Konya plain. In addition to the Lower Land, during the 13th century BCE South-Central Anatolia became the location of the powerful appanage kingdom of Tarhuntašša,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_009

comprising in its domain the southern part of the Konya plain and the central Taurus down to the Mediterranean Sea and the Aksu river.1 From an archaeological point of view, the cultural traits of Late Bronze Age South-Central Anatolia still remain illdefined compared to other areas of the peninsula. A major challenge in this respect is represented by the scarcity of local stratified contexts. At present, in fact, only at the sites of Porsuk/Zeyve Höyük and Kilise Tepe Late Bronze Age levels have been exposed extensively enough to provide information on the character of the Hittite presence in the region. Although crucial for the understanding of the Late Bronze Age developments in an interregional perspective, both Porsuk and Kilise Tepe are located at the fringes of the area dealt with here. On the other hand, the very core area of South-Central Anatolia, i.e. the Konya plain, remains out of focus in terms of Late Bronze Age stratigraphy. In fact, compared to its high archaeological potential, very few excavation projects are or have been active in this area. In particular, knowledge of the 2nd millennium BCE in the Konya plain mostly derives from the substantial Middle Bronze Age remains of Acemhöyük, in the Tuz Gölü area, and Karahöyük-Konya.2 Neither of these sites, however, has thus far yielded Late Bronze Age levels. Fortunately, abundant settlement data on the Late Bronze Age otherwise lacking from excavations are supplied by the several archaeological surveys carried out in the Konya plain and in its surroundings. In addition, a vital source of information about the Hittite presence in South-Central Anatolia is represented by the several isolated Hittite monuments found spread around the region. The aim of the present chapter will be to combine the array of data derived from archaeological investigations in South-Central Anatolia in order to understand the character of the local Hittite settlements in its dynamic interaction with the surrounding environment.

1  For the historical geography of the Lower Land and Tarhuntašša, see chapter 18 by Forlanini in this book. 2  Alp 1994, Özgüç 1966 and, lastly on Acem Höyük, Öztan and Arbuckle 2012.

90

Matessi and Tomassini Pieri

Topography and Environment

Several factors may condition the distribution of settlements in a given region and, generally, political and social ones have a greater influence. However, also the local topography and environment and their changes through time may play an important and often determining role. South-Central Anatolia is no exception (Fig. 8.1). Its core area is occupied by the Konya plain, a marl plateau originated from tectonic processes during the Miocene period (5,332–23.03 Ma) and extending for c. 10,000km2 at an altitude of about 1,000masl.3 The main hydrological feature of the Konya plain is the Çarşamba river. Springing from the Şuğla lake basin, then making its narrow way between the Erenler Dağı and the Taurus, this river disperses itself into an endorheic delta. The alluvial floodplain formed by the Çarşamba lies on the former bed of a large Late Pleistocene paleolake (126,000 yr. BP), whose remnant is nowadays represented by the Hotamiş marsh, extending between the ancient volcanoes Karacadağ and Karadağ.4 The paleolake reached its maximum level around 25,000 BP, then retracted due to global water recession determined by rising temperatures and increased evaporation.5 Eventually, with the onset of the Holocene (9,000 BCE), the Konya paleolake was completely dried out and was soon replaced by the Çarşamba alluvium. It was precisely around this period, with the new availability of fertile land, that human communities settled for the first time in the area (Pınarbaşı: 8,500 cal. BC; Can Hasan and Çatal Höyük: 7,600 cal. BCE), in likely connection also with a trend of increasing moisture and climatic amelioration.6 The Konya plain is nowadays traversed by an important karst basin, fed by rivers flowing from the northern fringes of the Taurus mountain and by underground streams originating from melting snow and rain.7 In turn, the karst basin feeds the many sinkholes emerging as a major feature in the plain around Ereğli. Part of the underground water flows northward beneath the plateau reaching the Tuz Gölü (“salt lake” in Turkish). This inland hypersalinealkaline lake is quite shallow (less than 1m deep) but at the same time extensive (c. 3,000km2), in this respect being second in Turkey only to Lake Van. The Tuz Gölü has 3  Karabiyoğlu and Kuzucuoğlu 1998: 10–20. 4  Roberts 1983: 154; Leng et al. 1999: 188–189; Erol 1978. 5  Erol 1978; Roberts and Kuzucuoğlu 1998; Fontugne et al. 1999; Gürel and Lermi 2010. 6  Fontugne et al. 1999; Sanlaville 1996. For a recent synthesis on the Neolithic in the Konya plain and in the Central Plateau in general: Özbaşaran 2011. 7  Fontugne et al. 1999: 575.

a very high percentage of salinity (more than 80%)8 and it allows just the most resistant forms of life to survive in its immediate vicinity. However, the rich saltlicks surrounding the lake during the summer represent an important economic source of salt supplies, seemingly exploited by local populations since the Pre-Pottery Neolithic.9 From a geomorphological point of view, the Tuz Gölü is a fault-angle basin, lined along its northeastern side by a straight edged NW-SE fault scarp elevating for more than 400m above the plain.10 The western and southern faults, less visible in current orography, respectively delimit the arid platforms of the Cihanbeyli and Obruk plateaus. The water level of the Tuz Gölü fluctuated significantly throughout the Holocene, causing multiple shifts in the distribution of settlements. In particular, during the Late Bronze Age, a phase of shrinking waters determined by changes in the precipitation rates brought settlements to occupy the lake lowlands.11 A dry steppe environment, with semi-arid climate, today mostly characterizes the Konya basin. The average annual precipitation in the immediate vicinities of Konya is around 300mm, slightly decreasing to 290mm in the Cihanbeyli plateau. Modern techniques used in order to obtain fresh water in such harsh conditions include deep drilling for reaching the underground reserves. However, the local population mostly depends on dry-farming and herding of sheep, goat and cattle, while large areas, especially the Obruk plateau, remain completely devoid of permanent settlement.12 On the contrary, irrigated farming of cereals, sugar-beets and fruits is nowadays widely practiced in the Çumra area, supported by modern drainage works in the Çarşamba floodplain. Mountain slopes usually present poor vegetation, a significant exception being those of the Karadağ and Karacadağ, occupied by modest oak, juniper and almond tree woods as well as by the orchards of local villagers. Moreover, water made available by a few mountainous springs on these volcanoes allows the cultivation of corn and cereals at their feet. More fertile stretches of land are found in the western appendices of the Konya basin. Towards Afyonkarahisar, abundant water for irrigated agriculture is made available by two lakes, Akşehir and Eber, fed by the Akarçay river and by several streams converging from the Sultan and Emir Dağ mountains. A similarly well-watered environment

8  Kashima and Matsubara 1995. 9  Erdoğu and Özbaşaran 2008. 10  Erol 1978. 11  Kashima 2001. 12  Barjamovic 2011: 83.

South-Central: Archaeology

is also found south of the Sultan Dağ, in the so-called “Lake District”, defined by the lakes Beyşehir and Eğridir. The northeastern shores of the paleolake once lying in the Konya plain reached the Bor-Ereğli plain, extending between the Taurus and the former volcanoes of the Hasan and Melendiz Dağ.13 The Bor-Ereğli plain now mostly appears as an arid steppe, surrounded by significant patches of lush vegetation in connection with the alluvial deposits at the mountain feet. During the Holocene, due to climatic fluctuations, the Bor-Ereğli plain has seen a process of soil salinization alternating with the formation of small lakes and marshes.14 In particular, in the Late Bronze Age, a former lake extending in the plain west of Bor evolved into a marsh, with further salinization of the soil.15 Such changing environmental conditions are likely responsible for a stark settlement shift which apparently took place at the end of the Early Bronze Age, when the formerly populated lake shores were abandoned in favour of places with availability of fresh water, namely the piedmonts and slopes.16 The Bolkar Dağ, a sub-group of the Taurus chain, rises at the southern edge of the Bor-Ereğli plain as a steep and almost impenetrable barrier, with top elevations of more than 3,500m. This limestone massif is known for its metal resources, especially silver, likely exploited since the 3rd millennium BCE. For this reason, it has been suggested to identify the “Silver Mountains” mentioned in the inscriptions of Sargon of Akkad just with the Bolkar Dağ, or the Taurus in general.17 More direct archaeological evidence for the importance of the Bolkar Dağ as a mining district derives from investigations at the Kestel mine and the associated processing site of Göltepe, both dating to the Early Bronze Age.18 According to archaeometallurgical analyses, beside other metals, the Kestel mine served as a source of tin, generally very rare in Anatolia. However, it is still controversial how far the tin supplies from the Bolkar Dağ district could have been able to contribute to the Anatolian bronze industry during the Bronze Age.19 The only viable passage through the Bolkar Dağ is provided by the Cilician Gates, a narrow gorge introduced from the north by a maze of small valleys and smooth 13  Gürel and Lermi 2010: 57. 14  Cohen 1970; de Meester 1970; Roberts and Kuzucuoğlu 1998; Karabiyikoğlu and Kuzucuoğlu 1998. 15  D’Alfonso 2010. 16  D’Alfonso 2010: 31 and 45, fig. 2; Basso and Gürel in d’Alfonso and Mora 2009; Basso 2010: 80. 17  Frayne 1993: 28–29. 18  Yener 2000. 19  Muhly 1993; Yener 2000: 71–123. For some recent syntheses, see also Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 200ff.; Muhly 2011: 858ff.

91 hilltops.20 This ancient path is today crossed by the Aksaray-Adana road (D750), climbing the valley of the Çakıt Suyu up to Pozantı and then descending to Adana through the Gökoluk river valley. Westwards, in so-called Rough Cilicia, the Taurus assumes a rugged aspect, determining a complex system of valleys, plateaus, sunken basins and steep coastal ranges along the Mediterranean. A major topographical discontinuity is determined here by the Göksu River. After draining the narrow gorge of the Çoğla canyon along roughly the first 130km, this river widens into a broader alluvium where it also receives water from its main tributary, the Ermenek Çay. A fertile environmental niche, able to support a significant population, is thus created. Then, c. 30km downstream from the Ermenek confluence, the valley narrows again towards Silifke, where the river eventually opens into a small delta before entering in the Mediterranean Sea. Together with the Cilician Gates, the Göksu valley forms one of the very few passages through the Taurus. It is nowadays accessed from the Konya plain through the Sertavul pass, but it is not to be excluded that other points of access could also have been used in antiquity. This, in particular, seems to be evidenced for the Early Bronze Age, when a settlement, Çömlek Tepesi, was founded north of Mut, in a position apparently disconnected from the Sertavul pass.21 In addition to the Cilician Gates and the Göksu valley, the Konya plain constitutes the basin also for other important natural corridors. It is linked to the central plateau by way of a north-south axis lying east of the Tuz Gölü. This connects the Bor-Ereğli plain to Cappadocia and the middle Kızılırmak through the Konaklı valley, located north of Niğde, between the Melendiz and the Taurus mountains. The Sultan Dağ mountains, to the northwest, form the ridge between two other corridors, running east-west. The first, once traversed by the Roman via Sebaste,22 runs parallel to the Taurus across the Lake District. The other corridor, now crossed by the Konya-Afyonkarahisar highway, runs through the Akarçay valley between the Sultan Dağ and the northern Emir Dağ. It is probably just along this latter route that Cyrus the Younger and his Greek army of “Ten-Thousands” crossed Phrygia during the long march to Mesopotamia (Xen. Anab. I 11–14).23

20  It is still controversial which among the many possible paths would have been preferred as entrance to the Cilician Gates in antiquity, especially during the Roman period: see Coindoz 1991. 21  Newhard et al. 2008. 22  Talbert 2000: Pl. 62 and 66. 23  D. H. French 1991.

92

Matessi and Tomassini Pieri

South-Central Anatolia is today dominated by a harsh semi-arid environment, limiting available places for irrigated farming to a few floodplains and mountain piedmonts. The 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE were likely characterized by climatic instability, with more or less humid phases punctuated by episodic droughts roughly marking the end of each millennium.24 More specifically, rising temperatures and consequent increasing evaporation in river basins likely characterized the end of the Middle Bronze Age and most of the Late Bronze Age. To the latter period also correspond some among the most ancient traces of strong human impact on the SouthCentral Anatolian environment. These are witnessed in the so-called “Beyşehir Occupation Phase”, a term indicating a stark variance in pollen records from the Beyşehir Lake deposits spanning between 3,500 and 2,000 years BP, reflecting ancient forest clearance by local farmers in order to make way for crops and herds.25

Previous Research

In contrast to the north-central plateau, where research on a growing number of Hittite sites has continued since the first pickaxe was wielded at Boğazköy/Hattuša more than one century ago, the south-central area of Anatolia has remained for a long time at the margins of Hittite archaeology. For instance, still in 1986, the Konya plain and the central Taurus appear as an almost empty space in the map of Hittite settlements included in the Atlante Storico del Vicino Oriente.26 Nonetheless, archaeological research in South-Central Anatolia has much improved over the past thirty years (Fig. 8.2), mostly driven by the intention of finding material manifestations of fundamental historical processes, such as the establishment of the HattiTarhuntašša relationships or the dissolution of the Hittite Empire. Early explorations in the region occupied the decades between the late 19th and the early 20th century. Led by western archaeologists and geographers, these pioneering ventures were reported in a number of articles, pamphlets and monographs. Despite often being affected by elements of romantic naivety, the contribution of these works was fundamental to the emerging research on the Hittite geography. In particular, we owe to Ramsay, probably the most famous among the early explorers, the discovery and first description of several sites and monuments of 24  Kuzucuoğlu 2012. 25  Bottema and Woldring 1984. 26  Forlanini and Marazzi 1986: Tav. I.

South-Central Anatolia.27 Articles and travel accounts by John Garstang and von der Osten, moreover, include valuable observations on the Hittite communication system in relation to the Konya plain and the Cilician Gates.28 The south-central plateau and the central Taurus were among the first areas of Anatolia to be covered by systematic archaeological surveys, starting from the 1950’s. These were initially very extensive in space and mostly devoted to recovering and classifying settlements by collecting and studying surface findings. Limited attention was also devoted to the relationship between human communities and their surrounding environment,29 although this concern has specifically informed more recent projects. In addition to the continuing tradition of extensive archaeological surveys, the last decades have seen a rapid surge in more specialized regional projects, involving intensive research on relatively small areas. In most such cases, research objectives are not restricted to recording sites, but also comprise off-site and inter-site investigations addressing in a multidisciplinary approach the complex interactions between human communities and the surrounding environment.30 Stratified data on the Late Bronze Age in South-Central Anatolia became available only quite late. For a long time since the 1970s, the sole Late Bronze Age excavated settlement in the region was Porsuk, until new works started in the late 1990’s at another site, Kilise Tepe (see below, Excavations). Alongside settlements and their dynamic relationships with the physical environment, research on the Late Bronze Age material culture in South-Central Anatolia has also concerned other important places, especially those marked by landscape monuments.31 Little work has been done on integrating the available evidence on the landscape monuments into data sets concerning the surrounding settlement pattern or other elements of the archaeological landscape. In South-Central Anatolia several landscape monuments have often been accidentally discovered by non-archaeologists and studied independently from their regional context. One of the few exceptions to this general remark is the rock carved relief of Hatıp, representing Kurunta “Great King” of Tarhuntašša. This 27  Ramsay 1903 and 1908. 28  Garstang 1910 and 1943; von der Osten 1929 and 1930. 29  E.g. D. H. French 1970. 30  E.g. Yener 2000: 71ff.; Baird 1996; Erdoğu and Özbaşaran 2008; Harmanşah and Johnson 2012. 31  See Ehringhaus 2005; Glatz and Plourde 2011, with previous literature. For a recent reconsideration of this and other related problems, see Ullmann 2010: 182ff.

South-Central: Archaeology

monument, indeed, was both detected and investigated in the framework of a regional survey, carried out in the Konya province by a team of the Konya Selçuk University led by Hasan Bahar.32 On the other hand, investigations on the Yalburt spring-pool complex and the earthen dam of Köylütolu, both monuments associated with inscriptions by Tuthaliya IV, have been recently included in a regional archaeological survey project focusing on the Ilgın district.33 More generally, others have focused on the spatial distribution of landscape monuments in SouthCentral Anatolia, in order to address in synthetic analyses complex issues of Hittite geography.34

Archaeological Surveys

Several archaeological survey projects have been carried out in South-Central Anatolia, collecting a large amount of data concerning the 2nd millennium BCE and the Late Bronze Age in particular (Fig. 8.2).35 Most of the projects are concentrated on the great Konya basin, and cumulatively they entirely cover the area between lake Beyşehir, the Hasan-Melendiz massif, the Taurus and the Tuz Gölü. In the 1950s, Mellaart explored this whole area, mainly on foot, in a very extensive survey.36 Rather than on settlements, Mellaart’s main interest was focused on ceramics, based on which he attempted to define “cultural provinces”. However, this approach did not prevent him from formulating important conclusions on the settlement pattern. Mellaart was among the first scholars to notice and document a drastic drop in site numbers between the late Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE, defining a trend later documented elsewhere in Anatolia.37

32  Dinçol 1998a–b; Bahar et al. 1996; Bahar et al. 2007. For the survey, see further below. 33   Johnson and Harmanşah 2015; Harmanşah 2014b, primarily chapters 3–4. For the Yalburt inscription, see Poetto 1993; Hawkins 1995a: 66ff. and Karasu et al. 2000. For the Köylütölü inscription, see Masson 1980. For the other monuments considered in this chapter, see: Mellaart 1962; Bachmann and Özenir 2004 (Eflatun Pınar); Alp 1974; Hawkins 2000: 433ff. (Kızıldağ, Karadağ and Burunkaya); Masson 1979; Hawkins 1995a: 86–102 (Emirgazi altars); Bittel 1939, Kohlmeyer 1983: 103 (Ermenek); Ehringhaus 2005: 118 (Keben). 34  Dinçol et al. 2000 and 2001; Yakar et al. 2001. 35  See also Barjamovic 2011: Map 5. 36  Mellaart 1954. 37  Mellaart 1958a: 312; 1958b; 1963: 236. See also Glatz 2009: 132ff.

93 Since 1994 Bahar has been conducting extensive surveys across the Konya and Karaman provinces. Publications of these surveys, comprising yearly reports and two monographs, concisely comment on individual settlements and other features of the archaeological landscape, also including catalogs and illustrations of major findings.38 Site reconnaissance in Bahar’s surveys is mostly ground-based and no use of other methods such as remote sensing technologies is made explicit in available publications. Nonetheless, Bahar and his team have been able to record and map a remarkable number of settlements (more than three hundred), spanning in dating from the Neolithic to the Roman period. According to the classification provided in publications, also the typology of identified sites varies a lot, from mounds (Turkish: höyük) to flat archaeological deposits.39 More selective is a survey led by Güneri in the Çumra-Karaman-Karapınar triangle, with the aim to record only 2nd millennium mounded sites.40 The data collected by Bahar and Mellaart in the region between the Tuz Gölü and Konya are complemented by the General Survey in Central Anatolia (GSCA), led by Sachihiro Omura of the Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology.41 As explicitly disclosed in preliminary reports, site reconnaissance methods pursued by the GSCA are mostly ground- and map-based, with further information obtained through interviews with locals.42 The GSCA also benefits from the cooperation with paleoenvironmental and geo-archaeological projects, especially focused on the Tuz Gölü area.43 The recent Yalburt Yaylası Archaeological Landscape Research Project (YYALRP), led by Ömur Harmanşah, focuses on the Ilgın district, especially on the areas around the Hittite monumental complexes of Yalburt and Köyültolu.44 A peculiarity in YYALRP programmatic intents is the attention devoted to special elements of the cultural landscape, like caves, springs and sinkholes, with the aim of building an “archaeology of place and place-making”.45

38  Yearly reports are regularly published by Bahar in the annual issues of Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı since 1996 (no. 13–29). 39  Bahar and Koçak 2004: 33ff. 40  Güneri 1987, 1988 and 1989. 41  Omura 1991; 1992; 1993; 1998; 2000a; 2006. 42  Omura 2000a: 37. 43  E.g. Kashima 2001. 44  Harmanşah and Johnson 2011 and 2012;  Johnson and Harmanşah 2015. 45  Harmanşah 2014a, 2014b.

94 The Çarşamba alluvium has been intensively explored by the Konya Plain Survey Project (KPSP), led by Douglas Baird, of Liverpool University.46 As explicated in related publications, this project focuses on a relatively small area, pursuing both intensive and extensive methods. These also include a program of paleoenvironmental studies, mainly addressed at assessing taphonomic processes affecting settlement visibility.47 Despite this intention, it is difficult to determine how far 2nd millennium BCE settlement data are thereby augmented, as the results of the KPSP relevant to this period are at present available only in short reports, where information about sites, their number, location and dating is not thoroughly disclosed. About a hundred sites dating from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages have been documented in the eastern stretches of the Konya plain, in the vicinity of the HasanMelendiz massif. After explorations by Mellaart, the BorEreğli plain was surveyed in the 1960s by Piero Meriggi.48 Focused more on historical rather than archaeological issues, the accounts Meriggi offered are rich in observations relevant to the geography of the Hittite domain. In particular, after recognizing a höyük on the acropolis of Niğde, he proposed to identify it with the URUNahita of the Hittite cuneiform sources and with the Neo-Hittite Nahitiya, mentioned in the hieroglyphic inscription of Andaval (30km c. north of Niğde).49 Between 2006 and 2010 a team of the University of Pavia, led by Lorenzo d’Alfonso and Clelia Mora, reappraised the work by Meriggi undertaking surveys and geo-archaeological studies along the southern feet of the Hasan-Melendiz massif, between Bor and Altunhisar.50 As a legacy of this survey, the same team, in a joint project with New York University, undertook excavations at the site of Kınık Höyük. Here, a Late Bronze Age occupation is also to be expected, on account of both surface materials and some limited stratified findings (see below).51 Late Bronze Age settlements have been detected also along the eastern slopes of the Melendiz Dağ, to the north of Niğde, thanks to the surveys led there since 2008 by Erhan Bıçakçı and his team from Boğazıcı University of Istanbul.52 The southern fringes of the Bor-Ereğli plain, in 46  Baird 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2001. 47  Baird 1996 and 2001; Boyer et al. 2006. 48  Meriggi 1962 and 1963; d’Alfonso et al. 2011: 71. 49  Meriggi 1963. For the Andaval stela, see Hawkins 2000: 514–516 and, now, Mora and Balatti 2012. 50  D’Alfonso 2010; d’Alfonso et al. 2011. 51  Matessi et al. 2014; Highcock et al. 2015. 52  The results of the Boğazıcı University survey are still unpublished but, for one of the Late Bronze Age sites detected, see

Matessi and Tomassini Pieri

the area around Ereğli itself, have been only marginally touched by Mellaart and Güneri, who detected a handful of sites with traces of 2nd millennium BCE occupation. In 2013, a new survey project sponsored by Koç University started in the region, under the direction of Çiğdem Maner, with the specific aim of investigating Bronze and Iron Age remains.53 At the opposite side of the Konya basin, in the area around Beyşehir and Akşehir, general surveys were carried out by Mehmet Özsait, leading to the identification of 26 sites with traces of 2nd millennium BCE occupation.54 Moving to the south, Mellaart recorded a dozen pre-classical sites in the Göksu river valley.55 Soon after David French came back to the valley, publishing a more detailed report on the pre-classical sites that were identified there and the materials collected on their surfaces.56 One among the sites explored by Mellaart and French, Maltepe/Kilise Tepe, produced remarkable quantities of Late Bronze Age materials and attracted, much later, an extensive excavation (see below, under the Excavations section). In recent years, the exploration of the Göksu valley has been reappreaised in two salvage projects, set up in view of dam constructions along the river: the Göksu Archaeological Project (GAP), devoted to the upper course between Mut and Karaman, and the Lower Göksu Archaeological Salvage Survey (LGASS), focused on the area between Mut and Silifke.57 The archaeological landscape of the Bolkar and Ala Dağ was investigated by Aslıhan K. Yener and her team in the framework of the research project “The Archaeology of Silver in Ancient Anatolia” (ASAA).58 Despite its main focus on the Early Bronze Age mining district of GöltepeKestel, this project detected about thirty additional sites with likely occupations spanning from the Paleolithic to the Ottoman period. However, very meagre evidence was found relating to the 2nd millennium BCE. The Taurus ranges south and southeast of the Konya basin are in general very poorly explored. However, the Balza et al. in d’Alfonso and Mora 2011. We are grateful to Prof. E. Bıçakçı for sharing his survey data with us. 53  Maner 2014 and 2015. 54  Özsait and Özsait 2008. In most cases, no further specification is made as wheter recorded sites bear traces of Late and/or Middle Bronze Age occupation. 55  Mellaart 1954: 177; 1958a: map. 56  D. H. French 1965. 57  For the GAP: Elton 2006 and 2008; Newhard et al. 2008. For the LGASS: Şerifoğlu et al. 2015a and 2015b, with further references. The GAP did not produce results relevant to the 2nd millennium. 58  Yener 1986; Aksoy 1991; Yener 2000: 76ff.

95

South-Central: Archaeology

Hittite relief of Ermenek, found in this area, may account for at least a sporadic usage during the Late Bronze Age. Emmanuel Laroche thought the very city of Tarhuntašša to be located on the Cilician highlands, at Meydancık Kalesi, on account of the supposed presence in its vicinity of a relief of Muwatalli II.59 Further investigations, however, did not find traces of such a relief and the site does not seem to have been occupied prior to the 7th–6th century BCE.60 The coastal cliffs between Alanya, Gazipaşa (Cl. Selinus) and Kaledran (Cl. Kelenderis) have been explored by the Rough Cilicia Archaeological Survey Project (RCASP), directed by Nicholas Rauh.61 Mainly centred on classical remains, this project pursues a vast program of interdisciplinary research, combining environmental studies, intensive pedestrian surveys and underwater archaeological investigations. Covering an area of c. 1,200km2, the RCASP has identified about 150 sites of archaeological interest. Significantly, out of five pre-Hellenistic sites detected so far, none has yielded evidence of Bronze Age occupation. Moreover, only 5% of the total amount of ceramic sherds collected (more than 7,000) is classified as “pre-Roman”. These non-data are in accordance with the results of Mellaart, who was unable to identify any pre-Iron Age settlement along the coast between Silifke and the Menderes mouth.62 It is matter of speculation as to whether to attribute this apparent gap to other causes rather than an effective depopulation of Rough Cilicia during the Bronze Age. It is also possible that the settlements in the lowlands were obscured under some metres of alluvium due to subsequent erosional processes.63 The possible lack of diagnostic pottery in local cultures in addition to the superimposition of later occupations may also have affected the reconnaissance of Bronze Age sites in the region. Site-masking processes are more likely to explain the lack of 2nd millennium BCE settlements in survey records from the Aksu valley and the Pisidian highlands.64 In fact, the increasing exploitation of these areas starting from the Middle and Late Bronze Age is evidenced in local mirrors of the “Beyşehir Occupation Phase”, represented in pollen archives from the vicinities of Antalya.65 Moreover, recent results from Perge (see below, Excavations) provide additional evidence for an 59  Laroche’s indications are noted in Mellink 1972: 171. 60  Davesne et al. 1998. 61  See, lastly, Rauh et al. 2009. 62  Mellaart 1954: 177. 63  Nicholas Rauh, e-mail communication: 25/05/2013. 64  On the problem, see Waelkens 2000. 65  Kuzucuoğlu 2003: 274ff.

effective, if sporadic, occupation of the Aksu valley during the 2 millennium BCE. Excavations Only at two sites in South-Central Anatolia, Kilise Tepe and Porsuk/Zeyve Höyük, have excavations extensively exposed remains dating to the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 8.2). In addition, recent work at two other sites, Kınık Höyük, in Southern Cappadocia, and Perge, in the Pamphylian plain, has produced some stratified evidence of Late Bronze Age occupation which, despite being still too limited for an exhaustive evaluation, introduce important clues for historical and geographical research on Hittite Anatolia.66 The first archaeological information about Kilise Tepe, located in the Göksu valley (36°30ʹ9ʺ N; 33°33ʹ13ʺ E), was provided by Mellaart in 1958.67 At that time, the site was known as Maltepe and yielded abundant material dating from the 3rd to the 1st millennium BCE. David French also recognized ceramics dating to the Late Bronze Age on the surface of the site.68 Stratigraphic excavations started in 1994 as a salvage project occasioned by the construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Göksu river. Work then continued until 2011, with a temporary interruption between 1999 and 2006.69 The site is a 4ha rounded mound, overlooking westwards to the Göksu and Kurt river valleys. This is quite an attractive position from a strategic point of view, also because it lies not far from the confluence between two potentially important axes in the local communication system, i.e. the Göksu and the Ermenek river valleys. The excavations at Kilise Tepe brought to the identification of five different levels of occupation, spanning from the Early Bronze Age to the Byzantine.70 The Late Bronze Age occupation comprises Levels III and IIa–d, and is especially well preserved in the northwestern corner of the site. Although slope erosion and disturbance of later occupation initially hampered a full understanding of the

66  Another excavated site where Late Bronze Age levels might be expected, despite not being reached yet, is Kemerhisar/Tyana (Rosada and Lachin 2010), which is likely to be identified with the important Hittite centre of Tuwanuwa: see Forlanini, in this volume. 67  Mellaart 1958a: 315. 68  D. H. French 1965: 184–185. 69  Final results of campaigns from 1994 to 1998 are published in Postgate and Thomas 2007a. For the 2007–11 campaigns, see now Bouthillier et al. 2014. 70  Postgate and Thomas 2007a: 820, fig. 473.

96

Matessi and Tomassini Pieri

Level III architecture at Kilise Tepe, its spatial layout is now clearer thanks to the 2007–2011 works.71 In particular, substantial remains emerged of a large, multi-roomed complex, called NW building, extending along a NW-SE axis close to the northwestern slope of the mound. The exact function of the NW building is uncertain, but its use as a public facility is hinted by the finding in one of its rooms of an ivory tripod seal of a Ta/tu-pi-ya-la (or Ta/ tu-pi-la-ya).72 Combined dendrochronological and C14 determinations on architectonic timber samples from the NW building would set the construction of its main phase, corresponding to Level IIId, in the late 15th century BCE.73 In addition, the evidence of the tripod seal, attributed to a time span between late 14th and early 13th century BCE, suggests that Level III lasted well into the 14th century.74 The same would be confirmed by recent C14 dates for the last phase of the level (IIIe).75 The final decades of the Bronze Age at Kilise Tepe are attested in phases a-d of Level II. The main architectural feature related to them is the so-called Stele Building, an imposing mud brick complex on stone socle, founded in Level IIa above the remains of the NW building.76 Multiple manipulations to the Stele Building structures are attested and eventually, at the end of the phase IIc, the whole complex went through a violent destruction. A second edition of the Stele Building, identical to the first, was then built up in Level IId, until being definitively rubbed out by a further major conflagration at the end of the phase. The finding of a red-painted sandstone stele (after which the building is termed), in the same context as an altar and a structured fire installation, suggests that cultic activities were likely performed in the Stele Building.77 This is not contradicted by the storage facilities found in many rooms of the Stele Building, since temples in 2nd millennium Anatolia were commonly provided with similar features. Another major architectural remain of Level II at Kilise Tepe is the East Building, an imposing mud brick complex on stone foundations annexed to the eastern end of the Stele Building.78 According to the interpretation of archaeologists, the East Building has a single period history, confined to Level IIc. Administrative activities were likely carried out in both the Stele and the East Building,

given their several storerooms equipped with storage jars. This impression is amplified by the finding, just close to the Stele Building, of three seals with hieroglyphic inscriptions, respectively pertaining to a “charioteer”, Tarhuntapiya (TONITRUS-pi-ya AURIGA), and two noblemen (BONUS.VIR2), Minuwanza (Mi-nú-wa/i-za/i) and Satuwili (Sà-tu-wa/i-li).79 The overall architectural layout in Level IIa-d represents a radical departure from that found in Level III. In fact, the walls of the Stele and East Buildings develop according to a NE-SW axis, turning about 60° compared to the general orientation of Level III. Strikingly, this architectural break does not correspond to an equal rupture in the material culture, since most Level IIa–c traditions are in substantial continuity with those of Level III. This is obvious in the case of the seals, apparently attesting the presence at Kilise Tepe of a Hittite administration in both Level III and Level IIa–d. Although less straightforwardly, the same continuity is also visible in pottery traditions. In fact, the standardized pottery of North-Central Anatolian (“Hittite”) derivation remains a main feature in both levels, with the later drab ware variety more represented in Level IIa–c. Also local ceramic classes formerly thought to be an innovation of Level II, such as the so-called “Cilician Red Painted” ware, now appear to have been diffused already prior to the complete dismissal of Level III (see below, under the Pottery section). A more marked discontinuity, however, possibly concerns the incidence of the Red Lustrous Wheel-made ware, which, very common in Level III, almost disappears from Level II.80 Seals and drab ware ceramics suggest that Level IIa–c corresponded to the late Hittite Empire period.81 Dendrochronological sequences from architectonic timber would set the building of phase IIc between 1379 and 1319 BCE.82 As for the dating of phase IId, we can rely upon some Mycenean LH IIIC vessels, pointing to the first half of the 12th century BCE. Therefore, the destructions terminating both phases IIc and IId are possibly linked to the demise of the Hittite Empire at the end of the 13th century, and the dramatic events associated therewith.83 The site of Porsuk/Zeyve Höyük (37°30ʹ53ʺN; 34°34ʹ 52ʺE), often identified with the Hittite city of Tunna (Cl.

71  Bouthillier et al. 2014: 100–106. 72  Collon in Collon et al. 2009. 73  Kuniholm et al. 2007. 74  Collon in Collon et al. 2009. 75  Postgate in Bouthillier et al. 2014: 134–135. 76  Postgate and Thomas 2007b: 121–137. 77  Postgate and Stone 2013. 78  Postgate and Thomas 2007b: 137–142.

79  Symington 2007: 442–443, fnn. 1470–1472. 80  Symington 2001. 81  Symington 2001. 82  Kuniholm et al. 2007: 621. For some very recent C14 determinations about Level II, see Bouthillier et al. 2014: 135–136, Table 4. 83  Postgate 1999; 2007; 2008.

97

South-Central: Archaeology

Tynna),84 was first visited by Ramsay and Bossert.85 The site is a 4ha tabular mound of triangular form located at the confluence of the streams coming from the northeastern side of the Bolkar Dağ. This is a very favourable position because, besides lying close to the mines of the nearby mountains, it also grants control of the northern access to the Cilician Gates.86 After surveys by Mellaart, stratigraphic excavations on the site of Porsuk/Zeyve Höyük (hereafter simply referred to as Porsuk) started in 1969, spurred on by the coincidental discovery on the site of a Neo-Hittite hieroglyphic inscription.87 The results of the excavations are still awaiting a comprehensive publication, but are well known thanks to yearly reports, specialized studies and synthetic summaries.88 Four operations were opened on the site (Chantiers I–IV), yielding six occupational levels spanning from the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE to the Hellenistic period. The Late Bronze Age architecture (Levels VI–V) is known from Chantiers II and IV, respectively located on the western and eastern corners of the mound. Chantier II yielded parts of a Late Bronze Age fortification system, stone-made and provided with a mud brick superstructure. It is made up of two bastions connected by imposing walls and a stone-walled postern, cutting the natural bedrock of the mound underneath. Given the complexity of this system, exact stratigraphical relationships between the different elements remain difficult to establish. It is sure, however, that they underwent several modifications over time during the Late Bronze Age. Moreover, clear traces of a major destruction eventually seal the postern. Significantly, the Late Bronze Age fortifications of Porsuk do not display the same casemate system typical of other coeval counterparts, like the walls of Boğazköy/Hattuša, Kušaklı and Mersin/ Yumuktepe. Radiocarbon determinations on charred architectonic beams provide absolute dates for the construction of the fortifications at Porsuk between 1685 and 1525 BCE.89 The Late Bronze Age occupation in Chantier II is sealed by a uniform destruction layer, whose exact chronological setting remains debatable. Traditionally, this has been understood to correspond to the dramatic events marking the end of the Hittite Empire in the late

84  Forrer 1937: 146–149. 85  Ramsay 1903: 401–403; Bossert 1954–56. 86  Coindoz 1991: 81–89; Pelon 1992: 305; 2004: 200; Crespin 1999: 61; Beyer 2010: 97. 87  Mellaart 1958a: 316; Hawkins 1969. 88  Beyer et al. 2014 with references to previous literature. 89  Beyer 2010: 98, fn. 5.

13th century.90 However, after re-evaluating some dendrochronological data from the Porsuk fortifications, Mielke proposed to set their final destruction back into the 14th century, a possibility now stregthened by radiocarbon and dendrochonological determinations from the last campaigns.91 Certainly, were these data confirmed by ongoing research, they would open new scenarios for our reconstruction of the last two centuries of Hittite domain in Anatolia. The excavations in Chantier IV yielded the most ancient traces of Late Bronze Age occupation at Porsuk (Level VI), represented thus far only by a few wall remains. The later phase (Level V) comprises a series of casemates, possibly part of a defensive system, in addition to storerooms and some domestic spaces. The latter are made of mud bricks, one of which bears a stamp impression unfortunately heavily weathered and almost illegible. Debris found in this area of the settlement produced some charred beams, whose C14 results would set the construction of Level V in the late 16th or early 15th century BCE.92 A further clarification on the Late Bronze Age chronology at Porsuk would be provided by the Level VI pottery and findings, which remain unpublished. The sites of Kınık Höyük and Perge also deserve a brief note, because they add some limited but still important evidence about the Late Bronze Age in South-Central Anatolia. Kınık Höyük (37°56ʹ14ʺN; 34°22ʹ48ʺE) is a 10ha, terraced mound located at the feet of the Hasan-Melendiz complex. Here, a new excavation project started in 2011 has brought to light portions of an imposing citadel wall, possibly dated to the 15th century BCE through C14 analysis of wooden beams employed in the construction.93 What makes this wall exceptional is that it probably remained in use down to the 4th century BCE, thus representing a unique case in Central Anatolia of continuity over the millennium straddling the Bronze and Iron Ages. Perge (36°57ʹ56ʺN; 30°51ʹ17ʺE) is an important Hellenistic and Roman city located in the Pamphylian plain. In 2004, for the first time after almost seventy years of uninterrupted excavations, a deep sounding under the impressive Classical remains has finally reached structures dating to the end of the 2nd millennium BCE.94 Research is still at the preliminary stage but, if confirmed, such a chronological setting is likely to open new perspectives in the archaeology of 2nd millennium Anatolia. In fact, no other site 90  Dupré 1983: 42. 91  Mielke 2006; Beyer 2015. 92  Beyer 2010: 101. 93  D’Alfonso and Capardoni in Highcock et al. 2015. 94  Abbasoğlu 2005.

98

Matessi and Tomassini Pieri

with traces of occupation during this period is so far archaeologically known in the Pamphylian plain or further north in Pisidia. Moreover, the recent discovery of a late 2nd millennium Perge also corroborates geographical reconstructions proposed by Hittitologists. The toponym Perge is usually equated with the Hittite Parha, figuring in the Bronze Tablet in close association with the river Kaštaraya (Cl. Kestros, mod. Aksu) just near the border towns of the Tarhuntašša domain (see Forlanini, in this volume).

Settlement Pattern

Until now archaeological research in South-Central Anatolia has identified an overall amount of more than two hundred sites with traces of 2nd millennium occupation (Fig. 8.3). Survey data shows a drastic settlement drop at the end of the Early Bronze Age (final 3rd millennium BCE). This negative trend was then turned back later, between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, in the context of the abandonment of such major centres as Acemhöyük (44ha) or Karahöyük-Konya (39ha).95 The Late Bronze Age settlement landscape resulting from this process was therefore less polarized, with sites rarely exceeding 20ha and mostly smaller than 7ha. Similar settlement trends are in general interpreted as signals for the rise of powers capable of exerting diffusive control on a cross-regional scale, making the previous urban polarization into a few large centres obsolete.96 Thus, in the case of Anatolia, the settlement trends recorded between Middle and the Late Bronze Age have been associated with the replacement of the city-states system of the Old Assyrian colony period with a coherent “big polity”, i.e. the Hittite kingdom.97 The kind of material evidence at our disposal in this respect, however, encourages a more cautious pairing of political processes with settlement trends. The general conservatism of Central Anatolian ceramic traditions throughout the Bronze Age and especially during the 2nd millennium BCE is a well-known phenomenon, and prevents any clear-cut discrimination between sub-periods.98 For instance, about a quarter of the two hundred 2nd millennium BCE sites surveyed in South-Central Anatolia did not yield diagnostics that would allow to distinguish between a Middle or a Late Bronze Age occupation. On 95  Mellaart 1958a: 312; Bahar and Koçak 2004: 33ff. 96  Wilkinson et al. 2004. 97  Glatz 2009: 131. 98  Sagona and Zimansky 2009: 240ff.; Schoop 2006.

the other hand, information provided by Hittite textual sources is more easily explained in the light of a gradual transition rather than a sudden change in settlement trends between the Middle and the Late Bronze Age. We know, for example, that “large cities” of the Old Assyrian colony period played a fundamental role still during the Hittite Old Kingdom, acting as seats of local governors and, occasionally, rebelling against Hittite rule.99 If an effective settlement dispersal took place in South-Central Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age, it may rather be associated with the consolidation of the Lower Land as an extensive regional province (14th–13th BCE), and then with the formation of the kingdom of Tarhuntašša (13th BCE). Perhaps, during the same period, relevant social changes also affected the region, at least on a local scale, as possibly witnessed by the shifting architectonic layout attested at Kilise Tepe between Levels III and II. However, on the basis of the current evidence, it is difficult to assess how far such changes reflected overall political developments. From a spatial point of view, Late Bronze Age settlement was mostly concentrated in the northwestern half of our research area, in the region around the Sultan and Erenler Dağları. Minor clusters are also located within the Sille and Meram alluviums (Konya district), in the upper alluvium of the Çarşamba and in piedmont areas of the Karadağ, Karacadağ and Hasan-Melendiz mountain districts. In striking contrast with the high urbanization nowadays characterizing the Çarşamba delta, very little Late Bronze Age occupation has been identified in this area. As recent environmental analyses have shown, the perception of this truncated settlement pattern is hardly a bias deriving from alluviation and consequent site masking. As far as the Bronze Age is concerned, in fact, these phenomena are more likely to affect the central and upper part of the alluvial fan.100 Be that as it may, in this latter area lies one of the largest sites with likely Late Bronze Age occupation ever found in the region here considered, Sircalı Höyük (33ha) second only to Sulutaş (47ha; 15km west of Konya). Other remarkable sites with likely Late Bronze Age occupation are Çomaklı (23ha; Konya district), Kökez (20ha; c. 33km east of Ilgın), and, finally, Kemerhisar, the Classical Tyana, identified with the Hittite Tuwanuwa (25ha; 15km south of Niğde).

99  For two of such examples, Durmitta/Durhumit and Paršuhanda/ Purušhattum, this latter likely located in South-Central Anatolia (Forlanini, this volume), see Barjamovic 2011: 248ff. and 366ff., with thorough reference to textual sources. 100  Boyer et al. 2006.

South-Central: Archaeology

It is difficult to assess how far the differential settlement distribution described above reflects a real situation during the Late Bronze Age or if, on the contrary, is biased by the variety of methods implemented within the several archaeological projects here considered. Certainly, the near absence of Late Bronze Age or, more in general, 2nd millennium settlement in the Taurus highlands and in the Pamphylian plain depends more on the scarcity of relevant data. Nonetheless, the available results of archaeological research in South-Central Anatolia allow us to determine with sufficient approximation general spatial patterns of settlement during the Late Bronze Age. The low density of Late Bronze Age settlements observed in the arid steppes of the Obruk plateau compares well with the current situation, this being nowadays a very poorly settled area. Interestingly, however, a few Late Bronze Age sites have been identified at the southern fringes of the Obruk plateau, in a stretch of relatively fertile land at the foot of Karacadağ. Significantly, these settlements are aligned at a regular distance (18–22km) between Emirgazi and Karapınar, following one of the main east-west topographic corridors traversing the Konya basin (Fig. 8.3). In this respect, it is worth noting that the eastern end of the alignment, Büyük Küllü Tepe, is located just close to the find-spot of the Emirgazi altars, inscribed with a hieroglyphic text.101 A relationship evidently existed between the inscriptions, containing a dedication of Tuthaliya IV to the mountain-god Sarpa, and their original location on the Arısama mountain, just north of the massive outcrop of the Karacadağ.102 Moreover, it is not unlikely that also the nearby presence of a major route of transit played a role in the choice for the altar’s placement. Continuing eastward from Emirgazi, along the base of the Hasan-Melendiz volcanic complex, we find a second interesting alignment of Late Bronze Age sites, possibly marking another communication route. Passing in the vicinity of sites like Niğde/Nahita(?), Tyana/Tuwanuwa and Porsuk, this likely path leads thereafter to two important north-south axes: the Konaklı valley, to the north, and the Cilician Gates, to the south. The high settlement density observed in the northwestern sector of the area here examined may also be related to the presence of communication routes. The corridor opening between the Sultan and Emir Dağları is 101  Masson 1979; Hawkins 1995a: 86ff. 102  For the identification of mount Sarpa with either of the two mountains, see Hawkins 1995a: 93 (Karacadağ) and BörkerKlähn 2007: 93–97 (Arısama), with further references. See also Forlanini in this volume.

99 considered by scholars as one of the main military roads passing through the Hittite Lower Land and leading to Arzawa.103 A number of elements in the local archaeological landscape seems to corroborate similar hypotheses. In particular, it has been suggested that the Köylütolu dam, located at the eastern entrance of the Sultan-Emir Dağları corridor, may also have served military purposes, as a mustering point for marching Hittite troops.104 Moreover, on a hilltop located 7km northwest of Köylütolu, lies the fortress of Ilgın Kaleköy/Zeferiye, for which a dating to the Hittite period has been proposed on account of both the surface architecture and finds.105 Moving to the south, much evidence accounts for the importance of the Göksu valley during the Late Bronze Age. Firstly, it provided direct communication with the Hittite harbour of Ura, likely in the vicinity of Silifke,106 described by various textual sources as a vital medium for the supply of grain provisions from the Levant to Hatti in the occasion of the frequent famines affecting the latter.107 The existence of strong cultural and commercial ties between the Göksu valley and Central Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age is also archaeologically attested. In particular, ceramic assemblages from these two regions display very similar distribution patterns of imported wares and Red Lustrous Wheel-made ware.108 Since no 2nd millennium site has been so far identified north of Mut, it may be assumed that during this period the Sertavul pass served as the access point of the Göksu valley from the plateau. This hypothesis is possibly strengthened by the presence of a Late Bronze Age site, Kozlubucak, just in the position to “guard” the pass. The same site, moreover, may have had its own role in the circulation of the Red Lustrous Wheel-made ware in Anatolia, collected in remarkable quantities on the site surface.109 Passing Kozlubucak, the path coming out from the Göksu valley likely crossed Karaman and then proceeded well into the Konya plain through sites like Yollarbaşı (in Turkish: “beginning of roads”) and Susanhöyük, which also yielded evidence of Late Bronze Age occupation.110 103  Among others, Dinçol et al. 2000: 3. 104  See references in Ullman 2010: 217, fn. 485. 105  Dinçol et al. 2000: 21, fig. 4; Harmanşah and Johnson 2012: 77–78. 106  Forlanini, this volume. 107  Klengel 1974 and 2007b. 108  Kozal 2003 and 2007. See further below, under the Pottery section. 109  D. H. French 1965: 184–185, under the heading “Orange burnished”; Kozal 2003 and 2007. 110  Bahar and Koçak 2004: 54.

100 Pottery Key information about Late Bronze Age pottery in SouthCentral Anatolia derives from the stratified sequences obtained at Porsuk and Kilise Tepe.111 Other ceramic collections were gathered by surveys, but they still remain mostly unpublished.112 The overall Late Bronze Age ceramic horizon in the area examined is largely dominated by the highly standardized and monotonous repertoire typical of the “Hittite” traditions of North-Central Anatolia.113 This does not necessarily mean importation from the centre to the periphery, and extant data from South-Central Anatolia rather suggest the opposite. In fact, petrographic analyses from Kilise Tepe prove that local “Hittite” assemblages were manufactured at or in the vicinity of the site. This would suggest that, in terms of pottery, some local agency enhanced the spread of Hittite traditions in South-Central Anatolia, as probably in other peripheral areas, without a straightforward imposition of final products from a distributive centre.114 The publication of Late Bronze Age assemblages from Porsuk is thus far limited to the materials from Level V.115 Plainly burnished or slipped wares compliant to “Hittite” standards by far represent the vast majority of the Porsuk assemblages. A minor percentage of local-style painted wares is also represented. Also the shapes of wares mostly conform with the “Hittite” standards: shallow bowls with inverted rim, plates with stepped rim profile, lentoid flasks, spouted jugs, in addition to a variety of storage jars and cooking pots are dominant. The local repertoires from Level III at Kilise Tepe are similar to those described at Porsuk, with a few significant differences.116 These especially concern the distribution of white slipped vessels, which are poorly represented at Kilise Tepe but very common in assemblages from Porsuk, Boğazköy and other key sites of inland Anatolia.117 Also partially slipped vessels, 111  Dupré 1983 and Hansen and Postgate 2007a–b. 112  But see, among a few others, Mellaart 1958a and Bahar and Koçak 2004: 72–73. 113  For a recent synthesis on the Hittite pottery, see Schoop 2011. 114  There is still some debate on how the standardization of pottery production throughout the Hittite empire did actually work. According to Postgate (2007: 144ff.), officials were dispatched in peripheral centres by the imperial regime just in order to favor a strong integration and leveling of means of production. On the contrary, Glatz (2009: 129) elaborates a bottom-up model, involving spontaneous “processes of appropriation of imperial styles and practices” by peripheral agents. 115  Dupré 1983. 116  Hansen and Postgate 2007a. 117  Hansen and Postgate 2007a: 331.

Matessi and Tomassini Pieri

abundant at Porsuk and in Tarsus as well, are lacking at Kilise Tepe.118 On the contrary, painted pottery seems slightly more common at Kilise Tepe than at Porsuk. Pot-marks, widely attested at Tarsus and Kinethöyük, are not applied on local wares at both Porsuk and Kilise Tepe. In these two sites, however, pot-marks are occasionally found impressed on base bottoms of spindle bottles pertaining to a specific category of ceramic imports: the Red Lustrous Wheel-made ware (abbreviated: RLW-m).119 Only a very small sample of RLW-m comes from Porsuk. On the contrary, the abundance of this ware is by far the most relevant feature of the Level III repertoire at Kilise Tepe.120 The RLW-m is a very peculiar ceramic class, characterized by a dense fabric, almost free of any temper, and a bright orange body, well polished up to a “lustrous” appearance. It is attested in a variety of shapes, comprising both open and closed vessels, but spindle bottles and libation arms are the most distinctive ones. The RLW-m is diffused throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt, Cyprus, the Levant and, of course, Anatolia. Its homogeneous appearance and fabric composition wherever it is found indicate that the RLW-m ware likely derives from a single source area, the localization thereof is still debated.121 However, recent archaeometric analyses seem to restrict possibilities to a small region in west Cyprus.122 The pattern of geographical distribution of the RLW-m in Anatolia is worth noting, for both its quantitative and qualitative characteristics. Quantitatively, if small assemblages are found at many sites in Cilicia and in the Anatolian mainland, Kilise Tepe seems by far the main consumption centre, with an incidence of RLW-m finding comparisons only at Boğazköy/Hattuša and Kuşaklı/Šarišša.123 The circulation of the RLW-m ware in Anatolia seems therefore polarized around western Cilicia, on the one side, and North-Central Anatolia, on the other. This would suggest that strong cultural and possibly commercial ties existed between the

118   Compare Dupré 1983: 24–25 (under “céramique à engobe rouge”) with Symington 2001: 169. 119  For the RLW-m ware in general: Eriksson 1993. 120  For the RLW-m ware at Porsuk: Dupré 1983: 25–26; at Kilise Tepe: Hansen and Postgate 2007a: 331. 121  Scientific evidence for the common origin of RLW-m wares is reported in Knappett et al. 2005 and Schubert and Kozal 2007. 122  Grave et al. 2014. For other proposals see Eriksson 1991 (northern Cyprus); Knappett 2000 (southern Anatolia); Knappett et al. 2005 (northern Cyprus or southern Anatolia); Kozal 2007 (southern Anatolia). 123  Kozal 2003 and 2007.

101

South-Central: Archaeology

two areas, probably conveyed through the Göksu valley and the Konya plain. Looking at the qualitative aspects of the pattern, however, the relationship between western Cilicia and NorthCentral Anatolia appears not nearly as straightforward. In fact, RLW-m repertoires of mainland Anatolia display a clear-cut selection of shapes, limited to spindle bottles and libation arms.124 On the other hand, recent work has shown the RLW-m ware repertoire from Kilise Tepe to be more comprehensive than that from any other site, not only in Anatolia, but also elsewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean.125 It has long been assumed that the RLW-m was introduced in the Hittite realm not earlier than the 14th century BCE.126 However, the recent reevaluation of the chronological evidence from Boğazköy/ Hattuša and Kuşaklı/Šarišša led to review this dating and set it back in the 15th century.127 The evidence from Porsuk and Kilise Tepe seems to fit with this new proposal. At Kilise Tepe, in particular, the RLW-m ware is predominant in Level III, thus between the late 15th and the mid14th century BCE, but apparently falls into disuse soon after, in Level II. Local pottery from the earliest phases of Level II at Kilise Tepe is in overall continuity with that from Level III, from a stylistic as well as a petrographic point of view.128 Characteristic shapes survive with no significant change, such as the shallow bowls with inturned rim, while others, e.g. the lentoid flasks, develop into a number of variants, including some with painted decoration. The use of painting, red or brown, becomes more widespread in the earliest phases of Level II. For instance, a particular type of bowls with painted internal rims makes its first appearance in Level IIa. Widely diffused in Level IIa–d is also the so-termed “Cilician Red Painted” ware, a class of coarse vessels, both open bowls and large jars, with thick squared rims and red-painted decoration in crude patterns of bands, slashes and cross-hatchings.129 First thought to belong only to Level II, recent works have proven this ware to appear side by side with earlier traditions already in the last phases of Level III (d–e).130 This strengthens the impression of an overall cultural 124  Mielke 2007. 125  Kozal in Bouthillier et al. 2014: 146–147. 126  Eriksson 1993: 133–134. 127  Mielke 2007. 128  Level II pottery is published in Hansen and Postgate 2007b. 129  The label “Cilician Red Painted” (CRP) for this type of ware is of very recent introduction by the archaeologists: see Bouthillier in Bouthillier et al. 2014: 152ff. 130  Glatz in Bouthillier 2014: 145; Bouthillier in Bouthillier et al. 2014: 150ff.

continuity between the two Late Bronze Age occupations. It is likely that the Cilician Red Painted ware developed later in the so-termed “Kindergarten” ware, dominant during the Early Iron Age in Level IIe.131 Therefore, given both stratigraphic setting and possible later affiliations, the diffusion of the Cilician Red Painted ware seems to be associated with the transition between Bronze and Iron Age, when the weakening and dissolution of centralized Hittite control on local production allowed other traditions to develop.132 The Cilician Red Painted ware is not a phenomenon limited to Kilise Tepe, since it has been identified also elsewhere in Anatolia, namely at Tarsus and Mersin in Cilicia, and at Zoldura, in the Konya plain.133 Very few ceramic imports are recognized at Kilise Tepe in the early phases of Level II, except for a small group of Mycenean-style LH IIIC jars, stirrup jars, craters and bowls. These ceramics date Level IId, where they were all found to no earlier than the period 1175–1150 BCE.134 Conclusion Although deriving from diverging records in terms both of quality and quantity, the results of archaeological research in South-Central Anatolia are relevant to the reconstruction of the local political landscapes and their dynamic development during the Hittite period. They add important elements to the historical picture obtained through textual sources and, in a longer perspective, they may allow a closer understanding of the spatial processes enhanced in the area after its absorption into the Hittite empire. In general terms, as we have seen, survey and excavation records suggest the Late Bronze Age landscape was a relatively dense settlement, mostly dispersed over a number of small sized sites. This pattern may result from an increased capability of political formations to exert diffusive authority on a regional scale and no longer necessitating nucleation in a few large, fortified settlements. Therefore, 131   Hansen and Postgate 2007b: 345; Postgate 2008: 175–176; Bouthillier in Bouthillier et al. 2014: 152ff. 132  Postgate 2007. 133  For Tarsus, see Ünlü 2005; for Mersin, see Sevin and Koroğlu 2004: fig. 7, 81; for Zoldura (Hatunsaray II), see Bahar and Koçak 2004: 20–21, Cizim 46–47. One may wonder whether some of the bowl sherds collected by D. H. French (1965: 183, fig. 10.10– 24) at Tekirköy, in the vicinity of Silifke, during his survey in the Göksu valley, can also be interpreted as Cilician Red Painted ware. Lacking a suitable alternative when the article was published, French attributed these sherds to the Late Chalcolithic. 134  E. B. French 2007.

102 considered as a palimpsest of the longue durée, the settlement landscape of Hittite South-Central Anatolia may well reflect the processes of territorial integration taking place with the gradual formation of the Hittite Empire and, possibly, of major provincial systems such as the Lower Land. Similarly, processes of political change in the Hittite domain between 15th and 14th BCE may also have contributed to radical stratigraphic shifts. The strong integration of South-Central Anatolia within the “Hittite” cultural milieu is signalled by the presence of wares of north Central Anatolian derivation. More directly, the influence of the Hittite authorities, in terms of administrative and political control, is reflected by glyptic traditions as well as by the distribution of Hittite royal monuments throughout the area here investigated. At the same time, however, the latter also attest to a stark competition with local rulers, namely the kings of Tarhuntašša, who, as proven by the Hatıp relief, were also able to hazard parallel monumental programs.135 A growing interest of the Hittite authorities in SouthCentral Anatolia is attested in textual sources from the 14th century on, and reached its apex with the transfer of the Hittite capital at Tarhuntašša. One possible explanation of this interest may reside in the centrality of the region within the Anatolian route network.136 As we have seen, in fact, settlements took advantage of the local topography in order to ease connection with the Eastern Mediterranean, through the Taurus passes, and western Anatolia. 135  Singer 1996b; Glatz and Plourde 2011. 136  Singer 2006b.

Matessi and Tomassini Pieri

The demise of Hittite imperial control in South-Central Anatolia towards the end of the Bronze Age (13th–12th BCE) finds its main archaeological correlates in the repeated destructions attested at Kilise Tepe and, with a less clear chronology, at Porsuk. Consistently with these ruptures, during the Bronze to Iron Age transition SouthCentral Anatolia saw a drastic settlement drop of about 90%, with the likely dismissal of most communication routes. The process, however, was neither limited to a single event nor was it all effacing. Even though short-lived, the re-edition of the Stele Building at Kilise Tepe after the destruction of Level IIc witnesses the permanence or even resistance of local architectonic designs. Also changes in the ceramic traditions were gradual at Kilise Tepe, between the first appearance of the Cilician Red Painted ware in Level IIIe and its widespread diffusion in Level IId. Beside this, several elements of continuity are now being stressed in ceramic productions of South-Central Anatolia between Bronze and Iron Age, while the evidence seen above for Kınık Höyük may represent an example of stability also in the built environment.137 Similar local niches of continuity may have constituted channels for the transmission of traditions of the Hittite Empire period, so well reflected in the iconography, hieroglyphic script and Luwian language featured in monuments of the “Neo-Hittite” kingdoms of Tuwana and Tabal during the Middle Iron Age (9th–8th BCE).

137  D’Alfonso et al. 2011: 85ff.

South-Central: Archaeology

Figure 8.1

General map of South-Central Anatolia, with highlight of the research area dealt with in this chapter.

Figure 8.2

Survey areas and excavated Late Bronze Age sites in South-Central Anatolia. Background map: Bing Road Map. © Microsoft Corporation.

103

Figure 8.3

Distribution of possible Late Bronze Age (LBA) sites and Hittite monuments in South-Central Anatolia as drawn from previous archaeological research, with highlight of the hypothetical routes discussed in the text.

104 Matessi and Tomassini Pieri

South-Central: Archaeology

Figure 8.4

Main Late Bronze Age ceramic typologies from South-Central Anatolia and the Central Taurus. a) “Hittite” pottery from Porsuk, Level V (Dupré 1983: 242). © Mission archéologique de Zeyve Höyük (Porsuk). b) RLW-m ware from Kilise Tepe, Level III (Postgate and Thomas 2007a: Fig. 391). With permission from the publisher. c) Lentoid flask (Postgate and Thomas 2007a: Fig. 392) and Cilician Red Painted ware (Postgate and Thomas 2007a: Figs. 398 and 396) from Kilise Tepe, Level II. With permission from the publisher.

105

CHAPTER 9

Central West: Archaeology Kimiyoshi Matsumura and Mark Weeden The area under consideration in this chapter extends from Kırşehir as far as the Sakarya basin, including the Middle Kızılırmak region and corresponds roughly to the northern part of the Roman province of Galatia, with parts of northwestern Cappadocia included.1 This was an area of strategic importance for the Hittites, as at least three crossings of the Kızılırmak were contained within it, providing access to southern Cappadocia and the Konya area as well as to western Anatolia. Much of the area has been subject to extensive ground survey by the Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology, which has also been conducting excavations at Kaman-Kalehöyük (since 1985), KırşehirYassıhöyük (since 2009) and Büklükale in Kırıkkale province (also since 2009). These surveys and excavations provide a basis for much of the following. Further west lie the excavated sites of Külhöyük (excavated by Ankara Museum of Anatolian Civilizations from 1992) and the related installation at Gavur Kalesi, which was first excavated by von der Osten in 1930. To the southwest the region meets the Konya plain, the southern part of which from Cihanbeyli is covered by the chapter on Tarhuntassa and the Lower Land. To the southeast it ventures further into Cappadocia over the Kızılırmak, taking its border around the Aksaray-Nevşehir main road, north of which excavation works have been ongoing at the important site of Ovaören since 2007.

The area under review corresponds roughly to the northwestern part of the Anatolian plateau, south of the Central North Anatolian fault line. It is divided into two parts belonging to separate major continental land-masses which are divided according to geological sutures running the

lines Izmir-Ankara and Ankara-Erzincan.2 The mainly Jurassic rocks of the western part of the area, corresponding to the western half of the geological Sakarya zone, meet the mainly Cretaceous Kırşehir massif just east of Ankara, but west of the Kızılırmak. The geological landscape in the eastern part is characterized by the Cretaceous granitoid and metamorphic rocks (e.g. gneiss, micaschist, metaquarzite, calcisilicate rock) of the Kırşehir massif which develop into an overlay (similarly Cretaceous in date) of ophiolite, accretionary deposits (such as gabbro, basalt, pelagic limestone, shale) including a large “slab” of ultra-mafic rock around the Kaman region.3 Mafic and ultra-mafic rock formations are further found in the Kırıkkale region, as well as to the immediate west of the Kızılırmak, and provide good conditions for the development of mineral and ore deposits.4 The area between Kırşehir and Kaman is defined by fertile highland plains surrounded by hilly flanks with the mountainous ridge of the Kalkanlı Dağlar running roughly parallel to the Kızılırmak river from just to the west of Kırşehir along a probable thrust fault line. This fault line itself runs parallel to the several northwest to southeast running fault lines of the Tuz Gölü on the other side of the Kızılırmak.5 The north of the area is defined some 45km north of the Kalkanlı Dağlar by the Çiçek Dağı (up to 1611m), beyond which one is already in the Yozgat plateau.6 The Çiçek Dağı forms part of a southeast to northwest aligned massif which continues west-northwest in the direction of Kırıkkale after being interrupted by the flood-plain of the Kılıçözü, a tributary of the Delice. The area between the Sakarya basin and the Haymana plateau is characterized by alternating basins or plains and plateaus (yayla) or mountain ridges running at a northeast-southwest diagonal to the east-west folds of

* A rough draft of this chapter was written by M. Weeden and then corrected and supplemented by K. Matsumura, with helpful comments from L. Z. Ullmann, G. Barjamovic, and G. D. Summers. 1  The area thus corresponds partly to that covered by S. de Martino, chapter 19 this volume, but includes additionally the area directly to the east of the western bend of the Kızılırmak. This northsouth stretch of the river may have been a border in the Iron Age but seems to have had less importance as such in parts of the Late Bronze Age. See further below on Büklükale and conclusions.

2  Okay and Tüysüz 1999; Fernández-Blanco et alii 2013 fig. 1. 3  Okay and Tüysüz 1999: 496 fig. 16. 4  Elitok et alii 2014. A large copper slag mound of some 70,000 tonnes dating to the Roman and Byzantine periods has been identified at Karaalı near Bala, west of the Kızılırmak. It cannot be excluded that this was being used in earlier periods too. De Jesus 1977: 329; Kaptan 1990: 82. 5  Fernández-Blanco et alii 2013: 717, fig. 2. 6  See Chapters 4 and 14 in this volume.

Topography

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_010

107

Central West: Archaeology

the Taurus mountains to the south and the Central North Anatolian fault-line to the north.7 To the southeast of the Central West area is the Tuz Gölü, which is rimmed to the northeast by the sheer scarps of the Şereflikoçhisar-Aksaray ridge, otherwise known as the Ekecik range, and drains the Konya-plain to its southwest; to the northeast the area is drained by the Delice basin which arcs round roughly parallel to the Kızılırmak and eventually joins it on its northern stretch near the village of Kula in Çankırı province. The Kılıçözü is an important tributary of the Delice which leads through to Kaman. From the south the eastern area is also drained by the Kızılırmak itself which flows on the other side of the Kalkanlı Dağları. This drains the area to its north by means of various north-south running minor tributaries: in particular the Kırşehir Çayı, which together with its tributary the Çoğun Çayı leadins down from the region of KırşehirYassıhöyük through Kırşehir itself to meet the Kızılırmak just to the northwest of the crossing at Kesikköprü. To the east the area is also drained by Lake Seyfe, which is set in a plain formed by an alluvial fan. The hydrological situation immediately to the west of the Kızılırmak is completely different and is characterized by a lack of drainage features, with the exception of the Hacıbekirözü, as far as Ankara, although there is evidence from the placement of basins vs. plateaus that much earlier geological periods may have seen river-formations that are now no longer visible.8 To the northwest on the other side of the Çile Dağı there is the Sakarya river, winding northeast from its origins on the Bayat plateau and back to the northwest from Polatlı. It drains the Upper Sakarya plain to its south, an area that is historically known as extremely dry. Its important tributary the Porsuk joins it from the west (Eskişehir, Kütahya) near Polatlı, directly at the ancient site of Gordion. Further tributaries flow in from the south and East including the Ankara Çayı and the Ova Çayı. Ethnoarchaeological evidence suggests that the main agricultural form of foodproduction here was dry-farming,9 and the availability of groundwater is likely to have been greater than it is today due to being initially spared the consequences of soil 7  As an illustration here the regions listed by Erol (1984) for the area Sakarya basin to Haymana plateau: Porsuk-Sakarya: Kirmiçayvalley—Kirbaşı-plateau—Sündiken-Mihalıççıkmountains—Porsukvalley—Sivrihisar Mountains—Beylikköprü plateau; Western Ankara area: Işık-Ayaş Mountains—Mürted-Polatlı plains (ova)— Aydos Karyağdı mountains—Çubuk-Ankara plains (ova)—İdrisElma mountains—Kayaş-Moğan depression—Lodumu-Haymana plateaus. 8  Erol 1984. 9  Gürsan-Salzmann 2005.

erosion resulting from deforestation, the effects of which set in around 600 AD in this area.10 The ground here is largely fertile alluvial marl, to the east of the area (i.e. towards the uplands marked by Çile Dağı) mixed with basaltic soils, which also contribute to retention of ground-water.11 Surveys The usual reservations concerning the evaluation of survey results apply to the following summary, in that the amounts of sherds found during a site visit can vary depending on the condition of the surface. Added to this is the difficulty in distinguishing between sherds belonging to the “Old Assyrian” (i.e. Kültepe II, Ib) or “Early and Old Hittite” (i.e. pre-imperial Hittite) phases of the earlier second millennium. This should not be surprising, as it is becoming increasingly clear that these can only be distinguished on a material level through quantitative analysis. There also appears to be a cultural continuity between the eras, as we shall see in the discussion of the site of Büklükale below, which makes it more difficult to distinguish between them. So-called diagnostic sherds are rarely a reliable guide, but in most cases are all that we have available. A further problem with the eastern part of the central-western area to the north of the Kızılırmak is that it simply has not produced a great deal of LBA pottery. For this reason, as a heuristic criterion only those sites have been taken into account which are recorded as having Late Bronze Age pottery, with special emphasis being given to sites which show an assemblage of Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age. Sites with only a Middle Bronze ceramic profile, as indicated in survey reports, have been left out of consideration. The following is thus very unsure and no final record of Hittite settlement distribution in the area, in that it purports to give an impression only of those sites where surveys have produced LBA pottery. Not only are there doubtless further sites to survey, there is much still to be done to understand the data that have been collected already.

Central West: From Kırşehir to Kırıkkale

Early visitors to the area included W. M. Ramsay and E. Chantre, who may have identified Kaman-Kalehöyük

10  Marsh 1999; 2005. 11  Marsh 2005; Miller 2010: 10.

108 at Çağırkan to the east of Kaman.12 The Oriental Institute of Chicago’s survey of 1927–28 identified nine höyüks in the Kırşehir area, including Sevdiğin höyük and Has höyük in the east of the region.13 Th. Bossert, along with B. Alkım and M. Darga, conducted a Central Anatolian survey which encompassed Kırşehir in 1950 including surface investigation of the mound at Kırşehir, referred to as the Kale, Kaletepe or more recently Kalehöyük.14 P. Meriggi also surveyed the area during the 1960s, as did I. A. Todd.15 Recent surveys have been conducted in the region by Y. Şenyurt and A. Türker and the area was previously surveyed by D. H. French, H. Sever and colleagues from Ankara University, as well as extensively by S. Omura and the Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology (JIAA).16 Going southeast from Kırşehir towards Kayseri there are a number of sites where Hittite period pottery has been found in surveys.17 This was clearly an important route, especially in the earlier Hittite and MBA periods.18 There are also three sites in this region that have been excavated showing long-term occupation including the Hittite era: Suluca-Karahöyük at Hacıbektaş excavated by Balkan and Sümer from 1967–1977, Topaklı höyük19 excavated by first P. Meriggi and then L. Polacco from 1967– 1975 and Zank Höyük, excavated by H. Sever from 1991–92 and 1996, although the Hittite occupation here may only be attested on the basis of pottery from survey and could

12  Ramsay 1890; Chantre 1898. Mikami and Omura 1991: 63 fn. 2. 13  von der Osten 1929. 14  Bossert 1950: 667–671; Alkım 1956: 61–101. 15  Meriggi 1966. Unpublished information on the Hittite sites visited during I. A. Todd’s survey is kindly provided by G. D. Summers. 16  Şenyurt 1999; 2000; Türker 2015; Sever et alii 1992; Omura 1991; 1992; 2002a; 2014; 2016. 17  Palangıç, Bahadınhöyük, Kale-Altınyazı heading west to east, as well as Yazıknık, Hacet, Yuğtepe, Kurugölhöyük, Büyük Burna, Tatar Yeğenağa and Aşağı İlicek all south of the Seyfe Gölü. 18  A. Türker records three sites where LBA pottery was found but no earlier Bronze Age ceramics: Ağıl höyük (also Şenyurt 2000: 367, possibly the site recorded as Büyük Burna at Omura 2014: 506), Acıtepe höyüğü and “Karaburna-Kaletepe höyüğü” (Türker 2015: 244, otherwise known as Karaburun). In the case of Karaburun, a fortress site where an Iron Age Hieroglyphic inscription is located, this finding is to be contrasted with that of Şenyurt 2000: 365–366, where only Iron Age and later pottery was picked up. Possibly there was not very much LBA pottery. It is also debatable whether this installation can be called a “höyük”. 19  Meriggi 1971: 58; Polacco 1973 with previous literature; 1973–74.

Matsumura and Weeden

thus be a misunderstanding which was not confirmed by excavation.20 The area of Kırşehir was surveyed extensively by the Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology in 1987, 1989, 2001, 2011, 2012 and 2013 as part of their large-scale Central Anatolian survey. Some 55 sites are recorded as displaying Late Bronze Age pottery between Kırşehir and Kaman, although it is pointed out that the amounts of LBA pottery were in each case small, as also found in the excavations at Kaman-Kalehöyük.21 The mound at Kırşehir measures some 300m in diameter and is currently under excavation although levels belonging to the 2nd millennium BC have not yet been reached.22 Only two other very small sites with second millennium BC pottery have been recorded in the plain of the Kırşehir Çayı, although it is possible that others are also relevant.23 Over the mountains to the northeast of Kırşehir, however, a number of Bronze Age settlements populate the edges of the alluvial fan around Lake Seyfe, eighteen at the present count.24 The largest of these are Garıplı 1 (300×275m) and Seyfe-kale (208×219m) which sit opposite each other on the east and west sides of the plain respectively.25 Site density increases slightly as one heads up past the Çiçek Dağı into Yozgat and the central Hittite territory.26 At the bottom of the Çiçek Dağı itself there are also a number of sites clustered around its circumference both north and south.27 Leaving Kırşehir towards the northwest the first major site encountered is the large Yassıhöyük, just after the 20  Sever 1993 and 1994 do not mention Hittite or LBA pottery or other remains; Sever 1998 mentions Hittite pottery that had been collected in previous years; Sever et alii 1992 mentions Hittite imperial pottery from survey, and Omura (1992: 547) mentions LBA. With Barjamovic (2011: 394 fn. 1608) one should note the largish site on the northern bank of the Kızılırmak recorded as Kızılözün by Y. Şenyurt (1999: 452). 21  Omura 2002: 60. 22  Barjamovic 2011: 394 fn. 1608. Adıbelli 2016. 23  Gölhisar (21×26m). Omura 2002: 59. Todd (see fn. 16 above) also noted LBA pottery at the narrow mound of Bezirganhöyük only 5km to the east. 24  Seyfe-Kale, Akçalı, Cevizbağı, Özlünün, Köçekli, Külhöyük, Tepe Araplı (Todd: Malye Höyük; Meriggi: Araplı), Sığırağılı, Höyük Harmanaltı, Kepir, Tatar 1, Kızılhöyük, Höyüktepe (Todd: Zekere Höyük), Çifte 2, Kuruhöyük, Garıplı 1, Garıplı 2. 25  Omura 2002: 56–57. 26  Omura 1991. 27  South: Küllü 1; Küllü 2; Birgalem; Çukur Ağaç; Veletözü; Güllü Höyük (recorded as LBA in Todd survey, not otherwise); North: Tepe; Çorak; Çepni; Küçük Teflek; Garip Mezar; Çatal; Mezarı Altı; Safalı.

Central West: Archaeology

road turns west towards Kaman. This 32ha round flat mound has been excavated since 2009 by M. Omura, but currently has not delivered significant LBA Hittite-period finds, with the exception of one LBA seal.28 The site is in the middle of a small plain (Çoğun Ovası) situated north of the Kalkanlı Dağlar, which presumably would have provided the limits of the area for which it was the centre. The terrain to the north is hilly after a number of kilometers, but four smaller sites seem to trace a route northwest past Yassıhöyük into the Kılıçözü valley north of Akpınar, hugging the feet of the hilly flanks rather than sitting exposed in the middle of the plain.29 Passing to the west of Yassıhöyük towards Kaman south of Akpınar one comes to the medium-sized terrassed site of Kargahöyük after 9km, set on the slopes leading up to the north side of the Kalkanlı Dağlar.30 Another 16km directly to the northwest along the feet of the Kalkanlı brings one to Kaman-Kalehöyük itself, a small but important site sitting in fertile alluvium in the shadow of Mt Baran, which has been excavated since 1985 (see below).31 Another way of reaching Kaman-Kalehöyük from Kırşehir passes to the south of the Kalkanlı Dağlar in the plain of the Kızılırmak. The rock-cut inscription of Malkaya, which consists of little more than a series of groups of names going round a circular rock, is 13.5km west of Kırşehir and 3.5km northeast of Sevdiğinhöyük, at the foot of a hill attached to the mountain range at precisely the opposite end from Kaman-Kalehöyük. Lee Ullmann has pointed out the significance of the spatial relationship between Malkaya and Kaman-Kalehöyük.32 Malkaya should probably be dated, on the basis of a likely palaeographic overlap with hieroglyphic seal-impressions from Kaman-Kalehöyük, to the earlier 14th century BC, although none of the names written on it are attested at Kaman.33 Ullmann supposes that Malkaya marks a

28  M. Omura 2016. 29  Soğla (142×98m); Havanın Oluğu (170×80m); Mezarlık Deveci (130×105m); Üzerliktepe (200×250m). Omura 2002: 46–47. S. Omura 2016: 174. 30  Omura 2001a: 43. Also mistakenly referred to as Kızlar Höyük. Todd (fn. 16 above): Kurancılı Höyük. The site was also visited by von der Osten, R. O. Arik, and Meriggi. 31  Kaman-Kalehöyük has been supposed by M. Forlanini (2009a: 57 fn. 108) to be Hittite Kattila. As noted below (fn. 40) Tuhuppiya must also have been in the region. 32  Ullmann 2010: 208. 33  Contrary to the position taken in Hawkins and Weeden 2008, where it was dated to the 13th century on the basis that most rock-cut inscriptions date to this period.

109 transition between different terrains: mountains and plain.34 Its position at the directly opposed end of the mountain range from Kaman-Kalehöyük may also mark transition to a different political or ideological territory in some sense: Kaman-Kalehöyük vs Kırşehir.35 Passing south of the mountains via Malkaya is a slightly longer route to Kaman-Kalehöyük (40 vs 30km) which also passes a number of sites close to the mountain side until one reaches the river-plain that leads north up to Kaman.36 These include the quarry site of Savcılı Kışla, where the valley widens to meet the Kızılırmak and where one, possibly two, unfinished lion sculptures were found.37 The medium sized site of Akpınarhöyük (269×212m) stands on the other side of the valley coming south from Kaman at its widest point, giving access to a route going to the crossing of the Kızılırmak at Kesikköprü, which is now on the north side of the Hirfanlı dam.38 The Kılıçözü valley heading north from Kaman also appears to have been an important route to and from the north reaching into the Delice valley, and it contains a few medium-sized sites where MBA and LBA pottery was found, of which Büyükkale, a mound that stands in a complex with two others which were possibly inhabited at different times, is the largest.39 G. Barjamovic has tentatively supposed that this might have been the MBA site of Tuhpiya known from Old Assyrian texts, corresponding to Hittite Tuhuppiya.40 Heading northwest from 34  Ullmann 2010: 207. 35  Glatz and Plourde (2010: 60) see Malkaya as evidence for internal power struggles within the core Hittite territory. 36  Sevdiğin höyük; Nafinin höyüğü; Ömer Hacılı; Yelek; Şahan Çeşmesi; Esentepe. 37  Sevinç 1996; id. 1999; Ullmann 2010: 209. One lion was found at the quarry. The other is said to have come from the same place. Similarly to unfinished possibly Hittite Empire lions from elsewhere (Yesemek, Karakız), one wonders where these lions were supposed to be used. 38  This Kesikköprü, as opposed to the one near Avanos, is most likely the site of the Byzantine fortress of Saniana (Belke and Restle 1984: 173). No archaeological survey was undertaken before the building of the Hirfanlı dam, so there is very little evidence for how the area directly by the Kızıl Irmak might have looked. 39   Yeniyapan (114×146×9m); İnziloğlu (121×87×6m); Hamit (105×104×6m); Çayözü (172×234×26m); Acı Ağız (216×120×3m); Büyükkale (307×310×26m); Kadı (200×150×38m). 40  Omura 2002: 47; Late Bronze Age artefacts were not found at neighbouring Küçükkale. This could have been an accident, but a further visit by the JIAA in 2015 tends to confirm that Küçükkale and Büyükkale have different ceramic profiles. Barjamovic 2011: 391; cf. Forlanini 2008a: 68 fn. 55; Cammarosano and Marizza

110

Matsumura and Weeden

Kaman up towards the western arm of the Kızılırmak and the site of Büklükale one reaches a cluster of LBA sites around the village of Yukarı Şıh, including the large, flat site of Gubat Şehri, which Claudia Glatz has hypothesised should have been a regional centre on the scale of KuşaklıSarissa.41 However, this flat site is not large compared to the full extent of Büklükale, including city wall and lower city contained within it (40ha). The only other site that has produced 2nd millennium BC pottery according to published surveys is that of Yaşçayır, 12km southwest of Keskin.42 However, the survey report indicates that most of the surface finds were EBA in date, and the site is probably too far north of any route from Kaman through to Büklükale to have been of significance for travellers between the two. Further north from there, on the eastern bank of the Kızılırmak, there is the mound at Kırıkkale (400×320×64m, on a natural hill), which was surveyed briefly by von der Osten in 1926. During his visit a Middle Kingdom Egyptian statue with inscription was turned up by chance in building work in the area of what had been a Greco-Roman necropolis on a terrace to the south of the mound. Red-slip pottery of the type known to him from Boğazköy was also noted by von der Osten and he connected the Egyptian statuette with these earlier remains from the site.43

South of the Kızılırmak

The region south of the Kızılırmak but east of the Tuz Gölü on either side of the Ekecik Dağları has been recently surveyed by the JIAA,44 Y. Şenyurt,45 and S. Gülçur.46 The region is separated off to the southwest by the vulcanic formations of Hasan Dağı and the Melendiz Dağları and to 2015: 169 fn. 53. Surprisingly, all recent commentators have located Tuhpiya in this region, no matter what their preferred understanding of Old Assyrian geography. For attestations of Tuhuppiya see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 434; del Monte 1992: 172. 41  One should remember of course that the Iron Age size of the site Gubat Şehri might have been significantly greater than that in previous periods. Gubat Şehri (400×500m), Omura 2003: 45–6; it is near two höyük-style settlements that had some LBA pottery: Höyük-Yukarı Şıh (120×173×26m), Omura 1993: 369; 2003: 45; Gubat (139×143×5.5m), Omura 2003: 45; Glatz 2009: 132, where Gubat Şehri is asserted to be 15.7ha. 42  Omura 1993: 368. 43  von der Osten 1929: 60–67. 44  Omura 1993; 1994; 1997; 1998. 45  Şenyurt 1999; 2000. 46  Gülçur 1995 (for example); 1997.

the south by the Erdaş and Hodul Dağları, through which a natural route leads southwards towards Niğde and the south.47 A number of large multi-mound sites are to be found here which were clearly important at the beginning of the Hittite period, or in the MBA previously. Varavan 3km to the southeast of Şereflikoçhisar; Harmandalı to the east of the Ekecik Dağları near the Kızılırmak; Ova Ören controlling the plain with access leading past Hasan Dağı and Aksaray towards Konya. Of these only Ova Ören has until now produced evidence of significant Hittite occupation (see below). East of the Tuz Gölü but west of the Ekecik Dağları runs a string of sites southeast from Şereflikoçhisar towards Aksaray that turned up LBA pottery during surveys.48 There seems to be a cluster of small sites that may attest LBA ceramics directly southwest of Şereflikoçhisar towards the spur of land that now protrudes into the Tuz Gölü.49 East of the Ekecik Dağları there are also numerous sites to be found, including several large ones.50 A series of round, small sites with EBA-MBA-LBA-IA pottery is to be found running along the Öteyüzözü from Ortaköy towards the Kesikköprü south of Kırşehir.51 Directly to the east of this the Alaçorak Deresi flows northwards to the Kızılırmak, connecting Ova Ören with the Hacıbektaş region beyond the Kızıldağ massif, and the small site of Yakatarla-Maltepe on the Alaçorak anticipates traffic coming to Ova Ören from the north.52 Omura contrasts the quantitative lack of LBA, specifically Empire period, pottery found at individual sites north of the Kızılırmak in the immediate river-basin around Kaman and Kırşehir with the larger quantities 47  An apparently LBA mound on this route in the region of Derinkuyu is Yazıhöyük. See Gülçur 1995: 107–108; 117; Şenyurt 2000. 48  Han; Sungurlu; Höyük Taşlıyer (much LBA); Höyük Topakkaya; Höyük Çimeli (Omura 1998). 49  Çopuroğlanın Çukur; Çelayır höyük; Çelayır höyük 2; Yalnız Ağil; Kuyusuz Çukur; Acemi höyüğü. Omura 2008. 50  Moryokuş on the Peçenek Deresi, Höyük Dedeli; Yağlı (Omura 1997); Ersele, Ova Ören-Yassıhöyük, Dede, Kültepe, Altıntaş, Sulutepe, Büyükhöyük (mostly submerged by the Hirfanlı dam), Semizbağı höyük (Omura 2008). Yakatarla-Maltepe, Aptalhöyük (Şenyurt 1999). 51  Çavuşlu, Suluhanlı, Çayırlık, Değirmen. Omura 1997. 52  Şenyurt 1999: 454; Suggestion of Yakatarla-Maltepe’s function owed to Y. Şenyurt, personal communication. LBA site distribution in the region to the North of the Kızılırmak at this point, around Hacıbektaş, is currently rather unclear, but it would appear that Suluca-Karahöyük is the large site corresponding to Ova Ören on the other side of the Kızılırmak. See Şenyurt 2000; Türker 2015.

Central West: Archaeology

found to the south of the river.53 It is unclear what to conclude from this. One may also note that the sites south of the Kızılırmak seem to be settled in plains, frequently along rivers, somewhat differently to the pattern that was observed for some of those sites, with their allegedly much reduced LBA repertoire, immediately north of the Kızılırmak in the region of Kırşehir and Kaman. In the latter regions, while placement along rivers is still well attested, there is also a tendency for sites to cluster at the foot of hilly flanks on the edges of plains.

Kızılırmak to Eskişehir

The position of the fortified Hittite site of Büklükale on the western bank of the Kızılırmak is itself likely to be derived from a time before the unification of the Hittite kingdom, where Büklükale belonged to or oversaw a political territory that was in some sense opposed to the area inside the river. Its position would have been rendered redundant in this sense by its incorporation into Hittite territory, but must have been an exposed one throughout its history and may even have spent some of the difficult periods of Hittite history outside of their reach. Heading west one is directly faced by an escarpment, which is broken to the south by the valley of a tributary of the Hacırbekirözü, where one can turn in a westerly direction. From here through to Külhöyük and Gavur Kalesi LBA sherds have been collected at a number of sites that seem more or less to constitute a route at distances of 13–20km from each other.54 From Gavur Kalesi to the Sakarya river (Hittite Sehiriya?) is another 50km. This area has been surveyed but thus far only Early Bronze, Roman and Byzantine remains have been noted.55 This is presumably the route one would have taken to get to the west if the Hittite mustering town of Sallapa is in fact to be located near Sivri Hisar, as Garstang and Gurney located it.56 A more northerly route may have led through some very difficult territory around Elmadağ from Kırıkkale via Karaoğlan and Ballıkuyumcu through to Gordion.57 53  Omura 1998: 44–45. 54  Gökhöyük and Bostanhöyüğü right at the place where the route turns west; Yavaşlar; Gence or Kale (Çimşit); Bağyeri. Omura 1992; 2008. 55  Vardar 2008. 56   Garstang and Gurney 1959: 77, connecting Sivri Hisar (Justinianopolis) with an earlier settlement called Spalia, or Palia, noted by Ramsay (1890: 163, 223). See de Martino, this volume. 57  Ballıkuyumcu is associated by M. Forlanini (2008a: 59 fn. 118) with the Old Assyrian Wahšušana, Hittite Wahsusana. See de Martino this volume.

111 Further north still we find Balıkhisar, Bitik and Datçabelen, settlements that were exposed to the north and guarded important southwest/northeast passages.58 A more southerly route to the west, possibly from the crossing at Kesikköprü north of the Hirfanlı, seems to pass over the northern skirt of a cluster of settlements found according to survey evidence to the northwest of the Tuz Gölü. This is likely to have been a dry area and is sparsely settled today, but is indeed the way an army would need to go westwards if the above-mentioned Sallapa was further south, at Kuzören, Roman Selmea, where Forlanini has located it.59 The settlement on the northwestern edge of the Tuz Gölü has a surprising density of locales, some of them quite large. H. Bahar records 15 sites in the region of Kulu on the northwest of the Tuz Gölü that showed LBA pottery on survey.60 A similar number was recorded by S. Omura, who makes the remark that at the site of Taşlı Tarla/Taşlı Höyük only LBA pottery was found.61 An integration and comparison of these two data sets for the region would be useful. The large Iron Age fortified site of Yaraşlı should be mentioned here, which Mellaart entertained as a further candidate for Hittite Sallapa, although recent observations by P. Özgüner and G. D. Summers tend to indicate that the Hittite settlement there was “Old Hittite” only.62 The further to the northwest one moves, i.e. towards Ankara, the smaller the settlements become, about 1ha in size, with the exception of Çalışhöyük (ca. 4ha). Moving down the western edge of the Tuz Gölü very few LBA settlements have been

58   Omura notes the significant quantities of LBA pottery at Datçabelen. 59  Forlanini 1988 (Gözören); The site has not yielded LBA remains as far as is known. See de Martino this volume. 60   Bahadırlı; Bahçehisar; Çöpler; Değirmenözü; Fatmakuyu; Güzelyayla; Karapınar; Kırıkkuyu; Küçük Hüseyin I; Mezar­ lıktepe; Şahanın höyüğü; Tavşançalı K. Höyük; Tuzyaka; Yunak Yaylası; Uso-Yuzyaka. Bahar 2013: 17–44. 61  Omura 2008: 215. This Taşlı Tarla/Taşlı höyük is identical with the Uso Höyük of similar dimensions and location recorded at Omura 2000b: 27, from the 1998 survey. Other sites where LBA pottery was found in the region by Omura’s team according to publications thus far: Gire Yunak; Kuruhöyük; Yayla Çeşme; Havuz (325×225m flat settlement); Küçük Göl (400×250m, flat settlement); Söğütlü (216×147×14m); Aşağı Çeşme (175×200m); Köstengil 1+2; Höyük Altılar (500×450×12m); Gurucuk; Tobe 1; Çoraklık; Şahinin Höyük; Şirin Şehri (275×300m). See also Glatz 2009 for an assessment of the settlement distribution which in some points differs to ours. 62  Mellaart 1983; Özgüner and Summers in press.

112 noted.63 It is a cautious hypothesis that the Kulu region was quite important for the Hittites, given the evidence for dense LBA settlement. Sufficient data are not available to judge whether such a chain of settlement might have continued southwest in the direction of Kuzören, and from there through to Afyon and western Anatolia, as Forlanini’s hypothesis of the location of Hittite Sallapa requires. For the moment it seems rather unlikely as there are hardly any rivers in this region that might have kept large numbers of people on the move supplied with water. However, the orientation of the Iron Age site of Yaraşlı, according to Özgüner and Summers, is rather to the southwest than the northwest, so it is possible that the hydrological conditions of this part of the northern Konya plain were different in the past to what they are now. Just inside the arc of the Sakarya river the monument of Yağrı was found, and LBA pottery was found at the nearby very small site of Köstütepesi.64 There is the large site of Kepen (otherwise known as Büyük Höyük) near Sivri Hisar, which is now suffering damage due to building works and the nearby road.65 Informal reports indicate that the mound may in fact be mostly natural, with one or two occupational layers on the top.66 If this were to be a Hittite city, for example Sallapa as has been proposed by K. Strobel, then it would need to include a lower city.67 Barjamovic has identified a “lower mound” that is larger than the main mound of the site.68 The rest of the innerSakarya region has been productive for classical period remains, but Middle to Late Bronze Age traces are rare and specifically Late Bronze Age finds are rarely reported. This may be because they are outside of the immediate focus of archaeologists working in the area, but the current lack of evidence is striking. From the classical site of Pessinus a Roman road leads southwest to Amorium, past the Emir Dağ on towards Afyon, the way that Garstang and Gurney held to be the Hittite route to the west. In the region there is also the Bronze Age Tekyözü höyük.69 To the northwest from Pessinus a route leads up to Dorylaeum/Şarhöyük at Eskişehir, where Late Bronze Age remains have been found during excavations.70 This area 63  Kültü, a small (104×74×3m) settlement just North of Cıhanbeyli, only showed LBA pottery on survey. Omura 2000: 27. 64  Köstütepesi: Efe 1997: 216; Yağrı: Özcan 2012. 65  Barjamovic (2010), suggested that this might be the Hittite city of Salatiwara. In this volume (Chapter 23) he proposes that Gordion might be a further option for this location. 66  Personal communication G. D. Summers. 67  Strobel at 9th International Congress of Hittitology, 2014. 68  Barjamovic 2010. 69  Mellink 1956: 27. 70  Darga and Sivas 2000: 52 with resim 6–7.

Matsumura and Weeden

was surveyed by C. A. Burney in the 1950s, by T. Efe in the 1990s and by T. Tüfekçi Sivas and H. Sivas in the 2000s and it contains many ancient settlements.71 The survey reports do not always allow a distinction between Middle and Late Bronze Age, referring only to 2nd millennium pottery in the majority of cases.72 However, a number of likely LBA sites seem to be positioned on routes on either side of the Porsuk river to Eskişehir.73 One of these is a complex of two medium-sized mounds referred to as Porsuk 1 and 2, while the other significant settlement beside Şarhöyük appears to have been Karahöyük, classical Midaion, which Burney thought would have been the principal settlement of the whole Porsuk plain. Excavations Apart from the three sites already mentioned in the Hacıbektaş region, excavations producing Hittite period results have been conducted at eleven sites in this area: Hashöyük, Kırşehir-Kalehöyük (otherwise referred to as Kaletepe), Kaman-Kalehöyük, Ova Ören, Büklükale, Gavur Kalesi, Külhöyük, Polatlı, Bitik, Ilıca, Gordion and Şarhöyük-Dorylaion. In addition to this a number of MBA sites, particularly cemeteries have been briefly excavated in the western Sakarya basin. The large site of KırşehirYassıhöyük has not produced significant LBA Hittite remains and may have been deserted during this period.74 The excavations at Kırşehir-Kalehöyük conducted by Kırşehir museum and Ahi Evran Üniversitesi since 2009 particularly in the region of the mosque following restoration work, have not yet reached Bronze Age levels.75 Hashöyük to the north of Kırşehir-Yassıhöyük was excavated by L. Delaporte in 1931, but the results were not published in detail.76 Hittite period settlement has not been recovered in excavations either at Ankara or at the large Phrygian site of Hacı Tuğrul. The site of Kaman-Kalehöyük has been excavated since 1986 by the Japanese Institute of Anatolian Archaeology.77 The site commands both the route southeast to northwest from Kırşehir to Büklükale and beyond to the northwest 71  Burney 1956; Efe 1996; 1997; Tüfekçi-Sivas and Sivas 2004; 2005; as well as further volumes of Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. 72  Only sites where LBA remains are explicitly indicated in one or other of the survey reports are entered in the map on fig. 2. 73   Porsuk 1 and 2; Yeşildon; Kaynakobası; Köprübaşı Höyüğü; Karahöyük. 74  M. Omura 2016. 75  Adıbelli 2016. 76  Delaporte 1932. 77  For a summary see Omura 2011: 1102–1106.

113

Central West: Archaeology

The excavations thus far have concentrated on a deep trench in the north of the mound, with a wide exposure being dug more gradually in the south. The slopes of the mound have not yet been excavated apart from in the north Sector. Although the LBA pottery sequence at Kaman-Kalehöyük has yet to be worked out in detail, Level IIIa has produced a very thin occupational layer throughout the excavated areas, a situation which reflects the low numbers of LBA pottery sherds collected during surveys in the region.79 However, a significant number of seals and sealings dating to this period (late 14th and 13th centuries) have been recovered, but exclusively from the secondary contexts of Iron Age pits.80 The endphase of a large round structure in the middle of the mound is dated by sealings to the late 15th/early 14th centuries, level IIIb.81 A probably slightly earlier Hittite phase (also IIIb) was uncovered in north sector 7, where sealings of a distinctive 17th–16th century type were found. Traces of a destruction at the end of the LBA have not been found. The beginning of the earliest Iron Age level (IId) is hard to date, but appears to start after a gap, with

bichrome painted pottery that shows connections with southern sites like Porsuk and Kınıkhöyük. The large (15m across, 5m deep) stone-lined pit named Round Structure 1 is located in the north sector.82 Its function is not entirely clear, but as one other later and smaller round structure excavated nearby at the site was used for grain storage, it is a reasonable hypothesis that this one was as well, although its construction, deep and stonelined, is not like the other round structures.83 The structure is dated to the 15th century BC on the basis of the typology of a glass bead found at the bottom. Its stratigraphy, particularly the presence of boulders from the wall near but not at the bottom of the pit, shows that it had gone out of use some time before large numbers (500+) of sealed clay lumps were thrown into it, including a few of the conical clay objects known as bullae, which are thought to have been used for sealing documents. These were presumably brought from somewhere else and disposed of in the disused RS 1 after having been removed from whatever they were attached to. There are over 230 examples of one interesting sealing, which has one personal name in the middle along with a professional title, and seven personal names around the circular border (Fig. 9.3). Some of these, including the name in the middle, appear on impressions of their own seals which were also found on clay lumps in RS 1.84 A further structure which is connected with RS 1 in some way includes five rooms and two subterranean stone-lined chambers, presumably the basement of a building now razed, which were reached by steps leading down into them around a corner.85 The floor of one of the underground chambers was found to be covered with pottery sherds and debris was found of burned mudbricks and timber. The other Round Structures appear to be slightly later, but are still to be dated to the Hittite period. None of them have a similar stone lining to that of RS 1. RS 2 contained a few sealings. Some are of a similar type to those found in RS 1, and must have found their way there by accident. Others appear to be of a late 14th or 13th century style. RS 2 also contained some post-holes, which may have supported a wooden superstructure of some kind. Both RS 1 and 2, if used for grain storage, would have contained far more grain than would have been needed for the local population, so it is likely that the site had the function of a more regional distribution centre.86

78  Kashima 2008. 79  Omura 1998: 44–45. 80  Weeden 2010 for one example; See Mora 2013: 265 for a probably correct later dating (LBA-IA transition). 81  Yoshida 1999; 2006.

82  Omura 2002b. 83  Fairbairn and Omura 2005. 84  Yoshida 1999; 2006. 85  Omura 2011: 1105–1106. 86  Fairbairn and Omura 2005; Omura 2011.

of Anatolia, as well as north-south leading up the Kılıçözü valley towards Hattusa and down towards the Kızılırmak, again following one of its tributary streams. Relevant crossings of the Kızılırmak were one that is now under the Hirfanlı dam leading into the Aksaray/Nevşehir region, and one at Kesikköprü north of the Hirfanlı, which would lead northwest of the Tuz Gölü via Kulu eventually into the Konya plain. The excavations and their regular publications have been characterized by attention to the collection and analysis of geomorphological, palaeobotanical and faunal data and provide a wealth of information concerning the ancient landscape and environment. The site consists of a high, rounded-trapezoidal central mound (280m across, 16m high). Core-sampling in the region around the mound has revealed that the site, which is set in a shallow valley cutting into a Pleistocene alluvial fan, was half-surrounded by a swampy moat during the Bronze Age.78 The periodization assigned to the Bronze Age at Kaman-Kalehöyük is as follows: Level IIIa Late Bronze Age Hittite Empire Level IIIb Late or Middle Bronze Age Old Hittite Level IIIc Middle Bronze Age Old Assyrian

114 South of the Kızılırmak from Kaman-Kalehöyük, in the centre of the fertile plain to the east of the Ekecik mountains, lies the multi-period site of Ova Ören, which consists of three mounds. Excavations directed by Y. Şenyurt from Gazi Üniversitesi have been ongoing since 2007, following extensive surveys in the region in 1998 and 1999. The small mound of Topakhöyük is surrounded by an extensive lower town, with remains dating to the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. The much larger mound of Yassıhöyük at Ova Ören did not appear at first to contain significant LBA occupation until the 2014 excavations revealed a typical fortified Hittite gate with towers and part of the adjoining casemate wall, that had been used as a basis for the later Iron Age fortifications that dominate the morphological profile of the mound.87 Further Hittite period finds remain thin on the ground up to this point, although that appears set to change. The current situation may suggest that inhabitants moved to the Yassıhöyük after the abandonment of the lower town around Topakhöyük at the end of the MBA.88 As such the continued settlement of an area in the middle of a plain controlling movement north and southwest does not reflect the tendencies observed for sites immediately north of the Kızılırmak, where the LBA occupation seems to have moved to the hilly flanks and edges of open spaces. The site of Büklükale on the western Kızılırmak at the crossing of Köprüköy was visited by Forrer, who mistakenly identified the terrace wall as a fortification wall, and it was also visited by von der Osten in the same year.89 The fortification wall around the lower city was identified by G. Barjamovic on the basis of Google Earth images.90 It was surveyed by the JIAA in 1992, 1999, 2000 and 2008. Excavations directed by K. Matsumura began there in 2009. The site consists of a rocky mound some 30m high directly on the western bank of the Kızılırmak, surrounded by a lower city with a total area of 30ha. Steep terraces on the eastern side lead down to the river from a monumental wall made of large boulders, not in typical Hittite cyclopean style. C14 analysis of ash deposits from its outside suggest that the wall, the remains of which are 6m in height, most of this being currently subterranean, and its adjoining building, would appear to have been built around 2000 BC, destroyed and rebuilt in the second half of the 19th century, before being finally destroyed 87  Personal communication from Y. Şenyurt. See also press report: Orta Anadolu’da Yeni Bir Hitit Yerleşimi: Nevşehir-Ovaören at http://arkeolojihaber.net/2014/05/29/, accessed 15/03/2016. 88  See Şenyurt 2010; Şenyurt et al. 2014a; Şenyurt et al. 2014b. 89  Forrer 1927; von der Osten 1929. 90  Barjamovic 2010.

Matsumura and Weeden

around the first quarter of the 16th century.91 While data taken from the outside of the wall are only hypothetically connected with its history, C14 analysis of short-lived samples from inside the building appears to support this view, although evaluation is still ongoing. Inside the building two clay objects were found with impressions of a seal that bears striking resemblance to those of the Tyskiewicz group of seals and impressions.92 The dating of the Büklükale examples to the late 17th or early 16th century BC in turn provides a clearer dating for the whole Tyskiewicz group and a number of similar seals or sealings. In the same room as one of the objects with this sealing, which may contain nascent or prototypical Anatolian Hieroglyphs, an example of a glass bottle was also found, as well as glass object (disc-shaped with lug) of a type also found at Nuzi and elsewhere. The room dates to the destruction and abandonment of the building in the late 17th or early 16th century BC. The stratigraphy of the building’s occupational history is not yet firmly established, but using the conventional Middle Chronology this would mean that the building was in use at least during the period of Kültepe level II and then also during the early years of the Hittite kingdom, perhaps falling victim to internal conflicts associated with the Hittite throne succession around the time of Mursili I.93 Geo-magnetic and radar survey have shown that the city-gates belong to successive walls that show Late Bronze Age Hittite construction. Several building layers have been found which must date to the LBA. Wellpreserved Hittite-period layers have not been found yet on top of the mound, most traces of Hittite occupation levels having been destroyed by Iron Age construction, although the lower part of a terrassed, multi-roomed structure with plastered inner walls has been partially revealed under an Iron Age fortification wall, and is thought to belong to the middle part of the Hittite period at the site. However, numerous artefacts attest to the importance of the site during the whole of the this time. Hieroglyphic sealings have been found dating stylistically from the 15th to the 13th centuries BC, as well as two fragments of cuneiform tablets (letters), one of which can be dated fairly confidently on palaeographic and linguistic grounds to the late 15th/ early 14th centuries, and one of which does not exclude such a dating in terms of its shape, sign-forms and lay-out. A further cuneiform fragment (excavated 2016) seems to have diplomatic content but its format suggests it is not a letter. An interesting cuneiform sealing should also be 91  Matsumura 2013; 2014; 2015. 92  Alexander 1973–76. 93  Weeden 2016.

Central West: Archaeology

115

mentioned that thus far finds its only comparandum in a sealing from Kuşaklı-Sarissa.94 73km to the west of Büklükale en route to the Sakarya, we find Külhöyük and the associated hill-top shrine of Gavur Kalesi, 8km to its west. Gavur Kalesi was famously excavated by von der Osten for 10 days in 1930, and has since been the object of survey and excavations directed by Stephen Lumsden (1993–4, 1997–8).95 Von der Osten concentrated on the relief depiction of two male figures approaching a seated female goddess and the chamber constructed behind it using ashlar masonry blocks of andesite, a rock alien to the limestone geology of the outcrop on which Gavur Kalesi is situated. The later work performed under Lumsden revealed that the site might have been more extensive, although the present shape of the site seems to be the result of Middle Iron Age construction work and the LBA levels are difficult to reconstruct.96 Gavur Kalesi has been suggested as a candidate for an example of a mortuary temple (Hekur or “Stone House”).97 Texts from Boğazköy/Hattusa inform us that these were middle-sized institutions with significant numbers of personnel. Külhöyük therefore does not need to be a settlement attached to Gavur Kalesi that housed its staff. As pointed out by Ullmann, Gavur Kalesi cannot be seen from Külhöyük, nor vice-versa.98 However, the construction techniques using ashlar blocks at the two sites are quite similar, and the blocks at Gavur Kalesi are made of red andesite, mined from an area near between Külhöyük and Gavur Kalesi.99 One of the most impressive features of Külhöyük is a corbel-vaulted tunnel, not unlike the posterns that pass under gates and walls at Boğazköy-Hattusa, but which ends in a closed small square chamber.100 Until recently this was quite unique, but now it seems there may also have been such a subterranean dead-end on a tunnel being excavated at Oymaağaç. The function is unclear. A number of sites have been briefly excavated to the north of Gavur kalesi, although they seem to have mainly earlier Hittite remains. Bitik is a large site where a relief vase like the ones at İnandık and Yörüklü/Hüseyindede was excavated.101 Asarcıkhöyük at Ilıca yielded an Old Hittite cemetery.102 Similar early cemetery findings were

available from sites in the region of the Sakarya basin: Yanarlar and Dede Mezarı near Afyon and Demircihöyük and Çavlum closer to Eskişehir.103 35km to the northwest of Gavur Kalesi, the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara conducted a short excavation under Seton Lloyd in 1949 at Polatlı, where 31 levels were identified belonging to the EBA (levels I–XV, associated with destruction by fire), MBA (levels XVI–XXII) and LBA (XXIII–XXXI, “Hittite” in Lloyd’s terminology).104 Lloyd thought the site would have been abandoned at the end of the Hittite Empire. The clear stratigraphy of the site allowed for an important seriation of pottery types, which was fundamental in establishing a regional chronology of ceramic culture. The site of Gordion on the Sakarya river just north of where it is joined by the Porsuk was identified as such by G. and A. Körte who made some initial excavations in 1901.105 Since 1950 it has been excavated by the University of Pennsylvania led by R. S. Young and successive directors. Recent geomorphological prospection has shown that the river Sakarya must have shifted over time, and would have passed to the east of the site until the medieval period, rather than cutting through it to the west of the citadel mound as it does today.106 The large site (51ha) consists of the “citadel mound” or Yassıhöyük together with an inner town with two further mounds (Küçük Höyük and Kuştepe) and is mainly known for its spectacular Iron Age levels.107 The LBA material from levels YHSS 8/9 was revealed in deep-soundings under Phrygian Megara 10 and 12 in the north-central trench of the citadel mound, which included identification of a small room or cella under Megaron 12 and produced ample LBA sherds. Other soundings on the mound reached Early Bronze Age deposits immediately under the Iron Age levels.108 The extent of Hittite occupation is difficult to define but has been thought to have had its centre elsewhere than at the earliest EBA citadel, possibly around its lower terraces.109 Archaeobotanical evidence from charcoal use, flora as well as faunal evidence suggest a decline in population during the Late Bronze Age associated with a more pastoral type of local economy. The transition between the last Hittite imperial level (YHSS 8) and the earliest Iron Age

94  Weeden 2013b; 2016; 2017. 95  Lumsden 2002; 2016. 96  Lumsden 2016: 452. 97  E.g. van den Hout 2002: 91. 98  Ullmann 2010: 213. 99  Lumsden 2002: 112. 100  Mermerci 1993: 9. 101  Özgüç 1957. 102  Orthmann 1967.

103  Emre 1978; Bilgen 2005; Seeher 2000; Çay et al. 2007. 104  Lloyd and Gökçe 1951. 105  Körte and Körte 1904. 106  Marsh 2005; Voigt 2011. See Barjamovic (this volume), who uses this datum as a basis for the suggestion that Gordion might be a candidate for Middle Bronze Age Šalatuwar, Hittite Salatiwara. 107  Summary in Voigt 2011. 108  Gunter 1991: 2–5. 109  Gunter 1991: 110.

116 levels (the pit-house dwellers of YHSS 7) shows an abrupt change in ceramics and architectural styles, although with none of the destruction frequently associated with the end of the Late Bronze Age.110 A cemetery was excavated on a low ridge to the northeast of the citadel mound at Gordion from 1951–53, which contained three cist graves, ten inhumations and thirty-four pithos burials dated to the “Hittite” period.111 Grave goods such as a copper-alloy pendant with a pair of “Anatolian Boots”, numerous pins and stamp seals (faience and copper) were produced. Most of the pottery as well as the seals indicate an earlier date, thus Late Middle Bronze Age rather than LBA. A further eight pithos burials of similar type were excavated in 1962.112 Two Hittite Petschaft seals were found in much later contexts, documenting their use as amulets or for other non-bureaucratic purposes.113 LBA Hittite sealings have also been found at Gordion. One with a guilloche rim and hieroglyphic inscription was found on a conical bulla of the type used for attaching to documents, and may have been brought from elsewhere.114 The rest were found on pottery, and include one impression of a late 14th or 13th century BC seal bearing the name Armaziti on a rim sherd, which was found in a small rectangular house dated to 1400–1200 BC.115 A round stamp with radiate decoration found on a rare piece of red-slip ware, the shoulder of a large vessel, may also be an import.116 However, at least one piece found at the bottom of a LBA dump may have been a bulla or knot-cord seal and is taken by E. Dusinberre to indicate not only Hittite sealing practices at Gordion, but also typically Hittite administrative technology.117 Excavations have continued at Dorylaeum near Eskişehir since 1989 under M. Darga, followed in 2004 by T. Tüfekçi-Sivas, who sadly died in 2014. Late Bronze Age levels have been uncovered in one sector (T/27 and surroundings) and a Hittite period seal with hieroglyphic inscription was found at the site in 1995, as well as a double-sided baked clay seal in 1999.118 A 13th century biconvex stone seal with a name written in hieroglyphic

110  Miller 2010: 5; Voigt and Henrickson 2000: 42; Voigt 2011: 1076. 111  Mellink 1956. 112  Gunter 1991: 4–7. 113  Dusinberre 2005: 21 (Cat. no. 7–8). 114  Dusinberre 2005: 39 (Cat. 10). Dated to the end of the Old Hittite period by Beckman apud Dusinberre loc. cit. 115  Dusinberre 2005: 40–41 (cat. 14). 116  Dusinberre 2005: 40 (cat. 12). 117  Dusinberre 2005: 39–40 (cat. 11). 118  Darga and Sivas 2001: 52; Darga and Starke 2003; Kara et alii 2004.

Matsumura and Weeden

was found in grid U26d in 2010.119 The presence of seals rather than sealings, however, does not have to indicate a Hittite administrative presence, although that cannot be excluded. Conclusion The distribution of settlements that are potential candidates for LBA occupation in the Kırşehir area seems to correspond to a pattern of sorts, clinging to the bottom of the hilly or mountainous edges of valleys and plains. However, it is hypothesized that the LBA occupation at each was very thin on the basis of the numbers of sherds found and comparison with the excavation results from Kaman-Kalehöyük. This may of course be a problem of perspective or of definition. LBA settlement may have moved to the bottom of mounds, as appears to be the case at Gordion, where it is possibly less easily detectable. If we accept the survey evidence, there are a number of possible explanations. Site placement appears to be defensive, flanking valleys and guarding river routes, although this would perhaps not explain the quantitative lack of LBA sherds. It may have religious functions, conforming to the typology of Hittite sites outlined by Ullmann that emphasizes the way they tend to build themselves into the landscape.120 It may have agricultural grounds, attempting to maximize the amount of available arable land.121 It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is some degree of landscape planning at work here, although the reasons for this distribution will perhaps not become clearer before the region’s palaeohydrology has been more thoroughly investigated. Whatever the explanation, the situation is quite different south of the Kızılırmak, where a number of sites appear placed along rivers and in the middle of plains. Most of these are relatively small, however, with the exception of Ova Ören, where the extent of Hittite occupation has also proven difficult to establish. Thus in this area the settlement appears to be more organically derived from the landscape, cleaving to rivers for example, rather than imposing a settlement strategy upon it. To the northwest of the Tuz Gölü, in the Kulu area, there seems to have been a dense cluster of sites that potentially show LBA occupation, while further to the north around Ankara and in 119  Doğan-Alparslan 2015. 120  Ullmann 2010. 121  Suggestion G. Barjamovic, personal communication. For a similar site distribution in the immediate vicinity of Hattusa, see Shachner (chapter 4 this volume).

Central West: Archaeology

Figure 9.1

117

Map of the western Kızılırmak area.

the Sakarya region, once again imperial period settlement seems to be quite thin according to the currently available evidence. The view will undoubtedly change with the rapid advance in surveys and re-interpretation of previously collected data, but for the moment J. Seeher’s summative view that the Hittite Empire had little control on the west of the plateau seems to be supported.122 The arrangement sketched above seems to support Claudia Glatz’s view of the Hittite Empire as a network of competing areas rather than the centrally controlled imperial state that emerges from some readings of the textual sources.123 Perhaps “patchwork” would be a better metaphor, as the Hittites seem to have adapted a past system of settlement in different ways in different places.

122  Seeher 2011b. 123  Glatz 2009.

This overview also gives weight to the idea that the Kızılırmak did in fact function as a border of sorts between an “inner” and “outer” area, at least between the north and the south, although this is less clear in the case of the western bend of its course where Büklükale is situated. This was not necessarily the case in the Iron Age, where the Kızılırmak seems not to have been a north-south border, although it may have functioned as border from east to west. It is also possible that the borderstatus of the Kızılırmak fluctuated during the Late Bronze Age too, along with changes in the political geography of Anatolia.

118

Figure 9.2

MATSUMURA and Weeden

Map of the area from the Kızılırmak to the Porsuk.

Figure 9.3 Most frequently attested sealing from Round Structure 1 at Kaman-Kalehöyük.

CHAPTER 10

The West: Archaeology Sevinç Günel Introduction New archaeological excavations and research in western Anatolia enabled the consideration of Bronze Ages of the region from a new perspective and in more detail. New data show that the early cultures in western Anatolia, which are usually seen as limited to Troy, were much richer. Recent research indicates a local cultural structure in the region, as well as intensity of cultural relationships. The Aegean Sea to the west and the deep valleys that provide connections with inland Anatolia to the east played an important role in site distribution and settlement structure in the Bronze Ages. The Early Bronze Age is significant in the cultural history of western Anatolia with changes and innovations related to settlements with defense systems, burial customs, use of the wheel in ceramic production, ceramic traditions, and metalworking.1 These changes played an important role in the formation of cultural regions, as well as in the identification of natural passageways to the Aegean world to the west, Central Anatolia to the east, and even to the south. Regional cultural formation is clearly visible through sites pointing to the existence of a distinct political formation in the Early Bronze Age, and is followed by its different dimensions in the period extending to the second millennium BC. In western Anatolia, while the Early Bronze Age site of Troy with a city wall around it demonstrates its ties with surrounding cultures through architecture and finds,2 Küllüoba in inland western Anatolia transfers interregional ties further inland with its building plans, vessels and also a lead trinket mould.3 The Demircihöyük— Sarıket burials in the same region have yielded finds that involve relations with the west on the one hand and with Central Anatolia on the other.4 The deep valleys of the Gediz (Hermos) in Izmir region, and the Menderes 1  See: Blegen et al. 1950; Blegen et al. 1951; Mellink 1986; Efe and AyEfe 2007; Seeher 2000; Erkanal 1996; Şahoğlu 2005; Erkanal and Özkan 1999; Jablonka 2010; Erkanal 2011; Efe and Türkteki 2011c: 232–233. 2  Blegen et al. 1950; Blegen et al. 1951; Ivanova 2013: 18–31, fig. 2–3, 5, 10. 3  Efe and Ay-Efe 2007: 255–56; Efe and Fidan 2008: 68–80, fig. 1; Efe and Türkteki 2011b: 225, fig. 383. 4  Seeher 2000.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_011

(Meander) and its tributaries to the south are important natural routes connecting the Aegean world to Central Anatolia. These routes were an important factor in site distribution areas and kept trade between the west and the east active. The location of the walled harbor city of Liman Tepe in Urla Bay supports that it was in a strategic position in the Aegean world, especially with its Early Bronze Age finds.5 Early Bronze Age pithos burials at Cumaovası—Bakla Tepe, which connects the Izmir region to the south through the Küçük Menderes valley, reflect the burial customs of Anatolia, while their burial finds shed light on overseas trade.6 Çine-Tepecik to the south of the Menderes provides an understanding of prehistoric cultures in the region, about which there are very limited data and information.7 The earliest settlement at Tepecik yields evidence of the early Chalcolithic period.8 Tepecik IV, which represents Chalcolithic culture with its burnish decorated ceramic tradition as well as marble vessels and figurines, reflects close relationships with neighboring cultures and sheds light on the chronology of the region.9 It is possible to follow cultural and chronological continuity through the Bronze Ages and the Hellenistic period. In inland western Anatolia in the Upper Meander Plain, Denizli and its vicinity is another area that has seen settlement from the Neolithic period onwards. The number of agricultural sites, particularly in the plains, increased in the Chalcolithic period. Beycesultan is the largest mound among these sites.10 Beycesultan, to the southwest of the town of Çivril in Denizli province, is a mound that was settled continuously from the Chalcolithic period to the Late Bronze Age. The site provides evidence for political and commercial relations in the region in the 3rd millennium BC. This evidence at Beycesultan includes marble 5  Şahoğlu 2005: 350; Erkanal et al. 2010: 348–352, plan 1, fig. 1–4; Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2012: 222–227, plan 1, fig. 4–8; Erkanal et al. 2013: 464–471, plan 1, fig. 2–8. 6  Erkanal and Özkan 1999; Şahoğlu 2005: 347, fig. 4–8; Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2012: 93–95, fig. 4–5. 7   Günel 2011a: 217–232; Günel 2014a: 84–93; Günel 2014b: 165–168. 8  Günel 2006: 20–21, plan 2, fig. 1; Günel 2007: 234–236, fig. 1–3. 9  Günel 2008b: 78, fig. 6–9; Günel 2011a: 217–232; Günel 2014a: 84–93; Günel 2014b: 165–168. 10  Lloyd and Mellaart 1962; Abay 2011a; Abay 2011b: 20–26, map 3.

120 idols, bronze finds and wheel-made pottery. For the first time in western Anatolia, temple architecture is attested at Beycesultan in this period.11 Pairs of horns and circular terracotta altars in the sanctuary of the temple shed light on the earliest religious building of the region.12 On the other hand, Karaoğlan, located on the easternmost stretch of the Meander River in the region of Kaklık, is a walled site with a 3rd millennium settlement plan.13 According to available archeological data, these sites indicate that there was a certain social structuring in western Anatolia, and the trade system encompassing the Aegean-Anatolia and Mesopotamia demonstrates dynamism in the 3rd millennium BC. However, it is quite difficult to follow this dynamism towards the end of the 3rd millennium. At the end of the Early Bronze Age, simpler settlements replaced the structures of political/central administration system. The end of the 3rd millennium BC and the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC is also defined as a ‘transition period’.14 This stagnation in the cultural history of western Anatolia can be explained by changes in the period towards the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. Early Bronze Age II/III in Central Anatolia shows an administrative structure that clearly reflects a centralized political power and a trade system in which the region played an active role. This period extends to the time when Assyrian Trade Colonies were active predominantly in the Kültepe Kaniş Karum and gained meaning through written documents at the beginning of the second millennium BC. A strong trade system encompassing Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia in the Assyrian Colonies Period is evident.15 The second millennium BC saw developments involving the political tradition of the Hittites and the corresponding political power of the Hittite Empire over a wide area. Paralleling this cultural structure/development, the existence and influence of the Hittites in western Anatolia is understood through archaeological evidence and philological sources. It is difficult to sufficiently define political powers and events in western Anatolia. However, Hittite political interest in the region is known from Hittite textual sources. This information enabled the recognition of lands and some political powers in western Anatolia that were known from Hittite texts.16 On the other hand, Minoan and Mycenaean evidence, which can be followed 11  Lloyd and Mellaart 1962: 27–56, fig. 7, 9–10. 12  Abay 2011a: 8–19; Abay 2011b: 13–15. 13  Topbaş et al. 1998: 25–26, fig. 2. 14  Efe and Türkteki 2011a: 190. 15  Mellink 1986: 151–52; Özgüç 1959; Özgüç 1999a; Barjamovic 2011. 16  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977; Hawkins 1998b.

Günel

through the last phase of the second millennium, shows another significant cultural interaction in the region. This evidence reveals a cultural unity/integrity in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, including western Anatolia, and also enables the establishment of the chronology.

Sites in Western Anatolia—Cultural and Chronological Definition

The cultural history of the second millennium BC is identified by cultural remains at the sites on the coast of Western Anatolia and inland Western Anatolia, and gives a certain chronological definition (Fig. 10.1). According to the geographical definition, to the north of the region, Troy VI and VII settlements with a more spectacular city wall than those of the Early Bronze Age settlements yielded cultural remains that extend to the latest phases of the Late Bronze Age and evidence close relations with the surrounding cultures (Fig. 10.1).17 Troy VI is encircled with defense walls reinforced by towers. The walls are constructed of mudbricks over limestone blocks. The wall has a system with ‘serrated’ protrusions. The fortification system features a main entrance, as well as secondary entrances.18 The main entrance is on the south, and is flanked by stelae.19 The buildings of the settlement, which is encircled by fortification walls, were identified in areas close to the walls. These buildings are thought to have been two-storeyed, have rectangular plans and are singleroomed. These buildings of single-roomed rectangular tradition include a building with stone bases for wooden supports on the floor, a building with an L-shaped plan, ‘VIA’ megaron and the ‘Pillar House’.20 In addition to this walled settlement, there are buildings of the Troy VI late/Troy VIIa phases in the lower city. These buildings were constructed on the stone-paved street leading to the acropolis. Thus, the wall/acropolis and the lower city reflect a settlement model extending over a large area.21 In the period from the middle to the last phases of Troy VI, ‘Grey ware’ and ‘Tan ware’ groups show a ceramic tradition that was inspired by metal vessels. On 17  Blegen et al. 1953; Blegen et al. 1958; Korfmann 1996:37–49, fig. 37; Mountjoy 1999a: 297–334; Greaves 2010: 885; Jablonka 2010: 855–856, fig. 63.1. 18  Klinkott 2004: 34–77, fig. 1, 5, 8, 20–22, 29–32. 19  Korfmann 2006: 255, fig. 4. 20  Korfmann 2006: 256, fig. 1. 21  Jablonka 1996: 66–92, fig. 1; Korfmann 2006: 258–259, fig. 6, fig. 8.

The West: Archaeology

the other hand, in the last phases of Troy VI reflections of Mycenaean culture are shown by increased quantities of Mycenaean ceramics22 and a Mycenaean seal depicting an antelope.23 In addition, among the finds are numerous casting molds24 indicating metal industry. In the last phase of Troy VI and VIIa, probably following damage by an earthquake, the city wall was reinforced and there were magazines with large storage jars within it. The Troy VIIa–b settlement was founded over Troy VI, and extends into the last phases of the Late Bronze Age.25 The buildings, stone-paved streets and the fortification wall of the preceding period were repaired and reused. Troy VIIa–b ceramics show a sequence that parallels ceramic development of LH III B–LH III C periods in the Mycenaean culture.26 The site of Troy has a long cultural history; considering factors such as the exposure to northeasterly winds and strong currents due to its particular geographical position, Beşik bay just to the southwest of Troy appears convenient as a harbour (Fig. 10.1).27 Beşiktepe in Beşik bay has a cemetery area that features pithos and stone cist burials and a cremation tradition together.28 Kaymakçı, which is a new excavation in the Manisa province, is located to the east of Lake Marmara within the boundaries of Saruhanlı and Gölmarmara districts. In the scope of the “Gygaia project” and in the light of the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey and the Kaymakçı excavations, the evidence of an advanced settlement with its architecture and finds were revealed and dated to the second millennium BC. There is a settlement with a fortification system, lower city which extends over a large area and a cemetery area. With its location in the Lake Marmara region, Kaymakçı is a site which exhibits interregional cultural connections.29 At Panaztepe, on the Gediz River Delta to the north of the Gulf of Izmir, acropolis, workshops, and harbor town areas have shown that the Middle Bronze Age settlement covered a wide area (Fig. 10.1).30 The Panaztepe I-II architectural remains in particular, which represent a period contemporaneous with the Assyrian Colonies period, provide a better understanding of the Middle Bronze 22  Mountjoy 1999a: 295–346. 23  Korfmann 1996: 36, pl. 2: 2. 24  Korfmann 2006: 259. 25  Blegen et al. 1958; Mountjoy 1999a: 297–334; Greaves 2010: 885; Jablonka 2010: 855–856, fig. 63.1. 26  Mountjoy 1999a: 295–335; Mountjoy 2006: 107–110, fig. 1. 27  Neumann 1986: 345–363. 28  Korfmann 1986a: 17–28; Korfmann 1986b: 311–329; Korfmann 1988: 395–396, fig. 4; Basedow 2000: 14–52, pl. 13–33. 29  Roosevelt et al. 2015; Roosevelt et al. 2016: 244–249. 30  Erkanal and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2010: 107–110, plan 4, fig. 6.

121 Age culture.31 The remains of the Panaztepe V settlement on the other hand,32 as well as burial types and finds at the ‘Western Cemetery Area’ and the ‘northern Cemetery Area,’ two cemeteries of different phases and long periods of use, shed light on the burial customs of the region.33 Late Bronze Age settlement and cemeteries represent a LH III A 1–2/LH III B period Mycenaean ceramic tradition34 and burial finds such as seals, scarabs and bronze bracelets with sealings reveal interregional cultural relations.35 Liman Tepe to the south of the Gulf of Izmir, had been settled continuously from the Chalcolithic period onwards, through the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Fig. 10.1).36 Level III in the Liman Tepe stratigraphy is dated to the Middle Bronze Age through the oval and apsidal building layout of the settlement and architectural finds.37 Oval houses are located around a stone paved area at Liman Tepe III. The hearths in the buildings have a feature consisting of ash and pottery sherds under their floors. Large storage jars sitting on the floors of the houses reflect a storage system.38 At the site, ‘minyan’ and ‘mattpainted’ ceramics play an important role in the chronology of the Middle Bronze Age on the one hand, and highlight two ceramic traditions in cultural relations on the other.39 The latest building phase of Liman Tepe II on the other hand was a harbor town with Late Bronze Age architecture, ceramic kilns, and an increased number of Mycenaean ceramics.40 The Late Bronze settlement consists of three architectural phases.41 The earliest, building phase 3, reflects a plan with a wide street and side streets connected to it. One of the buildings is named the ‘pithos building’ after numerous pithoi supported by stones laid around them were found in the building. This building 31  Erkanal and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2010: 110; Aykurt 2013: 45, 49, fig. 9–10. 32  Erkanal-Öktü and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2009: 476–487. 33  Erkanal-Öktü 2000: 68–74; Erkanal-Öktü 2008: 70, 72–80, fig. 3–4; Erkanal and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2010: 102–105. 34  Günel 1999a; Erkanal-Öktü 2008: 69–90; Çınardalı Karaaslan 2008: 63–66. 35  Jaeger and Krauss 1990: 153–156, fig. 1–2; Erkanal-Öktü 2000: 69–74, fig. 2–5. 36  Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2012: 221–228. 37  Erkanal and Günel 1996: 307–310, fig. 5; Günel 1999b: 51–58. 38  Erkanal and Günel 1995: 267–271, fig. 4–5; Günel 1999b: 44–45, fig. 3; Erkanal et al. 2009: 302–305, fig. 6; Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2012: 227–228. 39  Günel 1999b: 51–58, tab. 1, fig. 16–18. 40  Erkanal 2008: 92–99, fig. 1; Günel 1999b: 49, Erkanal et al. 2009: 301–302; Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2012: 228, fig. 9; Aykurt 2014: 56–65 fig. 2–3. 41  Erkanal and Aykurt 2008: 226.

122 was used for storage.42 In this building phase, ceramic kilns and Mycenaean ceramics parallel the LH III A1–2 phase.43 In the settlement plan of building phase 2, buildings of the previous phase were in use with some modifications. Building phase 1 is the best preserved phase of the Late Bronze Age site of Liman Tepe. This phase features rectangular plan buildings located along streets.44 The ‘pithos building’ for storage was also in use in this phase. Seals and weights used for textile production were found in some of the buildings. A pictorial style Mycenaean krater as well as the LH III C period Mycenaean ceramics show the influence of the Aegean world.45 This building phase provides evidence on the last phase of the 2nd millennium in Western Anatolia, which is based on limited information, both with its settlement plan and its finds. Another site that provides new contributions to Middle Bronze Age settlement is Çeşme-Bağlararası. Çeşme-Bağlararası was one the harbor towns in the region, noted for its Minoan influenced archaeological remains (Fig. 10.1).46 The Çeşme-Bağlararası excavations presented a system that expanded horizontally following the changes of the coastline. One of the adjacent settlements is dated to Early Bronze Age II, and the other is dated to the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.47 End of Middle Minoan and beginning of Late Minoan finds from ÇB 2a–b and ÇB 1 at Bağlararası shed light on Minoan influenc48 and interregional relations.49 ÇB 2a–b and ÇB 1 at Bağlararası is a period that parallels the end of the Middle Minoan and beginning of the Late Minoan period.50 In the stratigraphy, the ÇB 2a–b settlement has two phases and data parallelling the Middle Minoan III period. The settlement was destroyed by an earthquake between the two phases.51 The ÇB 2b building phase architecture consists of houses built side by side along the streets and workshops. The houses were rectangular in plan and probably twostoreyed. The walls and the floors of these buildings were 42  Erkanal and Aykurt 2008: 230. 43  Erkanal and Aykurt 2008: 226–228, plan 1, fig. 1, 4. 44  Erkanal and Aykurt 2008: 232–236. 45  Erkanal and Aykurt 2008: 236, fig. 6–7. 46  Şahoğlu 2007; Erkanal and Keskin 2009; Erkanal et al. 2009. 47  Şahoğlu, Erkanal and Çayır 2011: 464, fig. 1. 48  Şahoğlu 2007: 310, 319, fig. 9–12; Erkanal and Keskin 2009: 106, tab. 1. 49  Erkanal and Karaturgut 2004: 165–78; Şahoğlu 2007: 310, 317– 319; Erkanal and Keskin 2009. 50  Şahoğlu 2007, 310, 319, fig. 9–12; Erkanal and Keskin 2009, 106, tab. 1. 51  Şahoğlu 2012: 87.

Günel

plastered. Workshops served pottery, metal, and textiles industries. One of the buildings, which was involved with wine production, is named the ‘Wine House’.52 A feature for pressing grapes, grinding stones and large storage jars were found in this building, as well as spaces used for storage associated with the wine house.53 Minoan type cups, lamps/incense vessels and loom weights are finds from this site that show Minoan influence (Fig. 10.2).54 According to archaeological evidence such as imported Minoan cups, painted pottery fragments and loom weights, level 1 is dated to the LMIA and reflects Minoan influence as well.55 Late Bronze Age evidence from Bağlararası includes sherds of locally produced and imported Mycenaean painted ceramics. This material parallels the LH III A2-LH III B1 periods of Mycenaean culture.56 Bademgediği Tepe, near Metropolis in the Izmir region is a Late Bronze Age walled acropolis site (Fig. 10.1).57 The wall is built of large stone blocks and has two entrance gates.58 The stratigraphy was identified through soundings. According to this stratigraphy, earliest Bademgediği Tepe V yields bowls typical of the Middle Bronze Age ceramic tradition.59 Bademgediği Tepe IV is dated to the early Late Bronze Age. Building levels II–III at Bademgediği Tepe have locally produced Mycenaean ceramics and evidence a cultural development paralleling the LH III C period.60 Level II finds at Bademgediği Tepe include Mycenaean ceramics, including a krater sherd with a warrior figure on it, and is dated to the LH III C period.61 Bademgediği Tepe I–III shows a cultural development paralleling the LH III C period in the light of Mycenaean ceramic finds.62 This latest phase of Bademgediği Tepe produced ‘Grey Minyan’ ceramics as well as Mycenaean ceramics. However, the ‘Grey Minyan’ ceramic tradition is a ware group that plays a role in chronological distinction from early Middle 52  Erkanal and Karaturgut 2004: 156–157, fig. 11–12; Şahoğlu 2007: 314–315, fig. 2; Şahoğlu 2012, fig. 6. 53  Şahoğlu 2010: 24; Şahoğlu 2015: 601–602, fig. 7. 54  Erkanal and Karaturgut 2004: 155–156, fig. 6, 8; Şahoğlu et al. 2013: 496; Şahoğlu 2012, fig. 6. 55  Şahoğlu 2015: 605–607, fig. 12–13, 17. 56  Şahoğlu 2007: 310; Erkanal and Keskin 2009: 99; Aykurt 2010: 3, 24–25. 57  Meriç 2003: 79–98, Meriç 2007a: 32–35, pl. 7; Meriç and Öz 2015: 611–625, fig. 1–2. 58  Meriç 2007a: 30, fig. 2. 59  Meriç 2007a: 30, fig. 3. 60  Mountjoy 2006: 110, 112, fig. 3: 3–5. 61  Meriç and Mountjoy 2001: 137–141; Meriç and Mountjoy 2002: 79–98; Meriç 2007b: 244, plan 1, fig. 2–3. 62  Meriç 2007a: 32–34, pl. 7: 3.

The West: Archaeology

Bronze Age to early Late Bronze Age in the Aegean World.63 Beside its archaeological remains, the geographical position of Bademgediği Tepe led to discussions on the localization of the Arzawan city Puranda. Considering that Puranda was near Apasa and Mt Arinnanda according to Hittite sources, which have been suggested to be identical with Ephesus (Ayasoluk Tepesi) and Mt Mycale respectively, Bademgediği Tepesi was suggested as its site.64 Selçuk-Ayasoluk (Old Ephesos)65 in the Küçük Menderes region, Miletos66 and Çine-Tepecik67 in the Büyük Menderes region, and Iasos68 in the south are other sites that shed light on second millennium BC settlement in Western Anatolia extending to the south. Among these sites, Selçuk-Ayasoluk was on the Aegean coast in the earlier periods (Fig. 10.1). Palaeogeographical studies in the region have shown that the coastline extended to the western slopes of Ayasoluk Tepesi.69 Among the finds of the earliest settlement at Ayasoluk Tepesi are tripod vessels, encrusted ceramics and lids similar to Early Bronze Age ceramic tradition. This material evidence demonstrates that the cultural history of the site at Ayasoluk goes back to the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age at the earliest.70 Vessels showing traces of fire from beneath the Byzantine remains belong to the Middle Bronze Age level.71 Trefoil jugs in this level are parallel to vessels from Liman Tepe, Aphrodisias-Pekmezhöyük, Troy III–IV, and Chios-Emporio.72 This settlement extends to the end of the Late Bronze Age according to evidence from area 22/S. At the lowest levels of Byzantine walls, a 7m portion of the 3m wide defensive wall built of large stone blocks was preserved.73 Mycenaean painted sherds and a seal are finds from the Late Bronze Age settlement from this area.74 The Mycenaean and Geometric period ceramics in the 63  Maran 1992: 81–105, fig. 3; Günel 1999a: 38–39, 149–150, pl. 141– 147; Günel 1999b: 55, fig. 15: 26–27, fig. 16, pl.12: 7–8; Schachner 1994/95: 97–113, tab. 3. 64  Meriç 2007a: 27, footnote: 1. 65  Büyükkolancı 2007: 21–24; Büyükkolancı 2008: 41–55. 66   Niemeier and Niemeier 1997: 196–200, 218–229; Niemeier 2007a: 13–16; Niemeier 2007b: 37–96. 67  Günel 2009; Günel 2011a; Günel 2011b: 1–8; Günel 2012: 56–80. 68  Benzi 1987: 29–34; Greaves 2010: 880. 69  Kayan 2006: 138–139, fig. 1. 70  Büyükkolancı 2007: 22. Çukuriçi is a mound with prehistoric material in this region and its finds shed light on the early period chronology of Ephesus and its vicinity. See; Galik and Horejs 2011: 83–94. 71  Büyükkolancı 2008: 43–44, fig. 6–7, 9. 72  Büyükkolancı 2008: 21–22. 73  Büyükkolancı 2008: 44–46, fig. 13–15. 74  Büyükkolancı 2008: fig. 18, fig. 21. a–b.

123 rock-cut ‘tholos’ graves on the western slope of Ayasoluk Tepesi date the use period of the graves.75 This evidence from Ayasoluk Tepesi points to an important second millennium BC center with a defense system and cemetery area. The interpretation of Ayasoluk Tepesi as the capital of the Arzawa Land has updated the interpretations on the historical geography of the area.76 The localization of the city of ‘Apasa’ in the land of Arzawa in Hittite sources supports its location on the coastline. Miletos, located at the point where Büyük Menderes meets the Aegean Sea, is a site that has seen settlement from the Late Chalcolithic (Miletos I) and Early Bronze Age (Miletos II) onwards. It is possible to follow this time span through a stratigraphical distinction of the Middle Bronze Age (Miletos III) and Late Bronze Age (IV–VI) remains (Fig. 10.1).77 Accordingly, Middle Bronze Age Miletos III shows close relations with Minoan culture through Minoan type kilns and imported MM I B-MM II period ‘Kamares style’ ceramics well-known from Minoan ceramic tradition78 and also shows this influence through bone and serpentine seals and a seal impression with Middle Minoan elements.79 These finds from Miletos III have illuminated discussions on Minoan presence and influence. Besides Minoan material culture, vessels from Miletos III reflect the local southwest Anatolian ceramic tradition.80 The end of Middle Bronze Age Miletos IV shows continuity of the Minoan influence. Miletos IV in the area of the Athena Temple reflects Minoan culture and religious customs with its ceramics, cult vessels, fresco fragments in Minoan style and sanctuary.81 Miletos IV offers a period that parallels the destruction of the old palace period on Crete, and shows heavy Minoan influence.82 The sanctuary with the mudbrick altar is associated with altars known from Minoan sanctuaries.83 A lion relief on a rhyton, a fresco depicting a lily, a Linear-A inscribed fragment, seals and weights also support this interaction.84 While Miletos IV shows strong Minoan features, the 75  Büyükkolancı 2008: 52–53. 76  Garstang and Gurney 1959; Hawkins 1998b. 77  Niemeier 2007a: 5–6. 78  Niemeier 2007a: 8–9, pl. 1: 6, pl. 2: 1–4; Niemeier 2007b: 46; Greaves 2010: 880. 79  Niemeier 2007a: 9, pl. 2: 5–6, pl. 3: 1. 80  Niemeier 2007a: 9. 81  Niemeier and Niemeier 1997: 192–193, 238–240, fig. 58–67, 77– 78; Niemeier 2007a: 10–13, pl. 3–4. For Minoan influence, see Niemeier and Niemeier 1997: 240, fig. 79–80; Greaves 2010: 880. 82  Niemeier 2007a: 10, pl. 3: 3. 83  Niemeier 2007a: 11, pl. 3: 4. 84  Niemeier 2007a: 11–12, pl. 3: 5–6, pl. 4: 1–4.

124 following settlement period shows Mycenaean cultural influence.85 Miletos V is a Late Bronze Age site with architectural remains and kilns identifying it as a ceramic production center.86 There are Minoan ceramics from this building level, as well as Mycenaean painted ceramics that represent the LH III A 1–2 ceramic tradition.87 The Miletos V settlement was destroyed by a conflagration, which is perhaps explained through destruction by Muršili II during his Arzawa campaigns.88 Miletos VI shows a settlement layout with a defense wall system, dated to the latest phases of the Late Bronze Age. The walled Miletos VI settlement follows the Miletos V settlement, which was destroyed by a conflagration. The building plan and techniques of the Miletos V city wall have been compared to Hittite and Mycenaean defense systems.89 The Miletos city wall dates to a period paralleling Late Helladic III B (1320/1300– 1200/1190 BC).90 Miletos VI shows Mycenaean influence with corridor house types as well as evidence for cultic and burial customs.91 Miletos VI also represents a period in which Mycenaean ceramic finds of Late Helladic III B-Late Helladic III C evidence interregional cultural relations most strongly.92 Miletos VI reveals interregional cultural connections with local ceramics and Mycenaean ceramics of LH III B1-LH III C periods.93 A Hittite horned hat depicted on a krater sherd dated to Late Helladic III B2-III C phases94 as well as the mention of Millawanda in sources from Muršili II onwards and of campaigns to Millawanda have shed light on the influence of the Hittite world on the city of Miletos.95 Çine-Tepecik, located inland, is a new center that provides the site model and chronological definition of the southern area of the Menderes in the second millennium BC. Tepecik is located to the south of Menderes, on the plain that is crossed by the Çine River (Fig. 10.1).96 The 85  Niemeier 2007a: 13, pl. 4: 5. 86  Niemeier and Niemeier 1997: 221, fig. 33, 38–40; Niemeier 2007a: 13–14, pl. 5.1. 87  Niemeier and Niemeier 1997: 195–196. 88  Niemeier 2007a: 14. 89   Mallwitz 1959/60: 67–76; Kleiner 1969/70, 114–16, fig. 1; Voigtländer 1975: 19–34, fig. 1; Naumann 1975, Appendix 1; Voigtländer 1985: 82, fig. 10. 90  Niemeier and Niemeier 1997: 196. 91  Niemeier 1998, 35–36, fig. 11–12; Niemeier 2007a, 14–15. 92  Niemeier and Niemeier 1997, 197, 199, fig. 1, 30–31; Mountjoy 2006: 112–114, fig. 4–5. 93  Niemeier and Niemeier 1997: 196–199, fig. 1; 30–31. 94  Niemeier and Niemeier 1997: 203–204, fig. 3. 95  Niemeier and Niemeier 1997: 201–202. 96  Günel 2008a: 130–139.

Günel

earliest settlement on the mound, Level IV, is dated to the Chalcolithic Period, and is followed by Level III, which is dated to the Early Bronze Age. Level II in the stratigraphy of the mound yielded the remains of the second millennium BC settlement. In this stratigraphical definition, the early phase of Level II belongs to the Middle Bronze Age settlement. Level II 2 architecture, with foundations built of small stones and mudbricks, reflects a building tradition known from Western Anatolia. The Middle Bronze Age architectural remains involve rectangular plan houses with stone paved courtyards. These buildings shows signs of destruction by intense fire. On the other hand, the south part of the Level II 2 settlement shows the impacts of a thick ash layer. The analysis of the volcanic ashes was performed at the Atominstitut of Vienna. According to the analysis of the ‘ash samples’, the volcanic ash is connected with the eruption of Thera/Santorini. It appears that volcanic ash from the Thera eruption was carried eastwards by winds and reached the Level II 2 settlement in Tepecik. These traces show that the volcanic eruption in the vicinity heavily affected the site of Tepecik.97 Single handled cups reminiscent of Minoan vessel forms among the Level II 2 finds give a parallel chronology.98 Finds including bowls, jars, and beak-spouted jugs reflect a Middle Bronze Age ceramic tradition.99 Among the ceramic finds, a pithos of an anthropomorphic vessel (‘face vessel’) tradition is interesting for the depiction style on it (Fig. 10.3). The pithos is red-slipped and burnished, with an ovoid body, cylindrical neck and simple rim. Eyebrows, nose, and eyes are depicted in relief on the neck of the pithos. In addition to facial details, there are ears and a round earring on the earlobe. On the body of the pithos, the right arm is extended forward, the hands and fingers are worked in detail, and even a probable item of jewelry is depicted by a wide band on the wrist. All these details make the pithos spectacular with its size and depiction style. The ‘Face vessel’ tradition is observed in Anatolia in a long chronological span from the Neolithic onwards and over a wide geographical area; it is attested in a variety of applications on lids and vessels and constitutes a rich repertoire. In the ceramic sequence, this tradition is represented by examples known from 97  This interaction based on the Thera volvanic eruption is associated with the destruction of the Miletos IVa settlement in the coastal region of the Aegean (von Graeve and Niemeier 2002: 77–78); the sites of Iasos (Momigliano 2009: 129; Momigliano 2012: 32) and Çeşme-Bağlararası were also affected by this natural interaction (Şahoğlu 2007: 318–319). 98  Günel 2008b: 76, fig. 2. 99  See: Günel 1999a: 52, pl. 105, 159–161; Günel 1999b: 53, fig. 14: 18.

The West: Archaeology

Central100 and Western Anatolia.101 In this geographical distribution, the Tepecik pithos contributes a new example to the Middle Bronze Age anthropomorphic vessel tradition. In addition, vessels decorated with animal heads in Level II 2 constitute a rich group with heads of various animals.102 This tradition of vessel attachments is reminiscent of the ceramic art/tradition known from Central Anatolian vessels. A terracotta figurine103 and a model,104 are among the Level II 2 finds that carry religious meaning. The terracotta model in this group is a cultic object with six stylized bull heads (bucrania) depicted on it. The Tepecik model is similar to Cypriot terracotta models both in form and in depiction style. As in examples dated to the beginning of the Middle Cypriot period, it shows a compositional layout crowned by bull heads.105 The Tepecik terracotta model provides clues for the religious beliefs of the Middle Bronze Age culture and a new example of bull scenes of religious ceremonies and festivals in Near Eastern iconography. Level II 1 in the stratigraphical development of the mound yields a Late Bronze Age walled site plan. So far, a 55m long section of the wall has been unearthed. The wall is 2.20m wide and is supported by square-plan towers. One of the buildings in this walled settlement points to the storage function of the area near the wall. This building was constructed in connection with one of the towers of the wall.106 Building 1, adjacent to the first tower in the southwest, has a rectangular plan and measures 3.50m by 2.00m. The north of this building abuts the 1.30m wide southern wall of the tower, and its west abuts the main wall. The south and the east of the building is bordered by 0.45–0.50m wide walls built of small stones. According to the extant architectural remains in this area, the structure 100  Boehmer 1983: 16, fig. 4, pl. III–IV; Özgüç 1983: 422–423, fig. 84: 1–4, fig. 85: 1a–c; Özgüç 1992: 426–427, fig. 1; Özgüç 1999b: 3, 5, pl. 4–5, 10–11; Özgüç 2003: 222–223, fig. 229–233; Bilgi 2012: 394–395. 101  See: Liman Tepe: Günel 1999b: 53–54, fig. 15, pl. 12: 4–6; ÇeşmeBağlararası: Şahoğlu 2007: 316, fig. 6; Aykurt 2013: 42, 45, fig. 3, 9; Beycesultan: Abay 2011a: 8. 102  Günel 2010a: 466, fig. 7. 103  Günel 2010a: 466, fig. 8. 104  Günel 2011c: 8–11, fig. 3–5. 105   For comparison, see Günel 2011c: 11–14, fig. 6–9; Kotchati: Karageorghis 1970: 10–12, pl. I–IV; Karageorghis 1971: 344, fig. 16, 18; Åström 1988, 5–6, fig. 1–2; Karageorghis 1991: 142–143, pl. CII.2–3, CIII: 1–2; Kalopsidha: Karageorghis 1970: 12, pl. V; Åström 1966: 15, fig. 5; Karageorghis 1991: 143, pl. CIII: 3–4; Vounous: Dikaios 1932: pl. LXX–LXXI; Dikaios 1938: 1–168, pl. VII–VIII; Karageorghis 1991: 139–140, pl. C: 1–2, CI: 1–2; Peltenburg 1994: 159–160, fig. 1. 106  Günel 2012: 56–57, fig. 2; Günel 2014c: 246–247, fig. 7.

125 must have been built to fit the projection of the tower in the southeast corner. In situ vessels were found stacked among the burnt wood and mudbrick remains within this building. These vessels, found together in the building, vary in material and technical aspects, as well as in form. Round bodied bowls and S-profile bowls of local ceramics belong to reddish-buff wares known from second millennium Western Anatolian ceramic tradition.107 In terms of form, these vessels have a wide distribution area in Western Anatolia.108 Another type of ware found in the building consists of painted decorated vessels known from Mycenaean culture ceramic tradition. Stirrup jars belonging to Mycenaean ceramics, as well as a deep bowl with painted decoration on the exterior and interior and a monochrome amphora show the variety of the vessel repertoire in the building (Fig. 10.4). Stirrup jars display characteristics of imported and locally produced forms, particularly in terms of patterns applied on the vessels, of LH III B2 and LH III C phases.109 The size of this building and the state of the vessels found in it suggest that the function of this building is associated with the city wall and was related to storage. To the east of Building 1 is a second, larger building. It has a rectangular plan and it is 16.50m long and 4.50m wide. In this building there were numerous pithos sherds as well as pithos bases sitting on the blackened hard floor showing signs of fire. The position of these in situ bases shows that the pithoi were arranged in a particular order in a north-south direction. One of these pithoi was found complete and in situ in the southern part of the building.110 These storage pithoi were covered by a smooth capping stone, and support the identification of Building 2 as ‘storage/magazine’. In the building, there were also vessels with different material-technical properties and of varying forms. In the building, there were also vessels similar to the buff/reddish wares found in Building 1. Another important ware group consists of Mycenaean painted decoration vessels. Figured examples with depictions of birds, fish, deer, as well as warriors on deep bowls and krater fragments belong to the ‘pictorial style’ in Mycenaean ceramics (Fig. 10.5).111 These examples reflect certain scenes on figure painted Tepecik Mycenaean vessels and are 107  Günel 2012: 57, fig. 3–4. 108  See Günel 1999a; Günel 1999b: 51–52, fig. 12. 109  Günel 2010b: 30–39; Günel 2012: 57, fig. 5. 110  Günel 2011b: 3–4; Günel 2012: 57–58, fig. 6. 111  A group of Mycenaean painted and ‘pictorial style’ ceramics from Tepecik Level II 1 is discussed in: Günel 2015a: 637–637, fig. 13–16; Publication of two kraters with warrior and hunting scenes: Günel and Herbordt 2014: 4–8, fig. 3–7.

126 similar to decoration belonging to the ceramic development of the LH III B2-LH III C early and middle phases.112 Seal impressions, which are important for the historical geography of the region, also belong to Building 2 (Fig. 10.6).113 These seal impressions are dated to the Hittite Imperial period, and represent a period parallel to the ceramic finds of the Tepecik Late Bronze Age settlement in the stratigraphy. The inscription on one of the seals was read by S. Herbordt114 and due to its length it is presumed to give the names of two individuals, interpreted as “[Tark]asnaya and Pisuraili-x” or “[Tark]asnapiya and Sur(a)ili-x”. The seal contributes information on the distribution area of the lands of Arzawa/Mira and on connections between Tarkasnawa and the kings of the Land of Mira.115 A Hittite prince was depicted on the other seal impression. A figure bearing a bow with hieroglyphic signs on both sides can be seen on the sealing. The inscription has been read by S. Herbordt, as “tà-mi-pi-ya, the prince”. The Çine-Tepecik glyptic finds came from a stratified archaeological context in the storage building and are in this respect unique in Western Anatolia. These seals with hieroglyphic inscriptions are comparable to the Hittite heartland with their high-quality craftsmanship. This is an important clue for the direct links between Çine-Tepecik and the Hittites. Chronologically, it extends from the destruction of Arzawa by Muršili II to the time of Tudhaliya IV. These data support that the Çine river region belonged to the vassal state of Mira.116 In addition to the information about the inscription, both sealings suggest that the Tepecik center had political and commercial power over the geographical region where it is located. Like the sealings, storage pithoi also evidence certain economic factors working within the administrative system of the city. A stone paved platform just to the west of the magazine also supported this system.117 Large pithoi half buried in the ground on this platform showed a storage system surrounded by small stones.118 Accordingly, the pithoi in the storage buildings and in the area of the stone paved platform evidence that the products of the city were stored in a certain system and there was a certain 112   For comparison, see; Crouwel 2006: 15–22; Crouwel 2007: 73–82. 113  Herbordt apud Günel and Herbordt 2010: 9, fig. 4–6. The second seal-impression is from the same building: Herbordt apud Günel and Herbordt 2014: 8–11, fig. 8–10. 114   Drawing of the sealing is by Ch. Müller-Hazenbos and S. Herbordt; Herbordt apud Günel and Herbordt 2010: 6, fig. 4. 115  Herbordt apud Günel and Herbordt 2010: 9, fig. 4–6. 116  Günel and Herbordt 2014: 8–11, fig. 8–10. 117  Günel 2012: 59. 118  Günel 2012: 59, fig. 10–11.

Günel

economic organization. The architecture just to the south of this area shows that the settlement extended to the south and southwest with remains of buildings that are mostly rectangular in plan. Weights were found together in this area. One group of these weights are coarse ware, and spool-shaped.119 Similar examples are observed more frequently in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, particularly in the LH III C period.120 The other group consists of pyramid shaped weights. A large number of these weights were found together, and belong to a workshop related to the textile industry. Architectural remains extending towards the south of the site show stronger traces of the fire that destroyed the city and suggests that the city was destroyed by the fire. Accordingly, the Late Bronze Age site chronology at Tepecik spans a time period from 1350/1300 BC to 1240/1100 BC. This evidence contributes to the limited information on Late Bronze Age cultures in Western Anatolia. Tepecik represents the site of a developed local culture with a defensive function for this local geographical region, which also shows influences of the Aegean world to the west and Central Anatolia to the east. Valleys opening to the Aegean coastline through the Büyük Menderes on the one hand, and natural passageways to the north, south, and east on the other, have been an important factor in these relations. The location of Tepecik in Çine area near the coastline reflects a cultural history that parallels other Western Anatolian sites. Another site on the southwestern coast is Iasos. Iasos is located in the village of Kıyıkıslacık in the town of Milas in the province of Muğla, and goes back to the Chalcolithic/ Early Bronze Age (Fig. 10.1). The 3rd millennium material below the Artemis Stoa belongs to the earliest cultural layer.121 Bronze Age settlement remains in the lower layers of the graves in the Roman Agora area (area1) are dated to MM III A/B and LM IA.122 Although the settlement history is not based on clear evidence, it has been identified through finds dating to the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 2nd millennium.123 Local and imported ‘Kamares’ ceramics from this culture show Minoan influence.124 Iasos has cultural remains paralleling the Minoan palaces period in Western Anatolia. The relations between the two regions in MM III B-LM I A periods can be followed through various finds such as Minoan style architecture, local ceramics with potter’s marks in Linear 119  Günel 2013: 24, fig. 7. 120  Rahmstorf 2003; Rahmstorf 2005; Rahmstorf 2008. 121  Momigliano 2012: 1, 9, 44, fig. 12–13. 122  Momigliano 2012: 21–39. 123  Momigliano 2012: 9, 44. 124  Momigliano 2009: 124–125; Momigliano 2012: 155.

127

The West: Archaeology

A, conical cups and weights.125 Finds from ‘Building B’ and Building F’ in Iasos parallel the Neopalatial period according to Minoan chronology.126 This material is dated to MM III-LM I period. The latest phase of these remains is dated through LH IIB/IIIA1 and LH IIIA2-IIIB in the light of Mycenaean ceramics.127 Minoan influence at Iasos is demonstrated by conical cups,128 terracotta Minoan loom-weights129 and potter’s marks in Linear A.130 On the other hand, Beycesultan in Denizli/Çivril on the Upper Menderes basin is a site with Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age material culture that has been settled from early periods onwards (Fig. 10.1).131 Public architecture in settlements of Middle Bronze Age levels V–IV and Late Bronze Age levels III-I at Beycesultan suggests the existence of a local administrative system in Western Anatolia.132 In the Middle Bronze settlement, buildings with official functions are observed at Level V–IV. There is a building called the ‘Burnt Palace’ at Level V.133 This building consists of rooms and corridors around a courtyard. It is thought to have been two-storeyed, and it had multiple entrances. The walls of the building were decorated with wall paintings known from Near Eastern palace architecture.134 Beycesultan reflects a city type with a developed wall system, official buildings, and a sanctuary. It is thought that the city was destroyed by Hittite attacks in this period. The latest excavations at the mound provide new evidence of Middle Bronze Age architecture. A large building was constructed at Level V.135 This twophase building was of mudbrick construction over stone foundations. No traces of paint were identified on the plastered walls of the building.136 A significant building in this complex is a ‘megaron’-plan sanctuary measuring 4.00×2.50m.137 There is an altar in the middle of the cella. There are two standards and offering vessels with the altar. The top portions of the standards are in the form of horns. The standards are decorated with concentric 125  Momigliana 2009: 121–140. 126  Momigliano 2012: 27, fig. 31–34. 127  Benzi 1987: 29–34; Momigliano 2012, 155–156. 128  Momigliano 2012: 51–58, 160, fig. 76–78, 83, 112–117, 162. 129  Momigliano 2012: fig. 72, 128–130, 159. 130  Momigliano 2012: 162. 131  Lloyd and Mellaart 1962. 132  Lloyd and Mellaart 1965; Lloyd 1972; Abay and Dedeoğlu 2009: 55; MacSweeney 2010: 11–12, fig. 4; Abay 2011a: 120–121; Abay 2011b: 8, 16. 133  Lloyd and Mellaart 1965: 3–66. 134  Lloyd and Mellaart 1965: 16–30. 135  Abay 2011c: 132, fig. 9. 136  Abay 2011c: 133. 137  Abay 2011a: 17; Abay 2011c: 133–134, fig. 10.

circles. In addition, a human faced jar was also found in this cella.138 There are storage structures in addition to this sanctuary. There are large pithoi with grains in them in these structures. These were destroyed by an intense fire.139 Skeletons identified in the buildings, some of them found as they were hiding in the grain storage, suggest that this fire was the result of an invasion.140 C14 dating of the grain samples from within the pithoi in the storage rooms shows that this destruction is dated to 1570–1530.141 The Middle Bronze Age settlement on the mound reflects a layout with an inner wall with the palace, and a lower town surrounding the wall. It is possible to follow the developed city structure until c. 1200 BC. The Late Bronze Age settlement on the mound indicates a regular system with stone paved streets and buildings along them. The ‘Little Palace’ and shrines are observed at Level III-I.142 Public building contexts on the mound, including a ‘palace’ structure, supports the hypothesis that Beycesultan was a strong center in the region in the second millennium BC.143 Pithos burials on the plain to the west of the mound are dated to the Middle Bronze and Iron ages. The pithoi are oriented in an eastwest direction, and the burials are in the ‘hocker’ position. The mouths of the pithoi were capped by stones. Beads, bronze and silver rings, and pins were found in the graves.144 Due to their geographical position, these second millennium sites in Western Anatolia reflect developed local cultures as well as interregional interaction in the region encompassing the coastal area and Inland Western Anatolia. Conclusion When we consider Western Anatolian sites with second millennium cultural material, from the north to the south, the Late Bronze Age sites of Troy, Bademgediği Tepe, Selçuk-Ayasoluk, and Miletos, all have defense systems, and Çine-Tepecik has taken its place in the archaeology of the region as a site that features regional characteristics in terms of building styles with a walled system as well. While a regional architectural tradition is effective on the western coast and the inland west, Hittite and Aegean 138  Abay 2011c: 133–134, fig. 10. 139  Abay 2011c: 135–136, fig. 11–12. 140  Abay 2011a: 15: Abay 2011c: 135–136. 141  Abay 2011c: 137. 142  Lloyd 1972. 143  Abay 2011c: 120. 144  Abay 2011c: 139, fig. 7. E-k.

128 world influences in cultural terms appear strongly. On the coast, the settlements show a general system of single buildings with one or two rooms located along the streets. This tradition is reflected by the architectural remains at the sites of Troy, Liman Tepe, Çeşme-Bağlararası, Miletos, and Çine-Tepecik. In Inland Western Anatolia, multiroomed, large building complexes were in use in light of the architectural tradition at Beycesultan. The favorable geographical condition of Western Anatolia is reflected on the cultural wealth and socio-economic structure of these sites. Fertile agricultural land in the region was a significant factor in the development of grain/product storage methods in the cities. This system, known from the 3rd millennium BC remains at Demircihöyük145 and Küllüoba146 in inland Western Anatolia, is followed in the 2nd millennium through evidence of grain/product storage in large pithoi at Troy,147 Liman Tepe,148 ÇineTepecik149 and Beycesultan.150 This organization appears as large, spectacular storage structures similar to those of the Hittites in Central Anatolia,151 whereas it is followed by a storage system that includes agricultural products and olive oil in large pithoi in Western Anatolia and this system demonstrates that similar practices could be seen at the different regions of Anatolia in terms of the Hittite culture and the agricultural products of the Aegean. The storage building and the half-buried pithoi bordered by a stone platform in an area associated with the building are important evidence in understanding the economic system of the region at Çine-Tepecik. In addition, the Ç2b phase “Wine House” at Çeşme-Bağlararası provides evidence for wine production, as well as for architectural elements and vessels used in the production process.152 Finds of numerous spindle whorls and looms from every phase of the second millennium at the sites indicate the significance of textile production. Spindle whorls found together at Troy,153 loom weights and spindle whorls at Liman Tepe,154 terracotta and stone spindle whorls and weights at Çeşme-Bağlararası,155 similar conical spindle whorls, spool and pyramid shaped loom weights found together at Tepecik, as well as the positions in 145  Korfmann 1983: 210–215. 146  Efe and Fidan 2008: 74, fig. 18. 147  Korfmann 2006: fig. 9. 148  Erkanal and Aykurt 2008: 230. 149  Günel 2012: 57–59, fig. 6, 9–11. 150  Abay 2011c: 135–136, fig. 11–12. 151  Schachner 2010: 670–672; Schachner 2012: 35–36, fig. 10–12. 152  Şahoğlu 2006: 314–315, fig. 2, 4–5. 153  Balfanz 1995: 108. 154  Erkanal and Aykurt 2008: 234. 155  Şahoğlu 2007: 312.

Günel

which they were found are clues to the textile production in the workshops.156 Numerous loom weights in the storage rooms of the building complex at the Middle Bronze Age settlement at Beycesultan also evidence textile production.157 On the other hand, Minoan and Mycenaean type weights (flat-discoid, grooved loomweights and trapezoidal loomweights) at Troy VI–VII,158 loom-weights of Minoan type at Çeşme-Bağlararası,159 weights at Milet,160 and Iasos161 to the south reveal the wealth and variety of textile production in Western Anatolia. The second half of the second millennium BC in Western Anatolia is a period for which the position and activities of the Hittites in the historical geography of Western Anatolia on the one hand, and the scale of Anatolian-Aegean relations on the other hand, are investigated. For these relations, Western Anatolia has been a center of attention with philological documents that shed light on political activities of the Hittites in the region and archaeological evidence pointing to the presence of Hittites in the region. Sources that shed light on the historical geography of Western Anatolia in Hittite texts have always kept their relevance through various interpretations and discussions.162 In addition to philological research based on Hittite sources, the geographical locations of and philological data from Karabel on Bozdağları (Tmolos),163 Akpınar in Manisa (Sipylos),164 Karakuyu to the southeast of Karabel pass165 and Suratkaya in Beşparmak (Latmos)166 shed light on the political activities of the Hittites in the region and the effects of Hittite kings on Western Anatolia. Among these monuments, Suratkaya with its location near Çine-Tepecik site is interesting in terms of the historical geography of the region. Suratkaya is located to the east of Latmos on the Beşparmak mountains, in the area bordered by the deep valleys of Derince River.167 The 156  Günel 2012: 59, fig. 12. 157  Abay 2011c: 135. 158  Becks and Guzowska 2004: 102–103, fig. 1–5. 159  Şahoğlu 2007: 319. 160  Niemeier 1998: 27, photo. 1. 161  Momigliano 2012: fig. 72, 128–130, 159. 162  For historical geography of the region and related discussions, see; Forrer 1926; Garstang 1943; Garstang and Gurney 1959; Heinhold-Krahmer 1977; Hawkins 1998b; Ünal 2003; Strobel 2008b. 163  Güterbock 1967a, 64–71, fig. 1–3; Kohlmeyer 1983: 12–28, fig. 1–7; Hawkins 1998b: 4–10, fig. 1–8. 164  Kohlmeyer 1983: 28–34, fig. 8, 9–11. 165  Işık et al. 2011: 1–29, pl. 4. 166  Peschlow-Bindokat 2001: 363–367; Reading of the inscription: Herbordt “Lesung der Inschrift” 2001, 367–378. 167  Peschlow-Bindokat 2001: 363, fig. 1.

The West: Archaeology

Suratkaya inscription in the mountainous Latmos region within the borders of Mira-Kuwaliya has been interpreted as a border stone with political content.168 In addition to historical sources, Hittite influence in the region is also supported by finds from various Western Anatolian sites. Among these few archaeological finds are a krater dated to LH IIIB2-LH III C from the Miletos excavations,169 a bronze seal with Luwian Hieroglyphs from Troy VIIb,170 a sealed bronze bracelet from Panaztepe,171 and a bronze Hittite statuette from Kuşadası-Kadıkalesi172 In this context, the Tepecik seal impressions with Hittite hieroglyphs have significance for the Menderes region.173 The Arzawa Lands are considered to lie within a wide geography of the coastline and the inland areas extending from Wilusa (Ilios) to Lukka (Lykia) in the Hittite sources.174 Archaeological evidence from Western Anatolia and philological data are expected to reveal the connections between the second millennium cities and local kingdoms and the lands mentioned in Hittite sources. New evidence such as the Çine-Tepecik seal impressions from archaeological contexts will no doubt be considered in the scope of the heated discussions and interpretations on the historical geography of the region. On the other hand, regarding cultural relations of Western Anatolia with the Aegean world, Minoan and Mycenaean influence is significant. Çeşme-Bağlararası, Miletos, and Iasos are sites where evidence of Minoan culture is most commonly encountered, with architectural, ceramic, and other small finds. This evidence is dated to the MM III/LM I period when Cretan palaces were powerful. The reflections of the Mycenaean world at Western Anatolian sites on the other hand are observed in a larger geographical area and through a longer chronology. Mycenaean ceramics with painted decoration found in sites of Western Anatolia give a chronology that includes the Late Helladic III A–C period. In the Aegean in the Late Bronze Age, the period of the most active trade network (LH III A–LH III B) indicates the period in which Mycenaean palaces were the strongest and most active economically. The influence of the Mycenaeans on the Aegean trade network in the LH III A1–2 phase is also supported by

168  Herbordt apud Peschlow-Bindokat 2001: 366. 169  Niemeier and Niemeier 1997: 203, 205, fig. 3. 170  Hawkins and Easton 1996: 111–113, fig.1- 2. 171  Erkanal-Öktü 2000: 72–73, fig. 3. 172  Akdeniz 2006a: 10–11, fig. 17; Akdeniz 2006b: 31–32, fig 9. 173  Günel and Herbordt 2010: 1–11; Günel and Herbordt 2014: 8–11. 174  Dinçol and Dinçol 2006: 218.

129 grave finds at Beşiktepe,175 Panaztepe,176 Bakla Tepe,177 and Müsgebi/Ortakent178 in Western Anatolia. Mycenaean vessels, metal weapons and jewelry reflect this wealth. After the palatial period came the end of LH III B and LH III C, when the destruction of the palaces resulted in loss of political power and related instability. Ceramic production, as well as other materials, had its place in the trade system that encompassed the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.179 This change is followed through LH III C period architecture, burial customs, trade relations and the emergence of a regional and local cultural style in ceramic production.180 With the breaking of the palace system (LH III B2/early LH III C), political change and economic factors in the Aegean world also affected the Mycenaean ceramic tradition.181 In this cultural and chronological structure of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, certain patterns are common to the early and middle phases of LH III B2/LH III C ceramics. In the decoration of the period, one of the most popular decorations applied on various vessels consisted of half circle patterns. These patterns vary as half circles with paint fills, or concentric half circles bordered by dots on the exterior. This decoration style is noted as the most common patterns on bowls, kraters, and stirrup jars in level II 1 at ÇineTepecik.182 Other common patterns of LH III B/LH III C early and middle periods in Mycenaean ceramics is wavy decoration on bowls and checkerboard patterns on deep vessels like kraters. This decoration style is again among other patterns in Tepecik Mycenaean ceramics and gives a parallel chronology.183 ‘Pictorial style’ decoration on deep bowls and kraters in the Aegean is observed in LH III B2 phase.184 This tradition developed through regional decoration styles paralleling political change from the early phase of LH III C onwards.185 Mycenaean pictorial kraters at Liman Tepe,186 Bademgediği Tepe187 and

175  Korfmann 1986b: 311–329, fig. 6–7; Korfmann 1988: 395–396. 176  Günel 1999a. 177  Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2012: 96–97, fig. 6. 178  Boysal 1967: 67–76; Boysal 1969; Mee 1978: 137–142. 179  Shelton 2010: 145; Burns 2010: 297. 180  Shelton 2010: 146. 181  Jung 2010: 174, tab. 13.1. 182  Günel 2010b: fig. 16–22, tab. 4. 183  Günel 2010b: 13–15, 32–39, fig. 8–23, tab. 4. 184  Mountjoy 1999b: 35. 185  Mountjoy 1999b: 44, 50; Crouwel 2006: 15–22; Crouwel 2007: 73–82. 186  Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2012: 228, fig. 9; Aykurt 2014: 56–64, fig. 4–5. 187  Mountjoy 2011: 484, 487, fig. 3.

130

Günel

Çine-Tepecik,188 in Western Anatolia reflect this change in ceramic tradition of the Aegean world with their subjects and chronology. In this context, ‘Pictorial style’ Mycenaean vessels at Tepecik include a rich assemblage with stylistically varying depictions of birds, fish, deer and goats, horse and bulls. ‘Pictorial style’ decoration on deep bowls and kraters at Tepecik make up the material of Late Helladic III B and Late Helladic III C early and middle phases, with closest parallels on mainland Greece and the Eastern Aegean islands. This parallelism observed at the Çine-Tepecik Late Bronze Age settlement sheds light on the existence of interregional trade relations, and points to the fact that Mycenaean cultural influence can be followed inland, up to the Çine region. Also, the increase in local production of LH III C period Mycenaean ceramics in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean is explained as the sign of a

migration wave reaching towards the islands.189 The frequency of locally produced Mycenaean ceramics at sites must be related with this movement in the Aegean. In this way, Mycenaean activity in the Aegean world and its reflection on Western Anatolian cultural structure is shown also by Mycenaean ceramics from sites in western Anatolia, which shows considerable variation. In this period of significant regional factors in the Aegean and East Mediterranean, settlement in West Anatolia illustrates an outward oriented region that accommodated the influence of the surrounding cultures. Based on the above mentioned information, the distribution of centers in Western Anatolia supports the existence of a city structure with intense interregional cultural relations through its cultural remains, which strengthen its position and significance in Anatolian and Aegean archaeology in the second millennium BC.

188  Günel apud Günel and Herbordt 2014: 4–8.

189  Rutter 2010: 420.

The West: Archaeology

Figure 10.1

Map of second millennium sites mentioned in the text.

131

132

Figure 10.2

Günel

Çeşme-Bağlararası; Minoan cups, Şahoğlu 2012, fig. 6.

Figure 10.3  Çine-Tepecik; Antropomorphic pithos.

Figure 10.4 Çine-Tepecik; vessels from the storage structure.

The West: Archaeology

Figure 10.5

Çine-Tepecik; Mycenaean pictorial krater.

Figure 10.6

Çine-Tepecik; seal impressions, Günel and Herbordt 2010; Günel and Herbordt 2014.

133

CHAPTER 11

Kizzuwatna: Archaeology Mirko Novák and Susanne Rutishauser

Definition of Area

The ancient territory designated as Kizzuwatna in Hittite, Mittani, and Alalakh sources, has been firmly identified with “Plain Cilicia”, Gr. Kilikia Pedias, Lat. Cilicia Campestris:1 All known and undoubtedly localized cities of Kizzuwatna were situated there, namely its political capital Adaniya/Adana as well as its second most important city Tarša/Tarsus (Fig. 11.1).2 Since it has become more and more clear in recent years that even the two important cultic centres Kummanni and Lawazantiya should not be localized in the Elbistan region, as assumed previously, but rather in the east of Plain Cilicia, there is no evidence that Kizzuwatna ever extended beyond the Taurus or Amanus Ranges.3 Thus, the struggles between Kizzuwatna and its southeastern neighbour Alalaḫ attested during the reigns of Idrimi and his son Niqmepa of Alalaḫ on the one side and Pilliya respectively Šunaššura of Kizzuwatna on the other side must have focused on towns in the Amanus Mountains.4 As far as is known, the borders of Kizzuwatna were mainly defined by the Taurus Mountains to the northwest and north, the Amanus Range to the East and the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Iskenderun and the Gulf of Mersin to the South. Only its western limits are not well-defined by natural features: the coastal plain west of Mersin has no barrier until the mouth of the Göksu river, where the ancient harbour city of Ura must have been located (probably near modern Silifke).5 Hence the country may have expanded further into the region later known as Rough Cilicia, gr. Kilikia Tracheia, than has been * We are grateful to Alexander Sollee M. A. (Bern) for commenting on the paper and improving the English manuscript. 1  Goetze 1940. 2  See Hawkins and Weeden chapter 21 this volume and: Trémouille 2001; Forlanini 2014. 3  Trémouille 2001 and Forlanini 2013a. 4  Kühne 1999: 213–4 and Wilhelm 1982: 42. Cf. also Kozal and Novák in press; see the two treaties AlT3 and AlT14, the latter of which deals with a border dispute between Alalakh and Kizzuwatna. 5  Ura is to be identified with Neo-Assyrian Ḫarrua and Greek Hyria, the pre-Hellenistic name of Seleukia ad Kalykadnos; see Casabonne 2005 and Forlanini 2013a: 25.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_012

assumed so far. Unfortunately we lack any documents on the situation previous to the time of the latest known king of Kizzuwatna, Šunaššura. In his treaty with Tudḫaliya I of Hatti the border between the Hittite Empire and Kizzuwatna was established close to Lamiya, near the modern town of Limonlu (Fig. 11.2).6 However, since this treaty’s intention was to redefine the relationship between the two countries involved in favour of Hatti, it cannot be excluded that Kizzuwatna had originally extended further west, and thus might have included at least parts of Rough Cilicia as well, which it then lost to the Hittites. However, Ura was not only an important harbour city, but was also the point where a trade route following the Göksu River led to Inner Anatolia. Therefore, it was crucial for Hatti to possess this town. Kizzuwatna was presumably not the original selfdesignation of the country.7 The name derives from the Hittite-Luwian *kez-watni meaning “Country on this side (of the mountains)”8 and is neither attested before the Late Bronze Age (i.e. the Hittite Period) nor during the following Iron Age. The successive polity of almost identical extensions and the same major cities was named Hiyawa, Kawa or Que/Ḫumē.9 The only toponym still reminiscent of the country’s former name was Kisuatni, which is mentioned in Neo-Assyrian sources and refers to the town previously known as Kummanni.10 However, just like in the Šunaššura treaty, the country was frequently simply called “Land (or Plain) of Adana” during the Iron Age, leaving no doubt regarding the identification of its political and economic capital.11 As far as is known from the onomastic evidence, Kizzuwatna was inhabited by Luwians and Hurrians alike.12 6  Novák and Rutishauser 2012. 7  Presumably the country was originally referred to as *Kawa and the name might have experienced a revival in the Iron Age. See Schneider 2002. 8  Yakubovich 2010: 274. 9  Hawkins 2007: 191. 10  Yamada 2000: 203. 11  Novák and Rutishauser 2012: 264; Hawkins 2007: 191. 12  Bryce 2003a: 88f.; Klinger 2001.

Kizzuwatna: Archaeology



Topography of the Area

The Cilician Plain is an alluvial fan that covers an area of approximately 8000km2. Like almost no other landscape in Asia Minor, this plain is defined by strong topographic contrasts: a large fertile plain surrounded by steep mountain ranges. The Middle Taurus Range,13 which exceeds 3700 metres in elevation, borders the landscape to the west and north. In the east, the settlement cluster is confined by the Amanus that separates Plain Cilicia from Inner Syria and reaches elevations of up to 2200 metres. The Gulf of Iskenderun forms its southern boundary. The approximately 760 metre high Misis Mountains14 extend northwards from the western end of the Gulf of Iskenderun. The Cilician plain is separated into a western (Çukurova) and an eastern (Yukarıova) settlement cluster by a natural border formed by the foothills of the Middle Taurus Range and the Misis Mountains. Furthermore, another concentration of ancient sites extends along the coastal strip along the Amanus Mountains. Regarding its tectonic framework, Cilicia is situated on the boundary zone between the triple junction of the African plate with the Arabian and Anatolian microplates.15 The active East Anatolian Fault divides the plain along the Misis Mountains in a northeast-southwest direction.16 The Adana basin that hosts a c. 6000m thick sedimentary succession, spanning the Miocene to recent,17 represents the onshore extension of the Cilicia Basin to its east and the Iskenderun Basin to its west.18 Natural passes through the mountains still form the main routes of access to the lowlands. The well-known “Cilician Gates” (Tr. Gülek Boğazı) at an elevation of over 1000 metres connect Anatolia with the plain and serve as the main passageway for railroad tracks and major vehicular roads up until this day. Fortresses at Porsuk/ Zeyve Höyük as well as Domuztepe controlled entry into Late Bronze Cilicia.19 In the westernmost part of Plain Cilicia, forming the transition to Rough Cilicia, the Göksu Valley stretches north-south from the Konya Plain to

13  Synonym: Central Taurus (Turkish Orta Toroslar). 14  Schiettecatte 1971: 305ff. 15  Cipollari et al. 2013: 475. 16  Misis-Kyrenia fault zone, Yakapınar-Göksun fault zone, Karataş fault, Yumurtalik fault. Seyrek et al. 2014: 2. 17  Burton-Ferguson et al. 2005: 190. 18  Aksu et al. 1992: 55f. 19  Gates 2011: 400.

135 coastal Silifke and represented an important connection to Anatolia in antiquity.20 The Bahçe Pass (“Amanian Gates”), which leads over the Amanus Range and is situated at an altitude of just below 1000 metres, serves as a passage between Cilicia and the İslahiye Plain. Further south, the Orontes Valley can be reached over the Belen Pass (“Syrian Gates”). Access from the north is facilitated by several tributary valleys of the Seyhan and Ceyhan rivers. Their significance in antiquity is marked by Late Bronze and Iron Age rock reliefs as well as inscriptions like Hanyeri, İmamkulu and Fraktın.21 Cilicia’s fairly restricted accessibility by land explains the significance of maritime links and the rivers as interregional transport routes. Several main rivers, originating in the Taurus Mountains, cross the lowlands and discharge into the Mediterranean: Göksu Nehri (gr. Kalykadnos), Berdan or Tarsus Çayı (gr. Kydnos), Seyhan (Hitt. Šamri/Sapara, gr. Saros) and Ceyhan (Hitt. Puruna (?), gr. Pyramos). All four rivers are braided in their upper reaches with channel gradients ranging from 1:40 to 1:400, while the channel gradients decrease to > 1:2000 in the lower 35–110km of their courses, causing them to meander.22 These four rivers form the main suppliers of siliciclastic sediments into the Adana, Ceyhan and Iskenderun Basins,23 which seem to have created rich alluvial soils suited for intensive agriculture, as stated in Xenophon’s report (Anabasis I.2, 22).24 A maze of palaeochannels, point bars and crevasse splays that cover the flat delta may be considered to support the interpretation of this historical source. The 560km long Seyhan River originates in the TahtalıMountains (Sivas and Kayseri provinces); its major tributaries are the Göksu, Zamantı, Çakıt and Körkün Rivers.25 Prior to construction of a dam in 1954 the Seyhan River Delta expanded its area on average by 2.8ha per year.26 The dam greatly reduced sedimentation in the delta, and 20  Newhard et al. 2008: 88. 21  Ehringhaus 2005. 22  Aksu et al. 1992: 57. 23  Aksu et al. 1992: 58. 24  “At any rate, Cyrus climbed up into the mountains without meeting any opposition and saw the camp where the Cilicians had been keeping guard. The plain he came down to on the other side was large and beautiful: well watered, coverd with a wide variety of trees and with vines, and rich in sesame, millet, panic, wheat, and barley. It was completely surrounded, from coast to coast, by tremendous, tall mountains.” Xenophon, Anabasis 1.2.22 (Waterfield 2005: 8). 25  Akbulut et al. 2009: 647. 26  Bal et al. 1997: 64.

136 as a result, an area of about 1km2 was lost due to erosion and lower sediment input from 1954–1995.27 In the Iron Age, the Ceyhan River, which today measures 510km in length, drained directly into the Mediterranean Sea at Kap Karataş. Paleoenvironmental studies of the İskenderun Bay show a muddy sedimentation, which coincides with a major delta progradation of the Ceyhan around 2140 BP.28 The river changed its course around 2500 BP—maybe due to an earthquake—and subsequently cut through the Misis Mountains and eventually formed a delta at the bay of Yumurtalık. A more recent alteration of the Ceyhan River’s seems to have occurred at the beginning of the second third of the 20th century. From the Middle Ages until 1935, the Ceyhan River mouth diverted eastwards,29 thus its present-day location is situated east of where it had been in medieval times.30 The position of the paleoshoreline is a function of the glacio-eustatic sea level, the rate of basin subsidence and the rate of terrigenous sediments.31 Interdisciplinary studies with detailed surveys of soils, geomorphological features exploration wells and drillings are necessary to identify and interpret coastal changes that may be attributable to geological or anthropogenic factors.32 Only a few studies33 are available for a reconstruction of the paleoshorelines of Plain Cilicia during the Holocene. A sea level highstand around 6000–5000 BP is generally accepted, followed by a significant regression of several meters as well as a slight rise to the modern datum.34 E. Oener assumed that the mid-Holocene coastline lay about 5–10km inland from the present-day coastline.35 G. Evans36 determined two paleoshorelines for the Seyhan Delta with ages ranging between 3800–3200 BP (2–4km inland from the present-day coastline) and 2000–1500 BP.

27  Çetin 1999: 5. 28  Spezzaferri 2000: 20. 29  Erol 2003: Fig. 3, stage 9. 30  Akbulut et al. 2009: 656. 31  Aksu et al. 1992: 65. 32  Bal et al. 2003. 33  Aksu et al. 1992, Bal et al. 1997, Çetin et al. 1999, Erol 2003, Evans 1971, Evans 1972, Kuleli 2010, Öner et al. 2005, Spezzaferri et al. 2000. 34  Kelletat 2005: 1. 35  Öner et al. 2005: Fig. 3. 36  Evans 1971 and Evans 1973.

Novák and Rutishauser



Archaeological Surveys and Identification of Relevant Sites

The first systematic surveys in Plain Cilicia, following a number of more or less short visits by various scholars in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were conducted by Hetty Goldman (Bryn Mawr Expedition to Cilicia) in 193437 and John Garstang (Neilson Expedition) in 1936– 39.38 The aim of both expeditions was the search for and choice of a promising site to excavate. This eventually led to the excavation in Tarsus-Gözlükule and MersinYumuktepe (see below). The first survey in Plain Cilicia exclusively dedicated to the investigation of the archaeological landscape and the settlement distribution was directed by Marjory Seton-Williams in 1951.39 It is still the most comprehensive and reliable study of the entire region. More local surveys covering smaller areas were conducted by James Mellaart (1951–53)40 as well as Tevfik Emre Şerifoğlu, Naoise MacSweeney and Carlo Colantoni (2013–)41 in the Göksu valley, Thomas Bossert and Bahadir Alkim in the Upper Ceyhan valley around Karatepe (1945–52),42 Marie-Henriette Gates (1991)43 as well as Ann Killebrew and Gunnar Lehmann (2006–09)44 in the region between Epiphaneia and Arsuz, Barthel Hrouda between Sirkeli and Yumurtalık (1994),45 Giovanni Salmeri and Anna Lucia D’Agata in the vicinity of Misis (2000–2010),46 Serdar Girginer in the Upper Ceyhan area (2002–2006),47 and Erkan Konyar and Füsun Tulek in Osmaniye (2005–).48 Moreover, Mustafa Sayar has been conducting epigraphic surveys in the entire region since 1990. Until now, almost 1000 sites have been identified so far, covering all periods from the Neolithic until late medieval times. The Late Bronze Age Period, more or less identical with the time of existence of Kizzuwatna either as 37  Goldman 1935. 38  Garstang 1937. 39  Seton-Williams 1954. 40  Mellaart 1954. 41  Şerifoğlu et al. 2014 and 2015. 42  Bossert and Alkim 1947. 43  Özgen and Gates 1992. 44  Lehmann et al. 2005 and articles in following volumes of Araştırma Sonuçlari Toplantısı. 45  Hrouda 1998. 46   Salmeri and D’Agata 2002 and following volumes of the Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. 47  Girginer et al. 2007. 48  Tülek and Özgüt 2014.

Kizzuwatna: Archaeology

independent kingdom or Hittite province, is represented by more than 80 registered sites in Plain Cilicia (Fig. 11.2 and Fig. 11.3). The distribution of the occupied settlements of this period is focused on the central Ceyhan basin, the İskenderun-Arsuz area, the Adana basin and the shoreline between Tarsus and Mersin (see below). Interrelations and interdependences of settlements forming a hierarchical structure within defined settlement systems cannot be reconstructed so far due to the lack of precise information on absolute sizes. Due to the methodological approaches of the individual surveys, most of the data do not provide precise information regarding settlement sizes during any particular period. Hence it is difficult to estimate both the absolute number of population, as well as the total size of the occupied area. The largest mounds like Mersin-Yumuktepe, Tarsus-Gözlükule, Adana-Tepebağ, Sirkeli Höyük and Tatarlı Höyük each cover an area of about 8–10 ha, but all of them might have been only citadel mounds of much larger settlements including lower towns as well. In the case of Sirkeli, the occupation area comprises at least in the Iron Age about 20ha intra muros with additional extraurban workshop areas, a necropolis, and a twin site on the opposite side of the river;49 other major sites in Cilicia may have been structured similarly. Excavations Until now, relatively few Bronze Age sites in Plain Cilicia have been excavated to varying extents (Fig. 11.2). From west to east there are: Mersin-Soli Höyük, MersinYumuktepe, Tarsus-Gözlükule, Adana-Tepebağ, Misis, Sirkeli Höyük, Tatarlı Höyük and Kinethöyük.50 Only two of the excavated sites can securely be identified with Late Bronze Age toponyms. The first is the ancient city of Adaniya, capital of Kizzuwatna and later also Hiyawa/Que. It is obviously buried in the mound of Tepebağ under the old town of modern Adana, situated on the western side of the Seyhan River close to the Roman stone bridge. The identification is strongly supported by the discovery of an Egyptian statue in the late 19th century.51 Excavations have recently been resumed first by the

49  Kozal and Novák 2013. 50  Other excavated sites like Olba, Karataş, Anazarvos, Karatepe and Domuztepe did not reveal Bronze Age levels and thus will not be discussed here. 51  Ahrens 2011: 289.

137 Çukurova University and later by the Museum of Adana.52 However, only little information concerning the layout of the settlement or its major buildings has been gathered so far. The second prominent and identified city is ancient Tarša, mentioned as Tarzu in the Neo-Assyrian sources and Tarso/us in Classical Times. Its citadel mound is known as Gözlükule, situated at the southern margin of the old town of modern Tarsus. Excavations were conducted by Hetty Goldman in 1935–39 and 1947–4953 and were resumed by Aslı Özyar in 2001.54 The site was inhabited almost uninterruptedly from the Neolithic until Medieval times. Below well-preserved Iron Age houses, parts of a Late Bronze Age square building, reminiscent of Hittite temples, were exposed.55 It is the most prominent Late Bronze Age building of the site, although its function remains unknown. Among the numerous objects discovered in the excavations a group of sealings and seal impressions, showing a strong Central Anatolian influence already at the very beginning of the Late Bronze Age, are highly remarkable. The seal of Kizzuwatnaean king Išpudaḫšu is one of the earliest examples of a stamp seal carrying Luwian Hieroglyphs.56 Beside Tarsus-Gözlükule the mound of MersinYumuktepe can be considered the best investigated in all of Plain Cilicia. John Garstang was its first excavator in 1936–39 and again in 1946–47.57 Work here was resumed by Veli Sevin and Isabella Caneva in 1993, and nowadays stands under the single direction of the latter.58 The predominant “Hittite” architecture discovered here is the fortification wall in Central Anatolian casemate style.59 It has not yet been possible to firmly identify the site, but the city of Ellipra, known as Illupru to the Assyrians in the Iron Age, is considered to be a reasonable candidate. West of Mersin, on the margins of modern Viranşehir, lies Soli Höyük, possibly known as Ingirā in Neo-Assyrian and Anchiale in Greek sources. The mound, situated in the vicinity of the later Roman city Pompeiopolis, has been investigated by Remzi Yağcı since 1999.60 Hittite architecture and pottery have been exposed here, thus 52  Girginer 2008. 53  Goldman 1956. 54  Özyar 2005. 55  Goldman 1956, Pl. 1; Naumann 1971: 404, Fig. 538. 56  The Hieroglyphic bulla with seal impression was found below the Hittite temple at Tarsus: Goldman 1956: 46 and 63. 57  Garstang 1953. 58  Jean 2006. 59  Garstang 1953, Fig. 151; Naumann 1971: 257, Fig. 329. 60  Yağcı 2001.

138 providing further evidence for strong Central Anatolian cultural impact during Late Bronze Age. The site became famous when a metal hoard was discovered there in the early 20th century.61 The mound of Misis is situated about 20km east of Adana immediately on the banks of the Ceyhan River. A Bronze and Iron Age mound was identified below the medieval and Byzantine citadel by Ludwig Budde and Thomas Bossert, when they dug a sounding in 1955–59 following the exposure of a Roman mosaic.62 In 2000, Giovanni Salmeri and Ana Lucia D’Agata resumed investigations here, but no reports have been published so far. It has been suggested that the site is identical with ancient Zunnaḫara, mentioned in Hittite sources.63 Later, its name was changed to Mopsuhestia. Whether it is also identical with Iron Age Paḫar/Paḫri, mentioned by Azatiwada in his Karatepe inscriptions64 as well as by Shalmaneser III,65 is rather controversial.66 20km further east lies Sirkeli Höyük, situated on the left bank of Ceyhan river (ancient Puruna and Pyramos) at the point where the river breaks through the Misis Mountains. The settlement comprises an 8ha citadel mound, subdivided by a step in elevation as well as a fortification wall into a lower plateau and a higher inner citadel, a southeastern and southern lower town of additional minimum 12ha, and extramural workshop areas to its north and east.67 Furthermore, there are hints that suggest that a suburb on the opposite side of the river to the north and a necropolis on a natural hill to the southwest had also once been part of the Late Bronze Age settlement. The first investigations of the site were conducted by John Garstang at the turn of the years from 1936–37 as part of the Neilson Expedition to Cilicia.68 Later excavations were directed by Barthel Hrouda in 1992–9669 and Horst Ehringhaus in 1997.70 Since 2006, a Turkish-Swiss team headed by Mirko Novák, Ekin Kozal and Deniz Yaşin Meier has continued

61  Bittel 1940. 62  Bossert apud Budde 1969: 19. 63  Trémouille 2001: 65; Forlanini 2013a: 6. 64  Çambel 1999, Inscription North Gate A, line 6. 65  Yamada 2000: 203. 66  Yamada 2000: 220 suggests an identification of Misis with Paḫri, while Forlanini 2001: 557–560 and Casabonne 2002: 187 prefer a localization further to the east at the place of later Pagrum, mentioned in the Tabula Peutingeriana. 67  Kozal and Novák 2013. 68  Garstang 1937. 69  Hrouda 1997. 70  Ehringhaus 1999.

Novák and Rutishauser

investigations at the site.71 The name of the ancient settlement has not been identified yet. However, since various indications suggest that the two largest settlements in the eastern part of Plain Cilicia, Tatarlı Höyük and Sirkeli Höyük, may represent the two important cult towns Lawazantiya/Lusanda and Kummanni/Kisuatni respectively,72 Sirkeli Höyük as Kummanni would have been a religious centre both of Kizzuwatna and the Hittite Empire. Anyhow, two imperial Hittite rock reliefs that were carved onto the outcrop of the natural rock at the eastern flank of the main citadel mound attest its importance during this period.73 The excavations have exposed a number of monumental buildings that were founded during the Late Bronze Age and seem to have remained in use until the Iron Age. A remarkable one-room unit, built in Hittite style immediately above the rock reliefs and connected with two shallow cups, deserves further mention in this respect, as it might be identified with the na4ḫegur sag.uš of Muwattalli II, mentioned in the treaty between Kurunta and Tudḫaliya III (“IV”) on a Bronze Tablet from Hattuša.74 About 35km east of Sirkeli lies Tatarlı Höyük, presumably to be identified with the cult city Lawazantiya due to seven springs situated nearby, befitting Hittite descriptions.75 K. Serdar Girginer has been excavating the site since 2007.76 The excavations have revealed a monumental stone building that was founded in the Middle Bronze Age and remained occupied until the end of the Late Bronze Age. It appears to have served as a temple, presumably the site’s main cult building. The southeastern-most excavated site in Cilicia is Kinethöyük. The small but important harbour site was densely occupied during the Hittite period77 and is most likely to be identified with the ancient city of Izziya.78 It was excavated from 1992–2012 under the direction of Marie-Henriette Gates. The comparative stratigraphy in Table 11.1 shows significant Hittite levels discovered at archaeological sites in Cilicia.

71  Kozal and Novák 2013a; Novák et al. in press. 72  Forlanini 2013a: 6. 73  Ehringhaus 2005: 95–99, fig. 175; Glatz and Plourde 2011: 45–46; Kozal and Novák 2016. 74  van den Hout 2002: 89–90; Kozal and Novák in press. 75  Forlanini 2013a: 8. 76  Girginer 2012; Girginer et al. 2015. 77  Gates 2000, 2001 and 2006. 78  Forlanini 2013a: 12, fn. 52.

139

Kizzuwatna: Archaeology Table 11.1 

Comparative Stratigraphy of the major sites in Plain Cilicia according to the two workshops held in Sirkeli 2013 as well as in Tatarlı and Sirkeli 2015. The phases which suggest strong Hittite / Central Anatolian impact on Cilician material culture are marked grey

Mersin-Soli Höyük

Mersin-Yumuktepe

Tarsus-Gözlükule

Sirkeli Höyük

Tatarlı Höyük

XI Syro-Cilician X IX Syro-Cilician

Goldman MB (A.I–A.III) Syro-Cilician

Z XII Syro-Cilician 18–16 Syro-Cilician; MC II–III/LC I imports

V Syro-Cilician WPPLSW

LB I North-Central Anatolian forms 1 Hittite bulla Hittite architecture

VIII Emerging NorthCentral Anatolian forms VII North-Central Anatolian forms

LB IIa Drab Ware Hittite Bullae LC I–II imports

VI–V LC I–II imports; Drab Ware Hittite architecture

LB IIb LH IIIC pottery



IV

Goldman LB I (A.IV) North-Central Anatolian forms Goldman LB I (A.V—A.VI) Black impressed North-Central Anatolian forms (A.VII—A.VIII) Goldman LB II / A.IX—B.IX LC I–II imports; Drab Ware Hittite architecture LB III / A.X—B.X LH IIIC local EEarly IA I–III

Settlement Distribution

The main Late Bronze Age sites extend in an arc from the Cilician plain’s western to eastern borders. They are located in regular distances of 25–40km from one to the other along or close to today’s main road through the plain, which is why Forlanini (2013) referred to this backbone of the road network as the “Transverse Highway of Kizzuwatna”79 (Fig. 11.2). Passing through Tarsus, Adana, Misis, Sirkeli and Tatarlı, it connected Mersin with the passes leading over the Amanus. Still today, the largest cities of the region (Mersin, Tarsus, Adana, Ceyhan and 79  Forlanini 2013a: 2.

ZX MC II–III/LC I imports

Z XI Syro-Cilician IV b

Z X (?), P VI Black impressed North-Central Anatolian forms Z IX Z VIII, P VI Drab Ware

↓? Z VII

IV a

Kinethöyük

15 C First North-Central Anatolian forms 15 B-A MC II–III/LC I imports; North-Central Anatolian forms

14–13.1 LC I–II imports; Drab Ware

13.2 LH IIIC early-middle 12 LH IIIC late Phoenician Cypriot Imports

Osmaniye or İskenderun) are situated along this highway, thus indicating that the modern situation resembles that of the Late Bronze Age. Dozens of other sites belonging to this period are situated along this road as well. Beyond them, the sites are distributed in the western Çukurova and the eastern Yukarıova of Plain Cilician and constitute two dense settlement clusters. A 40% increase of settlements from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age in both settlement cluster shows that new settlements were established during the time of the independent kingdom Kizzuwatna and the following period after the annexation by the Hittites. Only five sites in the plain where Middle Bronze Age pottery was found were devoid of Late Bronze Age wares. Such an

140 increase cannot result only from a natural demographic growth; it might be connected with a state-initiated settlement policy.80 Based on the most recent data available, the density of settlements increased toward the northeastern interiors of the plain, the Yukarıova, throughout all periods (Fig. 11.3). Only a dozen Late Bronze Age sites were located in the middle of the western plain, some of them may have led to a road connecting the river port site Domuztepe at the lower Ceyhan81 (MLWM?/Mallos?82) with Adana (Adaniya).83 There are no ancient sites documented in a 20km radius around the modern-day river estuaries Tarsus Cayı and Seyhan. Several factors may be responsible for this: lack of research, avulsion or accumulation of river sediments spring to mind, but this area, which lies only a few metres above sea level, could have also been too swampy and therefore never densely settled. More than 50 LBA sites are situated in the eastern Yukarıova. Their distribution shows possible roads leading from the “Transverse Highway” to the seashore.84 At least two east-west routes running parallel to the former Ceyhan river courses connected the Belen pass with Misis (Zunnaḫara?).85 Only a few LBA sites are known in the northern part of the Yukarıova close to the foothills of the Taurus Mountains. Further sites extend along the coast of the Gulf of Iskenderun. A. Taffet (2001) postulated that harbour sites of Cilicia may have been located at the estuaries of major rivers with their former lagoons.86 The seaport sites may be identified as Silifke (Ura),87 Soli Höyük (Ingarā?),88 Kazanlı89 and Kinethöyük (Izziya).90 Possible river ports could have been located at Tarsus, Sirkeli Höyük, Domuztepe at the Lower Ceyhan, Karahöyük as well as Kilise Tepe.91

80  Yakar 2001: 41. 81  Seton-Williams 1954: 154 (Nr. 74). 82  Forlanini 2013a: 12. 83  Seton-Williams 1954: 148 (Nr. 10). 84   Road 1: Sirkeli Höyük, Vesli Höyük, Dügünyurdu Höyügü, Doruk Höyük, Haç Höyük. Road 2: Mercin, Ceyhan II, Ikiztepe, Islamkadi Çiftlik, Tülek Höyük, Boayali Hüyügü. Road 3: Tili, Epiphaneia, Tell Arakli. 85  Forlanini 2013a: 6. 86  Taffet 2001: 131. 87  Zeynep-Oruç 2013: 45. 88  Zeynep-Oruç 2013: 46 and Forlanini 2013a: 4. 89  Zeynep-Oruç 2013: 50. 90  Zeyep-Oruç 2013: 45, 46, 50, 56. 91  Zeyep-Oruç 2013: 49, 52, 54, 55, 78 and Taffet 2001: 132.

Novák and Rutishauser

Pottery In Plain Cilicia, pottery is a very sensitive indicator of political and cultural dependencies: in times of independence, Cilician pottery was characterized in general by a vast preference for painted decorations. This was the case during both the first half of the second and the first half of the first millennia BCE. It was only due to foreign influences like the impact of the Hittite state in the second half of the second millennium BCE and the Assyrian influence from the late 8th century BCE onwards that plain wares displaced painted pottery on a large scale. The Central Anatolian impact already started during the terminal Middle Bronze Age II, the period when the Old Hittite Kingdom pursued a more expansive policy. The predominant pottery of the preceding period, the painted Syro-Cilician Ware,92 was quite suddenly and (with few exceptions) almost completely replaced by plain and standardized wares that were closely related to central Anatolian repertoires.93 This change was presumably stimulated and initiated by the incorporation of Cilicia into the Hittite Kingdom during the reign of Hattusili I before his campaigns to Northern Syria. Stratigraphically this period, the terminal Middle Bronze Age II, is represented by Kinethöyük phase 15C, Yumuktepe VIII and Tarsus A IV. Central Anatolian-related pottery continued to be predominant even after Kizzuwatna regained independence following the reign of Mursili I around 1500 BCE as well as throughout the whole Late Bronze Age I–II: during the Late Bronze Age I (c. 1522–1350 BCE), the kingdom of Kizzuwatna was either independent or alternatively stood under Hittite or Mittani supremacy. There is no real distinctive ceramic production of this period, thus demonstrating the continued dominance of unpainted pottery forms with Central Anatolian affiliations. Examples have been discovered at various sites such as MersinYumuktepe VIII–VII, Tarsus-Gözlükule, and Kinethöyük 15 B-A.94 The only specific regional pottery of this period seems to have been the so-called Black Impressed Ware with its distinctive black slip and incised/impressed

92  Seton-Williams 1953; Bagh 2003. 93  Gates 2001. Similar observations were made at Soli, MersinYumuktepe, Tarsus-Gözlükule, Sirkeli and Tatarlı. 94  Kinethöyük: Gates 2000, Gates 2006; Mersin-Yumuktepe: Jean 2006; Tarsus-Gözlükule: Goldman 1956: 184, 203–204; Sirkeli Höyük: Kozal 2013: 219–220.

Kizzuwatna: Archaeology

decoration with white lime filling. Examples are known from Tarsus-Gözlükule95 and Sirkeli Höyük.96 With the annexation of Kizzuwatna by the Hittite Empire after 1400 BCE at the beginning of Late Bronze Age II, Central Anatolian impact in pottery production increased further. The so-called Drab Ware, a very distinctive Hittite type of crudely produced wheel-made standardized plain ware without slip, appeared at Kinethöyük levels 14–13, Mersin-Yumuktepe VI–V, Tarsus-Gözlükule LB II/A.IX–B.IX and Sirkeli Höyük Z VIII. It has been suggested by M.-H. Gates that the appearance of Drab Ware in Cilicia from the early 14th century BCE onward might have been related to Hittite state control over goods through the means of standardization.97 The Central Anatolian (or Hittite) pottery repertoire vanished just as suddenly as it had appeared: shortly after the collapse of Hittite Empire around 1200 BCE. The Central Anatolian pottery tradition faded in Cilicia and was subsequently replaced by painted wares. Such painted pottery experienced a fast revival, culminating in the development of the so-called Cypro-Cilician Geometric Wares, being characteristic of the first three centuries of the first millennium BCE. In respect to pottery production, the situation in Cilicia/ Kizzuwatna is much more reminiscent of the one in other parts of Anatolia rather than that in the northern Levant: as a result of a strong cultural impact a complete adoption of the Central Anatolian (Hittite) repertoire took place, unlike the Hittite vassal states east of the Amanus, where hardly any Hittite influence can be traced at the same period, neither in pottery production nor in other fields of material culture.98 Synthesis The Late Bronze Age entity of Kizzuwatna is more or less identical with the region later known as Plain Cilicia. It is situated geographically at the interface between the northern Levant, Cyprus, and Anatolia, although it does not appear to form a part of any of them. Hence it was always a melting point for cultural traditions, coming from its neighbour regions, with varying main emphasis: in the latest phase of the Early Bronze Age around 2200 BCE there was a Central Anatolian impact to Cilician culture, which was then replaced by strong Levantine-Mesopotamian 95  Goldman 1956: 185–186. 96  Kozal 2013: 220. 97  Gates 2001. 98  Novák 2015a.

141 ties in the Middle Bronze Age. During the Iron Age we can observe first a pottery koiné with Cyprus, which was later abandoned in favour of a Neo-Assyrian style in the eastern half and the beginning of Greek colonization in the western part of Cilicia. Besides the mixture of different traditions, a sensitive reaction to political constellations can be traced in the material culture of Cilicia throughout all periods. And this is also true for the Late Bronze Age, the only period, during which the name Kizzuwatna is attested. At this time the Hittites controlled large parts of Anatolia. This hegemony had started at the end of the Middle Bronze Age with the foundation of the Hittite Old Kingdom and ended when the entire Late Bronze Age political system collapsed. During this period various aspects of Kizzuwatnean culture, including architecture, art and pottery production were strongly influenced by Central Anatolian patterns. This was obviously a result of political domination by the Hittite Kingdom. The Central Anatolian impact can hardly be underestimated, since it is traceable in all aspects of material culture, whereas Kizzuwatna itself had a remarkable influence on Hittite cults and religion. The Anatolian influence is mostly visible in the ceramic production. Here, the traditional Cilician affiliation to painted pottery, as attested by the Middle Bronze Age Syro-Cilician Painted Pottery, was heavily diminished during the Late Bronze Age, but immediately returned in the early Iron Age with the painted Cypro-Cilician Wares. Only few wares show a local or regional specification, whereas no clear evidence of Mittani impact can be traced so far: unlike in the neighbouring Amuq region and its capital Alalakh, no vessels of the painted Nuzi Ware have yet been discovered at any Cilician site. This is somewhat astonishing since for a certain period in the 15th century BCE, Kizzuwatna had stood under the political control of Mittani. In the middle of the 14th century BCE, Kizzuwatna became a Hittite province and thus the standardized Hittite ceramic repertoire became predominant and almost exclusive in the Cilician plain. Here again, a remarkable difference to the Amuq and other Hittite vassal states of northern Levant can be observed. However, Hittite influence was not restricted to pottery production. It is the same with architecture, as the Hittite fortification wall in Mersin-Yumuktepe, the Hittite “temple” in Tarsus-Gözlükule, or the ensemble of a stone building, shallow cups and rock reliefs at Sirkeli Höyük demonstrate. The only exception is the Tatarlı temple which does not really follow Hittite patterns, but this was presumably the result of its early foundation time, dating back to the Middle Bronze Age.

142 Also in respect of art production Hittite influence is evident: this is best attested by the rock reliefs of Sirkeli Höyük and Hemite, all in a perfect Hittite iconography and style. Strangely enough, Muwattalli II’s image at Sirkeli Höyük is the earliest known example of a rock relief depicting a Hittite king. Further evidence is given by the sealed bullae from Soli Höyük and Tarsus-Gözlükule, among them the impression of Išpudaḫšu’s stamp,99 contemporary to Telepinu of Ḫatti (c. 1500 BCE). Not only is its style purely Hittite and it has an inscription in Luwian hieroglyphs, but even the fact that stamp seals were used at a time, when cylinder seals were predominant in the Levant, maintains Kizzuwatna’s, or at least of Išpudaḫšu’s strong affinity to Hittite culture as early as the 15th century BC. This contradicts the fact that the majority of known personal names from Kizzuwatna were Hurrian and not Luwian.100 Aside from the question of cultural affiliations, archaeological research in Cilicia has revealed much information on Kizzuwatna. First of all, the investigated settlement systems and the excavated sites clearly confirm the impression of a highly urbanized and densely inhabited region. Most of the settlements existed from the Middle Bronze Age into the Iron Age. Hence, settlement continuity is a characteristic feature of Cilicia, as is also proven 99  I. J. Gelb in: Goldman 1956: 246f. no. 1. 100  On the Hurrian presence in the Amuq and Cilicia see Richter 2004: 288ff.

Novák and Rutishauser

by the continuation of many toponyms. As far as can be detected on the basis of the available data, there was a sophisticated settlement hierarchy with larger cities, midsized towns and smaller villages.101 Concentrations of larger sites can be recognized along the rivers as well as the ancient roads, connecting the Amanus passes in the east with the Cilician Gates and the Göksu valley in the west. The largest sites, identical with the major cities of Kizzuwatna, were situated in more or less regular distances along the “transverse highway”. The outer shape and inner structure of Kizzuwatnaean cities cannot be reconstructed yet with any degree of certainty. However, the layout of Sirkeli Höyük indicates an irregular outer shape following the natural morphology of the ground, by a high inner differentiation with bipartite fortified citadels, lower towns and extramural workshop areas. If we do not consider citadels to have been an urbanistic feature created in Anatolia, the layout of the cities of Kizzuwatna was rather the result of a regional development than of Hittite urban policy. In conclusion until now knowledge of the material culture of Kizzuwatna is still fragmentary. However, since archaeological research in Cilicia has been intensified over the last decade, there is hope for a fast increase of data.

101  On the definition of city, town and village see Novák 2015a: 44.

FIGURE 11.1  Map of Cilicia with major modern cities and excavated Late Bronze Age sites. © Susanne Rutishauser.

Kizzuwatna: Archaeology

143

FIGURE 11.2  Map of Kizzuwatna with major ancient cities and roads. © Susanne Rutishauser

144 Novák and Rutishauser

FIGURE 11.3  Map of Cilicia showing registered Late Bronze Age settlements in Plain Cilicia. © Susanne Rutishauser.

Kizzuwatna: Archaeology

145

CHAPTER 12

The Euphrates States and Elbistan: Archaeology Michael Brown and Tony J. Wilkinson 1 Introduction The Late Bronze Age in north Syria and southeast Anatolia represents a period of intensified economic contact and international communications, characterised by increasing competition between the Hittite, Mittanian, Egyptian, and Assyrian empires. At the same time, however, many archaeological data suggest that this period also saw significant regional decline. It is a key aim of this chapter to explore how these apparent contradictions, between the development of literate international states, and more localized retrogression in settlement, might be resolved. The Euphrates states represent the easternmost extent of territory directly controlled by the Hittites. Settlement was, as today, focussed on a series of fertile plains surrounded by mountains and uplands (fig. 12.1). These natural subdivisions within the landscape correspond in many instances to the political geography imposed upon it, which was divided between several vassal kingdoms and the Hittite viceroy of Carchemish. The region’s principal topographical feature is the Euphrates River. In some areas this functioned as a frontier, which by the early-12th century BC separated the Hittite and Middle Assyrian empires. The river also facilitated northsouth communications, connecting Hittite and later NeoHittite territories. Carchemish is known to have been the pre-eminent centre of Hittite power in the northern Levantine–Euphrates region, beginning with its conquest by Šuppiluliuma I (c. 1343–1322 BC), and the installation of his son Piyaššili (alias Šarri-Kušuḫ) as the city’s first viceroy. This formalised dominion south of the Anti-Taurus Mountains was preceded by several Hittite military campaigns, most notably under Muršili I. To the north, archaeological and textual sources indicate that Elbistan and Malayta first came under Hittite influence during the mid-second millennium BC. Regional ceramic typologies remain ill-defined due to limited comparative research, and the conservative retention of local potting techniques from the Middle Bronze Age through to the Early Iron Age. The resulting lack of chronological resolution within many archaeological data sets derived from survey and excavation makes accurate correlation with textual sources problematic. In light of © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_013

these evidentiary restrictions, and apparent continuity in some political structures across the Bronze-to-Iron Age transition, the chronological remit of this chapter necessarily encompasses periods before and after the c. 150 years of historically attested Hittite rule centred on Carchemish between the 14th to 12th centuries BC. Because most pottery assemblages are of local types, often developed from earlier Middle Bronze Age prototypes, it will also be necessary to consider local Late Bronze Age material culture as well as that ascribed to the Hittites. The relatively small number of securely dated sites with well-defined Late Bronze Age assemblages presents a challenge to interpretation, and renders any reconstruction of settlement and societal development during the Hittite period inherently speculative. This limited material record is matched by a fragmentary historical outline derived from textual sources. In light of these restrictions, the physical geography of the Euphrates states and Elbistan provides an important framework for longue durée interpretation. 2

Previous Research

Archaeological research in the Euphrates region and Elbistan began during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Prior to this the most significant study of the region’s geography was a British expedition along the Euphrates River between 1835 and 1837.1 Early academic visitors include Ramsay whose pioneering study of classical topography examined overland communications in Asia Minor.2 The first systematic archaeological excavations at Carchemish began in 1911 and were directed by Hogarth.3 In common with the more established disciplines of Biblical Archaeology and Egyptology, much early scholarship focussed on identifying archaeological correlates for historical sources. Within the realm of Hittite studies, areas east of the Taurus Mountains were traditionally viewed as 1  Chesney 1868. 2  Ramsay 1890. 3  Hogarth 1914. Trial soundings were initially undertaken on behalf of the British Museum between 1878–1881. The site of Carchemish was first identified by George Smith in 1876 (see Panayotov 2014).

147

Euphrates States and Elbistan: Archaeology

peripheral to the imperial heartlands of Anatolia, and as a consequence received relatively little attention. While this perspective may to a degree reflect geopolitical reality for the first half of the Late Bronze Age, it has also led to a general lack of appreciation for local cultural developments. This concern is especially pertinent to discussions regarding continuity in regional settlement during the Early Iron Age, after the collapse of the Hittite empire, when Carchemish became the centre of a resurgent Neo-Hittite polity. Academic separation of the Euphrates region between Hittitology and Assyriology, along with Turkish and Syrian jurisdictions, has further exacerbated geographical disjuncture in scholarship. This is most clearly manifest at Carchemish where the Turkish-Syrian border cuts through the ‘outer-town’. Modern archaeological research is dominated by salvage projects concurrent with dam construction between the 1970’s and 1990’s. The resulting wealth of data generated through survey and rescue excavations gives a detailed picture of long-term settlement trends within the upper and middle Euphrates Valley. Late Bronze Age occupation has for the most part been documented in step-soundings at tell/höyük sites, several of which are now inundated by the new reservoirs. Away from the relatively narrow confines of the Euphrates floodplain adjacent areas remain under-investigated. Several more recent archaeological surveys, including the Land of Carchemish (Syria) project, have incorporated paleoenvironmental studies into their overall research design, providing detailed information on land-use and communications.4 Other contributions have sought to integrate the regional archaeological record more fully into large-scale reconstructions of Hittite economic and administrative systems.5 Increasing application of absolute dating techniques has also begun to reduce reliance on typological sequences that remain poorly refined for much of the region under review. An important recent development is the excavation of Late Bronze Age settlement remains at Carchemish.6 These provide, for the first time, a material correlate for the site’s historically attested role as the principal centre of Hittite authority outside Anatolia.

4  E.g. Wilkinson et al. 2016; Wilkinson 2004. 5  E.g. Glatz 2009. 6  Marchetti et al. 2014.

3

Physical Geography and Communications

With the exception of the Elbistan plain, the majority of the region under review falls within the watershed of the upper and middle Euphrates. According to historical sources, territory under direct Hittite control was mainly, although not exclusively, located west of the river.7 The northern Elbistan-Malatya region is bounded by the Taurus and Anti-Taurus ranges. Several large plains, well watered through snowmelt, interrupt this mountainous terrain. These were, as today, the main focus of occupation during the Hittite period. Rich alluvial soils and numerous springs make this landscape ideally suited to agriculture, although the restricted areas available for cultivation limited the maximum size of Late Bronze Age settlement to c. 10ha, rather less than in adjacent northern Syria where sites can attain up to c. 40ha. Divergent trends are similarly evident with regard to animal husbandry, which remains a common mode of subsistence in upland areas. Specifically, in the upper Euphrates valley Bronze Age faunal assemblages are largely dominated by domestic sheep, goat, pig and cattle, whereas southern sites such as Emar are characterized by fewer cattle, virtually no pig, and many more wild species.8 These regional tendencies parallel the palaeobotanical record, which shows wheat to have been more common in northern areas.9 Most areas of modern and ancient settlement from Elbistan south to the Gazientep-Qoueiq plain fall within a general semi-arid climate zone, characterised by long cold winters and hot dry summers, in which rain-fed cultivation is practical (fig. 12.2). To the south and east agriculture becomes more marginal. This is specifically the case when rainfall drops below 250–300mm per annum, within the ‘zone of uncertainty’ where mixed agropastoral strategies become most viable.10 Around the Great Bend of the Euphrates in the Land of Aštata, the environment transitions to one dominated by semi-arid steppe, where rainfall is insufficient to obtain reliable crop yields. Because of these limitations irrigation was neces7  Several important urban centres including Tell Bazi (ancient Baṣīru?) and Tell Munbaqa (ancient Ekalte) were located on the east bank of the Euphrates River. During the later 14th century BC the Hittites also exercised control over the satellite kingdom of Ḫanigalbat, a Ḫurrian protectorate of Ḫatti centred on the Habur triangle. 8  Weber 1997: 142. Unfortunately, because of the concentration by rescue missions on Early Bronze Age sites, the faunal and floral records for the Late Bronze Age are minimal. 9  Miller 1997. 10  Wilkinson et al. 2012.

148

Brown and Wilkinson

sary, and texts from Emar provide details of Late Bronze Age fields on or immediately adjacent to river terraces.11 Stark variations in climate and elevation across the Taurus and Euphrates regions are reflected in diverse flora and fauna, ranging from locally well-wooded arboreal ecosystems in the north to semi-arid steppe in the south. Archaeobotanical data shows the present environment to be significantly degraded when compared to that of preceding periods. Analysis of charcoal samples from Aşvan, Tilbeshar and Horumhöyük indicates that oak was extensively exploited and thus far more widespread during the Bronze Age.12 The distribution of larger evergreen species including cedar also seems to have been significantly greater in the Early Iron Age, based on Neo-Assyrian references to timber procurement during the late 8th century BC in areas adjacent to the Euphrates River north of Tell Ahmar (ancient Masuwati/Masuwari).13 In terms of the regional climate, there has been a tendency to focus upon an increase in aridity recognized immediately after the Late Bronze Age. This has been associated with a phase of atmospheric cooling which adversely affected agriculture, and perhaps resulted in migrations of people.14 However, the record of stable carbon isotopes (Δ13C) from carbonized barley grains, suggest a less radical interpretation. During the Late Bronze Age, climate conditions in the northern Levant were similar to long-term trends, although following a period of increased moisture stress on barley in the Middle Bronze Age, there is evidence for decreased moisture stress in the Late Bronze Age.15 Perhaps more significant, is that during the transition from the Bronze to Iron Age, there was a shift towards more water-demanding crop types, probably associated with increased use of irrigation, as is now being recognized in the archaeological record.16 Any impacts of climate change would also have varied substantially due to the diverse topography of the combined region under review. Natural passages originating northwest of Binboğa Mountain link central Anatolia with Elbistan, Malatya and neighbouring Elâzığ to the east. These caravan routes were possibly first used on a regular basis during the Old Assyrian Colony period to exploit copper deposits around Ergani-Maden.17 The most direct north-south communi-

cation between Malatya and Adıyaman-Urfa is by way of the Kahta Çay. To the southeast overland passage between Malatya and the Maraş and Amuq regions is also possible via Gölbaşı. Carchemish, long regarded as a focus of communication routes, was connected with lands to the west, including the Amuq plain (ancient Mukish) by a topographically guided, but not determined, route corridor via Tell Rifa’at (ancient Arpad). On Corona satellite images this is exemplified by a broad hollow way linking major sites of the second and first millennia BC.18 The Qouieq valley drains an interior basin that is close to the continental watershed between the Euphrates River and its tributaries to the east, and the Afrin-Orontes Rivers to the west. (Re)acquisition of lands around Cekke in the Qouieq valley by Carchemish during the first quarter of the eighth century BC potentially indicates the maximum western extent of territory controlled by the Neo-Hittite city-kingdom.19 While direct evidence pertaining to earlier periods is lacking, it is possible that the Qoueiq River also represents an earlier line of control between the Hittite viceroyal jurisdictions of Carchemish and Aleppo. Below the Anti-Taurus Mountains, where the Euphrates emerges from a narrow gorge, travel by riverboat was possible.20 Prior to modern damming, navigation would have been seasonally affected by major variations in flow through the combined input of snowmelt and spring rains. The autumn rate of 200–300 cubic metres per second increases during the peak season (March–May) to average 2000 cubic metres per second, and on occasions reaches double that amount.21 This would have probably made the current too strong for transporting logs in a tether arrangement behind a boat, as shown in the eighth century Neo-Assyrian wall reliefs from Khorsabad, which most likely depict sections of the middle Euphrates.22 Graffiti of unknown date showing a very similar one-masted vessel is known from a cave beneath Rumkale fortress.23 A Middle-Assyrian cylinder seal from Samsathöyük (ancient Kummuh) also depicts a reed(?) boat.24 A series of Euphrates crossings can be inferred from the presence of paired sites, including Tell Aushariye (ancient Pitru) and Tell Ahmar (ancient Masuwati/Masuwari), that appear to have developed at key ‘break-of-bulk’ points for

11  Mori 2003. 12  Willcox 2002; Deckers 2011. 13  Fales 1993: 84–85. 14  E.g. Rohling et al. 2009. 15  Riehl et al. 2012: fig. 2; Wilkinson and Rayne 2010. 16  Riehl et al. 2012: 123, 130. 17  de Jesus 1980: 148; Dercksen 1996: 16.

18  Brown and Smith 2016: 27–28, figs. 3, 4–5. 19  Hawkins 2000: 143–151; Brown and Smith 2016: 25–26. 20  Fales 1993. 21  Willcox 2002: 144. 22  Linder 1986. 23  Comfort and Ergeç 2001: 37–38. 24  Özgüç 2009: fig. 302.

Euphrates States and Elbistan: Archaeology

east-west traffic.25 North of Carchemish another route may have passed through Şaragahöyük on the west bank (fig. 12.3).26 When compared to preceding and subsequent periods, the importance of these long-distance routes during the LBA II period of Hittite control appears to have diminished, most plausibly as a result of increasingly hostile relations with Assyria to the east. To the south in the Land of Aštata, crossing points served a more local function, connecting large urban communities on either side of the river. In the northern Adıyaman-Urfa region, the site KHS 31 occupied during the late second—early first millennia BC is ideally situated to receive river traffic coming from Samsathöyük (ancient Kummuh?). Further north around Malatya a comparable arrangement seems to have existed between sites including Şemsiyetepe and İmamoğlu on opposite banks of the river. Seasonal variations in flow rate likely determined the practicality of various crossings over the Euphrates at different times of year.27 4 Pottery The principal source of information concerning Late Bronze Age ceramics for the northern Elbistan-Malatya region are stratified excavation sequences produced by Özguç and Özguç,28 Özdoğan,29 and the Italian mission to Arslantepe.30 Two main types of pottery are regarded as being of Hittite derivation. Most common are the various wheel-made drab wares, typically buff-orange in appearance, which take a wide variety of forms and are almost always undecorated. A burnished variant is also frequently found in Late Bronze Age contexts. Based on parallels with pottery from northcentral Anatolia, and in particular Boğazköy/Hattuša, the presence of Hittite-type plain wares in Elbistan and the upper Euphrates region has been associated with imperial modes of production, and by extension Hittite political and/or military control. The form and distribution of plain ware vessels indicative of this phenomenon has been examined by Glatz.31 The other main pottery type associated with Hittite occupation is red slipped ware, again based on its 25  Eidem and Putt 2001: 86. 26  Sertok et al. 2008; Brown in press. 27  E.g. Bell 1910: 518. 28  Özguç and Özguç 1949. 29  Özdoğan 1977. 30  Manuelli 2013. 31  Glatz 2009.

149 resemblance to north-central Anatolian prototypes. This wheel made ceramic is manufactured with fine paste and highly burnished slip. Relative scarcity of red slipped ware in the upper Euphrates valley suggests that it was imported from areas further west. The Hittite drab and red slipped wares both first appear in Elbistan and Malatya during the second half of the Middle Bronze Age, and are most frequently found in contexts dating to the third quarter of the second millennium BC. Recent radiocarbon studies of pottery assemblages from Boğazköy-Hattuša have shown that most drab ware forms were in common circulation from the Middle Bronze Age onwards.32 For the purposes of the present discussion, this means that while such material can be used as a spatial indicator of Hittite engagement, it is of limited use for dating such involvement. This applies particularly to survey collections, where ceramics are devoid of stratigraphic context. South of the anti-Taurus mountains very few (if any) Late Bronze Age examples of Hittite-type ceramics have been identified. Survey in the hinterland of Carchemish led by Wilkinson suggests a complete absence of such pottery, a pattern supported by recent excavations of the ‘inner-town’ at Carchemish by a joint Turco-Italian expedition under the direction of Marchetti.33 The recently re-dated Early Iron Age levels at Tille Höyük do provide examples, however, of Hittite derived drab wares in use during the mid-12th to early 11th centuries BC. Continuity in ceramic technology across the Bronze-to-Iron transition in Elbistan is similarly reflected through continuing production of Hittite era forms with minor alterations.34 An important characteristic of Late Bronze Age ceramic assemblages throughout the region under review is the continuation of local wares alongside more geographically restricted use of Hittite (or north-central Anatolian) types. By way of example, Late Bronze Age pottery from Arslantepe (periods VB and IV) in several instances has clear Middle Bronze Age antecedents.35 Due to the lack of securely dated Late Bronze Age sites little is known about local ceramic traditions in the Adıyaman-Urfa region. In the vicinity of Carchemish several local Middle Bronze Age plain, grey burnished and combed ware pottery types continued on into the Late Bronze Age with minor modifications.36 Ceramics from Late Bronze Age 32  Schoop 2011: 263–267. 33  Marchetti pers. comm. 2015. This does not necessarily apply to the LBA ‘citadel’ which has yet to be excavated. 34  Konyar 2011: 178. 35  Di Nocera 1998: 86–94. 36  Şerifoğlu 2009: 172–175.

150

Brown and Wilkinson

sites in the Land of Aštata around the Great Bend of the Euphrates, including Emar and Tell Bazi, are predominantly local in character.37 The most comprehensively published Bronze Age ceramic assemblage available for this region is that from Tell Munbaqa.38 Few painted wares are known from Late Bronze Age contexts. Examples from Karahöyük’s single period of Hittite occupation are similar to the Middle Bronze Age pottery of the wider Elbistan-Malatya region.39 Painted wares dating to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages with geometric and pictorial decoration have been found at Oylumhöyük in the upper Qoueiq valley.40 Painted decoration was also applied to plain ware vessels at Emar using a red, transparent wash of ochre pigment.41 Red painted pottery from Late Bronze Age levels at Tell Shioukh Fawqani and Tell Ahmar, without clear external comparanda, further suggests that the middle Euphrates valley had its own distinct painted pottery tradition.42 Very rare eastern Mediterranean imports include Mycenaean-type sherds from Emar, Tell Sha’ir in the eastern Qouieq valley, together with a probably intrusive example from Tille Höyük.43 A Cypriote Base Ring juglet was found at Emar.44 The earlier introduction of northcentral Anatolian pottery types to Malatya during the second half of the Middle Bronze Age corresponds with the disappearance of imitation Khabur wares.45 This supports the notion that the expanding Hittite frontier, broadly aligned along the Euphrates valley, discouraged pre-existing contacts with the east. 5

Archaeological Surveys

The Elbistan region was first surveyed during the late 19th and early 20th centuries as part of general studies on the historical geography of the Hittite Empire.46 A more detailed investigation of the plain was subsequently undertaken by Özgüç and Özgüç as an accompaniment to excavations at Karahöyük.47 Dönmez and Brice and Brown

37  Caubet 2014; Otto 2014. 38  Czichon and Werner 2008. 39  Çifçi and Greaves 2010: 94. 40  Engin in Özgen and Helwing 2001: 80. 41  Caubet 2014: 72. 42  Şerifoğlu 2009: 173. 43  Caubet 2014: 74; Riley in Matthers 1981: 413; Summers 1993: 45. 44  Caubet 2014: 74. 45  Şerifoğlu 2007: 105. 46  Hogarth and Munro 1893; Ramsay 1890; von der Osten 1929. 47  Özgüç and Özgüç 1949.

also investigated additional sites with second millennium BC occupation as part of expansive regional studies.48 Most recently Konyar has undertaken several seasons of more intensive survey on and around the Elbistan plain.49 A summary of regional settlement development during the second and early first millennia BC is provided by Çifçi and Greaves.50 Sites identified through survey include Tanır/Yassıhöyük, Iskatun, Tilhöyük and Tedevin. Salvage investigations concurrent with dam construction along the Euphrates valley during the 1970’s are the primary source of survey data for Malatya.51 Late Bronze Age settlement in this region has also received more limited attention as part of broader surveys by Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann,52 and Sevin.53 The historical bias in coverage towards the Euphrates has more recently been addressed through survey undertaken since 2003 in the wider Malatya plain led by Di Nocera.54 As in preceding and subsequent periods, the region’s principal settlement was Arslantepe.55 Nearby sites with Middle-to-Late Bronze Age occupation include İmamoǧluhöyük and Pirothöyük. A summary of archaeological survey literature pertaining to the Malatya-Elazığ region for the Late Bronze Age is provided by Şerifoğlu.56 South of the anti-Taurus mountains an extensive survey of the Adıyaman basin was conducted by Blaylock et al.57 Recent re-dating of Tille’s stratigraphy (which forms the primary reference) using a refined dendrochronology sequence now implies that no Hittite era sites were identified during the course of this survey,58 although poor recognition of relevant ceramics in surface collections very likely means that Late Bronze Age occupation is under-represented.59 Settlement mounds with probable Late Bronze Age strata were previously recorded by Özdoğan along the banks of the Euphrates.60 Burney also noted several additional sites west of the river, from Malatya down to the Adıyaman basin, with possible later second millennium BC settlement.61 48  Dönmez and Brice 1949; Brown 1967. 49  Konyar 2007–11. 50  Çifçi and Greaves 2010. 51  Özdoğan 1977. 52  Yakar and Gürsan-Salzmann 1978. 53  Sevin 1986–88. 54  Di Nocera 2008. 55  Manuelli 2013. 56  Şerifoğlu 2011. 57  Blaylock et al. 1990. 58  Summers 2013: 316. 59  Blaylock 1998: 104–105. 60  Özdoğan 1977. 61  see Russell 1980.

151

Euphrates States and Elbistan: Archaeology

On the left bank of the Euphrates mid-to-late second and early first millennia BC occupation in the vicinity of Kurbanhöyük has been documented based on parallels with grit-tempered, wheel-thrown pottery from Tell Hadidi (specifically KHS sites 5, 31 and 40 and perhaps 7).62 Uncertainties about Late Bronze Age ceramic types in the Urfa region at the time of survey in the early 1980’s, however, impeded more accurate dating of these sites. In general, results from survey in the Adıyaman-Urfa region indicate significantly less settlement during the Late Bronze Age when compared to neighbouring sectors of the Euphrates valley to the north and south. Extensive survey in Kilis province by Özgen et al. has recorded a total of 25 sites with definite (5) or possible (20) Late Bronze Age material.63 This includes the important regional centre of Oylumhöyük. In the adjacent Qouieq valley, survey led by Matthers also identified several sites with probable Late Bronze Age occupation.64 The immediate hinterland of Carchemish has been surveyed with varying degrees of intensity by Sanlaville et al.,65 Algaze et al.,66 and most recently by Wilkinson et al.67 Adjacent to the flood plain and low river terraces on either side of the Euphrates, settlement was located at seemingly equidistant intervals along the neighbouring Sajur and Amarna valleys (fig. 12.3). The number of Late Bronze Age sites is low overall when compared to preceding and subsequent periods (fig. 12.4). Only one site with definite LBA II occupation has been recorded through survey north of the modern Turkish-Syrian border at Cısırınhöyük, a short distance to the southeast of Şaragahöyük that was likely also occupied during the Hittite period.68 Several other sites with probable later second millennium BC settlement located northwest towards Gaziantep have received more passing attention in site reconnaissance surveys.69 The main focus of Hittite occupation south of the Sajur River was the Land of Aštata, much of which is now submerged beneath the waters of the Tishrin and Tabqa dams. This territory encompassed several major urban centres including Tell Bazi (ancient Baṣīru?), Tell Munbaqa (ancient Ekalte) and Tell Meskene (ancient Emar). A large section of the Euphrates valley in this area was surveyed 62  Wilkinson 1990: 110–114. 63  Özgen et al. 2001; 2002. 64  Matthers 1981. 65  Sanlaville et al. 1985. 66  Algaze et al. 1994. 67  Wilkinson et al. 2007; Wilkinson et al. 2016. 68  Algaze et al. 1994: 18, 52–53, 91. 69  du Plat et al. 1950; Perrot 1962; Archi et al. 1971; Kulakoğlu 2006.

in advance of flooding by Van Loon.70 This was followed by more intensive investigation of the east bank around Tell Es-Sweyhat by Wilkinson.71 To the west, the adjacent Jabbul Plain has been surveyed by Maxwell Hyslop et al. and more recently Schwartz et al.72 Settlement in this area centred on Tell Umm el-Marra (ancient Tuba), which was itself abandoned by the end of the second millennium BC. A clear relationship is apparent between the distribution of rural settlements northwest of Umm el-Marra, and the southern maxim of long-term stable settlement, as indicated by the 300–250 mm rainfall isohyet (figs. 12.2 & 3). 6 Excavations The only site excavated in the Elbistan plain is Karahöyük.73 This settlement mound is by far the largest in the region (c. 10.5ha), and on the basis of current evidence appears to have been the only one that was fortified, suggesting a centralised defensive function. The first investigations of Late Bronze Age strata at Arslantepe in Malatya were undertaken in the 1930’s by Delaporte, who also documented more extensive remains of the Early Iron Age, when the site is known to have been the royal capital of Neo-Hittite Melid.74 Finds from this latter period include the famous lion gate sculptures, already visible on the surface, which give the site its modern name (‘Arslantepe’ is Turkish for Lion’s Hill). Additional excavations were carried out by Schaeffer between 1949 and 1951 but were not published in detail. Hittite era occupation was again investigated by an Italian mission between 1961 and 1968,75 and these levels have more recently been subject to renewed attention.76 Defences were a defining characteristic of the settlement throughout the second millennium BC, with the earliest evidence for possible Hittite influence dating to c. 1750–1600 BC, when a gateway was constructed in the fortifications at Arslantepe with clear central Anatolian parallels.77 All other excavations in the Malatya sector of the Euphrates valley were conducted under the auspices of the aforementioned salvage campaigns concurrent with 70  Van Loon 1967. 71  Wilkinson 2004. 72  Maxwell Hyslop et al. 1942; Schwartz et al. 2000: 451–452 (see also Yukich 2013). 73  Özgüç and Özgüç 1949. 74  Delaporte 1940; Hawkins 1993. 75  Pecorella 1975. 76  Manuelli 2013. 77  Alvaro 2012: 351–356.

152 dam construction. Sites with Late Bronze Age occupation principally include İmamoǧluhöyük,78 Pirothöyük,79 Şemsiyetepe,80 and İmikuşağı.81 South of the Anti-Taurus mountains, limited evidence for Hittite era occupation has been documented at Samsathöyük.82 Within the Adıyaman-Urfa region no Hittite period levels have been reported at the excavated sites of Lidarhöyük, Gritille, Kurbanhöyük, or Titrişhöyük.83 Seal impressions belonging to Kuzi-Teshub (‘King’ of Carchemish) found in an early 12th BC century context at Lidarhoyük do, however, indicate some form of continuity in regional settlement.84 Hittite period remains have recently been found at Carchemish during excavations conducted by a joint Turko-Italian mission.85 More limited evidence for settlement during the LBA II period is known from excavations at Tell Aushariye (ancient Pitru) and Tell Ahmar (ancient Masuwati/ Masuwari), which are located on opposite banks of the Euphrates at its confluence with the Sajur.86 Closer to Carchemish the site of Tell Shioukh Fawqani (ancient Marīna) was abandoned in the later 14th century BC, probably at the time of the Hittite conquest under Šuppiluliuma I.87 West of Carchemish the nearest excavated site where significant Late Bronze Age contexts have been recorded is Oylumhöyük. During this period the known settlement consisted of domestic structures and associated activity areas. Occupation continued unabated across the Bronze-to-Iron Age transition.88 Notable finds include a seal-impression of Ini-Teshub, the third Hittite viceroy of Carchemish, who reigned during the latter half of the 13th century BC.89 Limited evidence for LBA II occupation was also documented in soundings at Tell Rifa’at (ancient Arpad).90 Around the Great Bend of the Euphrates several important urban centres have been excavated prior to their actual or anticipated flooding by the waters of the Tabqa 78  Uzunoğlu 1981–82; 1984–86. 79  Karaca 1981–84. 80  Darga 1980–83; 1985. 81  Sevin 1983–84; Sevin and Köroǧlu 1985; Sevin and Derin 1986; Konyar 2006. 82  Özgüç 2009: 59–64. 83  Summers 2013: 316. 84  Sürenhagen 1986. 85  Marchetti pers. comm. 86  Ghasemi 2012; Bunnens 2009: 68. 87  Bachelot 2005: 331. 88  Özgen and Helwing 2001; Özgen et al. 1997. 89  Özgen et al. 2012: 508. 90  Seton-Williams 1967: 19.

Brown and Wilkinson

and Tishrin dams. From north to south these included: Tell Aushariye (right bank) and Tell Ahmar (left bank) that are associated with a major crossing point over the Euphrates; Tell Bazi (left bank),91 el-Qitar (right bank);92 Tell Ali al-Haj (Sweyhat site 17, left bank); Tell Hadidi (right bank);93 Tell Munbaqa (left bank);94 Tell Meskene95 and Tell Faq’ous (right bank);96 Tell Fray (left bank).97 All these sites incorporated a defensive function into their design. In addition, the sites of Bazi, Munbaqa and Tell Meskene/ Emar have also revealed large areas of domestic housing, which demonstrates that these settlements were much more than fortified strongholds. Prior to the mid-13th century BC and the expansion of the Assyrian empire, Hittite jurisdiction over the Middle Euphrates Valley probably extended eastwards to Tell Bi’a (ancient Tuttul), located at the confluence of the Euphrates and Balikh rivers.98 Salvage excavations at Tell Meskene (ancient Emar) during the 1970’s provide extensive information regarding the Hittite era town, occupation of which is dated on historical grounds to between c. 1330–1175 BC.99 More recent excavations at Emar have recorded several additional phases of settlement that include directly preceding architectural remains beneath the ‘temple of Baal’.100 While the precise extent of LBA I occupation at Emar is not clear, renovations in the later 14th century BC suggest a correlation with the Hittite (re-)absorption of the territory of Aštata under Muršili II, and the installation of a new vassal ruler at Tell Meskene. Development of Emar and other sites in the Great Bend region during the Hittite period can be viewed as part of an intentional policy, designed to secure control over a sparsely inhabited section of the Euphrates valley and discourage Assyrian expansion.

91  Otto 2006. 92  McClellan 1987. 93  Dornemann 1979. Although initially dated by its excavator to the LBA I period prior to Hittite annexation, very close similarities with ceramics from the final phase of occupation at nearby Tell Munbaqa suggest that these two neighbouring settlements were contemporary, and both abandoned during LBA II (Czichon and Werner 2008: 144–145). 94  Czichon and Werner 2008. 95  Margueron 1980. 96  Margueron 1982. 97  Matthiae 1980. 98  Miglus and Strommenger 2002. 99  Margueron 1980. 100  Finkbeiner 1999–2000: 11–14.

Euphrates States and Elbistan: Archaeology

7

Settlement Patterns

Absorption of the Euphrates states and Elbistan into the Hittite Empire influenced both the form and trajectory of settlement. In some areas, such as the Land of Aštata, this appears to have led to the concentration of population at fewer, larger fortified sites including Emar and Tell Bazi. Elsewhere, severing of long-distance trading routes between Anatolia and Mesopotamia, due to hostilities between the Hittites and their eastern neighbours, may have led to declining occupation in some frontier regions such as the Adıyaman plain. Numerous textual references to forced migration within the Hittite Empire, including the deportation of 3,330 prisoners from Carchemish following its capture by Šuppiluliuma I, raise the possibility that this practice was also a significant influence on regional settlement patterns.101 If true, 3,330 prisoners (men, women and children) could be equivalent to approximately 33 settlements with 100 people or 11 sites with 300 people (somewhere in the range of 1–3 ha sites). If prisoners were only males or heads of households, this would be equivalent to even more sites. In what was probably a fairly thinly populated region, these figures are significant. Large-scale deportation may also be responsible for abandonment of several large urban centres in the Land of Aštata during the late 13th century BC, following its conquest by the Assyrians under Tukulti-Ninurta I (r. 1233–1197 BC).102 As well acting in some areas as a frontier, the Euphrates River also facilitated north-south communications between the various vassal constituents of the Hittite empire. In the Late Bronze Age the Euphrates Valley below Carchemish was controlled by a series of fortified sites that alternated on opposite sides of the valley (fig. 12.3). From south to north these included: Tell Fray (left bank); Tell Faq’ous and Tell Meskene (right bank); Tell Munbaqa (left bank); Tell Hadidi (right bank); Tell Ali al-Haj (Sweyhat site 17, left bank); el-Qitar (right bank); Tell Bazi (left bank); together with Tell Aushariye and Tell Ahmar which are associated with a major crossing point over the Euphrates. As noted by Einwag and Otto, such an alignment of citadels reflects the historical situation in which the middle Euphrates valley was a centre of conflict for the rulers of Mittani, Egypt, Ḫatti and Assyria, who each attempted to conquer the region.103 When Šuppiluliuma I and his successor Muršili II annexed the territories of 101  Hoffner 2002. 102  Brown in press; Yamada 2011. 103  Einwag and Otto 1999: 180.

153 Carchemish and Aštata, these fortified sites are thought to have formed part of the eastern line of control for the Hittite Empire. The spacing of sites would have also facilitated oversight of traffic on the river.104 A dearth of Late Bronze Age settlement is evident in many surveys, specifically those in the Jabbul, Tabqa, Land of Carchemish, Carchemish Dam, Adıyaman, and Kurbanhöyük regions.105 This highlights a fundamental problem with the available data. Despite the presence of several major sites such as Carchemish and Emar, together with a vigorous literate culture exemplified by the associated textual records, there appears to be a relative fall in overall settlement. Hence, surveys in the Land of Carchemish in Syria show a decline, from an estimate of 12–17 sites in the Middle Bronze Age, down to between 5 and 9 in the Late Bronze Age (fig. 12.4). It should also be noted that the decline in overall settlement numbers appears to have begun during the Middle Bronze Age, prior to the Hittite conquest of areas south of the Anti-Taurus Mountains during the 14th century BC. Similar declines are even evident when local ceramic sequences are well known, such as in the Jabbul plain, where the number of settlements decreased from 33 during the Middle Bronze Age to 11 in the Late Bronze Age.106 However, for the Jabbul, although re-analysis of the field data supports these trends in the number of sites, the aggregate settlement area remained similar to that of the MB II; settlement was concentrated at the four largest sites in the area but rural settlements were abandoned.107 While the fall in overall settlement numbers may be attributed to a combination of factors, such as the lower visibility or lack of knowledge of Late Bronze Age pottery, and/or increased pastoral nomadism and population movements, it is clear that a numerical decline in sites is not to be interpreted as simply an overall civilizational or state decline. When viewed as a whole the archaeological record for the Euphrates states and Elbistan is somewhat mixed with indicators for both continuity and change in patterns of settlement during the Hittite period. Alongside examples of abandonment and hiatus are sites such as Oylumhöyük and Tell Aushariye where excavation has demonstrated continuity in occupation. 104  Wilkinson 2004: 188. 105  Jabbul: Schwartz et al. 2000, Yukich 2013; Tabqa: Wilkinson 2004; Land of Carchemish: Wilkinson et al. 2007, Wilkinson et al. 2016; Carchemish Dam: Algaze et al. 1994; Adıyaman: Blaylock et al. 1990; and Kurban Höyük: Wilkinson 1990. 106  Schwartz et al. 2000: 451. 107  Yukich 2013: 213–214.

154 8 Synthesis The archaeological record for the Euphrates states and Elbistan during the Late Bronze Age is primarily characterised by anomalously low site counts, making analysis of settlement during the Hittite period problematic. This can in part be attributed to poor recognition of local ceramic assemblages, which remain chronologically ill-defined for much of the second and early first millennia BC. The consistent occurrence of this low occupational pattern across many survey areas, however, suggests that it also represents a genuine societal trend, with fewer Late Bronze Age sites when compared to the preceding Middle Bronze Age. On the other hand, as demonstrated in the Tabqa and Umm el-Marra (Jabbul) areas, the overall drop in Late Bronze Age site numbers appears to have been associated with either the growth of a series of fortified centres (as on the Euphrates), or a smaller number of nucleated centres (as in the Jabbul).108 It is therefore necessary to view apparent indicators for regional decline in nuanced terms. The Late Bronze Age of the middle Euphrates, at least within Syria, can, alternatively, be viewed as being a period of considerable international connectivity, combined with population concentration at key locations, together with localised abandonment of rural settlement. Such differential demographic thinning and growth would more reflect the political complexities and uncertainties of the times, and would align better with the record of thriving urban centres such as Emar and Tell Bazi. While some instances of regional settlement disruption can be specifically associated with absorption into the Hittite Empire, such as deportations and the establishment of a frontier to the east, the overall fall in site numbers also formed part of a longer-term trend towards population decline.109 This likely had its origins in the collapse of urban centres at the end of the Early Bronze Age.110 Limitations to the dating of archaeological surface assemblages, exacerbated by very limited information concerning the spatial extent of urban centres, means that alternate possibilities of settlement decline versus consolidation can, in most instances, only be inferred by way of reference to historical sources and broader regional settlement trends. In the case of Carchemish, it has been suggested that urbanisation may have begun to draw in elements of the local population from the late third millennium BC onwards.111 Incorporation of the Euphrates 108  Wilkinson 2004: 188; Einwag and Otto 1999: 180; Yukich 2013: 213–214. 109  McClellan 1992: 168. 110  Erarslan 2009; Cooper 2006. 111  Peltenburg 2010: 540.

Brown and Wilkinson

region into the Mittanian realm during the 16th century BC may also have been an important impetus behind the (re)development of strong local centres for reasons of economic and strategic control. The relative distribution of drab and red slipped wares, conventionally associated with Hittite occupation, indicates a pronounced regional difference in the use of material culture, between the northern ElbistanMalatya region, and the more southerly locus of Hittite control below the Anti-Taurus Mountains centred on Carchemish. While the political significance, if any, of this pattern is unclear, it suggests that ceramic production in the Carchemish region and further south in the Land of Aštata remained largely independent of outside control despite the changing context of empires. An interesting comparison can be drawn with the paucity of Khabur and Nuzi wares, which might again be expected on historical grounds for the preceding era of Mittanian rule. As is to be expected, the geopolitical division of landscapes underlying imperial frameworks was heavily influenced by natural topography. Rivers appear to have played a particularly important role in this regard; the Qouieq and Euphrates respectively corresponding to the western and eastern boundaries of Carchemish’s territory at various times during the Hittite and Neo-Hittite periods, while the Sajur marked the long term frontier of the city’s hinterland to the south.112 The importance of the Euphrates for riverine contacts between Carchemish and the various vassal states under its control also highlights the intimate link between communications and evolving notions of territoriality during the Hittite period and beyond. The archaeological record for the Euphrates states and Elbistan does not at present demonstrate clear material correlates for the collapse of the Hittite Empire at the beginning of the twelfth century BC. This is perhaps not surprising, given the aforementioned issues of chronological resolution associated with local and Hittite ceramic types, and limited investigation of Late Bronze Age occupation at (what are believed to be) several key sites such as Samsat. Abandonment of Emar can plausibly be associated, in part, with a Hittite withdrawal from the Great Bend area in the years immediately prior to the site’s destruction.113 Textual evidence for continuity in political structures centred on Carchemish across the Bronze-toIron Age transition, combined with the clear derivation of much Neo-Hittite material culture, indicates that adjacent regions were less severely affected.

112  Brown and Smith 2016; Peltenburg et al. 2012: 213–214; Eidem 2013: 13–14. 113  Weeden 2013a: 7.

Euphrates States and Elbistan: Archaeology

Figure 12.1

Principle sites mentioned in the text.

155

156

Figure 12.2

Brown and Wilkinson

Agro-ecological zones in the Middle Euphrates region of Syria and Turkey. The zone of relatively stable settlement and agriculture (mean annual rainfall >300 mm per annum) is indicated to the north; the ‘zone of uncertainty’ (rainfall between 180–300 mm p.a.) where agro-pastoralism is more common, is to the south. The indicated sites are some of the main Late Bronze Age sites discussed in the text.

Euphrates States and Elbistan: Archaeology

Figure 12.3

Late Bronze Age settlement in the Middle Euphrates Valley around Carchemish and Aštata.

157

158

Figure 12.4

Brown and Wilkinson

The number of occupied sites from c. 3000 BC to 600 BC estimated for the Land of Carchemish Project. The dark grey columns indicate the minimum counts of sites estimated from the site data base; the pale grey indicates the maximum estimate following re-analysis of the pottery records. Note how a slight (or significant) decline in the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), leads to a more significant decline in the Late Bronze Age (LBA), followed by a major phase of re-settlement in the Iron Age (Neo-Hittite and Assyrian periods).

CHAPTER 13

The Northern Levant: Archaeology Jesse Casana 1

The Northern Levant

This chapter provides an overview of archaeological evidence for Hittite-period settlement in the northern Levant, a region encompassing what is today northern Lebanon, western Syria, and the Hatay Province of southern Turkey (Fig. 13.1). Throughout much of the mid- to late second millennium, this region constituted one of the primary zones where Hittite kings vied for dominance against other regional Near Eastern powers, including the Mittani kingdom of northern Mesopotamia, the Amorite kingdom of Yamhad (Aleppo), and the pharaohs of New Kingdom Egypt. The historical record for Hittite presence and interest in the northern Levant is quite robust,1 including cuneiform archives comprised of treaties, letters, and other legal texts from the cities of Ugarit (Ras Shamra) on the Syrian coast and Alalakh (Tell Atchana) in the lower Orontes River Valley. Numerous other sites, including Qaṭna (Tell Mishrife) and Tell Afis, have produced smaller cuneiform archives, and the cities of northern Levant feature prominently in the diplomatic correspondence of the Amarna letters. In contrast, direct material evidence for a Hittite presence in the northern Levant is rare, as most forms of material culture, including ceramics, architecture, glyptics, and monumental art are distinctly local in style,2 while the record of ancient settlement shows little change following the Hittite conquests in the region.3 It is safe to say that in the absence of the historical record, archaeologists would have been very unlikely to conclude that the northern Levant was within the Hittite realm. And yet, it is also beyond dispute that the area was of critical importance to Hittite kings and that, especially from the 14th to the early 12th century BC, they dictated much of the region’s political life. While an archaeological record of Hittite presence may be difficult to discern in the northern Levant, it remains very clear that throughout the Late Bronze Age, the northern Levant prospered as a nexus of trade and exchange, and as a producer of sought after luxury goods as well as olive oil and wine. The region was also the site of frequent 1  See Cohen, this volume. 2  Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 351; Glatz 2009. 3  Casana 2013.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_014

military conflict and diplomatic manoeuvring among regional powers, each vying for the fealty of the small kingdoms that populated it. In addition, the northern Levant shows some of the most illustrative evidence for the ultimate collapse of the Late Bronze Age political and economic systems in the early 12th century BC, and thus for the factors that led to the demise of the Hittites and other contemporary kingdoms. This chapter provides an outline of major research themes, the physical geography of the region, the evidence for regional settlement in the Late Bronze Age, and key excavations in the northern Levant. 2

Previous Literature and Major Research Themes

Most archaeological research into the Late Bronze Age (c. 1600–1200 BC) in the northern Levant, the period of Hittite presence in the region, has been shaped to a large degree by questions arising from the historical records that refer to the cities, people and events of the region. In particular, scholarship has focused on understanding the social and political organization of Late Bronze Age kingdoms, largely through analysis of both textual and archaeological evidence.4 A parallel collection of research has explored evidence for inter-regional exchange systems, evident in everything from ceramics to monumental art, and what these data say regarding the organization of ancient economies and connections among peoples of the Late Bronze Age world.5 A third major area of research concerns the collapse of Late Bronze Age kingdoms in the 12th century BC, with investigations spanning issues from the fragility of palatial-centered economies, to the invasion of enigmatic groups modern scholarship calls the “Sea Peoples,” to environmental factors.6 Despite longstanding scholarly interest in the region, the Late Bronze Age in the northern Levant has always posed a challenge to archaeological investigations, owing 4  E.g. Liverani 1975, 1988, 2001; Schloen 2001; von Dassow 2005, 2008; Casana 2007, 2009, 2013. 5  E.g. Feldman 2006; McGeough 2007; Cline 2009; Luciani 2014. 6  E.g. Drews 1993; Kaniewski et al. 2010; Liverani 1987; Cline and O’Conner 2003; Sherratt 1998; Sader 1992; Harrison 2010.

160 to the fact that the vast majority of sites possessing second millennium BC settlement continued to be occupied in later periods. Indeed excavations at long-lived tells in the region, such as Tell Judaidah,7 Hama,8 and Tell Qarqur9 have produced some of the best material culture sequences in the Near East, with a virtually unbroken sequence of occupation from the Neolithic to the medieval period and beyond. However, this longevity also means that Late Bronze Age strata are invariably buried below deep layers of later occupational debris (Fig. 13.2), and thus much of our evidence for these periods comes from relatively small exposures in multi-period mounds. The deep burial of second millennium BC archaeological strata means that some of the most prominent cities known from historic records remain totally inaccessible to archaeological investigation or are still unidentified. Aleppo for example is known to have been the capital of the kingdom of Yamhad, one of the most powerful states in Syria during the second millennium BC,10 but the Iron Age, Roman, medieval and modern cities completely obscure any Late Bronze Age remains. Similarly, the important Late Bronze Age city of Tunip has been argued to be located at the site of Tell Acharneh in the Orontes Valley,11 but deep Iron Age and medieval deposits at the site have largely prevented excavators from accessing Bronze Age levels. The capitals of other prominent Late Bronze Age kingdoms, including Nuhašše and Niya, are as yet unidentified. Our inability to resolve even these fundamental questions regarding the historical geography of the northern Levant in the second millennium BC continues to serve as a stumbling block in many archaeological and historical studies.12 The rather meagre evidence for Late Bronze Age occupation from most sites stands in stark contrast to extraordinarily rich finds from three major urban centers that were destroyed during or at the end of the Late Bronze Age: Ras Shamra (Ugarit), Tell Atchana (Alalakh), and Tell Mishrife (Qaṭna). These sites lack significant later settlement, making Late Bronze Age levels relatively easy to access and leading to their outsized role in discussions of the archaeology and history of the period. Key finds from 7  Haines 1971. 8  Fugmann 1958. 9  Dornemann 2012, 2003; Casana et al. 2009; Casana 2014. 10  Klengel 1992; Bryce 1998. 11  Fortin 2006. 12  Compare, for example, reconstructions for the Late Bronze Age political landscape as illustrated in von Dassow (2008: 503– 505), Roaf (1992: 134), and Liverani (1988), where even the approximate location of major kingdoms remains uncertain.

Casana

these sites, as well as how more recent excavations are challenging some traditional interpretations of finds from them, are outlined below (Section 5). 3

Physical Geography of the Northern Levant

The climate and ecology of the northern Levant are shaped to a large degree by its topography. Along the Mediterranean coastal plains, there are a series of steep mountain ranges, including the Amanus Mountains in Turkey, the Jebel Ansariyah in Syria, and the Lebanon range to the south (Fig. 13.1). Rising to more than 2100 meters above sea level, these coastal mountains produce orographic rainfall that can be in excess of 1800mm/year and lead to a generally humid, warm climate along the coast for much of the year. Today these narrow coastal plains are densely occupied and intensively farmed yearround, producing large quantities of vegetables and fruit alongside cereals and other crops. As one moves upwards into the mountains, traditional forms of subsistence agriculture become more difficult, both because there is relatively little arable land and because at higher elevations, cold winter weather prohibits cultivation of many orchard crops. Today, and at least since the Roman period, many of these upland landscapes have been extensively terraced, enabling cultivation and arboriculture including olive, wine, nuts, and other orchard crops. In later periods when the political economy enabled the existence of more specialized agriculture, uplands became densely settled,13 but in much of the region’s history it seems that they were largely forested or reserved for pasture. It is well attested in the historical record, going back as far as the third millennium BC, that the coastal mountain ranges were the source for much of the timber used in major building projects as far away as Mesopotamia and Egypt. Most evidence suggests that clearance of these forests did not occur until the late first millennium BC and subsequently. The current dominance of maquis-type dwarf evergreen oak at lower elevations in the mountains likely replaced the earlier dominance of cedar following the Hellenistic and Roman period deforestation. To the east of the coastal mountains lie a series of downfaulted basins, forming a deep valley through which flow the Orontes River and its tributaries. The Orontes Valley is bordered on its eastern side by lower, limestone dominated hill ranges, including the Kurt Dağ in Turkey, the Jebels Zawiyeh, Ila, and Barisa in Syria, and the AntiLebanon range to the south. There is a steep precipitation 13  Casana 2007, 2012.

161

The Northern Levant: Archaeology

gradient as one moves inland from the humid coast, with as little as 400mm/year precipitation in the limestone massif, and less than 100mm/year in the interior steppe beyond. The Orontes River has its headwaters in the Biqa Valley of Lebanon and flows north through Syria, into the Hatay Province of Turkey and ultimately to its debouchment in the Mediterranean Sea near the modern town of Samandağ, Turkey.14 Fed by seasonal snow melt, upland precipitation, and hundreds of artesian springs along its course, the reliable flow of the Orontes constitutes a key resource for water, transportation, and agriculture in the region. Until widespread drainage projects began in the 1950s, large parts of the Orontes Valley were covered by shallow lakes and marshland, with significant wetlands in the Biqa’ Valley, the area south of Homs, the Ghab Basin, and the Amuq Plain, in addition to similar marsh and lake environments in tributary valleys including the Rouj Bains in Syria and the Islahiyah Plain in Turkey. Because of the highly seasonal pattern of rainfall that is found throughout most of the Near East, marshlands and lakes in the Orontes Valley would, until their recent drainage, expand annually in the winter months, inundating much of the valley floor. At least since the medieval period, the Orontes lowlands were occupied by communities with uniquely adapted subsistence strategies, largely dependent on marsh and lacustrine resources.15 However, it is likely that the marshes, at least in their early 20th century scale, are a relatively recent phenomenon. The first archaeologists working in the region, including Braidwood16 and Woolley,17 noted that many Bronze and Iron Age sites were submerged during the annual inundation, strongly indicating that the marsh postdates the Iron Age.18 Most likely, the severe upland soil erosion that accompanied intensified agricultural practices and forest clearance during the Roman and late Roman periods led to infilling of valley floors, resulting in massive hydrological changes to the Orontes’ flow regime and the expansion of marshland.19 What this means for Middle and Late Bronze Age settlement remains somewhat conjectural, but we must envision a much smaller series of lakes at that time period, with far more land available to traditional dry-farming or irrigated cultivation than in more recent centuries. 14  Weulersse 1940. 15  Eger 2011. 16  Braidwood 1937. 17  Woolley 1955. 18  Wilkinson 2000, 1999, 1997. 19  Casana 2008.

Moving eastwards from the Orontes Valley and its tributaries in the Rouj, Afrin, and Kara Su valleys, we encounter the limestone hills of the Syrian interior. As in the coastal ranges, this area saw extensive settlement during the Roman and late Roman period, preserved today as the so-called “Dead Cities”, and much of the region was brought under cultivation of dry-farmed cereals alongside orchards and vineyards.20 However, the area offers even fewer resources than the coastal mountains to the west, lacking the forests, complex geology, and having a far more arid climate, resulting in fewer and less reliable water sources. On the eastern side of the limestone uplands, the terrain opens up into broad, flat plains that are well suited to dry-farming agriculture and receive more abundant precipitation than many similar dry-farming zones farther east. These plains, extending in an arc from the base of the Taurus Mountains in the north to the areas east of Homs, Syria, are home to dense settlement from most periods, particularly in the best-watered areas with the highest agricultural potential, such as the Qoueiq Valley around Aleppo. As one moves further east and south from these valleys, rainfall declines precipitously, and the verdant agricultural fields soon give way to semi-arid steppe, and ultimately to fully arid desert conditions. These semi-arid to arid zones have historically constituted important pasture lands where flocks of sheep and goat could graze, particularly during the winter and spring months when fields in the agricultural zones to the west and north were being farmed. There is fairly compelling paleoclimatological data to suggest that during the mid-Holocene, this region and much of the Near East received more rainfall than it does today, and thus these areas may have been more suitable for agriculture at that time.21 However, by the second millennium BC climatic conditions closer to those of today had emerged, and thus it is likely that the inland steppe would have served as a pasture zone then as in later periods. 4

Archaeological Surveys in the Northern Levant

Since the 1930s, there have been numerous archaeological surveys conducted in the northern Levant, and collectively they provide a fairly comprehensive picture of the region’s settlement history. Perhaps the most illustrative results, particularly for Bronze Age settlement, come 20  Tchalenko 1953–8; Tate 1992; Casana 2014. 21  Wilkinson 2003; Riehl et al. 2012.

162 from surveys in the Orontes Valley, including in the Amuq Valley in the Hatay province of southern Turkey,22 the Ghab Basin in northern Syria,23 the region between Hama and Homs in Syria,24 the Biqa Valley of Lebanon,25 as well as in the arid desert fringes to the east of the Orontes.26 While some of these projects await comprehensive publication, they nonetheless offer a fairly good picture of regional settlement. Complementing these results, there have been numerous smaller survey projects in the coastal plains, including the Orontes Delta,27 the plains of southern Cilicia,28 and the Akkar Plain on the Lebanese-Syrian border.29 There has been comparatively less survey undertaken in inland plains of western Syria. A survey of the Qouieq Valley north of Aleppo in the 1970s was rather low intensity, recording only the most prominent mounds and standing ruins,30 while a survey in the area around Ebla was only recently begun when the Syrian civil war forced it to end.31 Surveys of upland areas, particularly the limestone hills east of the Orontes River in Syria, have concentrated almost entirely on recording monumental standing architectural remains of the Roman and later periods,32 making them less relevant to a study of second millennium BC settlement. In the coastal mountains there has been only limited investigation, with small surveys in the Amanus both on the Mediterranean33 and inland sides,34 exploratory surveys in the inland Jebel Ansariyah35 and a small survey in upland Lebanon,36 but these areas remain perhaps the least explored archaeologically. These survey projects have ranged enormously in their goals and methods, making direct comparison of their various results quite problematic. In the Amuq Valley, for example, the first survey undertaken by Robert Braidwood37 exclusively sought to document mounded 22  Braidwood 1937; Yener et al. 2000; Casana and Wilkinson 2005; Casana 2003, 2007; Gerritsen et al. 2008. 23  Graff 2005; Courtois 1973; Fortin 2007. 24  Philip et al. 2005; Philip and Bradbury 2010; Bonaccossi 2007; Bartl and Maqqdissi 2007. 25  Marfoe 1979, 1997. 26  Geyer et al. 2007. 27  Pamir 2005. 28  Killebrew et al. 2009. 29  Thalmann 2007. 30  Matthers et al. 1981. 31  Mantellini et al. 2013. 32  Tchalenko 1958; Tate 1992. 33  Killebrew et al. 2009; Blanton 2000. 34  Casana 2003. 35  Graff 2006; Casana 2014. 36  Matsumoto 2001. 37  Braidwood 1937.

Casana

tell sites as opposed to all sites and features in the region, and was intended primarily as a guide to potential future excavation. Later survey of the same region sought to use regional survey to build a comprehensive picture of settlement and land use history, and also employed far more intensive survey methods including a reliance on highresolution declassified CORONA satellite imagery and intensive pedestrian transects.38 In most archaeological survey projects in the northern Levant, identification of Middle and Late Bronze Age phases is somewhat challenging due to the nature of the ceramics that dominated this period (see below). Particularly in the Orontes Valley and plains to the east, the Middle and Late Bronze Age ceramic assemblage is dominated by plain wares that saw only very gradual development, with few securely-dated type fossils, making distinguishing sub-phases within this 700–800 year period quite problematic.39 Coastal sites have a more distinct ceramic assemblage in this period, with more influence from Cypriot and Aegean wares that are more easily dated with precision, but these types are quite rare at inland sites. For example, a collection of 3500 diagnostic sherds from the surface of Tell Atchana, a site where we might expect a higher concentration of imported pottery than elsewhere, recovered only four Cypriot and Aegean imports.40 Despite their rarity, most survey projects in the northern Levant have relied on the presence of these rare imports or local imitations of them to discriminate Late Bronze from Middle Bronze occupation.41 In practice this means that sites where we find ceramic types typical of the entire MBA-LBA sequence but which lack rare imports are classified as “Middle Bronze Age,” while those where we do find rare imports are classified as “Late Bronze Age.” Thus, read uncritically, many survey projects report a dramatic decline in the number of sites between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, but closer analysis shows that essentially all Late Bronze Age occupations are at multi-period mounds that have both early MBA and later Iron Age settlement.42 This suggests that LBA occupations are likely underreported significantly, and thus it may be more realistic to lump MBA and LBA when considering coarse survey data.

38  Casana and Wilkinson 2005. 39  Akkermans and Schwartz 2003. 40  Casana and Gansell 2005. 41  E.g. Matthers 1981. 42  Casana 2009.

163

The Northern Levant: Archaeology

5

Late Bronze Age Settlement Distribution

The uneven nature of the archaeological survey evidence and the difficulties in recognizing Late Bronze Age occupations in surface collections leaves many uncertainties in our picture of regional settlement during the Hittiteperiod in the northern Levant. Nonetheless, nearly all of the regional survey data, and particularly the most intensively researched areas such as the Orontes Valley, show that essentially all Middle and Late Bronze Age settlement was located at long-lived mounded tell sites, located almost exclusively in agricultural plains and river valleys (Fig. 13.3). Hundreds of less conspicuous, topographically flat sites, as well as sites in less agriculturally productive regions have been recorded by these surveys projects, but these sites either pre-date the Bronze Age or post-date the Iron Age.43 The fact that many early prehistoric sites dating to the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods have been recorded in the same areas strongly suggests that the pattern of nucleated tell-based settlement during the Bronze Age is not the result of variable discovery or preservation of sites, but is a reflection of the dominant mode of settlement at the time. Indeed, nearly all recorded Middle and Late Bronze Age occupations have been found at sites that have long histories of settlement throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. In the Amuq Plain for example, of the 100+ sites with attested Middle or Late Bronze occupation, only two sites were recorded that did not have substantial Iron Age and later occupation, one being Tell Atchana/Alalakh itself.44 Mound-based surveys of plains throughout the region tend to support the picture provided by surveys in the Orontes Valley, as they find relatively large numbers of Middle and Late Bronze sites, also entirely at mounded sites. In contrast, surveys of upland areas, such as those in the limestone jebels of western Syria45 or the Cilician uplands,46 have consistently recorded rich records of later occupation, particularly during the Hellenistic, Roman and late Roman periods, but few if any Bronze Age sites. The concentration of MBA/LBA settlement at longlived tell sites offers both a challenge and an opportunity in reconstructing Hittite-period settlement. Because MBA/ LBA occupational horizons are almost always buried by 43  The almost exclusive concentration of Bronze Age settlement at nucleated mounds led T. J. Wilkinson to devote an entire chapter, (“Landscapes of Tells”) to this issue in his seminal 2003 book. 44  Casana 2007, 2009. 45  Tchalenko 1955–8; Tate 1992. 46  Blanton 2000.

deep deposits of Iron Age and later occupation, artifacts of these periods tend to appear in rather small numbers in surface collections, while excavations must dig through many meters of later strata before reaching these levels. On the other hand, prominent mounded tell sites are much more likely to be discovered by regional surveys than other kinds of sites. Mounded sites are often visible from miles away, they appear in official topographic maps, and they are easily recognizable on satellite imagery or aerial photography (Fig. 13.4). Thus, many survey projects in the northern Levant might record close to 100% of mounded tell sites, but may find only a small fraction of topographically flat sites. The almost exclusive concentration of MBA/LBA settlement at multi-period mounds combined with the relatively coarse nature of ceramic type fossils for these periods means that while dating any individual site is challenging, identifying all possible locations for MBA/LBA settlement is rather straightforward. For example, using analysis of CORONA satellite imagery, I mapped all mounded tells in the Amuq Valley and in the northern Ghab Basin (Fig. 13.3). While survey data makes it difficult to determine confidently which of these sites actually was settled during the Hittite period, more than 90% of these sites can be reasonable assumed to have been occupied at some point during the LBA and the map illustrates the maximal extent of LBA settlement.47 Within this group of sites, we can make a few broad generalizations about settlement in general during this period. Firstly, the smallest sites that show any evidence of MBA/LBA occupation measure just under one hectare (Fig. 13.4: right), and analysis of textual data from Alalakh suggests populations at these sites of 40–70 people. There is no evidence anywhere in the region for small, isolated farmsteads that numerous historians have assumed to exist.48 Rather, the smallest sedentary agricultural communities we know of were living in small, compact villages. Of course, there may have been nomadic or other non-sedentary communities living outside of the towns, but they, as is often the case, have left no yet recoverable archaeological trace. The larger sites of the MBA/LBA in the northern Levant typically measure between 5–10 hectares in area. These sites often have flat tops with distinct erosional gullies on the side, which are typically the result of fortifications having been built at them (Fig. 13.4: center). Almost all of these sites have major Iron Age occupations, and fortifications may date to those periods, but excavations at Tell Qarqur and elsewhere show that Iron Age walls were often 47  Casana 2009. 48  E.g. Liverani 1975.

164

Casana

constructed on top of older LBA and MBA fortifications.49 This group of sites is thus larger than the small villages that dot the plains and valleys, and may also have been fortified, suggesting they served as key towns and centers of local political power. The historical record supports this view, with such secondary towns appearing frequently in the Alalakh texts for example.50 The largest sites of the MBA/LBA in the northern Levant are also those that are known historically as the capitals of local kingdoms, Tell Atchana/Alalakh (20ha), Ras Shamra/Ugarit (30ha), and the massive fortified city at Tell Mishrife/Qaṭna (120ha). Two other sites, Tell alNasriyah (70ha) and Tell Acharneh (80ha), fit within this group of major cities, although their toponymic identification remains uncertain (Fig. 13.5). Other likely major Late Bronze Age cities, including Aleppo and Hama, are largely obscured by historic and modern occupations. The deepest excavations in the Aleppo citadel have reached the eleventh century BC,51 while the deep sounding in Hama uncovered only a small exposure of the MBA/LBA.52 The long-lived nature of occupation at most Late Bronze Age sites in the northern Levant is certainly challenging to archaeological investigations of Hittite-period settlement, but also illustrates the resilience of the Bronze Age settlement system in the region. As political control of the region shifted from the kingdom of Ebla in the late third millennium, to Halab/Yamhad, then to Mittani, and finally to the Hittites over the course of the second millennium BC, we see little evidence of impact on the settlement system as a whole.53 Despite the volatility of the political landscape, whatever rules governed the survival of individual communities seem to have gone largely unchanged. Many sites did however experience abandonment at the end of the Late Bronze Age, although the vast majority were soon resettled during the early Iron Age, albeit within a radically different political and economic context. 6

Excavations of Hittite Period Settlements

In summarizing results of excavations pertaining to the Hittite period in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, I proceed geographically, beginning with coastal Mediterranean sites, then moving to the Orontes River Valley, and finally to the inland plains. 49  Casana, in press. 50  Casana 2009, 2014. 51  Hawkins 2009b. 52  Fugmann 1958. 53  Casana 2013.

Mediterranean Coast By far the best-known and most informative site for the Hittite period in the northern Levant is Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) located near the Syrian coast just north of Latakiya (Fig. 13.6). Indeed, thanks to the extensive excavations of a well-preserved destruction layer dated to the early twelfth century BC, Ugarit offers some of the richest evidence for the history, politics and material culture of the Late Bronze Age in the Near East and eastern Mediterranean.54 The site was initially discovered in 1928 by a farmer who accidentally exposed one of the now well-known subterranean stone tombs. Excavations began in 1929 under the direction of Claude Schaeffer and continued through 2011 when the current Syrian war began. Virtually the entire site was destroyed in an intense conflagration around 1190 BC and most of the main areas of the city within the Bronze Age fortification walls were never reoccupied, enabling relatively easy access to Hittite-period occupation and exceptionally good preservation of archaeological materials. In particular, Ugarit offers among the largest known archives of Late Bronze Age cuneiform texts, recovered from both palatial and elite domestic contexts, alongside an extraordinarily rich collection of prestige goods imported from throughout the region. The broad horizontal excavations of a single phase at Ugarit show that the fortified area of the city covered around 30ha, with a vast royal palace in the northwestern corner occupying more than a hectare. The palace and other elite buildings were constructed of ashlar masonry, probably with mudbrick superstructures, and were surrounded by a massive stone fortification wall. The palace complex itself, one of the most opulent known anywhere in the Near East during the Late Bronze Age, includes more than 100 rooms on its main floor, with several large courtyards and an interior garden. The sudden destruction of the palace at Ugarit preserved an unprecedented quantity of art objects and other elite items, along with thousands of cuneiform tablets. The texts from Ugarit illustrate some of the clearest evidence of the Hittite presence in the northern Levant, through a large collection of treaties, letters and other diplomatic texts. On the other hand, the material culture of Ugarit shows strong connections to Middle and Early Bronze Age forerunners, and most significantly, a rich assemblage of materials demonstrating the robust maritime exchange networks that flourished during this period. While the preservation of Ugarit and its extensive excavation make it truly unique archaeologically speaking, 54  Nougayrol 1956; Schaeffer et al. 1955–1970; Callot 2011; Yon 2006.

The Northern Levant: Archaeology

numerous other coastal sites show the existence of extensive maritime exchange during the Late Bronze Age, as well as providing evidence of fairly direct Hittite influence. Just 3km away from Ugarit on the Mediterranean coast, the site of Ras Ibn Hani seems to have been constructed by the king of Ugarit in the thirteenth century, and is home to two palatial compounds, one belonging to the queen, as well as numerous subterranean elite tombs.55 Among the many finds from Ras Ibn Hani is a stone mold for producing so-called “oxhide” copper ingots, suggesting the important role that Ugarit elites played in exchange systems of the period, particularly with communities in Cyprus, which is visible on a clear day from the port at Ras Ibn Hani. Indeed, the monumental remains at Enkomi, the probable capital of Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age,56 show clear and direct parallels to architecture and funerary traditions at Ras Ibn Hani and Ugarit. To the north at Kinet Höyük in the Bay of Iskenderun, Hittite material culture is seemingly present in greater proportion than elsewhere in the northern Levant.57 Like other sites in coastal Cilicia, ceramics of the fourteenth century and later at Kinet Höyük show a break from Middle Bronze Age traditions, and incorporate some central Anatolian characteristics. The changes seen in Late Bronze Age material culture in Cilicia have often been interpreted as the result of a Hittite imperial presence.58 However, such influence in largely absent from much of the northern Levant where Hittite political domination is historically well-attested (see below). Glatz suggests alternatively that local communities throughout the region chose to appropriate various elements of Hittite culture deferentially, producing a complex mosaic of Anatolian influence in the archaeological record and signaling a cautionary note on how this evidence is interpreted.59 Numerous other sites along the coast show extensive evidence of maritime exchange, including at Sabouniye at the mouth of the Orontes River, Ras el-Basit on the Turkish-Syrian border, as well as sites to the south including Siyanou, Amrit, and Tell Sukas.60 As far south as the Akkar Plain on the modern Syrian-Lebanese border, excavations at the site of Tell Kazel, perhaps the ancient city of Ṣumur, uncovered a monumental architectural complex dating to the Late Bronze Age that contained a stamp seal

55  Lagarce et al. 1983. 56  Schaeffer 1952; Steel 2014. 57  Gates 2013. 58  See Novak and Rutishauser, this volume. 59  Glatz 2012; 2015b. 60  Riis et al. 1996.

165 with a Hittite hieroglyphic inscription, attesting to Hittite influence throughout the coastal region.61 Orontes Valley In the Orontes Valley, the best known site of the Late Bronze Age is Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh, a 22ha sprawling mound at the southern edge of the Amuq Plain. Inspired in part by finds at Ugarit, and fresh from his work at Ur in southern Mesopotamia, Sir Leonard Woolley went to the northern Levant seeking to trace the culturehistorical connections between Mesopotamia and the Aegean during the second millennium BC.62 Overland trade and transport routes between these two regions would invariably pass through the northern Levant, and Woolley sought to locate a site that would serve as a bridge between the two cultures. After testing several sites in the Amuq Plain, Woolley selected Tell Atchana for large-scale excavations, which he directed from 1937–1949, with a hiatus during World War II. Woolley found a long history of settlement from the thirteenth century BC through the initial founding of the city in the early second millennium.63 Unlike the singular destruction event that constitutes the majority of finds from Ugarit, Alalakh produced a long series of fourteen superimposed architectural phases. Most of Woolley’s excavations focused on the monumental core of the city, where he exposed two particularly wellpreserved destruction levels, one dating to the Middle Bronze Age64 and another to the mid-fourteenth century BC. Both of these levels (VII and IV) produced palatial building complexes, a series of temples, and fortification systems, along with a rich archive of cuneiform tablets and a host of other finds. Subsequent to the destruction of the Level IV, which Woolley and others have generally attributed to Suppiluliuma’s invasion of the region,65 61  Badre 2000. 62  For the original publication of excavations at Tell Atchana, see Woolley (1955). Also see von Dassow (2008) for a detailed treatment of texts from Level IV-I, and an overview of the history of the site as whole. 63  Woolley believed that the earliest levels of Tell Atchana were third millennium in date, but it is now widely recognized that the main phases of the site are Middle and Late Bronze Age, corresponding to the Amuq K-L-M sequence, ranging from around 1900–1200 BC. Fink (2010) offers a much better dating of the Hittite-period strata at the site. 64  The precise date of the Level VII archive is a matter of dispute, related to the broader chronological questions surrounding the early second millennium BC in general. See von Dassow (2008) for a detailed discussion. 65  Although as Von Dassow (2008) rightly points out, the actual destruction of Alalakh could have been by one of its regional rivals, such as the king of Tunip.

166

Casana

a monumental building measuring approximately 80× 80m was constructed that Woolley dubbed the Hittite fortress. He believed the site contained two architectural phases, Levels III-II, that dated to the period of Hittite dominance of the region and this appeared confirmed by several cuneiform texts and seal impressions from these levels.66 In the final major building phase at the site, Level I, the last in a long series of superimposed temples incorporated a relief of Tudhaliya, turned upside down and used as step in the stairway.67 Woolley interprets this evidence to suggest that Level I postdates the Hittite presence in the region, probably in the early twelfth century BC. He also suggested that an ephemeral later occupation termed Level 0 was the product of conquering Sea Peoples. Woolley’s problematic dating of architectural phases at Atchana has served as a point of controversy for many decades,68 and renewed excavations at the site undertaken since 2000 have focused to a large degree on unraveling stratigraphic and chronological questions,69 but results have led to a range of different interpretations. Based on analysis of archival materials, Fink70 argues for a substantially revised chronology of the later levels of the site, and maintains that Woolley’s “fortress” was in fact a Hittite governor’s palace, presumably installed after the last king of Alalakh’s local dynasty revolted against Hittite rule.71 In contrast, Akar72 and Yener,73 largely follow Woolley’s interpretation of the building as a fortress but see only one occupational phase during Level II, and according to Akar, its construction was not completed. They also excavated a smaller building on the southern end of the site which they interpret as a second fortress, and date both to the period of Hittite occupation in the fourteenth century BC. Yener attempts to highlight supposedly central Anatolian elements in architectural features and ceramics,74 while Akar points to ceramic parallels with Anatolia but suggests an Egyptian influence on fortress architecture.75 These claims remain difficult to assess without more detailed publications of ceramics in particular, especially as

published imports are exclusively either Aegean, Cypriot, or northern Mesopotamian, while the vast majority of materials from the site are local Orontes Valley types. One point on which Fink, Akar and Yener generally agree is that Atchana was either greatly reduced in size or completely abandoned by the beginning of the thirteenth century BC.76 Von Dassow comes to a similar conclusion based on analysis of the textual record, and even suggests that the local seat of political power was moved elsewhere following the Hittite conquest of the region.77 Most other excavated sites in the lower Orontes Valley have long histories of later occupation that obscure Late Bronze Age levels, as at the other Amuq sites excavated by the Oriental Institute team, Chatal Höyük and Tell Judaidah.78 At both of these large, multi-period mounds, exposure of Late Bronze levels was limited to a deep sounding at Chatal Höyük and the step trench at Tell Judaidah, providing a relatively small sample of pottery and other materials.79 Just to the south of the Amuq Plain near modern Jisr as-Shugur in Syria, recent excavations at the large mound of Tell Qarqur found evidence of a sitewide destruction layer dating to the terminal Late Bronze Age in the early 12th century BC.80 Initially exposed in 2004 at the bottom of a sounding on top of the mound, excavators uncovered a burned monumental stone building, with a Hittite-style bronze dagger on the floor amidst destruction debris. Geophysical survey subsequently mapped the extent of this destruction level across the high mound at the site, at about 4–5m below the surface.81 The final seasons of excavations in 2009–2010, just prior to the start of the Syrian civil war, exposed an additional portion of the Late Bronze destruction, but unfortunately in only a small area.82 At the southern end of the Ghab Basin, excavations at the enormous site of Tell Acharneh were begun in 1998, largely because it was argued to be the Late Bronze Age city of Tunip.83 However, deep Iron Age and medieval stratigraphy meant that Late Bronze levels were not discovered until 2009, and only a small area was exposed before the

66  Although the precise findspots of these materials are difficult to reconstruct (von Dassow 2005). 67  Woolley 1955: 86. 68  E.g., Gates 1981; McClellan 1989. 69  Yener 2005, 2013; Yener (ed.) 2010; Batiuk and Burke 2005; Akar 2013. 70  Fink 2010. 71  Fink 2010: 120. 72  Akar 2013. 73  Yener 2013. 74  Yener 2013, 2005. 75  Akar 2013.

76  Yener (2013) asserts that the temple continued in use in the twelfth century, and that there was a smaller Iron Age occupation on the northern edge of the mound, contemporary with the main phase of occupation at nearby Tell Tayinat. 77  von Dassow 2005: 52. 78  Haines 1971. 79  However, renewed analysis of materials from the excavations at Chatal Höyük offer additional insights (Pucci 2013). 80  Dornemann 2012, 2003. 81  Casana et al. 2008. 82  Casana, in press. 83  Fortin 2006; Klengel 1995.

The Northern Levant: Archaeology

cessation of work in 2010.84 As yet, there is no evidence to confirm the excavator’s belief that Tell Archarneh is the city of Tunip, but based on this assumption, other scholars have suggested the nearby mound at Qalat Mudiq, the citadel of the Roman city of Apamea and location of a modern town within the medieval fortifications, as the city of Niya. However, there is no evidence for the pre-Roman history of Qalat Mudiq, or indeed whether it is a tell as opposed to a natural hill. Just upriver on the Orontes is the site of Tell an-Nasiryah, another strong candidate for Tunip or another one of the missing Late Bronze Age capitals.85 This site possesses a very good record of Middle and Late Bronze occupation, but a French-Syrian excavation had only just begun in 2007, such that little is known of the site’s history. Nonetheless, the sheer size of the site indicates its probable historical significance. Not far away is the modern city of Hama, the center of which is dominated by a massive tell, which has also been suggested as a location for Tunip.86 The site has Late Bronze Age occupation, but it was only found in a small deep sounding in the middle of the citadel during excavations in the 1920s,87 and any lower city that might have once existed has been long since lost below later settlement. To the south, northeast of modern Homs, the remarkable site of Tell Mishrifeh, ancient Qaṭna, has recently yielded extraordinary discoveries of the Hittite period.88 This enormous site, covering more than 100ha in size with an occupational history dating back to the Early Bronze Age, was initially excavated on a large scale in the 1920s. The ancient city is enclosed within a massive, square fortification wall, at the center of which is a low citadel on which are found numerous elite or public buildings. In this area, excavators in the 1920s uncovered part of a palace and a temple dated to the 14th century BC, but few cuneiform tablets or little in the way of monumental works of art. However, a joint German-Italian-Syrian project initiated in 1999, uncovered parts of the palatial complex, including a remarkably well-preserved subterranean royal tomb, as well as several other underground storage rooms and a deep well shaft that produced a rich collection of artifacts dating from the 14th century BC. Pfälzner89 argues that the palace complex was originally constructed during the Middle Bronze Age, perhaps in 84  Fortin and Cooper 2013. 85  Maqdissi et al. 2010. 86  Astour 1977. 87  Fugmann 1958. 88  See Morandi Bonacossi (2013) for a recent review. 89  Pfälzner 2007.

167 the 18th century BC, and served as the residence of the powerful kings of Qaṭna for centuries. Based on analysis of the cuneiform archives found in the recent excavations, Pfälzner further maintains that the palace was destroyed by the invasion of the Hittite king Suppiluliuma around 1340 BC. Excavations at Qaṭna continued until the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, and ongoing analysis of finds will undoubtedly continue to shed light on the history and archaeology of the region. To the south of Qaṭna, we reach the proximal limit of Hittite control in the Levant, most likely at the site of Tell Nebi Mend near the modern Syrian-Lebanese border.90 The site has been argued to be the famed city of Qadesh, the location of the epic battle fought in 1286 BC between the Hittite and Egyptian armies, since it was first identified as such by Claude Condor in 1881. While no absolute confirmation of Nebi Mend’s association with Qadesh has been found, excavations did recover a victory stele of the Egyptian Pharaoh Seti I who claims to have conquered Qadesh and five clay tablets attesting a king Niqmaddu, who is addressed as king of the land of Kinza in one of them (the name for Qadesh in Hittite documents).91 However, like many major tells in the Orontes Valley, the large and deeply stratified mound at Nebi Mend has a long history of occupation dating back to the Neolithic and continuing through the medieval period. As such, Late Bronze levels are difficult to access through excavation and have only been exposed in a relatively small area on the mound. Inland Western Syria Many excavations in the inland plains of western Syria have produced some evidence of Hittite-period settlement, but for the most part remains of the Late Bronze Age are difficult to access at major mounded settlements. As discussed above, while Aleppo is known to have been the capital of a powerful kingdom during the second millennium BC, excavations in the city’s citadel have reached no earlier than an Iron I temple complex.92 Similarly, excavations at the major site of ‘Ain Dara on the Afrin River northwest of Aleppo, recovered only a small sample of pre-Iron Age remains.93 To the south of Aleppo, the major city of Ebla (modern Tell Mardikh), which had been the capital throughout the later third millennium BC and a key center during the Middle Bronze Age, was reduced to 90  Parr 2015. Millard 2010; Singer 2011b. 91  Some doubt however remains as to the identification of Nebi Mend as Qadesh (Nibbi 2004). 92  Hawkins 2009b. 93  Stone and Zimanski 1999.

168 a small settlement by the Late Bronze Age. Other major sites of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, including Umm el-Marra and Tell Tuqan, were similarly mostly abandoned or reduced to small villages by the Late Bronze Age. The best excavated evidence for Late Bronze Age from inland western Syria come from relatively recent finds by an Italian team working at Tell Afis, just north of Ebla. While Tell Afis is probably better known for its Middle Bronze Age settlement,94 excavators uncovered a large 13th century BC building.95 Although there are some hints at potential parallels in material culture to the Anatolian plateau, including a few inscribed storage jars, most ceramics, architecture and other finds are within a distinctly local Syrian tradition. However, the building also contained several cuneiform tablets, including letters indicating that the site was directly ruled by a Hittite governor at a nearby (but still unknown) site. Finds from Tell Afis help to illustrate how little is known regarding the Hittite period in the larger region, and underscore the potential for discovery once the political situation makes that possible. 7 Pottery Much of the ceramic assemblage of the Late Bronze Age in the northern Levant is dominated by a ubiquitous lightyellowish buff fabric with distinctive black and white, “salt-and-pepper” grit temper. This widespread fabric is found in Middle and Late Bronze Age “standard wares,” appearing in wide range of vessel types including bowls, cooking pots, small storage jars, and large pithoi. Certain types are particularly characteristic of the Late Bronze Age, including: large, shallow open bowls or platters, usually with an internally-beaded or upturned rim; small storage jars with ribbed-top, everted rims; and larger storage jars or pithoi with decorated rims and comb-incised bodies. Imported painted wares begin to appear in significant quantities during the Late Bronze Age, with Aegean and Cypriot wares appearing particularly commonly at coastal sites, and north Mesopotamian Nuzi wears appearing more commonly inland. A smaller subset of locally-made, red and black bichrome painted pottery appears to have been inspired in part by imports. Towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, red slipped burnished bowls, plates and jars begin to appear, the forerunners to the most common type known from the subsequent centuries of the Iron Age. The most commonly referred to material culture sequence in the northern Levant remains the Amuq 94  Mazzoni 2013. 95  Archi and Venturi 2013; Venturi 2011.

Casana

sequence, built through excavations undertaken as part of the Oriental Institute’s Syro-Hittite expedition to the Amuq Plain in the 1930s.96 Divided into phases A-V based on excavations at Tell Tayinat, Tell Judaidah, Tell Kurdu and Chatal Höyük, the early phases (Amuq A-G), encompassing the Pottery Neolithic through the end of the Early Bronze Age, received thoughtful and detailed publication.97 Unfortunately, later phases did not receive anywhere near the same level of analysis, with the Middle and Late Bronze Age pottery (Amuq K-L-M) appearing in a dissertation,98 and architectural finds summarized elsewhere.99 Recent efforts to publish these later phases more comprehensively are ongoing, but suffer from a lack of contextual information for most materials.100 Only a sample of ceramics from later phases (Amuq K-U) were saved after the close of the project in 1939, and little information regarding how the sample was culled or its specific provenience was retained. The largest Late Bronze Age excavations in the region, at Ugarit and Tell Atchana, provide much larger samples of material. At Ugarit, the vast majority of excavations have concentrated on uncovered horizontal exposures of the terminal destruction, and therefore do not provide much in terms of diachronic sequence. At Tell Atchana, Woolley’s idiosyncratic excavation and sampling methods have made relating his ceramic sequence to others from the region quite problematic.101 These basic problems have plagued analyses of Late Bronze Age pottery in the northern Levant for many decades. Fortunately, more recent excavations and analyses have begun to provide much better information regarding the ceramic assemblages of central western Syria. Much work has been done on second millennium BC ceramics from Qaṭna,102 although the a priori division of finds into Middle and Late Bronze Ages without specific reference to the stratigraphy of the site diminishes the nuance somewhat.103 Recently excavated materials from

96  Braidwood and Braidwood 1960; Haines 1971; Swift 1955. 97  Braidwood and Braidwood 1960. 98  Swift 1955. 99  Haines 1971. 100  Pucci 2013. 101  Woolley reports that his typology, originally consisting of 350 types, was reduced to 168 through “an arbitrary suppression of minor characteristics” (Woolley 1955: 320). He did not believe that rim form was a useful diagnostic criterion, and was pleased that the typology at Tell Atchana was built exclusively using whole vessels, “without having recourse to the dubious assistance of fragments” (Ibid: 321). 102  Imanoni 2012; Luciani 2008. 103  Höflmayer 2014.

The Northern Levant: Archaeology

several coastal sites including Kinethöyük104 and Sirkeli Höyük105 in Turkey, Tell Siannou in Syria, as well as Tell Arqa in Lebanon106 offer much more refined sequences for coastal sites. Several sites in the Orontes Valley including recent excavations at Tell Atchana,107 Tell Qarqur,108 and Tell Acharneh,109 while still published in only preliminary forms, will likely substantially change our picture of Late Bronze Age ceramics going forward. 8 Summary This chapter reviews the rich evidence for Late Bronze Age settlement in the northern Levant. During this period, regional survey data show that coastal and inland plains, as well as the lowlands of the Orontes River Valley and its tributaries, were densely occupied by nucleated, tellbased settlements (e.g. Fig. 13.3). The largest urban centers of the region, including Tell Mishrifeh, Tell Acharneh, Tell an-Nasiryah, as well as probably Aleppo and Hama, ranged from 70–100 hectares in size, with high citadels surrounded by massive, earthen fortification walls (Fig. 13.5). Intermediate-sized towns in the hinterlands of political capitals tended to be in the 5–10 hectares in size but up to 30m in height (Fig. 13.4). Ancient settlements at these long-lived sites were often fortified, and appear to have been densely occupied. The smallest permanent settlements in the region are rarely less than 0.8ha, and typically form prominent mounds suggestive of similarly dense settlement as found in larger towns (Fig. 13.4). There is no evidence for more isolated farmsteads, as are commonly known from the Hellenistic period onwards in the region. The seemingly unsettled uplands and marginal step zones were likely inhabited by pastoral or other nomadic groups, but little evidence of such activity is preserved (Fig. 13.3). Due to the longevity and durability of settlement at nucleated tell sites, most Late Bronze Age occupation tends to be deeply buried by later phases of settlement, and thus presents a frequent challenge to excavation (Fig. 13.2). The difficulty in accessing Late Bronze Age levels at most sites in the region has led to a perhaps distorting focus on three sites, Ras Shamra/Ugarit (Fig. 13.6), Tell Atchana/ Alalakh (Fig. 13.4), and Tell Mishrifeh/Qaṭna (Fig. 13.5), that were all destroyed during or at the end of the Late 104  Gates 2013. 105  Ahrens et al. 2010. 106  Thalmann 2006. 107  Fink 2010. 108  Dornemann 2012; Casana 2014. 109  Fortin and Cooper 2013.

169 Bronze Age and never again became urban centers. Largescale excavations at these sites, all begun in the 1920s and continuing intermittently through recent years, have uncovered remains of extensive monumental architecture along with a historically unprecedented quantity of imported prestige goods and large cuneiform tablet archives. The enormously rich finds from the three best-known Late Bronze Age sites in the northern Levant have inspired a vast secondary literature, but also perhaps focused scholarly attention too heavily on the limited perspectives of palatial elites as well as on their ultimate demise in the early twelfth century BC. Despite historically well-attested Hittite political influence in the northern Levant, with most kingdoms either reduced to vassalage status or completely dismantled by the thirteenth century BC, direct archaeological evidence for Hittite material culture remains largely lacking. Late Bronze Age architecture and ceramics from recent excavations at Kinethöyük, Tell Atchana and Tell Afis have been interpreted by excavators as having stylistic links to the Anatolian Plateau, but these claims remain controversial among specialists. Certainly, the region has none of the rock monuments or other more overt signs of a Hittite imperial presence that are relatively common throughout central Anatolia. Moreover, whatever parallels one might find in some pottery types, the overall ceramic assemblage, as with other forms of material culture, remains distinctly local in character. Imported wares do appear with some frequency, but they come from the west, in the Aegean, Cyprus, and Lebanon, or from the east, in northern Mesopotamia; pottery from central Anatolia remains scarce if present at all. How to interpret the seemingly light archaeological footprint left by the Hittite conquest of the northern Levant remains a question of active research and debate. Much of the foundational research undertaken in the northern Levant during the 1920s and 1930s was not resumed in the post-WWII years, with relatively little archaeological investigation in the region over subsequent decades. However, a resurgence of interest in the northern Levant began in the 1990s with the initiation of many new field projects in the Orontes Valley as well as at coastal sites. Sadly, the outbreak of civil war in Syria in 2011 has led to a complete cessation of archaeological fieldwork in that country, and slowing of research in neighboring parts of Turkey and Lebanon. As conflict drags on in Syria, many major sites in that country are being severely damaged by looting, construction, and combat. The slowing of active fieldwork will undoubtedly provide an opportunity for scholars to bring much of their previous research to publication, and hopefully these efforts will help pave the way for renewed fieldwork in the near future.

170

Figure 13.1

Casana

Map illustrating location of major sites discussed in the text.

The Northern Levant: Archaeology

Figure 13.2

171

Tell Judaidah, a major site in the Amuq. Excavations by an Oriental Institute team in the 1930s found Late Bronze Age levels at more than 10m depth, a situation that is common throughout the northern Levant. Photo by author; Section drawing adapted from Braidwood and Braidwood [1960].

172

Figure 13.3

Casana

Map illustrating all sites likely to have been occupied during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages as recorded by the Amuq Valley Regional Project (Casana and Wilkinson 2005) and the Northern Ghab Regional Survey (Graff 2006). All settlement during these periods appears to have been concentrated at nucleated tell sites in lowland areas of high agricultural potential.

Figure 13.4

Bronze Age archaeological sites are particularly easy to recognize on declassified CORONA satellite imagery from the 1960s. Essentially all Bronze Age sites, from the largest, at Tell Atchana (22ha), to intermediate mounds as at Tell Salihiyyah (8ha), to the smallest sites.

The Northern Levant: Archaeology

173

174

Figure 13.5

Casana

The largest known Late Bronze Age sites in the northern Levant include (A) Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna (120ha), (B) Tell Acharneh (80ha), and (C) Tell an-Nasiryah (70ha). Late Bronze Age Tell Afis was likely smaller than its Early and Middle Bronze Age maximal extent of 30ha.

The Northern Levant: Archaeology

Figure 13.6

Top: Late Bronze Age palace, fortifications, and elite houses at Ugarit (Ras Shamra) as seen on a 2015 satellite image. Imagery © Digital Globe 2015. Lower left: photo of gateway leading to the palace. Lower right: entrance to the excavated palace compound. Photos by author.

175

Part 2 Perspectives based Primarily on Philological Evidence

∵

CHAPTER 14

Hattuša and Environs: Philology Özlem Sir Gavaz

Topographical Background

The region of Hattuša and its environs forms the backbone of the geographical setting pertaining to the Hittite era, as it was at the same time the central settlement area of the Land of Hatti (see Fig. 14.1). Any consistent set of suggestions for localizations that may in future be made with regard to this area are likely to be highly significant due to the knock-on effect they may have on other unknown quantities in Hittite geography. Strictly speaking, the modern provinces of Çorum and Yozgat comprise the majority of central Hatti. The central Anatolian province of Yozgat occupies the Bozok plateau in the middle of the ring of the Kızılırmak river and contains small fertile valleys with an abundance of water sources and low hills. The well irrigated valleys are home to many ancient settlements, with evidence of habitation dating back to 5000 BC. Tumuli dating to the preClassical Era are especially seen within the Çiçek Dağı, Yenipazar and Yozgat triangle; their numbers increase towards the north of the Yozgat-Boğazlıyan road. To the west of Sorgun a number of Höyüks lie on the south banks of the Eğri Öz Suyu. The cool waters sourced from Kerkenes Dağ, at the north end of the Cappadocian Plain, flow towards the northeast also passing through this region. The large number of höyüks located here might suggest that the area has always been inhabited.1 On the other hand, the province of Çorum, which includes the Hittite capital, is located in the innermost section of the Central Black Sea Region. The average height of the highlands located around the borders of Çorum is around 1500m. The Canik, Ilgaz and Küre mountain ranges (located in the Central Black Sea Region) are the beginning of mountain chains that extend towards the Bozok Plateau in the south, their peaks ranging from 1000m to 2000m. One side extends to the banks of the Kızılırmak plain while the other descends towards the Çekerek, a tributary of the Yeşilırmak.2 The naturally formed passes between these mountains, and the many small fertile plains and valleys formed by the Kızılırmak and Yeşilırmak rivers, enable easy access to Central Anatolia. It is for this 1  Hütteroth and Höhfeld 2002: 119–122; Yakar 2007: 199, 208. 2  Sevinç and Yalçınkaya 2012: 2ff.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_015

reason that Çorum was able to interact culturally as an integrated whole with Central Anatolia during both the Early Bronze Age and the second millennium BC.3 Irrigated by the Budaközü Çay, a tributary of the Kızılırmak, Boğazkale is situated to the north of Central Anatolia, at the northern boundary of ancient Cappadocia, 82km southwest of the city of Çorum. The city of Hattuša, founded on sloping terrain between two valleys, was based on fertile land at the southern end of a plain surrounded by high hills located to the east and southeast of the province centre, at a strategic point that easily dominated a large area.4 Compared to the present, Boğazkale was more humid during the Hittite period as it was within a mild climatic belt. Unlike the steppes that appear to the south of Yozgat, we see wooded areas and dense vegetation especially in the northern region and it is thanks to these conditions that erosion is prevented and the soil is able to contain more water; thus, as in a chain reaction, the benefits revert back and nurture the vegetation. Largely consisting of rugged areas, conditions of animal husbandry and agriculture in Boğazkale were formerly better than they are today as the forests were a habitat for many wild animals.

Methodology and Sources

The assumption of certain fixed points, even if not completely verified, can facilitate attempts to locate other places on the map. It is for this reason that Šapinuwa/ Ortaköy and Tapikka/Mašathöyük are significant. Such equivalences as Arinna/Alacahöyük, Tawiniya/Tavium/ Büyük Nefesköy, Tahurpa/Eskiyapar and Nerik/Oymaağaç, which have been recently proposed based on valid data, are also significant guidelines for historical geography. Even though these proposals are not based on conclusive evidence, as in the cases of Šapinuwa and partly Tapikka, they constitute a fresh perspective for the field of historical geography.

3  Tanju and İpek 2004: 2. 4  Somuncu and Yiğit 2010: 773; Bittel 1970; 1973; Schachner 2013b: 150; Schachner 2014a: 11ff.

180

Gavaz

Texts about the military expeditions, annals of the Hittite kings as well as other religious and historical texts contribute to locating settlements in Hattuša and its environs. More importantly, itinerary texts detailing the cult trips of the king are significant sources to guide our research. Other texts of the festival genre beyond those containing itineraries can also be significant. The interpretation of these must be combined with consideration of a number of logistical and ideological factors: suitability for fortification; defence against the enemy; internal and external show of force; empowerment of the central authority and economy of time. All of these provide topographically based clues to establish routes of cult voyages to settlements around Hattuša in Central Anatolia. The Seljuk Sultans and high-ranking statesmen built caravanserais at c. 30–40km intervals along the major trade routes during the Seljuk Era.5 The distance between the caravanserais might provide information that can help us determine the distance between the cult-centres the king visited. The caravan routes were important links that helped sustain relations among societies for thousands of years. Additionally, milestones set up along the roads during the Roman era indicating distances between settlements are also a decisive factor in uncovering routes.6 French’s study on milestones pertaining to the Roman era has located many milestones within the Çorum and Yozgat Provinces7 as well as establishing the routes of four main roads within Çorum Province.8 Only two of these roads are especially important to our study: 1

The road between Amesia and Tavium (Büyük Nefesköy); the road that leads through Karadağ, between the Çorum plain and Alaca valley.

5  Turan 2002: 755. 6  Milestones were erected at every Roman mile, in other words, a distance consisting of a thousand Roman feet (= 1485m). Some milestones were not found in their original position/location. Some locations have been seen to have more than one milestone standing. These roads, which were built during the Roman period, were also used in the Byzantine age and additions were built as the need arose (French 1980: 699–713). See also Keskin 2009: 212f. Of course, given that the settlement distribution of the Iron Age and later is quite different to that of the Late Bronze Age, the Roman roads cannot be used as definitive indicators of ancient routes, as they would have served to connect different places. However, especially when they follow contours dictated by the natural topography, and if continuity of settlement can be demonstrated, they can be used to make cautious inferences about Hittite roads. 7  French 1988: 123–135, 353–357. 8  French 1984: 123–125.

2

The road from Ankara, leading through Alaca via Tavium running in the direction of Zela (Zile).

Ancient roads are very important in terms of tracking the routes formed by the natural characteristics of the region. As most of the old village roads still in use in Anatolia, and railways that were constructed within the last two centuries, were built without changing the topographical structure of the area, most of them follow the old routes.9 Another datum which can be valuable in discovering itineraries is the distance one covers travelling from one place to the other: it is observed that a person can travel approximately 5km/hr when the road is clear and unobstructed, however, the same distance is reduced to about 2.5 to 3km if the path leads through woodland or is obscured by thickets.10 There are still important questions that need to be answered in order to establish the distances between the centres visited during cult voyages: In which season did the trips take place? At what time of day did the voyages commence? What means of transportation was used between cities? How many people did the royal convoy consist of? Did they stop at other stations when travelling between two settlements? The time or period of certain celebrations included in the king’s cult voyages was recorded in Hittite texts. While the purulli and AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festivals were celebrated in the spring, the nuntarriyašhaš festival was in autumn. The KI.LAM festival, on the other hand, is thought to have been celebrated during harvest time.11 The expression “lukkattima” mentioned in festival texts means “at first light of the morning, at daybreak” and reveals the exact time the ceremony began during the day.12 Hittite texts also distinguish modes of transport during such voyages. It is also possible to uncover clues to the distances between two centres visited by the king and queen by looking into the different chariot typologies13 because the speed of these vehicles varied according to the number of wheels, wheel rims, the number of animals they were bound to, and the number of people they carried. The chariot (GIŠGIGIR), which was the most important power of the Hittite army during battles, ensured the king and his senior officers fast and safe passage especially on 9  Ökse 2005: 15f. 10  McManners 1995. 11  Singer 1983b; 1984a. 12  “am nächsten Morgen, am folgenden Tage” Friedrich 1952: 130; CHD L-N 76–78; Ünal 2007: 410; Kryszeń 2014: 428. 13  For chariots mentioned in Hittite texts see Hagenbuchner 2004: 361–372; Sir Gavaz 2012a: 123–138.

Hattuša and Environs: Philology

flat terrain as it was quite light in weight, fast and easy to manoeuver. The horse which pulled the GIŠGIGIR had an important place within Hittite society. The expert manual on horse training known as the “Kikkuli Text” which was discovered amongst the Hittite cuneiform texts in Boğazkale indicates how important horses were considered to be during the Hittite period.14 As a matter of fact a horse can travel up to an average of 160km a day. However, we believe this only applies to horses that were used by messengers or those used for battle purposes.15 In fact, considering the members of the royal court, senior officers and cult personnel accompanying the king during ceremonial voyages, we guess that the horse which was bound to a chariot and was travelling with such a convoy would only be able to cover a distance of about 25 to 30km a day. On the other hand, the GIŠhuluganni that was pulled by bulls or oxen, may have been a kind of cart used for ceremonial functions. The fact that this vehicle was pulled by bulls or oxen makes one think that it was mostly used when climbing to high and rugged lands. Ankuwa According to the annals of Muršili II, Ankuwa16 was both an important garrison town where the Hittite army spent the winter as well as a center the king visited during the festival rituals.17 According to Ünal, there was a palace in Ankuwa where the Hittite kings preferred to spend the winter rather than in Hattuša.18 Despite its bad condition, a text which dates to the Old Hittite Period reveals that Muršili I set up a temporary headquarters in Ankuwa during the expedition he had launched against the Hurrians.19 Ankuwa appears as a garrison town since the Old Hittite period and therefore the location suggested for Ankuwa has to be fortified and be appropriate to hold sizeable barracks.

14  Kammenhuber 1961; Starke 1995. 15  I would like to extend my thanks to Prof. Dr. Ceyhan Özbeyaz, Head of Division of Animal Husbandry and Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University for the personal communication on this topic. 16  For attestations of Ankuwa in Hittite texts see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 19–23; del Monte 1992: 6f; (Kryszeń 2016: 289– 292, ed.). For citations of An(m)kuwa in Old Assyrian texts see Nashef 1991: 9–10; also see Soysal 2004: 142, 144, 182; Barjamovic 2011: 312–317. 17  KBo 4.4 rev. III 52–56; Goetze 1933: 130–131. 18  Ünal 1981: 73. 19  Kempinsk and Košak 1982: 87–106; Ünal 1981: 444.

181 Ankuwa had been a minor trading centre during the Assyrian Trade Colonies Period; it is referred to as a wabartum in the records.20 Wool, grain and a great quantity of other material was known to have been transported to Hattuša from Ankuwa during the Hittite period.21 There are different opinions22 on the location of Ankuwa but 20  Nashef 1991: 9f. 21  KUB 42.23 I 7; IBoT 1.31 obv. 12. 22  Orlin suggests Ankuwa to be in the Kızılırmak river basin (1970: 75); Chačatrjan proposes it to be along the Hattuša-Hakmiš route, in the Çekerek valley (1971: 2); Cornelius believes it to be around Boğazlıyan or to the west of Alişar (1967: 72; 1973: 82). Popko, on the other hand, identifies Ankuwa with Eskiyapar (Popko 1994: 31; 1995: 253–259); Forlanini had initially located Ankuwa at Boğazlıyan (Forlanini 1977: 197–225), however, he later suggested it to be to the southeast of Alişar. He identifies Alişar with Šanahuitta (1980: 71ff.; 2008: 69). Ünal proposes that Ankuwa should be sought either at Yerköy and its surroundings or to its east in the Deliceırmak-Boğazlıyan Suyu Valley or even in the Kanak Su Valley located in the Alişar region (Ünal 1981: 455; 1984: 107). Kryszeń places Ankuwa and Tahurpa at a close distance to each other, although the texts demonstrate clearly that they are not directly connected with each other except in the lists (Kryszeń 2016: 104) in which the goddesses of both cities appear together (Nakamura 2002; Güterbock 1960: 80–89; 1961: 85–97; Ardzinba 2010; Sir Gavaz 2012). On the other hand, the itinerary texts do not attest any voyage from Tahurpa to Ankuwa. Furthermore, festival texts including itineraries reveal at least a two day distance between both cities. The same is also true for Arinna and Ankuwa. There is no transition to Ankuwa from Arinna or to Arinna via Ankuwa in the texts (Ünal 1984: 433–455). Although Kryszeń tries to draw attention to the connection between Ankuwa and Arinna from KUB 50.84 II 7–11, this text clearly does not help to establish the distance between the two cities (Kryszeń 2016:302). Meanwhile he records the great festival celebrated in Hanhana and near-by Kašha in honour of Telepinu (CTH 638), which was celebrated for every nine years. In it the shepherd of “House of Ankuwa” had to supply one thousand sheep and fifty cattle for the celebrations (2016: 165, 301). From this record alone Kryzseń would like to deduce that Ankuwa should be in vicinity of Hanhana (2016:168). It is true that guests coming to Hattuša from various townships and attending the ceremonies had to pay a sort of participation fee (tarnatt-) during KI.LAM festival (KBo 10.31 obv.III 14–16). During the same festival oblations were brought by officers from Tišaruliya, Annuwa and Ankuwa (Singer, 1984: 103). Exactly the same situation could also be valid for the festival celebrated in Hanhana. As Kryzseń remarks, the quantity of animals supplied is very high, but it might be exaggerated, or it may be that for a festival occurring only every nine years demands were also made on far away places. In my opinion, even the annals of Muršili II (KBo 4.4 III 52–56) force us to locate Ankuwa further south. Here, the king starts his march from Hakpiš and arrives via Hattuša at Ankuwa; since the northerly location of Hakpiš is well established, it would be impossible that the king

182

Gavaz

there is currently some consensus on its equation with Alişar.23 Alişar is located within the village limits of Bağlıca Köy, district of Sarıkaya located in the province of Yozgat. A mid-sized settlement, Alişar is situated 85km southeast of Hattuša24 and to the northwest of Kaneš. Some of the secondary roads that run between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea also lead through this region. A road leading from the north, from Sinope to Boyabat and İskilip, crosses the Kızılırmak and continues to run along the Alaca Plain towards Sorgun and Sarıkaya. Here the road merges with the main road that leads from the south of Samsun and runs through Amasya, Zile and Kadışehri.25 According to Branting there was a cluster consisting of five related settlements between the second half of the 3rd millennium and first half of the 2nd millennium: Alişarhöyük, Çadırhöyük to the northwest of Alişar, Salurhöyük northeast of Alişar, Buzhöyük southeast and Akbucak, another höyük to the southwest. It is possible that each of these settlements was surrounded by smaller settlement units displaying a hierarchical order amongst the local settlements independently from one another.26 The settlement density in the Kanak Su valley indicates the possibility that Ankuwa, Zippalanda and other places mentioned together with these cities could be located within this region. As a result of the excavations in Alişar and studies conducted around the environs of the city, Gorny indicates the existence of a new route: Boğazköy → Kuşaklı/Uşaklıhöyük → Çadırhöyük27 → Alişar → Kültepe Hattuša → Haranašša → Zippalanda → Ankuwa → Kaneš

would have directed again to the north after arriving at Hattuša. The fact that Ankuwa is never mentioned among the cities of Kaškaean territory also militates agains a northern location. 23  Gelb 1935: 9f; Balkan 1957: 42. Cornelius 1955: 57; Goetze 1956: 38; Finkelstein 1956: 109f; Garstang and Gurney 1959: 4, 17; Güterbock 1961: 92; Nashef 1991: 159; Gorny 1995: 65–89; 1999: 164; Forlanini 2002: 255–276; Crasso 2005: 147–158; 2008: 87– 129. For a critical assessment of the proposed southern location of Ankuwa, see Kryszeń 2016: 288–310. 24  Gorny 1994: 192. 25  Branting 1996: 146. 26  Branting 1996: 148. (Recent informal reports suggest Salurhöyük is a mostly natural mound. G. D. Summers, personal communication, ed.). 27  It is located next to the Gelingüllü dam, which is fed by the Eğri Su and Kanak Su near Peyniryemez Village.

Furthemore, Gorny has also surmised that these cities were in contact with one another since the Colony Period until the last years of Hittite Empire and that the road which ran through these settlements was an important commercial as well as cultic route.28 A passage in one text reveals that the royal garb (aniyatt-), which had set off for Ankuwa from Hattuša, initially spent the night at Imralla and then at Hupiggašša before it reached Ankuwa on the third day.29 According to Ünal, the distance between Hattuša and Ankuwa was approximately 90–100km.30 On the other hand, the route the king followed to reach Ankuwa from Hattuša during the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival is:31 Hattuša → Haitta → Mount Piškurunuwa → Harranašša → Zippalanda → Ankuwa. This route is consonant with Ünal’s suggestion concerning the distance between Hattusa and Ankuwa, but we should not overlook the possibility that some of these centers, which would not have been visited on any other normal day, were specially called on for cultic reasons during voyages undertaken to celebrate festivals or to transport cult items. Nevertheless the king is known to have traveled to Zippalanda from Ankuwa in a single day via Mount Daha.32 In other words, these two cities are quite important in determining each another’s location. Furthermore, consideration of routes can suggest yet other localizations. We would like to suggest tentatively an equation of Ankuwa with Çadırhöyük33 located in Peyniryemez village 13km northwest of Alişar, because Çadırhöyük is established on the fertile lands which can easily meet the needs of the army during the Hittite period and is also located within a mild microclimatic zone. Furthermore, the mention of ‘the temples at the five-ways (intersection)’34 in a colophon to a tablet of the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival suggests that Ankuwa was located at a point which could be easily reached and where major roads pass through. Çadırhöyük is located in the middle of a trade route which connects east and west as well as much less used northsouth routes. Furthermore, as Mount Šithana and its surroundings are mentioned after the Ankuwa-house in a land donation text, this might refer to Çaltepe Dağ near Çadırhöyük.35 The excavations currently being carried out in Çadırhöyük will undoubtedly contribute to future 28  Gorny 1999: 164. 29  KUB 25.28 obv. I 1–11; Ünal 1981: 454; Güterbock 1961: 88f. 30  Ünal 1981: 454. 31  KBo 10.20 IV 3–19. 32  KUB 20.96 obv. III 12f. 33  The silo-like structures of Çadırhöyük have been suggested to have had a cultic ceremonial function. Gorny 1999: 165. 34  KUB 11.27 VI 5. 35  Ünal 1981: 454. For Çaltepe = Daha see Gorny 2016: 245ff.

Hattuša and Environs: Philology

research on the location of Ankuwa as well as on locating the other cities it was in close contact with. Arinna Many suggestions have been made concerning the localization of Arinna.36 We support Erkut’s37 proposal to equate Alacahöyük with Arinna for reasons given below.38 The information we have is certainly not enough to prove that Alacahöyük and Arinna are the same. Nevertheless it is necessary to give the suggestion serious consideration. The route the king took between Hattuša and Arinna during the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival is listed as: Hattuša → Matilla → Arinna. The king and queen gather the great assembly at Matilla, and afterwards the king sets off for Arinna, while the queen goes to Hattuša.39 The route followed during the nuntarriyašhaš festival is: Katapa (day 1) → Hakkura → Tatašuna → Hišurla (riverside) → Tahurpa → Arinna (day 5). According to these festival texts, the cities in direct contact with Arinna are Tahurpa, Hattuša and Matilla. There is no direct route to Arinna from Katapa and it can only be reached via Tahurpa. Apart from being an important stop during the king’s cult voyages, Tahurpa was also a stopover city. Festival texts demonstrate that in order to reach it one needed to pass through Arinna.40 Hence, the location to be considered for Arinna should be sought in an isolated area and not at a strategically important setting. In this context, rather than looking at Büyük Nefesköy located on the crossroad along the Asia-Black Sea-Syria road or at Eskiyapar, also located along main routes, Alacahöyük would be an appropriate conclusion seeing that it was away from main roads and an isolated cult center. On their journey back, the king and queen sometimes paid a visit to Tahurpa. However, sometimes they just travelled directly to Hattuša without making a stop at that city. 36  Karaşehirhöyük located within the vicinity Yozgat-Yerköy: Forrer 1938: 194; Tavium/Büyük Nefesköy: Cornelius 1973: 82f; Forlanini 1980: 71ff. Furthermore for attestations of Arinna see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 33–36; del Monte 1992: 10f; Kryszeń 2016: 31–41. 37  Erkut 1992: 159–165. 38  For scholars who accept the equation of Alacahöyük with Arinna, see Alp 2002: 38; Haas 1994: 585; Gorny 1997: 556; Gurney 1995: 69–71; Sir Gavaz 2012b: 134; Mazzoni and Pecchioli Daddi 2015: 27. Additionally see Alparslan and Doğan-Alparslan 2015: 103. 39  KBo 10.20 1–8. 40  KUB 10.18 obv. I 1 ff.; KBo 10.20 obv. I 1–36; KUB 9.16 I + KBo 3.25 + KUB 10.48 I + 34/t obv. I 3–16.; IBoT 4.72 obv. II 11ff.

183 During the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival the KUŠkurša comes to Hattuša from Arinna and the next day sets off for Tawiniya.41 Hence, Arinna and Tawiniya are located on two different routes. In fact, there is no record of a route leading from Arinna to Tawiniya or from Tawiniya to Arinna in festival texts and as a result Büyük Nefesköy is a good candidate for Tawiniya, as it is on a completely different route to Alacahöyük. An oracle text42 recounts the king travelling down to Hattuša from Arinna. Boğazkale is located at 980m above sea level while Alacahöyük is at 1060m altitude. The inhabitants of the region say that when the trees have already blossomed for spring in Boğazkale those in Alacahöyük are still covered in buds waiting to bloom.43 In texts the Sun-Goddess of Arinna is represented both as a statue as well as a sun disk.44 As is well known, the richest sun-disk collection discovered during excavations carried out in Anatolia is in Alacahöyük.45 The large number of sun disks found in the royal tombs at Alacahöyük from the Early Bronze Age points to the existence of an ancient sun cult at the settlement. Furthermore, the text KUB 30.32 obv. I 6–8 reveals that the metal workers from Arinna (LÚMEŠ SIMUG.A URUA-ri-in-na) made sun disks. The high frequency of metal finds46 in Alacahöyük and the metal workshop uncovered in recent excavations also corroborate the presence of smiths.47 Arinna is written as URUPÚ-na (URUTÚL-na) in the texts. While the Sumerogram PÚ/TÚL48 means “source, spring, fountain” in Hittite texts, the Hittite word luli-, luliya-49 means “source, spring, wet patch, pool, pond.” The Hattic word ur-, uri-, ari-,50 on the other hand, means “fountain, source”. The phonetic syllables represent the first sounds of Arinna and this confirms that Arinna was at one stage a Hattian city. With its rich remains from the Hattian Period, Alacahöyük was also an important Hattian settlement. The Sumerogram “PÚ/TÚL” in the logographic spelling of the place-name Arinna (Hattic ur-, uri-, ari- “spring”) implies a place with an abundance of water resources in the vicinity of Boğazkale. In KBo 11.43 I 41  KBo 10.20 I 24–26; Alp 1983: 136. 42  KBo 23.106 obv. 3–6. 43  Erkut 1992: 162. 44  KUB 25.14 obv. I 10–22. 45  Erkut 1992: 160f. 46   Erkut 2003: 76; Additionally for the relationship between Arinna’s metal craftsmen and Early Bronze Age craftsmen See Sir Gavaz and Yalçın in press. 47  Furthermore see KUB 2.6 V 36–43; KBo 9.91 obv. 6–10. 48  Ünal 2007: 549. 49  Ünal 2007: 411. 50  Soysal 2004: 318f.

184 29–31, the king enters the GlSgazziduri51 “washing house” and washes his hands before entering Arinna. There was a “washing house” where one could bathe in an indoor spring, the foundation of which was located to the east side of Alacahöyük, until 1936;52 unfortunately it has not survived to the present. Arinna is mentioned in the annals of Muršili II.53 According to Erkut’s interpretation, the expression [KASKAL ŠA UR]U A-ri-in-na še-e[r pa-a-un] “I went up via the Arinna [road]” precedes a reference to the Kaška and must refer to a northern road leading towards the enemy. In this context, the search for Arinna should be undertaken to the north of Hattuša and not to its south. Hittite texts reveal the presence of temples in Arinna pertaining to Sun-Goddess and Storm-God of Arinna, the Goddesses Mezulla, Zintuhi and the God Hulla.54 The size of Alacahöyük was enough to hold 4 to 5 temples.55 Two tablets have been obtained from the excavations at Alacahöyük so far. The first of these is numbered A1.d164, a fragmentary letter. In the tablet the personal name Zuwa is mentioned. Zuwa is a frequently mentioned name at Boğazkale, so it is not possible to identify the person. The text reads “Zuwa says: Arinna which was inherited by us from our grandfathers has a golden sun disk which represents the Sun Goddess.” Even though the persons who were mentioned in both tablets are not the same person, the text makes a connection between Arinna’s Sun Goddess and the Sun Disk and indicates the presence of a longstanding sun disk cult.56 If the equation of Arinna with Alacahöyük is accepted, then there are four different routes between Alacahöyük and Boğazkale.57 Among these the closest and the most probable route is: Boğazkale → Emirler → Kalecikkaya → Külah → Tahirabat (Matilla?) → Alacahöyük (c. 28km).58 Without doubt the distance travelled between Hattuša and Arinna could vary according to the places visited, but 51  Erkut 1994: 137–142. 52  Arık 1937a: 15 f.; Erkut 1994: 139. 53  KBo 16.16 III 2–13 (= KUB 19.37 III 11–20). 54  Popko 2009: 36ff. 55  Alparslan and Doğan-Alparslan 2015: 103. 56  For detailed information see Sir Gavaz and Yalçın in press. 57  See Sir Gavaz 2012b: 140. 58  When it is considered that a person walks 5kms in an hour (Sir Gavaz 2012b: 212), the king and his officials who start the journey from Hattuša at the break of dawn can reach the ceremonial area in Alacahöyük (= Arinna) approximately 7 or 8 hours later at noon. On the other hand, in a journey with horse-drawn vehicles and without entourage, the king can reach Alacahöyük earlier. Some present-day villagers do the return trip in one day with horse-drawn carts.

Gavaz

from festival texts we know that the distance between any two settlements consisted of no more than one day’s travel. At times, the king reached Arinna either through Tahurpa or Matilla or he arrived at Arinna without making any stops along the way. Haitta There is not much information on the city of Haitta.59 Cornelius60 places Haitta at Kaicit Köy, Yozgat; while Forlanini assigns it to the northwest of Kerkenes Dağ, to the southeast of Yozgat.61 De Martino suggests YozgatYassıhöyük.62 Haitta is cited together with Mount Piškurunuwa in KBo 10.20 IV 3–18. In order to go to Zippalanda, the king sets off from Hattuša and initially stops at Haitta during the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival. He then goes to Mount Piškurunuwa and from there departs for Haranašši.63 The king reaches Haranašši in a day; as a result we can conclude that Haitta is less than one day’s travel to Mount Piškurunuwa, Haranašša and Hattuša. Based on this, Haitta should be sought to the south or southeast of Hattuša, at a close proximity. As a result of field trips in this region we find it suitable to look for Haitta on the road from Boğazkale to Yassıhöyük (= Haranašša?) in the area between Cihanpaşa and Akçaköy.64 Hak(k)ura and Ištuhila On the 3rd day of the nuntarriyašhaš festival, the king goes to Hakkura65 from Katapa with the god Zithariya and reaches Tatašuna on the same day: “The great assembly is held on the first day in Katapa. The next day Zithariya goes to the House of the Ancestors. And the prince goes after (him). And the festival (is celebrated). Meanwhile a (ritual of) ‘washing’ is performed at the palace. The next day the king carries out (celebrations) for the mighty Storm-God. In addition to this, Zithariya sets off for Hakkura. Later on he also goes to Tatašuna.”66 The king had probably been travelling together with the protective 59  del Monte and Tischler 1978: 64; del Monte 1992: 22. Also Laroche 1966: 268. 60  Cornelius 1963: 235. 61  Forlanini 1980: 71ff. 62  de Martino, Fales and Ponchia 2010: 194. 63  Sir Gavaz 2012b: 98. 64  Sir Gavaz 2015: 202. 65  Hakkura should be sought near Uruša. See del Monte and Tischler 1978: 67f. See further Kryszeń 2016: 200–201. 66  KUB 9.16 obv. I 3–11; Nakamura 2002: 17.

185

Hattuša and Environs: Philology

deity, Zithariya. Moreover, the text KUB 22.27 reveals that one travelled down to Tatašuna from Hattuša, from there went to Ištuhila and then moved on to Hakkura.67 Hence, based on this information, Hakkura should be no more than a day’s distance from Katapa, Ištuhila and Tatašuna. The Killik-Gazipaşa region,68 which we have suggested to be the area of Katapa, has sufficient settlement density to make a location of Hakkura feasible. The other cities the king frequented during these trips should be no more than one day’s travel from Hakkura and Tatašuna while at the same time not exceeding a two day’s travelling distance from Hattuša. Ha/uranašša/i Even though there are not many data, it has been suggested that Haranašša69 should be located no more than a day’s travel from Hattuša, Haitta, Mount Piškurunuwa and Zippalanda.70 On the 12th day of the nuntarriyašhaš festival the king sets off from Hattuša for Haranašša from the Zippalanda gate.71 On the 13th day of the festival he arrives at Zippalanda, so the distance between Zippalanda and Haranašša should be no more than a day’s travel. If the equation of Zippalanda with Kuşaklı/Uşaklı72 is correct then we need to search for a settlement located to the north or west of Uşaklı Höyük, and within a maximum of a day’s travelling distance from Zippalanda. The king first visited Haranašša and then moved on to Zippalanda.73 The course the king followed between Hattuša and Katapa during the nuntarriyašhaš festival is: Hattuša → Haranašša (day 12) → Zippalanda (day 13) → Katapa (day 14).74 The route the king traveled from Hattuša to Ankuwa during the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival is: Hattuša → Haitta → Mount Piškurunuwa → Haranašša → Zippalanda → Ankuwa. Consequently Mount Piškurunuwa should be

67  KUB 22.27 rev. IV 4–11; Haas 1994: 829; Güterbock 1961: 90–91. 68  See Katapa. 69  For passages mentioning Haranašša see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 85; del Monte 1992: 29. 70   Güterbock states that Harana and Haranašši are one and the same. (1961: 91f.). Furthermore see von Schuler 1965: 32; Cornelius 1967: 71; Houwink ten Cate 1970: 71. 71  For the festival celebrated in Haranašši see IBoT 4.72 obv. II 1–8. 72  Gurney 1995: 69–71; Gorny 1997: 549; Özcan, Summers and Summers 2000: 213. 73  However, if we consider Gorny’s equation of Uşaklı Höyük with Haranašša, then Zippalanda should be sought further south. Gorny 2006: 11. 74  Nakamura 2002: 20f.

located at a close proximity to Haranašša. In fact, it should be one of the hills surrounding the city. We believe that it would be appropriate to look for Haranašša at a close vicinity to Hattuša, to the south or southeast of the capital. Some traces of a second millennium BC settlement were discovered at Mercimektepehöyük, which is approximately 35km from Boğazköy, as a result of the salvage excavations conducted in Yozgat city center during 1986 and 1994 by the Yozgat Museum. But in fact very few traces of Late Bronze Age settlement were found in the salvage excavations.75 Strobel locates Mount Piškurunuwa at Yozgat Ceska Castle76 and thus suggests that Haranašša be located around Yozgat. Nevertheless, we believe Yassıhöyük,77 which is located around 22km southeast from Boğazkale, approximately 30km south of Alacahöyük, about 20km south of Eskiyapar and roughly 25km northwest of Uşaklı as the crow flies, is of great significance and it was likely that it was one of the locations visited during the cult voyages. The possible cult route between Boğazkale and Yassıhöyük is: Boğazkale → Yüksekyayla → K.Hırka → B.Hırka → Çatalbaş → Akçaköy → Yassıhöyük. The rough and hilly terrain that we observed along the ÇatalbaşAkçaköy-Yassıhöyük road where we were forced to continue on foot during our site-trips as we were unable to get through with a vehicle, seems to be appropriate for Mount Piškurunuwa. Moreover, a tablet fragment (YH.2005/1)78 was discovered on the surface of the same Yassıhöyük in 2005, which refers to a religious festival. Unfortunately it does not reveal any information on the identity of Yassıhöyük but we believe Yassıhöyük is the best candidate for Haranašša. Hip(p)uriya We encounter the name of the city Hippuriya79 in VBoT 68 obv. II 6, which is valuable in identifying the cities located within the Arinna region according to Forlanini.80 The text KUB 11.33, however, depicts the divine KUŠkurša 75  Thanks are due to Ömer Yılmaz, archaeologist at Yozgat museum, for providing information on this topic. 76  Strobel 2003: 188. 77  de Martino believes that the settlement matches the conditions for it to be Tahurpa (de Martino, Fales and Ponchia 2010: 194f.). 78  The fragment found on Yassıhöyük is published by de Martino (2007: 194ff.). 79  For attestations of Hippuriya see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 110; del Monte 1992: 40; Forlanini places Hippuriya to the south of Hattuša, at Yerköy, Yozgat (1980: 71ff., Map). 80  Forlanini1980: 72; 2008: 162.

186 travelling between different cities during the aškuwamma festival celebrated for the Storm-God of Zippalanda.81 The text also mentions certain cultic acts being performed in Kartapaha, Hipuriya, Halibutta, Taništaha, Mida and Tahaya. According to Forlanini’s grouping of the cities, Halibutta, Mida and Tahaya might be located in Paršananhila while he places Hipuriya in Arinna, with Taništaha being unknown. Hišurla Hišurla, rarely attested in Hittite texts, is the place visited by the king just before he entered Tahurpa on the 4th day of the nuntarriyašhaš festival.82 When the king arrives at Hišurla, his subjects are already waiting for him along the river-bank.83 Any location to be considered for Hišurla needs to be located in a very close proximity to Tahurpa near water. A recent study of historical geography places Hišurla to the north of Alacahöyük, while it locates Tahurpa to the southeast of Hattuša,84 but when one carefully considers the nuntarriyašhaš festival, it is clear that these two cities are located very close to one another and should be sought along the same route. Based on the proposal that Eskiyapar is Tahurpa,85 Hišurla should be located approximately 10km east of Eskiyapar. Furthermore, the Eskiyapar stream located in the area would also be a probable candidate for the Hišurla River. Hiyašna According to Forlanini the town of Hiyašna should be located between Hattuša and Alacahöyük.86 The sacred 81  Forlanini 1980: 77; Popko 1994: 312–317. 82  Laroche 1958: 267; Werner 1961: 76f.; del Monte and Tischler 1978: 112; del Monte 1992: 40. The king probably crosses a bridge in the city entrance. See KBo 21.108 obv. III 2 and rev. IV 3. 83  KUB 9.16 obv. I 12–16; Nakamura, 2002: 17. KUB 25.13 I 4–5 refers to Hišurla city and river: “Enters into Hišurla City. The king goes and stands in front of the river.” See Karasu 1988: 423. For the cult ceremony performed in URUhi-šar-la see KUB 17.37 I 8ʹ–15ʹ, del Monte and Tischler 1978: 112. There was also probably a GIŠgazidduri- structure and huwaši- stone very close to the river Hišurla. Nakamura 2002: 164. 84  Duran 2010. 85  See Tahurpa. 86  Forlanini 1980: 71ff. Moreover, for places referring to Hiyašna in Hittite cuneiform texts see Werner 1961: 76f.; Laroche 1961: 87; del Monte and Tischler 1978: 107f.; Kryszeń 2016: 131–2.

Gavaz

kurša, which had been brought from Arinna to Hattuša during the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival, was then taken to Tawiniya and afterwards was brought back to Hattuša after staying one night in Hiyašna.87 According to our understanding, the KUŠkurša makes a stop at Hiyašna and spends the night in the city on the way back and not en route to Tawiniya. In this respect, two different routes are in question here. If we assume that the equations of Tawiniya with Tavium and Tavium with Büyük Nefesköy are correct, then there are two alternative routes leading from Hattuša to Büyük Nefesköy. There must be a different reason why Hiyašna was not visited even though it is located along the Hattuša-Tawiniya road. Bearing in mind that the KUŠkurša is believed to be a sacred88 object which was taken along, among other things, to enable the safe passage of the royal family within the kingdom by protecting the roads from unseen threats, the distances between Arinna → Hattuša → Tawiniya → Hiyašna → Hattuša must have constituted a route on which the king could safely move within the region. Despite the lack of data on Hiyašna, we believe the city should be located within a region located around 15km to the east of Büyük Nefesköy, en route to Hattuša. KUŠ



Hupiggašša and Imralla

In the text KUB 25.28 obv. I 1f., the royal garb (aniyatt-)89 arrives at Ankuwa after spending two nights en route to Ankuwa from Hattuša. The route the aniyatt- pursued is:90 Hattuša → Imralla → Hupiggašša91 → Ankuwa. According to this itinerary, Hupiggašša should be searched for to the south of Hattuša, no more than two days distance from the capital. Imralla92 is the first place visited after Hattuša

87  KBo 10.20 I 17 22–33; Alp 1983: 136ff.; Güterbock 1960: 80f. The text KUB 25.27 I 12–21 reveals information on the kurša which came to Hiyašna from Tawiniya and on the hadauri festival which was celebrated to worship the Sun-Goddess in Hiyašna, see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 107f. 88  McMahon 1995: 266. 89   aniyatt-/aniyatti- “work, task, ritual gear or garments, ritual equipment, ritual performence, message, adornment”, Ünal 2007: 31. 90  Ünal 1981: 454. 91  For attestations of Hupiggašša see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 117 (Hupikaša); Werner 1961: 76f.; Also see KBo 22.31, 3ʹ. Forlanini 2008b: 181, fn. 42. 92  For attestations of Imrala see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 141; del Monte 1992: 50. Furthermore see Laroche 1957: 22f.; Garstang and Gurney 1959: 1959: 16f.; Werner 1961: 77.

187

Hattuša and Environs: Philology

en route to Ankuwa,93 so the town of Imralla should be sought to the south of Hattuša, at a very close proximity. Kartapaha The names of Zippalanda, Katapa, Šalampa, Kartapaha94 and Halibutti are recorded in KUB 57.71, 4–695 and Kartapaha, Šalampa and Katapa are mentioned together in KUB 28.104 obv. II 15–18. Furthermore, Forlanini points out that the cities listed in HT 2 II 21–33 are all located in the Kartapaha region: Hazkalla, Zilpitta, Alkamaha, Lahtarahura, Tašummiya (Tammiya), Tulma, Šakkura, Marištaha, Tilipzia, Tašta, Tuhašiya, Šanukkida and Tupizalma.96 Then again, the text KBo 10.10 obv. III 13–32 lists the cities “Mareštuha, Tubizalma, Kartapaha, Šulupaššiya,97 Talipziya, Šapinuwa, Tašta, Antaliya and Gašaya.”98 “Wolfmen of Kartapaha” are mentioned in the KI.LAM festival.99 As the cities Talipziya, located within the Kartapaha region, and Halibutta, located within the Paršananhila region, are mentioned together in KUB 40.106 rev. III 1–10, which is actually a military itinerary,100 this, according to Forlanini, suggests that these two regions were in close contact with each another. Furthermore, the KUŠkurša is also mentioned as being taken to Kartapaha during the aškuwamma festival celebrated for the Storm-God of Zippalanda.101 The text suggests Kartapaha was located at a close proximity to Zippalanda, Katapa, Paršananhila, Arinna and probably Mount Daha.102 We, however, suggest that Kartapaha be sought at a close proximity to the provinces of Šapinuwa and Katapa and not too far south of Hattuša.

93  KUB 25.28 obv. I 8. Cf. Kryszeń 2016: 300. 94  For attestations see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 183ff.; del Monte 1992: 67; Cornelius suggests a location towards Sivas (1958: 380); Forlanini initially proposed that Kartapaha should be located to the south of Yozgat Şefaatli, in the region located to the east of Kırşehir (1980: 71ff., map); later he believed it to be in the Kanak Su valley in Yozgat (2008: Map). 95  Popko 1994: 136. 96  del Monte and Tischler 1978: 185; Forlanini 2008b: 157. 97  Süel suggests this city to be within the administrative district of Šapinuwa (2005: 684). 98  Also see KBo 10.10 rev. I 5–24. 99  KBo 16.71, 17; KBo 17.14, 2; KBo 2.12 V 30–31; KBo 20.3 II 1. 100  Klengel 1961: 16ff.; Forlanini 1977: 210; Forlanini 2008b: 157. 101  Popko 1994: 312ff. 102  Forlanini 2008b: 157f.

Katapa Many suggestions have been made for the location of Katapa, which played a significant role during both the old and new kingdoms.103 From philological studies it is understood that Katapa was the capital of a vassal state bound into the centralized Hittite system, a protected garrison city where the army spent the winters as well as an important cult center where celebrations for the nuntarriyašhaš festival began. As it was possible for the king to spend his winters in Katapa, it must have been built on fertile soil that could meet the food and water requirements of the army, a region with mild climatic conditions. From the Annals of Muršili II it is also evident that the king had seized the city of Timmuhala and that he had traveled “down” to Katapa to spend the winter.104 Timmuhala was located to the north among the Kaška.105 Hence Katapa must be situated below, slightly towards the south of the border region of the Kaška.106 Katapa was important, as it was the starting point of the nuntarriyašhaš festival,107 which was celebrated in autumn over 40 days. Based on the itinerary texts associated

103  Goetze suggests that the city could be found between Sorgun and Alaca or Mecitözü (Goetze 1957: 98). Garstang and Gurney propose that it is near Küçük Köhne (Garstang and Gurney 1959: 13). According to von Schuler, it is between Alaca and Mecitözü (Schuler 1965: 28). Cornelius considered it to be located on Kerkenes Dağ (Cornelius 1967: 72); while Ünal suggests it is between the Çekerek and Ortaköy (Ünal 1974: 195–196 n: 73); subsequently Popko and Polit suggested it should be located between Çorum and Sungurlu (Popko 1995: 258; Polit 1999: 8); Karasu suggests it should be sought around Köse Dağı or Uğurludağ (Karasu 1988: 378); Singer proposes that it should be sought to the north or northeast of Hattuša (Singer 1984b: 121); Forlanini believes it to be located two days to the southeast of Boğazkale (Forlanini 1977: 210). In another paper Forlanini suggests it to be southwest of Yozgat in the environs of Çamurlu or Babalı Dağı near Alişar (Forlanini 1986: 4. 3; 1980: 71ff.); in yet another investigation, however, he proposes that it is to the east of Boğazkale, at Sorgun, Yozgat province (Forlanini 1992a: 291); and finally he has suggested that the city should be sought to the south of Ortaköy in the Çekerek (Hitt. Zuliya) basin (Forlanini 2008b: 152). Gorny, on the other hand, has identified Salurhöyük as Katapa (Gorny 2006: 11); see also Kryszeń 2016: 191–250. 104  KUB 19.37 obv. II 35–38; Goetze 1933: 10f. 105  While von Schuler suggests it should be around Nerik (1965: 36, fn. 199); Houwink ten Cate suggests it was located on the south of the Gökırmak estuary, which is a tributary of the Kızılırmak River (1967: 49). 106  Also for the relationship between Katapa and Hanhana, see İK 174–66 obv. 1–14; Balkan 1973: 2f. 107  Nakamura 2002: 11.

188 with the festival, the route the king followed during the nuntarriyašhaš festival is:

Gavaz

Taking into account the geographical setting of the region, the king drew a circle traveling around Katapa, and the capital Hattuša was located right in the middle of this circle. Then again, as is mentioned above, when we consider the route the king follows in order to reach Hattuša, we see that he does not go back to Katapa, but reaches Katapa from a different route. From itinerary texts connected with the festival it is understood that Katapa is a maximum of one day’s travel from Tahurpa and Zippalanda. KUB 42.41 (obv?) 3–14 records that the king had entered Zippalanda together with his officials at the same time as the queen had been performing a ritual in Katapa. Another text that involves the city of Katapa is KUB 21.1, which lists the name of Katapa together with the cities Tahurpa and Ankuwa. The journey from Katapa to Tahurpa is well documented, however, and as it is mentioned here with Ankuwa there may have also been a road which led from Katapa to Ankuwa. From the AN.TAH. ŠUMSAR festival it is known that there is a maximum of one day’s travelling distance between Zippalanda and Ankuwa.110 The distance between Zippalanda and Katapa is a maximum of a day’s travel as well. Thus, Ankuwa could be reached from Katapa through Zippalanda or there is a direct shortcut between the two cities. The list of the female singers in HT 2 reveals Katapa as an important center and refers to it together with villages located in the region.111 It also reveals a total number of 25 female singers from Katapa.112 Katapa and the villages were mentioned together in KBo 10.10, but on its own it

is also referred to in a sequence leading to Šapinuwa.113 A longer list of the villages in Katapa is barely legible in KBo 49.37. Nevertheless, this text still accounts for more village names than those listed in HT 2.114 In the autobiography of Hattušili III, Katapa is mentioned together with certain cities that are located in the border region of Kaška to the north of the Hittite State. Furthermore, Kaštama, Šanahuitta, Hakmiš, Ištahara, Tapikka, Katapa, Zapišhuna and Takkašta115 are all cited together in KBo 4.13. Moreover, it also appears in the itinerary texts of the festival of Nerik. The king travels to Zikmar and the next day moves on to Katapa.116 Therefore the distance between Katapa and Zikmar is a maximum of a day’s travel. Another damaged text lists the names Šanahuitta, Makkuwaliya, Katapa, Tašmaha, Iškamaha and Kammama.117 From the Ortaköy texts it is clear that the cities of Iškamaha and Kammama are under the administrative district of Šapinuwa and in this context Katapa should be sought at a more distant geographical setting from Ortaköy.118 Another text mentions a “Forest of Katapa.”119 Katapa being located in an area of woodland points to a region of abundant rainfall and water resources as well as indicating that it was located in a region that was on high ground and was well fortified. Katapa should be sought to the east of the Hittite capital Hattuša, to the south of Ortaköy-Šapinuwa but in a region where it could establish contact with the northern cities bordering the Kaškaregions. Moreover, it also needs to be established in a large and fertile territory with mild climate conditions where the army could spend the winter. Considering these prerequisites, if one travels from the modern town of Alaca southeast in the general direction of Sorgun, the road leads one through the Akören plain and then into a valley leading through Bolatcık, Tutaş, Killik and Gazipaşa as far as Belpınar, following the road left from Gazipaşa, and Altıntaş following the road to the right from it. This valley contains a number of höyüks that have been identified in surveys, some of which have remains dating to the 2nd millennium BC. At Belpınar there is Mercantepehöyük, set on a flat space at the top of the hilly ridges abutting the village, while at Gazipaşa

108  KUB 9.16+IBoT 4.71+Bo. 9159 obv. I 1–29. Nakamura 2002: 17–19. 109   KBo 39.63+IBoT 4.81+KBo 3.25+KUB 1.48 obv. II 1–23; Nakamura, 2002: 20f.; KUB 55.5+IBoT 4.70 rev. 21–24; Nakamura 2002: 51–53. 110  KBo 10.20 IV 16–19; Alp 1993: 136ff; Güterbock 1960: 8ff. 111  HT 2 I 7–26: Forlanini 2008b: 152. 112  This text catalogues over 150 women from a number of towns and regions. Rutherford 2004: 378; Forlanini 2008b: 152.

113  KBo 10.10 obv. II 10–12; obv. IV 16–24. 114  KBo 49.37, 1–15; Forlanini 2008b: 152f. 115  Barjamovic 2011: 270; Forlanini 2007a: 260, 262; also see KBo 16.78+, which includes the names Tapigga, Taptiga, Takašta, Katapa and Karahna; Popko 1994: 11–12. 116  Haas 1970: 256. 117  KUB 40.99 obv. 2–8; Forlanini 1979: 179; Barjamovic 2011: 290. 118  Süel 2005a: 681. Furthermore see KBo 47.76. 119  KUB 40.106 rev. III 2–4; Polit 1999: 87ff.

First Round of the Festival Tour:108 Katapa (day 1) → Hakkura (?) (day 3) → Tatašuna (?) (day 3) → Hišurla (day 4) → Tahurpa (day 4) → Arinna (day 5) → Hattuša Second Round of the Festival Tour:109 Hattuša → Haranašša (day 12) → Zippalanda (day 13) → Katapa (day 14) → Tahurpa (day 15) → Tippuwa→ Hattuša (day 16) → Tawiniya (day 20)

Hattuša and Environs: Philology

and Killik, where the road splits into two, and thus at a transit point on the way to Mercantepehöyük from the northwest, there is Tumbul Höyük.120 Tumbul Höyük is also situated on high ground, covers a large area and must have been important in the settlement hierarchy of the region. Settlement layers dating from the third to the first millennia BC were identified there.121 Moreover, with its fertile wetlands, located on high ground and consisting of a sheltered geographical setting with a wooded area extending towards the direction of Sorgun, the village presents a symmetrical aspect indicative of a fortified settlement. The woody area that starts from Tutaş village and grows denser towards the settlements of Gazipaşa and Killik brings the phrase “Forest of Katapa” mentioned in Hittite cuneiform texts to mind. The settlements at Killik and Gazipaşa as well as Belpınar are also suitable for Katapa or the other minor cult and garrison towns bound to the district of Katapa. In fact the settlement density observed especially in Gazipaşa and Killik indicates a large state center in the region. In light of this information we reassert the equation of Katapa with Tumbul Höyük.122

Matilla / Kulilla

Many different suggestions have been previously offered for the location of the town Matilla which is usually encountered in festival-texts.123 Conversely, Kulilla124 has been suggested to be equivalent to Matilla by many researchers.125 Popko maintains that the names of these two cities indicate the same place.126 There is a reference to a cult site known as the arhuzzana of Kulila. The word arhuzzana also conveyed a characteristic of the landscape or its description.127 According to Haas, the king worshipped 120  Süel 1990: 342; Sipahi and Yıldırım 2010: 451. 121  Sipahi and Yıldırım 2010: 451. 122  See Sir Gavaz 2014: 13. 123   del Monte and Tischler 1978: 266; del Monte 1992: 103; Goetze and Cornelius connected Matilla with Battal Höyük in Gaziantep, Goetze 1930: 20; Cornelius 1958b: 248. In the decree of Telepinu king Ammuna includes Matilla amongst the countries that he considered his enemies during his reign. KBo 3.1 II 1. See also Kryszeń 2016: 71–80. 124  del Monte and Tischler 1978: 217f.; del Monte 1992: 82f. 125  Forlanini, 1980: 79; Popko, 1986: 176ff.; Houwink ten Cate 1988: 169. 126  Popko 1986: 176–179. É/GIŠ 127   arhuzna-/arhuizna-/arhuzzana- “a construction or building” KUB 44.31 obv. 11; KUB 34.124 obv. 4; KBo 22.181 rev. 11; 133/u, 6; KBo 20.76+ IV 11; Ünal 2007: 50.

189 a group of gods and goddesses consisting of the SunGod, Storm-God and Mezulla at a stele, i.e. the cult site GIŠ warhuizna/arhuz(za)na, before he arrived at Matilla.128 This cult place was possibly a densely wooded area. Based on all the texts and observations, we agree with Popko that Matilla and Kulilla were actually the same place, although certain cultic acts were executed at a place known as GIŠwarhuizna/arhuz(za)na located outside the city during the festival. The King gathered the great assembly at the halentuwa building in Matilla with the queen during the AN.TAH. ŠUMSAR festival and then departed for the city of Arinna while the queen returned to Hattuša.129 This text shows us that Matilla was situated at a close distance to both cities. In another text,130 we learn that the king goes to Matilla by GIŠGIGIR. In KBo 22.181 rev. 9ʹ–11 the king goes to the warhuzna of Kulilla by the same chariot.131 On the other hand, Kulilla is mentioned in the text KUB 51.15 from the nuntarriyašhaš festival: “(x+1)[The queen [t]o? Ta[h]urpa (2ʹ)[The next morning], the king [sets off to Hattuša from] Arinna. (3ʹ)[When the kin]g [arrives at] the w[arhuzna] of Kulila (4ʹ)he makes a libation. [The queen on the other hand from Tahurpa] (5ʹ)comes. And now they [go to] Tati[šga]. (6ʹ)[When they] arrive (they undertake) [the washing ritual].”132 This passage carries great value for us, for if the restorations of Nakamura are considered to be correct, we see that Tahurpa, Arinna, Kulila and Hattuša are mentioned all in one context. In consequence, Kulilla/Matilla was positioned at such a point that the queen could come from Tahurpa and meet up with the king who would be arriving from Arinna, and as a result the city should be located at a close distance from both cities, at a location that had access to an independent route to Hattuša from Arinna and Tahurpa. According to Forlanini the cities recorded in the second list of VBoT 68 all fell within the administrative district of Arinna.133 VBoT 68 rev. III 1–2 contains the phrase “when the King moved from Hattuša to Matilla.”134 We believe that the most appropriate location for Kulilla/ Matilla would be the settlement at Tahirabat situated approximately 5km south of Alacahöyük and around 25km 128  Haas 1994: 790, fn. 112. 129  KBo 10.20 II 9 1–10. 130  KUB 20.94 V(?) 6; Alp 1983: 152–153. 131  (9ʹ) [LUGAL-u]š-kán GIGIR BABBAR ti-ia-zi (10ʹ) [LUGAL-u]š URUKu-li-la-aš (11ʹ) [GIŠwa-]ar-hu-iz-na-aš a-ri. See Yoshida 1992: 102, 183. 132  KUB 51.15; Nakamura 2002: 69. See further KBo 52.161 obv. 9ʹ– 10ʹ for a mention of a warhuzna-installation at Tahurpa. 133  Forlanini 1980: 71–80; Forlanini 2008b: 161f.; Güterbock 1961: 88. 134  Forlanini 2007a: 267.

190 northeast of Boğazkale.135 Remnants of a large Hittite settlement have been discovered at the bottom of the hill under which Tahirabat village lies.136 In our opinion this large höyük bears the characteristic of an isolated cult center as it is reasonably far away from the Hittite period main road. Nirhanta Forlanini suggests that Nirhanta should be sought at a very close proximity to the south of Hattuša.137 When the king arrived at Hattuša on the 16th day of the nuntarriyašhaš festival from Tahurpa via Tippuwa he performed certain rituals, one of which was the ceremony performed by the priests in the name of the Storm-God at Nirhanta along the riverside.138 It is for this reason that Nirhanta should be located within the boundaries of Hattuša or at a very close distance to Hattuša. Furthermore, it should also be close to one of the routes that leads from Tahurpa to Hattuša. One also notes that the king had stopped at Tippuwa on his way to Hattuša. As a result, bearing the equation of Tahurpa with Eskiyapar in mind (see below), the Tippuwa crossroad located along the Hattuša—Eskiyapar route would be an appropriate site for Nirhanta. Hence, Nirhanta should be sought at the projected entrance to Boğazkale from Tippuwa along the Perçem-Suludere-Yüksekyayla road (see below). Additionally, the region approximately 3–4km north of Boğazkale where the Budaközü stream flows is also a likely location for Nirhanta. Paršananhila Cornelius associated Paršananhil/ta with Parša.139 Forlanini initially suggested the city was north of Kırşehir,140 but he later located it southeast of Hattuša, to the northwest of Alişar.141 “The female singers of Paršananhila”142 135  For detailed information and text locations see Sir Gavaz in press. 136  Sipahi and Yıldırım 2010: 453. 137  Forlanini 1980: 71ff.; Furthermore, for references for Nirhanta see Goetze 1957: 92; del Monte and Tischler 1978: 286. 138  IBoT 4.72 obv. II 1–23.; 139  Cornelius 1973: 301; for further references on Paršananhila see del Monte and Tischler, 1978: 307; del Monte 1992: 122. 140  Forlanini 1980: 77; should be sought to the southwest of Hattuša (1986: Tav. XVI 2). 141  Forlanini 2008b: 170 (Map of the Central Provinces of Hatti). MUNUS. MEŠ 142   SÌR URUParšananhila.

Gavaz

are mentioned in KBo 2.31 obv.13–14. Further down the text we see the list of the cities Ankataha, Hahaliya, Šantašara, Tiwaliya, Hapartuna, Tahanturiya, Waniba, Mida, Paršananziya, Tahaya, Halibutta and Waštiša.143 According to Popko, the city mentioned here as Tahaya must be equivalent to Mount Taha.144 In this context, Tahaya situated within the Paršananhila region might be associated with Mount Taha145 and in such a case the search for the city must not be assumed too far from Zippalanda and its mountain D/Taha. According to HT 4, 8–12, however, [Paršan]anhila and the settlements Mida and Waštišša located within its territory are mentioned together with Taškuriya146 which is located within the territories of Arinna.147 This means that, Paršananhila should be sought at a point near these cities associated with Arinna and Zippalanda.

Mount Piškurunuwa

Cornelius suggests Mount Piškurunuwa148 should be located in Yozgat;149 Strobel locates it at Yozgat Ceska Castle.150 The tablet KBo 15.62 which recounts a cult ritual in Šapinuwa (Ortaköy) also reveals the names of certain mountains:151 Puškurunuwa (?), Halanu/Halunuwa, Harana, Tahanziya, Šarwa, Labašunawa, Hazalmuna and Maršuwa. This text indicates that Mount Piškurunuwa should be sought in an area near Ortaköy. Furthermore, an Ortaköy tablet lists the soldiers of Katapa, Hanhana and Mount Piškurunuwa after a paragraph involving the correspondence of several officials on the matter of the city of Tiwara. According to Süel the search for these cities and Mount Piškurunuwa should be carried out within the same region.152 However, it is also 143  HT 2 III 17 = KBo 2.31 obv. 15ff. Moreover, text HT 2 III 12–25 refers to the 12 settlements located in the region of Paršananhila. Forlanini 2008b: 158; Kalpaššanahila city is mentioned after Tahaya city in KBo 10.10 rev. IV 7. Even though it is unlikely, there is still the possibility that this might be referring to Paršananhila, Forlanini 2008b: 184 fn. 98. 144  Popko 1994: 26. 145  Forlanini 2008b: 154, 158. For further citations on Tahaya see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 375. 146  VBoT 68 obv. II 2–14. 147  Forlanini 2008b: 158. 148  For places on Mount Pi/uškurunuwa see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 324 f.; del Monte 1992: 128; furthermore see Laroche 1966: 276; Gonnet 1968: 133. 149  Cornelius 1973: 10. 150  Strobel-Gerber 2003: 188. 151  Süel 1995: 281. 152  Süel 2005a: 683.

Hattuša and Environs: Philology

possible that the troops of various different cities might have been auxiliary forces gathered in a certain region. On the other hand, the route the king set off on between Hattuša and Haranašša during the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival is: Hattuša → Haitta → Mount Piškurunuwa → Haranašša. According to this route, Mount Piškurunuwa should be sought within a close proximity of the capital. Assuming the equation of Haranašša with Yassıhöyük (see Haranašša above) it would be appropriate for Mount Piškurunuwa to be located in a mountainous region along the road leading from Boğazköy to Yassıhöyük. On the 32nd and 34th days of the AN.TAH.ŠUM festival, it is mentioned that the deer was offered libation on Mount Piškurunuwa.153 Probably Piškurunuwa Mountain was a place which had a close relation with a deer cult. Unless further vital clues are revealed in the Ortaköy tablets to establishing the whereabouts of Mount Piškurunuwa, we suggest that Mount Piškurunuwa should be located no more than a day’s travel from the capital Hattuša, along the Çatalbaş-Akçaköy-Yassıhöyük road to the southeast of the capital.154 Tahurpa All the studies conducted on the location of Tahurpa155 until recently point to the fact that it should be sought to the south or southeast of Hattuša. Goetze156 suggests the city could be found in Sorgun; Cornelius157 proposes it to be around Yozgat; Garstang and Gurney158 to the south of Yozgat; and Forlanini159 considered it to be at Babalı Höyük north of Kerkenes Dağ, but soon after he suggested that Yassıhöyük in Yozgat was an appropriate candidate for Tahurpa.160 Correspondingly, de Martino161 also proposes the search should be undertaken in the region of 153  KUB 25.18 II 6–1; IBoT 1.1 VI 9–13; Haas 1970: 65; Erkut 1998: 193; for an additional passage involving the king’s visit to Mount Piškurunuwa see KUB 22.27 IV 30–36; Güterbock 1961: 90–91. Also see KUB 6.45 I 54–56 = 46 II 19–21; KUB 44.4 obv. 18; KBo 9.131; KUB 1.15 II 6; KUB 40.101 obv. 11; for the festivals at Mount Piškurunuwa see Galmarini 2014: 277–295. 154  For route attempts see Sir Gavaz 2015: 201f. 155  For attestations of Tahurpa in Hittite cuneiform texts see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 380–381; del Monte 1992: 153. (Kryszeń 2016: 90–92, ed.). 156  Goetze 1957: 98. 157  Cornelius 1967: 70. 158  Garstang and Gurney 1959: 19f. 159  Forlanini 1980: 71ff. 160  Forlanini 2008b: 155. 161  de Martino, Fales and Ponchia 2010: 194f.

191 Yassıhöyük, Yozgat.162 Unlike Forlanini and de Martino, however, Karasu,163 Nakamura164 and Taracha165 have all emphasized that Tahurpa should be located north of Hattuša. A text from the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival reveals that the king stopped at Tippuwa on his way to Hattuša from Tahurpa and it also mentions that on his arrival at Tippuwa the king had descended from the GIŠGIGIR.166 In another text from the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival, the king travelled to Tahurpa by GIŠGIGIR with the queen when he resided in his winter lodgings at Hattuša;167 however, it is noted that the king is in Tahurpa on the fourth168 and fifth169 days of the nuntarriyašhaš festival. After visiting Hakkura (?) and then Tatašuna (?) on the 3rd day, the king goes to Tahurpa on the 4th day of the festival. On the 15th day of the festival, however, the king sets off from Katapa and goes to Tahurpa without making any stop and from there goes to the capital Hattuša via the Tippuwa route. Hence, based on this information, Tahurpa should be located no more than a day’s distance from Hattuša, Tatašuna (?) and Katapa. Thus Tahurpa acts as a central station in the Hattuša, Arinna and Katapa triangle. In fact, when the king travels both from Katapa to Hattuša and from Arinna to Hattuša he continues his journey via Tahurpa. Additionally, in the text KBo 52.161 obv. 5ʹ–8ʹ it is recorded that the King and Queen travel together from Tahurpa to Hanhana by chariot (GIŠGIGIR). This text is worth noting to understand the approximate distance between Tahurpa and Hanhana. Besides the text strengthens the likelihood of Tahurpa being located north of Hattuša170. According to Barjamovic and Michel the name of the Hittite city Tahurpa during the Old Assyrian Period was 162  del Monte and Tischler 1978: 381; del Monte 1992: 153. 163  Karasu 1988: 424. 164  The king is in Tahurpa on the 15th day of the nuntarriyašhaš festival and on the 16th day celebrates the festival of the ‘Nerik Road’. For this reason Nakamura points out the possibility of links between Nerik and Tahurpa. Nakamura 2002: 113. 165  “In my opinion, however, we should rather look for Tahurpa to the northeast of Hattuša in the direction of Katapa” Taracha 2009: 97 fn. 501. 166  KUB 10.18 obv. I 1–8: Badali 1991: 37. 167  KBo 10.20 obv. I 1–6: Alp 1983: 136; Furthermore, on the matter that the king initially went to Tahurpa during the AN.TAH. ŠUMSAR festival see de Martino, Fales and Ponchia 2010: 193 fn. 7; Haas 1994: 772–826; Houwink ten Cate 2003: 205–219; Schwemer 2004: 395–412. 168  KUB 9.16 I + KBo 3.25 + KUB 10. 48 I + 34/t obv. I 3–16; Nakamura 2002. 169  IBoT 4. 72; obv. II 11–17; Nakamura 2002. 170  For the relation between Tahurpa and Hanhana, see KUB 58.4 V 19ʹ–20ʹ; KUB 44.18 obv. 9ʹ–14ʹ. See further Corti, this volume.

192

Gavaz

probably Tah(u)ru(wa)/Tahruwa.171 The place mentioned as the Tahruwa Country in the Kültepe tablets is known as an important trade center during this period. The Tahruwa Country is mentioned together with Kuburnat, which was an important trade station during the Assyrian Trade Colonies Period.172 Similarly, Hittite Tahurpa was written Ta-a-hur-wa in Hattic.173 That is to say, wherever we locate Tahurpa, it should have been settled during the Hattian period. The distance from Hattuša to Tahurpa must be so close that when the king sets off from Hattuša with first light of the morning, he can reach his destination in no more than 5–6 hours, perform the ceremony and turn back. Furthermore, it should be located within a maximum of a day’s travelling distance from Arinna and Katapa; thus this duration can be applicable for distances covering approximately 25–30km. The documents and information recovered from excavations show that Eskiyapar was an important center during the Hattian period, that is to say, the period of Alacahöyük Royal tombs, and this further supports the idea that Tahurpa is to be identified with Eskiyapar.174 Eskiyapar, which is situated at a very significant position between the Hattuša and Alacahöyük route, is located 25km northeast of Boğazköy and 20km southeast of Alacahöyük. Located in a strategically important setting, Eskiyapar is established on a crossroads in the most beautiful part of the plain.175 The artefacts recovered from this höyük, which was the home of a long line of settlement since the Hattian era, point to the possibility that Eskiyapar might also have been a trade center.176 The probable route connecting the triangle between Boğazkale, Eskiyapar (Tahurpa?) and Alacahöyük (Arinna?) is: Boğazkale-Eskiyapar Boğazkale → Evren → Emirler → Kalecikkaya → Kıcılı → Eskiyapar

171  Barjamovic 2011: 264, fn. 1044; Tahruwa, Kt 94/k 1386 (I. 9–10); Michel 2008: 250, fn. 44. 172  Kt 93/k 236 (I. 7–16); Barjamovic 2011: 264 fn. 1044. 173  Soysal 2004: 735; Bossert 1944: 254. 174  Sir Gavaz 2012c: 31–43. 175  French’s study on the milestones pertaining to the Roman era reveals the existence of two milestones in Eskiyapar which in turn indicates that the city was situated along an important route. French 1988: 128f. 176  Özgüç 1988: 19.

Boğazkale → Yüksekyayla → K.Hırka → Suludere → Perçem → Eskiyapar177 Boğazkale → Emirler → Akçiçek → Suludere → Perçem → Eskiyapar Eskiyapar-Alacahöyük Eskiyapar → Karamahmut → Alacahöyük Eskiyapar → Çelebibağı → Tahirabat → Alacahöyük Eskiyapar → Kıcılı → Çelebibağı → Tahirabat → Alacahöyük Eskiyapar-Killik (Tumbul Höyük/Katapa?) Eskiyapar → Alaca → Fakılar → Akören → Bolatcık → Tutaş → Killik (Tumbul Höyük) In conclusion, the fact that the names of Arinna and Tahurpa178 are mentioned in a fragment of tablet dated to the middle Hittite Period discovered during the 2011 excavation season in Eskiyapar reinforces the opinion that Tahurpa is to be identified with Eskiyapar.179 Ta/emelha KBo 11.34 obv. I 1–4 reveals that the king had stopped at Tukaštuwa180 on his way to Temelha181 from Hattuša. 177  Sipahi (2013b: 73) has this route as Yüksekyayla, Küçük Hırka, Suludere, Perçem, Eren/Dedepınarı, Eskiyapar on the basis of survey, see chapter 5, this volume (ed.). 178  Sipahi 2012a: 6; Sipahi 2013a: 247. 179  In Eskiyapar a cup was unearthed in an Old Hittite level with a nude woman statuette holding her breasts inside it (see Temizer apud Özgüç 1988: XVIII; ibid. 49, Pl. D I; Özgüç 1999a: 5). It is a unique work of art. Probably it points to a mother goddess cult. On the head of the nude goddess who is in sitting position in the cup there is a headpiece, which consists of eight sun discs (Sipahi 2013b: 64). This find reminds us of the text KUB 25.14 obv. I 10–12: “(10) The diviner, eight sun goddesses of Arinna city (11) takes to the praying hall. (12) Three of these are statues and five of them are sun discs.” During the festival at Tahurpa Arinna’s sun goddess is symbolised with a sun disc. This cup from Eskiyapar must belong to the cult of the Sun Goddess of Arinna (Sipahi 2013b: 64). But this conclusion cannot support the equation of Eskiyapar with Arinna. In all important religous centres of the Hittite area there was a cult of the head goddess. Furthermore, during the nuntarriyašhaš festival the queen celebrates the Sun Goddess of Arinna in Tahurpa (Nakamura 2002: 66). This cup from Eskiyapar therefore reinforces the connections between Eskiyapar and Tahurpa. 180  del Monte and Tischler 1978: 436. 181  For attestations of Temelha see del Monte and Tischler 1998: 392, 423; Forlanini places Temelha to the northwest of Alişar (2008 map).

193

Hattuša and Environs: Philology

Hence, Temelha should be located near Hattuša. KBo 12.140 also points to the possibility of Temelha’s close proximity to Hattuša.182 KUB 38.19 + IBoT 2.102 rev.6–7, on the other hand, refers to the rituals performed for the StormGods of Temelha and Zippalanda.183 We suggest seeking Temelha to the southeast of Hattuša near Zippalanda.

Mount Tapala

Even though most of the Hittite cult ceremonies were performed in temples located in Hattuša and various other cities scattered around the capital, certain cult trips were made to mountains considered sacred. Hence, Mount Tapala184 is one of these sacred places: “the tents have already been put up when the king goes to mount Tapala in spring. When the king arrives at the mount he goes in the tent.”185 As the trip was made to Mount Tapala in spring, the celebrations must have been part of either the purulli or AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festivals. In fact, texts note that the king had visited Mount Tapala probably on the 28th day of the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival.186 The fact that the king had continued to visit the temples in Hattuša after his trip to Mount Tapala indicates that it was located close to Hattuša, probably being one of the hills surrounding the city.187 Czichon suggests the hill northwest of the Çeçbel Pass or Karakaya near Yazır to the southwest of Boğazkale as candidates for Mount Tapala. Schachner pointed to the hills on the northern outskirts of Hattuša. Among these in the south İbikçam, in the west Nöbeti Baba, and in the northeast, between Emirler and Mahmutbeyli, a high hill whose name is not known can be seen from most of the points of the town and are located in a dominating point of the area. Especially İbikçam may have an important place in Hittite rituals. Hence, it is located in an appropriate place for Mount Tapala where the AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival was celebrated.188

182  Forlanini 2008b: 150. 183  The names of the Storm-God of Temelha and Zippalanda also in KUB 42.103 III 15; del Monte and Tischler 1978: 423. 184  del Monte and Tischler 1978: 397; del Monte 1992: 158; Laroche 1966: 276; Gonnet 1968: 141; Dinçol and Darga 1969/70: 113. 185  KUB 20.85 I 1–6; Lombardi 1997: 98, fn. 53. 186  KBo 10.20 obv. III 40–41. Popko 1988a: 83. 187  For celebrations held at Mount Tapala also see KBo 30.69 rev. III 22–30; Popko 1988a: 84ff. 188  Schachner 2014a: 24.

Taškuriya According to Forlanini, the name Taškuriya,189 which appears in VBoT 68 obv. II 5, is one of the settlements located in the Arinna region190 and occurs in the series “[Paršan]anhila, Mida, Šalma, Zithara, Taškuriya, Waš­ tišša, [Z]illimuna, Ališa and Šapinuwa” in HT 4, 8ʹ–21ʹ.191 Based on the text KUB 42.105 rev. III 23ff. Popko believes Taškuriya to be one of the settlements located in the Katapa region and suggests it may possibly be located to the north of Hattuša.192 In fact, Taškuriya is actually mentioned together with the cities Hišurla and Ištuhila both of which are located along the king’s Katapa-Hattuša route. Based on the information mentioned, Taškuriya should be located near Katapa. Forlanini draws attention to the fact that Taškuriya can be identified with the name Laskoria, a settlement from the Roman era.193 Tatašuna During the nuntarriyašhaš festival the king probably stops at Tatašuna194on his way from Katapa to Tahurpa and from Tatašuna continues to Tahurpa. The itinerary of the king is: Katapa (days 1 and 2) → Hakkura (?) (day 3) → Tatašuna (?) (day 3) → Hišurla (riverside) (day 4) → Tahurpa(day 4).195 Accordingly the distance between Hakkura, Tatašuna, Hišurla and Tahurpa is as short as a day’s travel. That is to say, when the king sets out in early morning from Hakkura, he is able to reach Tahurpa even though he stops at Tatašuna and Hišurla. Another point that needs to be mentioned here is the fact that on the second tour of the festival in question, the king is able to go straight to Tahurpa from Katapa without making any stops and from this we can conclude that different routes between Katapa and Tahurpa are in question. On the other hand the text KUB 22.27 rev. 4–11 mentions that in order to reach Tatašuna they travelled down from Hattuša and in

189  For attestations of Taškuriya see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 410; del Monte 1992: 164; Also see von Schuler 1965: 101ff. Forlanini locates Taškuriya to the southwest of Büyük Nefesköy (1980: 71ff.; 2008: map). 190  Forlanini 1980: 72. 191  Forlanini 1980: 76. 192  Popko 2009: 35 fn. 59. 193  Forlanini 2008: 162f. fn. 120; the city is located to the southwest of Sungurlu and Büyük Nefesköy. 194  For attestations of Tatašuna see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 413f.; del Monte 1992: 165. 195  KUB 9.16 obv. I 3–16; see Nakamura 2002: 438.

194

Gavaz

this context, the distance between Tatašuna and Hattuša should be no more than a day’s travel. Tatiška Despite the fact that the king and queen had set out on the road to Arinna together, on the 5th day of the nuntarriyašhaš festival, the king remained at Arinna while the queen returned to Tahurpa. The next day the king went to Hattuša without stopping at Tahurpa. He is later seen performing the bathing ritual in Tatiška196 with the queen.197 The king who had come from Arinna and the queen who had travelled from Tahurpa had probably met up at Tatiška in order to perform the bathing ritual. Thus Tatiška should be located halfway between the Arinna and Tahurpa, at a very close proximity to Hattuša. On the other hand, if the queen had met up with the king on her return to Hattuša, and they set off for Tatiška together, then Tatiška should be sought on a different route than the Hattuša → Tahurpa → Arinna path. In fact, while the king is mentioned to be travelling from Arinna to Tahurpa or Tahurpa to Hattuša in festival texts, there is no record of his visit to Tatiška. As a result Tatiška should be sought: At the entrance to Hattuša, along the route between Arinna and Hattuša which does not pass through Tahurpa; At the entrance of Hattuša, at the Arinna and Tahurpa road junction; At the entrance of Hattuša, on a different route than that linking Arinna and Tahurpa. Tawiniya Tawiniya which appears in both the Kültepe and Boğazkale texts198 seems to have been an active ‘Karum,’ trading port, during the Old Assyrian Period.199 Forlanini has written that Tawiniya (Tamniya) should be sought to 196  For attestations of Tatiška see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 414; del Monte 1992: 166. Also see Cornelius 1967: 72. Forlanini proposes that Tatiška might be located at a close proximity to Boğazkale, near Derbent or Baltasarılar (2008: 163). 197  KUB 9.16 obv. I 12–25; Nakamura 2012: 17. 198  For passages referring to Tawiniya see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 416 ff.; del Monte 1992: 167. 199  Ünal 1981: 436; Balkan 1957: 65; Nashef 1991: 116. Tawiniya = Tamniya, for detailed information see Barjamovic 2011: 297.

the southwest of Hattuša,200 Garelli between Boğaköy and Merzifon,201 Orlin thought that it should be sought on the banks of Kızılırmak near Boğazköy,202 Goetze identifies Tawiniya with a Höyük located near Eskiyapar or Alaca.203 According to Barjamovic, Assyrian and Hittite evidence reveals that Tawiniya was situated in an isolated geographical setting to the northwest or west of Hattuša, at a close proximity to the capital.204 Garstang and Gurney, followed by Haas, associate the name Tabia/Tavium from the Roman period with Tawiniya and locate it at Büyük Nefesköy which is 15km away from the “Tawiniya City Gate”205 of Hattuša.206 Güterbock rejected Garstang and Gurney’s suggestion, locating it to the northwest of Hattuša, in the area which is now Sungurlu.207 Büyük Nefesköy is located 30km west of Yozgat, which is 20km away from Hattuša. The survey of the region carried out in 1997 by Strobel established that Büyük Nefesköy had been inhabited since the 4th millennium BC as well as revealing Hittite remains. The settlement is believed to be identical with Tavium, a Galatian city which was located on the king’s road during the classical period.208 Based on the opinion that Tawiniya (= Tamniya) had been an active karum during the Old Assyrian Period, the identification of Tawiniya with Tavium seems possible, although Barjamovic thinks it must have been something of a trade “dead end” to explain its rare attestations in Assyrian texts.209 On the 20th day of the nuntarriyašhaš festival the king goes to Tawiniya. Even though the whereabouts of the king are uncertain on the 19th day of the festival, it is believed that he might have been in Hattuša and in such a case it would be appropriate to locate Tawiniya near Hattuša.210 Furthermore, it is also noted that during the AN.TAH. ŠUMSAR festival the KUŠkurša arrived at Arinna from 200  Forlanini 2008b: 58, 69. 201  Garelli 1963: 122. 202  Orlin 1970: 85. 203  Goetze 1930: 27; 1957: 98 fn. 48. 204  Barjamovic 2011: 303. 205  KUB 10.91 II 11–12; KUB 1.31 I 13–15; Garstang-Gurney 1959: 11. 206  Haas, 1994: 729; Furthermore for Tawiniya = Tavium/Büyük Nefesköy see Taggar-Cohen 2006: 405; de Martino 2006: 537– 547; Strobel 2008: 281–302; Gerber 2008: 189–234; Michel 2008: 241ff. 207  Güterbock 1961: 87. Furthermore see Barjamovic 2011: 300. 208  Strobel 2008: 281–302. 209  Barjamovic 2011: 302. 210   KUB 55.5+IBoT 4.70 IV 21–24; Nakamura 2002: 51f.; Furthermore, the Kültepe text Kt 93/k 95 (1. 17–21) suggests that Hattuš and Tamniya are located along the same route. Veenhof 2010a: 72; Barjamovic 2011: 298.

195

Hattuša and Environs: Philology

Hattuša and the next day departed for Tawiniya.211 “After the KUŠkurša came from Arinna, he (sc. the king) commences a great assembly at the halentuwa building.” This statement confirms that the KUŠkurša had come to Hattuša. The next day it sets off for Tawiniya. Therefore the cities Arinna and Tawiniya are near to Hattuša, but must be sought on two different routes. The interesting point here is that while the KUŠkurša did not stop at Hiyašna en route to Tawiniya from Hattuša, it did spend the night at Hiyašna on its journey back, which in turn indicates the possibility of more than one route between Tawiniya and Hattuša. Assuming the equation Tawiniya = Büyük Nefesköy, two roads lead to Büyüknefesköy from Boğazkale: 1. Boğazkale → İbikçam → Gülyayla → Killik Mezraası → Bacılı → Güneşli → Büyük Nefesköy 2. Boğazkale → İbikçam → Gülyayla → Güllüoluk → Sağlık → Güneşli → Büyük Nefesköy The former of the two routes is a much shorter path and the sacred KUŠkurša mentioned above probably made use of this route when travelling from Hattuša to Tawiniya, but took the latter for the journey back because it stopped at Hiyašna for the night and arrived at Hattuša the next day. This indicates that a greater distance had been covered on the way back. If one considers the cult voyages taken by the king, Tawiniya should be located on a different route than the cities Arinna, Tahurpa, Katapa and Zippalanda. In fact, it is obvious that there was no direct link between these cities and Tawiniya and for this reason it would be appropriate to seek Tawiniya at a close proximity to Hattuša, to the southwest of the capital. Büyük Nefesköy remains a likely candidate for Tawiniya, although Barjamovic contends that the city would be attested more often in Old Assyrian texts if it were on the route from Kaneš to Hattuš, as he supposes Büyüknefesköy would have been.212 The name of the city of Warkatawi is encountered very rarely in texts.213 There is, however, reference to a drinking ceremony initiated by the NIN.DINGIR-priestess around Warkatawi during the rituals carried out in the name of Goddess Tetešhapi in Tawiniya during the purulli festival214 211  KBo 10.20 I 1–36; Güterbock 1960: 80f.; Alp 1983: 136f.; for celebration of nuntarriyašhaš, AN.TAH.ŠUM and purulli festivals in Tawiniya see Haas 1994: 696, 729ff. 212  Barjamovic 2011: 302. 213  Ertem 1973: 158. (KUB 11.32 III 25); del Monte and Tischler 1978: 475. 214  Haas 1994: 731.

and as a result the city should be located at a close proximity to Tawiniya. Tip(p)uwa Garstang and Gurney215 placed Tippuwa at Derbent Köy while Cornelius216 suggested it to be Büyük Nefesköy.217 Ünal suggested İbikçam in the South of the town, which has a dominating position for Tippuwa.218 But Czichon, at the end of an extensive field survey in the area, suggested Kocakaya which is located 2.5km northeast of the town for Mount Tippuwa and the Ahmet Can cropland, which is located a couple of hundred meters west of Kocakaya, for Tippuwa town.219 The Hittite king had set off from Tahurpa on the 16th day of the nuntarriyašhaš festival and returned to Hattuša via Tippuwa.220 Based on this, Tippuwa should be located near Hattuša as well as Tahurpa, en route to Hattuša from Tahurpa. Nonetheless, the main issue which needs to be addressed here is why the Tippuwa route was not always preferred. As a matter of fact, the king does not always pass through Tippuwa every time he travels between Tahurpa and Hattuša. When we consider the nuntarriyašhaš festival, which literally mans a “swift and hasty festival”, as it is celebrated during autumn, it is possible that weather conditions were taken in consideration when choosing a safer and shorter route. The city of Tippuwa is mentioned together with Mount Tippuwa221 and this points to the possibility that the city might have been located in a high and rough geographical setting. As a result, such a landscape would have meant a prolonged journey and not a brief one. However, a tablet of the spring (AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR) festival also tells us that the king had arrived at Tippuwa via Tahurpa and then moved on to Hattuša.222 We believe that the search for Tippuwa should be undertaken along the Perçem-Suludere-Yüksekyayla or 215  Garstang and Gurney 1959: 13. 216  Cornelius 1961: 214. 217  For attestations of Tippuwa see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 426f. Furthermore see Werner 1961: 76f. 218  Ünal 1987: 476. 219  Schachner 2014a: 24; Czichon 2000: 272. See also Schachner, this volume. 220  IBoT 4.72 obv. II 17; Nakamura 2002: 21. 221  Monte and Tischler 1978: 427f.; Monte, 1992: 170. 222  KUB 10.18 obv. I 1–7; Badali 1991: 37; Alp 1983: 126f; for the festival celebrated at Tippuwa see KUB 10.17; IBoT 2.2, 4. The tablet KUB 10.20 obv. I 20–21 which is also on the same festival, mentions a competition between Palace guards and officials at Mount Tippuwa.

196 Perçem-Suludere-Akçiçek routes located to the southwest of Eskiyapar along the Eskiyapar-Boğazkale road. As a result of our site trips, we believe the conditions of SuludereAkçiçek path are more appropriate for the mountainous region of Tippuwa and the travelling distance would be shorter than the Yüksekyayla route. KUB 10.18223 mentions that the king had turned his face towards Hattuša and prayed showing that Tippuwa was located in a position where Hattuša could be viewed from above. In conclusion Yüksekyayla stands to be a stronger candidate. Tuhašuna/Tuhišuna/Tuhušina According to Forlanini, Tuhašuna/Tuhišuna/Tuhušina224 which occurs rarely in texts, is one of the settlements located within the Arinna region.225 Furthermore, KBo 24.128 obv. 1ff. recounts that temples had been built for the gods in Šapinuwa, Tuhušina and Halipuda cities.226 Nevertheless, a prayer text which involves the royal couple Arnuwanda and Ašmunikal’s grievance against the Kaška, asserts that: “… they came. Here they attacked Tuhašuna in Hattuša. They attacked Tahantariya. They came down to the city gate.”227 This indicates that the city might have been located in the core region of Hattuša, near the Kaška border. Consequently, we propose that the search for Tuhašuna should be carried out to the northeast of Hattuša, at a close proximity to Šapinuwa and Arinna. Zippalanda There have been many suggestions and investigations in relation to the localization of Zippalanda,228 which together with Nerik and Arinna, is one of the privileged 223  Ardzinba 2010: 16, 204. 224  For referances to Tuhašuna/Tuhišuna see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 432f.; del Monte 1992: 172. 225  Forlanini 1980: 75. 226  Based on this text, del Monte suggests it might be near Šapinuwa (1992: 172); for the mention of Tuhišuna in another text see KBo 41.132, 8; Forlanini 2008b: 162, fn. 117. 227  KUB 17.21 IV 1–4 = KUB 23.17, 6ʹ; von Schuler 1965: 160f.; Alp 2002: 74. 228  Goetze suggests the city be sought in Karahisar near Alaca (1957: 98), while Garstang and Gurney think it is around Akmağdeni and Küçük Köhne (1959: 22). Cornelius suggests seeking it in Temlik or Yapalak (1961: 217), however, Forlanini and Marazzi believe it to be in the Kanak Su valley (1986: TAV. XVII); for the attestations of Zippalanda see del Monte and Tischler 1998: 505ff.; del Monte 1992: 196ff.; Kryszeń 2016: 252–260.

Gavaz

cities to be mentioned in the Hittite Laws.229 Popko locates Zippalanda at Alacahöyük while identifying the volcanic cone of Kalehisar/Karahisar with Mount Daha.230 However, the equation of Zippalanda with Alacahöyük has not been accepted by most researchers due to the more likely identification of Alacahöyük with Arinna.231 As a result of archaeological excavations carried at Çadırhöyük near Peyniryemez village within the limits of the Yozgat Province, Gorny identifies the settlement with Zippalanda. Furthermore, he associates Çaltepe Dağı located near the settlement in question with Mount Daha, the cultic center of the Storm-God of Zippalanda.232 As a result of the excavation in Çadırhöyük, the temple of the Storm-God of Zippalanda is assumed to be built at a high location to the east of the höyük.233 Furthermore, the presence of an enormous gate on the northern side of Çadırhöyük facing Hattuša, indicates an important Hittite settlement. In previous investigations “Mount Daha”234 has been associated with Kerkenes Dağı located at the low mountain peak to the south of the main route in the Sorgun district of the Yozgat province.235 Kerkenes Dağı is located along the east-west main route, at the northwest point of the Cappadocian plain. Furthermore, it is a mountain of granite rocks with a height of 1400m above sea level.236 229  Imparati 1992: 69. Item: 50. 230  Popko 1994. 231  Erkut 1992; Haas 1994: 585; Gurney 1995: 69–71; Gorny 1997: 549f.; Alp 2002: 48; Sir Gavaz 2012b: 133ff.; Mazzoni and Pecchioli Daddi 2015: 27; in comparison to Gurney’s and Gorny’s efforts to associate Zippalanda with Kuşaklı located near Sorgun, Forlanini finds Popko’s suggestion that Zippalanda be identified with Alacahöyük far more feasible (2008: 154). 232  Gorny 2006: 10; for Mount Daha in connection with Zippalanda see KUB 41.29 III 6–11; Popko 1994: 214f.; Arıkan 2005: 66; IBoT 3.29 4–7; Popko 1994: 300. Also see the identification of Zippalanda with Çadırhöyük and Daha with Çaltepe in Gorny 2016: 245–265. 233  Gorny 2006: 22. 234  While Cornelius identifies Mount D/Taha with Kara Baba Dağı near Alişar (1958: 243f), Forlanini associates it with Ak Dağ (1977: 204); for places connected with Mount Taha see del Monte and Tischler, 1978: 374f.; del Monte 1992: 151; Gonnet 1968: 139; according to Popko, Taha “is how Tahaya was previously spelled” (1994: 26). It is for this reason that Tahaya which is located in the Paršananhila region is associated with Mount Taha (Forlanini 2008b: 154). Furthermore, for places connected with Tahaya see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 375. 235  Erkut 1997: 495. 236  According to Gorny the mountain does not need to be big. What is important is its location and function and as a result it would be meaningless to focus on its magnitude and monumentality (1997: 552).

Hattuša and Environs: Philology

The settlement located on the mountain is along the east-west transit route, at a natural crossroad within central Anatolia.237 Gurney was the first to identify the Kuşaklı/ Uşaklıhöyük situated in the Eğri Öz Suyu valley, 4km to the north of Kerkenes with Zippalanda.238 Surveys conducted at Uşaklıhöyük since 2008 under the direction of S. Mazzoni have offered important evidence reinforcing the possibility that this settlement is Zippalanda. A fragment of a tablet dating to the era of the Hittite Empire (Tablet No.: UK09.Ob.2)239 had been discovered as a result of surveys carried out at the southern section of the mound. The heavily burned fragment mentions the “Sungod of the sky”; it involves a magical ritual.240 So far, in the field surveys and excavation works on the acropolis, five fragmentary tablets were unearthed of which three are correspondence and two are ceremonial texts.241 It can be argued that the equation of Kerkenes Dağı with D/Taha242 is impossible as no traces of a Hittite settlement have been found as a result of archaeological surveys and excavation carried out since 1993, and as Kerkenes is known to have been an important Iron Age settlement. In this case, even if Uşaklıhöyük is Zippalanda, Mount Daha should be located elsewhere. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that the remains of the Byzantine castle uncovered in Kerkenes might have concealed remains of the Hittite Period. Both Summers and Mazzoni have argued that Kerkenes Dağı is the most suitable mountain that can be identified with Mount Daha.243 Before proposing the equation of Zippalanda with Çadırhöyük, Gorny had also believed Uşaklı to be the most suitable location for Zippalanda; Kerkenes gradually rises from Uşaklı and water sources have been discovered inside the site, a necessary topographic characteristic for mount Daha. A bridge may be mentioned in a section of a festival text which may belong to an autumn and early year festival celebrated in Zippalanda.244 Furthermore, another tablet possibly belonging to the same text reveals that the king and queen came to Zippalanda by the vehicle called 237  Summers 1994 (Kerkenes Dağı: 1994 Field Season Report). 238  Gurney 1995: 69–71; Uşaklı = Zippalanda, Mazzoni and Pecchioli Daddi 2015: 27ff. 239  Mazzoni et al. 2010: 111–163. 240  For detailed information see Corti 2010a: 131. 241  Mazzoni and Pecchioli Daddi 2015: 30. 242  For references to Mount D/Taha see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 374–375. 243  Özcan, Summers and Summers 2000: 213; Mazzoni et al. 2010: 111–163. 244  5ʹ[GIŠar-]mi!-iz!-zi-ia-aš; KUB 41.46 obv. II 5ʹ emended according to Bo. 2689 rev. V? 10ʹ; Popko 1994: 170.

197 the GIŠhuluganni and when they reached the bridge they performed certain cultic acts.245 According to Gorny, it is possible that there might have been a bridge over the Eğri Su which flows to the north of Uşaklıhöyük,246 but it may be misleading to deem this as solid evidence. On the other hand, Çadırhöyük is situated next to Gelingüllü lake which is sourced by the Eğri Su and Kanak Su; hence it is possible that there might have been a bridge here as well. According to Popko, a grove, a granary and a palace were mentioned at the entrance of Zippalanda between the bridge and city gate. There are a temple of the StormGod, a bathing house and stelae towards the upper section of the palace.247 From tablets of the nuntarriyašhaš festival we see that the king had departed from Hattuša on the 12th day and reached Katapa, the starting location of the festival via:248 Hattuša → Haranašša (day 12) → Zippalanda (day 13) → Katapa (day 14). Hence, Zippalanda should be no more than a day’s travelling distance from Haranašša, Katapa and Ankuwa. Then again we see that the king travels directly to Zippalanda from Hattuša, without making any stops in another passage: “the king from Hattuša when he goes to Zippalanda.”249 The expression “above at the temple of the storm-god”250 mentioned in KUB 57.27 VI 7 of the KI.LAM festival indicates that the festival was celebrated in Zippalanda. By making a comparison, Singer draws attention to the fact that while the temple of the Storm-God in Hattuša was located in the Lower City, the one in Zippalanda was positioned above the city.251 Furthermore, KBo 33.103 IV 14–19 and Bo 5045 rev. V 5–10 disclose that the purulli festival was also celebrated at Zippalanda and Daha.252 Recently, Taracha has equated Zippalanda with Kuşsaray, 15km northeast of Çorum and 75km northeast of Boğazkale, and the nearby hill Kaletepe with Mount Daha.253 This proposal is based on a fragmentary text allegedly unearthed at Kuşsaray, now published as ABoT 2.143 1ʹ–8ʹ, which mentions Mount Daha’s huwaši-stone, sacrifices and offerings during celebrations.254 The contents 245  Bo. 2689 rev. V? 8–13; Popko 1994: 170 fn. 1; Alp 1983: 358–359. 246  Gorny 2006: 556. 247  Popko 1994: 18f. 248  IBoT 4. 72 obv. II 1–11. 249  KBo 23.103 obv. I 1; Popko 1994: 152–153. 250  van den Hout 1990: 425. 251  Singer 1983b: 25; Also see KUB 41.30 obv. II 10–15; Arıkan 1998: 71; the text KBo 20.3 rev. III 1 which is part of the KI.LAM festival suggests that the festival was celebrated in Zippalanda. Alp 1983: 202f. 252  Alp 1983: 264f.; Haas 1970: 44; Popko 1994: 204f. 253  Taracha 2015: 57–66. 254  Akdoğan 2010: 69–70.

198 of the other fragmentary tablets that are supposed to be from Kuşsaray are: ABoT 2.17, a fragment of the Ḫedammu Myth; ABoT 2.388, oracular letter (?); ABoT 2.389, festival fragment (?); ABoT 2.390, letter (?).255 But when the routes of the nuntarriyašhaš and AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR festival texts are considered, it is necessary that Zippalanda should be located to the southeast of Hattusa.256 Apart from one reference in the Apology of Hattusili III,257 Zippalanda is not mentioned among the cities associated with the north. Moreover, Zippalanda never appears among the settlements connected with Kaškaean territory.258 Therefore, Kuşsarayhöyük, which is near the area of Kaška border region north of Hattusa, is not on a proper route for Zippalanda. Furthermore, in the cuneiform tablet archives in Ortaköy/Šapinuwa and Oymaağaç/Nerik (?), there are no clues regarding a location of Zippalanda in the north.259 The cult of the Stormgod of Zippalanda plays an important role in the Hittite pantheon and there is evidence for the worship of this god in all the settlements around Hattusa. The find circumstances of the tablets are also unclear as they do not seem 255  Taracha 2015: 59. 256  IBoT 4.72 obv. II 1–11; KBo 10.20 IV 3–19; see further Sir Gavaz 2012: 208; regarding travel from Zippalanda to Ankuwa via the south route see KBo 30.155 rev. VI 2ʹ–8ʹ and KUB 20.25+KUB 10.78 rev VI 8ʹ–11ʹ. 257   Apology III 32 (Otten 1981: 18–19); Ünal 1974: 225. 258  KUB 23.115 §14; KBo 10.2 obv. 1; VBoT 68; KBo 4.13+KUB 10.82 obv. I 21–26; see further von Schuler 1965. 259  Ünal 1998; Süel 2005a: 679–685; Czichon 2013: 298ff.

Gavaz

to have come from H.Z. Koşay’s sounding and survey at the site of Kuşsarary, being only alleged to have come from there before his survey took place.260 The Hittite stratum at Kuşsaray was very damaged, and to judge from the report, would appear to have been small.261 Elvançelebi Höyük, 7km south of Kuşsaray, which has been heavily destroyed by illicit excavations,262 is where Taracha would like to place Ankuwa.263 This is too small and unimportant to house all the public, military and religious buildings anticipated from the garrison city of Ankuwa.264 Future archaeological investigations carried out in the region will enable researchers to reach more feasible results and in this respect. I believe that the equation of Zipplanda with Uşaklı Höyük seems more likely as it positions Zippalanda at a more accurate setting in relation to the cities it was in contact with. The ancient settlements located on the Kümbet Plain (Aydıncık district) and the Çekerek Irmağı valley which extends towards the east, indicate an important route between Hattuša, Arinna, Zippalanda and Tapikka (Maşathöyük). New evidence that will be recovered from Kerkenes, Uşaklı and Çadırhöyük will be quite important for future historical geographical studies of the region.

260  Koşay 1966: 89; Akdoğan 2011: 26; Taracha 2015: 59. 261  Koşay 1966: 89–97; Taracha 2015: 57–66. 262  Çorum Kültür Envanteri 2008: 159. 263  Taracha 2015: 61. 264  Ünal 1984: 87, 107.

Figure 14.1

Map showing main locations mentioned in the central area.

Hattuša and Environs: Philology

199

CHAPTER 15

Central East: Philology Aygül Süel and Mark Weeden This chapter deals with toponyms associated with the areas to the immediate east of Hattuša, thus the eastern side of the plain of Alaca, the Kümbet Plain, the plains of Maşat and Zile as well as the Çekerek and Özderesi valleys and the accompanying mountain ranges of the Karadağ and Buzluk Dağları. It thus largely overlaps with the area covered archaeologically by chapter 5 (Central East: Archaeology), although discussion of place-names closer to Hattuša, such as Arinna and Tahurpa, are to be found in chapter 14 (Hattuša and environs). The current chapter concentrates on toponyms found in connection with the centres Ortaköy-Šapinuwa and Maşathöyük-Tapikka. In both of these cases excavations have provided textual evidence that has led to an identification of the name of the settlement, in one case certainly, in the other with great likelihood. The remit of the chapter also borders the area discussed in that dealing with the “Upper Land”, and includes discussion of a number of toponyms usually associated with that region. The evidence available for the discussion of the historical geography of this area consists mainly of data from the cuneiform texts from Boğazköy, Ortaköy and Maşathöyük, although in each case the text-genres are quite different. From Boğazköy the place-names are mentioned in historical texts concerning campaigns, in letters, omens, ritual and festival texts. A particularly important genre in this case are itineraries contained in oracular queries. These are questions to be answered by various oracular methods such as bird-observation, extispicy and KIN-oracles. The questions often have a similar form and content to each other. If the differences between itineraries contained in these texts are in fact small differences in directions for campaigns, among other things, then these fragmentary texts have a potentially high significance for the study of geography.1 There is, however, still much that is poorly understood about the genre. The relevant textual distribution from Ortaköy seems to be mainly letters, omens and ritual texts, particularly those with a Hurrian background. According to the assessment thus far, all Ortaköy tablets belong to the late Middle Hittite period and are associated with the reign of Tudhaliya II (III). The Maşat texts that can be used for geographical research are mainly letters, 1  Haas 2008: 105–119.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_016

along with a small number of administrative documents, and also date to that king’s reign. Later classical and medieval texts, cult practices and place-names are also employed for comparison in research on this area, although these are of course to be used with the utmost caution.

Place-Names Relating to the Sphere of Šapinuwa

The identification of Šapinuwa with the area discovered by survey and excavated near Ortaköy in the Çorum area (see chapters 3 and 5) has been made possible by the more than 4,000 tablets and fragments that have been found there in excavations. The name is mentioned frequently in the Ortaköy tablets, although all the contexts have not yet been published. The evidence for the identification has been collected by A. Süel, and is considered certain.2 Perhaps one of the most striking elements is the fact that Boğazköy tablets of the Hurrian itkalzi (“mouth-washing”) series refer to a longer version of the series, with twentytwo tablets as opposed to ten, which had been brought from Šapinuwa.3 Now it appears that parts of a longer version of the ritual have been found at Ortaköy, while the shorter version also clearly existed there.4 The colophon from Boğazköy also refers to an itkalzi ritual performed at the king’s behest in the town of Zithara, which is thought to be in the region of Hanhana.5 KUB 38.7 is held to inform us about aspects of the cult of Šapinuwa.6 However, the traces of the place-name on the tablet at the beginning of the section are such as to exclude a full writing of the name Šapinuwa.7 Nevertheless, a number of names of divinities and places are contained in the section which are associated with the area in other 2  Süel 1995. 3  KBo 21.44 rev. 8ʹ–12ʹ // KBo 21.43 rev. 5ʹ–7ʹ. 4  De Martino, Murat and Süel 2013; de Martino and Süel 2015: 15–17. 5  KBo 21.44 rev. 8ʹ // KBo 21.43 rev. 3ʹ. See Corti, this volume; Kryszeń 2016: 185–187, with rejection of the hypothesis of two towns named Zithara. 6  Del Monte and Tischler 1978: 348; Forlanini 2008b: 146; Kryszeń 2016: 336 fn. 784. 7  K UB 38.7 rev. iii 10ʹ ina URUša-pí?-x(-x)-uz?-x. Photo: BoFN 02096b. An abbreviation is possible.

Central East: Philology

texts, although not always in a straightforward manner: Mt Kuwarri (l. 16ʹ); the deity Šuppiluliya (l. 12ʹ); the river Zuliya (l. 18ʹ); the town Taptiqa (l. 20ʹ?); the town Hatipuna (l. 23ʹ).8 A Hurrian tablet, KBo 15.62(+KBo 17.86), has a list of mountains which are “mountains, all of them of the land of Šapinuwa.” Those which are readable are: Halu[na?]; Harana; Tahanzi[ya?]; Šarwa; Lapašunuwa; Hazalmuna; Maršuwa.9 Offering tablets mention sacrifices to the male gods of Šapinuwa,10 and a text recently joined by C. Corti appears to detail offerings of bulls and loaves of the Houses of Šapinuwa and of a town called Zikkapara, which may or may not be in its vicinity.11 The Annals of Muršili II inform us that the king reviewed his troops in Šapinuwa before leading them on campaign.12 The places visited by the campaign are the city of Ta/uhmuttara, the lands of Kaškama and Šuhuriya, followed by the land of Huršama and the city of Ta/uhmiyara. Three of these occur again in the Annals as cities or countries which attack Hattuša from the direction of Hakpiš, as opposed to other enemies which attack from the area of Durmitta.13 Assuming a location of Hakpiš up towards but south of Nerik in the northeast, this gives a credible location for these areas somewhere north of the Karadağ range towards Merzifon or Amasya.14 The line of mountains of the Karadağ would have offered 8  See Forlanini 2008b: 147 with notes for discussion. Taptika, for which the reading is very uncertain, might be related to the Taptikka known from Maşathöyük, which could also be related to Taptakka, that has itself been compared with the unlocated Persian district of Amasya called Daptakene, known from an inscription from Yassıçal. See Alp 1991b: 43–44; Forlanini 1997a: 405–6; id. 2002: 263 (at or in the region of Kocamantepe); Dalaison 2002: 268; Kryszeń 2016: 270. 9   KBo 15.62+ obv. ii (1ʹ) HUR.SA[G …] (2ʹ) HUR.SAG uk-[…] (3ʹ) HUR.SAG pu-u[š-ku-ru-nu-wa?] (4ʹ) HUR.SAG ha-lu-ú-n[a] (5ʹ) HUR.SAG ha-ra-na (6ʹ) HUR.SAG ta-ha-an-zi[-ya?] (7ʹ) HUR. SAG ša-a-ar-wa (8ʹ) HUR.SAG la-pa-šu-nu-wa (9ʹ) HUR.SAG haza-al-mu-na (10ʹ) HUR.SAG mar-šu-wa HUR.SAGMEŠ-ni[-na?] (11ʹ) šu-wa-ni-el-la URUša-pí-nu-wa (12ʹ) u-mi-in-ne-bi-na. 10  KBo 20.123+ obv. i 12ʹ// KBo 22.106 obv. 20 (Groddek 2008: 97–99). 11  Bo 4949+Bo 6108 r. col. 37ʹ, 48ʹ. Cf. LÚMEŠ URUza-ga-pu-ra KUB 40.96 iii? 16. Information courtesy C. Corti. Possibly compare the place name URUza-qa!-pu-ra in HKM 102 (see below), which might belong to an area relevant to but outside of the direct administrative reach of Maşathöyük, in the same way that Kammama could also be said to be. 12  KBo 7.17+KBo 16.13 i 5–13. 13  KBo 14.20+ i 9–10; Houwink ten Cate 1966: 169, 178; Barjamovic 2011: 245–246; Kryszeń 2016: 349. 14  See discussions of Hakpiš/Hakmiš and Ištahara by Corti, this volume; furthermore Murat 2008.

201 protection and cover for a mustering prior to a sortie in those directions.15 The oracle query KUB 22.51 obv. 10–15 has the king (subject assumed) sleeping at Šapinuwa, but the army resting at Hanziwa, before proceeding “down past” (kattan arha) the town of Šuppiluliya and attacking the town of Šahuzzimišša.16 He sends a deputy to attack Tahašta from there and other officers to attack the same town from Mt(?) Kuwarina as well as from the city of Kammama.17 The continuation of a parallel oracle query (KUB 50.108, 16ʹ) mentions “the next day” (lukkattima), from which A. Kryszeń infers that the action mentioned previously (passing Šuppiluliya and the attack on Šahuzimišša and Tahašta) all happened within a day, in which case all these places (Šapinuwa, Hanziwa, Šuppiluliya, Šahuzimišša and Tahašta) would have to be close to each other.18 J. BörkerKlähn has supposed that Šuppiluliya, which is used as a name for a river or spring, a deity, as well as a town, should be found in the region of the settlement complex at Kazankaya south of the Çekerek canyon.19 If this were 15  A location of Hakpiš at Doğantepe directly to the northwest of the Karadağ range, one of the options considered at Alparslan 2010: 38 (see Glatz this volume fn. 76), would entail that the other sites mentioned by Muršili II are to be found in the corridor reaching along the Çekerek northeast from OrtaköyŠapinuwa, or possibly in the parallel valley between the Kırlar mountains and Karadağ. This would mean a somewhat restricted radius of his campaign, but is not inconceivable. 16  Thus with Imparati 1999: 159; Kryszeń 2016: 329. Differently Forlanini 2008b: 146. 17  See Kryszeń 2016: 329–330. The parallel oracle query KUB 50.108, 7ʹ–12ʹ has the same run of events as far as the mention of Tahašta, after which the query diverges. Tahašta is otherwise mentioned in a fragmentary and uninformative context in a letter from Maşathöyük: HKM 40, 6ʹ (Alp 1991b: 192); it is “oppressed”(?) on the left (GÙB-la) coming from Katapa in oracle itinerary KUB 40.99, and mentioned in unclear context, most likely another oracle itinerary, at KBo 43.63, 4ʹ (annalistic fragment at de Martino 2003: 155 fn. 428; Forlanini 2008b: 179 fn 18). KUR ku-wa-ri-na-za is interpreted as a mountain(-land) by Forlanini (2008b: 146), as a mountain by Kryszeń (loc. cit.), but as a country by Imparati (1999: 159). Forlanini 2008b: 146–7 with fn. 19 refers to HUR.SAG ku-wa-ar-ri (KUB 38.7 iii 16ʹ), which might be mentioned in the same tablet as belonging to the cult of Šapinuwa, as is also the Zuliya river (but see above). For the restricted and rare use of KUR to determine Hurrian mountain names see Gonnet 1968: 96; Weeden 2011a: 528. 18  Kryszeń 2016: 330. 19  Börker-Klähn 2014, using a supposedly continued cult of a divinised spring Šuppiluliya as evidence (see KUB 38.7 iii 18ʹ), given that a Hellenistic period relief relating to the cult of the Persian Anaitis was found in the canyon, although rather towards its north (Atalay and Ertekin 1986; Summerer 2006). This is also

202 the case, we might expect Hanziwa to be on the other side of the steep hill separating Kazankaya from OrtaköyŠapinuwa, possibly in the region of Yuğhöyük, just on the other side of the Özderesi from the main building complexes at Ortaköy-Šapinuwa. This is a strategically fitting location. A further possibility is that Hanziwa is located at the southern end of the Çekerek canyon near Kazankaya itself, where the mouth of the canyon offers an appropriate environment to station an army. This would mean that Hanziwa was on the other side of the Buzluk-Alan Dağları from Ortaköy-Šapinuwa, and there are some other indications that this might be the case (see below). Šuppiluliya and the other sites would then need to be somewhere else, although likely in this same region. Problematic in both these localisations is that the Kazankaya group of mounds and cemetery are Middle Bronze Age/Old Hittite, thus not contemporary with the 13th century omen queries. The eventual location of Šuppiluliya obviously has ramifications for the location of the other place-names, the only otherwise well attested one of which is Kammama, which seems to be one of the three directions, along with Šuppiluliya and Mt(?) Kuwarina, from which Tahašta is being attacked. It seems possible that Tahašta is thus somewhere to the north of Maşathöyük.20 A text from Ortaköy-Šapinuwa gives a number of intriguing details with regard to Kammama. A portion of the tablet has been published thus far in transliteration and Turkish translation.21 The tablet lists cities where sacrifices are to be offered and apparently mountainous routes between them, which could conceivably be special cultic routes rather than the normal way one would go.

roughly the area, namely on the middle Çekerek, in which G. Barjamovic (2011: 283–284) supposes Šuppiluliya to have been on the basis of Old Assyrian evidence. Note, Barjamovic (2011: 284 fn. 118) supposes that KUB 22.51 and KUB 50.108 give evidence that Šapinuwa was on a river called the Šuppiluliya. This is not the case, the place-name is clearly a settlement (URU) in this text. 20  Forlanini 2008b: 146 comes to the opposite conclusion, namely that it must be located to the west or northwest of OrtaköyŠapinuwa. However, there is no candidate for a Mt Kuwarina in this area, unless it is the hilly area at the southwestern stretch of the Karadağ range or the Kırlar Dağı just to the northwest of the Karadağ. 21  Or 90/1048; Süel 2005: 682. See Forlanini 2008b: 148; Kryszeń 2016: Or “2”.

Süel and Weeden

9ʹ 1 road (is) from (the town of) Iškamaha,22 and (it goes) via Mt Ušnaittena, 10ʹ (it is) Hanziwa, (it is) Anziliya 11ʹ 1 road (is) from Kammama via Mt Ušhupitiša, 12ʹ (it is) the dummanza altannanza (a spring), (it is) Anziliya 13ʹ 1 road (is) from Kammama and (it goes) via Mt Udhaiškarrišši and (it goes) via Mt 14ʹ Iyamahhalštigailulu, and (it is) Anziliya 15ʹ 1 road further again (is) from Kammama and (it goes) via Mt Udhaiškarrišši 16ʹ Then at Mt Iyamahhaltigailulu 17ʹ we turn left, and […] Mt Kuššuruhšini 18ʹ then down in front of […] The syntax of the passage is dense. It is not entirely clear what the function of the cases is: from town X (ablative), via/in/at Mountain (dative-locative), town Y (nominative). Possibly the offerings are to be made at the towns in the nominative being brought from the towns in the ablative via the named mountains. This would mean that there were three possible routes between Kammama and Anziliya. It would also mean that one could get to both Anziliya and Hanziwa via Mt Ušnaittena. Anziliya has been associated with Zile (classical Zela), despite doubts concerning the 2nd millennium occupation of the mound there.23 It may be part of the same region as Maşathöyük, probably being attested in two Maşat administrative documents (HKM 104 and 107) as Inzili, although it is difficult to know what to make of this. If Hanziwa is close enough to Ortaköy-Šapinuwa for the army to be stationed there while the king stays at the city, then Mt Ušnaittena would have to be part of the Buzluk Dağları range, which could be said to link locations on the east and on the west of the chain.24 However, many questions remain regarding the other mountain names, especially if Anziliya is at the northeast of the Buzluk Dağları, as it would be if it were near 22  The transliteration at Süel 2005: 682 has URUiš-ga-ma-az, followed by Kryszeń 2016: 335. As per the translation in Süel (loc. cit.) the tablet has URUIšgamahaz. 23  Alp 1991b: 9; Börker-Klähn 2014: 136–137; Barjamovic 2011: 382 thinks Anziliya would have taken over from Kuburnat as the central location of the region after the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Kryszeń 2016: 335. 24  Forlanini 2008b associates the mountains mentioned in this fragment with the Karadağ range behind Ortaköy.

203

Central East: Philology

modern Zile, and Hanziwa were at its southeast or southwest. Iškamaha is attested in at least two further tablets from Ortaköy and was probably also nearby.25 It is also mentioned along with the group Makkuwaliya, Katapa and Tahašta in the oracle itinerary KUB 40.99, where Tahašta and Iškama[ha] may both be being attacked. Kammama is also mentioned, but in a different group belonging to operations on the next day (lukkattima). The fact that Kammama is associated in the Ortaköy text with two places that must have been near Šapinuwa should also indicate that it was also in the region west of the Buzluk mountains, probably in in the area of the Göynücek plain, although there seem to be more than one route from there in the direction of Anziliya.26 Possibly if one goes to Anziliya from Iškamaha one is going the long way round the south of the Buzluk-Alan mountains, and thus the mention of Hanziwa. Mt Ušnaittena, then would be the Alan Dağı or another nearby elevation to its southwest, near Esentepe. On the other hand, if one is going to Anziliya from Kammama one might go primarily via the north of the Buzluk range, and thus the mention of Mt Ušhupitiša, which may be a mountain-name related to the name of the land of Išhupitta.27 For Išhupitta see Alparslan (this volume), with a location between Tokat and Turhal, which does not exclude Išhupitta being associated with a mountain, Ušhupitiša, at the northeast end of the Buzluk Dağları.28 In the Extensive Annals Muršili II marches into the Upper Land against Kathaituwa, otherwise unattested, and then against Išhupitta, from where his vassals Nunnuta and Pazzana presumably flee, although the passage is broken, to Palhuišša, which may therefore be further away but still a neighbour.29 In the similarly broken 10-year Annals, the words “in the Kaška land” are preserved, which may qualify the location of Palhuišša (not preserved).30 After he destroyed Palhuišša he “went back” to Ištahara and 25  Süel 2005; Forlanini 2008b. 26  For Kammama see also Corti, this volume. Forlanini places Kammama on the other side of the Karadağ range from Ortaköy (Forlanini 2008b: 167–169). 27  Süel 2005; Kryszeń 2016; Forlanini 2008b has placed Iškamaha to the west of Ortaköy, which relates to his location for Tahašta. See also Forlanini 2002: 263 fn. 23, with Iškamaha on the other side of the Karadağ from Ortaköy. 28  Forlanini has placed Išhupitta further to the northeast in the Niksar region (2002: 269; 2008b: 170 map), which would preclude an association with the mountain mentioned in this Ortaköy text. 29  KUB 14.16 i 29–36; KUB 14.15 i 1–12 (Goetze 1933: 30–35). 30  KBo 3.4 i 56 (Goetze 1933: 30–31).

offered an ultimatum to the people of Kammama where the two rebels had fled again.31 For a location of Ištahara south of Amasya, see Corti, this volume. If Kammama is in or north of the plain of Göynücek, it would thus seem that the rebels have fled from Palhuišša towards Hittite territory, but Kammama seems not to have been entirely on the Hittite side. In the next year the king camps in Palhuišša and is able to go “over” from there (albeit after a battle with the Kaška at Kuzaštarina) to Anziliya.32 If Anziliya is in fact in the Zile region then a location of Išhupitta and Palhuišša to the northeast and east of Zile is likely, in a region from where one can reach Kammama in the Göynücek region, Ištahara somewhere near Amasya and Anziliya/Inzili somewhere in the Maşat-Zile area. Further close contacts between the Mašat-Zile region and Išhupitta are indicated in the Maşat letters, where considerable numbers (1,760) of Išhupittan troops are mentioned that are to be sent (from Maşat?) to the king at Šapinuwa in two days.33 Somewhere in the Ezinepazar area and the mountainous terrain to the east of that might be a possibility for Išhupitta and Palhuišša (see fig. 15.1), or possibly Išhupitta is somewhere between Turhal and Tokat, as hypothesised in this volume by Alparslan, and Palhuišša is in the Ezinepazar region.34

Place-Names Primarily Associated with Maşathöyük-Tapikka

Tapikka was established as the likely name of Maşathöyük by S. Alp on the basis of the mention of this toponym in a letter addressed to Adad-Beli, one of the scribes who appears to be based at the settlement of Maşat and receives many letters there.35 The identification has not gone 31  KUB 14.15 i 10–20 (Goetze 1933: 34–37). 32  KUB 14.16+ ii 8–22 (Goetze 1933: 42–45). 33  HKM 20, 7 (Alp 1991b: 152; Hoffner 2009: 131–132). 34  For a location of many of these places much further west, including Palhuišša at Kale/Aydıncık south of Kazankaya and Kammama at Akhöyük to the north of Alacahöyük, see Forlanini 2002: 262 with fn. 22. For a different interpretation of the campaign of Suppiluliuma used by Forlanini as evidence, see Corti in this volume. The region between Turhal and Ezinepazar is filled with Tahazzimuna by Forlanini (2002: 266 fn. 35) which was associated with the well known but not definitively identified medieval Dazimon by Alp 1980: 48 fn. 43; Forlanini 1983: 16 fn. 10; Alp 1991b: 39. This Tahazzimuna may otherwise also be slightly to the east of Turhal. 35  HKM 46 rev. 18; Alp 1991b: 52–53.

204 unchallenged, but is likely to be the case.36 It is also the most frequently mentioned toponym in the administrative tablets from Maşathöyük.37 The text KUB 48.105+KBo 12.53 from the late 13th century BC lists offerings to various gods that are supplied by His Majesty and the king of Tummana in different areas and the individual towns within those areas, which are enumerated. The section concerning the “land of Tapikka” includes the towns of Gaggaduwa, Zapišhuna, Ištarwa and Anziliya.38 It is not clear that all of these always belonged to a province of Tapikka.39 Particularly intriguing is the appearance of the toponym Tapikka in an administrative document from Maşathöyük where bronze axes are registered for Tapikka and various other towns: 30 in Gašipura, 20 in Karahna, 20 in Gašaša, 30 in Inzili and 100 in Tapikka.40 However, it would be rash to conclude that the number of axes in any way correlates to the size or importance of the settlement. Karahna, for example, must have been a large and important cult city. Possibly it is the cultic character of Karahna by contrast with a more military profile for Tapikka which is reflected by the number of axes registered.41 Mainly on the basis of Old Assyrian evidence a location of Karahna somewhere between Šamuha (now established as Kayalıpınar on the Kızılırmak) and Kuburnat is to be expected, as well as on the end of a route from Hattuš via Šuppiluliya.42 A. Mouton has recently re-asserted an identification with the settlement at Sulusaray/ Sebastopolis, just to the south of the Deveci Dağları from the plain of Maşat and the Silisözü valley and 32km to the west of Boloshöyük, also south of the Deveci and their eastern continuation, the Akdağlar.43 Part of the argument for specifically selecting Sulusaray, in addition to one of its possible classical names being Karana, is the fact that classical inscriptions from the site record a cult of Zeus 36  Alp 1991b: 42–43 with literature. 37  Del Monte 1995. 38   KUB 48.105+KBo 12.53 rev. 37–45. Offerings made by the “troops/people of Išhupitta” and the “salt-men of Happala” are also mentioned in this section. Archi and Klengel 1990: 146. The connection of the Maşat area with salt is also attested in an administrative document, HKM 114 (del Monte 1995: 134–136). 39  Forlanini 2002. 40  Del Monte 1995. 41  Forlanini 2002: 259. 42  For Karahna as the stop before Kuburnat at the head of the smuggler’s passage referred to as the “narrow track”, Barjamovic 2011: 273; for Karahna as a destination from Šuppilululiya and Hattuš, see the letters Kt n/k 388 and Kt n/k 211 (Günbattı 1996; Barjamovic 2011: 283–4). Börker-Klähn 2014: 142 has Karahna at İgdir at the foot of the Buzluk Dağları. 43  Forlanini 1992a: 301 with fn. 94; Mouton 2011. It is slightly premature to see the equation of Karahna with Sulusaray as a “fixed point”, as does Barjamovic 2011: 228.

Süel and Weeden

Pylaios (“of the gate”), while the worship of “the stormgod of the city-gate” (d10 KÁ.GAL) is attested for the cult of Karahna in one Hittite text.44 Sulusaray is located in a small plain which is linked to the plain and valley on the other side of the mountains to the north by a narrow and difficult pass. Karahna appears to have been part of the Upper Land.45 This fits with its being on the other side of the mountains south from Maşat, but one wonders why Karahna should then be included in a list of axes found at Maşathöyük. The other names on the list of axes (HKM 104) include Inzili. If this form is equivalent to Anziliya and if Anziliya is identical with Zile, then this was 20km away to the northeast, and likely to have been an independent centre of its own, although still part of the area of Tapikka according to KUB 48.105+. Gašipura was thought by Forlanini and Alp to be a variation on Gazziura, the Hittite toponym that seems so close to Gaziura, the classical name for Turhal.46 This would also indicate a fairly significant centre, 36km off to the northeast and not necessarily under the immediate influence of Maşat. However, the phonetic difference is quite significant here so that this comparison must be regarded with some suspicion. Not only is one here relying on an erratic method of comparing sound shapes of contemporary as well as classical names, albeit in an intriguing cluster, it is quite possible that the text listing the axes (HKM 104) does not indicate towns that belong under the administration of Maşat at all. In this case the motivation for including Karahna on the list would be unclear, as also that for including the others. The other name on the list, Gašaša, occurs in connection with Malazziya, Panata, Gašipura and Tapikka in a Maşat letter regarding observations of birds.47 An administrative document from Maşat 44  Mouton 2011: 105, citing KUB 25.32 i 21 (van Gessel 1998: 782). Mouton emphasises that this deity is only attested for the cult of Karahna. Her argument that the local Heracles cult from the classical period is derived from that of the “tutelary deity” of Karahna is less convincing as a supporting argument for the identification, even if the town was at one point called Heracleopolis. It would need a clearer relationship between Heracles cults in Anatolia and those of tutelary deities/stag-gods to be established before one could accept the argument more easily. Such a connection is easily imaginable, as the stag-god or tutelary deity’s name can be Innara meaning “strength”, an attribute associated with Heracles. 45  Forlanini 2007a: 267–269; id. 2008b: 154; Mouton 2011: 105. 46  Forlanini 1983; Alp 1991b: 19, noting also the possibly related place-names Gazzimara and Kizzimara. See also del Monte 1995. 47  HKM 47 (Alp 1991b: 203–207). The mention of Takkašta in this context is not immediately geographically relevant, as it forms the subject of the augury while the other places are the locations of the observations. See further Doğan-Alparslan 2012: 407.

Central East: Philology

also records quantities of seed and yield for various cereals and beans over three years in Gašaša, which seems to suggest it was under the direct adminstration of Tapikka.48 In the Annals of Muršili II a campaign against Arzawa begins from Anziliya, and deportees from Arzawa are reported for various cities in the Tapikka section of KUB 48.105+, where Anziliya is also mentioned.49 Here also we learn that the deity Anzili was worshipped at Zapišhuna in the land of Tapikka. The identity of the deity Anzili with the goddess of love and war, Ištar/Šauška, appears to be quite likely,50 which may provide a background for Muršili beginning a military campaign at the homonymous town, even if it is going in the opposite direction. A city Zipišh[una] is mentioned as being rebuilt in a fragment of the Annals of Šuppiluliuma,51 the city had an AGRIG-official according to Hittite texts and was thus presumably a distribution centre,52 and a Zimišhuna appears in the Old Assyrian texts.53 Forlanini supposes it might have been in the region east of the Çekerek near its confluence with the Yeşilirmak, i.e. on the other side of the Buzluk mountains from Anziliya/Zile, and points out that it is not mentioned in the tablets from Maşat, which may mean the province of Tapikka was extended beyond the natural boundary of these elevations during the 13th century.54 However, the association with Panata and thus also with Malazziya, and Gašaša may indicate a location slightly further to the southeast closer to the region around Turhal, on the eastern outskirts of the land of Tapikka, and thus nearer to Anziliya if it is Zile.55 The distance between the proposals is not great. Beyond the lists of axes discussed above, the seventeen administrative tablets from Maşat contain significant toponyms which are likely to belong to the core area of Tapikka.56 These can be organised into groups that parForlanini 2002: 258 with fn. 7 associates Gašaša with the name of the Kaz Gölü to the east of Zile, with reference to its occurrence as Qazgöli in a medieval Turkish epic, the Danishmendname. 48  HKM 109 (Del Monte 1995: 122). Marazzi 2008: 77–79. The yields are quite small, which may indicate the text is documenting exceptional circumstances. 49  Gaggaduwa KUB 48.105+ rev. 39; Zapišhuna ibid. 41 (Archi and Klengel 1980: 146). 50  Wilhelm 2010. 51  KBo 12.26 i 6ʹ–8ʹ (Del Monte 2009: 50–51). 52  VBoT 68 ii 18ʹ (Forlanini 1980; 2007). 53  Barjamovic 2011: 280–282. 54  The association is made specifically with one of the mounds at Ayvalıpınar, Forlanini 2002: 265 fn. 33. 55  Forlanini 2002: 265 places Malazziya west of the Çekerek, but also mentions Zara, which is further east near Sivas. The location corresponds to his placement of Kammama further west than here thought to be the case. 56  Del Monte 1995.

205 tially co-occur with each other and may indicate areas at increasing distances from Maşathöyük. The closest ones appear to be the following: HKM 103:57 Šašipaduwa(?), …, [… Pu]putana, Šalewanta, […]štiduwa(?), Taptikka, [Daha]šara?, Mura(?), Hananak, Šariya, Kišdumiša, Gaggaduwa, Uwahšuwanta, Dupitta, Zišpa, Zikkišta HKM 99:58 Zikkašta, Gawattaru, Hantišizzuwa, Hananakka, Dahašara, Anziliya, Šariya, Kappaduwa, Kappušiya HKM 111:59 Wahšuwata, Tapikka, Hariya If it is identical with Hanaknak known from Old Assyrian sources, as likely, Hananak(ka) is probably two stops south of Tapikka (Old Assyrian Tapaggaš).60 We have seen Gaggaduwa in KUB 48.105+. Kappušiya seems to have had a palace of the queen and Hariya also had a palace.61 A second group consists of towns that may be slightly further away on the basis of proposed identifications mainly on the eastern fringe of the region, or just over the other side of the Deveci mountains (Karahna?), but which still seem to belong to an area that Maşat had some sort of administrative jurisdiction over. HKM 104:62 Gašipura, Karahna, Gašaša, Inzili, Tapikka HKM 105:63 Gašaša, Tapikka HKM 107:64 Tapikka, Inzili, Gašaša, Gašipura HKM 109: Gašaša (see above)

57   Allotment of grain for workers. Del Monte 1995: 89–95. [Pu]putana restored at Kryszeń 2016: 278–9, reference courtesy C. Corti. 58  Undefined list of personal names with places of origin. Del Monte 1995: 96–97. 59  List of quantities of seed for sowers. Del Monte 1995: 123–125. 60  Kt 91/k 437; Barjamovic 2011: 271–276. 61  For this reason Hariya (“valley” in Hittite) is associated by Forlanini 2002: 270 with the medium-sized site of Höyük, only a few kilometres to the east of Maşat. As Alp 1991b: 11 pointed out, the palace of Hariya is associated with the palace of Kazzimara in the text Bo. 6661 r.col. 3, and the [LÚMEŠ UR]U [K]izzimara are attested along with the [LÚMEŠ UR]UHariya at KBo 10.23 rev. vi 23, 26, both names which are linked with Gazziura by Alp 1991b: 21. According to the logic that associates palaces with larger mounds one could just as well associate Kappušiya with Höyük, due to its palace of the queen, or appurtenances thereof, which are attacked by the enemy in HKM 8, 3–11 (Alp 1991b: 130–133). 62  List of axes. Del Monte 1995: 112. 63  List of agricultural implements. Del Monte 1995: 112. 64  List of agricultural implements. Del Monte 1995: 113–119.

206

Süel and Weeden

The places mentioned in the following administrative documents might be a little further away again. HKM 102 details the origin of prisoners of war but seems to be from a time when some areas quite close to Hattuša, such as Kammama (see above) were in enemy hands. The other two seem to involve preparations for a journey and/or military movements or action. HKM 102:65 Takkašta, Gaštaharuga, Kutupitašša, Kammama, Zaqapura(?), Iškila, Malazziya HKM 112:66 Taptakkeans of the city Pi[…]eštišša; Hapareans(?) near to Iakkanuena; Gaštarrišduweans in Kuwaštuhhurrihšena HKM 113:67 Kammama, Šuk(a)ziya If the five mountains mentioned in the Ortaköy text concerning Kammama discussed above are to be associated with peaks of the Buzluk range and Alan Dağı, the other mountains associated with the cult of Šapinuwa in KBo 15.62+ may include parts of the Karadağ range under which the site of Ortaköy sits. S. Alp associated this range with Mt Šakkadunuwa, which is thought by M. Alparslan (this volume) to be further east. One interesting annalistic fragment (KBo 16.36+) mentions a campaign when the mountains Šakkadunwa, Šišpinuwa and Šarpunwa became hostile and all the Kaška arrived and took possession of a bridge over the river Zuliya and knocked it down.68 The Hittite protagonist, thought to be either Šuppiluliuma I or Tudhaliya IV before his investiture, was initially overcome by the river Zuliya, but was rescued by Ištar of Šamuha. If the Zuliya is the Çekerek then these are further mountain names that may need to be accommodated in this area, along with the Kaška mountain-dwellers who descended from them. A different interpretation would have the Kaška crossing the Yeşilırmak (classical Iris, usually thought to be the river Kummešmaha) into

65  List of prisoners of war. Del Monte 1995: 103–111; Arıkan 2006: 146–7. 66  List of groups of enemies (?) from certain areas who are apparently in places different to those of their origin. Del Monte 1995: 133–134. Kuwaštuhhurrišena may vaguely be compared to the name Kuzaštarina, scene of Muršili II’s battle with the Kaška before moving on to Anziliya (see above). Forlanini 2002: 266 fn. 36 compares Iagganuena with Aegonne, a name from the Tabula Peutingeriana between Tavium and Zela, although that would be to the west of Zile. 67  List of provisions for a journey with military actions (Del Monte 1995: 131–133). 68  KBo 16.36+KUB 31.20+HHT 82 ii 4ʹ–19ʹ (Alp 1991b: 32–35).

more central Hittite territory from the east.69 The association of Mt Šakkadunuwa with Karahna, among other mountains, may also have consequences for the localisation of either Karahna or Šakkadunuwa.70 One further mountain that also needs to be located somewhere in this region is Mt Happidduini, which is also attested as a mountain associated with Karahna.71 A letter from Maşathöyük mentions both Mt Šakaddunuwa and Mt Happiduini.72 The enemy has crossed (the border?) at two positions (at the towns of Išteruwa and Zišpa) and can from (one of?) those go “over” to the land of Mt Šakaddunuwa or turn back into the country, where he might be able to cause damage. Zišpa may be related to the Mt Šišpinuwa which was the scene of an incursion along with Mt Šakaddunuwa in the annalistic account KBo 16.36+ discussed above. Išteruwa is presumably identical with the Ištarwa mentioned as part of the land of Tapikka in KUB 48.105+. Later in the letter from Maşat the sender says he will send “spies of the long road” to Mt Hapidduini and will only release the oxen and sheep from Tapikka when the message comes back that the mountain is free of the enemy.73 There are different geographical reconstructions that can explain these arrangements, depending on where one locates the mountains. However, wherever these are located will have repercussions for the location of cities with which they are associated, especially Karahna. At the moment the Deveci mountains and Akdağ seem good candidates for the regions of the mountains Hapidduini and Šakaddunuwa, partly because so many names are already associated on the basis of the text from Ortaköy with the Buzluk mountains to the north, and partly because of the close associations with Maşathöyük. Such a localisation would have to pull the action of the battle on the Zuliya mentioned in KBo 16.36+ much further south and east, and if it is the river Çekerek presumably closer to its course through the Sulusaray and Akdağ region. This would of course suit the intervention of Ištar of Šamuha during a battle on this river, if Šamuha is to be identified with Kayalıpınar some 55km to the southeast. 69  The Kummešmaha is also associated with the Kelkit among others, for literature see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 535; del Monte 1992: 206; Cammarosano 2015: 227. 70  KUB 38.12 i 24, the festival for this mountain is celebrated every three years at Karahna. Börker-Klähn 2014: 142 has Beşik Tepesi on the Buzluk Dağları as Mt Šakkadunuwa. 71  KUB 38.12 iii 8. 72  HKM 46 obv. 8ʹ, rev. 20 (Alp 1991b: 200–203). 73  HKM 46 rev. 18–27 (Alp 1991b: 202–203).

207

Central East: Philology

Mt Halu[na] may have been mentioned as one of the mountains of Šapinuwa (see above, KBo 15.62+). If it is identical with Mt Halwanna it would have to be near both the town of Urišta and the spring of Halwanna due to extensive details of rituals carried out there.74 Specifically there is mention of different places where the (image of) the (deified) mountain is to stand on the mountain during times when it (the mountain) “is threatened” by the enemy (when the deified mountain is placed at the stele by the poplar-tree) and times when it is not (in which case they set it up at the stele by the poplar tree beside the river). Presumably the river was a less elevated position than the mountain. The mountain has been associated with the southern side of the Buzluk Dağları, but should more likely be the northern side, closer to Šapinuwa, if it was a sacred mountain for this site.75 The overview given here is for a comparatively small region. Even here, with two large-scale excavated sites that have produced cuneiform tablets, it has not proven possible to locate unequivocally the many mountain 74  KUB 25.23 i 10–25 (Hazenbos 2003: 30–40). 75  Börker-Klähn 2014: 141 at Karacaören northeast of İğdir. The fact that a case concerning the “man of the son of the priest of Urišta” and a “woman of Gašša (?)” was to be judged in Maşathöyük/ Tapikka according to HKM 57, 10–17, has no relevance for the location of the town Urišta. The dispute probably arose either in Gašša (?), where the woman concerned came from, or in Harpaššanda, where the two men who intervened came from.

names preserved on tablets that the region must have had. The main river running through the region, the modern Çekerek, is most likely to have been the Zuliya. We have seen evidence for this name being relevant to both its upper and lower courses. In considering the settlement names of the Maşat tablets that seemed part of the same administrative area as Tapikka, S. Alp reckoned with seventy-eight place-names.76 Even if one subtracts from this number those places that were almost certainly geographically outside the immediate Maşat-Zile region, such as Išhupitta and Gazziura to the east and Karahna to the southeast, and also disregards those which were more likely to have been closer to Šapinuwa to the north, one is left with a large number of names to be accommodated at 2nd millennium BC sites in the Maşat-Zile region, at a rough estimate fifty. The course of this research has also revealed a great many place names from the Boğazköy and Ortaköy texts which can, under certain interpretations, be associated with the area directly around Ortaköy and up along the Çekerek to the Plain of Göynücek. The discrepancy between the small number of sites identified in surveys as potentially belonging to the second millennium BC in these areas, and the large number of place-names attested in the tablets most likely reveals a problem of perspective, whether this be archaeological, historical or both. This discrepancy will be for future research to rectify. 76  Alp 1991b: 7–8.

Figure 15.1

Map showing possible locations of main places mentioned in the central east.

208 Süel and Weeden

CHAPTER 16

The East: Upper Land, Išuwa-Malitiya, Azzi-Hayaša Philology Metin Alparslan 1

Definition of the Upper Land

The location of the region referred to as the “Upper Land” (or “Highland”) in Hittite Texts has often been discussed in scholarly literature.1 Unlike in Mesopotamia or in Egypt this does not refer to the upper reaches of a river, as is already clear from the geography of Anatolia, which is not dominated by one or two rivers.2 Rather the expression should be taken as a reference to the height and the mountainous character of this landscape and it can thus be taken as assured that it is a geographical designation.3 On the other hand the fact that Hattusili III ruled the “Upper Land” for a while is evidence for the fact that this landscape formed a political unit for the Hittite state at least at some point. According to Hittite Texts, Šamuha was one of the most important if not the most important Hittite city in the Upper Land.4 This has led to the situation that the localisation of the Upper Land has seemed to be primarily dependent on the localisation of this city,5 although this is not in fact sufficient for establishing the borders of the region. This city name has been associated for some time with the settlement mound of Kayalıpınar, about 60km from the modern town of Sivas. Textual finds from archaeological excavations in Kayalıpınar since 2005 appear to support this quite plausible localisation (see below). Even if this localisation does not directly establish the borders of the Land, it at least shows us where the centre of the Upper Land lay, so that the borders can be partially drawn from this point. Its northernmost border must be sought in the * This chapter was submitted in German, and the original text was translated into English by M. Weeden. 1  Most recently by the author himself at the International Workshop “Places and Spaces in Hittite Anatolia I: Hatti and the East” 25– 26.10.2013 in Istanbul, with the title “The Upper Land: Borders and Places of a Political and Geographical Landscape”; Alparslan 2017. Also see Garstang and Gurney 1959: 32–36; Gurney 2003; del Monte and Tischler 1978: 293; Wilhelm 2003–2005. 2  For the denomination “Upper Land” see Gurney 2003: 119–120. 3  See Alparslan in press. 4  For the attestation of this name in Hittite texts see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 338–341; del Monte 1992: 137 and recently Alparslan in press. 5  Wilhelm 2003–2005: 7.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_017

region of the Çamlıbel Pass (Çamlıbel Geçidi). Coming from the modern city of Tokat the terrain climbs at this point from 623m to 1650m. This difference in height leads to a recognisable change in climate, which would appear to give expression to the name “Upper Land”. A caravanserai and the settlement mound of Boloshöyük,6 from which a Hittite bronze figurine is supposed to have come,7 are evidence that this pass was used in early times as well as of its being of great importance. If the identification of Šamuha with Kayalıpınar is correct, then it lay c. 50km away from the northern border (see Fig. 16.1). The western border of the Upper Land, i.e. that between itself and the land of Hatti, is even recognisable on a topographical map, given that it consists of a natural boundary, a mountain range. This is the Akdağ range, which reaches 2281m at Hamzasultan Tepesi. A further important mountain, frequently charted on this natural border, is Karababa Dağı (2235m). These mountains also form the boundary between the modern governorates of Yozgat (part of the central Hatti area) and Sivas (part of the Upper Land). To the south a natural border might be offered by the Tahtalı Dağlar north of the Elbistan plateau (Elbistan Ovası).8 A text from Maşathöyük (HKM 96 rev. 17ʹ–22ʹ) presents an important orientation point for the qualification of the Upper Land:9

6  In scholarly literature this mound is also referred to as Aktepe (see Özgüç 1978: 101–105 with further bibliography), which is equated with the ancient Verisa by Ramsay (262–263; 312; 327; 329) and Anderson (1903: 37–38). A. Ünal wants to see this “gigantic mound”, as he calls it, as part of the Upper Land, but also feels he can include Tokat and Amasya in this region, which cannot be geographically correct in our view (Ünal 2014: 220). 7  The bronze figurine that was found here is now in Tokat museum (Özgüç 1999: 23–24). 8  The Tecer Dağları directly south of Sivas might also be conceivable as a border, but in this case the Upper Land would not be large enough for a land of this significance. 9  Even if neither the name of the sender nor of the addressee are preserved, S. Alp already pointed out that this could be a letter from the Great King (Alp 1991b: 301 fn. 518). The translation of the passage here was adapted from Alp 1991b: 301, but is similarly translated in Torri 2005: 395–396 and Marizza 2009: 96.

210

Alparslan

[The troops of the L]ands, of the Upper Land, of the Land of Išhupitta, [… of the land of Mo]unt Šakkadunuwa, of the land of Šanahuitt[a], […], of the Land of Tupazziya, [of the Land of Lah]uwazantiya, of the Land of Išuwa (and) whatever [tro]ops of the Upper Land there are, mobilise them all. These troops were mobilised against the enemy of Hayaša in the north or northeast of the Upper Land (see below). It is tempting to see all the countries counted in this passage as the natural constituents of the Upper Land,10 which cannot correspond to reality, because Išuwa was periodically independent and Lahuwazantiya is known to have been in Kizzuwatna, if it is identical with the place-name Lawazantiya. As mentioned above, one has to assume that primarily the highlands in the vicinity to the east of the Land of Hatti were denoted by the essentially geographical term “Upper Land”, but that with time an administrative label developed out of this such that new, outlying areas could be integrated into this Upper Land, or at least be subordinated to the administration of the Upper Land. The passage quoted above should be understood in this sense. The phrase “Troops of the Upper Land” only refers to those lands which were subject to the administration of the Upper Land, and not just lands which were located geographically in the Upper Land. Thus one can explain the occurrence of the name Lahuwazantiya (Lawazantiya), which must have been in Kizzuwatna. The mention of Išuwa, too, would make sense then, as all the named areas would be more or less bordering on the Upper Land. This passage would then simultaneously indicate the borders of the Upper Land, geographically speaking. Localisation attempts undertaken thus far for these names would seem to support this assumption. M. Forlanini assumes there are two Lawazantiyas. One is the Lawazantiya in Kizzuwatna, which he identifies with Tatarlı Höyük. He localises the second Lawazantiya, however, in the Upper Land.11 With the understanding of HKM 96 rev. 17ʹ–22ʹ advanced here one could localise Lawazantiya without any problem on the Elbistan plateau, the northern mountains and mountain ranges of which (Tahtalı mountains, Hezanlı Dağ—2283m and Akçababçalı Dağ - 2164m) would form the border to the Upper Land. It would thus be situated to all intents and purposes between the Upper Land and Kizzuwatna.12 10  E.g. Miller 2009: 4. 11  Forlanini 2013a: 8. 12  The most important piece of evidence for the identification of Lahuwazantiya with Karahöyük is the stele with Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription that was found there. Bossert was the first to point to a connection between the recurring place-name

Išuwa would remain localised in the area of Elazığ, which would give us an indication of the eastern border of the Upper Land. In this case one could see the Akça or Akçababa Mountain (with the Akçababalı peak) and the Delidağ mountains as far as the Tecer range north of this as the border. Išhupitta, which is named first in HKM 96, was likely to have been north of the Upper Land. The same name is found in the Apology of Hattušili III and in other Maşat letters.13 Given that Išhupitta appears in some of these letters to be under the authority of Tapikka,14 one should expect a localisation between Tokat and Turhal.15 While Tuppazziya is not located due to the exiguous nature of the textual sources, the name Šanahuitta is attested often both in Hittite and Old Assyrian (Šinahuttum).16 Forlanini originally wanted to identify this toponym with Alişarhöyük southeast of Yozgat,17 G. Barjamovic prefers a location to the northeast of Yozgat,18 while Ünal locates this city near Amasya.19 Some texts actually seem to show a certain vicinity to Hattuša or even to cities further to the north.20 Thus Šanahuitta is attested in KBo 3.46 (III 36ʹ, 40ʹ), which narrates Mursili I’s struggles against

POCULUM.PES.*67, the first hieroglyph of which is in the shape of a cup, with the place-name Lahuwazantiya or Lawazantiya. he referred to the verb lah-/lahhu-/lahhuwai- “to pour” and to the vessel called a lahhu- known from Hittite texts, and thought he could read the Hieroglyphic writing of the name as La(hu) wata(n)di (Bossert 1958: 319–322). Hawkins rejects this quite logical inference as unlikely, with reference rather to the two other hieroglyphs in the name. Given that the second hieroglyph (PES) is read as phonetic ti and the third unidentified sign *67 should rather be read as -tà, Bossert’s reading would have to be rejected. (Hawkins 2000: 291). New excavations began at Karahöyük in 2015 and will hopefully bring some light to the matter. 13  Išhupitta is named here too first in a list (CTH 81: II 57; Otten 1981: 14), although here with reference to its eastern location by contrast to the other listed place-names (Alp 1991b: 14). 14   H KM 10; 18; 20; 71; 72; 75; Alp 1991: 14. 15  Alp assumes a localisation east of Amasya (Alp 1991b: 14), which would not exclude our Tokat-Turhal localisation. 16  The name is mentioned in the early texts on Hattušili I and Muršili I (see del Monte-Tischler 1978: 342, del Monte 1992: 137). 17  Forlanini and Marazzi 1986: Tav. XVI 3; for the other localisation attempts see del Monte-Tischler 1978: 342, del Monte 1992: 137 and Miller 2009: 4–5. 18  Barjamovic (2011: 291, 388) proposes several of the larger settlement mounds around Aydıncık (Yozgat, west of Alan Dağı) or around the modern town of Çekerek (Tokat, east of Alan Dağı), where it was also located by Forlanini 2008b: 156–157. 19  Ünal 2014: 65. 20  The Old Assyrian texts Kt n/k 36 and Kt 89/k 387b mention Hattuš together with Šinahuttum. The second text should indicate a certain proximity (Barjamovic 2011: 287).

The East: Philology

the Hurrians (CTH 13).21 In this text the name Šanahuitta is mentioned alongside the cities Hattena and Hakmiš, both cities which were to be found in or around the northcentral area of Hatti.22 However, it is rather unlikely that towns in the immediate heartland of Hattuša came under the remit of the administration of the Upper Land. If one follows the order of the countries in HKM 96 one could entertain a location to the north of the Upper Land, as in the case of Išhupitta.23 With regard to the attestation with Hakmiš we would like to locate Šanahuitta too in the area of Tokat-Niksar-Erbaa, but cannot exclude that it is to be located on the way from Tokat to Zile.24 The mountain Šakkadunuwa,25 mentioned in HKM 96 between Išhupitta and Šanahuitta would have to be also located in this area.26 2

Cities of the Upper Land

Šamuha The city of Šamuha was the centre of the Upper Land. Šamuha is frequently attested in both Hittite and Old Assyrian sources. Both give us important information for the localisation of this place-name. In KUB 31.79 a river transport is mentioned, which proves the location of Šamuha on a river.27 This text, known to scholarship relatively early, set off a debate concerning the identity of this river, with some scholars wanting it to be the Euphrates (and thus also the Murat Su), and others the Kızılırmak. For this reason the proposals for localisations cover a wide area, ranging from Sivas, on the Kızılırmak, to Malatya on the Euphrates.28 With the identification of Kuşaklı with 21  For this text see de Martino 2003: 148–149. 22  For the location of the town Hakmiš see Alparslan 2010. 23  The distance from the Tokat area to the region of Amasya where Hakmiš is usually located would then be 100–150km. 24  This would roughly correspond to the location proposed by Barjamovic (2011: 291, 388). 25  Mt Šakkadunuwa is mentioned in the Maşat Letters again with Išhupitta at HKM 71, lower edge 18. 26   Alp identified this mountain with the Karadağ north of Göynücek in Amasya state (Alp 1991: 32). As far as we are concerned, however, Šakkadunuwa would need to be further east. The mountain range between Amasya-Tokat-Niksar-Erbaa would be suitable, but the mountain of the aforementioned Çamlıbel-pass would also be a possible candidate. 27  The transport of goods between Pitiyarig(a), Arziya and Šamuha (for the text see Lebrun 1976: no. 51; Hagenbuchner 1989 no. 90). 28  For the various proposals see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 339– 340; del Monte 1992: 137; further Wilhelm 2002a; de Martino 2009; Barjamovic 2011: 151–154. The case of the location proposals of J. Garstang and O. Gurney are indicative of the complexity of the problem as well as the difficulties of historical geography

211 Hittite Šarišša the first localisation gained in significance and was largely confirmed by the discovery and investigation of the mound at Kayalıpınar.29 The size and stratigraphy of this site, as well as the textual discoveries made there, support the identification with Šamuha,30 which now even seems to be demonstrated.31 Šarišša The town Šarišša was already known from Hittite texts before its probable identification with Kuşaklı in the Sivas region.32 A storm-god, an Ištar and various other divinities from there were known. The identification of this name with the name Šerišša, however, which is also attested in Hittite texts but located further to the north, led to false starts.33 After the beginning of research on the ruin of Kuşaklı in 1992 texts were found which increase the likelihood of an identification with the Hittite city Šarišša, and seal-impressions carrying the name were also uncovered which similarly support this localisation.34 In addition to this one has the recent identification of Šamuha, which must have been near Šarišša. The texts found in Kuşaklı are important for the location of a number of other Hittite place-names and include a number of city-names which must have been near Kuşaklı and thus also Šarišša. Šulupaši, Aššuitšu(š)a(?)35 and Aššuitšu(š)a The town Šulupaši is mentioned in three different texts from Kuşaklı, two cult inventories36 and one oracle fragment.37 The double mention in cult inventories suggests that this town must have been near Šarišša. The hypothesis is supported by the fact that IŠTAR of Šulupašši and IŠTAR of Šamuha are celebrated immediately after in general. Garstang identified Šamuha with Malatya in 1943, thus opting for a location on the Euphrates, and Gurney did the same 5 years later (1948: 51). They both changed their minds in 1959 and put Šamuha on the Kızılırmak (Garstang-Gurney 1959: 31). 29  See Müller-Karpe in this volume. 30  Rieken 2009: 119. 31  Rieken 2014. 32  In this context we might refer to the personal name “ša-ri-šaa-a” from the Old Assyrian texts from Kültepe (Kt 87/k 386, 22). 33  Garstang and Gurney 1959: 6–7, 130; von Schuler 1965: 28. Otherwise del Monte and Tischler 1978: 351–352. 34  Thus most recently Müller-Karpe 2013. 35  Reading unfortunately insecure as the tablet is poorly preserved and the copyist himself has not seen it (“non vidi” Wilhelm 1997: 23). 36  KuSa 6 obv. 4ʹ: “the men of the palace of Šulupašši” (Wilhelm 1997: 22); KuSa 10ʹ “Palace of the town Šulupš[i]”, perhaps with the same text rev. 5ʹ with erasure (Wilhelm 1997: 25). 37  KuSa 23 rev. IV? 32ʹ: “Town Šulupašši”, unclear context (Wilhelm 1997: 29).

212

Alparslan

one another in the text KUB 2.13 vi 13–15. This must have been a not unimportant town from the administrative perspective, as one can read from the mention of a “Palace of Šulupaši,” which is attested both in the texts from Šarišša/Kuşaklı and in texts from Boğazköy.38 The “men of Aššuitšu(š)a(?)” are mentioned in KuSa 8, 7ʹ as sending regular deliveries of goods most likely to the city of Šarišša.39 If this passage is correctly understood the town must also have lain within the vicinity and administrative area of Šarišša. Another town Zaziša was already likely to have been located in the Upper Land owing to its mention in the Annals of Muršili II.40 This supposition is now supported by its mention in KuSa 3 rev. 9–10. This is also a fragment of a cult inventory, which should guarantee the location of this Hittite town in the Upper Land.41 3

Išuwa and Malitiya

3.1 Išuwa As already explained above, Išuwa is an eastern neighbour of the Upper Land and is generally said to be “in the region around Elazığ”.42 However, textual sources and the geographical conditions can help to specify the geographical area of this land. Its boundaries have been conventionally set at the Murat Su (classical Arsania) in the north and at the Euphrates in the west.43 The southeastern corner of Išuwa is supposed by Klengel to be more difficult to find. He would like to see this in the vicinity of the Upper Mesopotamian Plain almost on the upper course of the Tigris (Turkish Dicle).44 In a topography such as that of Anatolia, where rivers do not generally present big obstacles, borders are generally formed by means of mountains or mountain ranges. Accordingly it is mostly not appropriate to use rivers as borders, given that rivers mostly represent the connections between countries and areas (flood plains—Turkish ova). It was important to dominate these rivers and thus control the connecting roads and military routes. In the case of the borders of Išuwa, however, this 38  Hazenbos 2012: 289. 39  Wilhelm 1997: 23–24. 40  KUB 14.17 ii 32–34; KBo 3.4 iii 68–70 (Goetze 1933: 88–89); for location proposals “northeast of Hatti” and “south of Amasya” see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 497. 41  “As long as […] (is) over in the land Zaziša …” (Wilhelm 1997: 20, who also locates Zaziša here in the Upper Land). 42  The Ottoman Elazığ or Harput. The name Harput still exists and refers to the citadel mount of the town of Elazığ, where there are also remains of an Ottoman fortress. 43  Garstang and Gurney 1959: 40; Klengel 1968: 63; Klengel 1978: 85; Klengel 1976–1980: 214; Yiğit 1995: 233. 44  Klengel 1968: 63.

is not the case, given that the powerful current of the Euphrates does represent a real barrier that was difficult to cross. This also appears to be the reason why the crossing of the Euphrates is specially mentioned in the treaty between Šuppiluliuma I and Šattiwaza the king of Mittani.45 Accordingly Malitiya must have had its own territory.46 In the south the border is naturally given by a branch of the Taurus mountains, the so-called southeast Taurus mountains, which runs through there and forms the southern border of the land of Išuwa, beyond which the land of Mittani begins. It is thus no wonder that the Išuwans defeated by Tudhaliya I fled into the land of Mittani47 or that Šuppiluliuma I after his victory against Išuwa marches into Mittani.48 The Murat Su (classical Arsania), a tributary of the Euphrates which rises near Ağrı and is about 722km long, may look impressive today with the modern dam that is on it, but in ancient times it was rather a small river by comparison with the Euphrates. Even if it was not necessarily a border, it was still wide and powerful enough to be one. If the Murat, as generally accepted, represents the northern border of Išuwa then the modern town of Tunceli (old Dersim) must have been in a different region (Hittite Zuhma, Ass. Suhme). However, it cannot be excluded that the border of Išuwa reached until the Munzur Dağları (Mercan Dağları) north of Tunceli, or was to be

45  Thus for example KBo 1.1 obv. 18: “I crossed the Euphrates and went to the land of Išuwa”. On Kiepert’s map a road is marked from Malatya to Elazığ, which apparently crosses over a bridge at Kale (Kiepert Izollu-Izoli), where there is also an Urartian inscription (Salvini 2008: 431–433; A9–4). A passage in the treaty between Šuppiluliuma I and Šattiwaza could be interpreted as a reference to a crossing point by translating eberti KUR URUIšuwa with “Išuwa-crossing” (KBo 1.1 obv. 16 Hawkins 1998a: 281; Barjamovic 2011: 129). It is not apparent from the Hittite sources whether this was actually a bridge or whether it was a relatively narrow point with a weak current. Reference has been made to possible evidence for a bridge from the Neo-Assyrian period (Hawkins 1998a: 281; Barjamovic 2011: 129 with fn. 398 - with bibliography). The “separating” characteristic of the Euphrates is indicated by other passages in the Šattiwaza-Treaty, such as the separate mention of looting on the western or eastern bank of the river (Beckman 1996: 38). The crossing of the Euphrates was generally held to be a great deed. Hattušili I reports that he had crossed the Euphrates in the same way as Sargon had done, but of course in the opposite direction; (CTH 4), see also Klengel 1999: 51–52. 46  See further below. 47  Šunaššura Treaty §3; Beckman 1996: 14. 48  Tette Treaty §2; Beckman 1996: 50.

The East: Philology

found to the south of this mountain range.49 The eastern border was given by the northward advance of the Taurus mountains on the one hand, on the other by the southward bend of the Murat Su. The Land of Išuwa thus presented a self-contained geographical unit. The geographical position of the land of Išuwa was favoured by the fact that it was the transit land between Anatolia and Mesopotamia. Caravan stops (Caravanserai) between Palu and Diyarbakir attest to the significance of this connection.50 This route only seems to have become important for the Hittites in the Middle Hittite period, because the name Išuwa is not attested beforehand.51 It is also possible to determine other neighbours of Išuwa from textual sources. Above we referred to the Upper Land which must have lain west or northwest of Išuwa, and Mittani to the south. In the Treaty between Šuppiluliuma I and Šattiwaza of Mittani (CTH 51.1) one passage lists some at least of the neighbours of Išuwa: The troops and lands which in the time of my father entered the land of Išuwa: the troops of the city of Kurtališša, the troops of the city of Arawanna, the land of Zaziša, the land of Kalašma(!), the land of Timana, Mount Haliwa, Mount Karna, the troops of the city of Turmitta, the land of Alha, the land of Hurma, Mount Harana, half of the land of Tegarama, the troops of the city of Tepurziya, the troops of the city of Hazka and the troops of the city of Armatana, …52 The place-name Tegarama mentioned here, clearly a neighbour of Išuwa, is also known from Old Assyrian documents.53 In the text CTH 88 “the enemy Išuwa comes and destroys the land of Tegarama”, which should also indicate a vicinity for these two lands.54 The list of gods in 49  Note that Tunceli was part of the province of Elazığ from 1925 to 1935. 50  A Caravanserai near the village Bozçanak south of Palu and another further southwest (Demirkapı Han), 12km northeast of Alacakaya and 1km south of the village Çakmakkaya (Aytaç 2006). 51  Klengel 1968: 63–64. The first mention of Išuwa, as far as it known is a mention in KUB 23.11 (III 29ff.), a text dated in the time of Tuthaliya I (CTH 142; see also Klengel 1968: 215). Hawkins thinks this a symptom of Hittite disinterest in the area (1998: 282). De Martino counters this with the mention of a number of placenames (particularly Alha) that should be located in the Malatya area (2012: 377). 52  KBo 1.1; I 19–22 Translation. Beckman 1996: 39. See Hawkins and Weeden, this volume. 53  Barjamovic 2011: 128–133. 54  KBo 6.28 obv. 12 (CTH 88 = Decree of Hattušili III regarding the release of the Hekur of Pirwa from taxes).

213 KUB 6.45 could be interpreted similarly in which after the gods of Išuwa first the gods of Tegarama and then the gods of Paliya are mentioned.55 The land of Tegarama was most recently located near Malatya, which was also the view of M. Forlanini.56 It is unclear whether there was also a city called Išuwa, as this cannot be securely confirmed by the use of the determinatives in cuneiform.57 The “city” Išuwa is mentioned in an inscription from Boğazköy.58 The settlement mound at Korucutepe must have been an important place in Išuwa in view of the fact that royal sealings were found there.59 Given that it is only 3km from the Murat Su, it is clearly a settlement that dominated the river. 3.2 Malitiya Even if there is no incontrovertible evidence for this, the place-name Malitiya of the second millennium BC is generally identified with the Melid(du) (Malatya, Arslantepe) of the first millennium BC, which is located about 7km east of modern-day Malatya.60 As explained above, the regions Malitiya and Išuwa were separated by the Euphrates. This separation was geographically conditoned but also had political consequences. The Elders (LÚ.MEŠŠU.GI) of Malitiya (Malatya) appear beside the Elders of Išuwa, Pahhuwa, Zuhma and [Hurri?] in the text KUB 23.72 rev. 37ʹ (CTH 146, Mida of Pahhuwa).61 This indicates not only a distinct administration for this area, but also geographical vicinity between Malitiya and Išuwa. A further piece of evidence for the proximity of both of these areas would be KBo 16.42 obv. 19 in which Malitiya is mentioned alongside Išuwa, Hinzuta and Manzana. Malitiya is also 55  KUB 6.45 obv. 12 (CTH 381 = Prayer of Muwatalli II to the Assembly of the Gods, Singer 1996a: 38–39). 56  Barjamovic 2011: 130. Forlanini locates Tegarama west of Malatya and wants to identify the name with Neo-Assyrian Til-Garimmu, which is supposed to have been located west of Melid(du) (Arslantepe). He emphasises however that Til-Garimmu is not necessarily to be identified with Gauraina (modern Gürün, also west of Malatya) as previously suggested (Forlanini 2007b: 263–264 fn. 2, see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 383–384). See otherwise Hawkins and Weeden, this volume. 57  Klengel 1976: 85. 58  Hawkins 1998a: 288, 295 fig. 5. 59  For the seals that were found there and their readings see Güterbock 1973; Ertem 1988; Hawkins 1988; Hawkins apud Herbordt 2005: 252; Glocker 2011. 60   Hawkins 1993: 35; 2000: 283. The proposal of Barjamovic (2011: 130 fn. 404) that there were two different cities called Malatya, one at Arslantepe and one east of the Euphrates, cannot be discussed any further here. We prefer to align ourselves with de Martino’s view and only assume one Malatya, namely Arslantepe (de Martino 2012: 376–377). 61  Beckman 21999a: 161 §15; Reichmuth 2011: 117, 124.

214 mentioned in KUB 31.103 which is probably a treaty with the land of Pahhuwa.62 If we have referred to Išuwa as a transit land above, then Malitiya is one of the nodes west of the Euphrates. This can be seen both on modern maps and on the map of Kiepert from 1855. From Malatya one can follow the Tohma Su part-way to Darende and from there pass north of the Nurhak Dağları to Elbistan; or one can follow the Kuruçay to Hekimhan from where one can get to Sivas via Kangal; further north one can follow the Çaltı-river to Divriği, or go via the Euphrates to Išuwa. Owing to its geographical situation Malatya is a nodal point on the routes of Anatolia, but its territory is naturally conditioned and relatively small. In the south it is, just like Išuwa, bordered by the Taurus mountain-range, in this case the Malatya mountains. In the west it is the mountains of Nurhak, Akçababçalı and perhaps also the Delidağ a little further north. In the north its territory might have extended as far as the town of Keban, where the Kuruçay joins the Euphrates. In the east on the other hand the Euphrates forms the border between Malitiya and Išuwa. Neo-Hittite inscriptions may show that the territory of Malatya could have extended from time to time into the Plain of Elbistan.63 Further locales in and around Išuwa and Malitiya The city of Hurma, which is mentioned in the Šattiwazatreaty (see above) must have been located in the region of Tegarama and thus not far from Išuwa.64 The land of Alha, which is mentioned in the text directly before Hurma, should be found in the same region and is identified by Forlanini with the ancient city of Arca(s), some 40km west of Melitene, ancient Malatya.65 The other place-names in this passage are either too sparsely attested or to be found further west. A further neighbour of Išuwa has to be Pahhuwa. In the text KUB 23.72 (obv. 21–27), mentioned above, civilian captives (?) from Pahhuwa flee into Išuwa.66 In the same text the elders of the countries Išuwa, Pahhuwa, Zuhma, [Hurri] and Maldiya, including Arihpizzi the man of Pitiyarig(a) are mentioned as witnesses. Both passages 3.3

62  Torri 2005: 392. 63   See Hawkins 2000: the IZGIN inscription; most recently Alparslan and Alparslan 2013. 64  Thus most recently de Martino 2012: 377 with reference to Forlanini 2010a: 152 and Barjamovic 2011: 128–130. Forlanini wishes to identify Hurma with Pınarbaşı on the upper course of the Zamantı river (Forlanini 2007b: 279 fn. 67). 65  Forlanini 2010a: 158 fn. 27. 66  CTH 146 (Mida of Pahhuwa); Beckman 21999a: 161 §5 and most recently Reichmuth 2011: 113, 120.

Alparslan

must indicate geographical vicinity. Given that Pahhuwa is connected to Pitiyarig(a) and thus also to the Upper Land and that the area south of Išuwa does not come into question due to the intervening Taurus mountains and the land of Mittani being on the other side, one has to assume a northerly area for it. Given that Pitiyarig(a) must have been on the Kızılırmak (see above under Šamuha) a location of Pahhuwa in an area between Malatya-Išuwa to the south and the mountains east of Sivas would be likely. Already Garstang wanted to locate Išuwa in the region of Divriği, which would be about this area.67 A further possibility would be the relatively small plain north of the Murat Su, to the north of which the town Tunceli is located. Pahhuwa would thus border Išuwa in the south (Murat Su) and Malatya in the west (Euphrates). With the Euphrates it would thus have part of the way to the north and into the Upper Land under its control. The town Hatra must have been in the area of Išuwa at least during the reign of Muwatalli II, as the storm-god of Hatra is mentioned together with the gods of Išuwa in his prayer to the assembly of the gods.68 In KUB 31.64+ iii 49 Hatra occurs together with the above-mentioned city Hurma (ii 50) as well as with Hamša (ii 48) and Haššu (ii 49).69 Hinzuta is mentioned in the historical fragment KBo 16.42 (obv. 19) beside Išuwa, Malatya and Manzana. Even if Manzana is only mentioned in this text, Hinzuta can be located in the region in or around Malatya-Išuwa.70 In the Mita of Pahhuwa text (CTH 146) two individuals from Hinzuta are listed as witnesses, which might indicate that it was near Pahhuwa.71 From the time of Tiglathpileser I 67  Garstang 1948: 53; Garstang and Gurney 1959: 35. In 1943 Garstang had tried to locate Pahhuwa at the Pingan-Gate near modern-day İliç, about 20km away from Divriği (Garstang 1943: 48). By contrast Cornelius located Pahhuwa east of Tunceli, in a place which used to be called Pah, today’s Kocakoç. In Cornelius it is described as south of Erzincan near Pach, for which reason it is difficult to find on modern maps (Cornelius 1973: 273, 293 fn. 11). 68  CTH 381 ii 64–65 (Singer 1996a: 18, 36); de Martino 2012: 378. 69  CTH 12, the Anatolian campaigns of Muršili II (but also dated differently, see de Martino 2012: 378). Forlanini proposes a location of Hamša in the plain of Elbistan, which would make it a western neighbour of Malatya (Forlanini 1997b: 119). Haššu ought to be in an area with connections to this area too. The army of Haššu fought against Hattušili I with auxiliaries from Aleppo, thus likely south of the Taurus. This text also seems to suggest that it was close to the Euphrates (KBo 10.1 Obv. 31–37). In the so-called “Siege of Uršu”-text there is mention of a Mount Haššu (KBo 1.11 obv. 16), which is often connected with the Taurus Mountains (see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 97–99). 70  De Martino 2012: 378. 71  KUB 23.72 rev. 33.

215

The East: Philology

(1114–1076 BC) there is a mention of the conquest of a city Enzata in the land of Išu(wa), where this has to be the same name.72 Later, the name Enzite/Enzi is attested from the time of Shalmaneser III (858–824 BC).73 These later attestations also support a location within the administrative area of Išuwa, that can be further narrowed down when considering the location of Alzi. The city or country of Alzi (also written Alši/Alše), is often attested in Hittite texts as well as occurring in Middle and Neo-Assyrian and in Urartian sources.74 Russell wanted to identify this place-name with the above-mentioned Enzi/Enzite because texts of Shalmaneser III seem to use both names for the same place.75 This does not appear to be the case during the Hittite period. Hawkins prefers to locate Alzi south of the Taurus mountains and Enzi(te) at the northern end of the same pass-route. This pass must refer to the road from Ergani via Maden to Lake Hazar, and from here further to Harput, which was already drawn on Kiepert’s map. While Hinzuta (Enzite) would thus have to be the northerly point of the pass, between Lake Hazar and Maden, Alzi could be located between Maden and Ergani. The name Timiya may not be mentioned often in texts, but may on the basis of its mention in CTH 146 similarly be located in the region of Pahhuwa and Išuwa.76 In this text the men of Timiya are mentioned after the land of Kummaha (break in text between the two) which could indicate that Timiya was near Kummaha.

72  A.0.87.4, 32 (Grayson 1991: 43). 73  “I set down from Bit-Zamani. I crossed Mt Namdanu and Mt Merhisa. With bronze axes, I cut through the difficult paths and the steep mountains, which were set like a blade of a dagger, pointing to heaven. I caused the chariots and the troops a pass through. I went down to Enzite of Išua. (My) hand conquered Enzite to its limits. I devastated and destroyed their towns and burnt (them) with fire. I plundered their property and possessions without counting. I made a mighty monument of my royal majesty. I wrote a praise of Aššur, the great lord and the power of my might upon it. I set (a monument) in the ēqu-place of Lower Saluria. I left Enzite and crossed the Arzenia. I approached Suhme” (Kurkh Monolith ii 41–45, translation Russell 1984: 182). See also Klengel 1976–1980: 216. 74  For the Middle and Neo-Assyrian sources see Russell 1984: 182, where an identity of Enzi/Enzite and Alzi/Alse is inferred. For the Urartian sources, see Salvini 2008: 200 (A5–9 f.f. 8), 202 (A5–11A 22, 24), 203 (A5–11B 20, 23). 75  Russell 1984: 180–184; see also Köroğlu 1996: 55–64. 76  KUB 23.72 obv. 32ʹ; see Beckman 21999a: 162 §6.

4 Azzi-Hayaša The name Azzi-Hayaša does not occur in Hittite texts in this double form. However, both names are frequently attested separately in Hittite texts. The fact that both these names mostly occur in similar contexts, sometimes even in the same text alternately being used for practically the same name, shows that the Hittites did not distinguish between them.77 This is the reason why Hittitologists write them double.78 It is not clear that Azzi is a part of Hayaša, as proposed by Beckman.79 It is also possible that the geographical designation refers to two very close areas which were politically unified from time to time.80 The Hittites appear to have viewed these two areas as belonging together, which could indicate a similar culture, shared traditions and way of life.81 Owing to the similarity of the name “Hayaša” with the Armenian word for “Armenian” (sg. hay, pl. haykh) as well as the Armenian word for their own country (Haykh) as well as to the probable location of the land itself, Hayaša has often been associated with classical Armenia.82 The approximate location of the geographical area known as Azzi-Hayaša was not particularly controversial even in the early days of Hittitology. There was no contradiction to a location in the northeast of the land of Hatti owing in particular to the Annals of Mursili II, which had 77  The best example of this is a passage in the Annals of Mursili II, which refers to the 9th year of his reign. On the one hand he writes in the “10-Year Annals” that the year “has become too short for him” and that is why he did not march into the land of Azzi (KBo 3.4 IV 22–23; Goetze 1933: 126–127), while in the Extended Annals he does not march into Azzi but into Hayaša (KBo 4.4 III 23–26; Goetze 1933: 124–127). 78  Goetze goes a step further when he says with reference to Forrer: “The identity of Azzi and Hayaša needs no longer any comment” (Goetze 1940: 19 fn. 75). 79  Beckman thinks one can read this out of a passage in the socalled Hukkana-Treaty (Beckman 1996: 22 regarding §29), which does not necessarily have to be interpreted in this way. 80  Most recently Koşyan has assumed two separate political organisations (Koşyan 2014: 278: fn. 7), with special reference to the Hukkana-Treaty. Houwink ten Cate assumes a kind of confederation for Azzi-Hayaša on the basis of the first paragraph of the Hukkana-Treaty (1970: 77). It is striking that the name Azzi is only attested once in the aforementioned Hukkana-Treaty and that the person Hukkana is never called the “king” or the “man” of Azzi/Hayaša. A “king of Azzi” (Goetze 1933: 96–97) or a “lord of the land of Azzi” (Goetze 1933: 100–101) called Anniya is known to us from the Annals of Mursili II. 81  The frequently mentioned phenomenon of sexual intercourse between brothers and sisters could be an indication of similar traditions in the two areas (KBo 5.3+ iii 40ʹ–83ʹ; see Beckman 1996: 22–29). 82  Jahukyan 1961: 353–354.

216 been copied early on and were published as a comprehensive edition in 1933.83 Scholarly opinion is more or less divided, however, when it comes to the details. The first attempts at location mainly assumed a position around or southeast of Trabzon.84 Cornelius’ profound investigations into historical geography included that of Azzi, which he located further west from the lower course of the Yeşilirmak (Iris) as far as the Kızılırmak and in the north the Black Sea.85 Forlanini thinks he can locate Azzi around Kelkit in the province of Gümüşhane (north of Erzincan).86 The name is registered approximately in the area of the modern provinces Erzincan-BayburtGümüşhane in the map belonging to a historical atlas that was published in 2007.87 The topography of the regions concerned is fairly rough. The landscape rises up not far from the coast and by 30km inland already reaches heights of over 2000m. The two main mountain ranges (in the west the Canık range, in the east the Giresun range) reach a height of generally over 3000m towards the east. It is questionable that a political unit in the second millennium BC extended over this 3000m high barrier and largely depends on the interpretation of the passage concerning Aripša in the Annals of Mursili II (see below). If we really understand the description of Aripša as being “in the middle of the sea” ([Š[À A.A]B.BA), then Azzi-Hayaša must have extended as far as the Black Sea. In this case the modern provinces of Ordu and Giresun would naturally have had to have belonged to this land. Unfortunately the mountains in the north of this region can only be crossed with great difficulty and represent a natural boundary. Furthermore the regions along the Black Sea were largely isolated in the Middle Ages precisely because of these mountain ranges. The kingdom of Trabzon, for example, never extended beyond these mountains in the 12th and 13th centuries AD. At the same time the Seljuks had an administrative district that included the modern cities of Erzincan, Bayburt and Gümüşhane. In the 14th century AD this 83  The first copies of this text group appeared in KBo 2 by H. H. Figulla already in 1916. The first general attempts to read and interpret these texts, however, came only in 1924 (Goetze) and 1926 (Tenner). The comprehensive publication was Goetze 1933. 84  e.g. Forrer 1926: 4; Forrer 1931: 4ff. and Garstang-Gurney 1959. See too RGTC 6: 59ff. 85  First Cornelius thought of an identification of Ura in Azzi-Hayaša with Gaziura and drew the western border of the land as far as the Kızılırmak (Cornelius 1958a: 3). Later he rejected this identification and put Ura at Amasya, again drawing the border (this time presumably the southern one) at the Kızılırmak (Cornelius 1961: 215–218). See also Cornelius 1958b: 239; 1963: 242. 86  Already Forlanini 1986; also later Forlanini 1997a—map. 87  Wittke, Olshausen and Szydiak 2007: 15.

Alparslan

region belonged, along with others further to the west and east, to the principality of Eretna, which never extended to the north where the kingdom of Trabzon and the principality of Canık were located.88 All of the above argues for an identification of the land Azzi-Hayaša with the modern districts of Bayburt, Gümüşhane and Erzincan, including Şebin-Karahisar. It cannot be excluded that the country continued as far as the Black Sea, but it is rather unlikely. One cannot say for sure whether the modern districts of Tunceli to the south or Erzurum or Van to the east belonged to it, but these would be too far away in our opinion. Ura Given that there were at least two cities with this name, it can be quite problematic to tell between them in the texts.89 The Annals of Muršili II give us a sure indication that an Ura belonged to Azzi-Hayaša. In the seventh year of the rule of Muršili II it says: “And the city of Ura, which is the first border watchpost of [the land] Azzi, [is located] in a steep place …”90 It appears to have been a superbly constructed fortress given that Muršili additionally emphasises that anyone to whom the text may be read out should have a look to see how it is constructed.91 This description has caused scholars to locate Ura in steep, well-situated mountain positions. Given that it was also a “first watchpost” it must have been located as near as possible to the Hittite core area, naturally within the borders that the respective scholars accepted for Azzi-Hayaša. Garstang and Gurney put the town of Ura in the region of Giresun and wanted to identify it with Şebin-Karahisar.92 Cornelius located it in Gaziura, but then preferred a location in Amasya.93 Zgusta was satisfied with a location in West Armenia.94 The northern Ura is probably mentioned in one other text and a NA4hekur of this city is also listed.95 Aripša The town of Aripša is only mentioned in the Annals of the tenth year of the rule of Muršili II.96 According to this 88  Özcan 2005. 89  Del Monte and Tischler 1978: 457–458. 90  KUB 14.17 III 21ʹ–23ʹ: nu URUu-ra-aš ku-iš URU [ŠA KUR URU(aaz-zi IGI-zi-iš)] a-ú-ri-iš e-eš-ta na-aš-kán na-ak-ki pí-e-di [a-šaan-za …] (see Goetze 1933: 98–99; also the parallel text KUB 26.76 Obv. 15ʹ–16ʹ). 91  KUB 14.17 iii 23ʹ–24ʹ. 92  Garstang and Gurney 1959: 39. 93  Cornelius 1963: 242; 1973: 186, 321 footnote 49. 94  Zgusta 1984: §982. 95  KUB 38.6 iv 4ʹ. This is probably the northern Ura given that in line 1ʹ Nerik is mentioned, and the land of Azi in line 13ʹ. 96  KBo 4.4 IV 4, 5, 12, 16, 20; KUB IV 37ʹ, 39ʹ; s. Goetze 1933: 132–137.

217

The East: Philology

Muršili marched to Azzi, whose troops however did not openly confront him in battle but retreated to the “fortified cities” of Aripša and Dukkama. This did not prevent Muršili from taking both of these cities. Aripša was thus a fortified city, and in the Extended Annals we can find more information concerning it. The city was located in the sea, or a lake ((Š[À A.A]B.BA) and close to very high (mekki parku) mountain cliffs (HUR.SAG NA4peruna).97 Keeping these data in mind, Forrer located Aripša on the west coast of Lake Van;98 Garstang and Gurney put it in Giresun;99 and Cornelius at the mouth of the Kelkit.100 Forlanini rejected the first two proposals, the first because of the large distance, the second because the text does not mention the crossing of the Pontic mountains. Instead he proposed a location on the plain (Turkish ova) of Erzincan, with reference to Cumont, who believes that there would have been a large lake there at the time.101 It is interesting that Aripša, along with Dukkama, appears to be the first or one of the first of Muršili’s stops on his campaign. Muršili winters at the end of his 9th regnal year in Ankuwa, that should be located in the central Hittite area.102 So we would need to assume a march towards the east, mainly within Hittite territory. A route via Amasya to Çarşamba and from there along the coast to the east is probable; or via Amasya to the Kelkit river and then following it into the east. The surrounding area of the larger modern towns Çarşamba and Ordu, if the body of water mentioned in the text is actually the sea, or indeed the region of Erzincan, in case there was actually a large lake here in the Hittite period, would be suitable candidates for a location of Aripša in that case. A location on Lake Van would be too far away in our view. Halimana The city of Halimana is also only mentioned in the Annals of Muršili. According to these, the people of Azzi sent Mutti, a man from Halimana, to meet the approaching Hittite king with deference. Mutti must have been successful, because Muršili gave up on his campaign against

97  KBo 4.4 IV 5–7. 98  Forrer 1928: 144. 99  Garstang and Gurney 1959: 37–39. Gurney appears to have still supported this opinion in 1992. Gurney rejects here the proposal of Forlanini to locate Aripša in the plain of Erzincan (see fn. 101 below) with the argument that the supposed lake near Erzincan would not have been big enough (Gurney 1992: 215–216). 100  Cornelius 1973: 193–194. 101   Forlanini and Marazzi 1986, see footnote 99; Cumont and Cumont 1906: 335–336. 102  Del Monte-Tischler 1978: 19–23.

Azzi.103 Given that it is only mentioned here the location of Halimana cannot be discussed in more detail, but it is clear that it must have been a city belonging to Azzi-Hayaša. 5 Summary The three regions discussed here, the Upper Land, AzziHayaša and Išuwa-Malitiya are all countries lying to the East of the Land of Hatti. The Upper Land borders Hatti on the east and can thus be interpreted as a kind of buffer-zone for the heartland. The other countries border on the Upper Land to the north (Azzi-Hayaša) and the south (Išuwa-Malitiya). The distribution of these lands is mainly determined by natural factors, of which mountains and mountain-ranges play the most important role. Only in the case of the border between Malitiya and Išuwa was a river, the Euphrates, the object of division. While we can interpret the Upper Land as a kind of buffer-zone, in the same way the two other regions represent a connection with the east, and in the case of Malitiya and Išuwa with the southeast, that means Mittani and Mesopotamia. That is why we called Malitiya a “node” of the roads from west to east, and we chose the term “transit land” for Mittani for Išuwa. In these mountainous regions it was simpler for the Hittites to control the routes than it was in the Upper Land or in their heartland, so these areas had a special importance. It is problematic in many respects to identify geographical areas on the basis of written evidence. On the one hand the texts cannot always be used as if they were “real”, as they stem from the hands of scribes who had never seen these areas themselves and might also have made mistakes, for example in the order of lists of geographical names. The relevant texts also do not have to be well thought out, such that geographical data might have been of secondary importance for the presentation of the particular activities which they are summarising. Furthermore, the political aims of texts, just as in propaganda, cannot be disregarded. Another problem is that it is often not clear whether a designation of someone or something as belonging to a town or country is meant politically or geographically. Political affiliations can change, such that contradictions can arise in the texts. We must be very clear that this contribution can only be a preliminary assessment and that we have much work to do before we can present a more precise reconstruction of Hittite Geography. 103  11th regnal year; KBo 4.4 iv 44, 50; see also Goetze 1933: 138–141.

Figure 16.1

Map showing selected locations in the east.

218 Alparslan

CHAPTER 17

The North: Hanhana, Hattena, Ištahara, Hakpiš, Nerik, Zalpuwa, Tummana, Pala and the Hulana River Land Carlo Corti 1 Introduction Most of the area this chapter describes falls into one of the seven macro-regions which today make up Turkey: the Black Sea Region (Karadeniz Bölgesi). It includes the northern sector of the Anatolian plateau.1 This macroregion covers the provinces that in the classical period were called Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, opening onto the Pontus Euxinus, and part of Galatia. Most scholars agree that during the Hittite era it was largely made up of the regions of Hakpiš, Nerik, Zalpuwa, Tummana, Pala and the Hulana River Land. This north-central district of Anatolia is rich in information that can be gleaned from various sources (annals, edicts, festival celebrations, oracular texts, cult-inventories, etc), but the available information diminishes the further we move away from the central area. In the following survey we will start off in an initial south-north direction and then go east-west. This progression roughly reproduces the sequence of provinces listed by Hattušili III in his Apology, with the exclusion of Hakpiš and Ištahara, which were assigned as “personal properties” to Hattušili by his brother Muwatalli II.2 The absence of Nerik and Zalpa from this list reflects the status of these two centers: they were fundamental from a religious and ideological standpoint throughout the entire duration of the Hittite Kingdom, while from an administrative point of view they had already lost the role of provincial capitals during the Old Hittite period. From a methodological perspective, in this chapter I will make use of comparisons with the toponymy of later *   Acknowledgements in alphabetical order: the ‘Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Hethitische Forschungen’, Mainz, for the consultation of the lexicographical archive; G. Barjamovic and M. Forlanini for providing articles and suggestions on several place-names; A. Kryszeń for providing me with his as yet unpublished repertoire of Hittite place-names; M. Massa for the elaboration of a blank map of Northern Anatolia. (Editor’s note: This chapter was finished and submitted before the appearance of Kryszeń 2016, which roughly agrees with many of the localisations independently proposed here, but disagrees with others.) 1  For the geographical setting see Glatz in this volume. 2  Apology II 56–62; edition Otten 1981: 14–15.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_018

times only sporadically because such comparisons have not always led, at least for this macro-region, to conclusive results and they also sometimes have proven misleading; in some cases greater reliability seems to adhere to names of regions, mountain(-ranges) and to hydronyms. 2

The Kaškeans and the so-called “Kaška Land” (KUR URUKaška)

Geographical maps of the Hittite Empire often leave a large area (un)expressed by a blank space or simply labeled as “Kaška Land” in the Central Black Sea region. However, it is unclear how much the Kaška were anything more than a propagandistic motif made manifest by reference to actual feared and treacherous adversaries combined with the illusory conception of a real country within the Kingdom of Hatti.3 The Kaška were essentially people who lived in rather isolated areas and at repeated intervals did not accept subjugation to the Hittite Empire, which was concretely and systematically diminishing their territory, above all in the northern area, by recruiting labour force (field workers and soldiers), animal husbandry and harvests. It is my opinion that the Kaška peoples were Hittites, in the sense that they were a mixed population living in the Kingdom of Hatti but they considered themselves to have a certain autonomy.4 An appropriate metaphor to indicate their inconsistent distribution throughout the territory could be “leopard 3  For oral Hittite political propaganda Liverani 1990: passim; del Monte 1993: passim. On the topic of Hittite-Kaška frontiers see Zimansky (2007: 157–173 with references), who applied to Northern Anatolia the model that Owen Lattimore (1940) developed for Central Asia. See also Glatz in this volume. 4  It is important to remember that the different constituent elements of society with their own cultural traditions already existed in Anatolia long before the creation of the Hittite Kingdom, while later on the proportion of foreigners increased (deportees, mercenaries, etc.). For references and a new edition of the “Kaška corpus” see now Gerçek 2012. Here the main works on the subject: von Schuler 1965; Klinger 2002; Id 2008; Freu 2005a; Glatz and Matthews 2005; Singer 2007.

220

Corti

spots”; they were especially dangerous in the foothill areas since their control of the main lines of communication running through the mountains was facilitated by these. The “Kaška Land” was therefore a simple and all-encompassing definition that the Hittites adopted out of necessity to indicate an area that was difficult to control and therefore not precisely defined. This label overlapped as necessary with the various northwestern provinces of the Kingdom. Thus the Hittite kings’ attempts at agreements failed mainly because it does not seem that the Kaška people had a hierarchical society that allowed for adherence to a decision by a chief or a group of rulers, unless for brief periods; a rare exception is that of the Kaškean Pittagatalli who managed to assemble an actual army, as well as of Pihhuniya of Tipiya. This assumption is not meant to minimize the power and hostility of the “Kaškean groups” of the north-central area who were nevertheless a thorn in the side of the Hittite kings starting from the Middle Hittite period; on the contrary, as can be clearly inferred from numerous passages in the Annals of Šuppiluliuma I and Muršili II, their power consisted in the ability to change quickly from a condition of collaboration with to one of resistance to the central power.5 In more strictly geographical terms, there was no such thing as a “Kaška Country” with clear borders, but rather various local realities that during several periods of Hittite history were openly in defiance of the Hittites. It thus seems useless to assign this people a specific and defined geographical location on a map. The troubled relations with Kaška populations will therefore be referred to in the course of the discussions of the individual regions. 3

Reaching the North: Hanhana, Hattena and Ištahara

The provinces that were located to the north of the possessions under direct jurisdiction of the Hittite capital Hattuša probably made up a rather compact territory during the whole history of the kingdom of Hatti; but it will be in the Imperial period that they will have a more specific delimitation and acquire a greater role both logistically and politically.

5  See the passage about the outbreak of the plague (Deeds; del Monte 2009: 100–101); the dossier of Pendumli, Pizzumuri and their people (Annals; Houwink ten Cate 1966: 174, 182). See also references to Kaška in the Maşat letters (Alp 1991b: 451).

As we will see, Hanhana, Hattena, Tarahna,6 Ištahara and Hakpiš are mentioned as the lands given to Hattusili III by his brother and actual king Muwatalli II early in his political career, as confirmed in the historical prologues of two edicts of Hattusili (CTH 85.1; CTH 90).7 Since the only likely fixed point for the area bordering the Black Sea until now is Oymaaǧaç/Nerik and the nerve center of the Hittite Empire is Boğazköy/Hattuša, we will examine the individual provinces linking them to the stages on the ritual pilgrimage defined by the Hittites as “(Festival of the) journey to Nerik” which began in Tahurpa—very close to the capital—and ended in the holy city of Nerik. Beginning the sequence with Tahurpa, there can no longer be any doubt of the fact that this city was the starting point of the main road leading to Nerik.8 We support the proposal placing it in the area to the northeast of Hattuša, possibly at Eskiyapar.9 Another piece of evidence comes from the direct connection of Tahurpa with Hanhana, previously demonstrated by this author.10 3.1 The Province of Hanhana The localization of the region of Hanhana is essential both from the reconstruction of the historical geography of north-central Anatolia and to understand the unfolding of events from the historical- political point of view; in fact from there passed the main road to reach the north of the kingdom but it was also the logistical and strategic base from where the Hittite army had to leave to regain territories that, from the Middle Hittite period onwards, were occupied in alternating phases by the Kaškean people. The center of Hanhana and its province are attested quite early in the documentation, beginning from the well known “İnandık tablet” to be dated to the late Old Hittite period, before Telipinu.11 Besides the abundant testimonies brought by the archives of the Hittite capital, the city is also referred to in the texts from Ortaköy/Šapinuwa12

6  Unfortunately we can say virtually nothing about Tarahna, which is rarely attested and only in texts of the Imperial period. 7  A much broader list of possessions, reported in the Apology of this king, is due to a later stage (see infra); on these issues see Corti 2006a: especially 324ff. 8  For example KUB 44.18, KBo 48.35 and KUB 60.148+ (colophon). 9  Now Sir Gavaz 2012c: 31–43 with references and up-to-date bibliography. 10  See KBo 52.161+ obv.? II/III 5ʹ–8ʹ; thus KBo 52 IX–X Nr. 161. Such a link appears also in KUB 44.18. 11  Edition Balkan 1973. See now the full edition in Rüster and Wilhelm 2012; concerning the dating 38ff. 12  Süel 1997: 99.

The North: Philology

and Maşat Höyük/Tapikka.13 There is no agreement as to its location. The mention of the administrator of Hanhana in the tablet found at İnandık, which led Alp to identify Hanhana with İnandık,14 cannot be taken as evidence: administrators also took care of provinces different from their place of origin, in spite of those same districts having their own officer.15 The find of this tablet in İnandık may simply mean that the administrator Tuttulla was native to that place or that he had important real estate there, which he donated to his son-in-law Ziti for the wedding with his daughter, but he actually carried out his tasks elsewhere.16 Compare other documents attesting to the granting of real estate, scattered in different parts of the kingdom, to former soldiers or high-ranking dignitaries.17 Laroche suggested a little more northerly location, in the area of Çankırı18 while Forlanini, radically changing area, proposed the site of Alacahöyük.19 It is possible that its province extended westward up to the Kızılırmak River, reaching the extreme northern borders of Durmitta’s domains. The towns of Zithara, Kašha and Kuruštama must have belonged to it at some point. At the time of Muwatalli II Kuruštama must be located in a relevant geographical position, as remembered by Hattušili III in an edict (KBo 6.29 I 26–30): “He (Muwatalli) gave me the land of Hakpiš, Ištahara, Tarahna, Hat[tena] and Hanhana; and he made the town of Kuruš[tama] my border. All these Lands I governed [for] him.” Kuruštama was therefore not just a simple border town20 between Arinna/Alacahöyük21 and the region of Hanhana, but 13  Alp 1991: 272–275. 14  Alp 1977: 649–652. 15  Cf. the AGRIG of the district of Kaštama, also active in issues connected with Nerik; see infra. 16  Unfortunately, just in the gap of line 9 it was recorded the amount or type of gift. It is conceivable that there was also some geographic specification. 17  See, for example, the Land-grant to Šahurunuwa (CTH 225). For other explanations Yakar 1980: 87–88. 18  Laroche 1985: 92–95; similarly Hazenbos 2003: 193. 19  Forlanini 2008b: 164–165. 20  That Kuruštama was a city and not a province is confirmed by the clear erasure of the sign KUR “Land” by the distracted scribe/editor of KBo 6.29. But it ought to have been a significant place considering the “Kuruštama Treaty” which attests the sending of special troops by the city to Egypt probably at the time of Tuthaliya I/II; for a general treatment Singer 2004; recently Forlanini 2008b: 162. Harašta was close to Kuruštama: these towns are mentioned together both in VBoT 68 obv. II 8ʹ and in the celebrations for the prince. See Forlanini 2008b: 162 and fn. 114. 21  For this identification proposal see Erkut 1992.

221 served as a divide between the possessions of the Hittite capital and the northern territories entrusted to Hattušili; the alleged transgression of this boundary (with Nerik as the final goal) and the break of the status quo on the part of the designated heir Urhi-Tesup will be taken by his uncle Hattušili as reason/excuse to carry out the coup d’état. Hanhana was one of the places, along with Durmitta and Tawiniya, that had Telipinu as one of the main gods of the pantheon. Its pantheon also included the mountain Tagurka which is attested in the cult of Hanhana from the Old Hittite period (KBo 17.13+ I 8ʹ) but is also attested in Late Hittite documents of Tuthaliya IV.22 A passage from KBo 54.134 obv. I 6ʹ reminds us that there was a specific idiom connected to its cult which I think was performed by the people of Takalmuḫa;23 the mountain could be identified with one of the peaks of the Eǧerli Daǧ just north of the Çorum plain. All the contexts in which the people of Takalmuha appear make reference to the ‘celebrations of the Prince’ that took place in the Hanhana region.24 Zithara25 had to belong to the province of Hanhana, despite some contexts in the documentation which leave open the possibility that there were two cities with the same name in proximity to one another.26 It cannot be excluded that Zithara was near a crossroads of routes: from there probably started the road to Hattuša in a southwest direction, to Hanhana to the northwest and, finally, to Ištahara to the northeast, which allows for the positioning of Zithara in the area of Cemilbey, at the confluence of the Çorum Çay with its main tributary the Alaca.27 In KBo 52.20+ E 780, a Middle Hittite text recently studied by Wilhelm,28 the town is mentioned together with other places in relation to deities belonging to northern 22  On the cult of this mountain Lombardi 2002: 497–506. 23  “The men [of the town of Taka]lmu!ḫa sing in the language of Takurga”. We can confirm the proposed restoration of del Monte 1992: 153. 24  Both Old Hittite and Imperial period sources. To the references cited by del Monte and Tischler 1978: 383 and del Monte 1992: 153, add Bo 7937 left col. 11ʹ. 25  For a general treatment about this town see recently Kapełuś 2013: 93–103; de Martino and Süel 2015: 32–34. The itkalzi ritual was probably performed in Zithara according to the colophons of this composition. 26  Forlanini 2008b: 165 and fnn. 128, 130. References in del Monte and Tischler 1978: 513–514 and del Monte 1992: 200. 27  Such a location would justify the conflicting data of the sources about the province membership of Zithara, which may have changed over the time; compare Kuruštama and the fluctuation of the border between Arinna and Hanhana provinces for example. 28  Wilhelm 2010: 268–272.

222

Corti

Anatolian panthea; it is highly likely that the towns of this text followed a coherent geographical order from south to north with Zithara, Ištahara, Harpiša, Harpanda and, in the next paragraph, Nerik. A recently joined festival tablet (KBo 23.89++) can be connected with Hanhana as well as the king’s cultic journey towards the north of the country and gives a reasonable localization for this and the other towns along the route.29 It reports the daily stops and related celebrations carried out during the journey, which went through the towns of Hanhana, Hattena and Zikmar in order to reach Nerik. The text tells us that in Zikmar the gods of the city of Kaštama, as well as those of Hapatha and Išdammutar, were celebrated, and it can thus be assumed that these two centers were rather close to each other. Since we learn from other sources that Kaštama was no more than a two days journey from Nerik (see infra), we can conclude that to reach Nerik departing from Hanhana it took approximately four days. This information is confirmed by the oracular text on the possible military expeditions to be undertaken to reach Nerik KUB 22.25+30 in which a voyage of three31 or four days can be detected (obv. 25ʹ ff.). My proposal to localize Hanhana nearby to Çorum32 fits in with this scenario: the approximate 120km from Çorum to Oymaaǧaç/Nerik could have easily been covered with four days walking. 3.2

The Province of Hattena

At this point it seems reasonable to place Hattena, as the next stop being one day’s distance from Hanhana,33 to the south of Sarıbuǧday and arrange its territory also to the west along the strip of foothills of Tavşan Daǧı. As rightly pointed out by Forlanini, Tappašpa (the Ta-ap-pa-GAL. TUR of KBo 1.58) probably lay along the route between the two cities; in fact it is preceded by the already mentioned Takalmuha ([Ta-ga]l?-mu-ḫa, Hanhana province) in the Telipinu Proclamation34 and I am therefore inclined to locate it in the southern sector of Hattena. I think that the crossroads close to Hattena, along the main road towards Nerik, was one of the pathways that 29  The publication of this join is in planning. 30  Edition von Schuler 1965: 176–184. 31  Hazenbos 2003: 193. 32  See Corti 2006b: 269–274; Id. 2010: 151 with fn. 42; Camatta 2006:  263–270 proposed the area between Çorum and Merzifon. 33  For Hattena and the sources connected see Forlanini 2008b: 165–166. 34  See Hoffman 1984: 40–41.

connected Hattena to Ištahara from west to east, precisely through the often difficult area under Kaška control (which included Pitalahši and Šunupašši, perhaps towns already in the province of Ištahara) to be located approximately between Sarıbuǧday and Doǧantepe. It seems that some local panthea described in sequence in the Muwatalli prayer have a geographical coherence; it is the case with Hattena, Harpiša, Kalimuna and Hakpiš, which seem to form a unified front in the north towards Nerik. Harpiša and Kalimuna are under the control of Ištahara. 3.3 The Province of Ištahara As rightly pointed out by Forlanini, under Muršili II the province of Ištahara was: “not only a property of Hatti but more specifically an important agricultural region … probably situated in a plain”.35 Ištahara had to be in the vicinity of the mountain Ištaharunuwa, bearing the same name; the worship of Mt Ištaharunuwa (probably one of the northeastern peaks of the Karadaǧ or the Sarıtaş Daǧı) was not exclusive to Ištahara, but it also appears to have been shared by the province of Kammama, which suggests these two regions were contiguous.36 Kalimuna instead, in addition to the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma and the Prayer of Muwatalli, is mentioned only in the edict of Hattusili III on the restoration of Nerik and perhaps in the small fragment KBo 50.223 in which, two lines before Kalimuna, Ištahara is mentioned. Kalimuna probably lay north of the provincial capital Ištahara and quite close to the border to Hakpiš.37 According to KBo 52.20+E 780 Harpiša was north of Ištahara and perhaps on the way to Kalimuna and Harpanda;38 the sequence Zitḫara, Ištaḫara, Ḫarpiša, Ḫarpanda, Nerik could draw a parallel pathway to the main road to the north (the so-called “road to Nerik”), starting precisely from the area of Cemilbey, following the valley of the Çorum Çay in its lower course, and then finding Oluz Höyük and Doǧantepe.39 These archaeological sites could very well correspond to the Hittite centers of the province of Ištahara mentioned here. The fertile

35  Forlanini 2008b: 167. 36  See Forlanini 2008b: 169. 37  About this town see Corti 2006a: 326 and fn. 54 with references. 38  It is difficult to say anything about Harpanda because not only is it rarely cited, in the Šahurunuwa Land-grant, in Kp 5/260 from Kayalıpınar (Rieken 2009: 124–126) and possibly in KUB 51.33 I 9ʹ (del Monte 1992: 31, read Har-pa-an-⌈da⌉-az), but it occurs in contexts that point to different geographical areas. There may have been more than one town of this name. 39  The author is preparing a treatment of this document from a geographical and religious point of view.

The North: Philology

plains south of Amasya are well suited to the agricultural orientation of this province of the empire. In summary the province of Ištahara had Hattena to the west and Hakpiš to the north, being situated to the south of Amasya, or even incorporating it, along one axis running from the northeast to the southwest with eastern borders along the last part of the Çekerek and the Yeşılırmak rivers and to the southeast bordering on Kammama.40 To the southwest, beside the Karadaǧ, it probably bordered on the territory of Šapinuwa.41 To conclude this section, we can state that, according to my proposed location of Hanhana (Çorum area), Hattena (south, southwest of Tavşan Daǧ/Haharwa), Ištahara (south, southwest of Amasya) and Kammama (northeast of Ortaköy/Šapinuwa), the well known march of Šuppiluliuma towards the northwest of the kingdom42 followed an east-west direction but, as opposed to previous thought, along a northerly parallel route; through this route the Hittite army headed towards Hurna (north of Osmancık), crossing Mt Tehšina (mountains of Çal and Kunduz) and fording the Maraššanta/Kızılırmak near Akbelen, and then went up the valley of the Šariya/ Gökırmak. With Zikmar, the last stop along the road to Nerik preserved by KBo 23.89++, we are already at the border with Hakpiš, which from the Middle Hittite period henceforth would be an important scene of conflict with the Kaška population. 4

The Region of Hakpiš

We do not have many texts that deal with Hakpiš during the Old Hittite period nor for the periods immediately following it.43 It is certain, however, that from the Middle Hittite period the entire region was subject to attacks and pressure by the Kaška people. It is communis opinio that during the era of king Arnuwanda I, Hakpiš had taken over the role of holy city with the transfer of the cult of the city’s Storm-god, originally the prerogative of Nerik, which was already in the hands of the Kaška people at that time.44 This assumption may be supported by references to raids 40  For this localization proposal for Kammama see Trémouille 2007: 682–692, especially 685–690. 41  According to Forlanini (2008b: 169) Kammama was to the northwest of Šapinuwa. 42  For a recent treatment see Forlanini 2008b: 147–149; new edition del Monte 2009: 131 ff. 43  For an overview Alparslan 2010. 44  For example Yakar 1980: 90, Singer 2002: 40 and Hazenbos 2003: 194; but see the interesting remarks of Alparslan 2010: 31.

223 conducted by the Kaška in Arnuwanda and Ašmunikal’s famous prayer to the Sun Goddess of Arinna45 and by the ritual text KUB 28.80 that confirms the celebration of festivals of Nerik at Hakpiš.46 This scenario must now be re-examined owing to newly discovered fragments of the same prayer, since the following words are reported:47 “They seize the roads in the land of Hakpiš, and the offerings that we sent to the Storm-god of Nerik, offering breads, libations, cattle and sheep, the Kaška-men looted on the road and those they did not get to the Storm-god of Nerik”. Therefore, despite the fact that Hakpiš is not cited among the lost regions in the prayer, the same text demonstrates not only that Nerik was occupied by the Kaška people during that time, but also the main roads to reach Hakpiš were no longer under full Hittite control. With the beginning of the Imperial period more sources begin to shed light on the northern territories; we know that during this phase Hakpiš fulfilled the role of administrative and political capital for the northern area bordering the Black Sea thanks to the extended annals of Muršili II, which record how at the end of his ninth year an expedition towards the north of the country and Nerik was undertaken with Hakpiš assuming the function of operational headquarters.48 The city fulfills the same role also later on under Hattušili III; in an edict about the restoration of Nerik, it is recorded that Hattušili, after celebrating ceremonies in the holy city, presumably returned to Hakpiš.49 Of great interest for defining the borders and the extension of its territory is a passage from the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma’ which says:50 “[…] they he[ld] close […] from the region of Hakpiš […] attac[ked the region of] Hakpiš. [When my father] heard [the fact …] and [only the cities of Ha]patha, Takupta [and NG] remained”. As pointed out by del Monte, the scene is the region of Hakpiš, during the conflicts of the Hittite army with presumably Kaškean groups; the cities of Takupta and Hapatha must have been located in the core of the area in the direction of Nerik. Takupta was in contact with Hatenzuwa and Hawalkina51 and thus to be situated in the buffer-zone between Hakpiš and the land of Huršama (the latter to 45  Translation Singer 2002: 40–43 and 112 with references. 46  KUB 28.80 IV 4–6: “When, during the war years, they began to perform the festival of Nerik in Hakpiš”. CHD L/N: 149. 47  For the new joins see KBo 52 IV Nr. 14 and KBo 55 V Nr. 32. 48  See Goetze 1933: 130–131 and del Monte 1993: 98. 49  Corti 2009: 14. 50  KBo 14.42 obv. 1–7; del Monte 2009: 55, 65 with fn. 31. 51  See Forlanini 1997a: 404 ff.; he identifies Takupta and Hawalkina with Greek place names of *Dakopa and *Warkina/Werkina from the Yassıçal inscription.

224

Corti

the north/northeast of Kavak). Other evidence of such a connection can be found in the oracular text KUB 40.106 and in the fragment KBo 57.321 in which the two cities are cited in the same context. For Hapatha there is a notable number of references and, as far as can be seen, the town must have been located along, or just before, the narrow passage between the Akdaǧ and the Tavşan Dağı and have been an important stop along the pilgrimage towards the holy city of Nerik. Another useful text for the reconstruction of a geographical grid of the area is KBo 1.58.52 It is a list of toponyms in a south-north sequence that includes Hanhana, Tappašpa, Hattena, Hapatha, Hakpiš. We have already touched on the initial part of the itinerary while for the section Hapatha-Hakpiš, a deviation from the main route to Nerik, this text allows for confirmation of the localization of the first place but, above all, for the proposal to put Hakpiš in the region of Suluova;53 the peripheral position of Hakpiš compared with the main north-south roadway explains its absence from some pilgrimages towards the holy city of Nerik. Originally, the region must have occupied the territory between Merzifon and Amasya and have maintained control of its more northern sector, that of the narrow passage between the Akdaǧ and the Tavşan mountains which led to Havza from the Suluova plain.54 It is probable that during the Late Imperial period, its territory was wider, also covering Nerik’s domains. As we have seen, the province of Hakpiš played an important strategic role during this period since it controlled the main communication route that connected the plateau with the central Black Sea area. 5

The Holy City of Nerik and its Bordering Territories

It is rightly believed that during the most ancient period of the Hittite history, the holy city of Nerik fell within the property of the Zalpuwa region,55 a fact which ideologically underlies the role assumed by the lands bordering the Black Sea for the Hittites. Its territory seems firmly in the hands of the Kaškean people at the time of Arnuwanda I and possibly already during the reign of Muwatalli I; later, under Hattušili III, it would seem that Nerik had already been lost from the time of Hantili (II?), which further 52  Forlanini 2010b: 131 fn. 61. 53  Forlanini 2010b: 131 around Alıcık or Sarıbuğday; del Monte 2009: 65 fn.31 near Mecitözü. 54  Forlanini 1992a: 302; Id 2010 confers a greater extension to the territory of Hakpiš: from Çorum to Merzifon. 55  See the analysis of Forlanini 1984 and del Monte 2009: 127 fn. 79.

backdates the loss of this important sanctuary by the Hittites.56 According to KUB 21.8, Muršili II reached and pacified the territory and the holy city itself, but it was not until Hattušili III, still king of Hakpiš and Ištahara, that the city would be reconstructed and returned to full Hittite control.57 During its long oblivion, the cults of Nerik, which were shared in part by the neighbouring city of Kaštama, were transferred to relatively safe places like Hakpiš and Utruna, which continued for some time to keep these traditions alive until the religious celebrations were again moved back to Nerik. Kaštama must have assumed some role starting with the Old Assyrian Colony period (early second millennium B.C.) according to kt n/k 1371, which cites a ruler (anonymous) of Kaštama.58 During the Old Hittite period, its administrator played an important role since it served as a collection-point for goods from the districts of North-Central Anatolia during the course of festivals celebrated in Nerik (see infra). With regards to its localization, the old proposals placing it in the central and south-central regions of the Kingdom are to be excluded in favour of more recent ones placing it towards Northern Anatolia.59 Ertem maintains that the city was located around Kastamonu, while Forlanini places it around Merzifon, on the southern slopes of Tavşan Daǧı/Haharwa.60 Kaštama cannot have been far from Nerik61 but was far enough away to provide for the intervening settlements of Kašduha and Za/innešhapa, with the latter being very close to Nerik.62 Kaštama must have been near Mt Zaliyanu (one of the Akdaǧ peaks?) and, at the same time, maintained visual contact with the mountain range of Haharwa. There are indications that the city was not along the main route to Nerik from liturgical texts describing the alternative route taken by the prince in order to reach the city of Kaštama, while the sovereign continued on to the holy city. I believe, therefore, that the administrative district of Kaštama was located in the buffer-zone between the lands of Nerik and those of Hakpiš (in whose region it may have fallen)

56  But see the evaluations of Klinger 2008: 283 on this matter. 57  Corti 2006a: 313–329. 58  See Bayram 1998: 47; Veenhof and Eidem 2008: 169. The transliteration of the tablet is now available online in K. Hecker, Altassyrische Texte in Umschrift (aATU): [vol. 0.2, hethiter.net 2010)]. 59  For example Goetze, 1957: 98 and Cornelius 1958b: 233 close to the Çekerek. 60  Ertem 1980: 25; Forlanini 2010b: 127 fn. 42, 130. 61  According to Bo 3366 II 5ʹ–7ʹ the king celebrates the cult in Kaštama and then moves directly to Nerik; Haas 1970: 267. 62  KUB 53.16 Rev. V–VI 6ʹ.

The North: Philology

beyond the narrow track between the Tavşan and Akdaǧ and, more precisely, close to modern day Ladik. The low hilly territory from Ladik to Oymaaǧaç (Vezirköprü), where the rivers Tersakan and Akçay flow, is well suited due to its configuration, fertile land and abundant water resources, to accommodate the consistent groups of Hittite towns that have been located between Kaštama and Nerik.63 From among the many, Taštarišša (northwest of Havza) and Hatenzuwa (southwest of Kavak) should be remembered, because they are also involved in Muršili’s military campaign toward Nerik and Zalpuwa (12th and 13th year). It is said that during his march towards the north he destroyed Tapapahšuwa, Hatenzuwa, Ka(n)tišišša and finally Taštarišša.64 Another annalistic fragment of Muršili describes his advance towards the Black Sea and a convergence of the army at Tappilušša (probably along the road going towards Samsun) and then his return to Hatenzuwa which had been the starting point of the campaign whose goal was to find the way to cross the mountains and reach the Black Sea.65 On the return, the king devastated Tatimuwa and Haišehla, the former already in the territory of Zalpa (see below). Güterbock located Nerik close to the River Maraššanta/ Kızılırmak, based on a passage from the mythological text KUB 36.89 rev. 11–14, where the Storm-god of Nerik is invoked to return to his city:66 “Thou, o Maraššanta, art close to the heart of the Storm-god of Nerik! Formerly the Marassanta flowed astray(?), but the Storm-god turned it and made it flow toward the Sun(-god) of the gods. He made it flow near Nerik”. It might thus be argued that Nerik must have been near to a accentuated curve of the river in the eastern direction, towards the sun, requested by the gods so that it flowed closer to the city. For this reason Güterbock placed Nerik close to Kargı in the direction of the Black Sea where the Kızılırmak turns sharply east. Taking this information as a starting point, some scholars followed this proposal67 while others formulated new ones.68 However, the turning point for the discussion of 63  For a list of towns of this district see for example Bo 3394+*KUB 31.57. It is a cult administration document in which the administrator of Kaštama brings offerings from northern Anatolian provinces for a major festival in Nerik; in Obv. I the places of Taštarišša, Kaštama, Huršama, Za/inišhapa, Kapaštuštu, etc., are listed. I am currently working on a new edition of the text. 64  For the interpretation of the passage and the restoration of the place-names see Forlanini 1992a: 292–295; del Monte 1993: 104. 65  Forlanini 1992a: 298–299; del Monte 1993: 130–131 with fn. 216. 66  Güterbock 1961: 92–93. Edition Haas 1970: 140–157. 67  See Hazenbos 2003: 193ff. 68  According to Macqueen (1980: 179ff.) near Havza.

225 city’s location was due to an important survey conducted by Alkım and his team that detected the promising Höyüktepe near Oymaaǧaç (Vezirkoprü).69 Next, thanks to a study conducted by Dinçol and Yakar,70 as well as an intuition of Forlanini corroborated by precise textual references,71 a proposal was made to place Nerik at Oymaaǧaç. On the basis of surveys and excavations undertaken at this site under the direction of R. M. Czichon and J. Klinger from Berlin University, the identification with Nerik has been consolidated thanks to several references in Hittite fragments found there which are now supported by the 2014 campaign findings.72 This not only gives us the sole fixed location for the region bordering the Black Sea, but also extends its sphere of influence 360 degrees, as we are dealing with a holy city often cited in texts and the destination of important pilgrimages that involved many other localities in the area. Before moving on to the description of the region of Zalpuwa, I would like to conclude with that of Huršama, which bordered Nerik to the south and/or southwest. Huršama is cited together with Taptena and other localities that surrounded Nerik in the oracular itinerary KUB 5.1 obv. II 29 ff; its proximity is confirmed by a passage from the extensive annals of Muršili due to the joint presence of the men of the two cities.73 Additionally, Arnuwanda’s prayer reports a sequence of places, among which are Nerik, Huršama and Kaštama,74 that finds confirmation in other religious sources on the cult of Nerik. Unfortunately Huršama’s involvement in the itinerant festivals and the role performed by its citizens are not clear at the moment due to the fragmentary nature of the documentation that only allow us to affirm that it was in contact with Nerik.75

69  Alkım 1973c: 63–67. 70  Dinçol and Yakar 1974: 573ff. 71  Forlanini 1977: 200–201. 72  For a general overview of the excavation results and findings see mainly Czichon et alii 2011: 169–250 with references; a recent summary in Czichon 2013: 298–309. On the 2014 campaign with an update about the epigraphical sources see “Arbeitsbericht 2014 (PDF)” in www.nerik.de/publikationen/bibliographie.php “19 Textfunde 2014” p. 13. I wish to thank the Oymaaǧaç excavation team for their kind hospitality during my visit to the site in September 2014 and J. Klinger for discussing with me the content of the fragments found there. 73  del Monte 1993: 97–98. 74  Singer 2002: 40–43. For this passage see infra. 75  Cf. KUB 25.36, KUB 10.88, KUB 44.32, HT 17+ etc (connection with Nerik); KUB 57.56, KBo 61.164 (connection with Kaštama).

226 6

Corti

The Central Black Sea Region: Zalpuwa and Lihzina

6.1 The Land of Zalpuwa According to Old Hittite sources, the city of Zalpa was one the most important political centers in northern Anatolia prior to the constitution of the Hittite state with its capital Hattuša. It was the seat of a dynasty whose influence extended to areas in North and Central Anatolia that were interested in Old Assyrian trade.76 This information appears to be confirmed by the existence, from the end of the Chalcolithic Age on, of a commercial network relating to copper, which reached Alaçam and the plain of Bafra on the Black Sea coast from Vezirköprü, across the river Kızılırmak.77 For the kingdom of Zalpa in particular, the Anitta-Text records the reign of King Uhna, victor over the important city-state of Kaneš, and that of King Huzziya, defeated by Anitta. It is highly significant that in the Annals of Hattušili I, where his most important deeds are recorded, Zalpa is the first city to be destroyed, following the attack on the land of Šanahuitta.78 The following elements confirm that Zalpa and its region played a central role in the formation of the Hittite state mostly from the ideological point of view in so much as it was the place of origin of Hittite Kingship: the scepter and the iron throne, symbols of power kept in Zalpa, were recovered by Anitta and taken to Kaneš; the same symbols of royalty come from the sea in the archaic ritual for the construction of a new building; the funerary ritual for the Hittite sovereign, in which the sacred furnishings are substituted, takes place in the Zalpuwa region. Last but not least is the passage in the “Zalpa Tale” according to which the 30 newly born princes were abandoned by the queen, their mother, at the river and saved by the gods who brought them up before their return to Kaneš (KBo 22.2, Obv 3–5): “She (the queen of Kaneš) filled baskets with grease and placed her sons therein and she let them go

into the river. The river took them to the sea at the Land of Zalpa. The gods took up the boys from the sea and reared them”. The information contained in this passage has become the main argument for locating the city of Zalpa in the Bafra district, identifying the river as the Kızılırmak and the sea as the Black Sea,79 thus excluding previous hypotheses that placed it around Hattuša.80 Elements supporting this localization are extremely significant,81 while its identification with the archaeological site of İkiztepe is still controversial and problematic.82 The Land of Zalpuwa, in addition to its main center Zalpa, was made up of three important towns and their districts: Zihnuwa, Hašhatatta and Mištur(h)a. This can be deduced from the comparative frequency with which these localities are mentioned, and the role they are attributed in celebrations and several administrative documents. As already noted, the Annals of Muršili II demonstrate the proximity of Hatenzuwa, to be located southwest of Kavak, to Tatimuwa. The latter city can be positively identified with Tatimma, a site from which several groups of men originated who took part in the ritual procession during the Zalpa celebrations. This city is also cited in an administrative text concerning metals, together with other places in the area (Hatenzuwa, Tastarišša, Ka(n)tišišša, Tarkuma, Šarahattu), all to be situated on the Hittite border in the direction of the Black Sea.83 The most interesting information, however, comes from the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma; del Monte in his recent edition demonstrates through restoration of a geographical name the proximity of Tatimuwa to Pikainariša. During the king’s military campaign in the area of Nerik, the following events are reported: “My father went then to Pi[kainariša] and devastated with fire the region of Pikainariša, [GN] and [T]atimuwa, [then] took for reconstruction […] …”.84 This information helps us to localize Tatimuwa on the lower Kızılırmak, downstream from Nerik, and towards Zalpa, since the town of Pikainariša,

76  On the involment of the northern Zalpa in the Old Assyrian trade see Forlanini 2008a: 75–76. It is important to remember the possible identification of the Old Ass. town of Ḫa-ra-aḫ-šu-a (Kennedy and Garelli 1960: 6–8 no. 4 obv. 9) with the Hitt. Ḫara-aḫ-šu(-wa) of KBo 22.2 rev. 7ʹ and dupl. (CTH 3), which is to be located somewhere well north of Ḫattuša in the direction of Zalpa. 77  Czichon 2013: 298 with bibliography. 78  On the identification with the so-called northern Zalpa see mainly Corti 2005: 119 and fn. 46 with bibliography; in the same way Miller 2009–2011: 5. On the problem of the different Zalpas mentioned in the texts and their identification see Miller 2001b: 65–101 and now Barjamovic 2011: 107–122.

79  Otten 1973: 20–21, 58. 80  Garstang and Gurney 1959: 15–17. 81  For a review of the sources that support such an identification cf. Forlanini 1977: 199–201. 82  It is important to remember that there are other sites in the Bafra plain that may fit this role; among the many, Sivritepe near Alaçam. For second millennium BC sites in the area see especially Yakar and Dinçol 1974: 85–99. 83  On the identification of Tatimma with Tatimuwa cf. Forlanini 1992a: 296–299. 84  del Monte 2009: 128–129 with fn. 82.

The North: Philology

as Forlanini pointed out, was located very close to Nerik.85 We can therefore provisionally situate Tatimuwa, and consequently the associated district of Mištur(h)a, in the southeastern part of the Land of Zalpuwa. In the third column of the prayer of Arnuwanda and Ašmunikal the following lands are presented in this order: Kaštama, Taggašta, Šerišša, Taštarišša, Takupša, Kammama, Zalpuwa and Nerik. This summary list was preceded by an enlarged one in the second column (KUB 17.21 II, 20ʹ–25ʹ and dupl.):86 “From the land of Nerik, from the land of Huršama, from the land of Kaštama, / . . Šerišša, . . Himuwa, . . Taggašta, / . . Kammama, . . Zalpuwa, . . Kapiruha, / . . Hurna, . . Dankušna, . . Tapašawa, / . . Tarukka, . . Ilaluha, . . Zihhana, / . . Šipidduwa, . . Wašhaya, . . Patalliya”. If one identifies Ilaluha with Hilaluha and Zihhana with Zihnuwa,87 the three toponyms from the penultimate line may show a westeast order. Hilaluha is cited among the possessions belonging to Tarukka in the festival of the Zalpa region.88 Zihhana, is also mentioned in the 15th year of the Annals of Muršili II,89 in a fragmentary context, clearly in relation to the restoration of Hittite control in the region of Tummana, and of the area of Zalpuwa further east, against the Kaskean chief Pitagatalli. The identification with Zihnuwa requires further inquiry, as it modifies the localization of a whole series of cities, with Hurna and Durmitta at the top of the list, compared with what has been proposed thus far. Zihhana is cited elsewhere only in the oracular text KUB 5.1+ among the cities involved in the military routes to be undertaken in order to free the north of the country (for example I 23ff.):90 “His Majesty will carry out the plan for Taptena and the plan for Huršama right away. He will proceed up from behind Tanizila. (He will go) into Zihhana. [Aft]erwards he will attack Hurna and Tašmaha. Ditto (= Is that outcome approved by you gods?) Let (the oracle) be favorable …”. After undertaking the campaign (departing from Nerik) towards Taptena and Huršama, the king moved west towards Tanizila and then Zihhana; subsequently to the south in the direction of Hurna and Tašmaha, 85  Cf. the oracular text of the military itineraries KUB 40.106 and the tablet of the ninth year of the Annals of Muršili; Forlanini 1992a: 286. 86  Translation Singer 2002: 40–43. 87  Singer 1984b: 121: “Zihnuwa (probably identical with Zihhana)”. 88  In addition to Hilaluha, also Tašpina, Inzilitipa, Tunteraha, Kiziwar, Kapušku, Zuluza and Kaumar belonged to its territory. See Forlanini 1984: 252, 258 fn. 57. Tarukka may have fallen under Zalpuwan control in the earlier period. 89  As rightly noted by Houwink Ten Cate 1967: 48. 90  Edition Ünal 1974: 136–137; English translation Beal 1999: 43.

227 which I place north of Osmancık and between Osmancık and Gümüşhacıköy respectively. Since the territories involved gravitated around the Haharwa mountain-range,91 the route reported is well suited to the identification of Zihhana with Zihnuwa. This last piece of information allows us to position the district of Zihnuwa/Zihhana in the southwestern sector of the Land of Zalpuwa, bordering Tarukka to the west and the towns of Tanizila and Zigaballa to the south, i.e. west of Nerik.92 Hašhatatta, though not mentioned in connection with places outside of Zalpa, was probably the most important center in the region after Zalpa itself, as can be deduced from KBo 16.65(+) Obv I, for example. This text talks about the personnel acquired by the Storm-god temple of the city from the neighboring towns of Kapatta, possibly situated in the hilly zone facing the plain of Bafra since the requested personnel was specialized in caring for vineyards, and Kuluppa, which Forlanini proposes to identify with the classical Κωνωπεϊον, modern day Kumcaaiz, and presumably situated along the coast.93 In addition to Hahhana,94 Kapatta and Kuluppa, the places of Kištama and Takkimiš must have been part of the administrative district, as they are listed after the provincial town in the colophon of KBo 16.65(+). Furthermore, the document highlights the agricultural orientation of Hašhatatta and the dominant role of the temple of the Storm-god there, which was allotted personnel.95 This geographical scenario allows us to address and to match the religious issues and in particular the festival celebrations that took place throughout the territory: in the Old Hittite invocations, the pilgrimage of the prince must have started in the west (Zihnuwa) and continued towards the southeast through Karikuriška, Mištur(h)a and Tatimma, then turned towards the northeast, reaching Hašhatatta and the sea;96 in the Imperial period celebrations it seems that the direction of the itinerary was reversed, going from the east to the west.97 91  Thus correctly Forlanini 2010b: 126. 92  These two towns are attested only in the oracular documentation; for a likely connection of the Hattian word ta-ni-zi-la attested in a fragment of the KI.LAM festival with the toponym Tanizila see Soysal 1998: 59–60. 93  Forlanini 1977: 220. Kuluppa is also mentioned in the royal edict KBo 22.1. 94  Not to be confused with the North-Central Anatolian province of Hanhana; see Corti 2010b: 149–151. 95  For a new treatment of this text see Corti (in press). Cf. also KBo 12.19. 96  New edition Corti 2006b, Id. 2010. 97  These last documents are important not only for the reconstruction of the geography of the area but also because they

228 If, up until now, we have attempted to reconstruct with a certain approximation the geography within the Zalpuwa Land, in conclusion I hold that it is fundamental to confirm the link of the region with better known territories, closer to the nucleus of the Hatti Empire. I maintain that a new piece of evidence is supplied by Bo 3394+KUB 31.57, a document which lists rations and assets collected from neighbouring provinces and towns and distributed during a celebration officiated by the king in the city of Nerik. The restoration in rev IV 2–4 of the sentence “[And these (offerings) Huzz]iya, / [the man of the Storm-god . .]. . / [and the administrator of the land of Zal]puwa / [thus] they suppl[y]” demonstrates that, in the organization of the festival, not only the provinces of Nerik, Hakpiš and Ištahara were involved, but also Zalpuwa, confirming its proximity to the territory of Nerik.98 We can thus confirm that mainly during the Old Hittite Kingdom the land of Zalpuwa must have originally extended through the area today known as the province of Samsun probably partially including the area to the south of the Yund Daǧi range (Nerik district), whereas the territory to the east of Samsun province (beyond the city of Samsun) is to be excluded. 6.2 Lihzina Beyond Zalpa, the other religious center of ancient Hattian tradition involved in important myths and stories was Lihzina. The city’s cult, and in particular its Stormgod cult, were widely diffused throughout Anatolia (cults in Pala, Karahna, Tiliura, etc). Despite frequent attestations the evidence has been considered too meagre for a localization.99 On a geographical level, the city seems to be in some sort of relationship with the country of Durmitta,100 according to the prayer of Muwatalli II to the Assembly of Gods, which lists the divinities of the two centers in adjoining paragraphs, and in the cult inventory KUB 48.105+KBo 12.53 Obv. 19ʹ; but, in the latter text, the restoration of the geographical name has not been confirmed and, consequently, this connection is no longer sustainable.101 demonstrate the reconquest of the Land of Zalpuwa by the last Hittite kings. See Corti 2010c. 98  I am currently working on a new edition of the text. 99  See Forlanini 1984: 251, 259–260 with textual references. Also Singer 1996a: 175 with fn. 371. 100   The location of Durmitta is still disputed; according to Barjamovic 2011: 242–267 it should be located in the area between Amasya and Merzifon while for Forlanini (2012a: 294– 296) on the Middle Kızılırmak, perhaps Büklükale; see infra. 101  For more suggestions see recently Barjamovic 2011: 249 fn. 938 with bibliography.

Corti

In KBo 12.19 Lihzina is mentioned in the same context as the Land of Zalpuwa and Hašhatatta, one of its most important districts, which was situated close to the coast, as we have seen.102 Since the inner western and eastern sectors seem well covered by Zihnuwa, Tarukka and Mišturha it is possible to place Lihzina close to the coast towards the east (maybe in the Samsun area) or possibly towards the west (in the area of Sinop). 7

The North-Western Country

Thanks to annalistic texts we can connect the nervecenter of the Hittite Empire and the northwestern districts; it was possible to go both from Hattena and from Nerik to reach the territories of Tarittara and Ka/iškilušša, then those of Tarukka and Šapittuwa and, finally, the regions of Tummana and Pala.103 Previous hypotheses that placed these territories to the southeast of the Hittite capital104 have long been discarded in favor of the northwestern zone, more compatible with information that can be inferred from texts,105 remembering Forrer’s old proposal to equate Pala and Tummana with Blaene and Domanitis of Strabo.106 This was related to the identification of the two tributaries of the Kızılırmak in this zone: the Devrez and the Gökırmak. Güterbock’s proposal to detect in the Gökırmak the Dahara from Hittite sources was widely accepted,107 culminating in the works of Houwink ten Cate, von Schuler and Ertem.108 One of the most evident problems arising from this placement was that it concentrated most of the military activity of the zone, and consequently a notable 102  KBo 12.19 Obv. I 1ʹ–7ʹ: [H]e(?) ca[me] from the city of Lihzina[ / he brought from Lihzina [ / In the land of Zalpuwa the city of Hašhat[atta / The chief of its priests [ in the(?)] city of Intuhh[u / and of the city of Hašhatatta the Sto[rm(?)] God[ / they assign(?) [ / 2 [she]ep(?) [from(?)] the cit[y …; for this connection cf. KBo 21.82. Corti 2006b: 283–284. 103  For the so-called ‘eastern and western routes’ see Forlanini 1992a. Ka/iškilušša is only mentioned in the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma and in the Illuyanka myth. I restore (URUGa-aš-k[i-lu-uš-ša-aš) in the fragmentary inventory text KUB 38.35 rev IV 2ʹ. I propose this tablet dealt with a strip of territory from Kavak to the southeast of Boybat, given that it starts with Hatenzuwa (col. I) and ends with Ka/iškilušša. 104  So Garstang and Gurney 1959: X (map), 30–31 (explained in Gurney 1992) and Cornelius 1958b: 244. 105  See the explanations of Goetze 1960: 45–46 and Güterbock 1961: 95. 106  Forrer 1928–1932: 392–393. 107  Güterbock 1961: 95 fn. 48. 108  Houwink ten Cate 1967; von Schuler 1965: 39; Ertem 1980: 37–39.

The North: Philology

number of toponyms, to the north of the Ilgaz mountain ranges (Hittite Kaššu, Strabo’s Olgassys).109 Forlanini equated the river Dahara with the Devrez and the Šariya with the Gökırmak.110 Although his localization proposals were received with favor by most of the scientific community, some of his reconstruction of the itineraries followed by the Hittite army as narrated by the annalistic texts have recently been doubted.111 Because the descriptions of Hittite military expeditions in the zone are fundamental for the geographical reconstruction of the western area, it is useful to quote two significant passages: one from the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma and one from the extensive Annals of his son Muršili. In the first excerpt, it says that Šuppiluliuma, after having crossed the lands of Kammama, Ištahara, Hattena, Tikukuwa and Hurna, reaches the river Maraššanta:112 [Then he (Šuppiluliuma) went] in[to the land of T]arittara. [And becau]se it [was at pe]ac[e with it, he did not destroy] the land of Taritta[ra]. But [Pitta]gatalli mobilized [the troops in] (the town of) Š[apidduwa(?), and he went] against[…]. But when my father [heard of it(?)], he did [no]t wait but […]. My father [marched] away from there, as[cended] Mount Illuriya and spent the night in (the town of) Wašhaya. He burned down the land of Zina[- …]. From there he (went on and) spent the night in (the town of) Ka[škilušša] and burned down the lands of Kaškilušša and Tarukka. From there he (went on and) spent the night in (the town of) Hinariwanda and burned down the land of Hinariwanda and Iwatallišša. From there he (went on and) spent the night (in the town of) Šapidduwa and burned down the land of Šapidduwa. When he had burned down these lands, my father went into the land of Tummana. And from [Tumma]na he ascended Mount Kaššu and burned down [the land of …]-naggara. And (the land of) the river Dahara, [which] he had [con]quered, opened hostilities once again. The military campaign described in the extensive Annals of Mursili most likely went in the opposite direction, with

109  See Matthews and Glatz 2009a: 52 for further implications. 110  Forlanini 1977: 202–203, 219. 111  See Matthews and Glatz 2009a: 64–65 and Barjamovic 2011: 250. 112  For this passage recently del Monte 2009: 138–139. Translation Hoffner 1997a: 191 with slight changes.

229 the Hittite army arriving from Pala and Tummana and continuing to the east:113 […] He (Pittagatalli) went … [and he went to the town of(?)] Zihhana […] he mobilized the troops and charioteers, he brought 9,000 troops as an auxiliary force for the inhabitants of (the town of) Šapidduwa and he placed himself in support in front of Šapidduwa, while he seized the Illuriya mountain behind him; then he spoke as follow: “In former days [Tumma]na(?) was territory of his father and we did [lea]ve it in front of him; but into our countries we will not let him [come down] and Šapidduwa we will not turn over to him!”. [When I, My Majesty], heard such things […] the city of Altana, left there its provision and I, My Majesty, put the army on a forced march. Because they had advance guards, if I had turned my eyes towards Pittagatalli, since the advance guards of Pittagatalli would have seen me, he would not have waited for me, but would have fled before me. So from there I turned my eyes toward Pittapara, but when the night arrived I turned about on the spot and went against Pittagatalli. I marched all night and the morning started in the country of Šapidduwa. When it was daylight I marched in battle against him and the aforementioned 9000 troops that Pittagatalli had conducted, began battle against me. … I fought the enemy and chased him up to mount Illuriya. I killed each and every one of them. Pittagatalli was the only one who escaped from me, but I took all his soldiers and chariots. Then I threw behind the army and they pushed him beyond the Illuriya mountain, they brought him down into the valley of the Dahara and they took the population, cattle and sheep. In both cases the setting for the action is the same (Tummana and Šapidduwa) as well as the adversary (the Kaškean Pittagatalli). In fact, as has already been pointed out by del Monte, in the Annals of Muršili “a speech is reported, attributable to Pittagatalli indeed, that seems to recall exactly this passage of the deeds”.114 If this assumption is correct, comparing the data from the passages, we have not one but two definite points, that of Tarukka (to the east of Boybat)115 and that of Zihhana/Zihnuwa 113  Already Forlanini 1977: 206; edition Goetze 1933: 154ff. Updated translations Houwink ten Cate 1967: 51–52, del Monte 1993: 110– 111, and CHD L-N 141–142. 114  del Monte 2009: 139 with fn. 17. 115  Forlanini 1977: 203; Id 1984: 259–260.

230 (southeast of Duraǧan)116 that anchor Šapidduwa and Tummana in the valley of the Gökırmak. With a reasonable estimation the geographical reconstruction for the northwestern campaigns provided by Forlanini is thus confirmed. 7.1 The Districts between Nerik and Tummana With the land nestled between Nerik to the east, Zalpuwa to the north, and Tummana to the west, we find ourselves in a place of ancient tradition that recalls important Hittite myths and legends. Even Tarittara, the first city that Šuppiluliuma encounters after crossing the Maraššanta (probably fording the river around Akbelen), has a long history that goes back to the Old Assyrian colonies period with the almost identical name of Ta/iritar; its importance was probably due to the fact that good quality copper was extracted in the area and, also for this reason, it could be located close to Saraydüzü and Korucak.117 The town is again cited in the Middle Hittite treaty of Arnuwanda I with the Kaška people, as a supplier, along with many other localities, of troops and personnel.118 But it is Ka/ iškilušša and Tarukka that fit the mythological scenario of the dragon Illuyanka and the ritual connected with it, which has its religious and geographical cornerstone in Nerik. In addition to the region of Nerik there are other precise geographical references in the story, such as the (Black) Sea coast where the dragon’s grotto can be found, Ziggaratta, not attested elsewhere, and, finally, the previously cited Ka/iškilušša, scene of the battle between the dragon and the Storm-god, and Tarukka where the goddess Inara built a house on the cliff for her human lover Hupašiya.119 Going further up the river Šariya/Gökırmak, even the contested Šapidduwa from the annals, located north of Boybat, could have an ancient tradition120 and find an echo in the mythological texts. It is plausible that the qualification šapittuwa- attributed to the mythical stone monster Ullikummi and usually translated “dreadful(?)” actually refers to a geographical name, in this case intended as the place of origin of a specific raw material; thus 116  In turn linked to Nerik/Oymaaǧaç. 117  In the Old Assyrian tablets the town is cited in combination with copper (“copper from Ta/iritar”) or in a nisbe; now Michel 2011–2013: 464. For up to date references concerning these ores, see Johnson 2010: 311–313. 118  Now Gerçek 2012: 256 ff. with bibliography. 119  See Forlanini 1977: 201; for this myth Pecchioli and Polvani 1990: 39–55 and Hoffner 1998: 10–14. 120  The place-name Še-pí-it-tu-un is attested in the Hattian text KUB 28.72 Obv. Left Side 11ʹ; thus Forlanini 1987a: 107, 114 fn. 11 and del Monte and Tischler 1978: 349.

Corti

the epithet of Ullikummi would sound something like “the Šapittuwan Basalt (monster)”121 and we would thus find here the insertion of typical Anatolian elements into myths traditionally attributed to the Hurrian cultural milieu which are often in reality the result of a sophisticated Hittite adaptation.122 The territory of Šapidduwa was strategically important because it was at the center of the military activity of Muršili and Šuppiluliuma at Tummana and because it was close to the main Hittite outpost of Altana.123 The restoration of the place-name in a tablet from the 16th year of the extensive annals of Muršili II fits the context well;124 this king was in fact engaged at the mountainous front of Wašhaya, of the mountain Kaššu and in the land of Tarittara and the return to Ša[pidduwa] after battles with the Kaškean people, the only peaceful center of a certain importance in the area together with Altana, seems entirely justified.125 The region must have been under pressure even before the military activity by the “warrior” kings, as recorded in the prayer of Arnuwanda and Ašmunikal and as is confirmed by a letter found in Šapinuwa, sent by officials to a Hittite king to advise him of the situation of conflict triggered by the people of Šapidduwa.126 The message also reports that a certain Kaššu, a dignitary with a military commission, had been sent to suppress the revolt against an unspecified “enemy”; curiously, in this case and in that of the letter ABoT 1.60, that deals with the same area but with Tarittara at the nerve-center, the Kaška people are not explicitly mentioned but rather the enemy of the zone. The information provided by these two letters must make us reflect on the separatist tendencies of the population living in the valley of the Šariya/Gökırmak, regardless of the aggressive Kaška,127 as well as on the territory’s 121  This proposal is suggested at CHD Š/1, 206 and is now confirmed thanks to the restoration of the determinative for city in the fragment KUB 33.92+ IV 20ʹ (U]RUŠa-ap-pí-id-du-wa). It is not by chance that there is a significant presence of andesitic basalts in the Kastamonu region according to Peccerillo and Taylor 1976: 63–81. 122  On these issues see recently Corti and Pecchioli Daddi 2012: 611–618. 123  Also the oracular fragment KUB 16.40 Obv.? 19–22 seems to confirm the proximity of Šapidduwa with Tummana; cf. Forlanini 2013b: 48–49. 124  Differently del Monte 1993: 118 fn. 165. 125  If we believe Muršili’s description about the previous year’s military campaign (15th year). 126  See HHCTO 2; Ünal 1998: 32–38 and Marizza 2009: 57–59. 127  As rightly pointed out by Hoffner 2009: 176–178 in ABoT 1.60 it is said that the Kaška allies of the Hittites moved away. This

The North: Philology

importance from an economical point of view, paying close attention to that which is written in ABoT 1.60 20ʹ– 21ʹ: “Your Majesty, my lord, should know: The place is very important: it is the enemy’s granary!”128 7.2 Tummana There is a certain uniformity of viewpoints regarding the placement of Tummana, which, as mentioned, has been identified with the Domanitis of Strabo and more or less corresponds to the district of Kastamonu.129 Matthews and Glatz, in a recent study re-examining archeological and textual sources, arrived at the conclusion that the region was to be located much further to the southwest in virtue of the absence of sites from the Late Bronze Age along the Küre foothills.130 Keeping in mind the previously discussed connection between the southern sectors of Zalpuwa, Šapidduwa and Tummana, we can affirm that this region occupied the plain through which the Gökırmak flowed in its initial course and had as natural boundaries the mountains of Küre to the north and Ilgaz to the south. As highlighted by del Monte,131 both Šuppiluliuma and Muršili had to intervene numerous times to take back possession to the point that they established a permanent garrison under the command of their relative, Hutupiyanza, who had become governor of Pala and Tummana as a reward for services rendered. Add to this the military itinerary from the oracular text KUB 16.40 rev. 12–21 that, among other localities, cites in order Pala, Hawiliya, Altana, …, Šapidduwa and the country of Tummana. This should not be interpreted as a route running in an absolute straight line west-east but rather as a series of indications of strategically important places for interventions along the northern front.132 That Tummana was an important region also from an economic point of view seems clear from the Imperial period inventory KBo 12.53+KUB 48.105; this long-known text133 lists the gifts (personnel and offerings) sent by confirms what has been said in the section 2 about the Kaškean people. 128  For ABoT 1.60 see Hoffner 2009: 176–178; Marizza 2009: 89–91. 129  For the previous hypotheses see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 437–438; del Monte 1992: 173; Ertem 1980: 14–15. 130  Matthews and Glatz 2009a: 64. On this issue see the recent reflections of Forlanini 2013b: 94–97. For an up-to-date overview of this province see Cammarosano and Marizza 2015. 131  del Monte 2009: 103 fn. 25. 132  In this way it is possible to validate the turn from Altana (already in Tummana) and Šapidduwa to Tummana. For the text Forlanini 1977: 206. 133  Edition Archi and Klengel 1980: 143–157.

231 a king of Tummana in order to contribute to the maintenance of the cult centers situated in the provinces of Durmitta and Kaššiya. This document is useful for the geographical reconstruction not only of Tummana (and Pala) but also of the adjacent province. Forlanini holds that the provinces are mentioned in geographical order (from northwest towards southeast) and so Kaššiya would have extended to the south of Pala and Tummana while Durmitta and its region extended along the Kızılırmak, with its capital to be identified with Büklükale.134 As correctly pointed out by this scholar, the offerings were the result of confiscated goods from (military) campaigns conducted by the king and his dignitaries in regions under Hittite control. The importance of the King of Tummana is confirmed by other sources; he is in fact mentioned in a cult-inventory (KuT 18+22 3ʹ) found at Kuşaklı/Šarišša,135 a city far from the area under examination, as well as in various other texts.136 Tummana must have held sway over several towns, including Altana, which must have been its eastern outpost, with the probable function of controlling the Gökırmak valley at Taşköprü. The city may be mentioned in a text that can be attributed to Tuthaliya (probably I/II); despite its fragmentary nature, it appears to describe a battle in the area of Altana, at the end of which the victorious sovereign brought the booty to Hattuša.137 From the extensive annals of Muršili (15th and 16th year), we know that Athuliša was controlled by the rulers Pendumli and Pizzumuri, natives of the Dahara/Devrez valley; this information tends to situate the city along this river,138 but after comparing all the passages where it is mentioned, I believe it is possible to suggest the area on the slopes of Mt Kaššu around Akkaya, along the line that connected the Dahara with Tummana.139 In addition to 134  This text is analyzed by Forlanini 2009a: 49ff. For my proposals see infra. 135  Edition Wilhelm 1995: 41. 136  For textual references now Forlanini 2014: 32–33. According to him, it is possible that the name Kaššu (kà-su) of the bulla 91/944 from Nişantepe (Boğazköy) and of KBo 47.239 III 4, may be linked with the king of Tummana. See Herbordt 2005: 141 (transliterated ká-su), 258 (transliterated ka-su). 137  KBo 19.47+ and duplicates; for the text see Groddek 2009: 159– 170 especially 160–163. 138  del Monte 2009: 101 fn. 17. For a localization northeast of Kastamonu cf. Ertem 1980: 39–40 and map. 139  For the passages del Monte 1993: 114, 117–119; Id 2009: 101. The fact that the two rulers originated in the Dahara river valley does not mean that Athuliša should be sought precisely there; also the different contexts in which both the rulers and city are mentioned seem to fit better a mountainous district: the Kaššu range in the Annals and Mount Zukuka in the Deeds.

232 the annalistic texts, Athuliša is attested in a Middle Hittite treaty or instruction KBo 40.8 r. 5ʹ in which the city of Durmitta is also cited (r.6ʹ). The position of Durmitta has implications for the geography of the northern area. The localization of the town in the area of İskilip, proposed by Matthews and Glatz140 is too far to the north, just as Forlanini’s proposal around Büklükale141 is too far to the south, and that of Barjamovic, between Amasya and Merzifon, is even further off.142 For the central nucleus of the province, I am inclined to propose a more intermediary position, for example the area between the town of Kızılırmak, on the eponymous river, and Kalecik.143 The problem of the location of Durmitta would require a specific study which is beyond the scope of the present discussion, but I think that the connection with Nenašša and Uwalma demonstrated by KUB 48.105+ does not automatically justify its placement at Büklükale, as there are still no certainties about the localization of these two provinces, which were incorporated in its territory during the Imperial era.144 To the northeast of this area lies the Astar Valley where both copper ore and natural copper are present, which is important for the location of Old Assyrian Durhumit (= Durmitta).145 Furthermore the important role of the god Telipinu in the panthea of Hanhana (Çorum), Durmitta and Tawiniya would make sense if there was a relative closeness or proximity in their territories.146 Almina must have been part of the territory of Tummana and have been rather close to Athuliša, given that Šuppiluliuma, who was there and at Tuhupurpuna, was initially challenged by the inhabitants of Almina. Following his arrival in the city, these same people submitted.147 Since, also in the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma, Almina could be the starting point for the expedition of two Hittite agents against the region of Kašula, it can be maintained that also the latter was situated in the same zone. Supporting this placement is the mention of Kašula together with the river Šariya in the “deposition” 140  Matthews and Glatz 2009a: 64. 141  Forlanini 2012a: 294–296. 142  Barjamovic 2011: 242–267. 143  Remembering, however, that in some periods the breadth of its territory must have been considerable, extending both north and south of the proposed location, along a strip that ran along the Kızılırmak. There is a reasonably large mound near the town of Kızılırmak itself (Sipahi 2003: 277), for example. 144  A localization of Nenašša, instead of Durmitta (Forlanini) or Wahšušana (Barjamovic), at Büklükale might be considered. 145  Now Johnson 2010: 371 and fn. 1009 with references. 146  For a different evaluation of these data see Barjamovic 2011: 252. 147  Edition del Monte 2009: 86, 101; translation Hoffner 1997a: 189.

Corti

from the time of Tuthaliya IV, KUB 23.91+. Its region could have extended both to the north of the Gökırmak/ Šariya148 and to its west, if we locate Almina in the area of Daday. In addition to these references, Kašula is recorded among the countries whose divinities are invoked in the Kizzuwatnean rituals149 and in KBo 52.253, a fragment of unclear definition that refers to Kalašpa (= Kalašma; r. 3ʹ) and possibly Kiššiya (r. 8ʹ), in addition to Kašula (r. 2ʹ).150 At the end of his military campaign in the north, Suppiluliuma confirms the connection of all these places to the Tummana region:151 “Then my father conquered all of the land of Tummana and rebuilt it and reestablished it and made it again part of the Hittite land”. Before moving on to the description of the land of Pala, I think it is important to mention that the archaeological findings and the surveys along the valley of the Gökırmak do not invalidate the localization proposed here for Tummana: in addition to the famous Kınık hoard in the area of Kastamonu152 which also consists of a bowl with a hieroglyphic inscription of the late Imperial period dedicated by the official Taprammi,153 the surveys of the site of Gavurevleri must also be cited, a settlement mound close to Daday on the westernmost reaches of the Gökırmak, with a long stratigraphic sequence that seems to include Late Bronze Age and Iron Age layers154 as well as on the Köçekli Plateau, southeast of Taşköprü, where there are settlements from the Chalcolithic to Hittite periods;155 last but not least the discovery of a Hittite sword close to Pınarbaşı (Mızrak Mağarası).156 7.3 Pala The “Land of Pala” is mentioned in the Old Hittite text of the Laws together with Luwiya and Hatti;157 its role must have been meaningful, despite its somewhat peripheral position. The land of Pala, the classical Blaene, has been situated to the west/southwest of Tummana, with one proposal being the area of modern-day city of Tosya,158 while 148  Forlanini 1977: 219. 149  Recently Forlanini 2000: 17. 150  Unfortunately, due to the bad condition of the fragment, these place-names cannot be linked together. 151  del Monte 2009: 100–103; translation Hoffner 1997a: 189. 152  Emre, Çınaroǧlu 1993: 675–713; now Matthews and Glatz 2009a: 53. It is however difficult to draw conclusions on the origin and destination of these items without resorting to speculation. 153  Hawkins 1993: 715–717. 154  Marro, Özdoğan and Tibet 1998: 325. 155  Johnson 2011: 198, with bibliography. 156  Johnson 2010: 30–31 with references. 157   §5; see Hoffner 1997c: 19, 170–171. 158  Houwink ten Cate 1967: 46; van den Hout 2003–2005: 191.

The North: Philology

a different location, which places it slightly to the north of Ankara, was also recently suggested.159 Forlanini has produced a recent summary of the geographical issues of the region, which has brought further documentation to specify the boundaries of Pala.160 A starting point for its placement can be found in the annalistic texts, specifically in a passage from the 20th year of the Mursili Annals in which Hutupiyanza, governor of Pala, invades the region of Kalašma passing to the north through the mountain range of Ašharpaya, possibly along the valley of the river Gerede. The connection between these two regions is confirmed by KBo 23.27, a small fragment of historical nature, in which the army(?) of Pala is mentioned (Rev. 7ʹ) and two lines later Kala[šma] can be restored. Forlanini originally proposed Eflâni and the Karabük basin as the location for Pala, but later modified its position slightly based upon information provided by Matthews and Glatz, and localized Pala on the meridian of Ankara, approximately in the modern-day area of Çerkeş, between the mountain ranges of Ilgaz and Koroǧlu.161 The most vivid description of the territory of Pala can be found in a passage from the 15th year of Muršili’s Annals:162 the Kaška enemy devastated and even occupied the territory of Tummana, that been occupied at the time of my father, and the city of Tummana and then the fortresses that had been built. My father bestowed command of the region of Pala to Prince Hutupiyanza, son of the Chief of the Guards, Zita— Zita who was the brother of my father. The land of Pala was not at all a protected land; no fortified town or site on which one could fall back was there at all. It was rather a country on its knees. Though Hutupiyanza defended the land of Pala, no army stood at his disposal: he made shelters in the mountains and the people which he had brought there in small numbers did not give anything to the [enemy] of the Land of Pala. Pala had to border Tummana. Its territory also included mountains163 and the communication routes must not have always been easy; from the east the region could be reached through Tummana, from the west via Kalašma, 159  Matthews and Glatz 2009a: 64–65. 160  Forlanini 1977: 206ff.; Id 2013. 161  Forlanini 1977: 206–207, 220; 2013b: 46. 162  Translated by author. Cf. Garstang and Gurney 1959: 30; del Monte 1993: 109; now Forlanini 2013b: 46. 163  For example the Ašharpaya range and Mount Pirpira.

233 while it is more difficult to identify what the main route from the south/southwest was. Süel recently presented a letter from Ortaköy sent to a Hittite King by a certain Šarlakurunta who writes:164 “My Sun, you wrote me like this: ‘Determine the oracle in Zidaparha and Pala!’ ” In the list of localities referred to by this dignitary there are Pala, Kappuwa, Lalha, Išpuha, Arawanna, Walhuwaššantiya, Tittipuwanda, Ayaranna and Ziulila; several of these place-names are well known from other sources and it can therefore be concluded that it is a well-defined area to the northwest. Subsequently, Šarlakurunta explains that he will go to determine the oracle in the cities of Zitaparha, Pala, and Ziulila and specifies: ‘My Sun, write me urgently. I will look to this subject for the second time and I will send …… when it is ready. If any …… happens on the road, I will deal with this issue personally’. From the indications provided it is highly probable that the three localities had to be relatively close to one another and were situated along a well-defined route. From the available documentation, we know that the city of Zitaparha was an important junction since it had connections towards Tummana to the north,165 Pala and Kalašma to the northwest and Durmitta to the south.166 Šuppiluliuma would not go to aid the city, despite the request for help on account of the Kaškean raids, since it was too far from the main military objective (Tummana by way of Tarittara and Šapidduwa). By contrast, Mursili later reconstructed the town in his 16th year. In partial agreement with Forlanini’s proposal from 1977,167 I would locate Zitaparha on the left bank of the Kızılırmak, slightly south of Çankırı; placing it further south, between Kalecık and Kırıkkale,168 would make both its proximity with Pala (and Tummana) and the shift towards the north of the route taken by Šuppiluliuma from Ištahara to Tummana that I have proposed, really problematic.169 Also the geographical context for Ziulila does not change, since in KBo 13.73 the city is in clear connection with Zitaparha and 164  Süel 2009: 196; Forlanini 2013b: 51. 165  I agree with del Monte 1993: 116 fn.157 about the possibility of restoring Tumma[na] in KUB 34.36 r. 9ʹ; differently Forlanini 2009a: 58 fn. 116 (Tumma). On the path followed by Šuppiluliuma to reach Tummana, which I would qualify ‘southern’ not to confuse it with the ‘northern’ one, cf. also the already cited KBo 40.8. 166  For the textual documentation see Forlanini 1977: 206–207. 167  Forlanini 1977: 207 (between Çorum and Çankırı). 168  Forlanini 2009a: 57. 169  Therefore the request for help from the city while Šuppiluliuma was in Tuhpiliša, which I think is to be located in the region of Hattena (south of Tavşan Dağ), would not make sense because the king would have had to travel about 200km.

234

Corti

Kalašma (via Pala);170 furthermore thanks to the reference in the 5th year of the Annals of Muršili, we know that the city was the end point on the way back (via Šammaha) of the campaign to free Mt Ašharpaya from the Kaška of the area, who had blocked the roads leading towards the region of Pala, and a setting out point for the next one, which aimed to attack the people of Arawanna who were oppressing the region of Ka/iššiya.171 For these reasons, it is reasonable to locate Ziulila in the surroundings of Șabanözü since it was a starting point of several roads for the crossing of the Koroǧlu mountains.172 In conclusion, the region of Pala bordered Tummana to the east, Kalašma to the west, and Ka/iššiya to the south, beyond the Ašharpaya range; as far as its localization is concerned, it can be maintained that Forlanini’s recent proposal linking the area of Çerkeş is valid.173 We can add, however, that Pala could have reached further north, even as far as the area of Karabük, which would justify the interest in this region from a strategic point of view.174 8

Hulana River Land

The proposed localizations for the Hulana River Land (Hittite hulana “wool”; Sumerographic writing SÍG)175 are spread from the northwest to the southeast of Hittite Anatolia. According to Garstang and Gurney, the river Hulana could correspond to the Zamanti Su, consequently linking the region to Cilicia,176 while according to Macqueen, it was located along one of the eastern

170  Forlanini 1977: 207. 171  For this passage del Monte 1993: 67–68. As already noted, the document from Ortaköy mentions Arawanna. 172  I maintain that some of the Second Millennium B.C. sites surveyed by the Team of the “Project Paphlagonia” may well be along the different paths outlined here, that from the south (Zitaparha =? Maltepe) crossed the mountains and reached Tummana to the north (via Salman-West?) and Pala/Kalašma to the northwest (via Dumanlı?). For the Project’s final report see Matthews and Glatz 2009b. 173  Forlanini 2013b: 46. 174  For example, the control of the area at the confluence of the Araç and Soǧanlı rivers, tributaries of the Yenice Irmağı/Filyos Çayı, via which the east-west road crossed by Hittite armies had to pass. 175  On the word hulana- see now HW 2 III/2 Nr. 19: 695–696 with references. For localization proposals and the problem of misinterpretation of the sumerographic writing (SIG7 “green” instead of SÍG “wool”) see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 529–530 with bibliography. 176  Garstang and Gurney 1959: 44.

tributaries of the Sakarya, approximately in the area of Beypazarı and Güdül.177 In order to be able to situate the Hulana River Land, we must draw on the sources relating to Ka/iššiya and the district of Šappa, since it bordered them, as we will see. If we return to the letter from Ortaköy mentioned above, I am convinced that the specific area to which the localities mentioned there referred was actually Mt Ašharpaya, with Išpuha and Kappuwa possibly to be identified with Išhuppa and Šappuwa (= Šappa) respectively.178 If this assumption is correct, the mysterious people of Arawanna must have been on the western front of the mountain range since, as already stated, the Kaška people of the Ašharpaya occupied the “eastern” sector along the route Zitaparha-Ziulila-Pala.179 At this point, it remains only to locate the province of Ka/iššiya in the area of Ankara180 and Šappa somewhere around Güdul, the latter being in the direction of Lalha, Išhuppa and the region of Kalašma, as already noted.181 The proximity of Ka/iššiya to Šappa is confirmed by the fact that under Arnuwanda I the latter fell under the possessions of Ka/iššiya. If we now return to the Hulana River Land, in the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma, Muršili described a military campaign carried out by his grandfather and father to defend Kaššiya and Hulana that followed the one against the Arzawa land:182 “My grandfather became well again and came down from the Upper Land. And since the troops of the lands of Maša and Kammala kept attacking the land of the Hulana River and the land of Kaššiya, my grandfather went to attack them. My father went along too on the campaign. The gods went before my grandfather, (so that) he proceeded to destroy the land of Maša and Kammala.” The proximity of these two provinces is also confirmed by the Apology of Hattušili III (II 57–60), since Kaššiya, Šappa and the valley of the River Hulana are cited in order in the list of the king’s possessions. As indicated for the others regions, the Hulana River land also seems to have played an important role in the 177  Macqueen 1986: 55, 39 (map); moreover, according to him, Kaššiya has to be placed in the valley of the river Devrez. 178  So correctly Forlanini 2013b: 51. Cf. the role played by the Haharwa range for the Central Black Sea region in the already mentioned KUB 5.1+. 179  In the documentation the people of Arawanna are remembered as a source of mercenaries and labor; they were never under full Hittite control. See mainly del Monte 1992: 68 fn. 31 with references. 180  According to Forlanini 1977: 208. 181  See de Martino this volume. 182  Edition del Monte 2009: 42–45; translation Hoffner 1997a: 186–187.

The North: Philology

historiographical tradition. The river is mentioned in the Anitta text, which is believed to narrate events from the Old Assyrian period. During clashes from the 4th year of his reign, Anitta observes:183 “In the following year I went to battle (again) a[gainst Šalatiwa]ra. The “man” (= ruler) of Šalatiwara arose together with his sons and came against me. He left his land and his city behind and took up a position on the Hulana River. [The army of] Neša came around behind him (stealthily) and set fire to his city.” This passage indicates that Šalatiwara was relatively close to the River Hulana.184 The connection of the household of Kuššar, Pithana and Anitta, with the Hulana River Land, continues in later times since, despite the disappearance of this dynasty, traces remain of a LUGAL URUKuššar in the cult inventory KUB 58.15. The text mentions the celebrations and lists the offerings given by the (territory of the) River Hulana (I 10–11): [. . the riv]er Hulana of the Huwatnuwanna mountain / [ ]. . the king of Kuššar, they arrange (the festivals). (I 14–15) (offerings) the river Hulana gives / [… (offerings) the mou]ntain Huwatnuwanda gives”.185 That in the Late Imperial period there was a special relationship between the region being examined and this “King” appears to be confirmed by another liturgical document, KUB 60.117+*Bo 5056, that can most likely be attributed to Hattušili III due to the mention of the King of Hakpiš, in addition to the King of Kuššar.186 In the preserved part of this document, besides the land of Pala and Mt Pirpira, the city of Hašpinuwa is cited (= Hašpina; to be situated to the north of Ankara/Kaššiya) which was the point of departure for expedition to the north in the direction of Pala and Tummana (via Ziulila) and to the west towards Partuwata. The latter locality is connected with the river Šahiriya.187

183  Hoffner 1997b: 182–184, especially 184. 184  About the town location Forlanini 2008a: 59–60; for various interpretations of the ‘battle of Šalatiwara’ see Barjamovic 2011: 353–356 (and this volume, chapter 23). 185  See Ünal 1995: 274–275 and Polvani 1998: 321–326. This last scholar points out that the offering of the Hulana river consists of wool. 186  I am currently working on a treatment of this text; duplicate KBo 55.186. For the stemma codicum see Košak 1994: 289–290. Since the attribution of this document to Hattušili III is almost certain, also because of the institution of cults mainly to IŠTAR/ Šaušga, I believe that the “King of Kuššar” to which it refers is Hattušili I and not Anitta; Hattušili III is in fact linked to this ancestor through his titulature in various documents issued by him. Cf. Gonnet 1979: 34–35. 187  For textual data concerning the place-names mentioned and the geographical connections see Forlanini 2013b: 48–53.

235 The connection between the Hulana River and Mt Huwatnuwanda from KUB 58.15 creates problems for the localization accepted up until now. If the proximity of the country of the River Hulana with Wattarwa in the Šahurunuwa Deed,188 which includes Huwatnuwanda and Šahiriya in the same context, can be justified as a case of homonymy with the Wattarwa mentioned in itineraries related to Central Cappadocia,189 it becomes more difficult to explain the connection between the same mountain and the river Hulaya in the Lower Land as clearly stated in the “Bronze Tablet” and Ulmi-Teššup treaty: “In the direction of Mount Huwatnuwanta, his frontier is the hallapuwanza, but the hallapuwanza belongs to the Land of Hulaya river.”190 Confirmation of this scenario can be found in the Muwatalli Prayer, which states (II 38–40): “Storm-god of Ušša, Storm-god of Parašhunta, Mount Huwalanuwanda, River Hulaya, male gods, female gods, mountains (and) rivers of the Lower Land.”191 Singer attempted to provide a solution to this impasse, hypothesizing that the Hulana and the Hulaya were actually the same river.192 If he is right, we would not only have to alter a large part of the geographical grid laid out up until now but, in the event that the “Lower Land” option is chosen for the location of the Hulana River Land, we would also have to justify the apparent relationship between the Hulana River Land and the lands to the northwest and the Mediterranean Sea. Such a relationship seems to be confirmed in a letter(?) in which the king of Ahhiyawa and the nobles of (the Land of) the river Hulana193 are mentioned, and by a small fragment found in Ortaköy that relates the sentence ‘The NAM.RA, cattle and sheep of Hulana City’ and also mentions the city of Aššuwa.194 The problem could be resolved by admitting another case of homonymy or hypothesizing the existence of two mountains with almost identical names, Huwatnuwanda and Huwalanuwanda; in both options, the association of rivers with very similar names, Hulana and Hulaya, could have caused misunderstandings.195 If the proximity of the 188  Edition Imparati 1974: 26–27. 189  So Forlanini 2009a: 46 fn. 41. 190   Edition Otten 1988: especially 12–13; translation Beckman 21999a: 107ff. and Hoffner 2000: 100–106. 191  Singer 1996a: 37. 192  Singer 1984b: 122 with fn. 129. To my knowledge no other scholar has addressed this issue. 193  KBo 16.22; see Güterbock 1938: 321ff.and Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 164–167. 194  Süel 2009: 195–196. For the other sources that link Hulana with the west cf. Forlanini 1977: 211–212. 195  The possibility of scribal error is high because of the similarity of the signs la and at. The writing Hu-wa-la-nu-wa-an-ta is in the

236 Hulana River Land with Kaššiya/Ankara and Šappa on the east seems well supported by the sources, as regards the western border one cannot ignore the relevance of the reference in the Ortaköy letter, especially if we think of the ‘Aššuwan confederancy’ known from the Annals of Tuthaliya I /II, that presumably extended as far as the western coast and its hinterland.196 For this reason it is plausible to situate the Hulana River Land in the area of the river Porsuk, a tributary of the Sakarya (Hittite Šahiriya)197 and to identify Mount Huwatnuwanda with one of the eastern ridges of the Sündiken (Hamam?) or of the Sivrihisar (Yediler?). 9 Conclusion I aimed to outline a coherent geographical grid based on information from known texts, but definitive localizations of Hittite place-names will have to wait for further developments in the spheres of both archaeology and text. Despite the fact that there is only one fixed point for this macro-region (Oymaaǧaç/Nerik), I believe that the positioning of the provinces laid out here, often in agreement with those proposed by Forlanini 1977, are for the most part plausible. Compared with the most recent analyses and hypotheses of the localizations of the regions north of Boğazköy/ Hattuša,198 a general shift towards the north and a rotation of approximately 45° clockwise is proposed. This allows for a greater extension of the Hittite capital’s domain and reduces the dimensions of Hanhana, Hattena and Ištahara. The territory of Hakpiš must have been nestled between the mountains of Tavşan Dağı/Haharwa and Akdaǧ, and from a certain point in time, must have also included the territory of Nerik. For the Central Black Sea area, the geographical coherence of the regions to the north and west of Nerik is confirmed since, as I attempted to demonstrate, there is a convergence of information provided by the annalistic texts of Šuppiluliuma I and Muršili II and the Prayer of Arnuwanda and Ašmunikal: the lands of Tarukka, (H)Ilaluha, Zihhana/Zihnuwa (in the region of Zalpuwa), Ši/apidduwa and Wašhaya (in the direction of Tummana) all overlooked the river Šariya/Gökırmak and aforementioned prayer of Muwatalli; on the spellings attested cf. del Monte and Tischler 1978: 132. For a different solution to the problem see Singer 1996a: 136–137 fn. 307. 196  For the sources and historical-geographical issues of this region see de Martino 1996: 13ff., 23–33. 197  Forlanini 1977: 211ff. Cf. also Barjamovic 2011: 354ff. 198  Forlanini 2008b: map p.170; id. 2010: map p.135.

Corti

a section of the Kızılırmak. With Tummana reasonably oriented in the area of Kastamonu, the remainder of the localizations, Pala, Kalašma and the Hulana River Land, are also adapted, in part thanks to the connections with Durmitta and Ka/iššiya. From a diachronic point of view, we can affirm that a large part of the northern regions and territories that had been part of the Kingdom of Hatti from the beginning of the Old Hittite period, were lost at a certain point. The causes for the drastic reorganization/reduction which took place during the Middle Hittite period, included a loss of power by the royal family and the “arrival” of the Kaškean people or, more accurately, a greater freedom of action on the part of the mixed population of the northern area which had as a consequence a greater autonomy and independence from the central power. The recurrence of a toponymy at the beginning of the Imperial period which had by that time partially fallen into oblivion, is due to a restoration of the communication routes towards the Black Sea and towards the extreme northwestern regions, mainly implemented, albeit with mixed results, by Tuthaliya III, Šuppiluliuma I and Muršili II by means of grueling military campaigns. By contrast, the agenda of the last kings of Hatti, especially Hattušili III, was not only based on shows of strength, but also on concrete administrative-bureaucratic activities throughout the northern territory. In this respect, the very words of Hattušili in the treaty with the people of Tiliura (KUB 21.29 I 11–19) prove illuminating:199 “From the time of Hantili, the town of Tiliura lay waste. My father Muršili rebuilt it, but did not resettle it well. He settled it with his deportees taken in war but he [left] aside the earlier people of [Tiliura] who still existed. I, My Majesty, brought them back and [settled] them again in the town of T[iliura]”. In short, policies were put in place under Hattušili to restore demographic balance and encourage economic recovery through the renewal of cults of ancient tradition as well as those more recently introduced. I maintain that the liturgical documents regarding the region of Nerik and Hakpiš with the direct involvement of Hattušili III, those of the Zalpuwa land with the Hittite “prince”, the cult-inventory involving Tummana and the adjacent provinces with the “King of Tummana” and, finally, those of Pala and the Hulana River Land yet again with Hattušili “King of Hakpiš”, descendent of the “King/man of Kuššar”, 199  Recent edition by Gonzáles Salazar 1994: 159–176; translation Kitchen and Lawrence 2012: 1052–1054 with slight modifications. For proposals concerning the location of Tiliura see Forlanini 2002: 269; Barjamovic 2011: fnn. 482, 1591.

The North: Philology

Figure 17.1

Map showing proposed locations over northern Anatolia.

are direct proof of this scenario, confirming, from a geographical point of view too, what this king stated in the Apology (II 55–61):200 “In these countries he (Muwatalli II) left me (behind), and these desolate countries he gave me to govern. The lands of Išhupitta, Marišta, Hiššašhapa, Katapa, Hanhana, Darahna, Hattena, Durmitta, Pala, Tummana, Kaššiya, Šappa, the Hulana River Land (and their) chariots and ‘golden’ chariot fighters I commanded all. … (II 66–68) and these desolate lands I resettled on my own and made them Hittite again”.

200  Edition Otten 1981: especially 14–15. Translation van den Hout 1997: 201.

237

Figure 17.2

Map showing detail of northern Anatolia

238 Corti

CHAPTER 18

South Central: The Lower Land and Tarḫuntašša Massimo Forlanini 1

The Hittite Lower Land

The geographical position of the Hittite Lower Land1 can be assessed through a passage of the historical introduction of the “Edict for the Ḫekur of Pirwa” issued by king Ḫattušili III, where he goes back to the catastrophic situation of the kingdom before it was rescued by the victorious campaigns of his grandfather Šuppiluliuma I: “From afar, towards the Lower Country came the Arzawean enemy, sacked the Ḫatti countries, and he made Tuwanuwa and Uda his frontier”.2 It is difficult to understand whether here the term Ḫatti was used as a general definition of the Hittite kingdom, and therefore only the Lower Country was invaded and Tuwanuwa was a part of it, or Ḫatti had a specific meaning, did not include the Lower Land, and therefore Tuwanuwa and Uda belonged to Ḫatti and not to the Lower Land.3 To better understand this problem we may refer to the gods list of Muwattalli’s Prayer, where a paragraph is devoted to the gods of the Lower Land:4 “Storm-god of Ušša,

1  Normally written with the Akkadogram KUR (URU)Šaplīti. The logographic writing KUR GAM and the Hittite syllabic writing KUR Kattirri previously taken into account must be abandoned (cf. Devecchi, in press §1). According to Yakubovich 2014: 350–351 the Hittite form of the toponym should have been *katta pedan, that he considers to be the origin of the later Persian name Katpatuka (Cappadocia). But cf. CTH 372 A I 40–41, where ša-ra-a-[az-zi]ya-aš [KUR]-e-aš kat-te-ra-aš-ša ut-ne-ya-aš ḫu-u-ma-an-da-aš can only mean “all the upper lands and lower lands” on which falls the light of the rising Sun-god at daybreak (cf. Lebrun 1980: 95, 102; Singer 2002: 37), therefore a Hitt. toponym *Katteran Utne cannot be ruled out. On the Lower Land see: Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 365– 367; del Monte and Tischler 1978: 455; Forlanini 1986: Pl. XVI, commentary: §6. Il Paese Basso; Mora 2010 (including Tyanitis, with a bibliography); Devecchi, op. cit. 2  C TH 88, KBo 6.28: obv. 8–9, transcribed and translated by Goetze 1940: 21–23. Cf. now on its historical context Stavi 2013. 3  On this problem cf. already Garstang 1944: 20. Since Forrer 1926: 20, it is generally accepted that Class. Tyana goes back to Hitt. Tuwanuwa, but no Bronze Age remains have hitherto been found in the archaeological area of Tyana/Kemerhisar (cf. Berges and Nollé 2000, II: 465). On Uda, Class. Hyde, see here §2. 4  C TH 381 II 38–40. Singer 1996a: 16, 37.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_019

Storm-god of Parašḫunta,5 Mount Ḫuwatnuwanda,6 River Ḫulaya,7 male gods, female gods, mountains and rivers of the Lower Land”. This paragraph is preceded by the pantheons of Ḫarziuna and Šallapa, both on the Arzawean border and not belonging to the Lower Land; it is therefore difficult to assign to the Lower Land all the towns whose deities are mentioned in previous paragraphs, i.e. Ḫupišna, Tuwanuwa, Illaya, Šuwanzana, Arziya, Ḫurniya, Zarwiša, Šaḫḫaniya and Šaḫḫuwiya, of which the first four toponyms could pertain to the Tyanitis, whereas three of the remaining ones seem to have been located not far from the Ḫulayan frontier (see below §6) and therefore may also have belonged to the Lower Land. In the same list the pantheon of the Lower Land is followed by the Ištars of the towns Wašuduwanda and Innuwita, the latter belonging to Ḫulaya-Tarḫuntašša, and therefore perhaps located in the Lower Land as well.8 In both treaties with Tarḫuntašša9 the frontier between Ḫatti and this kingdom is described as the frontier of the Ḫulaya River-land, and we can infer that Tarḫuntašša was, like the River Ḫulaya, in the Lower Land, which is proved by a passage of Ḫattušili III’s Apology:10 “When Muwattalli, my brother, by order of his deity went down to the Lower Land, he left Ḫattuša and took away the gods of Ḫatti and the manes and brought them to the land [………]”, where the lacuna could be filled with reference to a second passage: “Then he took the gods of Ḫatti 5   Purušḫanda, Paršuḫand/ta, Paršuḫunta, and Pár-aš-ḫu-unta (/Paršḫunta/) are generally considered different writings of the same place-name continuing the old Assyrian (and Assyrianized) form Purušḫatum; cf. del Monte and Tischler 1978: 323–324. On this city see here §3. 6  The writing Ḫutnuwanta in KBo 4.10 I 20ʹ excludes the reading Ḫuwalanuwanda. Cf. Otten 1975c; del Monte and Tischler 1978: 132. 7  On the earlier proposals for the (Land of the) River Ḫulaya cf. Otten 1975a; del Monte and Tischler 1978: 529. 8  dIŠTAR URUIn-ú-i-ta, Tarḫunt Piḫašašši, and the deity of Parša, seem to constitute the pantheon of Tarḫuntašša (CTH 106A, Bo 86/299 III 50–51, Otten 1988: 22–23), cf. Forlanini 1998b: 233. 9  The Ulmi-Teššup Treaty (CTH 106B, henceforth: UT; ed. van den Hout 1995a) and the Treaty of the Bronze Tablet (Bo 86. 299, CTH 106A, henceforth: BT; ed. Otten 1988), see below §6. 10  CTH 81, I 75- II 2, II 52–53 (Otten 1981: 10–11, 14–15).

240 and the manes in the place they were and brought them down to the city Tarḫuntašša and he took Tarḫuntašša (as his residence)”. However, the lacuna in the first passage does not allow us to understand to which country (KUR URU …), inside the Lower Land, the gods of Ḫatti were first brought. It is possible that this passage refers to a transfer in two steps, perhaps because Tarḫuntašša was still to be founded, and its buildings and temples built up, before it was established as a new capital. It is known that after the death of Muwattalli, his son Urḫi-Teššub became king with the throne name of Muršili (III) and came back to Ḫattuša. After the coup d’état of his uncle Ḫattušili and during the first part of the latter’s reign we must place the events described in the (socalled) Annals of Ḫattušili III;11 we read of an insurrection that took place in the lands of Lukka, after which a series of lands were conquered by the enemy, some of them later mentioned as lying on the southwestern border of Tarḫuntašša; the invasion reached the Hittite provinces of Zallara, the Lower Land, and Ḫarziuna. The front line ran then along the northern slopes of the Taurus, from northwest (Ḫarziuna, near Šallapa and the Arzawan border) to southeast (Zallara, not far from the harbour of Ura, see below §5), having the Lower Land in the centre; the name Lycaonia given later to the plain may go back to similar invasions of Lukka-peoples that took place before the Classical period.12 The Lower Land could also be the starting point of military operations in western Anatolia. This is the case of the expedition of Ḫannutti, the chief charioteer, sent by Šuppiluliuma I to the Lower Land against the rebellious Lalanda and the Arzawan region of Ḫapalla.13 In the letter KUB 19.23, sent by a Tutḫaliya to a queen, a Ḫannutti is mentioned in a similar geographical context and the writer takes into account two opposite developments: the fall of Lalanda or the loss of the Lower Land.14 Therefore we can accept the location generally assumed for the Lower Land in the flat part of the Lycaonian 11  On which see Gurney 1997, with an overview of the previous attempts to interpretate these fragments from the historical and geographical perspective. More details in §6. 12  Cf. Freu 2005b: 407. 13  KUB 19.22 4ʹ–11ʹ: del Monte 2009: 64–67 (text III 5B). Lalanda is commonly identified with Class. Lalandos (near Gömü, cf. Belke 1984: 170) on the main road crossing the Emirdağ. On Ḫapalla, a component of Arzawa which is difficult to place, later assigned by Muršili II to Targašnalli, see Gander, this volume p. 271. 14  Editions: Hagenbuchner 1989: 27–33; Hoffner 2009: 346–350; Marizza 2009: 169–172. Cf. also Gurney 1997: 138; Jasink 2003: 275. Since this letter is considered to be late Hittite, its historical context cannot be that of Šuppiluliuma’s Annals.

Forlanini

plateau, north of the Taurus range, west of the Tyanitis, and east of the Arzawan frontier. The toponym seems to have generally had a geographical value, but perhaps sometimes also a political one, since Ḫannutti was said by Muršili II15 to have administered the Lower Land. 2

Hittite Tyanitis and the Access to the Pass-roads from the Anatolian Plateau to Kizzuwatna and the Mediterranean Coast

The main places in the Hittite Tyanitis16 were Tuwanuwa, Udā and Šuwanzana; we can perhaps also include in it Ḫupišna, since the frequent mention of Tuwanuwa and Ḫupišna together cannot be a coincidence,17 and Naḫita, the forerunner of present day Niğde.18 In the Annals of Šuppiluliuma I, Muršili II narrates19 how his father, managing to drive out the Arzawan enemy, who had penetrated as far as Tuwanuwa and Uda, engaged in battle near the town […]išša against a detachment of the enemies who had previously reached Aniša, then a second one near Ḫuwana-x[. .] and a third at Šapparanda against other detachments scattered throughout the region and occupied the country of Tupazziya, with Mount Ammuna and a lake. All these towns must have been located deeper into the Hittite territory than Tuwanuwa, and therefore north(-east) of this city; only after having destroyed these detachments Šuppiluliuma could reach Tuwanuwa and fight against other Arzawan forces in the suburbs of the city, at Naḫḫuriya and Šapparanda. Tupazziya, located near a lake and Mount Ammuna (a pass?), was a place of some relevance, directly administrated from Kaneš in the time of the old Assyrian 15  Complete Annals first year: del Monte 1993: 74. 16  The Strategia of Tyana in the Cappadocian kingdom, mentioned by Strabo and Ptolemy, goes back to the post Hittite kingdom of Tuwana, whose extension may be traced through the diffusion of Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions mentioning its king, Warpalawa (Hawkins 2000 I-2: 513–531; cf. also Mora and Balatti 2012). Ḫupišna too belonged to Tuwanuwa as shown by the inscribed relief of Ivriz. Since Tuwanuwa and Ḫupišna are connected also in the Hittite texts, we are allowed to use the classical denomination to define this area. On Classical Tyanitis see Berges and Nollé 2000/I: 3–25, with bibliography. 17  Cf. already Forrer 1926: 19–20; Garstang 1944: 20; 18  The Iron Age name was Nahitiya, according to the Luwianhieroglyphic inscription of Andaval (Hawkins 2000/II: 514–516). The Naḫita mentioned together with Ḫilikka in the inventory IBoT 2.129 obv. 12 is safely the same town (cf. Gurney 1997: 137; Forlanini 1998b: 239–240 fn. 73). 19  Güterbock 1956: 75–77 (fragm. 15); del Monte 2009: 19–22, 30– 37. Cf. also Börker-Klähn 2007; Freu 2007: 212.

South-Central: Philology

colonies20 and later belonging to the Hittite Upper Land;21 hence possibly near modern Kurbağa Göl.22 Aniša was a town “of Yašanda” according to CTH 225 (Land donation of Šaḫurunuwa), rev. 24, a document that gives us some more place-names of the Tuwanuwan district (obv. 37– 38): Mušnaḫi, [……]pirwa, Šallunataššeš, and Arlanduya, followed by Ḫuit[……] [near/of/in?] Ḫupešna.23 As for Yašanda, see below. In the cult inventory KUB 57.108+KUB 51.2324 a section is dedicated to the cult of the goddess Šaḫaššara of Uda: we read (II 13ʹ) that the men of the city offered an ox from Mount Šarpa.25 This mountain is mentioned in the hieroglyphic inscription on the altars of Emirgazi; the Byzantine bishopric of Hyde was situated in the same area, therefore the identification of Uda with Hyde can be considered as certain.26 Besides, Šaḫaššara was the goddess of Tuwanuwa, and this cult shows a special link between the two cities; whereas the presence of Mount Šarpa also in the cult of Ḫupišna27 confirms the ties between the latter and Tuwanuwa. The other towns of this inventory whose names are preserved are: U?luna [K]i?iš-uš?-ša-ra, Tedumna, Šūwanzana, Anašepa, Wannada, Taparlā, X-ḫa-at-ti-ya. Only Šuwanzana must have had some importance, being included in the list of sanctuaries from the Prayer of Muwattalli between Tuwanuwa and Ḫurniya (see below). Wannada is perhaps mentioned, in the form Wananda, as the place of origin of a group of 20  Tubezi (kt 94/k 277) was in the area of Kaneš according to Barjamovic 2011: 235. 21  Soldiers from the land of Tupazziya are among the troops of the Upper Land, according to MŠT 75/72 = HBM 96, 19ʹ (Alp 1991: 44–45, 300–301). 22  The area immediately south of the Erciyes Dağı, crossed by the Kayseri-Niğde road. Its centre is occupied by the lake Kurbağa and the marshes of Sultan Sazlığı. This area connects the valley of the Zamantı river, safely belonging to the Upper Land, with the Tyanitis on the one side and Kaneš on the other side. 23  Imparati 1974: 28–29. 24  Text: Forlanini 1990: 116–119; Hazenbos 2003: 102–107; Groddek 2004: 36–38. Cf. also Özcan 2013: 204–206. 25  As correctly pointed out by Lebrun 2001: 331. On Mount Šarpa: my suggestion to equate it with the Hasan Dağ (1987b: 77) must be abandoned (that must have rather been the Hittite Mount Ḫarki: cf. Forlanini 2009a: 43). Better Lombardi 1998: 77 (Karacadağ) or Hawkins 2006: 56–58 (Arisama Dağı). The Kötü Dağ suggested by Özcan, op. cit., would be not visible from Ḫupišna. 26  On Uda: Forlanini 1990; Lebrun 2001: 330–332; Özcan op. cit. I have suggested the supposed site of Byzantine Hydē (Gölören/ Gölviran south of Emirgazi), Özcan instead localizes Uda at Maltepehöyük north of Emirgazi. 27  Cf. Lombardi 1998: 70–84.

241 men in KUB 31.65b: 7 together with a man from Arzawa and the king of Tarḫuntašša. The itinerary of a cult inspector in the inventory text KUB 40.11028 starts in the preserved part from a town [… ḫ]anda (Paršuḫanda?29), that the inspector leaves to reach [Y]ašanda. The following steps of his itinerary are: Tapašawatta, Arullašša, Ašula, Parminašša, Kurtannašša, and [X?-a]štannašša. Then, after some missing lines if we assume that KBo 9.99 is another fragment of the same tablet,30 the inspector visited other villages, among which only Parḫanda in the land of Šinuwanda is preserved, entered the territory of the River Ḫulaya and reached Ninainta. Then comes another preserved section of our text, on the rev. of KUB 40.110, where we read (4) the name of Mount Lūla; the remaining lines are occupied by a ritual. As seen before, Yašanda was located north of Tuwanuwa. Ninainta was the frontier town of Ḫulaya in the direction of Mount Lula and Šinuwanda31 according to the Bronze Tablet, where Mount Lula was an outskirt of the Taurus, probably crossed by the road leading to the Cilician Gates, and therefore to be located near present Ulukıșla; the Byzantine fortress of Loulon kept the ancient name of that mountain.32 Therefore the villages mentioned after 28  Cf. Forlanini 1998b: 226 fn. 27, 231f. fn. 45; 2008: 65 fn. 38; 2009: 47–48. 29  The most probable restoration among the toponyms ending in -ḫanda. In the list of the cities having a “seal-house” in the Edict of Telipinu (CTH 19 III 30, Hoffmann 1984: 42–43) Paršuḫanda comes immediately after Parminiya, which recalls, as far as the toponymic structure is concerned, the Parminašša of KUB 40. 110. But of course other town names, like e.g. Paḫaḫanta (CTH 510, KUB 38.6 I 9, KUB 38.10 IV 24), may not be excluded. 30  A typical feature of both texts is an introductory parā=m=aš at the beginning of each paragraph. When KUB 40.100 resumes mount Lula occurs, but we know from the Tarḫuntašša treaties that this mountain rose between Šinnuwanda and Ninainta in the Ḫulaya River-land, both appearing in KBo 9.99. To know more about these fragments, we must wait for an announced work of F. Fuscagni. 31  According to the treaties with Tarḫuntašša (UT I 26ʹ, BT I 43–44, see below). Šinnuwanta has been equated with modern Sinandı (east of Ivriz and Zanapa), and Mount Lula with Byz. Loulon (near Ulukışla); these assumptions go back to Forrer 1926: 21–22, Garstang 1944: 17 f., 30, and Garstang and Gurney 1959: 71, and were hitherto generally accepted, but they do not fit together, since Mount Lula and Šinnuwanda, that were on the same road or in the same valley, would be in two different points of the frontier Ḫatti-Tarḫuntašša at a distance of 30km from each other. Moreover, as Sinandı lies only 13km. southeast of ancient Cybistra, Ḫupišna would have been mentioned in the treaties as belonging to Tarḫuntašša. 32  Loulon is the first of a row of beacons, from the northern exit of the Cilician Gates to Constantinople, used by the Byzantines

242 Yašanda must be sought near Niğde: Arullašša may be compared with Arlasun (today Tepeköy, from a “Greek” toponym *Arlassos/n) and Kurtannašša with Kourdonos (today Durdanoz/Hamamlι), both near Niğde.33 It is therefore possible to infer that the inventory concerned the province of Tuwanuwa and the repeated mention in the inventory of cults suppressed “from the year of Ḫuḫazalma”34 must be connected with an Arzawan invasion reaching Tuwanuwa, earlier but similar to that described by Ḫattušili in the Decree for the ḫekur of Pirwa. So, Šinnuwanda was a town on the road to the Cilician Gates, along which lay Tunna and Paduwanda. The former corresponds to Class. Tynna (Zeyve Höyük near Porsuk)35 and the latter to Class. Podandus/Padyandos (today Pozantı). The Hittite name of the Cilician Gates pass was “Mount Zabarašna/Šaparraššana” and the fortess at its northern entrance was Anamušta (today Anahşa Kalesi, the last town of Ḫatti before the Kizzuwatnan border.36 In CTH 22537 Kutpina, Šaliya, Irriwa, [… r]ašša, Paduwanda, Šanapra38, and Tarriyaḫatana39 are mentioned together as lying “inside” the Great Mountain. A second road connecting Ḫatti to Kizzuwatna through the Taurus chain passed, according to the border description of Šunaššura’s Treaty, by Šaliya and reached Zinziluwa to give early warning of the movements of Arab armies coming from Cilicia; the second one was the Argaios Beacon on the Hasan Dağ, and the third the Isamos Beacon (north of the Salt Lake), whose name probably survives in that of the Samsam Gölü. Cf. Hild 1977: 53–54; Pattenden 1983: 262–269. Loulon has been localized 8 miles northeast of Porsuk (the village near Zeyve Höyük/Tynna), but the mountain Lula must have covered a larger area and perhaps gave the name to the pass connecting the plain with the valley of the Çakıt. 33  See Forlanini 2009a: 48, fn. 59. The survival of Greek toponyms into the 20th century in this area was due to the presence of Greek speaking villagers before the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923. 34  Cf. Forlanini 1988: 161; de Martino 1996: 63–72. 35  On Tunna/Tynna (Zeyve Höyük near Porsuk) see Lebrun 2007 with bibliography. On the problem of Hitt. Tunna and Adunuwa, Tunas of the Kululu leadstrips, and Neo-Assyrian Atuna, see Simon 2013: 279f. The Tunna of HT 2 VI 7 should instead be sought not too far from Ḫattuša, see Class. Dona on the road from Tavium to Caesarea in the Tabula Peutingeriana. 36  Forlanini 2013: 15–20. 37  I 25–26, Imparati 1974: 26–27. 38  Cf. Ša-na-ap[. . ABoT 2.353 obv. 5ʹ; Š]a-na-ap-ra KBo 60.145 4ʹ. 39  This name seems to be composed of tarriya- “three” and ḫadana. The latter could be compared to Kadena (Strabo XII 2. 5), a royal residence in Cappadocia occupied by the usurper Sisines, whose position is unfortunately unknown but could recall Caena, a station on the road to the Cilician Gates (but cf. Lasserre 1981: 192).

Forlanini

and Erimma in the southern mountainside.40 In the UlmiTešub Treaty and in that of the Bronze Tablet Šaliya is mentioned as a Hittite town near the border of the Ḫulaya River Land (on a road) towards the High Mountain. 3

Ušša and Purušḫanda

If Purušḫanda was an important kārum in the old Assyrian trade network, frequently mentioned in the kārum II period, the evidence about Ušša is scanty, although this town had an Assyrian wabartum in the same period.41 As noted above, these two centres, together with Mount Ḫuwatnuwanda and the Ḫulaya River Land, formed the Hittite Lower Land, i.e. the Lycaonian flatland. The ruler of Purušḫanda is mentioned in an Old Assyrian tablet as a Great Prince.42 Both cities should have been conquered by Labarna I, who installed a son as ruler in Purušḫanda and a kainašši (relative by marriage) in Ussa.43 It is even possible that, before its conquest by the Hittite king, the kingdom of Purušḫanda, or even all of the later Lower Land, occurs in the first version of the Hittite laws under the name of Luwiya.44 Later on, a prince of Purušḫanda rebelled against a Hittite king, probably Ḫattušili I, and was punished.45 An Old Hittite annalistic fragment mentions again a rebellion of a prince of Purušḫanda, an episode 40  Since Šaliya was in a valley west of Ḫupišna, it must have controlled a pass-road west of the higher section of the Bolkar Dağı. This road should correspond to the ancient one connecting Divle in the valley of the Kocadere with the coast near Mersin (on which: Belke 1984: 110). 41  Cf. Forlanini 2008: 67; Barjamovic 2011: 335 fn. 1400. For its location see below. 42  On Old Assyrian Purušḫattum see: Hecker 2006a; Forlanini 2008: 61f.; Barjamovic 2011: 357f. 43  Cf. the Decree of Telepinu CTH 19 I 11 (Hoffmann 1984b: 14–15) and the Palace Chronicle CTH 8 A III 20ʹ (Dardano 1997: 58– 59). The list of the cities conquered by Labarna and given to his sons does not include Ušša, whose prince was not a son of Labarna, but encompasses the nearby cities of Lušna and Lānda, Tuwanuwa and Ḫupišna in the later Tyanitis, Nenašša on the middle Halys, Zallara (see here §5), and Paršuḫanta. The location of the latter should therefore be sought in the area defined by this list. 44  On an early Luwian presence in this area: Singer 1981: 124; Forlanini 2008: 80; Yakubovich 2010: 239 f., 245 fn.47. 45  As we understand from CTH 9.6, KBo 3.28 II 1ʹ–9ʹ. This fragment and CTH 5, KBo 3.29 belong to the same text, where Ḫattušili justifies the choice of Muršili as his successor, explaining how his opponents were punished, and must be compared with The Testament of the same king (CTH 6). Cf. also Yakubovich, op. cit., 246 fn. 50, who prefers to ascribe this text to Muršili I.

South-Central: Philology

to be ascribed to the reign of Muršili I or Ḫantili I.46 In the time of Telipinu “Paršuḫanda” still possessed a sealed storehouse (CTH 19 III 30, Hoffmann 1984: 42–43), but afterwards the city is scarcely mentioned and must have lost its geographical and political role. As seen above, the gods of Purušḫanda and Ušša are included in the pantheon of the Lower Land under Muwattalli I. Whereas the position of Ušša may be assessed according to the interpretation of the description of the frontier in the treaties with Tarḫuntašša, that of Purušḫanda would mainly result from the “itinerary” of TC 3.165, where Purušḫanda is the last stage of a journey from Kaneš and is reached after Ninaša and Ulama, both belonging in the 13th century BC to the province of Turmitta.47 This “itinerary” would orientate us toward an area to the south of Tuz Gölü and strengthen the traditional identification of MBA Purušḫanda with the huge mound of Acemhöyük.48 The Storm God of Paršḫunta is mentioned in the first preserved paragraph of KUB 17.19 (1ʹ–5ʹ) together with the deities of Paḫḫišalma and Paḫḫatima; the latter town occurs together with Šaḫḫuwiya and Mallitaškuriya in the same paragraph of Muwattalli’s Prayer. We know that Mallitaškuriya belonged in the time of Arnuwanda I to the province of Kiššiya and in the 13th century BC to the province of Turmitta, together with 46  CTH 13 A II 7ʹ–13ʹ, B 28ʺ f. (de Martino 2003: 132, 142–145). I prefer Ḫantili, because of the analogy with the Šukziya episode of the Decree of Telipinu (Forlanini 2010c: 125–126). 47  According to KUB 48.105+, published by Archi and Klengel 1980: see Forlanini 1979: 173–178; 1992: 179; 2009: 49 f. 48  On the location of Purušḫanda see Kawakami 2006, whose conclusions are favourable to Acemhöyük. On the history of the discussion cf. Id. op. cit., 59–64. A position south of the Tuz Gölü and near Aksaray was first suggested by Garstang 1944: 16 (map), 19, and, according to Garelli 1963: 123 fn. 4, a location at Acemhöyük was first proposed by Julius Lewy (and later accepted by N. Özgüç and Dercksen). Other suggested localizations: near Nevşehir (Garstang and Gurney), near Konya (Bilgiç, Hawkins) at the Karahöyük (S. Alp), near Niğde (B. Landsberger), on the Beyşehir Lake (Gordon), and recently near Bolvadın (Baramovic, see below). The town of Parzuta mentioned in the inscription of Topada may go back to Hittite Paršḫunta, see on this problem Weeden 2010: 55–58, with bibliography. That does not mean that Acemhöyük must also have been Hittite Purušḫanda/Paršḫunta. Because of the stratigraphic evidence of this site the toponym should have migrated to a nearby settlement after the end of the Kārum Ib Period (end of the 18th century), or of the Hittite conquest, more than half a century later. Such changes of location for place-names are witnessed elsewhere in Ancient Anatolia, an example being given by Milidia/ Melitene/Malatya; but also Hittite Tuwanuwa could be related to Classical Tyana only by its name, as seen above (Freu 1980: 241 localized Tuwanuwa at Bor).

243 Nenašša and Uwalma.49 The evidence seems to be consistent and we can ascribe the towns of this paragraph of KUB 17.19 to the area of Purušḫanda. The new suggestion of Barjamovic (2011: 357–375), who pushes Purušḫanda far to the west in the area of Bolvadın near the later frontier of Arzawa, is difficult to accept on the basis of the Hittite texts.50 In the 13th century BC the land of Ušša bordered on the land of the river Ḫulaya, the present Çarşamba, in a flat area between Mount Ḫuwatnuwanda and Mount Kuwa(kuwa)liyatta (see below). The evidence points to a region south of Konya and north of the Çarşamba where also Lušna (Class. Lystra) was located51. In fact Ušša and Lušna are mentioned together in KBo 54.278: 2ʹ, 4ʹ and probably also in the second paragraph of KUB 17.19,52 where they would occur together with Lānda.53 Ištar of Lānda appears immediately after Ušša and before the pantheon of Ḫurniya in KUB 57.87 I 1, a list of gods that likely follows a geographical order along the road to the Cilician Gates.54 At the beginning of Tutḫaliya IV’s reign the LÚ MEŠ SAG assembled in Ušša to take the oath of allegiance to the king,55 probably while he was travelling to 49  Forlanini 2009a: 53–54, 58–59. Uwalma (KUB 48.105 obv. 31ʹ) is a different spelling for Hitt. Ullamma/Ulma and Old Ass. Ú-láma/Ú-ul-ma/Wu-lá-ma, all referring to the eastern town of this name, close to Nenašša. On this Ullamma cf. in this volume de Martino, p. 255. For the western country bearing a similar name we have a consistent Hitt. spelling Wa-al-ma(-a), cf. below §6. 50  Cf. Forlanini 2012a: col. 297–298. (See also Barjamovic, chapter 23 this volume, ed.). 51  The location proposed by scholars for the land of Ušša differ (cf. del Monte and Tischler 1978: 264–265, for later proposals see §6), it could be north or south of the Bozdağ. The former solution must be preferred if one considers the relief of Hatıp as being included in the borders of Tarḫuntašša as described in the treaties and the lands of Ikkuwaniya and Ḫurniya as enclaves inside Tarḫuntašša. I too have hesitated between these two possibilities (cf. 2008: 67) but now I must accept the latter as more probable. If so, Karahöyük southwest of Konya could be a good candidate for the city Ušša, whereas Alaeddin Tepe in the centre of Konya, or a settlement near Çumra, should correspond to Hitt. Ikkuwaniya. 52  Forlanini 2013a: 12–13. 53   On the occurrences of Lānda see del Monte and Tischler 1978: 242–243; Forlanini 1988: 136–137; Id. 1998b: 225–226; Lebrun 2011. As for the survival of this toponym, both Leandis in Cataonia and Laranda (Karaman) have been proposed (Garstang 1944: 19; Freu 1980: 241). The latter should rather go back to Hittite Laranda (KUB 57.111: 17ʹ, cf. Popko 1988b: 92). 54  Forlanini 2013: 16f. 55  CTH 255.2, edition: von Schuler 1957: 8–21 (“Instruktion für Obere”). Cf. Houwink ten Cate 1992: 268; Klengel 1999: 337 fn. 64; Lebrun 2001: 329.

244

Forlanini

Tarḫuntašša to arrange the new treaty (that of the Bronze Tablet) with Kurunta. 4

Ikkuwaniya and Ḫurniya56

The lands of Ikkuwanniya and Ḫurniya are mentioned together in the list of the cities having a Seal-house in the Edict of Telepinu57 and in the Bronze Tablet.58 The connection of these toponyms with Class. Iconium and Corne is quite probable.59 However, the exact location of Corne is really unknown, since an identification with modern Dinorna, only due to an assumed similarity of the toponyms, cannot be maintained.60 We only know that Corne was in Lycaonia and became a bishopric in the Byzantine period. In the Land donation for Šaḫurunuwa, Ḫuwarniya (Ḫurniya) is connected with Mount Ḫana,61 whose name seems to survive in Class. Cana and modern Gene. Since Cana was very close to Iconium, these identifications can be accepted as more than fortuitous. In Ḫurniya the deity Nawatiyalla of Zarwiša was worshipped and Ḫurniya is mentioned together with Zarwiša in an early Hittite annalistic fragment.62 The latter was on the southern frontier of Tarḫuntašša, not far from Mount Šarlaimmi, a sacred mountain of Ḫupišna (Cybistra). Both Ikkuwaniya and Ḫurniya are mentioned in BT, together with Pitašša, Mount Ḫuwatnuwanda, and Kizzuwatna, as countries where the cult of the deities of Tarḫuntašša was free from corvée and obligations; these countries were on the border, or very close to the border (like Kizzuwatna), of Tarḫuntašša. Ikkuwaniya and Ḫurniya do not occur in the description of the frontier, from which they were 56  Cf. my previous research on these towns (1998: 228–230); also Houwink ten Cate 1992: 254–255; Freu 2008a: 174. 57  CTH 19 III 28 (Hoffmann 1984: 42–43), in the list of the towns having an official sealed depot, where they are followed by Paršuḫanda (l. 30) and the River Ḫulaya (l. 32), both belonging to the Lower Land. 58  Bo 86/299 III 48 (Otten, 1988: 22–23, 52). 59  On the equation Ikkuwaniya = Iconium (Konya): Cornelius 1958b: 388; Id. 1963: 244; Forlanini 1988: 138, 151–152; Hawkins 1995a: 29 nn. 38–39, 50–51. 60  Cf. Forlanini 1988: 138; 1998b: 249 fn. 40. On the maps we find only the name of a small lake, Divrina Gölü, near the proposed Höyük (Türkiye 1:200.000 Konya, It-56/57). 61  Cf. Forlanini 1998b: 230, confirmed by ABoT 2.7 (Forlanini 2011). For Mount Ḫana and Class. Cana cf. Freu 1980: 249. 62  CTH 12 A (KUB 31.64) I 10ʹ (de Martino 2003: 160–161): URUZa-a] r-ú[-i-š]a URUḪu-u-wa-ar-ni-ya (for the restoration: cf. Forlanini 1998b: 229). In KUB 57.87 I 4ʹ Nawatiyalla is recorded among the deities of Ḫurniya, but according to the Prayer of Muwattalli his main sanctuary was Zarwiša (cf. Forlanini 2013: 16–18).

likely separated by the land Ušša. This reconstruction implies that the Hatıp relief of Kurunta king of Tarḫuntašša was carved outside of the border described in the treaties and likely in the territory of Ikkuwaniya, perhaps when Kurunta rebelled and claimed the title of Great King.63 Hence the necessity for Šuppiluliuma II to reconquer Ikuna (Ikkuwaniya).64 Should this assumption be proved wrong, we will have to accept, as mentioned above, that Ikkuwaniya and Ḫurniya were enclaves in the territory of Tarḫuntašša. 5

West of Kizzuwatna: Ura, Kudupa, and Zallara

The harbour town of Ura (or Urā)65 and its land are known since the time of Arnuwanda I, who concluded a treaty with the men of Ura and other towns of her territory, such as Ukšū, Partanta, Yaninna, Ḫuddu, and Lalatta (CTH 144, KUB 26. 29+KUB 31. 55);66 to the same period must be ascribed an agreement between a Hittite king, whose name is missing, and a partner (probably Ḫuḫazalma, an Arzawan king or prince) concerning the men of Ura and Mutamutašša who, after a rebellion during the war, had turned again to Ḫatti.67 But the main evidence on Ura comes from Ugarit.68 The location of Ura can be inferred from the description of the campaign of the neo-Babylonian king Neriglissar against the land of Pirindu, confirmed by Stephanus of Byzantium, who wrote that the ancient name of Seleucia on the Calycadnus (today Silifke) was Hyria.69 63  On this relief: Bahar 1996; Dinçol 1998a; Id. 1998b; Ehringhaus 2001. On its position near Ikkuwaniya, which excludes it as a frontier marker, cf. Dinçol 1998a: 163; Yakar et al. 2001: 715. However, Hawkins (2002b: 144) does consider it as a frontier marker. Cf. also Freu 2008a: 175, who recognizes that Lušna belonged to Ḫatti (but Lušna/Lystra is located south of Hatıp!). 64  According to the Südburg inscription §1b, 4b (Hawkins 1995a: 22–23, 29). 65  For the different writings of its name cf. del Monte and Tischler 1978: 457–458 (Ura II); Belmonte-Marín 2001: 325–326 (Ura 2), where the Cilician city is distinguished from homonymous towns in Azzi, Mukiš, and Siyannu. 66  Cf. Forlanini 1988: 146 (n. 80); de Martino 1996: 73–79. 67  Cf. de Martino 1996: 63–72 with bibliography. 68  For the Ugaritic evidence cf. Belmonte-Marín 2001: 327–328 (s.v. Ura 2). On the position of the merchants and the trade between Ura and Ugarit see Klengel 2007b, with ref. Cf. also Singer 1999: 660–662; Freu 2006: 95–96, 167. 69   Neriglissar: Wiseman 1961: 37–42, 74–77, 86–88; Grayson 1975: 103–104. Identification originally proposed by W. F. Albright (cf. Forlanini 1988: 145–146). Another location, at Olba (Uzuncaburç), an inland sanctuary of Zeus, has been proposed

South-Central: Philology

A treaty found in Ugarit, RS 34.179, involved both the men of Ura and of Kudupa;70 the latter town is never mentioned in the Hittite texts but we have to locate it on the coast near Silifke and its name survived in that of a Zeus Kodopaios/Kodopas found in Greek inscriptions from Corycus (Kızkalesi) on the Cilician coast, about 25km. east of Silifke.71 In the “Tale of the merchants”72 the merchants of Ura say: “To] Zall[ara] we come, and plenty and abundan[ce] we deliver”. Since Zallara must be sought south of the Lower Land and, because of this passage, on the caravan road followed by the merchants travelling inland, I have proposed to localize it in the area of Mut, perhaps at Kilisetepe.73 6

The Kingdom of Tarḫuntašša and its Boundaries

Muwattalli II transfered his capital to the city of Tarḫuntašša, never mentioned before, and we do not know whether it was a new foundation or an already existing settlement receiving a new name.74 After his death his son Urḫi-Teššup/Muršili III abandoned the new capital and came back to Ḫattuša. His uncle Ḫattušili III rebelled and deposed him, but compensated Kurunt(iy)a (dLAMMA), another son of Muwattalli II whom he had brought (Freu 1980: 236), but its modern name Uğuralan>Uğara>Ura (cf. Hild and Hellenkemper 1990: 369–370) must be differently explained and has nothing to do with the ancient city, which was moreover a harbour (see also Casabonne 2001: 111 fn.7). Beal 1992b, preferred, mainly on the base of his interpretation of the Annals of Neriglissar and of the identification of Tarḫuntašša with the Iron Age fortress of Meydancık (Kiršu, cf. Casabonne o.c.), to localize Ura at Celenderis (Gilindire), but his arguments were dismantled by Lemaire 1993. Cf. also de Martino 1999: with bibliography. 70  Published by Malbran-Labat 1991. Cf. Singer 1999b: 660–661. 71  Forlanini 2007b: 268; 2009b. 72  CTH 828: Hoffner 1968; Id. 1972: 34 f.; Košak 2003. 73  Forlanini 1986 (Pl. XVI, commentary: 6. Il Paese Basso); 1988: 146–147; 2013: 26–27. Zallara has been linked with Class. Salarama only on the basis of the name’s similarity (cf. Freu 1980: 241; 2008: 186). 74  Commonly written DU-(taš)ša in the Hittite texts, the name was previously read Dattašša; for the correct reading, proposed by Laroche, see Houwink ten Cate 1961: 128 fn.3. On the shift of the royal seat to Tarḫuntašša (a first step at Kummani has also been supposed): Ünal 1997: 525–527; Singer 1996a: 191–193; 1998: 539–540; Klengel 1999: 210; Doğan-Alparslan and Alparslan 2011: 91–93; Doğan Alparslan 2012: 118f, 176f.; van den Hout 2012: 461.

245 up and who had been loyal to him during the civil war, by granting him the newly constituted appanage kingdom of Tarḫuntašša. A first treaty he made with Kurunta and later arrangements are mentioned in the treaty between Kurunta and Tutḫaliya IV, the son of Ḫattušili III, written on the Bronze Tablet; in the historical introduction of this document no previous king of Tarḫuntašša is mentioned and in the description of the frontiers of this kingdom reference is made, as mentioned above, to the previous treaty established by Ḫattušili, still modified during the same reign. This early situation is exactly that described in the other surviving treaty with Tarḫuntašša, that was granted by a Hittite king, whose name and titles were in the first missing lines of the tablet, to Ulmi-Teššup of Tarḫuntašša. In the Ulmi-Teššup treaty, there is a paragraph containing a modification of the original document and mentioning Kurunta. The position of Kurunta and Ulmi-Teššup, whether they were two different kings or one and the same person, and the relative chronology of the surviving documents (UT, BT and ABoT 1.57) have long been debated, but today an almost general consensus on the identitity of the two kings (with Ulmi-Teššup as birth name, and Kurunta as throne name) and on the dating of UT in the reign of Ḫattušili III has been reached.75 Ulmi-Teššup was therefore the brother of Urḫi-Teššup and both changed their names when they became kings. We must now assume that the original treaty granted by Ḫattušili III to his nephew is lost, whereas a copy of a subsequent military agreement is known (CTH 106 B1 = ABoT 1.57).76 The updated military agreement was included in the draft of a new treaty (UT: CTH 106 B2 = KBo 4.10+) as a paragraph, where the king of Tarḫuntašša is mentioned with his throne name, inserted in the text of the older one, where 75  That Kurunta and Ulmi-Teššup were one and the same person was first suggested by Güterbock 1961: 86 n.3. Before the publication of BT (Otten 1988) scholars were already divided on the attribution of UT to Ḫattušili III or to Tutḫaliya IV, then the question became that of the priority of BT or UT. If UT had to be assigned to Tutḫaliya IV and Kurunta was the first king of Tarḫuntašša, then Ulmi-Teššub must have been his successor; this assumption has been argued by van den Hout (1984; 1989; 1995: 11 f.), Imparati and Pecchioli-Daddi (1991: 61 f.), and Houwink ten Cate (1992b). Stronger arguments in favour of a priority of UT, and therefore of the identity of Ulmi-Teššup and Kurunta, were presented by del Monte 1991–92, 139 f., Sürenhagen 1992, and Gurney (1993 and 2002b); this assumption has been shared by Alp 1995: 7; Hawkins 1995a: 61 f.; Singer 1996b: 68; Beckman 1996: 102–103; Gurney 2002b; Freu 2005b: 399; Id. 2008: 188–190, 198; Melchert 2007: 509–510. 76  Translation: Beckman 1996: 103 (18A). Cf. Klengel 1999: 239; Gurney 2002b: 343–344; Freu 2008a: 189f.

246 he is still called Ulmi-Teššup. After the death of Ḫattušili III, his son Tutḫaliya IV, in order to secure the loyalty and the support of his cousin, granted Kurunta a new treaty (BT = CTH 106 A1), which was more advantageous for him. Another debated question is connected with the “rebellion” of Kurunta, witnessed by bullae found in Boğazköy and by the inscription of Hatıp, where he claims the title of Great King and Labarna; the interment of the Bronze Tablet near the southern Wall of Ḫattuša may be a result of it.77 If the rebellion is accepted, the position of the Hatıp relief inside the borders of Tarḫuntašša, as they are known from UT and BT, is not proved; it would be much easier to consider it a place in the district of Ikkuwaniya, occupied by Kurunta when he rebelled, and that would also explain why Šuppiluliuma II had to reconquer that province.78 The topography of the borders has been studied several times using the available evidence, the works of Forrer and Garstang and Gurney preceded the publication of the Bronze Tablet.79 Both Tarḫuntašša treaties contain a description of the boundaries of that kingdom as they were established by the Hittite king. In these descriptions the kingdom’s territory is always called the “land of the river Ḫulaya”, whereas the title of its king is always “king of Tarḫuntašša”.80 The two descriptions differ not 77  The rebellion of Kurunta was already supposed by Otten 1988: 4. It may have taken place immediately after the battle of Niḫriya, where Tutḫaliya was defeated by the Assyrian king. Cf. also Sürenhagen 1992: 369–371; Hawkins 1995a: 62; van den Hout 1995a: 18; Klengel 1999: 289–290, 296; van den Hout 2001: 216–217 (Interimsregierung, Staatsstreich); Ehringhaus 2001: 519–520; Bryce 2007a: 122–125; Id. 2007b: 128–129. According to other scholars, since we have no evidence of a war between Kurunta and his cousin we must rather suppose a peaceful agreement (Singer 1996b: 64–66; cf. on this problem Freu 2005b: 400–403; Giorgieri and Mora 2010: 144 f.; de Martino 2010: 47; van den Hout 2012: 462), but in this case Tutḫaliya would have accepted the existence of another Anatolian Great King (IniTeššup of Karkamiš was not recognized as such! Cf. van den Hout 2001: 220) and Labarna, and that is difficult to believe. 78   According to Südburg §1b, §4b (Hawkins 1995a: 22–23, 29) Šuppiluliuma II (re)conquered the lands VITIS (Wiyanawanda), Tamina, Masa, Luka (Lukka), Ikuna (Ikkuwaniya). 79  See del Monte and Tischler 1978: 467–470 (s.v. DU-taša). 80  The Ḫulaya river has been identified with the Çarşamba river since Garstang 1944: 21–23. This assumption was developed by Gordon 1967 and is today generally accepted. Another candidate, the Calycadnos/Göksu proposed by Cornelius 1963: 244, must be ruled out. On the problem of the two names, Land of River Ḫulaya versus Land of Tarḫuntašša, cf. Houwink ten Cate 1992: 249 (two different lands), 252 (border between them referred to in BT II 4 f.); Gurney 1993: 26–28 (geographical and

Forlanini

only because they are related to two different steps in the Ḫatti-Tarḫuntašša relations, but also because some sections of the border are not described in the Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, the earlier one. This “jump” has been variously considered and discussed. Whereas the border with Ḫatti is topographically detailed, the “outside” border is mainly defined through lists of places belonging to the kingdom, towns, land tenures, but probably also tribal areas. A translation of the pertinent paragraphs of both UT and BT in a synoptic way follows here.81 (UT obv. 16ʹ–18ʹ and BT): “Towards82 the land Pitašša, Mount Ḫawa, the :kantanna of Zarniya, and Šanantarwa are your border, but the :kantanna of Zarniya belongs to the Ḫulaya River-Land and Šanantarwa belongs to Pitašša.” In order to place this first section of the border on the map one must assume that no gap was left in the clockwise description of the border and therefore the last mentioned places precede without break the first ones. Since, if we refer to the more useful version given by BT, the identification of the river Kaštaraya and the city Parḫa with the Class. Cestrus and Perge proposed by Otten is generally accepted and the towns in the direction of Walma, mentioned thereafter, must be consequently sought around Lake Eğridir, the land Pitašša at the beginning of the description must therefore have extended northeast of Lake Eğridir. The mountain and the towns mentioned in this section are not attested elsewhere83. Kantanna is a Glossenkeilwort (Luwian?) of unknown meaning.84 UT obv 19ʹ: “from the land of Pitašša the DKASKAL. KURMEŠ of the town Arimmatta are his frontier, but Arimatta belongs to the land of Pitašša.” political names); Alp 1995: 6; Freu 1980: 235; Id. 2008: 190 (previously different, then equivalent terms). 81  Based on the English translations of: Garstang and Gurney 1959: 66–69 (only UT); Beckman 1996: 102–118 (UT and BT); Hoffner 2000; Id. 2006: 270–275 (only BT). 82  On the translation “towards” instead of “from” of ablative forms (mainly expressed by IŠTU) in frontier descriptions cf. Goetze 1940: 23; Melchert 2007: 508. 83  In the map of Dinçol et alii 2000: 19, the frontier runs from the southeastern side of Lake Eğridir to the northwestern side of Lake Beyşehir (followed by Melchert 2007: 507; van den Hout 2012: 461). If so, Mount Ḫawa could be the Anamas Dağı. But Freu (2008a: 173), for instance, would rather place this mountain in the Erenler or Sultandağları ranges. 84  According to Otten 1988: 32, this word could be connected to kant- “wheat”.

South-Central: Philology

BT I 22–28: “from the land of Pitašša, Naḫḫanta was previously his (Kurunta’s) border, but my father has pushed back the frontier and in the tablet of the treaty of my father the DKASKAL.KUR of Arimmatta was made the frontier. Now I, My Sun, have re-established for him the original border, and from the land of Pitašša, from the frontier area of Arimmatta, Naḫḫanta and Ḫauttašša are the frontier, but Naḫḫanta and Ḫauttašša belong to the land of the river Ḫulaya.” It is obvious here that the situation described in the UT treaty corresponds to the second stage of the border arrangements in the time of Ḫattušili mentioned in the BT, and the most unfavourable for Kurunta. The term DKASKAL.KUR, in plural form in the UT treaty, has long been discussed.85 Whereas Garstang and Gurney translated “military post”, Edmund J. Gordon demonstrated that the term was connected with water and translated “underground water course” (katabothron, Turkish “düden”). Otten understood “Quellbecken” in the edition of the BT, and later on Hawkins found the equivalent term in Luwian hieroglyphic occurring in the Südburg Inscription of Šuppiluliuma II, carved under the artificial sacred pool. As a matter of fact the düden are frequent in this part of Anatolia, but the presence of artificial basins could better have been a main topographical element, particularly in a period, like the second half of the 13th century BC, when climatic changes reduced agricultural production. Since we must localize Arimmatta to the east of the preceding section, i.e. near the Beyşehir Lake, it has been proposed to identify the DKASKAL.KUR of Arimmatta with Eflatun Pınar.86 85  Garstang-Gurney 1960: 66 (“military post”); Cornelius 1967: 72 (“Bergpass”); Gordon 1967; Otten 1988: 33–34 (he chose “Quellbecken”, but also discussed a passage of Bo 2413 = KUB 60.148 I 6–15, where a dKASKAL.KUR near Ḫanḫana and Tašimuwa seems to have been reached by the king and the queen going “up”; on this text see also Forlanini 1998b: 220– 221); van den Hout 1989: 108 (the place where underground rivers reach the surface); Hawkins 1995a: 44–45 (on the word “DEUS*202”, or “DEUS VIA+TERRA”, that, according to §18 of the inscription, should refer to the “sacred pool complex” of the Südburg); Beckman 1996: 104 f. (“sinkhole”); Melchert 2002: 139 (“man-made entrance to the underworld”). 86  Dinçol et al. 2000: 13 (cf. also Doğan-Alparslan and Alparslan 2011b: 95). This toponym may be connected to later ones, like the village of Armataza ( Beschwörungsrituale > CTH 716).

252

Figure 18.1

Forlanini

Map showing proposed locations in the Lower Land and Tarhuntassa.

a passage of the Palace Chronicle (CTH 9 A I 13),122 Ura should be the well-known Mediterranean harbour. Luḫma is mentioned once again only in the Sargon legend found in Kültepe,123 as an Anatolian country. Partaḫuina is followed in the list by Kašula, a land in northern Anatolia near Tumanna, and therefore has been placed

in Paphlagonia (perhaps also because of the Greek name of a Paphlagonian river, the Parthenius);124 this toponym must be explained instead as a Luwian one125 and cannot be placed in the north, Partaḫuina must therefore be the last of the southern Anatolian place-names in the list and not the first of the northern ones, Kašula and Kaška.

122  Cf. Otten 1975b; Dardano 1997: 32–33, 81; Forlanini 2000: 16, fn. 43. 123  Kt j/k 97: 61 (Luḫmē), where also Ḫuntara probably occurs in the form Ḫutura (52). For this text see: Günbattı 1997; van de Mieroop 2000; Dercksen 2005; Alster and Oshima 2007; Westenholz 2007.

124  Goetze 1957: 180, map. 125  Cf. the roots part(iy)a- and ḫuinai-, Melchert 1993: 82, 171. Cf. also the toponyms Partanta (a town near Ura, s. above) and Partiya, cf. Laroche 1961: 69.

CHAPTER 19

Central West: Philology Stefano de Martino The central western region of Anatolia as treated in this chapter corresponds to the area between the Kızılırmak to the east and the Sakarya river to the west. The ideal northern border of this region can be fixed approximately at the modern city Ankara, whilst the southern border is the Tuz Gölü/Salt Lake (see fig. 19.1). This region has been subdivided in three areas, in order to more clearly present the textual evidence related to the historical geography of this part of Anatolia.

The main settlements of this region are Durmitta and Nenašša. The place name Durmitta, sometimes written with the determinative KUR “land”, but more often referring to a city (URU), is documented in several Hittite texts and in a great number of Old Assyrian tablets from Kültepe, where it appears as Durḫumit.1 Unfortunately, the Old Assyrian documents do not give information for the location of Durmitta,2 which mostly relies on evidence found in the Hittite texts. Durmitta was outside of the core of the Hittite land. It was assaulted by the Kaška people in the first year of Muršili II’s kingdom, as this king relates in a passage of the “Ten Years Annals” (KBo 3.4 I 30, 31, 41);3 the Hittite king reacted and attacked Ḫalila and Dudduška, either two Kaškean villages or tribes.4 Muršili II in the “Comprehensive Annals” (year fifteen) also says that the Kaška reached Durmitta and from there arrived at the river Taḫara and at the town of Tapapanuwa.5 At the time of Muwattalli II, the Kaškeans, moving from Durmitta, were also able to reach the Lower Land (see the “Apology” of Ḫattušili III, II 10–13).6–7

Durmitta is mentioned in another passage of the “Apology” of Ḫattušili III, where the lands are listed, that Muwattalli II gave to his brother Ḫattušili when appointing him ruler of Ḫakpiš (II 48–68).8 Here Durmitta is preceded by Ḫattena and is followed by Pala and Tummana (II 59). This same sequence Durmitta—Pala—Tummana is documented in a passage of KBo 54.106+KUB 22.29 (+) KBo 58.96 I 2–39 that contains oracular queries; this passage might refer to three countries of a large peripheral area beyond the Kızılırmak that are mentioned from the south, Durmitta, to the northwest, Pala, and to the north, Tummana. A passage of the cult text KUB 55.43 (IV 32ʹ–34ʹ, l. edge 1–8)10 demonstrates that the river Maraššanda/Kızılırmak was among the main deities of Durmitta; in fact, when the tutelary deity of the city Ḫatenzuwa was brought from Ḫattuša to Durmitta in order to be revered there, offerings were given to several deities and among them the river Maraššanda also occurs. This might mean that Durmitta was close to the Maraššanda.11 Another passage of KUB 55.43 (I 20–23) has been sometimes considered as important proof in support of the location of Durmitta north of Ḫattuša.12 In fact, in this text the transfer of the hunting bag of the tutelary deity of Ḫatenzuwa from Ḫattuša to Durmitta started from the ašuša-gate of the Hittite capital.13 S. Pierallini (2000) in her study on the Lower City of Ḫattuša proposed that the ašuša-gate was in this part of the Hittite capital, because it is mentioned in texts of old and middle Hittite tradition and she excluded that the walls of the Upper City might date back to a time before the imperial age. If this gate had indeed been in the Lower City, the already quoted passage of KUB 55.43 might support the location of Durmitta in northern Anatolia. Since we now know that the walls of the Upper City had already been built in the late 16th

1  See Barjamovic 2011: 242–267. 2  Barjamovic 2011: 242, 255. (See Barjamovic this volume, ed.). 3  del Monte 1993: 59–60; Beal 2003: 84. 4  See Forlanini 2008a: 73 fn. 83; 2009a: 56. 5  See the different interpretations of this passage, respectively, of Forlanini 2009a: 57 and Barjamovic 2011: 246. 6  Otten 1981: 10–11. 7  See Forlanini 2008a: 73–74; Barjamovic 2011: 246–247.

8  Otten 1981: 14–15. 9  Sakuma 2009: 294; see also Barjamovic 2011: 246. 10  McMahon 1991: 154–157. 11  So Forlanini 1992b: 179; 2012: 294; differently see Barjamovic 2011: 248 fn. 932. 12  See for example Barjamovic 2011: 247–248. 13  McMahon 1991: 146–147.

1

The Territories on the Western Bank of the Kızılırmak

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_020

254 century,14 the ašuša-gate might also be one of the gates of the Upper City that brought to the roads leading to the south. Therefore KUB 55.43 cannot give any conclusive element for locating Durmitta. The hypothesis that Durmitta might lie in the area between the Kızılırmak and the Salt Lake mostly relies upon the evidence of the administrative document KUB 48.105+KBo 12.53 that goes back to the last decades of the 13th century and lists allotments of deportees and also of livestock given to some temples and cult institutions.15 The beneficiaries of such allotments are listed according to the administrative “province” they belonged to; the better-preserved part of this text refers to the “provinces” of Durmitta, Kaššiya and Tapikka. The cities that according to this text are included in the province of Durmitta are: a fragmentary place name that can be read as Liššina,16 Ḫadduḫina, Nenašša, U(wa)l(la)ma, Tenizidaša/ Lanizidaša,17 Pittaniyaša, Mallidaškuriya, Uratta(?),18 Kalašmitta, Tamettaya. Ḫariyaša, which E. Rieken includes among the cities of the “province” of Durmitta, is, on the contrary, one of the places that gives personnel and goods to the temples of this “province” and therefore does not necessarily share a location close to that of Durmitta.19 The mention of Nenašša, among the cities of the “province” of Durmitta, that can safely be located on the western bank of the Kızılırmak, and of Mallidaškuriya, that presumably was northwest of the Salt Lake,20 requires, in my opinion, that the location of Durmitta is in this same part of Anatolia, as M. Forlanini has proposed.21 The towns of the Durmitta “province” were presumably listed in the text KUB 48.105+KBo 12.53 from the south to the north;22 accepting this hypothesis, Tamettaya could be located at the extreme north of the “province”;23 Kalašmitta24 should be not far from Tamettaya near the Kızılırmak and Pittaniyaša might be between Durmitta

14  Schachner 2011a: 90–92. 15  Archi and Klengel 1980. 16  Barjamovic 2011: 249 fn. 938; Archi and Klengel (1980: 147) read Liḫšina, but this city cannot be placed in the same area as Durmitta; Forlanini 2009a: 51, Uiššina. 17  See Forlanini 2009a: 52. 18  So Forlanini 2009a: 53. 19  Rieken 2009: 213. 20  See ultra. 21  Forlanini 2009: 53. 22  So Forlanini 2009a: 50–56. 23  See Forlanini 2009a: 56: close to Çankirı. 24   See Forlanini 2009a: 55–56: “perhaps at Kesikköprü”, but Kesikköprü is 133km south of Çankırı.

de Martino

and Nenašša.25 Since the geographical closeness and the administrative connections between Durmitta and Nenašša clearly appear from KUB 48.105+KBo 12.53, G. Barjamovic, who preferred locating Durmitta in the northern part of Anatolia, east of the Kızılırmak, proposed that the Nenašša and U(wa)l(la)ma mentioned in this tablet were two villages homonymous with the two more important southern cities known from several Hittite texts.26 The location of Durmitta not far from Nenašša is supported by another Hittite text. In the prayer of Muwattalli II to the assembly of gods through the StormGod of Lightining (II 10–11)27 the main gods of Ḫatti are invoked; the deities of Durmitta (Telipinu,28 the male and female deities, the rivers and mountains of this region) are also called upon in this prayer in the paragraph that precedes the invocation of the deities of Nenašša, that cannot be those of an obscure village of northern Anatolia. Lastly, in a passage of the nuntarriyašḫa-festival (KBo 11.73+ III 2ʹ–6ʹ), the priests of Durmitta bring salt to the king; such a special offering might be connected with the location of Durmitta in a particular region, such as the area between the Kızılırmak and the Salt Lake, where the presence of salt-pans can be inferred from some Hittite texts.29 Nenašša30 is mentioned mostly in texts that refer to events and situations of the time of the Old Kingdom. According to the decree issued by King Telipinu (§4),31 Nenašša was already part of the Hittite kingdom at the time of Labarna I together with other peripheral cities such as Ḫubišna, Tuwanuwa, Landa, Zallara, Purušḫanda, 25  According to Forlanini 2009a: 52–53, the Hittite place name Pittaniyaša might correspond the classical Pitnissos and this town might be located northwest of the Salt Lake; differently see Barjamovic 2001: 253–254. 26  Barjamovic 2011: 250; Matthews and Glatz (2009: 64) and Taracha (2009: 53 fn. 270) also opt for locating Durmitta in the north. See also Forlanini 1977 and Corti in this volume (chapter 17). 27  Singer 1996a: 14, 35. 28  Telipinu of Durmitta is mentioned, together with Telipinu of Tawiniya and Ḫanḫana, also in the treaty of Šuppiluliuma I with Tette of Nuḫḫašše (IV 14ʹ), in the treaty concluded between Šuppiluliuma I and Šattiwaza (rev. 45ʹ); in the treaty of Muršili II with Tuppi-Tešob of Amurru (III 21ʹ). According to M. Forlanini (2009a: 57), the cult of Telipinu, although it was common also in cities of northern Anatolia, was concentrated in centres of central-western Anatolia and this is a further element supporting a location of Durmitta west of the Kızılırmak. See the objections of Barjamovic 2011: 252. 29  Forlanini 1992b: 179; Klengel 2006: 13. 30  See last Barjamovic 2011: 327–331. 31  Hoffmann 1984: 14–15.

255

Central West: Philology

Lušna. Then Nenašša rebelled and was attacked by Ḫattušili I, but when the Hittite king was approaching it, its inhabitants surrendered without offering resistance (KBo 10.1 obv. 14–15; KBo 10.2 obv. 29–32);32 then Ḫattušili moved against the nearby city of U(wa)l(la)ma. Ḫattušili I appointed Pimpirit, presumably one of his sons, to administer this newly reconquered region (see the “Palace Chronicle” §35).33The role played by Nenašša as an administrative centre during the Old Kingdom is shown also by the tablets of ration lists of the KI.LAM festival, where the AGRIG “administrator” of Nenašša is one of the suppliers of livestock and food.34 Moreover there was a storehouse of Nenašša at Ḫattuša.35 At the time of Tutḫaliya III Nenašša was reached and attacked by the Kaška (KBo 6.28 obv. 6–9); since in my opinion, both Durmitta and Nenašša were located on the western bank of the river Maraššanda, the valley of this river presumably was the way followed by the Kaška when moving to central-southern Anatolia.36 Nenašša appears in some Hittite texts of different genres and content together with two other cities, Ḫubišna and Tuwanuwa; this points to a location of Nenašša south of Durmitta and near the Lower Land. We may quote for example the list of AGRIG KUB 26.2 rev. 2ʹ–4ʹ and the second tablet of the KI.LAM festival37 where the storehouses of Nenašša, Tuwanuwa and Ḫubišna are mentioned. These same three storehouses are called upon to organize a cult meal in the city of Ḫaranašši on the 12th day of the nuntarriašḫa-festival (KUB 55.5+ I 18ʹ–19ʹ).38 Moreover, in the Prayer of Muwattalli II to the assembly of gods through the Storm-God of Lightning, the deities of Nenašša are called upon immediately before the deities of Ḫubišna and Tuwanuwa (II 12–19).39 Also in the already mentioned passage of Telipinu’s Edict Nenašša appears immediately after Ḫubišna and Tuwanuwa. These three cities clearly formed a cluster.40 We recall here that in the already quoted prayer of Muwattalli II the mention of Nenašša follows that of Durmitta; as I. Singer (1996: 173) observed, in the list of gods of this prayer we can recognize a long chain of cities that starts with Durmitta in the north, goes on to the south with Nenašša, Hubišna and Tuwanuwa and 32  See respectively Devecchi 2005: 38–39; de Martino 2003: 38–41. 33  Dardano 1997: 58–59; Cammarosano 2006: 49–50, 58. 34  Singer 1984: 107, 111. 35  Singer 1984: 20; Siegelová 2001: 198. 36  So Forlanini 2008a: 73. 37  Singer 1984: 20–21. 38  Nakamura 2002: 50. 39  Singer 1996a: 14–15, 35–36. 40  Singer 1984: 117; see also Barjamovic 2011: 330.

then moves to the west. This text informs us that the river Maraššanda was one of the main deities of Nenašša (II 13), so suggesting that this river flowed not far from the city;41 as was already said, this river was also an object of veneration in Durmitta, so confirming that this city too was near the Maraššanda. U(wa)l(la)ma42 was not far from Nenašša;43 this city, which is mentioned as an enemy of Anitta in the Res Gestae of this king,44 only played a role during the Old Kingdom. Ḫattušili I reached this city after having conquered Nenašša and destroyed it (KBo 10.2 I 33–41: Ulma; KBo 10.1 obv. 15–20: Ullumm(a)).45 The place name Ulma also appears in a very fragmentary passage of the Res Gestae of Ḫattušili I (KUB 36.101 III 10ʹ).46 Presumably the city had been resettled after having been destroyed by Ḫattušili I,47 although it surely lost its importance. This is also demonstrated by a passage of the “Palace Chronicle” (§15); it reports that Aškaliya, governor of Ḫurma, appointed a certain Išpudašinara, who was only a potter, to be the administrator of U(wa)l(la)ma.48 U(wa)l(la)ma is mentioned in a fragmentary passage of the Res Gestae of Muršili I (KBo 3.46+ III 45ʹ),49 but it might be either the city near Nenašša or the western Walma.50 Lastly U(wa)l(la)ma is listed among the cities and villages of the “province” of Nenašša in the tablet KUB 48.105+KBo 12.53 (obv. 31ʹ: Uwalma), that we have already mentioned several times.51 2

The Area Between the Modern City Ankara, to the North, and the Salt Lake, to the South

The main centre of this area was Ka/iššiya. This place name does not occur in the Hittite texts of the Old 41  Barjamovic 2011: 329. 42  See now Barjamovic 2011: 331–338. 43  Forlanini (2008: 61) near the shores of the Salt Lake, presumably at Varavan. 44  Carruba 2003: 22–23. 45  See respectively de Martino 2003: 40–43; Devecchi 2006: 38–41. 46  De Martino 2003: 118–119. 47  Although the Annals relate that the city was destroyed, we can presume that it was only attacked and not put to an end. According to the Res Gestae of Anitta, this king would have completely destroyed Ḫattuša, but now recent archaeological investigations seem to show that the city survived and prospered after Anitta’s attack, see Schachner 2011a: 40. 48  Dardano 1997: 48–49. 49  De Martino 2003: 138–139. 50  So Barjamovic 2011: 338 fn. 1418. 51  Differently see Barjamovic 2011: 338.

256 Kingdom; it appears for the first time in one of the oaths of service that King Arnuwanda I imposed on the DUGUD officers of Kinnara, Kalašma and Ka/iššiya.52 In the following generation, at the time of Tutḫaliya III, Ka/iššiya was attacked and plundered by the Arawannas (see KBo 6.28 I 10). During the reign of this same king Ka/iššiya and the area of the river Ḫulana fell victim to the incursions of the people of Maša and Kammala, as is documented by the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma, KUB 19.10+KBo 50.14 I 10.53 The Arawanna people also attacked Ka/iššiya during the reign of Šuppiluliuma I, as Muršili II relates in the “Ten Years Annals” (KBo 3.4 III 49ʹ–55ʹ); in the fifth year of his reign, Muršili II moved against this population, defeated them and brought 3,500 deportees to Ḫattuša.54 The area inhabited by the people of Kammala and Arawanna was northwest of Ka/iššiya.55 Two documents, one from the first decades of the 14th century and the other one from the late 13th century, give us an idea of the extension of the “province” whose main centre was Ka/iššiya and of the location of the nearby cities. The first document is the already mentioned oath of the DUGUD officers; the DUGUD in service in the regions of Kinnara, Kalašma and Ka/iššiya swore to be loyal to Arnuwanda I, perform their duties and lead the army, when a military expedition required their participation. Every one of the DUGUD officers summoned for the oath ceremony is mentioned by his name and by the name of the town/village, whose troops he commands.56 The tablet concerning the DUGUD of Ka/iššya is partially preserved by several fragments; the place names that are fully readable in the first lines of the first column of this text are: (I 4ʹ–14, 1ʹ–10ʹ) Atarawanna,57 Šappa, Ḫartana, Taḫaramma, Ḫaršuwanda, Ninniwa, Zazza(?), Ḫuḫuli, Mallidaškur[ya], [Z]atarziya(?),58 Ḫar[aḫara],59 Iḫuwall[i-], Ganin-x[,

52  For these texts see von Schuler 1956; Beal 1992a: 494–496; Giorgieri 2005: 336–338; Forlanini 2009a: 58–59; Miller 2013a: 194–205; concerning the location of these three regions/towns see ultra. 53  del Monte 2009: 42–43. 54  See del Monte 1993: 68. 55  See Forlanini 1996: 10. 56  So Beal 1992a: 495–496. 57  M. Forlanini (2009a: 59) proposed that this place name survived in the classical Androna, which corresponds to the modern village Topaklı, about 40km southwest of Ankara. 58  So Miller 2007e: 135. 59  So Forlanini 2009a: 58 fn. 116, who proposed also the alternative reading Ḫara[paša].

de Martino

Išaruišša, Uišašpura. This text explicitly says that these are the DUGUD officers of the “land Ka/iššiya”.60 The Hittite texts only give information concerning very few of these cities: Šappa, Ḫartana, Mallidaškuriya and Zatarziya. As is related in the “Comprehensive Annals” of King Muršili II (19th year)61 Aparru, the man of Kalašma, whom the Hittite king had accepted as a subordinate ruler, rebelled and attacked Šap(p)a. Kalašma, one of the three regions that Arnuwanda I put under Hittite control through the already mentioned oaths sworn by the DUGUD officers, might have been north of Šappa; the latter was presumably on the border between the “province” of Ka/iššiya and the region of Kalašma. Šap(p)a is also listed immediately after Ka/iššiya in the “Apology” of Ḫattušili III (§8): it was part of the territories that Muwattalli II gave to Ḫattušili to govern: “.… Pala, Tummana, Kaššiya, Šappa, the country of the river Ḫulana …” (Otten 1981: 14–15). As M. Forlanini (2013: 48–50) has recently demonstrated, Ziulila might also have been in the region of Ka/ iššiya on a northern route that led to Pala passing through Šappa. According to Forlanini Ziulila might be located at Bitik. Ḫartana also appears in the Old Assyrian textual evidence.62 It occurs in the Hittite Cult Inventory KUB 38.32 (obv. 3), that mentions the building of some temples in this city.63 A passage of this text (obv. 11–32) deals with the cult of the mountain god Ziwana, which might have been close to Ḫartana. M. Forlanini (2009: 58–59) proposed that Ḫartana might be located at the site of Külhöyük; in fact this site, although only having partially been investigated, seems to have already been settled during the Old Assyrian period and then inhabited during the Hittite era, thus covering the time span documented by the textual evidence related to Ḫartana; moreover the hill of Gavurkalesi might be the sacred mountain Ziwana. Differently, according to H. Ertem, Külhöyük might correspond to the ancient city Šalatiwara64 (on this latter city see ultra). Mallidaškuriya occurs in Telepinu’s decree in the list of cities that hosted a storage depot (§37, III 39); the town immediately preceding Mallidaškuriya is Ḫaraḫara and this same place name might be also read in the DUGUD oath KUB 26.24+, as already mentioned. According to 60  For the full list of personal and place names see Miller 2013a: 196–197. 61  See del Monte 1993: 128. 62  See Forlanini 2008a: 72–73 with previous literature. 63  See Jakob Rost 1963: 193–195. 64   Ertem 1995. Concerning the location of this city see now Barjamovic 2011: 401, and this volume.

Central West: Philology

257

the Hittite text KUB 26.27,65 presumably of the time of Telipinu,66 princess Ḫarapšeki, Telipinu’s daughter, and her husband Alluwamna were banished and sent to Mallidaškuriya. These two texts, Telipinus’s Edict and KUB 26.27, show that at the time of this king Mallidaškuriya was part of the Hittite kingdom, but was at its extreme periphery, since it was considered suitable for hosting rebellious people, whom the Hittite king wanted to keep far from the court. The Sun Deity of Mallidaškuriya is mentioned among the deities invoked in the Prayer of Muwattalli II to the assembly of Gods through the Storm God of Lightning (II 33).67 The Sun deity of Mallidaskuriya appears in the same paragraph in which the Storm God of Šaḫḫuwiya and the Storm God of Paḫ(a)tima occur (II 32). In the tablet catalogue KUB 17.19 rev. 4ʹ–5ʹ (Dardano 2006: 222) the mention of the festivals for Šaušga of Paḫ(a)tima occurs immediately after that of the festival for the Storm God of Purušḫanda. Although we lack more information concerning the place name Paḫ(a)tima,68 we may suppose on the basis of this catalogue entry, that it was in the area of Purušḫanda.69 The deities invoked in Muwatalli’s prayer after those of Šaḫḫuwiya are those of Ḫarziuna: Paḫ(a)tima and Mallidaškuriya.The place name Zatarziya occurs in other Hittite texts, but they refer to two other homonymous cities/villages. In KUB 40.97+ IV 7, one of the tablets of the ḫišuwa festival, Zatarziya is a town of southeastern Anatolia, whilst in KBo 30.157 I 6ʹ, whose content resembles that of VBoT 68,70 this place name refers to a city close to Ḫattuša, Arinna and Ḫanḫana. The second text that deals with the “province” of Ka/ iššiya is the already mentioned administrative text KUB 48.105+KBo 12.53;71 as was already said, it can be dated to the 13th century and lists the cities and the provinces that receive allotments of deportees and livestock given to their temples. Lines 31–36 of the reverse concern the “province” of Kaššiya; only two towns are listed here as belonging to this province: Aššuwašša and Ḫartana. The first one of these place names is documented only here and in the fragment H 6193a, 3ʹ;72 the second one, Ḫartana, is included in the “province” of Ka/iššiya also in the DUGUD’s

oath of the time of Arnuwanda I, which we have mentioned before. Since the city of Mallidaškuriya belonged to the province of Ka/iššiya at the time of Arnuwanda I, as the DUGUD’s oath shows, but became part of the “province” of Durmitta in the 13th century, as is documented by KUB 48.105+ obv. 42ʹ, this city presumably was south of Ka/iššiya, but north of the Salt Lake, that is in an area bordering both the region of Ka/iššiya and that of Durmitta. M. Forlanini (2009: 54) proposed that Mallidaškuriya might correspond to Çalışhöyük, about 20km east of the modern city of Haymana. KUB 48.105+KBo 12.53 demonstrates that Ka/iššiya, in the 13th century, did not play an important role anymore in the administrative structure of the Hittite kingdom; the reduction of the “province” of Ka/iššiya in the 13th century might be a consequence of the repeated attacks of the tribes and people from north and northwest that this city and its surrounding territory suffered at the time of Tudḫaliya III, Šuppiluliuma I and Muršili II.73 After having examined the extent of the “province” of Ka/iššiya, we can conclude that this city was in the area of Ankara, as was already suggested by del Monte and Forlanini, in consideration of the fact that it lay south of Kalašma and had been the leading centre of a province bordering (at Mallidaškuriya) that of Durmitta.74 These coordinates exclude, in my view, the location proposed by R. Matthews and C. Glatz, north of Ankara and west of the modern city of Bolu.75 Presumably the city Waḫšušana was also not far from Ka/iššiya. It is very often mentioned in the Old Assyrian tablets of Kültepe,76 which point to a location of this city west of the Kızılırmak. By contrast, Waḫšušana only occurs in one Hittite text, the historiographical fragment of King Arnuwanda I KUB 23.116 obv. 7ʹ.77 KUB 23.116, despite its bad state of preservation, shows that Waḫšušana was close to Ka/iššiya, since Arnuwanda went to the former town before and then left from the latter (obv. 7ʹ–8ʹ).78 M. Forlanini proposed that Waḫšušana might lie at the site of Ballıkuyumcu, about 32km southwest of Ankara;79 G. Barjamovic differs and locates this city at Kapalıkaya/

65  See Carruba 1974: 80–81. 66  See de Martino 2017. 67  See Singer 1996a: 16. 68  This place name occurs also in the Old Assyrian tablets from Kültepe, but these documents do not give clear information for its location, see Barjamovic 2011: 98. 69  See Forlanini 1988: 137. 70  For this text see Forlanini 1980. 71  See Archi and Klengel 1980. 72  Wilhelm 2012a: 523, 525.

73  See de Martino 2017. 74  del Monte 1993: 128 fn. 207; Forlanini 1996: 11; 2009: 58–59. 75  Matthews and Glatz 2009: 69. 76  See Barjamovic 2011: 339–350. 77  Carruba 2008: 76–78. 78  For this interpretation of the fragmentary passage see Forlanini 2008a: 73 fn. 80. 79   Forlanini 2009: 59 fn. 118. This proposal is not shared by Barjamovic 2011: 401 fn. 1636.

258

de Martino

Büklükale, a höyük situated on the western bank of the Kızılırmak.80 3

The Area Between the Salt Lake and the Sakarya River

The Sakarya river, corresponding to Hittite Ša/eḫiriya81 and the Sangarius of the ancient Greek and Latin documents, flows through northwestern Anatolia into the Black Sea. In a passage of the “Extensive Annals” of Muršili II which deals with the military campaign led by this king against Arzawa in the third year of his reign,82 it is said that the Storm God shot a lightning bolt that terrified the ruler and the people of Arzawa, when the Hittite king reached the river Ša/eḫiriya. Then Muršili II moved from this river and went forward to the west reaching the city Šallapa.83 In the “Ten Year Annals” of this same king, the narrative of this episode does not mention the river Ša/eḫiriya, but the mountain Lawaša,84 that presumably was not far from the place where Muršili crossed this river in the “Extensive Annals”. In the 13th century the Ša/eḫiriya plain was one of places where King Tutḫaliya IV loved shooting and hunting (KBo 12.59 I 4ʹ–9ʹ).85 The place name Šalatiwara is often mentioned in the Old Assyrian texts from Kültepe;86 one passage of the tablet AKT 3 mentions a bridge on the road from Waḫšušana to Šalatiwara.87 The only important river that we can find on such a road is the Sakarya.88 Since, as G. Barjamovic wrote, the traditional crossing for the Sakarya river is located near Gordion at the confluence of this river with the Porsuk C̦ ay,89 Šalatiwara might have been in this same area. We can presume that Šalatiwara was the leading centre of this region in the Middle Bronze Age; the ruler

80  Barjamovic 2010: 21; 2011: 400–401. The fragment KUB 23.116 is misinterpreted by Barjamovic (2010: 21), since this text does not mention a route towards the Sakarya river or Arzawa. 81  See lastly Forlanini 2008a: 60; Yakubovich 2010: 22; Barjamovic 2011: 353 fn. 1472; Bawanypeck 2013: 168; differently see Kryszeń 2012. 82  See del Monte 1993: 79. 83  On this city see ultra. 84  See del Monte 1993: 79. 85  McMahon 1991: 132–133. 86  See Barjamovic 2011: 350–357. 87  See Forlanini 2008a: 59–60; Barjamovic 2011: 352. 88  See Forlanini 2008a: 60; Barjamovic 2011: 353–354. 89  Barjamovic 2011: 354; M. Forlanini (2008a: 60) proposes that the old crossing of the river was not far from the place of the Late Hittite relief at Yağri/Yağcı.

of Šalatiwara opposed Anitta, King of Neša/Kaneš, as is documented in the Res Gestae of this latter king.90 Šalatiwara seems to have lost its importance in the following centuries; it occurs only in two other Hittite tablets, both festival texts. In the small fragment KBo 27.31, that according to A. Ünal preserves a memory of the previous karum age, the merchants of Šalatiwara (I 7ʹ) are mentioned together with those of Kaneš and Tawiniya.91 Lastly, KBo 4.13 lists offerings for the deities of several Hittite cities and villages. A passage of this text (I 40ʹ– 41ʹ) dealing with the offerings for the gods of Ḫarziuna, Šallapa and Šalatiwara92 confirms that these three centres approximately lay in the same area. The city I/Aštanuwa might also have been in the area of the Sakarya river. This place name, which has etymologically been connected to the Hattian divine name Ištanu,93 occurs in several texts. Almost all of them are related to the cult of the local Weather God and present a strong Luwian character.94 Since the Luwian language of the I/Aštanuwa festival texts shows some peculiarities that distinguish them from those of Kizzuwatna and, moreover, Hurrian elements only very rarely appear, the hypothesis that this city was in southeastern Anatolia has been excluded and, on the contrary, the area of central-western Anatolia is considered the most probable location for I/Aštanuwa.95 Unfortunately, the I/Aštanuwa festival texts do not offer any precise information concerning the location of this city; only a passage of KUB 35.135 (IV 14ʹ–17ʹ; Starke 1985: 322) might give a clue to its geographical position. In fact, some gods of I/Aštanuwa’s pantheon are mentioned here: the local Weather God of this city, Kinaliya, Gurnuwala,96 the river Maliya, the Hurrian Inar97 and the river Ša/ eḫiriya. Since the river Ša/eḫiriya, differently from the Maliya, was not a supraregional deity, its mention demonstrates that it was a local god of I/Aštanuwa and supports the location of this city close to this river.98 The men of the city Lallupiya are often mentioned in the I/Aštanuwa festival texts as performers of Luwian songs; we can suppose that Lallupiya was not far from I/Aštanuwa, but its exact location cannot be determined. 90  Carruba 2003: 38–39, 46–49. See now also the fragment KBo 50.1. 91  Ünal 1995: 276. 92  See Forlanini 1977: 214–215; 2007a: 270–271. 93  Forlanini 1987a: 108; Haas 1994: 582. 94  See Starke 1985: 294–353. 95  See Haas 1994: 582, and more recently Teffeteller 2013: 583. 96  See Haas 1994: 582–583. 97  See Hutter 2003: 239 fn. 18. 98  See M. Forlanini 1987a: 115 fn. 23: close to Gordion; also see Hutter 2003: 239.

Central West: Philology

The “Extensive Annals” of Muršili II narrate that this Hittite king moved to the city Ḫarziuna in order to avoid the terrible plague that had broken out in Ḫatti at the time of his father Šuppiluliuma I and was still very virulent (KBo 16.15+KBo 14.20 I 9, II 21ʹ).99 Ḫarziuna, which was obviously outside of the core of Ḫatti, devastated by the epidemic, presumably lay between Mallidaškuriya (at its east) and Šallapa (at its west). In fact the deities of Ḫarziuna (II 34– 35: Wašḫaliya, the Storm God, male and female deities, mountains and rivers) are listed in Muwatalli’s Prayer to the assembly of gods through the Storm God of Lightning after the Sun deity of Mallidaškuriya and before the deities of Šallapa.100 A geographical link between Ḫarziuna and Šallapa is documented also by the offering list of the already mentioned festival text KBo 4.13,101 where the gods of these two cities are mentioned in the same line (I 40ʹ). The country of Zallara, the Lower Land and the country of Ḫarziuna appear in a fragmentary passage the Annals of Ḫattušili III (KUB 21.6a rev. 12ʹ–14ʹ);102 here these place names define, from southeast to northwest, the boundaries of the territories attacked by an unknown enemy, either the people of Lukka or by the adventurer Piyamaradu. From these texts we can infer that Ḫarziuna presumably was west of the Salt Lake and southwest of cities such as Ḫartana and Mallidaškuriya. At the same time Ḫarziuna was not too far from Durmitta; the fragment KUB 53.42 (r. col. 5ʹ–10ʹ) mentions three cities, Durmitta, Kattela and Ḫarziuna, with their deities, respectively, Telipinu, the sacred mountain Iyaliya and the sacred mountain Kammaliya.103 The location of Mallidaškuriya and Ḫarziuna, respectively, north and west of the Salt Lake, confirm the hypothesis that Durmitta was in the area between the Kızılırmak and the Salt Lake, as mentioned above. Šaḫurunuwa, a very powerful and wealthy personage of the late 13th century, had land properties in the region of Ḫarziuna. These properties are listed in the decree issued by Tutḫaliya IV in favour of the children of Šaḫurunuwa’s daughter (KUB 26.43+ obv. 19, 22, 23.)104 This passage also gives the names of the villages that were inside the country of Ḫarziuna: Arantanna, Tiwalwalliya, Ḫarputa, Ala, Šišura, Appala. Unfortunately none of these villages

99  See del Monte 1993: 113–115 (15th year of the “Extensive Annals”); Groddek 2002 (22th year). 100  Singer 1996: 16, 36–37. 101  See Forlanini 1977: 214; 2007a: 270–271. 102  See Gurney 1997: Gander 2010: 44–45. 103  See Forlanini 2009a: 57 fn. 107. 104  Imparati 1977: 26–27.

259 can more precisely be located; Appala105 appears in the fragment KUB 40.109 obv. 13ʹ where the town/village Ḫulaniya106 is also mentioned. Ala also occurs in a passage of IBoT 2.131 (obv. 41ʹ), an inventory of offerings that were not being delivered for the cult of the god Pirwa any more.107 As was already said, Muwatalli’s Prayer to the assembly of gods through the Storm God of Lightning mentions the deities of Ḫarziuna before those of Šallapa (Zanduza of Šallapa, the Weather God of Šallapa, male gods, mountains and rivers of Šallapa);108 moreover, a geographical relationship between Ḫarziuna and Šallapa is also suggested by the offering list of the festival text KBo 4.13 I 40ʹ.109 The Telipinu Edict preserves the oldest occurrence of Šallapa;110 this place name is here listed among the cities that rebelled against King Ammuna and occurs after Arzawa and before Parduwata (§ 21, II 2). In the first half of the 14th century Tutḫaliya III attacked Šallapa, as is documented by a fragment of the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma, KUB 19.12111 (II 5–6), presumably as a prelude to Šuppiluliuma’s campaign against Arzawa.112 This king stopped in Šallapa on his way back to Hatti after that campaign and ordered the reconstruction of the destroyed city (KBo 12.26 IV 16ʹ–19ʹ;).113 The “Extensive Annals” relate that Muršili II, in his third year,114 marched from Ḫattuša against Arzawa; he reached Šallapa, where he joined his brother Šarri-Kušuḫ, and then went to Aura; here he met Mašḫuiluwa, ruler of Mira, who was at that time allied to the Hittites. As is well known, Mašḫuiluwa then rebelled against Muršili II and stirred up the country of Pitašša; the Hittite king, therefore, moved to western Anatolia, went again to Šallapa and ordered Mašḫuiluwa to come to that city and meet him (see the historical introduction of the treaty concluded by Muršili II with Kupanta-Kurunta ruler of Mira § 4 KBo 19.66+ I 32–33). From these two latter texts we can infer that Šallapa was close to the border between Ḫatti and Mira.115 Šallapa was a stop also on Ḫattušili III’s march, when he moved to western Anatolia having been requested by the 105  See Forlanini 1977: 222 = ancient Appola near Çoğu. 106  See Forlanini 1977: 222 = ancient Klaneos, now Durgut. 107  Imparati 1990; Forlanini 2009a: 40–42. 108  Singer 1996: 16, 36–37. 109  See Forlanini 1977: 214; 2007a, 270–271. 110  See now Miller 2008a: 577–578. 111  Del Monte 2009: 6–7. 112  For the location of this fragment inside the narrative of the Deeds see now Miller 2013b: 123; Stavi 2013: 146. 113  del Monte 2009: 51, 65. See also KBo 19.54, del Monte 2009: 164. 114  See del Monte 1993: 79. 115  See Hawkins 1998b: 22 and fn. 117.

260 people of Lukka, as is written in the “Tawagalawa Letter” (§1–2,).116 Ḫattušili III, after having reached Šallapa, went to Waliwanda and Iyalanda. All the passages cited here demonstrate that Šallapa was on a main road connecting Ḫattuša to Arzawa. Its location has been much disputed. J. Garstang and O. Gurney proposed that it might be at Sivri Hisar, while J. Mellaart located it at Yaraşlı, northwest of the Salt Lake.117 A more southerly location, that better fits the Hittite documentation, was proposed by M. Forlanini, O. Gurney, O. Carruba and K. Strobel.118 The hypothesis advanced by A. Kryszeń of locating Šallapa in the Lower Land, south of the Salt Lake, is problematic, since this city bordered the western Anatolian country of Mira. Šallapa presumably was the area to the west of the Salt Lake and of Ḫarziuna, as K. Strobel proposed.119 The equation between the two place names Šallapa and Šalpa remains a matter of debate; Šalpa occurs in a passage of the Indictment of Madduwatta (KUB 14.1+ rev. 38–39; the Hittite king moved with his army from Šalpa and at the same time Madduwatta summoned the elders of Pedašša who rebelled against the Hittites.120 Šalpa also occurs in a passage of the Middle Hittite letter KBo 32.202 rev. 16ʹ, which seems to suggest a distance of only three days journey between Šalpa and the Hittite capital.121 The interpretation of this passage is not certain, due to the fragmentary state of the tablet; according to S. de Martino this letter might support the hypothesis that Šalpa was a town different from Šallapa and much closer to Ḫattuša, whilst a different reading of the partially preserved signs of the l. 16ʹ of the already quoted text leads M. Gander to reaffirm the identification between these two place names.122 Parduwata,123 which occurs in Telipinu’s decree after Šallapa, is mentioned in another Old Hittite historical text, KUB 26.71, probably of the time of King Telipinu; according to this text (IV 11ʹ–12ʹ) it was not far from Šaḫḫuliya/ Šaḫḫuwaliya.124 This city appears also in the offering list KBo 4.13, together with Lalanda and Walma (I 42ʹ–43ʹ).125 116  Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 101–102. 117  Garstang and Gurney 1959: 77; Mellaart 1993: 416. 118  Forlanini 1977: 217 = classical Selma, but see Gander 2010: 193 and fn. 732; Gurney 1992: 220; Carruba 1996: 28 (near classical Laodicea); Strobel 2008: 33, between Ilgın, Kolukışa and Sarayönü. 119  Kryszeń 2012. 120  Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 88–89. 121  de Martino 2005: 301. 122  de Martino 2005: 301 fn. 126; Gander 2010: 136–140. 123  See Forlanini 2007c: 289–290. 124  See de Martino 2003: 81–87; Forlanini 2013b: 52. 125  See Forlanini 1977: 215; 2007a: 270–271.

de Martino

The place name Lalanda occurs in very few Hittite texts and none of them, apart from the already quoted passage of KBo 4.13, gives precise information concerning its location. At the time of Šuppiluliuma I, this town rebelled and the Hittite king sent an army led by Ḫanutti in order to reestablish order.126 Lalanda rebelled again in the late 13th century, as is documented by a letter presumably sent by Prince Tutḫaliya to his mother Queen Pudu-Ḫeba.127 Returning to Parduwata, this place name might be read in a passage of the fragment KBo 19.54 lʹ–8ʹ, part of the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma I written by this same king, as was proposed by M. Forlanini;128 this latter passage would confirm the closeness of Parduwata to Šallapa. The decree issued by Tutḫaliya IV for Šaḫurunuwa’s heirs mentions two villages, Ḫuwarmaššiya and Maššiya, that were part of the territory of Parduwata.129 Pedašša was the main centre of a territory, the “Land of Pedašša” (KUR URUPedašša). In older times this territory bordered Arzawa, before Muršili II conquered this kingdom, and later it bordered Tarḫuntašša, when Ḫattušili III created this subordinate state.130 The location of Pedašša close to the border with Arzawa can be inferred from the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma I;131 in fact we here read that people of Maḫuiraša132 and Pedašša moved to Arzawa and were then resettled by the Hittite king in their original place. Muršili II, after having conquered Arzawa, divided it into three countries and gave the region of Mira to Mašḫuiluwa. Pedašša is the country from which the description of the frontier between Ḫatti and Tarḫuntašša begins, both in KBo 4.10 (§§3ʹ, 4ʹ)133 and in the Bronze Tablet (§§ 3, 4).134 Pedašša has approximately been located in the area of the modern city Ilgın;135 as a consequence of this location, the site of Yalburt monument would be included in the region of Pedašša, as J.D. Hawkins observed.136 Pedašša rebelled against the Hittites several times; the Indictment of Madduwatta (KUB 14.1+ 126  For the fragment KUB 19.22 of the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma, see del Monte 2009: 55, 67. 127  KUB 19.23, see Marizza 2009: 169–172. 128  del Monte 2008: 164; Forlanini 1988: 153. 129  Imparati 1974: 26–27. 130  See Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 356–358. 131  See KBo 14.4 I 1, 5 see del Monte 2009: 52, 59–60. 132  For this place name that is not documented in other texts see Forlanini 1988: 153. 133  See van den Hout 1995a: 24–27. 134  See Otten 1988: 11–12. 135  See Forlanini 1988: 150–151; Starke 1997: 450; Hawkins 1998b: 22; Dinçol, Yakar, Dinçol and Taffet 2000: 12; del Monte 2009: 59 fn. 17. 136  Hawkins 1988: 22 fn. 124.

261

Central West: Philology

Figure 19.1

Map showing selected locations in the central western area.

rev. 38–42) reports that Madduwatta summoned the chieftains and the elders of Pedašša and convinced them to swear an oath against the Hittite king.137 The treaty concluded by Muršili II with Kupanta-Kurunta ruler of Mira relates (KBo 19.66+ I 30–33) that Mašḫuiluwa, when rebelling against his Hittite overlord, stirred up the land of

Pedašša with the aim of acquiring that region. Pedašša is also listed among the countries that had become hostile to Ḫatti in the Prayer of Muršili II to the Sun Goddess of Arinna (§8,), together with other western Anatolian regions, namely from north to south Arawanna, Kalašma, Lukka.138

137  Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 88–89.

138  Singer 2002: 52–53.

CHAPTER 20

The West: Philology Max Gander 1

Methodological Considerations

The geography of Hittite Western Anatolia is one of the most disputed topics of Hittitology. This is partly due to the fact that from the beginning of Hittite historico-topographical research connections between Hittite toponyms, anthroponyms and Greek myths have been sought.1 This resulted in a mass of geographical-topographical works on the Hittite West, particularly on the lands of Wilusa and Ahhiyawa.2 As in many other regions of the Hittite empire we lack fixed points that would allow us to anchor the relative geography in the real topography. The identifications which are found in scholarly literature, such as Parha—Perge, Millawanda—Miletus, Apasa—Ephesus, Bademgediği Tepe—Puranda or Mykale—Arinnanda are only assumptions with different degrees of probability. Although some have gained wide acceptance among scholars, none of these equations is certain. The boundary descriptions found in the western vassal treaties are comparatively short and not very detailed. We know neither the size and extension nor the location of any given country or town. Furthermore, it is also evident from the Hittite sources, that the borders of the western Anatolian lands changed considerably over time.3 * I would like to thank Dr Mark Weeden and Dr Lee Z. Ullmann for providing me with the opportunitiy to contribute to this volume. Furthermore I would like to thank Dr Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer, Prof. Dr Stefano De Martino and Dr Selim F. Adalı for their comments and feedback on an earlier version of this paper. 1  Forrer 1924; Forrer 1932: see recently e.g. Latacz 62010: 97–198. 2  For an overview of earlier literature see Souček and Siegelová 1996: 125–142, now also Součková-Siegelová http://www.hethport.uniwuerzburg.de/hetbibsys/obsah.php under no. 7.5.6 Überregionale Beziehungen, Hethiter und Westanatolien mit Ägäis. 3  Tudhaliya I’s invasion of Arzawa reaches the area of Hapalla and the Seha river land (KUB 23.11 obv. II 3ʹ–6ʹ, see Carruba 2008: 34– 35) whereas Suppiluliuma had to fight the Arzawans in the area of Tuwanuwa in Cilicia (KBo 14.3 rev. IV 16ʹ–44ʹ // KUB 19.18 obv. I 11ʹ–31ʹ, see del Monte 2009: 19–22, 32–37) before proceeding further westward to Pitassa, Mahuirassa, Mira and Mount Tiwatassa (KBo 14.4 obv. I 1ʹ–31ʹ // KBo 14.6 obv.? 1ʹ–19ʹ, see del Monte 2009: 52–54, 58–61). On a smaller scale it is visible in the fact that before Mursilis’ conquest of Arzawa the town of Aura seems to have belonged to

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_021

It is mainly this lack of safe and fixed points that induced scholars to follow the shoreline in geographical reconstructions of Hittite western Anatolia, since the sea is one of the few fixed points, which one can refer to.4 Major progress has been made with the publication of the Bronze Tablet (1988), the Yalburt hieroglyphic inscription (1993), the hieroglyphic inscription from Hattusa-Südburg (1995) and the successful reading of the long known Karabel inscription (1998).5 The hieroglyphic inscriptions from central western Anatolia, namely the inscriptions from Köylütolu Yaylası, from the area of Beyköy and from Kocaoğuz, unfortunately do not provide any comprehensible geographical information.6 In the years 2000 and 2007 further hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions in western Anatolia were found.7 If and how these inscriptions may help in clarifying the political geography of the area is still under discussion.8 It seems, however, that they do not significantly increase our knowledge at this point. 2

Pre-Imperial West

2.1 Luwiya The land of Luwiya is only mentioned in §§5, 19–21 and 23 of the Hittite laws, which in their original form go back to the Old Hittite Period. In one of these passages, the land of Luwiya is replaced by the land of Arzawa in a later version of the text.9 This has induced scholars, Arzawa or Mira, but it is later clearly outside the realm of Mira. See Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 202–203. 4  See for example Starke 1997: 448–456, Hawkins 1998b: 1–2, 21–31. 5  Bronze tablet: Otten 1988; Yalburt: Poetto 1993, Südburg: Hawkins 1995a: 21–65, Karabel: Hawkins 1998b. 6  For Köylütolu and Beyköy see Masson 1980. The Kocaoğuz stele, found in 1997, today in the museum of Afyon, was published by Şahin and Tekoğlu 2003. For recent discussion of this text see Oreshko 2013: 386–400. An edition of all Hiero­glyphic Luwian inscriptions from the empire period is in preparation by J. David Hawkins, see Hawkins 2013: 26. 7  Peschlow-Bindokat and Herbordt 2001; Peschlow-Bindokat 2002; Işık, Atıcı and Tekoğlu 2011. 8  See Oreshko 2013: 346–368, 373–386; Forlanini 2012b: 133–134. 9  KBo 6.2 I 36ʹ–38ʹ vs. KBo 6.3 I 45–47, see Hoffner 1997c: 29–30.

The West: Philology

to identify Arzawa with Luwiya.10 Apart from the laws, however, Luwiya is not attested at all, except for the adverb luwili ‘in Luwian manner’ which mostly refers to the Luwian language. It has long been observed that speakers of Luwian appear in different regions of Anatolia, not only Arzawa. It has also been suggested that the largest part of the population in Anatolia was Luwian-speaking. From §§22–23 of the Hittite laws Luwiya can be at least located relatively, on account of the sum payable for the capture of a runaway slave: If the slave is caught nearby (maninkuwan) the finder gets a pair of shoes, if the slave is caught on this side of the river (most probably the Kızılırmak), he gets two, beyond the river he gets three shekels of silver. If the slave manages to escape to Luwiya and someone brings him back, he gets six shekels of silver, if however the slaves escapes into enemy land, whoever catches him shall keep him for himself.11 It is apparent from the reward sum that Luwiya was further away than the land beyond the river, but on the other hand it was not seen as “enemy land” from which a restitution of a slave was almost impossible.12 Since we know that Arzawa was often counted among the enemy lands in the Old Hittite period, an absolute identity of Arzawa and Luwiya is rather unlikely. The ethno-geographical term Luwiya and the political term Arzawa may have overlapped in a certain region, but they need not be identical.13 As we shall see below, in the Old Hittite period, the name Arzawa was mainly used to denote the border area between the Hittite and the western (Arzawan) sphere of influence. In the same way Luwiya may refer to the area beyond the sphere of Hittite power to the west. Moreover, recension B of the Hittite laws could date to the early New Hittite period,14 a time when Arzawa expanded 10  See e.g. Hoffner 1997c: 29–30, 179–180. 11  KBo 6.2 I 48ʹ–53ʹ // KBo 6.3 I 56–62, see Hoffner 1997c: 31–32. 12  See already Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 21–22. 13   Yakubovich 2010: 107–108 challenged the traditional view that Arzawa was a Luwian speaking area and that Luwiya and Arzawa were essentially referring to the same region. His view was recently subject to heavy criticism by J. David Hawkins (Hawkins 2013; Hawkins 2014), who showed some important flaws in Yakubovich’s interpretation. How­ever, we may state that Yakubovich’s assertion has made clear that even if Luwiya can be replaced by Arzawa, it need not mean that the two must be identical. 14  Hoffner 1997c: 230 dates the text to the New Hittite period, but admits that it has a greater retention of OS spellings and a number of older sign forms. A Middle Hittite dating advocated by Oettinger (1979: 310, 575) and Neu (1979: 71–72) might be farfetched, but the original analysis by Carruba 1962: 158 to date the text to the reign of Suppiluliuma I or shortly before is not improbable.

263 far westwards into Lycaonia and Cilicia. In this period a substitution of Luwiya with Arzawa would correspond to the political situation.15 It has recently been argued that Luwians or the land of Luwiya also appear in Egyptian and Mycenaean sources,16 but the arguments adduced are not convincing.17 2.1.1 The Old Hittite Period Arzawa is already attested, in the form Arzawiya, in Old Hittite texts of Hattusili I and (probably) Mursili I. The conquest of Arzawa assigned to Labarna on account of a passage of the Alaksandu treaty from the reign of Muwatalli II is most probably not based on real events.18 The earliest mention of Arzawa is found in the annals of Hattusili I. After an extensive report on the campaigns in eastern Anatolia and Syria, there is a short statement naming an attack on Arzawa.19 This attack was allegedly interrupted by a Hurrian invasion into the heartland. But immediately after the mention of the Hurrians we still find Hattusili conquering towns in central western Anatolia and the Lower Land. The mention of the Hurrian attack may be an attempt at disguising the unsuccesful outcome of the attack against Arzawa.20 It seems therefore preferable to see the attack on Arzawa as an episode in the central western Anatolian campaigns of Hattusili I. The mention of a man Nunnu of Hurma in Arzawa in the “anecdotes” or “palace chronicles” is sometimes adduced as evidence, that Arzawa was a province of the Hittite empire at that time. This need not be the case. One should rather compare the Old Assyrian merchants who had to pay their tributes in various cities.

15  Singer may have argued similarly to Yakubovich, see Yakubovich 2010: 108. 16  Sourouzian and Stadelmann 2005: 82; Sourouzian et al. 2008: 413–414; Widmer 2005–06. 17  See Yakubovich 2010: 111–112; Hawkins 2014: 15; for full discussion see Gander 2015a. 18  Pace Starke 1997: 473–474; Latacz 62010: 167–168. Doubts on the historicity of this episode have already been expressed among others by Friedrich 1930: 85; Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 8; 18–19; Yakubovich 2010: 119. As Itamar Singer has recently shown, the Hittites felt the need to legitimize their conquests, see Singer 2014b: 896–908. In the Alaksandu treaty, the alleged conquest of Arzawa and Wilusa by Labarna is needed to justify the subjugation of Wilusa for which none of the other accepted modes (retaliation or voluntary submission) was possible. 19  KBo 10.1 obv. 10 (Akkadian) see Devecchi 2005: 36–37; KBo 10.2 I 22 (Hittite), see de Martino 2003: 36–37. 20  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 16–17.

264 Furthermore, when taking a close look at CTH 13, a text usually assigned to Mursili I,21 one gets the impression that Arzawa denotes a different area than in later periods. The fragmentary text mentions an invasion by the Hurrians,22 who obviously proceeded westward from Hatra, to Sukziya and Hurma in eastern Anatolia, and then to Lahuzantiya. It is then said “[When it] sprouted (i.e. in spring), he (i.e. the Hurrian) went to the land of Arzawiya”. After a series of otherwise unknown toponyms, we find the expression “he reached Ullamma”. Finally a series of toponyms mostly to be located in central western Anatolia and in the Lower Land are named before we find the phrase “he passed the winter in Arzawiya”. This short overview makes it clear that the wintering of the Hurrian enemy in Arzawa need not mean that Hurrians spent their winter on the Aegean, but somewhere in central western Anatolia beyond the Hittite sphere of influence. Arzawa in the Old Hittite period would then be the designation for the land beyond the western frontier of the Hittites. The same meaning also fits very well for the mention of Arzawa in the Edict of Telipinu, where it appears among the countries that have become hostile to the Hittite king.23 2.1.2 The Western Campaigns of Tudhaliya I/II After Telipinu no western Anatolian toponyms are attested until the reign of Tudhaliya I/II. In KUB 23.49 Arzawa (l. 6ʹ) and Huwallusiya (l. 4ʹ) are mentioned in the same context as a grandfather of the author (l. 5ʹ), who may or may not be identical with the [Han]⸢tili⸣ mentioned at the beginning of this very fragmentary text.24 Huwallusiya is again mentioned in the annals of Mursili II as being on the road to Arzawa.25

21  So with Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 23–27; Soysal 1989: 136–138; de Martino 1992: 24–28; de Martino 2003: 129–130 with references. The attempts of Kempinski and Košak 1982: 96–99, 109–112 to date the text to Hattusili I did not find general acceptance. 22  The narrative in the 3rd person sg. must refer to the Hurrian enemy. It cannot denote the Hittite king who speaks of himself in the 1st person sg. see Soysal 1989: 94–97, 137–138; Gilan 2015: 243–248. Pace Kempinski and Košak 1982; de Martino 2003: 127–153. 23  KBo 3.1 + KBo 12.5 II 1ʹ–7ʹ // KUB 11.1 + KBo 19.90 II 1ʹ–13ʹ // KBo 3.67 II 11–14 // KUB 11.5 Vs. 8ʹ–18ʹ // KUB 11.6 I 1ʹ–4ʹ. See Hoffmann 1984: 24–27; van den Hout 2003: 195–196. 24  Since the fragment itself shows Late New Hittite ductus, it cannot be excluded, that huhhi-mi ‘to my grandfather’ in fact refers to Mursili II and his Western campaigns. 25  KBo 14.20+KUB 34.33+KBo 14.44 I 22–25, see Houwink ten Cate 1966: 170 and 178.

Gander

In KUB 23.27 hostilities of Arzawa are mentioned, but the campaign of Tudhaliya seems to have taken place in the Lower Land and central western Anatolia.26 Only later on Tudhaliya seems to have reached actual western Anatolia as is attested in KUB 23.11 // KUB 23.12. Hapalla and Seha, which we later know to be Arzawa lands, and Wallarima, are first mentioned here. However, there is no definitive clue as to where these lands were.27 Following his Arzawan campaign Tudhaliya returned to Hattusa. Later a group of western Anatolian countries, commonly known as the “Assuwa confederation”, started hostilities.28 We know of an association of about 22 different countries which formed the coalition: […]ukka, Kispuwa, Unaliya, Dura, Halluwa, Huwallusiya, [K]arakis[a], [Pal?]unta, Adadura, Parista, [x-x-x]wa, Warsiya, Kuruppiya, Lu!sa, Alatra, Mt Pahurina, Wilusiya and Taruisa. Of these names Kispuwa, Unaliya, Halluwa, Adadura, Parista, Alatra, Mt Pahurina and Taruisa are not attested anywhere else.29 The identification of Warsiya, Kuruppiya and Lusa with similarly named towns in other sources is at least possible. The first name has alternatively been restored as [L]ukka or [Ard]ukka. Arduk[ka] is attested fragmen­ tarily in KUB 23.21 (annals of Arnuwanda) along with 26  The towns of [S]armana which are mentioned in the border description of the borders of Tarhuntassa and the Hulaya river land (Bo 86/ 299 II 8, 14, see Otten 1988: 16–17, KBo 4.10 obv. 34ʹ–35ʹ, see van den Hout 1995a: 32–33) and together with the land of Pitassa in the indictment(?) against Halpaziti (KBo 18.80+Privat 5 obv. 22) see Otten 1992: 410–413, see also his geographical remarks on p. 416. 27  The identification of the river Limiya mentioned in Tudhaliya’s annals with the town Lamiya (e.g. Freu 1980: 188, 200, Freu 1987: 137), which appears as border territory of Kizzuwatna in Tudhaliya’s treaty with Šunaššura (KBo 1.5 IV 40, 42 see Beckman 21999a: 24) is rather doubtful, as is the restoration of [uruŠ]a?-li-ia in l. 1ʹ (e.g. Freu 1980: 200, Freu 1987: 136). The traces visible before the LI do not favour such a restoration, but rather point to RA or AL. Consequently Forrer 1937: 171; Bossert 1946: 24; del Monte and Tischler 1978: s.v. Limija, 537 read [x-a]l?-li-ia. 28  For the sequence of the campaigns, and the literary character of KUB 23.11 // KUB 23.12 see de Martino 1996: 39. 29  The reading [uruPa-r]i-iš-ta-aš in KBo 3.46 II 42ʹ (CTH 13) as proposed by Kempinski and Košak (1982: 90) is highly doubtful. Apart from Arzawa all the names mentioned alongside […]x-iš-ta-aš are hapax legomena. The identification of the land of Tara/i-wa/i-zi/a mentioned on the silver bowl in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara originally proposed by Hawkins 1996b (= Hawkins 2005) followed by various scholars, has been doubted, with good reasons, in recent years, see Mora 2007: 517–519; Simon 2009: 248–253; Giusfredi 2013; Freu 2010– 11; Gander 2015a: 466–471.

The West: Philology

265

Masa, Arzawa and Mt Hullusiwanda. If […]du-uq-qa in KUB 6.50 obv. 11ʹ is to be restored [Ar]dukka the land would be mentioned in the same context as Mira and Manapatarhunta, the king of the Seha river land. Lukka on the other hand is mentioned alongside Attarimma, Wallarimma and further so-called Lukka lands, but also Karkisa, Masa, Warsiyalla and Wilusa. Furthermore Lukka obviously had some connection to the sea.30 A definitive decision for or against one of those two is still impossible.31 Huwallusiya is mentioned in a fragment of Mursili’s annals according to which the king, while being in Harziuna, sends his general Aranhapilizzi to Huwallusiya.32 Huwallusiya therefore should not be located too far from the Kızılırmak. It furthermore appears in a number of itineraries together with (among others) Tummanda, Palunta, [Wal]wara, Hap[puriya], Paparzina and Ussuha in KBo 16.53, with Tummanda, Palunta and the city of Assuwa in KUB 34.43, and with Awina and [Wat]tarwa in KBo 16.55.33 Karkisa has associations with Kurupi and Lusa, Masa, Lukka, Wilusa, the Seha river land and probably also the lands of Mira and Ahhiyawa, as will be shown below. The next name is traditionally read [kur uruD]u?-unta,34 which seems to go back to a suggestion originally made by Forrer and Ranoszek.35 There is however no positive evidence for this restoration. Of the alleged sign DU only one vertical wedge is preserved.36 Geographically and in respect to the space available on the tablet a restoration [Pa-l]u?-un-ta seems much more likely.37 Dunta is to be localised in Kizzuwatna,38 whereas Palunta is named, as we have seen above, with Huwallusa, Paparzina, Ussuha, Happuriya, Tummanda, Auna and the city of Assuwa in the texts KUB 34.43 and KBo 16.53. It therefore seems to

belong to the same general context as Huwallusa which is also named among the lands of Assuwa.39 Warsiya may be identical with Warsiyalla named in the regulations concerning offensive alliance in the treaty of Muwatalli with Alaksandu of Wilusa alongside Karkisa, Masa and Lukka. The identification is tentative, however. Finally the town of Pasuhalta is only mentioned in a fragmentary ritual text without determinative and lacking any geographical context.40 An identification of Pasuhalta with the town of Parsuhalta named in the KUB 23.27 I 9 alongside Arzawa is hardly plausible, since the two toponyms are mentioned in different contexts.41 Many of the towns mentioned alongside Huwallusiya and Palunta have convincingly been localised in western Phrygia by M. Forlanini.42 This then should be the general region where we have to place Assuwa as well. Even though Assuwa may have touched the sea in its extremes, ([L]ukka, if correct, and possibly Wilusiya43), it is also worth noting that it must have stretched far inland into Phrygia. The traditional association of Assuwa with the name Asia is therefore difficult, since the latter originally seems to refer to the coast of Western Asia Minor.44

30  For sources and discussion see Gander 2010: 23–64, 181–183, cf. also Kryszeń 2012a. 31  See Gander 2010: 27–35 with references (for Lukka); Forlanini 2012b: 135–136 with good arguments for Ardukka. 32  Cf. fn. 25. 33  For a detailed treatment of these texts see Forlanini 2007c. 34  KUB 23.11 II 16ʹ has […]-da, KUB 23.12 II 8ʹ has […]x-un-t[a]. 35  Forrer 1932: 227; Ranoszek 1933: 54, 78; see also Carruba 1977: 158–159; Raimond 2004: 110; Carruba 2008: 36; Freu 1987: 141; Freu 2008b: 108; Gander 2010: 28–29. Already Bossert 1946: 27, 33–34; Garstang and Gurney 1959: 106 and Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 257 have expressed doubts concerning the name of the town, they have, nevertheless, kept [D]unta. De Martino 1996: 15 has refrained from restoring a name. 36  See Bossert 1946: 34. 37  Forlanini 2000: 18; Gander 2015a: 448 fn. 21. 38  Laroche 1961: 71; Trémouille 2014.

39  Forlanini 2007c: 291 doubted any connection of the city of Assuwa named in KUB 34.43 obv. 10ʹ and the so-called Assuwa confederation, but since both seem to belong to the same general geographical area, it is possible to imagine that the city Assuwa originally was the center of the Assuwa confederation. After the destruction of the land of Assuwa, the city of Assuwa lost its importance and therefore appears only rarely in the extant sources. 40  KUB 35.79 IV 8ʹ, see Starke 1985: 399. 41  Del Monte and Tischler 1978 s.v. Paršuḫalta, 308, Houwink ten Cate 1970: 58 fn. 8. 42  Forlanini 2007c, see already Freu 1987: 141–143. The plausible identification of Tummanda with Tymandos (see e.g. Freu 1987: 142) is not followed by Forlanini. This would extend the theatre of action further to the south. 43  See below p. 272–273. 44  See now Gander 2015a for a detailed treatment of this problem.

2.1.3 The Period of Arnuwanda I 2.1.3.1 The Annals In KUB 23.21, the annals of Arnuwanda, campaigns in Cilicia and Lycaonia are mentioned before the king proceeds to Arzawa. In the context of this campaign the land of Arduk[ka], Masa and Hullusiwanda are mentioned. Furthermore we find Kurupi, Karkisa and Lusa, as has been mentioned above, but these may not be located exactly. Even though the names of the countries are often those we also know from later periods (Arzawa, Hapalla, Seha), it

266 is interesting that we do not find any of the known Arzawa towns, either in the annals of Tudhaliya and Arnuwanda, or in the Madduwatta text. 2.1.3.2 Madduwatta Another glimpse into the geography of pre-Imperial western Asia Minor is provided by the so-called indictment against Madduwatta.45 This disobedient vassal was first chased from his land (the name of which we do not know) by Attarissiya of Ahhiya and fled to the Hittite king. He was then assigned the land of Mt Zippasla. There he got into conflict again with Attarissiya and with Kupantakurunta of Arzawa. Furthermore he caused the land of Talawa to defect from Hatti. We don’t have any further information concerning the land of Mt Zippasla. It was obviously quite far away from Hatti given the vassal’s independence. If we accept the common identification of Talawa with Tlos in Lycia, the land of Mt Zippasla could be located somewhere in the mountains of Pisidia. On one occasion the king appeals to Madduwatta to settle in the land of Mt Hariyati, so he “will be closer to Hatti”. Mt Hariyati could be associated with the town of Hariyanta46 mentioned in KBo 16.53 rev. 39ʹ close to Palunta or with Mt Ariyati which is mentioned in the title deeds for Sahurunuwa’s descendants.47 This land, which would then probably have lain in Phrygia, was declined by Madduwatta, who stayed in the land of Mt Zippasla. After a gap in the text Madduwatta’s realm is called the Siyanta river land. From there he again attacked Arzawa and Hapalla. In this context a man of Kuwaliya testified against him, which could mean that Kuwaliya was close to the Siyanta river land. Furthermore, Madduwatta attacked Wallarimma, Iyalanda, Mutamutassa, Attarimma, Suruda, Hursanassa and stirred up a rebellion in the land of Pitassa. In a broken context the land of Karkisa is mentioned, and in the end Madduwatta obviously also took part in a raid against Alasiya (Cyprus). We know that later the Siyanta river was one of the borders of the land of Mira-Kuwaliya.48 The fact that Kuwaliya is mentioned in the Madduwatta text together with Hapalla and Arzawa and also Madduwatta’s attack on Pitassa, which later lay close to Mira, makes it plausible to assume, that the Siyanta river land lay near 45  KUB 14.1+KBo 19.38, see Goetze 1928: 2–39; Beckman 21999a: 154–160, AhT 3: 70–97. 46  See already Forlanini 2007c: 292. 47  KUB 26.43 obv. 48 // KUB 26.50 + KBo 22.59 obv. 44ʹ (= 56) see Imparati 1974: 24–27; Groddek 2008: 60–61. 48  KBo 5.13 I 33–35 // KBo 4.3 I 21–24 // KUB 6.41 II 10–14, see Friedrich 1926: 117; Beckman 21999a: 76.

Gander

the eastern area of Arzawa probably bordering Mira or Kuwaliya in the north or northwest, Hapalla in the south or southwest and Pitassa in the east. This is confirmed by the fact that many of the victims of Madduwatta’s aggression have close ties to Arzawa before Mursili’s expedition, but are counted among the Lukka lands in the period of Hattusili III and Tudhaliya IV.49 Since the Astarpa and Siyanta rivers formed the borders of Mira in the time of Mursili, it has been observed that the two rivers should form a continuous line probably in a general north-south direction.50 Among the different proposals for the identification the upper tributaries of the Sakarya, the Porsuk Çayı or the Seydi Çayı,51 or an affluent of the Meander, Akar Çayı (Kaystros) or Banaz Çayı (Sindros)52 have gained most acceptance. It has sometimes been assumed, that the Siyanta river land and Mira are geographically identical.53 This is possible, but hard to prove. However, even though Tudhaliya I/II und Arnuwanda I definitely reached western Anatolia, Arzawa itself seems to have stayed independent from Hatti.54 Arzawa enjoyed a period of particular prosperousness and power during the reigns of Arnuwanda I and Tudhaliya III as is shown by the marriage negotiations between the pharaoh Amenhotep III and Tarhundaradu of Arzawa in EA 31 and 32.55 In this period Arzawa obviously extended its territory far eastward into later Lycaonia. Afterwards Suppiluliuma managed to drive the Arzawan enemy back and proceeded to Hapalla and Mira.56 It seems that he also came in closer contact with the Seha river land, probably conquered the city of Puranda and concluded a treaty with Uhhaziti of Arzawa,57 but it is unlikely that he invaded or conquered the core territory of Arzawa proper. The most important lands of western Anatolia were subjected and integrated in the Hittite vassal system during the reigns of Mursili II and Muwatalli II. How long this control was stable is very difficult to ascertain. During the civil war between Hattusili III and Mursili III—UrhiTeššup the western Anatolian vassals obviously took different sides. This might have led to a territorial reorganization, 49  Gander 2010: 104–114. 50  Garstang and Gurney 1959: 91; Bryce 1974a: 110; Freu 1987: 129; Hawkins 1998b: 22; see already Forrer 1926: 17. 51  Hawkins 1998b: 22; Hawkins 2015b: 26; Melchert 2003: 5–7. 52  Goetze 1928: 153; Garstang and Gurney 1959: 91; Bryce 1974a: 110; Starke 2001: map, p. 34; Freu 2004: 311; de Martino 1996: 29; Forlanini 1998b: 222 fn. 14; Forlanini 2007c: 291. 53  Freu 1987: 133; Hawkins 1998b: 25. 54  See de Martino 1996: 39. 55  See Hawkins 2009a. 56  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 62–72. 57  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 72–75.

The West: Philology

267

3.1 Parha and Lukka The Bronze Tablet which contains a treaty between Tudhaliya IV and his cousin Kurunta of Tarhuntassa mentions in its extensive boundary description a town called Parha which is said to be situated beyond the river Kastar(a)ya. Otten’s edition of the Bronze Tablet already drew attention to classical Perge near the Kestros river. This identification is by now widely, although not universally, accepted.58 The Yalburt inscription mentions the towns of Lukka, Awarna, Pinali, Talawa and the mountain of Patara which were immediately identified with their namesakes of later periods: Lycia, Arnña (Xanthos), Pinara, Tlos (Lyc. Tlawa) and Patara.59 Additionally one often finds the identification of the land of vitis with classical Oinoanda. Even if this last equation is widely accepted, it has been questioned recently on account of the unique form of the sign allegedly to be read vitis and on the basis of geographical-topographical considerations.60 In Hittitological research Awarna, Pinali, Talawa and Patara are often counted among the Lukka lands, which is further strenghtened by the mention of Lukka in the Yalburt inscription. The exact position of block 9 of the inscription, where Lukka and vitis are mentioned is, however, unclear. The strong ties between the toponyms Awarna, Pinali, Talawa and Patara are unquestionable since they are mentioned in close connection to each other,61 but the association of Lukka and vitis with the other toponyms need not be very close. A number of further toponyms, such as Attarimma, Suruta, Hursanassa, Iyalanda, Wallarimma, Mutamutassa, Kuwalapassa and Hinduwa have also been counted among the Lukka lands. Already in 1974 Trevor Bryce grouped these into clusters which are basically still valid:62

the Attarimma cluster (Attarimma, Suruta, Hursanassa), the Iyalanda (Iyalanda, Wallarimma) and the Talawa cluster (Talawa, Kuwalapassa, Hinduwa). Attarimma is closely associated with the Lukka people in the Tawagalawa letter (KUB 14.3 I 1–2) and with Suruta and Hursanassa in the annals of Mursili.63 According to the annals, the refusal of Uhhaziti, the king of Arzawa, to extradite the nam.ra (civilian captives) of Suruta, Attarimma and Hursanassa was the reason for Mursili’s declaration of war. It seems therefore that Attarimma, Hursanassa and Suruta lay in a territory that was disputed between Hatti and Arzawa in the period of Mursili II, but that the towns were later counted among the Lukka lands. The Talawa cluster to which we now may add the towns of Pinali(ya), Awarna, Patara is safely anchored in the Lycian Xanthos valley. Hinduwa in this case should be identified rather with Lycian Kandyba, than with Carian Kindya, which is too far away.64 On account of a common attack of Talawa and Kuwalapassa on Iyalanda, the Talawa cluster obviously has some connection to the Iyalanda cluster.65 Iyalanda seems to have been an important station on the way to the southwest of Anatolia. It is mentioned in different texts as an enemy town, but unfortunately most of these texts do not provide geographical information.66 If the Talawa cluster is to be situated in western Lycia, it seems best to localise the towns of the Attarimma cluster, which have associations with Arzawa and with Lukka, a bit further to the north, maybe in the area of Denizli. Taking into account that the people of Attarimma applied to the Ahhiyawan Tawagalawa for help,67 a more southwesterly location of the Attarimma cluster is also possible. The identfication of Iyalanda and its environs is disputed. Following a suggestion made by Hrozný already in 1929, which was taken up by Garstang and Gurney, Iyalanda has been identified with Alinda in Caria along with the identification of Waliwanda with Alabanda.68 Both of these equations are difficult. Waliwanda is to be located closer to the Hittite homeland on account of KBo 12.26, a fragment of the Deeds of Suppiluliuma mentioning All[assa] and Waliwanda in combination with KUB 26.43 obv. 42ʹ–43ʹ // KUB 26.50+ obv. 37ʹ–38ʹ, the title

58  Otten 1988: 37–38, see now Gander 2010: 64–67 with references, for a skeptical view see Steiner 2007: 592. 59  See Poetto 1993: esp. 75–84. 60  Schürr 2010: 22; Schürr 2014: 760; Oreshko 2012; Gander 2014: 375–378. 61  On the sequence of the blocks of the Yalburt inscription, see Poetto 1993: 15–17; Hawkins 1992: 260–263, Hawkins 1995a: 46–49; Schürr 2010: 14–17. 62  Bryce 1974b.

63  KUB 14.16 III 26–31 // KUB 14.15 III 54–58, see Goetze 1933: 58–59. Cf. also KBo 16.1+ II 29–37, see Grélois 1988: 58, 77–78; Beal 2003: 85. 64  So with Garstang and Gurney 1959: 80; pace Starke 1997: 469 fn. 15; Hawkins 2014: 11. 65  Bryce 1974a: 398–402. 66  Gander 2010: 104–114 for texts and references. 67  KUB 14.3 I 1–5, AhT 4: 102–103. 68  Hrozný 1929: 325; Garstang and Gurney 1959: 78–79.

of which, however, we know nothing. During the late period, i.e. under Tudhaliya IV and Suppiluliuma II, there must at least have been some unrest among the western vassals. When the Hittite empire definitely lost control over western Anatolia is not known. 3

Western Anatolia in the Imperial Period

268 deed for Sahurunwa’s descendants, which also mentions the two towns.69 Furthermore Waliwanda (if identical with Uliwanda) is mentioned among the towns of the Lower Land in the annals of Tudhaliya I/II.70 Already Gurney, while reviewing his own work thirty years after completion, remarked: “It [i.e. Waliwanda] lay clearly nowhere near Alabanda.”71 Also the identification of Iyalanda and Alinda is doubtful on account of the alliance of Talawa and Kuwalapassa against Iyalanda.72 Iyalanda needs to be closer and more readily accessible from Talawa (if Tlos) than Alinda. Furthermore, a route from central Anatolia via Alinda to Millawanda (if Miletus) would be an unnecessary and arduous detour through the Latmos mountains and the Latmic gulf.73 Since it is named alongside Talawa and Kuwalapassa, Iyalanda is probably to be sought near the Acıpayam or the Tefenni Ovası.74 The extension of the Lukka lands far beyond the borders of Lycia into Caria on account of a series of linguistic equations,75 found in many geographical reconstructions of the area, is therefore not convincing. Most of the equations are linguistically and historico-geographically doubtful. 3.2 Millawanda The famous town of Millawanda is, until now, only attested in three texts, in the so-called Tawagalawa letter, the Milawata letter and the third year of the annals of Mursili.76 Even though it is not entirely certain, the annals seem to report an alliance of Arzawa, Ahhiyawa and Millawanda against the Hittites.77 This would mean that Millawanda was in close connection to Ahhiyawa and Arzawa. It also seems that Mursili’s generals could invade Millawanda without touching the territory of Arzawa.78 From the Tawagalawa letter we know that Millawanda 69   Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 284–291; Gander 2010: 145–147; Kryszeń 2012b: 20–21. 70  KUB 23.27 I 8, for the context see above fn. 26. 71  Gurney 1992: 220. 72  See de Martino 1996: 55–56; Forlanini 1998b: 245; Gander 2010: 197–202. 73  As is admitted by Hawkins 2015b: 27. 74  Gander 2014: 402–406, Forlanini 2007c: 293 fn. 46. 75   Waliwanda—Alabanda, Iyalanda—Alinda, Mutamutassa— Mylasa, Wallarimma—Hyllarima, Atriya—Idrias, Utima— Idyma. 76  KUB 14.15 I 23–26, KUB 14.3, KUB 19.55+KUB 48.90+KBo 18.117, probably also in KUB 26.91 rev. 9ʹ, see Gander 2010: 150; Heinhold-Krahmer 1994; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004b: 202–204. 77  Goetze 1933: 36–37, 234–237. 78  Gander 2010: 152, 205, Forlanini 2012b: 139–140, Freu and Mazoyer 2008: 29.

Gander

was at least temporarily under the hegemony of the king of Ahhiyawa.79 The Hittite king, most probably Hattusili III, comes from the heartland via Sallapa—Waliwanda— Iyalanda and Ama-[…]/Aba-[…] to Millawanda.80 In the Manapatarhunta letter, Millawanda is not named explicitly but it is mentioned that Piyamaradu humiliated Manapatarhunta, the king of the Seha river land by setting up Atpa (whom we later know to have been ruler of Millawanda) over him.81 If Atpa was indeed already ruler of Millawanda by then, this would mean that the Seha river land and Millawanda were close together. From the Milawata letter82 we know that the Hittite king and the addressee set the borders of Milawata, which means the addressee must be the ruler of Millawanda or of an adjacent country.83 We further know that the deposed king of Wilusa fled to the addressee of the letter, which could, but need not, mean that Wilusa was close to the land of the addressee. We learn further, that the addressee is in possession of hostages from the cities of Utima and Atriya (Atriya being near Iyalanda) and that he claims the return of the hostages from Awarna und Pinali(ya) from the Hittite king. This could mean that Millawanda was close to the towns of Utima, Iyalanda (with Atriya), Awarna and Pinali(ya). From the beginning of Hittite studies basically two proposals for the identification of Millawanda have been presented: Milyas first by Forrer 1924 and Miletus by Hrozný five years later.84 In current scholarship the Miletus equation has gained wide acceptance,85 however some scholars have expressed doubts about the identification.86 The common identification of Millawanda with Miletus and the core of Arzawa with the Meander valley cannot be correct, if the common interpretation of the famous passage of Mursili’s annals, which reports an invasion of Millawanda by a Hittite army prior to the war against Arzawa, is accepted.87

79  KUB 14.3 I 58–61, AhT 4: 104–105. 80  KUB 14.3 I 1–62 see AhT 4: 102–105. 81  KUB 19.5+KBo 19.79 I 7–8, see Houwink ten Cate 1983–84: 39– 40; Hoffner 2009: 294; AhT 7: 140–143. 82  KUB 19.55+KUB 48.90+KBo 18.117, see AhT 5: 124–131 and Weeden 2012. 83  For an overview of the different interpretations see Gander 2010: 161–166. 84  Forrer 1924: 5; Hrozný 1929: 329. 85  See de Martino 2011: 183–185 with references. 86  Forlanini 1988: 162–168; Forlanini 1998a: 218–220; Forlanini 1998b: 240–245; Forlanini 2012b: 134, 138–140; Hertel 32008: 55. 87  See Forlanini 2012b: 139–140; Freu and Mazoyer 2008: 29; Gander 2010: 205.

The West: Philology

The identification with Milyas has to cope with no lesser problems. First of all Millawanda lay close to the sea, so one has to recur to Herodotus’ statement that earlier all of Lycia was called Milyas.88 This however has become increasingly unlikely with the identification of some Lukka towns in western Lycia on account of the Yalburt inscription (see above p. 267–268). Therefore one might say, that by now the identification with Miletus seems a plausible proposal, although the few attestations of Millawanda do not allow, and probably never will, a definitive identification of the town. The appearance of considerable Mycenean remains at Miletus89 may further strenghten the identification of Millawanda with said town if one accepts the identification of Ahhiyawa with a Mycenaean power (see below s.v. Ahhiyawa). A recent provenance study of the Tawagalawa letter using X-ray fluorescence has shown, that the letter may indeed stem originally from western Anatolia, and has a good match in a Samian amphora which is closely related to Milesian pottery.90

269

3.3 Arzawa During the time of Tudhaliya III Arzawa intially occupied vast territories south of the Hittite heartland. This is evident from the early wars against Arzawa in which Suppiluliuma had to operate near the area of Tuwanuwa (Tyana).91 Later Suppiluliuma was able to launch a counter attack which led him into the territory of Pitassa, Hapalla and probably Mira.92 Contacts with the Seha river land and the Arzawan city of Puranda are possible. A full scale invasion of Arzawa proper however, seems unlikely. In the period of Mursili II we finally have a number of sources which allow us a closer look at the inner geography of Arzawa and the Arzawa lands. The reason for the Arzawan campaign of Mursili II apparently was the fact that Uhhaziti, the king of Arzawa, refused to return the nam.ra people, probably some sort of civilian captives, of Attarimma, Suruta and Hursanassa to Mursili. This could mean that the three towns were in an area where the zone of interest of Hatti and Arzawa overlapped. Mursili went against Arzawa, and when he was near Mt Lawasa and the

Sehiriya river he saw a celestial phenomen, GIŠkalmišanalit. ‘wooden log’, possibly a meteorite, which destroyed Uhhaziti’s city, Apasa, and hurt Uhhaziti himself.93 Mursili interpreted this as a sign of the Storm god, but we should not exclude the possibility that he took advantage of the destruction caused by the meteorite to start the conquest of Arzawa. Mursili proceeded to Sallapa, where he met with his brother Šarri-Kušuh, who came up from Carchemish. Mashuiluwa, the later king of Mira, met them when they came to Aura and allegedly told them about the destruction caused by the meteorite. In Walma near the river Astarpa Mursili encountered the Arzawan army led by one Piyamakurunta, son of Uhhaziti, and defeated it. After that he was able to enter the land of Arzawa without any further resistance. Mursili advanced further against Apasa, the capital of Arzawa, which he took without much trouble. The Arzawans, however, managed to escape to the hillfort of Arinnanda, the town of Puranda and across the sea, probably to their king Uhhaziti, who had fled overseas even before the attack on Arzawa, “because of his sickness”. Mursili then besieged Arinnanda, which he managed to conquer before the end of the year. For the winter he returned to the Astarpa before he attacked and conquered Puranda in the following spring. After that he proceeded against the Seha river land, which was allied to the king of Arzawa, but refrained from conquering it after an embassy of aged people begged the king to spare it. In the end he returned to the land of Mira, where he enthroned Mashuiluwa, Manapa­tarhunta and Targasnalli in their vassal kingdoms of Mira-Kuwaliya, Seha-Appawiya and Hapalla respectively.94 Arzawa is usually sought in classical Ionia according to Garstang and Gurney’s suggestion that Apasa is to be identified with Ephesos, which was however “based on Garstang’s conviction (prompted by his friend PhythianAdams) that a fertile and prosperous countryside must be found for the powerful and populous Arzawa”, as Gurney admitted in 1992.95 If one accepts that Mira got the lion’s share of the earlier Arzawa territories, including the capital Apasa, along with the location of Mira south of the

88  Hdt. 1, 173, see Gander 2010: 203–206. 89  See Niemeier 1998: 26–40; Niemeier 2007b: 13–14. 90  Goren, Mommsen and Klinger 2011: 691, 693–694. 91  KBo 6.28 I obv. 6–12, see Goetze 1940: 21–22 and KBo 14.3 III 38ʹ–57ʹ and IV 16ʹ–44ʹ // KUB 19.18 + KBo 40.293 I 11ʹ–31ʹ, see del Monte 2009: 19–22, 32–37. The town of Anisa named in the text is also mentioned in KUB 26.43 rev. 24 // KUB 26.50++ rev. 16ʹ (CTH 225), the title deeds for Sahurunuwa’s descendants. 92  KBo 14.4 I 1–32 // KBo 14.6+KBo 40.6 I 1ʹ19ʹ, see del Monte 2009: 52–54, 61–63.

93  KUB 14.15 II 1–6 and KBo 3.4 II 15–21, see Goetze 1933: 44–49. For the interpretation of the giškalmišana- see Steiner 1993a. 94  KUB 14.15 II 7–60, IV 14–54 // KUB 14.16 III 1–43 and KBo 3.4 II 22-III 38 see Goetze 1933: 48–75, cf. also Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 93–120. 95  Gurney 1992: 220.

270 Karabel pass, an identification of Apasa and Ephesos seems highly likely.96 A provenance study of the Amarna letter 32 sent by the Arzawan king Tarhundaradu to the Egyptian pharaoh has however not resulted in a agreement between the chemical consistency of the clay of the letter and the Ephesian pottery.97 The material best comparable to the letter has been found at least 60 kilometres north of Ephesos, in Klazomenai, Smyrna, Phokaia, Larissa and Kyme.98 This means, that the letter was not sent from Ephesus and makes it likely, that at least in the time of Tarhundaradu, the capital of Arzawa was not at Ephesus but north of it, in classical Lydia.99 Even though the capital may have shifted afterwards, it is difficult to believe, that the old core territory was given up. If we take this objection seriously it is also an obstacle against the commonly found identification of the Seha river with the Hermos, since the area would already be occupied by Arzawa.100 The Arzawa lands: Mira-Kuwaliya, SehaAppawiya, Hapalla, Wilusa 3.4.1 Mira and Kuwaliya Mashuiluwa, the vassal king of Mira, revolts against the Hittites in the twelfth year of Mursili’s reign and instigates a rebellion in Pitassa and the land of Hat[ti]. Mursili advances in direction of Sallapa and writes to Mashuiluwa, who then flees into the land of Masa, but is extradited to Mursili.101 This firstly means that Mira was somewhat close to Pitassa and other lands under direct Hittite control, maybe Walma.102 Furthermore, one can say that Mira was not too far from Sallapa and finally that it is probable that Mira was rather close to Masa. This conclusion is further strenghtened by KUB 19.39 III 10ʹ–11ʹ which seems to report an alliance of the Hittite king and a king of Mira against Masa.103 3.4

96  Starke 1997: 451, Hawkins 1998b: 2–23, Hawkins 2002b: 96, Hawkins 2015b: 24. 97  Artzy, Mommsen and Asaro 2004: 47: “There is no agreement in composition with several groups in our data bank which can be assigned with high probability to workshops in Ephesos”. 98  Artzy, Mommsen and Asaro 2004: 45–47. 99  Pace Starke 1997: 451. 100  See below s.v. The Seha river land and Appawiya. 101  KBo 4.4 IV 56–68 and KUB 14.24 I 1–24, see Goetze 1933: 140–147, KBo 4.7+KBo 22.38 I 22–29 // KBo 5.13 I 1–11// KUB 6.42+KUB 6.43 I 1ʹ–14ʹ // KUB 6.41 I 23–54–49 // HFAC 1+KUB 19.51 I 8ʹ–11ʹ, see Friedrich 1926: 108–113; Beckman 21999a: 74–75. 102  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 327–328. 103  See Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 192–199; Houwink ten Cate 1979: 274–280, 289.

Gander

In the treaty drawn up by Mursili for Kupantakurunta of Mira after Mashuiluwa’s defection, the borders are said to be “the same as before”. The only detailed account is given for the direction of Maddunassa, in which the (place of) the field camp of Tudhaliya and the kaskal.kur of Wiyanawanda should be the border.104 In the direction of the Astarpa river, the land of Kuwaliya is defined as the frontier. However the town of Aura, which formerly belonged to Mira, now is clearly exempted from it. Kupantakurunta is allowed to occupy neither the land beyond the Astarpa river, nor that beyond the Siyanta river.105 It has long been assumed that the king of Mira must have received the lion’s share of the earlier kingdom of Arzawa.106 However it must be noted that before Mursili’s conquest, Mira and Arzawa are clearly separate entities107 despite the fact that Mashuiluwa, the king of Mira, belonged to the royal family of Arzawa.108 We do not know if Mira really got hold of the entirety of the earlier Arzawan territory or if it was distributed among the vassals. Even if Mira was preferred over the other two, we do not know if this beneficial treatment was continued after Mashuiluwa’s rebellion and deposition or after Kupantakurunta had probably sided with the (legitimate) king Mursili III/UrhiTeššup in the civil war against Hattusili.109 We know from the treaties of Mursili with Kupantakurunta and Manapatarhunta, that their lands, Mira-Kuwaliya and Seha-Appawiya, must have lain close to each other.110 In the treaty of Muwatalli with Alaksandu of Wilusa, Alaksandu is admonished to be “an effective and

104  The traditional interpretation of kaskal.kur as “underground watercourse”, see Gordon 1967, is not applicable here. How could an underground watercourse possibly mark a frontier? Here, as in several other passages, kaskal.kur can and should be translated mountain pass as is evident from KUB 60.148 I 6–10: “When the king and the queen ascend (sarā aran[zi]) the kaskal.kur, they call it ‘look-out/ watch-tower/ border post (auri-)’ ”, see Otten 1988: 33–34; Forlanini 1998b: 220–221 with fn. 8. 105  KBo 4.3 I 14–34 // KBo 4.7+KBo 50.42 II 4–11 // KBo 5.13 I 26–38 // KUB 6.41 II 1–25 // KUB 19.53 II 2–10, see Friedrich 1926: 114–119; Beckman 21999a: 75–76. 106  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 136–147, 211–219, 326. 107  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 328–329; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 162; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c: 46–51, pace Starke 1997: 452. 108   For Mashuiluwa’s ancestors see Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 214–219. 109  See Ramses’ letter to Kupantakurunta of Mira, KUB 3.23+KUB 3.84+KBo 1.24, see Beckman 21999a: 130–131, cf. HeinholdKrahmer 1977: 240–242, and KUB 6.47+KUB 21.44. 110  See also Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 329.

The West: Philology

strong helper” to Kupantakurunta of Mira.111 This could lead to the assumption that Wilusa may have lain not too far from Mira; alternatively it could mean that Mira had a special importance among the western vassals.112 The final decipherment of the Karabel inscription by J. David Hawkins and its identification as a monument of the king of Mira has provided us with an important anchor point for the location of Mira in the 13th century. The king Tarkasnawa of Mira has been identified by Hawkins as a successor of the relatively unknown Alantalli, who ruled over Mira in the time of Tudhaliya IV, as is evident from the witness list of the Bronze Tablet.113 Even if this is a plausible reconstruction, it is not at all certain that Kupantakurunta, Alantalli and Tarkasnawa belonged to the same dynasty and held the throne of Mira in direct succession.114 Furthermore, the Karabel monument has usually been interpreted as a boundary mark,115 but this is by no means assured. No Hittite monument can currently be definitely interpreted as a boundary mark,116 and it is more likely that the monument only marked the area as belonging to the land of Mira.117 The location of the monument some kilometres north of the actual pass summit118 further strengthens this interpretation. Even if it was a boundary mark, the question as to whether Mira lay north or south of the pass, cannot be answered with certainty.119 The graffiti found in the Beşparmak Dağları, at Suratkaya in 2000, which mention a magnus.rex. filus Ku-x-ia and a Mi-ra-⸢a⸣(regio)-vir2 do not allow an extension of the territory of Mira into the Latmos mountains.120 The interpretation of Ku-x-ia as a hypo111  KUB 21.1 III 38–39 // KUB 21.5 III 54–55, see Friedrich 1930: 72–73; Beckman 21999a: 90. 112  See Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 154; Hawkins 1998b: 18–21. 113  It is highly tentative to identify the one “who always wished for my misfortune, and who was the primary factor in unfortunate affairs [for My Majesty]” with Alantalli, the alleged father of Tarkasnawa, the supposed addressee of the Milawata letter. 114  See now Hawkins’ own remarks in Hawkins 2014: 15. 115  See already Güterbock 1967a: 70; Güterbock 1975: 53; Houwink ten Cate 1983–84: 48 fn. 38; Gurney 1992: 221; Starke 1997: 451, 457; Hawkins 1998b: 23; Hawkins 2002b: 96; Hawkins 2015b: 20, 24–25; Haider 1997: 107; Haider 1999: 673. 116  See Seeher 2009: 135–136. 117  Cf. Seeher 2009: 129–132, 134–136. 118  Bittel 1939–41: 186: “Der Blick des Wanderers […] fällt sofort nach Überschreiten der Passhöhe unmittelbar auf die breite Felswand mit dem Relief.” 119  See Pantazis 2009: 297 with reference to scholars who thought of Karabel marking the southern boundary of a land, e.g. Güterbock 1967a: 70–71; Haider 1997: 106–107; Haider 1999: 673. 120  Pace Peschlow-Bindokat and Herbordt 2001: 366; PeschlowBindokat 2002: 211.

271 coristic for Kupantakurunta is highly improbable and would be without parallel.121 The second group of signs could be interpreted as a personal name Miraziti (cf. e.g. Hattusaziti) and not “man of Mira” since the placing of vir2 after the toponym would be rather unusual and the interpretation as a personal name is in perfect agreement with that of the other graffiti from Suratkaya.122 If one accepts the current interpretation, one has to reckon that it is far more likely that a foreigner designated himself as “man of Mira” since it would be a distinctive feature for him. The interpretation of the rock, where the inscriptions were found, as a boundary mark is beyond any probability. In 2007 the lower part of a stele was discovered in the village of Karakuyu near Torbalı.123 The figure on the stele is very similar to the one from Karabel which makes a dating to the late imperial period very likely.124 In the editio princeps the “Great King [Tarkas]nawa of Mira” was identified, but unfortunately this interpretation is improbable. The signs identified as WA/I and as MI-RA are rather to be read deus.*430-ra/i “all the gods”.125 We are, after all, not dealing with a political, but with a religious inscription. The extension of Mira into the area of Torbalı is therefore not attested. 3.4.2 Hapalla Hapalla was obviously part of the Hittite empire before Mursili’s Arzawan campaign. It was already subdued by Suppiluliuma’s general Hannutti who acted in the Lower Land. It is therefore tempting to assume that Hapalla lay close to the Lower Land.126 As we have seen Madduwatta’s actions in the Middle Hittite period suggest a close proximity of Arzawa proper and Hapalla, as well as some kind of relationship between Hapalla and Kuwaliya. Unfortunately the treaty of Mursili with Targasnalli of Hapalla has only come down to us in one fragmentary exemplar, from which the historical introduction is completely missing. From the other Arzawa treaties we may 121  Oreshko 2013: 355–358; Hawkins 2014: 15. 122  Cf. Peschlow-Bindokat and Herbordt 2001: 67–77; Oreshko 2013: 346–368 for the other graffiti. 123  Işık, Atıcı and Tekoğlu 2011. 124  The post-Hittite dating of Işık is hardly convincing given the close similarity of the Karakuyu stele to other Hittite monuments of the empire period, see Schachner apud Işık, Atıcı and Tekoğlu 2011: 11 fn. 62: “Die Stele von Karakuyu aber ist ein Beispiel echt hethitischer Monumentalkunst. Deshalb würde ich das Relief noch in das ausgehende 13. oder frühestes 12. Jh. datieren, also in eine Zeit, in der die hethitische Kunst ihren stärksten Einfluss auf Anatolien hatte.” 125  See Forlanini 2012b: 133–134; Oreshko 2013: 376–377. 126  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 236–238.

272 infer that Hapalla lay somewhat closer to the Hittite heartland, and no border quarrels between Hapalla and Mira or Seha were expected.127 3.4.3 The Seha River Land and Appawiya As previously stated, Seha had a close connection to Mira and to core Arzawa, since Manapatarhunta chose to ally with Uhhaziti of Arzawa, rather than to stay with the Hittites in contrast to Hapalla and Mira.128 From the annals of Mursili it is obvious that one could cross over from Arzawa proper to Seha and then probably to Mira. Seha also has a close connection to Wilusa, since the army mentioned in the so-called Manapatarhunta letter started from Seha to attack Wilusa.129 Manapatarhunta’s flight from the Seha river land to Karkisa suggests furthermore a close connection between Seha and Karkisa.130 In the famous Manapatarhunta letter the vassal complains to the Hittite king (most probably Muwatalli II)131 about the hostilities of Piyamaradu, who caused the Hittites and their vassals trouble during the reigns of Muwatalli II, Mursili III (Urhi-Teššup) and Hattusili III.132 Manapatarhunta informs the Hittite king that Piyamaradu had humiliated him and placed Atpa over him, and that he had attacked Lazpa and taken the ṣāripūtu persons, who originally belonged to Manapatarhunta and to the Hittite king, as captives from there. This has been taken as evidence that Lazpa belonged to the territory of the Seha river land,133 which may in turn mean that the Seha river land lay close to Lazpa. Singer, however, has recently shown that the ṣāripūtu were most probably purple dyers, who brought gifts to Lazpa.134 Lazpa need not be their homeland.135 But it is most interesting that the ṣāripūtu say that they came overseas,136 which means that Lazpa was overseas from the perspective of Millawanda or the Seha river land.

127  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 347–348. 128  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 102. 129  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 344; Houwink ten Cate 1983–84: 42, 50–51, 56–57; Hawkins 1998b: 23; Hawkins 2002b: 98–99; Starke 1997: 470 fn. 41. 130  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 344. 131  Heinhold-Krahmer 1983: 86–93; Heinhold-Krahmer 2010: 193– 196 mit Anm. 21 und 22; Houwink ten Cate 1983–84: 58–64. 132  See in particular Heinhold-Krahmer 1983; Heinhold-Krahmer 1986; Heinhold-Krahmer 2005. 133  Houwink ten Cate 1983–84: 51–53, 63. 134  Singer 2008b: 21–22, 31–32. 135  Gander 2010: 174. 136  K UB 19.5+KBo 19.79 I 15–16, see Houwink ten Cate 1983–84: 39–40, AhT 7: 141–142.

Gander

In this context it would be of utmost importance to know if Atpa already was in Millawanda at the time of the letter. If so, the complaint of Manapatarhunta about Piyamaradu having set Atpa above him would mean that Seha was close if not contiguous to Millawanda. The land of Appawiya is only attested together with Seha, unless one wants to interpret the broken A-ba?[…] in the so-called Tawagalawa letter with Appawiya, as Sommer did.137 But this is quite unlikely. The Seha river land is often identified with the Hermos valley (probably extending to the Caicos), following the location of Greater Mira in the Meander valley.138 However, as mentioned above, the provenance analysis of the Arzawa letter EA 32 suggests that the core of Arzawa should be sought in classical Lydia, and this would be a serious obstacle against the identification of the Seha river land with the Hermos (and the Caicos) valley(s). Seha is named alongside Arzawa in the annals of Tudhaliya I, and if Arzawa at that time lay in the estuary of the Hermos, the Seha cannot be identified with this river. In this case one would have to go back to the old suggestion of identifying the Seha with the Meander.139 3.4.4 Wilusa Wilusa first appears as Wilusiya in the so-called Assuwa confederation. We have seen that some of the countries mentioned there are most probably localised in central western Anatolia, Wilusa’s associations with Arzawa and probably also with Ahhiyawa and Millawanda make it plausible, that it lay further to the west. The fact that Wilusa was not reached during Mursili’s Arzawan campaign has been interpreted as a sign that Wilusa was more remote than the other Arzawa lands.140 The land of Wilusa most probably bordered the land of Masa, since Muwatalli defeated this land on behalf of the Wilusan king Alaksandu, as is evident from the so-called Alaksandu treaty.141 According to the treaty’s regulations for offensive alliance the king of Wilusa is obliged to lend military assistance to the Hittite king during campaigns

137  Sommer 1932: 73–74. 138   Starke 1997: 451; Hawkins 1998b: 23; Hawkins 2002b: 98; Hawkins 2015b: 20, 25–26. 139  See e.g. Kınal 1953: 19; Freu 1980: 286–289; Forlanini 1986: tav. XVI; Forlanini 1998a: 219; Forlanini 1998b: 242 fn. 79; cf. Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 345; Del Monte and Tischler 1978: 547 s.v. Šeḫa, for further references. 140  Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 344, 350–351; Hawkins 1998b: 16, 23; Hawkins 2002b: 98; Hawkins 2014: 12; Hawkins 2015b: 27–28. 141  See Otten 1957: 27; Beckman 21999a: 88.

The West: Philology

from the lands of Masa, Karkisa, Lukka and Warsiyalla.142 This has been interpreted as a sign of the closeness if not the contiguity of these lands.143 In the Milawata letter, the king of Wilusa, Walmu fled to the addressee, i.e. the king of Millawanda or of an adjacent country. Furthermore, Walmu was a common kulawanisvassal of the Hittite king and the addressee. This could mean that the land of the addressee, was rather close to Wilusa, which in turn would mean that Millawanda was not too far from Wilusa.144 The alleged proximity to the sea, which Starke stipulated on account of a Luwian sentence in the ritual KBo 4.11 rev. 46,145 is not certain, since the interpretation of the relevant word ala- as ‘sea’ has been put into question.146 Furthermore the determinative is missing, so it is unclear whether wilusa- in this case really refers to the toponym.147 If, however, we assume that the name Alaksandu is in some way a rendering of Greek Ἀλέξανδρος, a coastal location of Wilusa is highly probable, since the Mycenaean presence in Asia Minor is almost completely confined to the (southwestern) coast.148 The mention of a quarrel over Wilusa between the Hittite and the Ahhiyawan king further strenghtens this view, Wilusa obviously lay in an area where Hittite and Ahhiyawan interests overlapped.149 Wilusa is often identified with the Troad on account of its close connection to the Seha river land, Masa and probably Lazpa.150 Furthermore, the similarity between the names of Wilusa and (Ϝ)Ἴλιος is no doubt tempting. This identification has been hotly contested by scholars who pointed to the connection of Lukka, Karkisa and Masa in the treaty regulations for offensive alliance, to the probable closeness between Wilusa and Millawanda and to the mention of Dardaniya in the Egyptian texts (for this 142  KUB 21.1 III 3–7 // KUB 21.5 III 18–21 // KUB 21.4 + KBo 12.36 I 23–29, Friedrich 1930: 66–68; Beckman 21999a: 89–90. 143  Forrer 1926: 76–77; Friedrich 1930: 67 Anm. 4, Gander 2010: 32–38; Freu 1980: 178; Freu 2008b: 118–119; Haider 22004: 185; Heinhold-Krahmer 1977: 163, 172, 351; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c: 37, 40, Heinhold-Krahmer 2013; Röllig 1992: 195, Steiner 1993b: 127; Steiner 2007: 594–595. 144  See already Hoffner 1982: 133. 145  Starke 1997: 473 fn. 78. 146  The meaning “steep” suggested by Watkins 1986: 58–62 is of course heavily influenced by “steep Ilios” found several times in the Iliad. 147  Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 152; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c: 39. 148  Mountjoy 1998; Benzi 2002: 368–385. 149  Cf. now Hawkins 2015b: 22. 150  Bryce 2005: 225, 357–371; Güterbock 1986; Hawkins 1998b: 2, 23; Starke 1997: 454–455; Strobel 2008b: 11–12. See also de Martino 2011: 185–187 with references.

273 last see below).151 In that case Wilusa could probably be located in southwestern Anatolia.152 All the more so, if, as has been suggested above, the Seha river land would refer to the Meander and not to the Hermos valley. 3.4.5 Dardaniya The toponym Dardaniya does not appear in Hittite sources at all. It is solely named among the Hittite allies in the inscriptions of Ramesses II commemorating the battle of Qadeš.153 It has been suggested that Dardaniya in this context is another name for Wilusa, because one would expect Wilusa to appear among the Hittite allies on account of the obligation by the vassal treaty.154 However, since neither Hapalla nor Mira or the Seha river land appear in the list, it is likely that they were summarized under the term Arzawa, and since Wilusa also belonged to the Arzawa lands, it must have been counted among them too. For this reason we do not expect Wilusa to appear separately. This then would mean that Dardaniya and Wilusa are two separate entities.155 On the location of Dardaniya nothing is known. Only on account of its name, it has been associated with the Homeric Dardanoi. Even though an equation of this polysyllabic name appears attractive, it is by no means certain. One must bear in mind that the name Dardanoi also refers to a Thracian tribe, and that it may only secondarily have been applied to the Trojans (cf. e.g. Mysioi).156 3.5 Lazpa Lazpa is only attested in two texts in the entire Hittite corpus. One is a omen text which mentions the deity of Lazpa together with that of Ahhiyawa and the personal deity of the king. There are, however, no geographical indications as to the location of Lazpa.157 Lazpa has usually been identified with Lesbos in the northern Aegean.158 This has become very plausible with the recognition of the join of KUB 19.5 and KBo 19.79, which make it clear that Lazpa most probably lay “beyond the sea” from an Anatolian viewpoint.159 151  Pantazis 2009; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 158–165; HeinholdKrahmer 2004c: 44–57; Heinhold-Krahmer 2013; Gander 2010: 34–38. 152  Heinhold-Krahmer 2013; Steiner 2007; Gander 2010: 34–38. 153  KRI II, P3, P44, P 150, B 43, R64, see Kitchen 1996: 2, 4, 8, 16, 24. 154  Garstang—Gurney 1959: 104–105; Hawkins 1998b: 29 fn. 182; Hawkins 2015b: 28–29; Strobel 2008b: 19. 155  So with Haider 22004: 191–192. 156  Patsch 1901; Burian 1997. 157  KUB 5.6++ II 57ʹ–61ʹ; AhT 20: 192–194. 158  First by Forrer 1924: 14. 159  See Houwink ten Cate 1983–84: 44.

274 At the very beginning of the letter an attack on Wilusa is mentioned, which has been taken as evidence that Wilusa, Lazpa and the Seha river land were close together.160 But we have to keep in mind, that even if Lazpa belonged to the Seha river land (which is by no means certain), the Seha river land need not be right next to Lazpa and Wilusa and Lazpa don’t have do be so close either. The attack on Wilusa mentioned at the beginning of the letter may not have any connection to the rest. It is not reported among the humiliations of Manapatarhunta by Piyamaradu but apart from it in a separate paragraph.161 It is therefore not certain, if the reference to Wilusa has anything to do with the events concerning Lazpa and the Seha river land. 3.6 Masa The identification and location of the land of Masa is heavily disputed, the textual sources seem to be inconsistent about its location.162 On one hand it certainly has associations drawing it to the north and to the center of the Anatolian peninsula, on the other hand it is also associated with lands traditionally located in the southwest of Anatolia. Masa is first mentioned in a ritual where a mock battle between two groups called the “men of Masa” and the “men of Hatti” is arranged.163 In this ritual context the title “man of Masa” seems to be understood as paradigm for a “barbarian” or a “power of disorder”, which must be overwhelmed by the men of Hatti. If Masa is a real toponym by that time, we would assume it to be close to the Hittite homeland. In the annals of Arnuwanda, CTH 143, Masa appears together with Ardu[kka(?)] and Mt Hullusiwanda.164 A similar geographical context is found in KBo 44.10 obv. 13ʹ, a historical fragment in which Masa is mentioned together with Mt Iyawanda, which appears alongside Huwalusa in KBo 16.53 obv. 12ʹ,165 and with [A]rziya, which seems 160   Houwink ten Cate 1983–84: 49–64; Starke 1997: 453–455; Hawkins 1998b: 23. 161  Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 154–155; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c: 37–38; Strobel 2008b: 13; Gander 2010: 172–175. 162  Heinhold-Krahmer 1989: 441; Hawkins 1998b: 29–30; Hawkins 2013: 37–38. 163  KUB 17.35 III 9ʹ–16ʹ, see Carter 1962: 129–130, 143. 164  KUB 23.21 obv. 23ʹ–25ʹ; see Carruba 2008: 66–71. 165  One may also speculate if the obscure x-ap-ta-ri-ma in l. 3ʹ should be read URUAt!(AP)-ta-ri-ma. Before the group of signs, there is a small gap, so it is likely that x-ap-ta-ri-ma is the whole word, the sign x has a two horizontals following two verticals. It therefore highly resembles an uru with a missing lower horizontal. The second sign is clearly AP, not AT, a toponym Ap-tari-ma is, however, not attested. AP for AT could be explained as

Gander

to be near the Marassantiya (Kızılırmak), in the historical fragment KBo 50.169. From the deeds of Suppiluliuma we know that in the time of Tudhaliya III the lands of Masa and Kammala attacked the land of the Hulana river and the province of Kassiya near the middle Kızılırmak.166 This places Masa in the central northwestern part of Anatolia,167 as does its appearance in KBo 16.53 rev. 28ʹ together with Hap[puriya(?)]. Whether the mention of inner Anatolian places names such as Durmitta and Arinna together with Masa in the oracle text KBo 41.127 l. 8ʹ is due to geographical proximity is doubtful. The land of Masa is furthermore named repeatedly alongside the land of Karkisa. In KUB 14.3 III 53 and IV 6, the so-called Tawagalawa letter, Piyamaradu is asked to move his base to Masa or Karkisa, somewhere within Hittite reach, if he opted to pursue his hostilities. In the kin oracle KUB 49.79 obv. 14ʹ Masa is again mentioned together with Karkiya, a few lines later the text also contains a reference to the enemy of Iyalanda. In the regulations concerning offensive campaigns in the Alaksandu treaty Masa, together with Lukka, Karkisa and Warsiyalla is named as an area where the Wilusan king has to lend military assistance.168 Furthermore Muwatalli seems to have attacked Masa on behalf of Wilusa,169 which most probably means that Masa and Wilusa were contiguous. In rituals and evocation texts Masa usually appears together with Arzawa, Karkisa and other western lands such as Lukka or Iyalanda.170 We saw above, that Masa was probably also close to the kingdom of Mira, since Mashuiluwa fled there after his rebellion, and it also seems that there was another campaign against Masa in which the king of Mira was obliged to lend military assistance.171 The land of Masa is finally mentioned in the Hiero­ glyphic Luwian inscriptions from Hattusa-Südburg and from Kızıldağ.172 In the Südburg inscription Masa appears a hearing or a writing mistake. The identification of the signs as a toponym is strenghtened by the following gu[l] ‘to strike, to attack’ which appears mostly in connection with a toponym. 166  KUB 19.11+KBo 22.12+KBo 50.10 IV 17–29 // KUB 19.10 I 7ʹ–20ʹ; see del Monte 2009: 15–16, 42–45. 167  See de Martino, this volume. 168  K UB 21.5 III 20 // KUB 21.4+KBo 12.36 I 25, see HeinholdKrahmer 2013; Gander 2010: 34–38. 169  Otten 1957: 27; Beckman 21999a: 88. 170  K UB 15.34 I 60, see Gander 2010: 75–78; KBo 34.91 l. 4ʹ, see Forlanini 2000: 11, 19; KBo 2.9 I 11ʹ, see Fuscagni 2011; KBo 11.40 VI 18ʹ, see McMahon 1991: 130–131. 171  K UB 19.39 III 7ʹ–14ʹ, see Houwink ten Cate 1979: 274–275, 279–280. 172  For discussion concering the appearance of the name see Poetto 1998, the texts are to be found in Hawkins 1995a: 22–23; Gander 2010: 59–61.

The West: Philology

twice together with vitis, Tamina, Lukka and I(a)kuna (in Hawkins’ readings).173 vitis has been associated with Wiyanawanda and I(a)kuna with Ikonion—Konya (probably Hittite Ikkuwaniya), which would place Masa in a central southwestern area. However, only Lukka is clearly identifiable while the other readings have been doubted in recent years.174 With reference to Lukka it seems however, that even though the overall scheme is not clear, the context rather favours a southern location of Masa here. In the inscription of Kızıldağ 4, Masa is quoted in the inscription of Hartapu, “who conquered every country, (and) conquered the country of Masa forever.”175 We do not know how far Hartapu’s territory extended but given the location of Kızıldağ near modern Karaman, a location of Masa not too far from this area seems reasonable. It has recently been suggested that the sources for a secure southerly location of Masa (Südburg, Kızıldağ) are of relatively late date, and may be seen in the context of an actual population movement in the last years of the Hittite empire.176 On the other hand it has been pointed out, that the sources for a secure northerly location of Masa (KUB 17.35, KUB 19.11+// KUB 19.10) are of relatively early date, the time of Tudhaliya III at the latest, and that the Masa people may have fled their original area of settlement temporarily in the the course Arzawa’s expansion.177 The contradictory character of the sources could induce the idea that Masa might be an ethnic designation. 3.7 Karkisa Karkisa appears together with Ku?rupi and Lusa which may be identical with Kuruppiya and Lu!sa of the Assuwa campaign, in KUB 23.21 rev. III 30ʹ–31ʹ, the annals of Arnuwanda.178 The overall geographical context is, however, unclear. Karkisa further has an association with the land of Masa in the so-called Tawagalawa letter and with Masa, Lukka, Warsiyalla and Wilusa in the regulations concerning the army and chariotry in the treaty of Muwatalli with Alaksandu of Wilusa.179 Karkisa moreover seems to have been close, if not adjacent, to the land of 173  Hawkins 1995a: 22–23. 174  See particularly Oreshko 2012, who wants to read Ma/i-ta-na (Mittani) instead of Ta-mi-na, and who argues against the reading ku in I(a)-ku-na. The reading vitis has been questioned not only by Oreshko, op. cit. but also by Schürr 2010: 22; Schürr 2014: 760 and Gander 2014: 375–378. 175  Hawkins 2000: 438; Poetto 1998. 176  Hawkins 2013: 37–38. 177  Heinhold-Krahmer 2013: 71. 178  See Carruba 2008: 72–73. 179  KUB 14.3 III 53, IV 6 see Hoffner 2009: 310–311; AhT 4: 114–115. KUB 21.4 I 25 + KBo 12.36 I 25 // KUB 21.5 III 20, see Beckman 21999a: 89–90; Heinhold-Krahmer 2013: 64.

275 the Seha river, since Manapatarhunta fled from Seha to Karkisa.180 In KBo 50.33 the land of Kar[kisa] appears together with the land of Mira and the town of Hapanuwa, which is known to have lain in the land of Mira. It is noteworthy that in the Egyptian sources for the battle of Qadeš, Karkisa and Lukka are sometimes grouped together as one land (the land of Karkisa with Lukka).181 In an oracle text ⸢Karki?⸣ya is probably mentioned together with Ahhiyawa.182 The location of Karkisa is almost as difficult as that of Masa. It has been located in the north or in the south of western Anatolia, on account of its associations with Masa, Lukka, Seha, Mira and Wilusa. Considering its repeated grouping with Lukka in the Egyptian sources and its probable mention alongside Ahhiyawa a southerly location is slightly more appealing. Finally, even if it has been recently criticised,183 the identification of Karkisa/ Karkiya with the later name of Caria is no doubt attractive. But also for Karkisa, it seems conceivable, that we are dealing with an ethnic designation. 3.8 Ahhiyawa Ahhiyawa is certainly one of the best known and most heavily discussed toponyms of the Hittite corpus. Already in 1924 Emil O. Forrer, based on many by then unpublished texts, expressed the idea that Ahhiyawa may be the name the Hittites applied to the “Achaeans”. This was quite a bold hypothesis given the still superficial knowledge of Hittite history and geography of the time and the fact that the Mycenaean texts were still undeciphered. The identification was received enthusiastically by classicists and historians,184 but from 1927 onwards Forrer’s thesis was discussed critically by the eminent Hittitologists Johannes Friedrich and Albrecht Götze and was dealt an almost fatal blow by Ferdinand Sommer in his opus magnum “Die Aḫḫijavā-Urkunden” which appeared in 1932.185 This rejection of Forrer’s ideas was very influential in German-speaking scholarship, even though some

180  KUB 14.15 IV 16ʹ–33ʹ, see Goetze 1933: 66–73, KUB 19.49 I 1–13; see Beckman 21999a: 82. 181  P4, B45, see Kitchen 1996: 2, 16. Reference courtesy of Fabian Wespi (Zürich—Heidelberg). 182  KUB 22.56 obv. 15ʹ, AhT 21: 212–213, see below s.v. Ahhiyawa. 183  Simon 2015. 184  Cf. Heinhold-Krahmer 2004b: 8–11. 185  For a detailed treatment of the early days of Hittitology and the conflict between Forrer and his adversaries, mainly F. Sommer, see Oberheid 2007. A history of the “Ahhiyawa-Frage” is in preparation by Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer, see the notice in Heinhold-Krahmer 2004d: 373 fn. 1; Heinhold-Krahmer 2007a: 374 fn.71.

276 scholars like Fritz Schachermeyr186 tried to take a intermediary position in this dispute.187 Non-Germanophone scholars maintained a quite positive attitude towards Forrer’s original proposal, although in a more cautious manner.188 The number of supporters of an equation of Ahhiyawa with the Achaeans had been growing for some time, but it was a reevaluation of the available data by Hans G. Güterbock, Susanne HeinholdKrahmer and Itamar Singer in the 1980s189 which turned the tide. The positioning of Ahhiyawa is highly dependent on the reconstruction of Hittite western Anatolia as a whole. With the very plausible location of Tarhuntassa in southern Anatolia and parts of Lukka in the Lycian area, the location of Arzawa at the west coast has, as we have seen, won much probability.190 The land Ahhiyawa itself is, until now, securely attested only in 26 Hittite texts,191 many of which, however, do not offer any clue to its location. In the context of the raider Piyamaradu, who obviously had some Ahhiyawan backing, several texts are of direct interest to the Ahhiyawa problem.192 It is now acknowledged by scholars that Ahhiyawa was, at least temporarily, a powerful country, the king of which was recognized as equal by the Hittite king. Ahhiyawa appears, in the older form Ahhiya, first in the indictment against Madduwatta (KUB 14.1), where it is mentioned as the place of origin of a raider named Attarissiya. This Attarissiya was close contact with Madduwatta and drove him out of his land (whose name is not mentioned). After Madduwatta’s installation in the land of Mt Zippasla interaction between him and Attarissiya was obviously still possible.193 Attarissiya also seems to have had some seafaring capacity since he raided Alasiya (usually identified with Cyprus) together with 186  Schachermeyr 1935. 187  For a brief overview see Gander 2015b with references. 188  Cavaignac 1950: 38; Contenau 1934: 140–142; Delaporte 1936: 103; Gurney 1952: 46–56; Garstang and Gurney 1959: 75–81. 189  Güterbock 1983; Güterbock 1984; Güterbock 1990; HeinholdKrahmer 1983; Heinhold-Krahmer 1986; Singer 1983a. 190  Heinhold-Krahmer 2004a: 160–161; Heinhold-Krahmer 2004c: 44–51. 191  AhT 1–4, 6, and 8–25, see also Ünal 1991: 18–20; now also KBo 63.312, l. 3' and KBo 57.286 l. 6' (?). For AhT 27 and 28 see below p. 278. 192  The so-called Milawata letter KUB 19.55+KUB 48.90+KBo 18.117 (AhT 5), the Manapatarhunta letter KUB 19.5 + KBo 19.79 (AhT 7) and the votive text KUB 56.15 (AhT 26). 193  KUB 14.1 obv. 1–5, AhT 3: 70–71, KUB 14.1 obv, 37–41 and obv. 60–65, AhT 3: 76–77 and 80–81.

Gander

Madduwatta and the “man of Piggaya”. While little can be inferred about Attarissiya’s homeland from them, his activities seem to have a wide geographical range, from the coast inland as far as the land of Mt Zippasla. It may be that he was trying, just like Madduwatta, to build his own western Anatolian kingdom, which brought him into conflict with his various neighbours. In the annals of Mursili, there is probably mention of an alliance of Ahhiyawa, Millawanda and Arzawa against the Hittites.194 If this plausible interpretation of an alliance of the three powers is correct, it is very likely that the flight of the Arzawan king Uhhaziti “to the islands”195 in the wake of Mursili’s attack led him to Ahhiyawan territory. A further passage mentions someone coming “out of the sea”, “with/to the king of Ahhiyawa” and “I sent by boat” in three lines.196 It is not entirely clear how the sea, the sending by boat and the king of Ahhiyawa are connected, but one plausible interpretation is that it was possible to go to Ahhiyawa by boat. The so-called Tawagalawa letter offers the most information on the location of Ahhiyawa. As we have seen above, Piyamaradu was carrying out raids in western Anatolia which caused the Hittite king to take action. He followed Piyamaradu who fled to Millawanda, but when the Hittite king arrived in the city, Piyamaradu had according to the most common interpretation, already escaped by boat.197 This interpretation, however, is doubted in the most recent, thorough study on the Tawagalawa letter.198 However that may be, it is highly likely that Piyamaradu, at some point took refuge in Ahhiyawa.199 This would 194  KUB 14.15+ I 23ʹ–24ʹ, see AhT 1B: 28–29, possibly also KUB 14.16 III 27ʹ–28ʹ, see AhT 1B: 38–39. So understood according to the commonly accepted interpretation of Goetze 1933: 36–37, 234– 237, the original interpretations of Forrer 1926: 45 and Sommer 1932: 308 were different. 195  KUB 14.15+ II 30–32, see AhT 1B: 14–15. For gursawar- as “island” see Starke 1981: 142–152. 196  KBo 3.4 III 5–7: […]x x [x d]umu mU-uḫ-ḫa-lú | [… n]a-aš-k[án a]-ru-na-az | [… i]t-ti lu[gal ku]r Aḫ-ḫi-ia-wa-a | […] iš-tu gišmá u-i-ia-nu-un. See Goetze 1933: 66–67, AhT 1A: 22–23. 197  KUB 14.3 I 1–65, see AhT 4: 102–105. 198  See Heinhold-Krahmer (forthcoming)a. As Susanne HeinholdKrahmer kindly informs me, the study seems to indicate that the sentence nu-kán mPí-ia-ma-ra-du-uš gišmá-za [ar-ḫ]a ú-et cannot be understood, as has been since Sommer (1932: 5, 81– 82) as meaning that Piyamaradu fled by boat, but that it means, that Piyamaradu came from or off the boat, and that the correct meaning had already been recognized by Forrer 1929: 109, 137. 199  Firstly because the Hittite king repeatedly asks the king of Ahhiyawa to hand Piyamaradu over to him, which means that Piyamaradu was in Ahhiyawa, at the time the letter was written; secondly on account of a passage in which the Hittite king

The West: Philology

again mean that one could or needed to go to Ahhiyawa by boat. The passage KUB 14.3 II 56–62, mentioning the the charioteer Dabalatarhunta on a mission to Ahhi­yawa, on the other hand has repeatedly been adduced as evidence for a location of Ahhi­yawa on mainland Anatolia.200 However the mention of Dabalatarhunta mounting the chariot with the Hittite king and with Tawagalawa is intended to demonstrate to the Ahhiyawan king that Dabala­ tarhunta was a person of trust for both parties. There is no mention of bringing Piyamaradu from Ahhiyawa by chariot. Therefore this passage cannot be taken as evidence for a overland road to Ahhiyawa. In the fourth column of the letter we finally find a short reference to a past conflict between Hatti and Ahhiyawa over Wilusa.201 This most probably means, that Wilusa lay in an area in which Ahhiyawa and Hatti had their interest. In KUB 26.91 obv. 5–20 islands (gursawara) are mentioned. They seem to have been objects of conflict between Hatti and Ahhiyawa in the past,202 a further clue for a strong connection of Ahhiyawa to the sea. One further text mentioning Ahhiyawa, KUB 23.13+, may refer to a conflict of the Hittites with Tarhunaradu of the Seha river land during the reign of Tudhaliya IV.203 It is most probable that Tarhunaradu relied on the king of Ahhiyawa for his attacks.204 This would mean that there was a close connection between Ahhiyawa and the Seha river land. Many of the other so-called Ahhiyawa texts are very difficult to interpret or do not yield geographical information at all. In some of these Ahhiyawa is mentioned together with Lazpa205 (see above p. 273–274, Lazpa), probably ⸢Karki⸣ya206 and Mira.207 One of these last texts, KUB 31.29,208 which mentions borders of the land of Tarhuntassa, the land of Mira and the land of Ahhiyawa in offers Piyamaradu to bring him “back to Ahhiyawa”, if he is not satisfied with the offer of the Hittite king (KUB 14.3 II 69–70, see AhT 4: 110–111); lastly it is also evident from the letter that Piyamaradu’s wife and children were in Ahhiyawa (KUB 14.3 III 69, see AhT 4: 114–115). 200  Steiner 1964: 371–372; Steiner 1990: 525; Steiner 2007: 597–600; Steiner 2011: 272. 201  KUB 14.3 IV 7–9, see AhT 4: 116–117. 202  See AhT 6: 134–135, for the interpretation see 138. 203  KUB 23.13 + Bo 9698, see AhT 11: 154–155. For the join of KUB 23.13 with Bo 9698 see now Soysal 2012: 174–177. 204  Güterbock 1992. 205  KUB 5.6++ II 57ʹ–61ʹ, AhT 20. 192–194. 206  KUB 22.56 obv. 15ʹ, AhT 21: 212–213. 207  KUB 21.34, AhT 13: 162–163, KUB 31.30, AhT 17: 173, KUB 31.29, AhT 18: 174–175. 208  AhT 18: 174–175.

277 subsequent one-line paragraphs, has been adduced as evidence for a location of Ahhiyawa on the mainland209 or to Ahhiyawan territory on the Anatolian mainland.210 The text however is too fragmentary to allow any conclusion on the relationship between the lands mentioned in it.211 A possible Ahhiyawan interference in western Anatolian affairs may be referred to by the so-called Manapatarhunta letter.212 Two of the protagonists mentioned in the Tawagalawa letter, Piyamaradu and Atpa, caused some unrest among the western vassal states (the Seha river land, Lazpa and maybe also Wilusa) already in the early reign of Muwatalli II. It is however not clear if they did already have the Ahhiyawan backing, as is the case in the events described in the Tawagalawa letter, or if they acted on their own behalf.213 Neither Ahhiyawa nor Millawanda are mentioned in the letter. In the Milawata letter,214 a letter from a late king (most probably Tudhaliya IV) to the king of Millawanda or an adjacent country, Ahhiyawa is not mentioned and it seems that Millawanda was not under Ahhiyawan control. This has been interpreted as a sign of Ahhiyawa’s declining influence,215 but we cannot be sure about that. The relative dating of the Milawata letter and KUB 23.13+, the so-called “sins of the Seha river land”, on account of the role of Ahhiyawa in these texts may be misleading. An important argument for placing Ahhiyawa overseas is contained in a text published only in 1986. In it a Hittite queen, most probably Puduhepa, the wife of Hattusili III, makes a vow to the sea for the delivery of Piyamaradu. This may mean that for the landlocked Hittites Piyamaradu, who, as we have seen probably lived in Ahhiyawa, was in the sea. Even though we have to keep in mind that this votive prayer was spoken in Izziya (probably later Issos in Cilicia), far from western Anatolia, it nevertheless strongly speaks against a location of Ahhiyawa on the 209  Sommer 1932: 328; Steiner 1964: 371; Ünal 1991: 20. 210  Bryce 2003a: 67; Röllig 1992: 191–192; Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 174–175. 211  Heinhold-Krahmer 2007b. 212  KUB 19.5 + KBo 19.79, AhT 7: 140–143 (text), 143–144 (commentary), see also Houwink ten Cate 1983–84, and for a different interpretation Gander 2010: 172–178. 213  See the thorough discussion in Houwink ten Cate 1983–84: 42– 44, 49–64, esp. 52–56. 214  KUB 19.55+KUB 48.90+KBo 18.117, AhT 5: 124–131 (text), 131– 133 (commentary). For the join of KBo 18.117 not yet included in AhT 5 see Weeden 2012: 63–65. 215  Often in context with the erasure of the name Ahhiyawa from among the great powers in the treaty of Tudhaliya IV with Šaušgamuwa of Amurru, KUB 23.1 IV 1–3, AhT 2: 60–61. See e.g. Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 132.

278 Anatolian mainland, and for a location overseas from the western Aegean, on the Greek mainland or on one of the islands. An identification of Ahhiyawa with one of the Myceanaean kingdoms is therefore very plausible. Which Mycenaean center is referred to by Ahhiyawa is, however, still unclear. In recent scholarship Mycenae and Thebes have been named as the most likely candidates, sometimes also Rhodes.216 It is further unclear how the Hittite designation Ahhiyawa and the Egyptian name Tanaya are to be connected. The toponyms associated with Tanaya are mostly to be located on the Peloponnese,217 so if Ahhiyawa and Tanaya denote the same entity its center was most likely Mycenae. In recent scholarship further possible occurences of Ahhiyawa in the Hieroglyphic-Luwian inscription from Çineköy and in two letters from Ugarit have been discussed.218 A number of scholars now believes that the land of Hiyawa mentioned in the Luwian text of the Çineköy bilingual as designation for the Cilician plain is connected to Ahhiyawa and shows “typical Luwian aphaeresis”.219 Some even think the name may refer to early Greek settlers in Cilicia.220 However, a number of linguistic, historical and geographical reasons has been put forward, which inspire doubt about the identification of Ahhiyawa and Hiyawa; most importantly, it seems likely that Hiyawa already appears in a text from the early 14th century, and is to be located in Cilicia.221 In the letters from Ugarit the determinative (kur or uru) is lacking in each of the three attestations in the letters, whereas it is present with the land of Lukka. So it is perfectly possible that hiaû/ hiawî is just an adjective. Even if it were a toponym, it would be much more plausible to connect it with the Cilician Hiyawa than with Ahhiyawa.222 216  Mycenae: Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 1, 3–4; Kelder 2005; Kelder 2010: 93–99; Thebes: Niemeier 2007b: 70–73; Niemeier 2008: 303–306; Latacz 62010: 184; Rhodes: Mountjoy 1998. 217  For the Egyptian Tanaya see Helck 21995: 23–24; Haider 1988: 1–15; Haider 2000; Edel and Görg 2005: 192–213. For new attestations of the toponym see now Gander 2015a. 218  AhT 27 and 28: 254–266, see Lackenbacher and Malbran-Labat 2005: 37; Singer 2006a: 251; Bryce 2010: 47–48; Gander 2012: 281–284 with references. 219  Oettinger 2008: 64; Singer 2006a: 251; Freu 2008c: 98; Beckman, Bryce and Cline 2011: 261–262. 220  E.g. Tekoğlu 2002: 1006; Forlanini 2005b: 112–113. 221   For full discussion see Gander 2010: 48–56; Gander 2012: 281–290. Doubts have been expressed by Forlanini 2012b: 136–137; Oreshko 2014: 19–21. Hiyawa is now also attested in the Hieroglyphic Luwian steles from Arsuz near İskenderun, see Dinçol et al. 2015. 222  Gander 2012: 86–90.

Gander

4 Conclusions Even though many uncertainties remain, research on the geography of Hittite western Anatolia has taken a giant leap in the last decades, with the most probable location of Parha at Perge, of parts of Lukka in the Lycian Xanthos valley and Arzawa in western Anatolia. The exact location of the various Arzawa countries as well as the inland geography remain hotly debated. Even though the general scheme put forward by Garstang and Gurney already in 1959 may be largely correct, I would not go as far as J. David Hawkins to say that “the general geographcial scheme of western Anatolia by Garstang and Gurney looks to be triumphantly confirmed”.223 Many locations of Garstang and Gurney do not coincide with the results achieved by Hawkins himself.224 Even in those cases in which Hawkins agrees with Garstang and Gurney, alternative locations for many of the lands are still possible.225 The two maps in this chapter (figs 20.1 and 20.2) represent two different reconstructions of the geography of western Anatolia. Individual scholars will have their own views of every region presented here, which would amount to a large series of different maps, diverging in some point or another. I want to present two radically different views, the first is a sketch of the currently prevalent view, mainly represented by the works of J. David Hawkins and Frank Starke, the second is a possibility for a view of a minority of scholars amongst which I count myself. One should additionally bear in mind, that even in cases in which these two reconstructions are in agreement (e.g. the 223  Hawkins 2002b: 96, see also Hawkins 2015b: 18: “[A]ll the the advances of the 50 years since publication tend towards the confirmation of the conclusions of Garstang and Gurney.” 224  The Seha river identified with the Caicos by Garstang and Gurney and with the Hermos by Hawkins, Masa (located in Pamphylia by Garstang and Gurney) could be located the north or the south of western Anatolia, as we have seen. Mira, in Hawkins’s reconstruction (northern Phrygia) is much further to the north than in Garstang and Gurney’s (area of the Pisidian lakes). Hapalla according to Hawkins lies further to the south, than according to Garstang and Gurney (northwestern Phrygia). It is also interesting, that even though Garstang and Gurney favour an identification of Wilusa with Ilios, they place Wilusa in Mysia on their map, instead of the Troad. 225  Lukka need not cover Lycia and Caria, but can also be located in Lycia, Pisidia and southern Phrygia. The Seha need be neither Hermos nor Caicos, but could also be the Meander, in accordance with the results of the provenance analysis for the letter EA 32 which places the core of Arzawa in the area between Smyrna and Phokaia in the Middle Hittite period. Wilusa could be located near Miletos and Karkisa could possibly be located in upland Caria.

279

Figure 20.1

Map showing the prevalent reconstruction of the west.

The West: Philology

identification of Millawanda with Miletus, or Ahhiyawa with Mycenean Greece) diverging opinions have been expressed. In sum one can say, that even though large

progress has been made in recent years, the geography of western Anatolia is “still an open question”.226 226  Forlanini 2012b: 133.

Figure 20.2

Map showing an alternative reconstruction of the west.

280 Gander

CHAPTER 21

Kizzuwatna and the Euphrates States: Kummaha, Elbistan, Malatya Philology J. David Hawkins and Mark Weeden 1 Introduction Kizzuwatna is defined in a Middle Hittite letter from Maşathöyük as a “primary watchpost”, a border region, which the writer of the letter explains is just as exposed as Zikkasta in the area of Maşat itself.1 Kizzuwatna itself had only been annexed to the Hittite power-sphere since the reign of Tudhaliya I in the mid 15th century BC as outlined in the treaty with Sunassura.2 Prior to this it had been subject to Hurrian overlordship, with a basically Syrian geo-political orientation.3 Hittite access to Syria is one of the key themes associated with the area of Kizzuwatna. One traditional assumption has been that this passed through the Cilician Gates into Plain Cilicia and then over one of the Amanus passes into Syria. Cogent objections have been made to this view, especially when it involves the passage of armies through difficult terrain involving precarious passes.4 Where exactly its borders lay and where its main cities are to be located have remained problematic issues, although considerable advances have been made in the last 15 years. The identity of the city/land of Kummanni and the city/land of Kizzuwatna was observed early on, as they alternate as readings in duplicate manuscripts of the

The western and eastern border sections (2 and 4) were largely written by J. D. Hawkins, the introduction, central area and Kizzuwatna in the north (1, 3, 5) were mostly written by M. Weeden. Thanks are due particularly to M. Novák for discussions on various related issues both in Bern and at Sirkeli Höyük. For his views, however, which are frequently different to ours, see Novák and Rutishauser in this volume. 1  hantezzis auris HKM 74, 12 (Alp 1991b: 262–3). At issue in the letter are the deployment of 20 individuals whether in the Ziggasta region or in Kizzuwatna. The dispute was thought weighty enough to be referred to the palace. 2  KBo 1.5; Beckman 21999a: no. 6A; Devecchi 2015: 73–90. Previous treaties: CTH 21 Telipinu (Hattusa) with Isputahsu (Kizzuwatna); CTH 29 Tahurwaili (Hattusa) and Eheya (Kizzuwatna); CTH 25 Zidanza II (Hattusa) and Pilliya (Kizzuwatna); CTH 26 Unknown Hittite king with Paddatiššu of Kizzuwatna. See Devecchi 2015: 72. 3  Treaty between Idrimi of Alalah and Pilliya of Kizzuwatna AlT 3 (Wiseman 1953: 31, Plate IV). 4  Ünal 2014.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_022

same texts as well as in the titles of identical people or gods.5 This, along with an alleged textual association of Kizzuwatna with iron on the one hand and the coast on the other, led to an early identification of Kizzuwatna with Comana Pontica on the Black Sea coast. An exhaustive investigation by A. Goetze (1940) brought the location of Kizzuwatna down to the southern coast in plain Cilicia. The Kummanni that must have been its most important city was here associated with Comana Cappadociae, modern Şar, some 200km from Adana over the Taurus mountains up the Seyhan river and 75km over the Binboğa mountains from Elbistan, the eponymous plain of which is drained by the Ceyhan, which also reaches down to the Cilician coast in the Adana region.6 The other most important city of Kizzuwatna, La(hu)wazantiya, has also traditionally been located in the plain of Elbistan, as is also supported by the apparent location of Old Assyrian Luhuzattiya in this area.7 More recent investigations mainly on the basis of Hittite cultic texts have put these two main Hittite cities of Kizzuwatna in the plain of Cilicia, while recent study of the Old Assyrian evidence has further entrenched MBA Luhuzattiya in the 5  Alternations between the readings Kizzuwatna and Kummani attested for the two main manuscripts of the ritual of Pilliya, king of Kizzuwatna // Kummani (CTH 479; Beckman 2013: 113–145): KUB 7.20 i 1f. // KBo 9.115+ i 1; in the duplicate manuscripts of a tablet catalogue mentioning tablets of the ritualists Ammihatna, Tulpi and Mati, purapsi-priests of Kizzuwatna // Kummani: KUB 30.42 iv 21 // ABoT 29+28 ii 19; in the colophons of the six duplicate manuscripts of the Ritual for Domestic Quarrel by the ritualist Mastigga, woman of Kizzuwatna (KBo 39.8 iv 32 // KBo 9.106+ iii 50ʹ) or of Kummani (KBo 44.17 iv 16ʹ // KBo 2.3+ iv 14 // KUB 12.34+ iv 1ʹ // VSNF 12.59+ iv 1), Miller 2004: 11 fn 16, 52–53 (Table 5). Further in the prayer KUB 14.4 (iii 23–25) Mursili II goes to the land of (the city of) Kummani in line 23 but to (the city of) Kizzuwatna in line 25 in order to celebrate the festival of Hebat of Kummani. See del Monte and Tischler 1978: 213–215. 6  The area of Tufanbeyli-Sarız and the northern region of the Adana plain on either end of the Seyhan have been recently surveyed by S. Girginer (Girginer 2005: 377–404). 7  Kümmel 1980–83: 335; Forlanini 1979: 169 fn. 169; Freu 1980: 203ff.; Barjamovic 2011. See also Alparslan in this volume.

282

Hawkins and Weeden

Elbistan region.8 The outline of a Kizzuwatna extending out of Cilicia up towards the northeast as far as the critical area of the Gezbel pass and the plain of Elbistan cannot be dismissed. The following sketch reviews the evidence for (i) the western borders (mainly the treaty with Sunassura of Kizzuwatna); (ii) the central area in classical Cilicia (based on Neo-Assyrian Annals, Hittite cultic and annalistic texts); (iii) the eastern borders, access to Syria (Neo-Assyrian Annals, Old Hittite Annalistic texts), and the adjoining Euphrates states (Annalistic texts, Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions); and (iv) the question of a northeastern extension of the borders of Kizzuwatna. 2

The Western Border

The Sunassura treaty’s description of the Hatti-Kizzuwatna frontier in the reign of Tudhaliya I begins and ends (breaks off) with two relatively fixed points: the town of Lamiya on the coast (identified with the classical river Lamos, modern Limonlu çay); and the river Samri, class. Saros, mod. Seyhan.9 At the outset10 the frontier is defined by Lamiya and Aruna, Hittite but not to be fortified, and Pitura, belonging to Sunassura (lines 40–45). Here the narrow coastal strip is backed by the vast bulk of the Toros/Bolkar Dağ between the two passes, the Göksu/Calycadnos valley and the Cilician Gates. It is crossed by no roads ancient or modern, and only few mountain tracks. The next two frontier defining pairs are the towns of Saliya (Hittite, to be fortified) and Zinziluwa and Erimma (Sunassura); and Anamusta (Hittite, to be fortified) and the mountain (of the town) Zabarasna (Sunassura).11 Of all the toponyms in the treaty description (apart from the land of Ataniya) only Saliya and Zabarasna are attested elsewhere: Saliya in the Ulmi-Teššub and Kuruntiya treaties in the description of the Hatti-Tarhuntassa frontier;12 and Zabarasna (Akk.) identified with (Hitt.) URU/KUR/HUR.SAG Saparassana.13 In the next section (lines 52–57), the frontier description changes: on the side of Turutna the Hittite king is to hold; on the side of the land of Ataniya, Sunassura is to hold; coming from Luwana, Durpina is Sunassura’s 8  Barjamovic 2011. 9  KBo 1.5: frontier description, iv 40–66; dating to Tudhaliya I; Wilhelm 1998: 359–370, esp. 370; translations Beckman, 1999: 17–34; Schwemer 2005: 97–106; Wilhelm 2011. 10  Lines 40–45. 11  Lines 45–51. 12  KBo 4.10 obv. 28–29; BT i 49–50. 13   Del Monte 1992: 137, s.v. Šaparašana (note location near Karkamish suggested).

frontier, the Hittite king is to hold the Hatti side, Sunassura the Ataniya side. Fourth section (lines 58–61): Serigga belongs to the Hittite king, Luwana to Sunassura, the river Samri is the border; the Hittite king is not to cross the Samri into Ataniya, Sunassura is not to cross it into Hatti. Fifth section (58–66): coming from Zilapuna the Samri is the border, coming from […] the Samri must be Sunassura’s frontier; no crossings (end of tablet). How are we to understand the geography of this frontier description? The most detailed treatment of this question in recent years has been by Forlanini.14 One point in his treatment of the frontier descriptions is open to criticism: each segment of the frontier description is regularly introduced in Hittite treaties by a toponym in the ablative (Akk. ištu/itti URUGN, Sunassura Treaty). These should not be treated as the points defining the frontier15 but as guides to the location of these points (“coming from URUGN” or as usually translated “in the direction of URUGN”). They should thus be omitted from actual points on the frontier, though they may assist, as they were intended, in locating the course of the frontier. 2.1 Location of Saliya This town in the time of Hattusili III and Tudhaliya IV was a point on the Hittite side of the Hatti-Tarhuntassa frontier (Ulmi-Teššub treaty, Bronze Tablet),16 and for Tudhaliya I on the Hatti side of the Hatti-Kizzuwatna frontier, and the Hittite king had a right to fortify it, so we may assume that it was an important strategic position. Forlanini places it on the north side of the Toros/Bolkar Dağı quite far to the west) well southwest of Hupisna/ Kybistra), and its Kizzuwatnian corresponding towns Zinziluwa and Erimma to the south of the mountain. He does this because he takes the next two frontier points Anamusta (Hatti) and Mount Zabarasna (Kizzuwatna) to mark the upper and lower ends of the Cilician Gates pass, and indeed supposes that Zabarasna was the actual designation of the Cilician Gates themselves. We find these locations problematic on a number of counts, and propose an alternative. First it is not likely that any significant route across the Toros/Bolkar Dağı existed, and if Saliya were where he places it, it is not clear why any fortification would concern Sunassura. Secondly, Forlanini’s interpretation of the route of the HattiTarhuntassa frontier up to Saliya is open to criticism. The 14  Forlanini 1988: 132–140; again, with addition of information from the Bronze Tablet, id. 2013: 14–20 with recent bibliography. 15  Cf. his remarks at Forlanini 2013: 1. 16  See chapter 18 fn. 9, this volume.

283

Kizzuwatna and the Euphrates States: Philology

towns of Sinnuwanda, Zarnusa(ssa), Zarwisa and the High Mountain are not points on the frontier but simply directional markers, as noted above: the frontier points are Mount Lula, Harmimma/Uppasana, Mount Sarlaimmi and Saliya. Accepting Forlanini’s identification of Mount Lula with Byz. Loulon near Ulukışla, we come after the unknown Harmimma/Uppasana to Mount Sarlaimmi (Luw. “exalted”) generally recognized as the Toros/Bolkar Dağı,17 where there is a DKASKAL.KUR, in which, given the locality, we may well recognize the great cave and spring of İvriz, a DKASKAL.KUR as we understand it. Saliya is then located in the direction of (“coming from”) the High Mountain which we may take as synonymous with Mount Sarlaimmi or perhaps a particular peak at its northeast end where it exceeds 3000m. This places Saliya where it has usually been located,18 somewhere on the southwest side of the road running from Ulukışla past Zeyvehöyük (Dunna) and Pozanti (Paduwanda) to the Gates; rather than with Forlanini bending the frontier back westwards towards Karaman. The fortified Hittite posts of Saliya and Anamusta may then be understood as marking the northern ends of the pass; while the otherwise unknown Zinziluwa and Erimma should lie to its south, either west or east of the road running through the Cilician Gates.19 2.2 Anamusta and the River Samri The next-named Hittite post is Anamusta, facing the Sunassura-held mountain of the town Zabarasna. Anamusta as specified may be fortified, thus presumably marked a strategic point on the frontier. The following section (lines 52–57) is defined as the pre-existing frontier, marked by Turutna (Hatti) and Durpina (towards Luwana, Sunassura), both unknown. Then (lines 58–61) the frontier is the river Samri with Serigga marking the Hatti side and Luwana that of Sunassura. The river is securely identified as the modern Seyhan, though M. Novák plausibly argues that the Hittite Samri was the western branch of the river, today known as the Zamantı Su.20 Whereabouts on this river should we place this stretch of the frontier?

17  Del Monte and Tischler 1978; del Monte 1992, s.v. HUR.SAG Šarlaimi; Lombardi 1998. 18  Del Monte and Tischler 1978; del Monte 1992, s.v. Šalija. 19  Possibly the Ak Dağ, as suggested by Novák and Rutishauser 2012: 264, though a location further south opposite Anamusta (as we would place it) is to be preferred. 20  Novak, personal communication; cf. Novák and Rutishauser 2012.

Between Saliya and Serigga—Luwana on the Samri are the points Anamusta—mountain of Zabarasna and Turutna—Durpina, which should thus be sought east of Saliya in the area between the Cilician Gates and the confluence of the Zamantı. One might suggest that Anamusta was to be fortified to guard the next pass from Cilicia to Hatti, which looks as if it might be marked by the road from Pozantı up to Çamardı along the upper reaches of the river Ecemiş çay, as Novák places it, and the mountain of Zabarasna the Akdağ or Karanfil Dağı (so Novák and Rutishauser) or more likely Kale Dağı further to the East. In the last section of the tablet (lines 62–66), the Samri remains the border in the direction of Zilapuna and of […]. If the frontier description had continued on another tablet it might have continued up the Samri/Zamanti border even to the area of Fraktin, Taşçı and the Gezbel pass. 3

Central Kizzuwatna

In recent years both the major cities of Kizzuwatna (Kummanni/Kizzuwatna and La(hu)wazantiya) and the centre of Kizzuwatna itself have been moved by most scholars down into Plain Cilicia. The previous location of Kummanni and La(hu)wazantiya in southeastern Cappadocia and Elbistan respectively failed to explain the clear itinerary of Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (859– 824 BC), who subdues the land of Katei of Qaue (later Que) in 839 BC after mustering troops from the local kings in northern Syria and crossing the Amanus to “go down” to capture the fortified cities Lusanda, Abarnani and Kisuatni.21 It is quite possible that Shalmaneser was acting partially on the request of Kilamuwa of Sam’al (Zincirli), who reports being oppressed by the king of the d[n]nym, the Phoenician/Aramaic name given to the people of Adana in the Iron Age. He thus may have crossed the Amanus at the Hasanbeyli pass leading from 21  A.0.102.10 iv 26 (Grayson 1996: 55); 11, 6ʹ–7ʹ (Grayson ibid. 58); 16 (Nimrud Statue), 145ʹ–146ʹ (Grayson ibid. 78); Kempinski and Košak 1982: 103; Yamada (2000: 202–205, following Astour 1963: 231 fn. 98) argues for a location of these cities in eastern Cilicia and associates the action against Katei in Que from 839 BC with the text of the summary inscription on a statue from Assur, where Shalmaneser confines Katei in the royal city of Pahri (possibly Misis/Mopsuestia), cf. “Paharawanean Granaries”, Phoenician version ʿqrt pʿr, mentioned in KARATEPE §7 (Hawkins 2000: 49, with different reconstruction of events ibid. 41). The name Pahri is not attested in LBA sources, and has alternatively been located in the region of Düziçi near Karatepe, possibly classical Pagrum on the basis of its attestation in the Peutinger Table (Casabonne 2002: 187).

284 Fevzipaşa, rather than the Bahçe pass a little further to the north.22 Either route will have led him into the region of Osmaniye. An association with locations in Elbistan or southeastern Cappadocia seemed thus prima facie unlikely, unless there had been some movement or duplication of names in the mean-time. Further arguments had been advanced for bringing Lawazantiya and Kummanni closer to the coast, including the mention of lwsnd in an Ugaritic letter of Šipṭi-Baal, an emissary of the king of Ugarit, who says he was writing from there.23 This too seemed to demand a location closer to the coast if one assumed he was engaged in business typical of Ugarit’s sphere of interests. However, the most decisive development in the study of the location of these main towns has come from M. C. Trémouille’s analysis of ritual and festival texts in combination with the results of archaeological survey data.24 The many fragmentary tablets of the extensive Hišuwa festival, which appears to have Kizzuwatna and northern Syria as a central geographical focus, provide numerous geographical details. Tablet 12 of the festival contains a passage that includes a number of place-names associated with Kizzuwatna.25 Preserved are remains of six paragraphs with a largely parallel structure. Each paragraph contains the following three elements: (1) bread and flour (2) a sheep and a vessel of (Hassuwan?) wine26 GN pē harkanzi27 (3) The old men of the city walk with it. The cities named are:

22  For the text see Donner-Röllig 1964: 24 (Kilamuwa, Zincirli), Tropper 1993; see further Yamada 2000: 199; Hawkins 2000: 41. Ponchia (2006: 211) additionally entertains the possibility that Shalmaneser (or his allies) may have entered Cilicia via the Ceyhan on the basis that a hieroglyphic inscription of Halparuntiya from Maraş/Gurgum celebrates a victory against the land of Hirika (MARAŞ 4 §2, Hawkins 2000: 256), which was associated with Hilakku (i.e. rough Cilicia) by Neumann (1979: 431ff.). However, there is no campaign against Hilakku in 839 BC, merely against Qaue, the main campaign against the coalition including Hilakku having been in 858 BC. Hirika must be in the Maraş area. 23  PRU 5.63 = RS 18.40; see Kempinski and Košak 1982: 103. 24  Trémouille 2001; Forlanini 2013. 25   KUB 20.52+KBo 9.123 (CTH 628.12.A); Goetze 1940: 54f.; Trémouille 2001: 61–62; Groddek 2004: 91–92; id. 2011: 126f.; Forlanini 2013: 3. Although there are many duplicates to this tablet, there are no duplicates to this passage. 26  KUB 20.52+KBo 9.123 obv. I 25ʹ; 1 DUG ha-aš-šu-wa-wa-an-ni-in GEŠTIN. 27   pē ḫark- can have the meaning “keep” (as per Forlanini 2013: 3), or it can have the meaning “present, deliver to”, both of which might suit an itinerary. CHD P 255 translates “The people of place x present x offerings”, which does not have to fit an

Hawkins and Weeden

Kummanna28 Zunnahara29 Adaniya30 Tarsa31 Ellipra32 Trémouille interprets this as the offerings being brought to a central place, probably Lawazantiya, from the individual cities named, but considers the order of the list to be significant as supported by numerous less extensive collocations of the same place-names as well as a number of others in different texts.33 Mapping this list onto the known sites of Adana and Tarsus, as well as further sites identified by surveys conducted in the 1950s and 60s, she was able to demonstrate the existence of an east-west road across central Kizzuwatna. Forlanini interprets the passage as an itinerary with deliveries being made from one place to another starting at Kummani, each stage having a distance of between 12 and 37km.34 Kummani for Forlanini is Sirkeli Höyük and Zunnahara is identified by him with Misis/Mopsuestia (12km southwest from Sirkeli), which has also been associated with the Iron Age Pahri mentioned in a summary inscription on the Assur statue of Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC).35 The identifications Zunnahara and Pahri = Misis are possible if Pahri is only the Iron Age name of the same place, the name Zunnahara having been lost after the Late Bronze Age. An Ugaritic letter found in Ugarit at the house of Urtenu mentions day-stages of a journey including Adaniya and Zunnahara.36 Ellipra is likely the same as Illubru mentioned as a town that rebelled against Sennacherib along with Tarzu (Tarsus) and Ingira. Forlanini has suggested that Assyrian Ingira (Hittite Egara) is likely to be classical Soli/Pompeiopolis, modern Viranşehir, due to local coins with the Aramaic legend ʾgrh.37 Ellipra/Illubru would thus be likely to be Yumuktepe near Mersin, and would probably have left a trace of its name in that of the river itinerary, as the deliveries could be being made from the different places to a central location. 28  KUB 20.52+KBo 9.123 obv. I 10ʹ; […]kum-ma-an-na-za-an ú-d[aan-zi]. Construed slightly differently to the other paragraphs, i.e. not part of the pē harkanzi clause. 29  KUB 20.52+KBo 9.123 obv. I 13ʹ; [URU ][z]u-un-na-ha-ra. 30  KUB 20.52+KBo 9.123 obv. I 17ʹ; URUa-da-ni-ia Trémouille 2001: 61 fn. 29. 31  KUB 20.52+KBo 9.123 obv. I 21ʹ; URUtar-ša. 32  KUB 20.52+KBo 9.123 obv. I 25ʹ; URUel-li-ip-ra. Additionally a specific type of ox (GUDpí-ir-za-h[a-an-na]) is also “delivered/ kept” at this stage. 33  Trémouille 2001. 34  Forlanini 2013: 3–7. 35  Forlanini 1979: 170; id. 2013: 6. See above fn. 21. 36  The place-names are: mlwm, ʾadnyh, snġr, ʾunġ, RS 94.2406; Bordreuil-Pardee 2004: 115–124; iid. 2010: 4–6; Forlanini 2007b: 269–270; id. 2013: 5–6. 37  Casabonne, Forlanini, Lemaire 2001; Forlanini 2013: 3–5.

Kizzuwatna and the Euphrates States: Philology

(classical) Liparis, which itself is not securely located but must have been in the region.38 Other place-names with which those of the Kizzuwatnian east-west road are associated, even if they are not directly on it in each case, are Lawazantiya, Winuwanda, Sinuwanda, Arusna. Lawazantiya is clearly close to Kummanni if the data of the ritual of Palliya, king of Kizzuwatna/Kummani are reliable, which was concerned with setting up the statue of Teššub of Kummani and was presumably performed in Kummani. On at least two occasions during the ritual pure water is fetched from the seven pure springs of Lawazantiya within one day, once by anonymous agents, once by the ritualist (LÚAZU).39 A further text referred to by Trémouille concerns the festival of the month for Teššub and Hebat and involves bringing offerings to the sea, activities in (the city of) Winuwanda, and again fetching water from (the city of) Lahuwazantiya for (the city of) Kizzuwatna, as far as can be seen on a single particular day.40 Not only do these texts show that La(hu)wazantiya must have been close to Kummanni/Kizzuwatna, but they indicate a hydrological feature, seven springs, in plain evidence today at the site of Tatarlı höyük, which is currently being excavated by S. Girginer.41 La(hu)wazantiya would also need to be close to the Amanus mountains, according to Trémouille, given that a further tablet of the Hišuwa festival requires that fruit tree branches be fetched from the Amanus. Reference is made to their possibly drying out, and the necessity of transporting them quickly, although the interpretation is not 38  Forlanini 2013: 4–5 with fn. 13. 39  Tablet 1 §2 A (obv. 4–5) // B (obv. i 3–4) // D (obv. 3–4) pure water from the 7 springs of Lawazantiya fetched, come back in one day (§4), day 2 the LÚ.MEŠpurapsi- go off to Mount Kalzatapa (§5). The LÚAZU seems to be able to manage another trip to Lawazantiya for pure water on day 2 (§§11–12); Trémouille 2001: 64–65, 77–78; Beckman 2013. If one is transporting water from seven springs (presumably in separate containers), one would imagine a relatively slow pace of travel. Rites also presumably had to be performed when one arrived. 40  KUB 54.36 obv. 8 a-ru-ni pé-e-da-a-i “he takes to the sea”; KBo 17.103+ obv. 17ʹ URUú-i-nu-an-da ar-nu-zi “brings to Winuwanda”; KBo 17.103+ obv. 20ʹ a-pé-e-da-ni UD-ti I-NA URUki-iz-zu-wa-atn[i] “on that day in (the city of) Kizzuwatna” (22ʹ) [U]RUla-hu-waaz-za-an-ti-ia ú-i-da-a-ar “[from] (the city of) Lawazantiya the waters .…”; (25ʹ) nu ú-i-da-a-ar I-NA URUki-iz-zu-w[a-at-ni] “and the waters to (the city of) Kizzuwatna. Trémouille 1996. 41  Ünal and Girginer 2010 (find of a hieroglyphic sealing roughly from the 15th century BC); see reports of S. Girginer in the series Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı. It seems almost too good to be true that seven springs would have survived at a site over three millennia.

285 certain.42 This also fits the location at Tatarlı Höyük. As noted above, Kummani has been associated with Sirkeli Höyük 27km to the southwest of Tatarlı, just on the northern tip of the Misis-mountains, which would make an overly long journey if one wanted to retrieve pure waters from Tatarlı in one day travelling both ways on foot. On the other hand Sirkeli has also been identified with Lawazantiya.43 O. Casabonne points to the evidence of a classical inscription of the 4th to 6th centuries AD from Kızıldere, a village at a break in the Misis mountain range, which indicates the border of the territories Loandos and Kirkoteis, with Loandos clearly being on the east side.44 Should this name be derived from Lawazantiya, which is possible, it might be evidence for a location of Lawazantiya at Sirkeli Höyük, a mere 9km to the northeast of Kızıldere, although there is nothing to prevent the name having moved from somewhere else over the intervening 1700 years, or to exclude that it refers to a larger territorial or temporary political unit stretching towards the Amanus. Casabonne’s identification of Kastabala (Hierapolis) just northwest of Osmaniye as the location of Kummani would mean that a further 10km (37km in total) would need to be negotiated on the way to collect water from the seven springs of Lawazantiya if at Sirkeli.45 The textually attested closeness of Kummani and Lawazantiya might make ancient Kastabala a better site for Kummani with a Lawazantiya 10km away at Tatarlı Höyük; or one of the 42  KUB 45.58 iii 7 (// KBo 46.141 rev. 1ff.): nu ŠA GIŠIN-BI hu-u-ma-anda-aš al-kiš-t[a-aš] (8) kar-ša-an-za IŠ-TU HUR.SAG am-ma-na (9) ku-it LÚgur-ta-wa-an-ni-iš ú-da-an ḫa[r-ta] (10) píd-d[a]-anzi-ma-at LÚMEŠ URUu-da-an-na (11) [x x] x I-NA HUR.SAG karpa-an-na-an-zi (12) na-at hu-u-da-ak ú-da-an-zi (13) na-at ha-te-eš-zi a-pé-e-da-ni-m[a-at] UD.KAM-t[i] (14) LÚ.MEŠpu-ra-apši-e-eš a-na GIŠ (15) m[e]-n[a]-ah-ha-a[n]-[d]a im-me-ia-an-zi “a branch of every fruit-tree (is) cut off. The men of (the city) Udanna bring what the gurtawanni-man had brought from Mount Ammana, … they are in the process of picking it up on the mountain, they bring it immediately—it dries out. On that very day the purapsi-men mix it into the wood.” It is clear that this passage could be susceptible to other interpretations, such as that one waits until the drying process is complete before the material is mixed into the wood, but the above translation with its geographical consequences still seems the most likely. Note that the geographical consequences inferred from this fragment are only valid if one assumes with Trémouille that the festival is being performed in Lawazantiya. This is nowhere apparent from the fragment itself. 43  Literature at Savaş 2001: 98 fn. 17–25. 44  Casabonne 2002: 189; Text Dagron and Feissel 1987: 150 no. 94. 45  Casabonne (2002: 190) suggests the journey could be negotiated along the Ceyhan/Pyramos, which today runs 3km away from Kastabala, but 12km from Tatarlı.

286

Hawkins and Weeden

other sites in the area of Cilicia directly near the Amanus could be Kummani, as envisaged by Trémouille before the excavation of Tatarlı, but these solutions would leave Sirkeli, a large site with imperial Hittite remains, without a significant Hittite name.46 The Kizzuwatna ritual may also indicate that Kummani is not more than a day away from Adaniya, given that activities are performed in the night of the 21st day in Adaniya, and then on the 22nd day “up in (the city of) Kizzuwatna”.47 If Kummani were to be found over in the east of the plain nearer to Tatarlı Höyük, some 60km away from Adana, one would have to assume that different people were performing the rite on the 22nd day to those performing it on the 21st day. The textual evidence thus does not present an entirely coherent picture without reading extra data into it. The further names that are mentioned alongside the main staging points of the east-west highway in Kizzuwatna are located in various regions. Winuwanda, which was mentioned in the festival of the month for Teššub and Hebat, was convincingly identified by Trémouille on the basis of its occurrence in the ritual text cited above, as well as the similarity of the names, with classical Oeniandos/Epiphaneia, modern Gözenler, also in the eastern section of Cilicia, 19km southeast of Tatarlı.48 Sinuwanda occurs in the Annals of Arnuwanda I in a list of towns and a bridge that the king fortified: Zunnahara, Adaniya, Sinuwanda and a broken name beginning Hiya-.49 It is further mentioned in connection with Zunnahara in a historical fragment attributed either to Hattusili I or Mursili I, but the same paragraph also contains the names of various places that have little or no connection with Kizzuwatna: Hattusa, Purushanda, Arimatta.50 According to the Bronze Tablet and the duplicate passage of the Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, Sinuwanda was a

stage on the border with Tarhuntassa facing Mt Lula and the “Sphinx”-mountains.51 Given the possible identification of Lula with Byzantine Loulon, it may have lain on the other side of the Cilician Gates from Kizzuwatna.52 Arnuwanda would thus have been fortifying towns on both sides of the Gates, apparently proceeding from east to west and from south to north. Arusna occurs several times in combination with Adaniya, as if they formed a duality of some kind. A tiny fragment of a historical text in a late-looking script, possibly a copy of a text of Hattusili I, mentions (the city of) Ataniya, possibly in connection with gifts (?) of lapiscoloured garments, and then Arusna, which may be destroyed by the author, before Kummani is mentioned in an unclear context.53 Adaniya and Arusna are mentioned together as the possible destination of a journey in an oracle text.54 The likely identical town of Arussana is mentioned in a list of cults that would, according to Forlanini, be encountered on a journey from Ussa in the south Konya region through the Cilician Gates to Adaniya.55 On this basis he seeks a location of Arusna to the northwest of Adaniya in the valley of the Çakıt Su, a tributary of the Seyhan, at the classical site of Augusta. If we locate Kummani in eastern Cilicia, however, the order of appearance Ataniya, Arusna, Kummani in the Old Hittite annalistic fragment above would more strongly indicate a location between Adana and the Amanus, in which case Forlanini’s previous location of Arusna at Sirkeli Höyük should once again be given some consideration.56 Lists of cults may mention places according to a logic that is different to the order in which they are encountered, while annalistic texts are not quite as liable to such non-geographical principles of order, although they may be governed by other narrative principles. The evidence is very slim, however.

46  Trémouille 2001: 66. 47  KUB 30.31 iv 27–30 (Lebrun 1977: 93–153). 48  Trémouille 2001: 64 fn. 53. 49  KUB 23.21 - Annals of Arnuwanda I (CTH 143) obv. 4ʹ [URUzu -u]n-na-ha-ra-an (5) … [URU]⌈a⌉-da-ni-ia-an GIŠar-m[i-iz-zi …] (6) … [URUši-n]u-wa-an-da-an URUhi-ia-x?[…] (7) … ⌈ú⌉-e-tenu-un, Houwink ten Cate 1970: 58–59; for the discussion as to whether URUhi-ia-[…] is Hiyawa, a LBA form of the Neo-Assyrian place-name Que, see Carruba 2008: 66–67; Hajnal 2003: 40–42; id. 2011: 247f.; Gander 2010: 50f.; 2012: 4f.); Forlanini 2012b; id. 2013: 5 fn. 15. There is, as Forlanini points out, no trace of -w[a] on the photographs (cf. particularly BoFN 01110b) and the drawn traces on the copy resemble -r[a] or -m[a]. 50  KBo 3.54 mentions (ll. 16–17) URUzu-un-na-ha-ra-aš … [UR]Uši-nuwa-an-ta-aš in the same paragraph as (l. 11) URUha-at-tu-ša-aš (12) LÚ URUpu-ru-uš-ha-an-da (13) x-ha-ra-aš-ha-pa-aš URUtaaš-ša-x (14) -iš-ta-aš URUa-ri-ma-at-ta (15) … URUpa-ru-ki-it-ta-aš, Kempinski and Košak 1982: 87–116; de Martino 1992: 24–26;

id. 2003: 127–149; Trémouille 2001: 62; see also Forlanini, this volume. 51  BT i 43 (Otten 1988: 12). 52  Forlanini 1988: 133f. 53   KUB 48.81: (1) ša-aš URUa-ta-ni-[ia …] (2) nu-uš-ši TÚGHI.A ZA.GÌN (3) ša-aš URUa-ru-u-u[š-na …] (4) ša-an har-ni-in-k[uun …] (5) nu-za pa-ah-ša-nu-a[n(-) …] (6) URUku-um-ma-ann[i]š?, de Martino 2003: 150–151; Forlanini 2013: 19. 54  KUB 46.37 rev. 7: mentions the a-na-hi-ša URUa-ru-uš-na after (rev. 6) URUne-ri-qa pa-iz-zi pa-ra-a-ma URUtu-ma-an-na pa-izzi, which has no geographical connection with Arusna; (rev. 12) URUkum-man-ni (rev. 14) URUa-da-ni-ia URUa-ru-uš-na. Berman 1978: 121–123; Forlanini 1979: 169; Trémouille 2001: 62; Forlanini 2013: 19. 55  KUB 57.87 obv. i 1–13; Forlanini 2013: 16–17. 56  Forlanini 1979: 169; Trémouille 2001: 62 fn. 36.

287

Kizzuwatna and the Euphrates States: Philology

Mountains and rivers are frequently mentioned in the ritual texts associated with Kizzuwatna. The ritual of Palliya, king of Kizzuwatna/Kummani, presumably performed in Kummani, mentions rites of the purapsi-men on day two and sacrifices on day twelve to various manifestations of the storm-god and Hebat on Mt Kalzatapa.57 This may be identical with the Mt Kalzatapiyari mentioned in tablets six and ten of the Hišuwa festival.58 Two rivers are closely associated with Lawazantiya: the Alda and the Tarmana.59 Two passages from the Hišuwa festival have apparently identical lists of offerings to 40 mountains, and another 40 rivers.60 The vast majority of these cannot be identified. Some were clearly in northern Syria, others in Cilicia.61 This link to the north Syrian region on the other side of the Amanus appears to have been cultically important. It is possibly in this light that one should view the mention of the river Puruna/Purana in tablet 12 of the Hisuwa festival, which has been identified variously with the Pyramos (Ceyhan) and with the Afrin in Syria.62 The offerings to the Puruna in tablet 12 of the Hišuwa festival, might seem 57  KUB 7.20 obv. 16 // KBo 9.115(+) i 13; KBo 44.98+ ii 6 // KUB 45.76 obv. 14ʹ (Beckman 2013); Groddek 1999: 31. 58  Tablet 6: KBo 15.66 obv. iii 6ʹ (ms. D); Groddek 2010: 380; Forlanini 2013: 8 fn. 28. 59  KBo 17.102 rev. 18ʹ–19ʹ. Besides (the city of) Lawazantiya mention is also made of (the city of) Kizzuwatna (ibid. 21), poss­ibly meaning that Kummani/Kizzuwatna-city was also close to these two rivers. The name Tarmana should be related to Hurr. tarmani “spring”. 60  Groddek 2010; the Alda is not mentioned in the list of rivers, but is mentioned for a special round of sacrifices at a later stage in the same tenth tablet of the ritual (B iii 29 ÍDal-da ka-lu-utta, Groddek 2010: 366, “Der Opferrunde des Flusses Alda bricht [der] König ein Brotlaib”). 61  Nanni and Hazzi (A i 29) are certainly in Syria, being the Jebel Aqra/Mount Casius; Zallumara, if to be identified with the placename Zalwar should also be on the Amuq side of the Amanus, a Mt Zallurbi is mentioned in connection with Kizzuwatna and Mukiš in a Hurrian fragment from Kayalıpınar (Rieken 2009; Forlanini 2013: 11); Mt Zara is associated with the town Izziya (probably Issos—Kinethöyük in eastern Cilicia, Forlanini 2013: 13). Mt Manuzziya appears to be reaching into Cilicia directly after the Amanus (Trémouille 2001: 66). Mursili II sends a “substitute ox” to Kummani after being struck with a speech impediment by the storm-god of Manuzziya (CTH 486, 14–18, Goerke 2015). Any of the peaks east of Osmaniye leading into the passes would be good candidates for this mountain. Finally, Dunniyari is likely to be identical with the Mt Tunni visited by Shalmaneser III, as Muliyanta may be with Mt Muli, both to be connected with the Bolkar Dağları across the west of Cilicia. 62  12th tablet of Hišuwa cf. KUB 20.52+ iv 7; KBo 33.215+ obv. ii 5, ši-i-ia pu-ra-na; Tablet 10 ms. B ii 16, 18 Pu, or Pur to read Puruna (Dincol 1974: 40, Groddek 2010: 382). Puru/ana wrongly

more comprehensible if the Puruna crossed by Hattusili I (see below) was the Pyramus in Cilicia, but can also be understood if one remembers the trans-Amanian scope of these rituals, especially when Hassuwan wine may be involved in the key passage of Hišuwa Tablet 12 showing the itinerary through central Kizzuwatna, as we saw above. 4

The Eastern Frontiers and the Euphrates States

4.1 Population Movement in the Mittani Treaty The following passage concerning population movement occurs in the Mittani Treaty between Suppiluliuma I and Šattiwaza of Mittani and includes the these place-names: ÉRINMEŠ URUgur-ta-li-iš-ša ÉRINMEŠ URUa-ra-waan-na KUR URUza-az-ša KUR URUka-lam-aš-ma KUR URU tim-im-na HUR.SAG ha-li-wa HUR.SAGkar-na ÉRINMEŠ URUdur-mi-it-ta KUR URUal-ha KUR URUhur-ma HUR.SAGha-ra-na mi-iš-lu ša KUR URUte-ga-ra-ma ÉRINMEŠ URUte-bu-ur-zi-ia ÉRINMEŠ URUha-az-ga ù ÉRINMEŠ KUR URUar-ma-ta-na63 In this group of place names it seems preferable to understand ÉRINMEŠ as “people” rather than “troops”, the dual sense being implicit in its Akkadian reading.64 Whether there is a clear distinction here between ÉRINMEŠ and KUR is not certain, though it might refer to different types of population groups. In its context this passage describes how with the revolt of Išuwa in the reign of Tudhaliya II (III) these population groups, Hittite subjects, also revolted and “entered” (i.e. fled to?) the land of Išuwa; but when Suppilulimma reconquered Išuwa, he retrieved and resettled these Hittite subjects, and Hittites occupied their place (in Išuwa?). The interest in the passage resides in the very wide range of population movements which it describes:65 of the known, approximately locatable peoples, Arawanna and Kalasma belong to northwestern Anatolia, Durmitta, Alha and Hurma to the central area, Tegarama, Teburziya and Armatana to the eastern Euphrates frontier and conflated with Puratti (Euphrates) at del Monte and Tischler 1978: 543–544; Wilhelm 1992: 28–30 perhaps = Afrin. 63   C TH 51: KBo 1.1 obv. 10–16, 19–24; translation, Beckman 21999a: no. 6A. See also Alparslan, this volume. 64  Cf. Weeden 2011a: 218–220. 65  Specifically ll. 11–13, 20–22.

288 beyond. It may be that some of these peoples were more mobile than sedentary. Here it is specifically Tegarama and the lesser known Armatana with which we are concerned, the former particularly connected to Išuwa, the latter to Kizzuwatna. 4.2 Tegarama This toponym apparently a land as well as a city is attested in both Old Assyrian66 and Hittite sources.67 The relatively numerous Old Assyrian references do not permit a very precise location but place it generally in the Taurus mountains between the Euphrates crossings and the land of Kaneš.68 The Hittite sources though less numerous, point more clearly to a geographical location. Tegarama was closely connected with Išuwa, a land unusually well defined.69 Westward across the Euphrates was the plain of Malatya, dominated since early times by the site of ancient Malatya-Arslantepe.70 In the time of Tudhaliya II (also known as Tudhaliya III), Išuwa, conquered by Tudhaliya I71 and held by Arnuwanda I,72 revolted and many peoples and lands (ERINMEŠ ú KUR.KURMEŠ) escaped from Hatti into Išuwa, including “half the land of Tegarama” (miiš-lu ša KUR URUte-ga-ra-ma).73 Also in this reign in the “concentric invasions”:74 “from this direction the enemy Azzi came and ravaged all the upper [lands] and made Samuha the frontier. But the [enemy] Išuwa came and ravaged [the land] Tegarama. Also from this direction the enemy Armatana came and he too ravaged the Hatti-lands and the city Kizzuwatna [he made the frontier]”. Samuha the capital of the upper land is now firmly established at Kayalıpınar downstream from Sivas on the Kızılırmak,75 so it is clear that the Azzi enemy passed from Erzincan and the Upper Euphrates (Kara Su) through to Sivas,

66  Nashef 1991, s.v. Tegarama. 67  Del Monte and Tischler 1978, s.v. Takarama; del Monte 1992, s.v. Takarama. 68  Barjamovic 2011: 122–133; Barjamovic and Gander 2012 s.v. Tegaram(m)a. 69  Klengel 1976–80, s.v. Išuwa; Hawkins 1998a: 281–293; Alparslan, this volume. 70  Hawkins and Frangipane 1993, s.v. Melid, A, B. 71  Treaty of Tudhaliya I with Sunassura of Kizzuwatna CTH 41: KBo 1.5 i 8–24 (Schwemer 2001b); cf. Annals, CTH 142: KUB 23.11, 27–34. 72  Mita of Pahhuwa text, CTH 146: KUB 23.72 rev. 13, 36. 73  Above, fnn. 63, 65. 74  The hekur-Pirwa text of Hattusili III, CTH 88: KBo 6.28, obv. 11–12. 75  Tablet excavated at Kayalıpınar: Rieken 2014: 43–54.

Hawkins and Weeden

while the Išuwa invasion would have passed through to the south of this.76 Before his conquest of Karkamiš, Suppiluliuma had left his son Telipinu the Priest to deal with the outlying town of Murmurik, but the latter left a force there and returned to report to his father, finding him in the city Uda.77 In the absence of Telipinu the Hurrian enemy besieged the Hittite force at Murmurik. When word of this came to Suppliluliuma, he mobilized and marched to the land of Tegarama, where he reviewed the army in Talpa and sent ahead the crown prince Arnuwanda and Zida the Commander of the Guard. These defeated the enemy who apparently [fled] from below the city (Murmurik). A damaged two lines mention “[.…]s of the land Tegarama”, certainly not to be restored as “[he flees to the mount]ains of the land Tegarama” (where Suppiluliuma was).78 Suppiluliuma then goes down to Murmurik and not finding the Hurrian enemy commences the siege of Karkamiš. A similar reverse picture is given by Mursili II.79 In his 9th year he had been in Karkamiš organizing the succession of his late brother Šarri-Kušuh, then came up to the land of Tegarama where he was met by Nuwanza the Master of the Wine returning from a successful campaign against (Azzi) Hayasa. Nuwanza and the lords persuaded Mursili that it was too late in the season to proceed again against Azzi-Hayasa, so he conducted a more local campaign ending up in Hakpis, Hattusa and winter quarters in Ankuwa. He returned to his Azzi campaign in the following (10th) year, but the Azzians rather than face him retreated to their fortified cities. Mursili went against two of these, Aripsa and Dukkama, the former described as being “in the mi[dst of the s]ea (Š[À A.A]B.BA), a fortification

76  At this point we may note that there is no good reason to place Tegarama in the plain of Malatya as do Barjamovic (2011) and Barjamovic and Gander (see further below). 77   D S frag. 28: KBo 5.6 ii 9–46. Forlanini distinguishes two separate towns Uda, an eastern one in the plain south of Erciyes Dağı, and a western one identified with class. Hydē to the north of Ereğli (Konya) (Forlanini 1990: 109–127). Presumably the first is meant here, which would place Suppiluliuma close to the Tegarama route through the Taurus. 78  KBo 5.6 ii 37–39. Barjamovic (2011: 128) follows the restorations of Güterbock (1956: 93) and Hoffner (1997: 190). But the Hurrians defeated at Murmurik near Karkamiš are not likely to have fled towards Suppiluliuma in “[the mountains (uncertain restoration)] of Tegarama”. 79  KBo 4.4 iii 18–23 (Extensive Annals, Goetze 1933: 124–127).

Kizzuwatna and the Euphrates States: Philology

[holding on] to crags, very steep.”80 This clearly has a bearing on the location of Azzi-Hayasa (see further below). These references from the reigns of Tudhaliya II/III (hekur dPirwa), Suppiluliuma I (Mittani Treaty, DS) and Mursili II (AM) are sufficient to give an idea of the location of Tegarama. It lay west of Išuwa (Elazığ) and south of the line Azzi-Samuha (Erzincan-Sivas). It lay on a route HattiKarkamiš in the mountains: from it one went down to (DS), or came up from (AM) Karkamiš: i.e. on a southeast/ northwest pass through the Taurus. It offered a suitable mustering point for Hittite armies to and from Karkamiš, also from an Azzi campaign. The traditional identification with Gürün/Gauraina is based solely on a vague similarity of name.81 Though it does lie in a west-east Taurus pass, Kayseri-Malatya, it is in the narrow, constricted valley of the Tohma Su, and furthermore this route would hardly be leading to Karkamiš. Nor is there any good reason to place Tegarama in the plain of Malatya, which has clearly always been dominated by ancient Malatya itself at all periods. It is for these reasons that we would locate Tegarama in the beautiful and well-watered plain of Elbistan which fulfills much better the requirements for this location. A further support for this location of Tegarama is its identification with the land Til-garimmu82 of the NeoAssyrian sources, specifically inscriptions of Sargon and Sennacherib. Sargon’s expedition in 712 against the disloyal Tarhunazi “the Meliddean” (alias “the Kammanean”) distinguishes the royal city Melid from the land Kammanu.83 When Sargon seized Melid, Tarhunazi fled to Til-garimmu (i.e. a more remote part of his kingdom), but the city surrendered and was planted with Assyrian settlers. Later in 695 BC Sennacherib had to dispatch an expedition against it, describing it as “a city of the Tabal border”.84 Clearly it was a distinct part of the kingdom where again the plain of Elbistan offers a suitable location. The IZGIN stele from here records the colonization of the plain by a king of Malatya. The Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions from Elbistan, KARAHÖYÜK and IZGIN, should have provided information on the local toponyms, but largely fail to do so because of our inability to read them. In particular KARAHÖYÜK is largely concerned with the land written 80  KBo 4.4 iv 4–8 (Extensive Annals, Goetze 1933: 132–135). See also Alparslan, this volume. 81  First proposed by Forrer in 1920 and generally followed: Del Monte and Tischler 1978: 384. 82  Fales 2014c: 43–44, s.v. Til-Garimmu; Barjamovic 2011: 130f., but note that there is no “apparent discrepancy”, if the weak Gürün identification is discounted. 83  Annals, 10th palu, Fuchs 1994: 465. 84  Heidel 1953: 150f., v. 29–52.

289 POCULUM.PES.L.67 (REGIO) and its Storm-God which must surely designate (part of) Elbistan itself, but we have no idea how to read it, despite unlikely attempts to do so.85 The city-site Karahöyük itself probably had the same name as the land to judge from a pair of Malatya reliefs MALATYA 9, 10 showing the Storm-Gods of the city Malatya and of the city POCULUM receiving ­libations.86 KARAHÖYÜK also records (§16) the donation to the author of three cities of the land POCULUM. PES.L.67 (REGIO).87 Lukarma (lu/a/i-kar-ma (URBS)), Hant … pi(ya) (FRONS.L.282-pi-i(a) (URBS)) and Zu(wa) maka (Zu(wa)-ma-ka (URBS). The attempt to associate Lukarma with Tegarama should not arouse much enthusiasm, as it is based on a comparison of unknowns.88 IZGIN 1 is an inscription of a king of Malatya celebrating his colonization of Elbistan, including the building of a city (L.428-tà, site of Izgın?), and his settlement there of Malatyans and (people of) a river (written with, unidentified logogram, possibly the Euphrates).89 He mentions a further city written PITHOS.GRYLLUS (URBS) (reading unknown). IZGIN 2, a secondary inscription referring to the same (or similar) events, records incorporating the frontiers of the city […] L. 286, and of the city Hiliki, and refers again to the city PITHOS.GRYLLUS. The city Hiliki must surely in context be in Elbistan and could hardly be connected with Hilakku, Rough Cilicia. As noted, toponym information from these two local inscriptions is disappointingly meagre. 4.3 Kummaha and Commagene The problem with the Hittite city of Kummaha90 is its identification or otherwise with the classical land of Commagene and Iron Age Kummuh, attested almost exclusively in Neo-Assyrian91 and Urartian sources,92 from Assurnasirpal II to Sargon II (c. 870–708 BC) and as an Assyrian province (7th century BC). The Babylonian Chronicle reference to “the city Kimuhi on the bank of the Euphrates”, scene of fighting between Babylonian and Egyptian forces 607–606 BC, is likely to refer to its

85  Hawkins 2000: 288–291. See Alparslan this volume for Bossert’s interpretation. 86  Hawkins 2000: 310–312, MALATYA 9 and 10. 87  Hawkins 2000: 294. 88  Laroche 1950: 49; Hawkins 2000: 294. 89  Hawkins 2000: 314–318. 90  Del Monte and Tischler 1978 s.v. Kumaha; Del Monte 1992 s.v. Kumaha. 91  Bagg 2007. 92  Diakonoff and Kashkai 1981 s.v. Qumaha.

290

Hawkins and Weeden

chief city, later Samosata/Samsat.93 The country, well defined by the Euphrates to the east and south and a range of mountains (Engisek/Malatya Dağları) to the north and west, has produced Hier. Luw. inscriptions, mainly the work of a father-son dynasty Suppiluliuma and Hattusili, late 9th—early 8th centuries B.C. mainly from the two hill-top sacred sites of Boybeypınarı and Ancoz.94 The huge tell and lower town of Samsat now drowned by the Atatürk Barrage, yielded to rescue excavations before the inundation only insignificant fragments.95 None of these yielded a self-designating toponym. Only the relatively recently discovered (now lost again to inundation) rock inscription MALPINAR did preserve in a somewhat obscure context the toponym ku-ma-ha(URBS).96 The question which confronts us in the relationship between classical Commagene/Assyrian (KUR) URUKummuhu/Urartian KUR Qumaha, Hier. Luw. Kumaha(URBS), and the Hittite KUR URUKummaha; and secondarily, what was happening in the territory of later Commagene in the Middle-Late Bronze Age? Of the relatively few attestations of the city Kummaha in the Hittite texts, one is particularly suggestive of location, the others offering indications of varying degrees of vagueness. The clearest indication is found in the Deeds of Suppiluliuma97 where Mursili reports that his grandfather (Tudhaliya II/III) after fighting the Kaska, set out (from Hattusa?) against Hayasa. Accompanied by Suppiluliuma, Tudhaliya [ar]riv[ed] at ([a]-ar-[aš]) the land Ha[yasa] and encountered the Hayasa king in battle below the city Kummaha (text breaks off). Bearing in mind the line of Hayasan invasion up to Samuha in the same reign, we see good reason for placing this city Kummaha at Kemah (class. Camacha) on the upper Euphrates (Forrer followed by Garstang and Gurney),98 rather than in Commagene (Goetze)99 from which it is hard to envisage a campaign against Hayasa setting out. The city appears in the Mita of Pahhuwa text: Mita attacks cities of the land Kummaha; and when the Hittite king’s (Arnuwanda I) army was in the land Kummaha, [people] escaped and went into Pahhuwa.100 These references too favour Kemah.

The evocatio texts CTH 716 and CTH 483101 group it with Alziya, Papahhi and Hayasa, which puts it in the same area. Other references throw little light on the location, but none suggest a location in later KummuhCommagene. However, a curious variant in an inscription of Tukulti-Ninurta I may suggest just that. His inscriptions regularly include in passages of conquest summaries the lands of Alzi, Amadani, Nihani, Alaya, Tepurzi, Purulumzi, often bracketed by Mt Kašiyari and Šubari102 but in one case KUR alzi is replaced by KUR kummuhi.103 Alzi lay southeast of Išuwa in the area of Ergani and Cermik, extending probably up to the Euphrates.104 The substitution is most easily understood if Kummuh was at that date on the adjacent west bank of the Euphrates.105 Yet it is over three centuries, admittedly an undocumented period, before Kummuh reappears in the reign of Aššurnaṣirpal II firmly located in Commagene. What could be the connection between Hittite Kummaha of the LBA, plausibly located at Kemah and Kummuhi known to Tukulti- Ninurta I? Could Kummaha (people) have moved at the end of the LBA from the upper Euphrates down into Commagene? Or could there have been some link between the two areas to explain a double appearance of the toponym? Unfortunately Commagene is both a historical and archaeological blank for the LBA and EIA. No Hittite toponyms can be confidently located here; nor has archaeology produced any substantial picture in spite of the intensive survey and rescue operations occasioned by the building of the Samsat106 barrage and subsequent inundation of the area. While some answers might have been forthcoming from the region’s probable central site, the massive mound and lower town of Samsat itself, this is now beyond reach of investigation. Only one possible Hittite toponym could be considered for location in the direction of the territory of Commagene: Armatana, which came “thence” (edizma) to ravage Hatti and [make] Kizzuwatna [the frontier],107 thus presumably to be located between the Amanus range and the Euphrates, an area which could have been extended up into southwestern Commagene. The other attestations of Armatana however are not helpful. Its people were among the very diverse population groups

93  Grayson 1975 chron. 4, ll.13, 16; Hawkins 1980–83, s.v. Kummuh (§2). 94  Hawkins 2000: 334–340; 345–351, 356–360. 95  Özgüç 2009: 55–56. 96  Hawkins 2000: 340–344; Ehringhaus 2014: 101–105. 97   D S frag. 13, ll. 40–44. 98  Del Monte and Tischler 1978 s.v. Kumaha, 221. 99  Goetze 1940: 5 fn. 21. 100  KUB 23.72, obv. 31; rev.16.

101  KBo 2.9+, i 35; KUB 15.34 i 58. 102  A.0.78.2, 26–29; A.0.78.5, 25–29; A.0.78.60, 29–33; A.0.78.23, 35–37; A.0.78.24, 23–31. 103   A.0.78.9, 20; Nashef 1982, s.v. Kumuhi, 171f., but the land Kadmuhi is quite separate. 104  Hawkins 1998a: 285f. 105   pace Nashef 1982: 171f. 106  But cf. Summers 1993; id. 2013. 107  “Concentric invasion” text text: see above, fn. 74.

Kizzuwatna and the Euphrates States: Philology

which fled into Išuwa in the reign of Tudhaliya II and were retrieved by Suppiluluma I and resettled (see above). But since these groups stretch from west (Arawanna, Kalasma) to east (Hurma, Tegarama, Tepurziya and perhaps furthest southeast, Armatana), this is not a very clear indication. Otherwise the country appears in the Deeds of Suppiluliuma in entirely fragmentary and uninformative contexts.108 4.4 Ismirikka Another document relating to this area is the treaty of Armuwanda I with the men of Ismirikka.109 This land otherwise unattested apart from two uninformative fragments is attached by internal reference of the document closely to Kizzuwatna and also more problematically to Mittani. An Early Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian reference to a Storm God of S(a)marika has been taken as a late reappearance of the toponym110 and the frequently proposed identification with the Turkish town of Siverek (Armenian Sevavorak)111 would place it in an intelligible position along the east bank of the Euphrates, south of Alše, northeast of Karkamis, northwest of Mittani, where Arnuwanda I, with his relations with Pahhuwa, may well have had an interest. The sole exemplar, the middle part of a one column (obv. and rev.) tablet with some 56 tolerably preserved lines, contains usual clauses concerning fugitives, reports of treason, and against revolt, provision of fighting men and protection of the royal family.112 Towards the end, three sections relate apparently as understood to the settlement of named Ismirikkans in Kizzuwatna.113 Of the ten preserved personal names, seven may be analysed as being Luwian, and three probably as Hurrian. The first line of the first of these sections might be taken as exemplifying the transaction: Elhate, man of Ismirikka, [in the land] Kizzuwatna afterwards Zazlippa (is) his city, but he was in Wassukkana.114 That is the Ismirikkan is to be settled in Kizzuwatna, having been a resident of Wassakkana, the well known capital 108  Del Monte 2009: 192. 109  C TH 133: KUB 36.41 (+) KUB 23.68 + ABoT 1.58; edition Kempinski and Košak 1970: 191–217; translation, Beckman 21999a: no 1A; also Ünal 1976–80, s.v. Išmirika. 110  Hawkins 2000: 87–91: KARKAMIŠ A1a, §§3, 37; Melchert 1988: 37; Hawkins 2004: 364. 111  Goetze 1940: 44–48, esp. 48 with fn. 186. 112  obv. ll. 13ʹ–28ʹ, rev. ll. 1–10. 113  (§1) rev. ll. 13–16; (§2) ll. 17–21; (§3) ll. 22–24. 114  rev. ll. 11–12.

291 of Mittani, plausibly but still hypothetically identified with the site Tell Fekheriye115 near Ras el Ain. The second section approximately agrees with this interpretation: small groups (4, 2, 1, 2 persons) of Ismirikkans “in the land Kizzuwatna GN is their city” (in two of the four cases their city of origin is specified). In the third section, less well preserved, non-Ismirikkans are similarly given settlement in Kizzuwatna. The problem of understanding arises with the last four Ismirikkans of the first section (after Elhate): each ends “in (the land) Kizzuwatna Wassukkana (is) his city” (fourth: “but he is in Kizzuwatna, Wassu[kkana …”). Before that the last three have: “Ziyaziya (is) his city”. How can this possibly be understood, in what possible sense can Wassukkana be said to be in Kizzuwatna? It is surely unthinkable that Kizzuwatna ever, under any circumstances, extended east of the Amanus mountains over 300km to Tell Fekheriye, or anywhere in that region. Could there be a new, second Wassukkana founded actually in Kizzuwatna under Mittanian domination? This might seem the least implausible understanding of the text as we have it. It might leave us with Arnuwanda settling Ismirikkans and others from Mittanian territory east of the Euphrates in Kizzuwatna, unless all cases of Wassukkana in the text in fact refer to this putative new foundation in Kizzuwatna. 4.5 Atalur116 In the context of the eastern boundary of Kizzuwatna one further toponym must be considered, Mount Atalur, since Forlanini places it as part of the north Amanus range, where a pass from the east crosses the range at the Bahçe or Nur Dağ pass.117 However it has been plausibly argued that it is to be placed substantially further east than the Amanus. The evidence for Mount Atalur comes almost exclusively from two very different sources: (1) the bilingual annals of Hattusili I (late 17th century BC);118 (2) annals of Shalmaneser III (mid-9th century BC).119 Hattusili’s account of his 17th century campaign is relatively straightforward (Hitt. ii 11–23; Akk. obv. 31–36): he attacked and destroyed Zaruna, and proceeded against Hassu(wa) where he faced the people supported by the army of Halab and defeated them on mount Atalur (Akk. only). He 115  Bonatz 2014: 72. 116  Del Monte and Tischler 1978, s.v. Atalura; Bagg 2007, s.v. Atalura. 117  Forlanini 2013: 9–13. 118  KBo 10.1, obv. 33 (Akk. only; Hitt. omits mountain name). 119  Kurkh Monolith, Grayson 1996: 17, A.0.102.2 ii 10; Nimrud Slab ibid. 25, A.0.102.3, 91.

292 then crossed the river Puruna/Puran and conquered and sacked Hassu(wa). The geographical sequence ZarunaAtalur-Puruna-Hassu(wa) is clear. Shalmaneser’s visit to Mount Atalur occurred on his first campaign, 858 BC, of which an extended account is given on the “Kurkh Monolith” (i 51-ii 13). However a more recently discovered slab (found 1986) has a text largely duplicating that of the Kurkh Monolith but ending at the end of the first campaign (Nimrud Slab), and its last 15 lines contain a significantly different version from the monolith.120 This passage is considerably clearer and topographically easier to understand, and being earlier than that of the Monolith, may be regarded as more reliable, showing as it does that the latter text has already been subject of some garbling. According to Kurkh Monolith, having fought a battle at Lutibu of Sam’al (Sakça Gözü)121 he passed along the Amanus range, crossed the Orontes river and attacked Alimus (or Aliṣir), a strong city of the Patinean King, apparently by-passing the capital city Kunulua (Tell Tayinat).122 He defeated an opposition coalition, then (following the text of Nimrud Slab), went from Alimus down to the sea, clearly at the mouth of the Orontes, washed his weapons and set up an inscribed statue of himself. Then “on my return from the sea, I went up Mount Amanus and cut beams of cedar and juniper; I went up Mount Atalur, I came where the statue of Anumhirbi was erected, I set up my statue with his statue; the cities Taya and Hazazu, great cult centres of the Patinean I conquered …”. Again the geographical sequence is clear: the Sea-Mt Amanus- Mt Atalur -(Taya)-Hazazu (modern Aʿzaz).123 The most probable interpretation is that Atalur is not part of Amanus range (as has been argued), but a separate mountain between the Amanus and Hazazu / Aʿzaz.124 As it happens, there is just such a mountainrange, the Kurt Dağ, the southern extension of the Kartal Dağı, with peaks ranging from 800–1100m, lying to the west of Aʿzaz, on the east side of the rift valley.125 Further supporting the connection with Anumhirbi is the fact that 120  A.0.102.2, ii 5–13 // A.0.102.3, ll. 85–99, Grayson loc. cit. 121  Bagg 2007, s.v. Lutibu. 122  Identification recently confirmed: excavation at Tell Tayinat, building XVI of a loyalty oath tablet (adê) to Esarhaddon sworn by the bēl pāhiti of KUR Kinaliya (Lauinger 2012: 90f.). 123  Hawkins 1972–5: 240, s.v Hazazu. 124  Hawkins 1995b: 95. 125  The Kartal Dağı, so marked on most maps, is the range between Islahiye and Gaziantep; the Kurt Dağ, less often marked, is the southern extension of the Kartal Dağ between Kırıkhan and the Afrin valley and town of Afrin. Cf. Miller (2001: 90–93), who incorrectly names the Kartal-Kurt range as the Kara Dağ

Hawkins and Weeden

Tilmenhöyük, plausibly identified with Zalbar/Zaruar,126 one of his capitals, lies only some 50km to the north, at the western foot of the Kartal Dağ range. How does the placing of Atalur on the Kartal-Kurt range fit with the campaign of Hattusili I against Hassu with the sequence Zaruna—Mt Atalur—Puruna crossing— Hassu? In fact it fits well but must depend on the identification of the Puruna/Puran river.127 The first point Zaruna is hardly attested elsewhere: in fragmentary form on a land donation128 and also as a town of Hatti attacked by Idrimi.129 The first may show a connection but not necessarily geographical proximity between the É URUzarun[…] and [URUluhuz]zandiya; the second that Zaruna lay in Hatti, thus north up the rift valley, east of the Amanus, not west of the Amanus in Kizzuwatna, ruled at that time by an independent king.130 In advancing this argument one comes up against Forlanini.131 His proposal to identify Hassu with Mamma, in the neighbourhood of Maraş requires him to place Zaruna, Atalur and the Puruna in Cilicia. Thus for him the Puruna is the Pyramos-Ceyhan river;132 Atalur one of the Amanus peaks marking a pass (Bahçe or Nur Dağı), with Zaruna to its west in eastern Cilicia. On this topography it is actually hard to see how Hattusili could have passed from Zaruna and Atalur across the Puruna-Ceyhan (north of Gaziantep). He also fails to observe the significance of Shalmaneser’s passing directly from Mt Atalur to Hazazu. 126  Miller, ibid. 74–77. 127   Del Monte and Tischler 1978 s.v. (Gewässernamen) Puratti (incorrectly listed there); error corrected Del Monte 1992, s.v. (Gewässernamen) Puruna; Wilhelm 2006–08, s.v. Puruna. 128  L SU 6, 3–4 (Güterbock 1940: 79; Rüster and Wilhelm 2012: 116–117). Forlanini (2013: 10) reads URUza-ru-u[n-ti] following Riemschneider 1958. Forlanini compares the expression with the “House of Hattusa in Sarissa”, found on another Land Donation tablet (Forlanini 2013: 10; LSU 3 obv. 29; Rüster and Wilhelm 2012: 92–93). Particularly this example does not have to indicate that the two were close, given that there are some 210km between Boğazkale (Hattusa) and Kuşaklı (Sarissa) as the crow flies, merely that the two places had a special relationship. Furthermore, the [URUluhuz]zandiya in LSU 6 does not have to be the place of that name in Cilicia, it could also be the one in Elbistan, which is difficult to rule out (see below). 129  Statue of Idrimi, l. 68, uruza-ru-naki (Dietrich and Loretz 1981: 201–268). 130  See also von Dassow (2008: 37–38 with fnn. 88–91) for the thesis that Idrimi invaded Kizzuwatna west of the Amanus and that AlT 3 is the document signalling the end of that dispute as settled by the Mittanian king Barattarna. 131  Argument first advanced in Forlanini 1979, reiterated in 2001: 555f.; also 2013: 9–13. 132  Following Cornelius, Laroche and Astour (for refs. see Wilhelm 2006–08: 119).

Kizzuwatna and the Euphrates States: Philology

293

Despite the tendency in modern scholarship to move the main cities of Kizzuwatna down from Cataonia/ Cappadocia and Elbistan into Cilicia, there remain a number of factors and particular texts which are difficult to interpret without having at least a northern La(hu)wazantiya, probably even northern reaches of Kizzuwatna on the Anatolian plateau. Most importantly, the town of Luhuzattiya, which is assumed to be the same name, forms an important part of the Assyrian trading network in the Middle Bronze Age, being an area that one reached after crossing the Euphrates at Hahhum.137 The most likely location for this crossing point will have been Samsathöyük.138 The placement of Luhuzattiya in or north of the plain of Elbistan seems very likely, and may have left a trace in the classical place-name Lycandos. It is possible of course that the name moved down into the plain of Cilicia, with which Elbistan is linked by the

Ceyhan river, along at least part of which a Roman road also led from Elbistan, but there are a number of indications that a northern La(hu)wazantiya continued to exist and that the area of Kizzuwatna itself may have reached this far inland from the coast in Cilicia. One of these is a text from Maşathöyük which seems to indicate that Lahuwazantiya was associated with this area north of the Taurus.139 Another is the correspondence mentioned at the beginning of this chapter between the “Priest” in Kizzuwatna and the official Kassu in Maşathöyük (ancient Tapikka) in central Anatolia concerning the fate of 20 persons who are in the region of a place called Zikkasta, near Maşat, apparently on loan from Kizzuwatna.140 Both officials complain about misuse of personnel and protest that each of their domains constitutes a “primary watchpost” (hantezzis auris), i.e. a defensive position on a border. It is theoretically possible that an exchange of personnel has been effected (and abused) between the geographically distant areas of the Adana plain and the central Anatolian plateau. It may however be more prudent to assign the Kizzuwatna side of this exchange to a more northerly region than classical Cilicia, namely somewhere in the region of classical Comana. During the troubled times of the early 14th century during which the Maşat letters were written, this may well have been a temporary border position. The region of classical Comana, the modern plain around Tufanbeyli, is separated from Elbistan by the Binboğa Dağları and from the Kayseri-region by the Tahtalı mountains, through which the Gezbel pass leads. On this pass-route is found the rock inscription of Hanyeri, and further Hittite landscape monuments with hieroglyphic inscriptions can be found along the short stretch of the Zamantı Su leading to the west in the shadow of Erciyes Dağı: Imamkulu, Taşcı and Fraktin. The Fraktin monument contains images of Hattusili III and Puduhepa making offerings to Tarhunza and Hebat respectively, while Puduhepa is described as “daughter of kà-zuwa-na beloved by (the) god(s)”.141 This reference to Puduhepa’s Kizzuwatnian origin on a monument to the west of Comana, on the other side of a major pass through the mountains, can be interpreted as an indication that the limits of Kizzuwatna lie in this region, although this is not a necessary conclusion.

133  See also Wilhelm 1992: 28–30; Archi 2008: 98. 134  Archi 2008:100; 2013: 221. 135  Ünal 2015: 27–32. 136  Miller 2001b: 65–101. 137  Forlanini 2004a; Barjamovic 2011: 133–143. 138  Barjamovic 2011: 87–107.

139  [URUla-h]u-u-wa-za-an-ti-ya HKM 96 rev. 20ʹ (Alp 1991: 300). See Alparslan this volume. 140  HKM 74 (Alp 1992: 262; Hoffner 2009: 235). Possibly related to the same affair is KBo 18.69, see Marizza 2009: 185–187. 141  Ehringhaus 2005: 59–65.

to attack Hassuwa in the area of Maraş. Nor are his arguments for placing Atalur in the Amanus range strong, being based on the unclear and garbled account of the Kurkh Monolith rather than the clearer Nimrud Slab (A.0.102.3); and his placing of Zaruna is supported solely by the attachment to Atalur. If as argued above Zaruna is unlikely to be west of the Amanus in Cilicia, and Atalur is on the Kartal-Kurt Dağı range, what about the Puruna river? Its placing in Cilicia and identification with the Pyramos-Ceyhan is not strong either, especially as a very plausible alternative identification is available, namely the river Afrin.133 Indeed this placing of the Hattusili sequence rift valley—(Zaruna)— Kurt Dag—Afrin crossing (= Puruna) is much more topographically intelligible than that of Forlanini. The combined troops of Hassu and Halab would have opposed Hattusili on the Kurt Dağ, and after his victory he would have crossed the Afrin and sacked Hassu. Its identification with a large MBA—LBA site east of the Afrin has been variously proposed: Til Beshar134 or Oylum.135 This whole topic has been the subject of a very detailed examination by Miller.136 Suffice it to say that his conclusions generally agree with those presented here. 5

Kizzuwatna in the North?

294

Hawkins and Weeden

Direct links between the Elbistan-Tufanbeyli region and that of Plain Cilicia during the Hittite period might be evidenced in the places of origin of one of the scribes of the ritual of Palliya of Kizzuwatna, who is described as the asusatalla-man of Hurma. This Hurma is presumably identical with the Hurma known from Old Hittite texts as well as the Hurama of Old Assyrian documents. This has also been located in the Elbistan area, including at Karahöyük Elbistan. The Tufanbeyli region is also linked with Plain Cilicia along the Seyhan river. A key element of the Kizzuwatna border referred to in the Sunassura Treaty

Figure 21.1

was the Samri (= Seyhan). We have been given cause to believe that this may have been only partially identical with the Seyhan in Hittite eyes, its tributary the Zamantı Su possibly also being a good candidate for a Kizzuwatnian border-marker, which leads us up to the Gezbel pass once again. If Kizzuwatna is this much larger area, bordering the Euphrates States and giving access to Syria from at least two directions, its importance for Hittite history is far more considerable than if it were restricted to the area of Classical Cilicia, although this is doubtless where its centre must have lain, at least during the Empire period.

Map showing proposed locations in Kizzuwatna and the Euphrates States. The dark circles and triangles with names in italics indicate where the authors think there is a higher probability of an ancient localisation being correct than in the cases of the white circles and triangles.

CHAPTER 22

The Historical Geography of Hittite Syria: Philology Yoram Cohen Introduction

Historical Overview and Chronological Framework

During the Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age, the land of Syria witnessed the continuous intervention of the great powers in its mosaic of kingdoms and ancient city-states. The Amorite kingdoms of Syria directly felt the growing power of the early Hittite state. The Hittite kings Ḫattušili I and Muršili I (mid 17th century to the beginning of the 16th century according to the conventional middle chronology adopted throughout this chapter) entered Syria and inflicted some heavy defeats upon its major cities, some of which hardly recovered from the onslaught. With the withdrawal of the Hittites from Syria, Egypt and the Hurrian kingdom, Mittani, vied for influence over in the region. However, following a series of campaigns conducted by the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma and his military governors (in two campaigns: the first ‘Oneyear’ Syrian war and the second ‘Six-year’ Syrian war; c. the second half of the 14th century BCE), Syria underwent a transformation.1 Mittani disappeared (and was reformed as the vassal state of Ḫanigalbat) and Egyptian presence and influence were diminished. The Hittite conquest reconfigured political structures and redrew territorial borders of several kingdoms and city-states. On the political level, this was achieved by a series of treaties issued to local dynasts or governing civil bodies; on the administrative level, Hittite governors holding key-posts (at Karkamiš, Ḫalab, and Alalaḫ) and exercising their power through officials stationed at vassal kingdoms or provincial centers (e.g., Ugarit and Emar), assured that Hittite rule was maintained. *  The author wishes to thank the following for their kind assistance and invaluable advice: Hai Ashkenazi, Lorenzo d’Alfonso, Elena Devecchi, Yaad Etgar, Amir Fink, Graciella Gestoso-Singer, Amir Gilan, Joost Hazenbos, Gianni Marchesi, Nicolò Marchetti and Alan Millard. 1  There is still a debate regarding the chronology, order, and scope of Šuppiluliuma’s campaigns in Syria; Cordani 2011; Cordani 2013; Devecchi 2013; Gromova 2007; Gromova 2012; Stavi 2015; Wilhelm 2012b; Wilhelm 2015.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_023

Egyptian interest in the area never disappeared and a full-blown confrontation between Egyptian and Hittite forces broke out at Qadeš (1275 BCE). Hostilities came to an end some fifteen years later with the signing of a peace treaty between Ḫattušili III and Ramesses II. This stabilized the political and economic conditions in Syria for a period of some fifty years. The final years of the 13th century and the first decades of the 12th century witnessed the collapse of the urban system in Syria. The end of Hittite rule over Syria was perhaps the result of a climate change that led to severe drought followed by attacks of hostile forces, such as Sea-peoples and proto-Aramean tribes. Although some regions and cities fared better than others, Syria entered into a serious although not total decline until the Iron Age.

The Geo-Political Regions of Hittite Syria

This chapter deals with the period of Hittite intervention in and eventual rule of Syria from the times of Ḫattušili I to the fall of the empire according to eight sections, each concerned with a specific geo-political region. 1.

The Upper Euphrates Region: the geographical range of this region runs from the area of Maraş (mod. Kahramanmaraş) and the Islahiye valley (the Karasu or Aswad river), through the Gaziantep plain (the Aintab plateau) to the Euphrates river valley (from Samsat down to Karkamiš). 2. Alalaḫ and the Amuq: this region consists of the lower Orontes Valley or the Amuq, framed by the Amanus range in the west and by the Kurd Dagh (Kürt Daǧı) and Havar Dagh mountains in the east. Control of the Amuq valley gives exit to the Mediterranean and a passageway to inner Syria. The region’s most important city was Alalaḫ. 3. Ḫalab: a key city at the northwest of the Aleppo plateau, which, once held, assured a relatively easy passage way from Anatolia and the Syrian coastal regions to the banks of the Euphrates. 4. Karkamiš: this city on the western bank of the Euphrates was a strategic base in Syria. It became in effect the capital of Hittite Syria.

296

Cohen

5.

The Coastal Area: the Jebleh plain included the kingdom of Ugarit and its smaller and sometimes dependent state, Siyannu. Ugarit was the Hittite port of trade with the Mediterranean, Canaan and Egypt. 6. Amurru on the Akkar plain: this political entity formed the southern border of the Hittite empire, and curbed Egyptian expansionism and influence in Syria. 7. The Orontes Valley City-states: this area encompassed the Lands of Nuḫašše and Niya in the environs of the Hama to Homs region. Additional centers include Qaṭna, Qadeš and Tunip. 8. The Middle Euphrates river valley: this region constituted the main artery for armies and merchants alike into Mesopotamia. Two main political entities in this area can be recognized: the Land of Aštata and the city of Emar.

Sources for the Study of the Historical Geography of Hittite Syria

During the Old Kingdom, almost all of our sources consist of historical and historiographical compositions, such as the Annals of Ḫattušili or the Edict of Telipinu. Most of these sources, rather limited and often fragmentary, were recovered from the Ḫattuša archives. After the conquest of Syria, many more sources become available. Of great importance are the official documents: historical compositions (such as the Deeds of Šuppiluliuma and the Annals of Muršili II), as well as the state treaties concluded with the newly formed vassal states. These sources mostly come from the Ḫattuša archives. They are supplemented by edicts and decrees issued by either the royal house at Ḫattuša or the viceroy at Karkamiš; most were recovered at Ugarit. Complementing the official sources is documentary evidence, namely, letters and royal correspondence, economic transactions, and seals. These sources come from the Ḫattuša archives, and also Ugarit, Emar and some other Syrian sites. There are additional important sources that are not Hittite or products of Hittite rule in Syria. Some come earlier than the period of our interest: sources from third-millennium Ebla, Old Babylonian Mari, and the Old Assyrian economic documents from Karum-Kaneš (Kültepe). Other are contemporary or near-contemporary and include sporadic Egyptian and Hurrian or Hurrian-related texts, the Amarna correspondence, Middle Assyrian letters and royal inscriptions, and documents from Syrian sites.

1 The Upper Euphrates Valley (see fig. 22.1, 22.2) Like travelers from Anatolia before and after his time, Ḫattušili I entered Syria either by a northern passage way through the Anti-Taurus range, via Elbistan either to the Gaziantep plateau or via Pınarbaşı, Göksun and Maraş into the İslahiye valley.2 Or, less likely, he may have entered by a southern passage, via the Cilician gates and into the plain of Adana, and from there, through the Amanus range in one of its passes, into the south of the Gaziantep plateau and the Aleppo plateau.3 At whichever entry point Ḫattušili ventured into Syria, once exiting the mountain passes into the plains and heading towards the Euphrates, he faced old and well-established principalities. Most of these places he managed to destroy in a series of campaigns: they are tersely documented in the king’s Annals, in fact, the chief source for the historical geography of this area during the Middle–Late Bronze Age.4 The main Syrian cities which Ḫattušili I contended with, in sequence of their appearance in his Annals, were as follows:5 Zalpa (or as in the Akkadian version Zalpar) in year 1, Alalḫa/Alḫa (or Alḫalḫa; i.e. Alalaḫ; see §2), Waršuwa (or Uršu), Ikakali (or Igakališ), and Tašḫiniya (or Tišḫiniya) in year 2, Alaḫḫa in year 4, Zaruna (or Zarunti), Ḫaššuwa (or Ḫaššu), Zippasna, and finally Ḫaḫḫa (or Ḫaḫḫu) in year 5, which Ḫattušili I conquered with the aid of Tunip-Teššub, the king of Tigunanu (in the upper Tigris region).6 One of the most difficult identifications of the Upper Euphrates area concerns the first city mentioned in the Annals: Zalpa (or Zalpar in the Akkadian version). There are several toponyms with identical or very similar names recorded in a number of data-sets: Old Assyrian, Mari, and Hittite sources. What can be established with some certainty is the locality of two similarly named cities. One was Zalpa(ḫ) on the Baliḫ river near Tuttul (Tell Bia) and the other was Zalpa or Zalpuwa on the shores of the Black Sea.7 It has been argued that the Zalpa of the Annals is

2  Barjamovic 2011: 215. 3  Ünal 2014b: 477–78. 4  The Annals of Ḫattušili (CTH 4 = de Martino 2003; Devecchi 2005); Beckman 2006; Melchert 1978. 5  Klengel 1999: 45–54; Klengel 1992a: 80–83; Bryce 1998: 75–89. 6  De Martino 2002: 84–85; the Tigunanu Letter (= Salvini 1994; Durand and Charpin 2006; Hoffner 2009: 75–80); Miller 2001a: 411. 7  Zalpa or Zalpuwa on the shores of the Black Sea notably features in the Proclamation of Anitta (CTH 1 = Neu 1974; Hoffner 2003: 182– 84) and the Tale of Zalpa (CTH 3 = Otten 1973; Hoffner 1998: 81–82; Gilan 2015: 179–89).

HITTITE SYRIA: PHILOLOGY

neither of these two,8 but another site located in the Amanus region, perhaps at Tilmenhöyük in the Islahiye valley, south of Samal/Zincirli.9 And yet, there now appears another city named in Old Assyrian sources as Zalpa, and in Mari sources as Zalbar, Zalwar, or Zalba. It is clearly to be located not too far from Ḫaḫḫu, on the same bank of the Euphrates, but north of Uršu and Karkamiš.10 It stands to reason that this city on the Euphrates is the Zalpar (wr. Za-al-pa-ar; Durand and Charpin 2006, l. 24) mentioned by Ḫattušili in the letter sent to his potential ally, Tunip-Teššub of the Upper Tigris kingdom of Tigunanu. Hence, this could be the very city the Hittite king later destroyed. Assuming that a Zalpa(r) at Tilmenhöyük is the city of the Annals, would require us to differentiate it from the Zalpa(r) mentioned in Ḫattušili I’s letter to Tunip-Teššub of Tigunanu. Note that the distance between Tilmenhöyük and Ḫaḫḫu in the Upper Euphrates region, around Samsat, is over 170km as the crow flies. Therefore, if Zalpa(r) of the Annals is to be located at Tilmenhöyük, it is certainly too far from the theatre of operations in the Upper Euphrates area, where Ḫattušili I pressed Tunip-Teššub to join forces with him. On the other hand, accepting that the Zalpa(r) of the Annals is indeed 8  Some maintain that the Zalpa of the Annals was the city on the shores of the Black Sea; e.g. Bryce 1998: 84; Freu and Mazoyer 2007a: 80. 9  Miller 2001a with previous literature; Forlanini in Forlanini and Marazzi 1986, fig. 16. Anum-Ḫirbi (or Aniš-Ḫurwi in Mari sources) was known as king of Zalwar (i.e. Zalpa(r) in our discussion), as well as of Mamma and of Ḫaššu(m); see CTH 2.2 (Helck 1983; see Miller 2001b: 97–99) and the Letter of Anum-Ḫirbi (CTH 833 = Balkan 1957; Michel 2001: 125–26; Hecker 2006b: 80–81). The main reason for locating Zalpa(r) at Tilmenhöyük rests with the tentative drawing of the southern borders of Anum-Ḫirbi’s kingdom around that area. The Assyrian king Šalmaneser III relates how he crossed the Orontes river and upon reaching Mount Adalur, he saw a stele of Anum-Ḫirbi; see Yamada 2000: 80, 83 and 103ff. Because in the same campaign the Assyrian king mentions the river Saluara at the Amanus, it has been suggested that the river’s name echoes the name Zalpa(r)/Zalwar; Astour 1997: 4, 12–13. The river Saluara was identified with the Karasu (or the Aswad), which flows through the Islahiye valley; Yamada 2000: 95. At Tilmenhöyük, a few Middle Bronze Age impressions of cylinder seals have been found. At the nearby southerly site of Taşli Geçithöyük, a few Late Bronze Age Hittite-style seals (one apparently inscribed with Anatolian Hieroglyphs) have been unearthed. For excavations at both sites, see Marchetti 2011 (with previous literature). 10  Barjamovic 2011: 107–122, esp. 113; Charpin apud Durand and Charpin 2006; Charpin 2008. The two crucial Mari letters for locating a Zalpa(r) on the Euphrates are FM 2 8 (= Maul 1994) and A. 1215 (= Charpin and Durand 2004).

297 located at Tilmenhöyük may help explain how Ḫattušili I, after conquering the city, advanced on a more accessible route to Alalaḫ, less than 100km away, when his progress in the Annals is read chronologically. It seems for now that the problem of the location of the city or cities of Zalpa(r) will continue to engage scholars for some time to come. The location of Waršuwa (Uršu) is not known, but it must have been a city situated upstream from Karkamiš, either on the route between Birecik and Gaziantep, or, if on the Euphrates, at a place where river could be crossed, perhaps at Belkis (class. Zeugma).11 The city features in the Siege of Uršu (a composition associated with Ḫattušili I).12 Zaruwar, Karkamiš and Ḫalab, as well as the Hurrians, come to aid Uršu which is under siege.13 Two cities in the vicinity of Waršuwa are Tašḫiniya, and Ikakali (or Igakališ). The location of Tašḫiniya remains unclear.14 Ikakali can be identified with the Igingalliš mentioned in the Hurrian–Hittite bilingual Song of Release, but its location remains unknown.15 Prior to the capture of Ḫaššu, Ḫattušili I made battle at the city of Zaruna and Mount Adalur, where he met the forces of Ḫaššu and Halab. He then crossed the Puran river in order to reach Ḫaššu. Astour (1997) and Forlanini (2004a) chose to identify Mount Adalur with the Amanus range,16 and the Puran river with the Ceyhan.17 Consequently, they placed Zaruna somewhere in the plain of Adana. Astour then located Ḫaššu at Tilmenhöyük; and Forlanini placed it at Maraş. Miller (1999; 2001), however, located Mount Adalur at the Southern Kurd Dagh (Kürt

11  Archi 2014a: 164, fn. 19; cf. Miller 1999b: 66. For Uršu in the 3rd millennium, Archi 2008; for the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian sources, Barjamovic 2011: 195–203; Klengel 1992a: 74–76. 12  The Siege of Uršu (CTH 7 = Beckman 1995); Klengel 1999: 47–49. 13  Za!-ru-a-ar (or Aruar, KBo 1.11 rev.! 25ʹ) perhaps stands for Zalwar/Zalpa(r)/Zalbar; Klengel 1999: 48–49, 53; Bryce 2009: 788–89; de Martino 2014: 117–19. 14  Bryce 2009: 693. The city is mentioned in the Hittite Law Code, §§54–55 (CTH 291 = Hoffner 1997: 65–66); Collins 1987; Astour 1997: 5–6; Barjamovic 2011: 164–69. 15  The Song of Release (CTH 789 = Hoffner 1998: 65–80); Wilhelm 2008: 192–93; von Dassow 2013: 129; Bryce 2009: 329. Additional discussion in Astour 2002; Freu and Mazoyer 2007a: 83. 16  In the Annals, a deified Mount Adalur (a statue?) is taken as booty from Ḫaššu; see §2, sub Ammarik. The fragment KBo 15.44 (see fn. 145), whose surviving lines delineate the borders of Hittite Syria, mentions the toponym; Astour 1997: 4; Miller 2001b: 85; Singer 2014a: 69. 17  RGTC 6/2: 208–9; Gurney 1992: 216–17; Ünal 2014: 483.

298 Dağ) mountains,18 and identified the Puran river with the Afrin. He located Zaruna west of Azaz, somewhere on the west bank of the Afrin river.19 Miller then placed Ḫaššu around Gaziantep.20 Further research is required to reach a definite solution regarding the location of the toponyms discussed here. For now it can be observed that these cities, notably Ḫaššu, lost their prominence after the Old Kingdom period.21 The last of Ḫattušili I’s conquests was Ḫaḫḫa, an important commercial hub.22 The main candidates for the location of Ḫaḫḫa are either ancient Samsat, on the river’s western bank, or Lidar Höyük, just opposite on the eastern bank.23 Among the cities mentioned in the Annals were two key power-centers in Syria, Alalaḫ and Ḫalab. Ḫattušili I succeeded in conquering and probably destroying Alalaḫ. However, it was left to Muršili I to conquer Ḫalab and to reach Babylon. 2 Alalaḫ and the Amuq Valley (see fig. 22.2) Entry to the Amuq valley (the plain of Antioch) is possible coming from the north via Pınarbaşı, Göksün and Maraş or through the Amanus pass (the Bahçe Pass) from the west and down the Karasu river via the Islahiye valley;24 another route from the west leads from Adana down the coast to Iskenderun and through the Syrian Gates (the Belen pass). In the Amuq valley on the Orontes lies Alalaḫ (Tell Atchana).25 From Alalaḫ, one gains access to the Mediterranean sea by following the river to its mouth. By following the Orontes upstream (it flows south to north) one reaches the Ghab valley settlements. Through the Afrin river valley and the Bab al-Hawa pass is the road to Halab. It is no wonder that holding Alalaḫ was the key to controlling Syria. Indeed, the city was taken at least twice if not thrice by the Hittites: Ḫattušili I, possibly Tudḫaliya I, 18  Following Na’aman 1976: 92–97; Hawkins 1995b; Yamada, S. 2000: 105. 19  Following Wilhelm 1992: 29ff.; Ünal 2014: 483. 20  For additional suggestions, Archi 2014a: 164; Ünal 2015. 21  The Old Kingdom Palace Chronicles (CTH 8 = Dardano 1997: 36–37, 89–92; Gilan 2015: 119) seem to imply that the Hittites held some control over the city; Gilan 2015: 197. Apparently Ḫaššu was not destroyed completely by Ḫattušili; the Edict of Telipinu (CTH 19 = van den Hout 2003: 194–98); Klengel 1999: 79–81. 22  Barjamovic 2011: 87–107; Miller 2001a. 23  See further Astour 1995a: 1409–10; Miller 1999b: 88; Barjamovic 2011: 103–105. 24  See Ünal 2014; Hawkins and Weeden this volume. 25  Stein 1997. For Alalaḫ prior to the Hittite attack, Charpin 2004: 351–54 and 376–78; Eder 2003; Zeeb 2001; Astour 1992.

Cohen

and Šuppiluliuma were responsible for the conquest and partial destruction of Alalaḫ.26 Alalaḫ was part of the kingdom of Yamḫad, although ruled by a cadet branch of the dynasty when it was conquered by Ḫattušili I.27 The conquest of the city opened the way for Ḫattušili I’s advance towards the east. The destruction of the palace and temples of Alalaḫ Level VII is usually attributed to Ḫattušili I’s army.28 After the Hittite withdrawal from Syria, the city and the rest of the area fell under the control of Mittani. But the city was run by a local dynasty (founded by Idrimi), originally from Halab.29 Part of the area under the city’s control was the region of Mukiš. This province became an alternative name of the kingdom of Alalaḫ.30 It is thought that king Tudḫaliya I (c. 1450–1400 BCE) signed a treaty with the city of Tunip regarding a border dispute it had with Alalaḫ; see §7.4.31 During the times of Tudḫaliya II (also known as Tudhaliya III), the Hittites returned to the area, confronting Alalaḫ, Mukiš and other places in Syria.32 But the region was only secured after Šuppiluliuma’s Syrian campaigns.33 Because Mukiš sided with Nuḫašše and Niya against the Hittites, it was punished and its southern border redrawn; see below.34 Hittite governance of Alalaḫ and Mukiš is poorly documented, but nonetheless it is clear that the Hittite governors at Alalaḫ held influence over Ugarit and Nuḫašše; see §7.35 Here one should also mention the recent discovery of a seal-impression of 26  See  §2. 27  CTH 4 [fn. 4] (= de Martino 2003: 34–35; Devecchi 2005: 36–37; Beckman 2006: 220); Klengel 1992a: 81; Bryce 1998: 76; Klengel 1999: 50, fn. 81. 28  Klengel 1999: 50; Zeeb 2004: 86; Lauinger 2008; Lauinger 2015. 29  Von Dassow 2008: 23–45. 30  Von Dassow 2008: 65–66. 31  The Treaty of Tudḫaliya I with Tunip (CTH 135 = Kitchen and Lawrence 2012: 340–46); Klinger 1995; Klengel 1999: 105; Freu and Mazoyer 2007b: 53–56; von Dassow 2008: 51–54. The treaty, however, was possibly composed after Šuppiluliuma’s conquest; Miller 2005: 130, fn. 6. 32  Wilhelm 2012b: 231–33; Wilhelm 2015. 33  The Treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Šattiwaza (CTH 51 = Beckman 21999a: 42–48, 43); the Treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Tette of Nuḫašše (CTH 53 = Beckman 21999a: 54–58). The destruction of Alalaḫ Level IV is usually attributed to Šuppiluliuma; Astour 1989: 67–68; von Dassow 2008: 60–61; Fink 2010; Mullins 2010: 62–63; Yener and Akar 2013. 34  The Treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Niqmaddu (CTH 46 = Beckman 21999a: 34–36); a Letter of Šuppiluliuma to Niqmaddu (CTH 45 = Beckman 21999a: 125–26); the Edict of Šuppiluliuma to Ugarit (CTH 47 = Beckman 21999a: 166–67). 35  Singer 1999: 717–19; Fink 2010: 53–55; Singer 2017.

HITTITE SYRIA: PHILOLOGY

prince Tudhaliya and princess Ašnuhepa found at Alalah, and the consequent re-reading of a slab found re-used in a staircase at Alalaḫ as containing the names of Tudhaliya the “Great Priest” (previously read “Great Charioteer”) along with Ašnuhepa.36 The kingdom of Mukiš played a role in the last years of the Hittite empire when grain shipments were transported to Hatti.37 In the final days of the empire, the Alalaḫ governors, together with Karkamiš and Ugarit, tried to confront enemy attacks from the sea, but to no avail: the city probably fell sometime during the first decades of the 12th century.38 In the Iron Age, Tell Tayinat (c. 800m north of Alalaḫ), known as Kunulua, was the capital of Patina/ Unqi.39 The borders of Alalaḫ under Hittite rule are reconstructed mainly from sources concerned with its neighbours, Karkamiš and Ugarit.40 The northwestern border of Alalaḫ was framed by the Amanus range. The eastern border of Alalaḫ was probably redefined after the Hittite conquest: it was to form the western frontier of the kingdom of Karkamiš given to the viceroy, Šarri-Kušuḫ, Šuppiluliuma’s son. In the treaty given to the viceroy, three toponyms (that survive) mark this border: the city of Qaduma, Mount Ammar[ik], and the city of Pedina (location unknown).41 Mount Ammarik was suggested to be identified with Jebel Semaan, a low ridge opposite the Kurd Dagh (Kürt Dağı).42 The city of Qaduma was probably at the eastern border of the kingdom.43 The kingdom’s southern border can be traced according to two Hittite decrees issued to Ugarit. These provide us with a partly preserved list of over twenty towns that once belonged to Mukiš. They were transferred to Ugarit, following the revolt of Mukiš against Šuppiluliuma.44 The 36  Yener, Dinçol and Peker 2014. 37   Singer 1999: 716–17. The port of Alalaḫ is identified with Sabuniye in the Orontes delta (40km from Alalaḫ); Pamir 2005. 38  Singer 1999: 723–25; Singer 2017. 39  Harrison 2014. 40  Astour 1969 argued for an Alalaḫ whose borders extended past Halab and Homs. Recent views advocate for a much smaller kingdom that included the Amuq valley and possibly a part of the Afrin valley; Casana 2009. 41  The Treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Šarri-Kušuḫ (CTH 50 = Forrer 1926: 48–50); Klengel 1965–1970, I: 51 and 253. 42  RGTC 12/2: 17; Ayali-Darshan 2015. A statue of the Storm-god, Lord of (Mount) Armaruk (i.e., Ammarik) was taken from Ḫaššu as booty by Ḫattušili; CTH 4 [fn. 4] (= de Martino 2003: 54–55; Devecchi 2005: 46–47). 43  Von Dassow 2008: 198, 214, 217 and 345; RGTC 12/2: 223; Astour 1989: 60–61. 44  CTH 46 [fn. 34] (= Beckman 21999a: 34–36); the Edict of Muršili II concerning the Frontiers of Ugarit (CTH 64 = Beckman

299 toponyms in the list cannot be fixed with certainty and it is still a matter of some controversy which of the towns and settlements in the Ugarit decrees can be identified with toponyms known from the Alalaḫ archives. Regardless, the general assumption is that the border between the two kingdoms ran from the north Ghab valley, perhaps starting at the Orontes near Darkush, through the Bdama pass across the slopes of the Jebel el-Aqra and straight on to the sea.45 3 Ḫalab Ḫalab (Aleppo) lies in a special position in Syria: with comfortable surroundings and some arable land, it is situated on the Aleppo plateau mid-way between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates, a stretch of land less than 200km long.46 It was an important trade centre, on the road from Alalaḫ and through the Jabbul and Manbij plains to trading stations on the Euphrates, such as Emar. Prior to its interaction with the Hittites, Ḫalab was the capital of the Old Babylonian principality Yamḫad, an Amorite kingdom that exerted its political influence over Karkamiš, Uršu and Mari.47 Cuneiform texts have not been recovered from Ḫalab itself, but Hittite presence is evidenced by a single Anatolian Hieroglyphic inscription of the viceroy TalmiŠarruma.48 Almost all of what is known about the city under Hittite rule comes from the Ḫattuša archives. Ḫalab was not conquered by Ḫattušili I, although its forces were in direct confrontation with the Hittite army; see §1. It was perhaps always this king’s goal to conquer the city, but eventually Ḫalab was taken by Muršili I.49 The conquest of the city opened the road for Muršili I to reach Babylon. However, Ḫalab was not held for long.50 But Hittite interest in the city did not subside, and even

21999a: 174–175); Astour 1969; Singer 1999: 634–41; van Soldt 2005. 45   Following van Soldt 2005. See also Nougayrol 1956: 10–18; Klengel 1965–1970, III: 37–39; Astour 1969; Astour 1995b. 46  Del Fabbro 2014. 47  For Old Babylonian Yamḫad, Klengel 1992a: 49–64; Klengel 1997; Charpin 2004: 351–54; Durand 2002. The geographical term Yamḫad was not used by the Hittites, although it was known in contemporary 17th century Alalaḫ VII; RGTC 12/2: 340. 48  Hawkins 2000, I/2: 388. 49  According to the Edict of Ḫattušili I (CTH 5 = de Martino 1991), the city, not yet conquered, was prophetically announced to meet its destruction; Miller 2001a: 76. Mentioned in retrospect in, e.g., Muršili II’s Prayer to the Sun-goddess of Arinna (CTH 376 = Singer 2002: 53). 50  Klengel 1992a: 83.

300 prior to Šuppiluliuma’s conquest of Syria, Tudḫaliya I conquered the city.51 Not much attention is given in our sources to Šuppiluliuma I’s conquest of the city,52 perhaps because it had lost its power already under the rule of Mittani.53 Although the city was the seat of a Hittite viceroy, it was eclipsed by Karkamiš. In the treaty given by Muwattalli to Talmi-Šarruma, the Hittite viceroy of Ḫalab, this ruler was warned not to expand his power over and beyond Ḫatti as in days of old. However, one wonders if there was more than empty rhetoric behind this statement, because at this stage, the city was past its prime, its territories ceded to neighbouring lands.54 Ḫalab’s borders are not clearly delineated in our sources, but it seems that sometime during its history, it lost part of its eastern territory to the Land of Aštata and its western territory to the Land of Nuḫašše. The extent of these territories is not given, but we do gain an idea of the extent of the Land of Ḫalab.55 To conclude, in comparison to neighbouring Karkamiš, it is clear that the city hardly played a political role in imperial Syria. However, its religious legacy promised Ḫalab an unparalleled position. This was the result of the incorporation of the cult of the Storm-god (Adad or Teššub) of Ḫalab into Hittite state religion.56 The geography of the kingdom of Yamḫad can be well studied by the documentation offered by Alalaḫ VII and IV sources,57 but the human landscape seems to have emptied itself after Šuppiluliuma’s conquest. There are few data regarding the geography of the plains from the Amuq to the Euphrates. This may mean that the area suffered a depopulation, a claim which is seemingly supported by archaeological surveys.58

51   The Treaty of Muwattalli with Talmi-Šarruma (CTH 75 = Beckman 21999a: 93–95); Na’aman 1980; Astour 1989: 39–49; Klengel 1999: 114; Bryce 1998: 152–54; Altman 2004: 355–56, fn. 25; Gromova 2013. 52  CTH 51 [fn. 33] (= Beckman 21999a: 42–48, 43); and the Treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Aziru (CTH 49 = Beckman 21999a: 36–41, 37). 53  Klengel 1992b: 348. 54  CTH 75, §14 [fn. 51]. 55  See §7.1. 56  Gilan 2014; Schwemer 2008; Schwemer 2001a: 494–502. 57  Zeeb 1998; Niedorf 1998. 58  Schwartz et al. 2000: 451–52. Only one Mittani tablet has been found in the region, in Umm el-marra, north of the Jabbul lake; Cooper, Schwartz and Westbrook 2005. The site was identified with Tuba; RGTC 12/2: 291; RGTC 6/2: 174; Zeeb 1998: 843.

Cohen

4 Karkamiš 4.1 The City of Karkamiš Because of its strategic location as a crossing point of the Euphrates, Karkamiš (Jerablus) has had a long history, documented from the mid-third millennium to the first half of the first millennium BCE.59 After Šuppiluliuma’s Second Syrian war, the city was the seat of the viceroy and the capital of Hittite Syria. It marked the eastern frontier of the empire, preventing the advancement of the Assyrians with the fall of Hanigalbat. Overall, apart from the Iron Age, the epigraphic materials from the site are scant, none in fact as yet from the period of Hittite rule.60 Nonetheless, because of its dominant political role, it is one of the better documented cities of Hittite Syria. Data about the city are provided by the archives of Ḫattuša, Ugarit and Emar, supplemented by a few Assyrian sources. During the campaigns of Ḫattušili I, the city sided with Uršu; see §1.61 We are left in the dark regarding its fate after the conquest of Ḫalab.62 When the area fell under the rule of Mittani, the city of Karkamiš was included in its domains. In Šuppiluliuma’s Second Syrian war, the city at first withstood Hittite attacks but after a siege it surrendered.63 Hold of the city provided the Hittites with a springboard from which to advance eastwards in order to aid the formation of Hanigalbat under Prince Šattiwaza.64 A dynasty was established in the city, headed by Šuppiluliuma’s son, Šarri-Kušuḫ; its loyalty to Hatti was regularly confirmed by a series of treaties.65 With the death of Šarri-Kušuḫ, rebellion broke out in Syria; see §7.66 This forced Muršili II 59  For the history of Karkamiš, see Biga 2014; Hawkins 1976–1980a; Hawkins 2000, I/1: 73–76; Bryce 2009: 146–50; Marchetti (ed.) 2014. 60  For recent finds, see e.g. Marchesi 2014; Dinçol et al. 2014. 61  CTH 7 [fn. 12] (= Beckman 1995: 24, 26). 62  CTH 19 [fn. 21] (= van den Hout 2003: 198); Klengel 1999: 70. 63  The Deeds of Šuppiluliuma (CTH 40 = Güterbock 1956: 84, 92, 94–95; del Monte 2009: 72, 79, 86–89, 93, 105–7 and 111–15 and fn. 43). 64  The Treaty between Šattiwaza and Šuppiluliuma (CTH 52 = Beckman 21999a: 48–54, 50); CTH 40 [fn. 63] (= Güterbock 1956: 111; del Monte 2009: 132–36 and 141); Klengel 1992a: 121. 65  CTH 50 [fn. 41] (= Forrer 1926: 48–50; Klengel 1965–1970, I: 51); the Edict of Muršili II Recognizing the Status of Piyaššili (aka Šarri-Kušuḫ) (CTH 57 = Beckman 21999a: 169); the Treaty between Šuppiluliuma II and Talmi-Teššub (CTH 122; Singer 2001; d’Alfonso 2007); Klengel 1992a: 113–14 and 121–22. 66  The Annals of Muršili II (CTH 61 = Goetze 1933: 114–19); Klengel 1992a: 122–23; Klengel 1965–1970, I: 57; cf. Miller 2007a: 135, fn. 43.

301

HITTITE SYRIA: PHILOLOGY

to arrive to the Land of Karkamiš to suppress the revolts; see §§4.2 and 8.1. International trade through Karkamiš to the east apparently flourished, so long as the relationship with Assyria was on a good footing.67 Although eventually Karkamiš lost its eastern territories to Assyria with the annihilation of Hanigalbat (see below), it marked the eastern border of the Hittite empire to its fall. And in fact, because of its geographic position and strategic location, Karkamiš resisted the cataclysmic events that brought the end of the Hittite empire.68

to Karkamiš, the second place preserved in the treaty.74 From Karkamiš, the path continues to the city of Qaduma and the Land of Mukiš with mount Ammarik; the rest of the treaty is too badly preserved to delineate more clearly the domains of Karkamiš; see §2. During the reign of Šaḫurunuwa, Šarri-Kušuḫ’s successor, the borders of the Land of Karkamiš were expanded by Muršili II; see §5.1. But the territories east of the Euphrates that were guaranteed by Šuppiluliuma to Karkamiš were under the growing threat of the Assyrians, who step by step dismantled the short-lived state of Ḫanigalbat.75

4.2 The Land of Karkamiš Two sources for the reconstruction of the borders of the Land of Karkamiš are available: the Treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Šattiwaza and the Treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Šarri-Kušuḫ.69 The Treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Šattiwaza defines the borders of Hanigalbat in relationship to its western neighbour, the Land of Karkamiš, by listing two groups of toponyms;70 all the cities of [the Land of so-and-so]: Murmuriga, Šipru, Mazuwati and Šurun; and all the fortified cities of the Land of Aštata that are situated across the river in the Land of Mittani: Ekal[te, the city of so-and-so], Aḫuna and Terqa; see §8.1.71 One place is safely anchored among the toponyms of the first group, Mazuwati. There is almost no doubt that Mazuwati is Tell Ahmar on the east bank: in the Iron Age it was known as Masuwari, later Til Barsip, and under Assyrian rule, Kar-Šalmaneser.72 It is difficult to locate the rest of the toponyms, but it can be argued that, contrary to the customary opinion, they too are to be sought on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.73 The Treaty of Šuppiluliuma with Šarri-Kušuḫ is a very poorly preserved document, but some information regarding the borders of Karkamiš can be inferred from it. The city of Murmuriga is (probably) first to be mentioned. It is a starting point of an imaginary path that moves

5

67  Faist 2001; Faist 2006. 68  The dynastic line of Karkamiš continued into the Iron Age; Hawkins 1988; Klengel 1992a: 127–28. 69  CTH 50 [fn. 41]. 70  Bryce 1998: 200–201; Luciani 1999–2001: 89–93. 71  CTH 51 [fn. 33]; Hawkins 1983; Liverani 1990: 82–83. 72  Hawkins 1983; Fales 2014a. 73  This will be dealt with elsewhere by the author. See, for now, Murmuriga: RGTC 6: 276; Klengel 1993–1997; Šurun: RGTC 6: 369; Yamada 1994: 262, fn. 7; Sallaberger et al. 2006: 95, fn. 30; cf. Archi 2014b: 148; Singer 2008a: 719, fn. 41; Šipru: RGTC 6: 359–60.

The Coastal Region (see fig. 22.3)

5.1 Ugarit Mirroring to a great degree the present day province of Latakia, the kingdom of Ugarit was an enclave in Syria.76 The northern border of the kingdom was marked by the Jebel el-Aqra (Mount Casius), in Ugarit (Ba‛al-)Ṣafon, and in Hittite sources Mount Ḫazzi and Mount Namni/Nanni (the anti-Casius).77 The eastern frontier was sharply defined by the Jebel Al-Ansariyeh. The western border was formed by the Mediterranean sea. In between the Jebel Al-Ansariyeh and the sea, was the coastal plain (the Jebleh). Following the Nahr al-Kabir upstream, one reaches the mountain pass through the Al-Ansariyeh range to Jisr al-Shugur and the Orontes valley, with roads that lead towards Alalaḫ and Ḫalab. Ugarit’s port was at Minet al-Beida (Maḫadu?);78 another port was Gibala (Tell Tweini?).79 Because Ugarit’s own archives mostly cover only the second half of the 14th century to the opening decades of the 12th century, its history practically starts with the Hittite onslaught on Syria.80 After the king of Ugarit, 74  Forrer 1926: 48ff.; Klengel 1965–1970, I: 51. RGTC 6: 320; Archi 1992: 11. 75  The city of Araziqu was probably gained after the treaty with Šattiwaza; RGTC 12/2: 31; RGTC 5: 36; Röllig 1997; Forlanini 2004b: 415, fn. 63; Alexandrov and Sideltsev 2009; CancikKirschbaum 2009: 141; Yamada 2011; Miller 2013c: 357. 76  Klengel 1965–1970, III: 30–43; van Soldt 2005: 132–34; Yon 2006. 77  Röllig 1972–1975; Wilhelm 1998–2000. 78  Yon 1994; van Soldt 2005: 28; an Anatolian Hieroglyphic seal was recovered from Minet al-Beida; Masson 1975: 225–27. 79   Bretschneider and van Lerberghe 2009; an Anatolian Hieroglyphic seal was discovered at the site, ibid., p. 33. 80  Pedersén 1998; van Soldt 2014. For Ugarit before the Hittite conquest, Arnaud 1997; Singer 1999: 619–21; Freu 2006: 25–30. For Ugarit’s relationship with Egypt, Astour 1981: 15–17; Freu 2006: 30–54; Altman 2008.

302 Niqmaddu, officially surrendered to Šuppiluliuma at Alalaḫ (see §2), a treaty and a tribute obligation were imposed on the city.81 During the conquest of Syria, Ugarit decided not to side with Mukiš, Nuḫašše and Niya which revolted against Šuppiluliuma.82 Ugarit gained a prize for siding with the Hittites: its northern border with Mukiš was redrawn to its favour by Šuppiluliuma, and later reaffirmed by Muršili II; see §2.83 While Ugarit maintained the status-quo of its northern border, its southern territories were lost to Siyannu; see §5.2. Under Hittite rule, Ugarit traded with the coastal cities of Lebanon, Qadeš, Karkamiš, Emar and the MiddleEuphrates region, Alašiya (Cyprus), the Canaanite coastal cities, Egypt, and Assyria. Exchange between Ugarit and Ḫatti was maintained by the empire’s most important harbor in Anatolia: the city of Ura in Cilicia.84 Trade items passing through Ugarit included horses, precious stones, purple-dyed fabrics, metals, timber and grain.85 The Karkamiš administration issued decrees to assure the safety of trade-routes and protection of merchants passing through the kingdom of Ugarit.86 The end of Ugarit is revealed by its correspondence with Ḫatti, Karkamiš and Alašiya: some of the letters refer to the Sea People, who eventually apparently wrought destruction on the city.87 Grain shipments to Ḫatti via Ura and Ugarit,88 and reports about hunger in the

81  The Treaty of Šuppiluliuma with Niqmaddu (CTH 46 = Beckman 21999a: 34–36; Lackenbacher 2002: 71–73; Kitchen and Lawrence 2012: 459–64); Freu 2006: 58–63; Singer 1999: 634–35; Altman 2004: 237–56; Devecchi 2013; the Edict of Šuppiluliuma to Ugarit (CTH 47 = Beckman 21999a: 166–67; Lackenbacher 2002: 74–75; Pardee 2003). Cf. the Inventory of Ugarit Tribute to Ḫatti (CTH 48 = Beckman 21999a: 168; Lackenbacher 2002: 75–76). 82  CTH 45 [fn. 34] (= Beckman 21999a: 125–26; Lackenbacher 2002: 69–71; Altman 2008: 50); Freu 2006: 58; Altman 2008: 47–48, 50–58; Richter 2008: 182–83. 83  CTH 64 [fn. 44] (= Beckman 21999a: 174–75; Lackenbacher 2002: 134–35); Freu 2006: 75. 84  The location of Ura remains unknown. See the Edict of Ḫattušili III concerning the Merchants of Ura (CTH 93 = Beckman 21999a: 177; Lackenbacher 2002: 154–55; Malbran-Labat 1991: 15–16); Vargyas 1985; Klengel 1992a: 138; Freu 2006: 87. See also Forlanini, this volume §5. 85  Van Soldt 2005b; Heltzer 1999. 86  D’Alfonso 2005. 87  Singer 1999: 728. 88  A Letter about Grain from Mukiš (Lackenbacher 2002: 103–104); the Aphek Letter (Horowitz et al. 2006: 35–38 (Aphek 7)); Singer 1999: 716–17.

Cohen

Middle-Euphrates region,89 are further evidence of the last days of Ugarit and urban Syria.90 5.2 Siyannu Siyannu is known only by its mention in the Ugarit archives.91 Two main cities are associated with this principality: Siyannu itself (Tell Siyannu), some 7km east of Jableh;92 and to its south, Ušnatu (Tell Daruk or nearby Arab al-Mulk [classical Paltos]), 12km south of Jableh.93 Other settlements in Siyannu were minor; they are known from documents that deal with border disputes between Ugarit and Siyannu. In the treaty that Niqmaddu of Ugarit concluded with Aziru of Amurru,94 the two cities, Siyannu and Ušnatu, were promised to remain under the control of Ugarit.95 During the reign of Muršili II, the territory of Siyannu, however, was cut off from Ugarit’s control and put under the responsibility of Karkamiš. An edict issued by the Hittite king redrew Ugarit’s southern border.96 This was the first of many documents issued by Ḫatti and Karkamiš regarding the border and the holding of various towns of the two kingdoms.97 Siyannu’s northern border with Ugarit can be reconstructed as running from the town of Jableh on the coast eastwards through Tell Siyannu as far as the An-Sariyeh range. The southern border of Siyannu met the kingdom of Amurru, but whether it stretched all the way south to Arwad (Ru’ad) is questionable. If one follows the physical geography of the region, the southern border of Siyannu was perhaps around Baniyas, the narrowest point of the plain.

89  Cohen and Singer 2006. 90  Klengel 1992a: 150–51; Singer 1999: 725–31; Freu 2006: 217–48. 91  Astour 1979; cf. van Soldt 1998; Bryce 2009: 658; van Soldt 2010. 92  Bounni and Al-Maqdissi 1998; Riis et al. 2004: 73–76. 93  Astour 1979: 13; Lackenbacher 2002: 142, fn. 440; van Soldt 2010. For Siyannu and Ušnatu/Usnu in Neo-Assyrian sources, RGTC 7/1: 217–218, 271; Hawkins 2015a. 94  The Treaty between Niqmaddu and Aziru (= Izre’el 1991: 88–92); Klengel 1992a: 132; Singer in Izre’el 1991/II: 155–57; Freu 2006: 55–57. 95  Singer 1999: 640–641; Freu 2006: 55–56; van Soldt 2005: 46, fn. 406. 96  The Edict of Muršili regarding the Borders of Ugarit and Siyannu (CTH 65 = Lackenbacher 2002: 137–38); van Soldt 2005: 64–70; cf. Astour 1979. 97   E.g. an Edict of Ini-Teššub regarding Ugarit and Siyannu (Lackenbacher 2002: 143–44); an Edict of Tudḫaliya IV (CTH 111 = Nougayrol 1956: 291); van Soldt 2005: 69; d’Alfonso 2005: 42 and 156.

HITTITE SYRIA: PHILOLOGY

6 Amurru Amurru was a kingdom stretching across the Akkar plain and somewhat beyond. During the struggle of the great powers to control Syria, it juggled its position between Egypt and Mittani but eventually sided with the winners: the Hittites.98 It was, together with Qadeš, to form the southern border of the Hittite empire with the Egyptian empire in the Levant.99 Information about the kingdom is provided by the Amarna correspondence, Ugarit and the Ḫattuša archives. A single letter discovered at Tell Kazel (probably Ṣumur; see below) is to date the sole source to have been found at Amurru itself.100 After much political manoeuvering and in the wake of Šuppiluliuma’s campaigns in Syria, Aziru, king of Amurru, signed a treaty with the Hittite king.101 The political relations between Amurru and Ḫatti were strengthened with the signing of a treaty between Muršili II and Aziru’s grandson, Duppi-Teššub.102 Amurru remained loyal to Ḫatti, but for a short intermission during the times of Seti I or Ramesses II. It is clear that at the battle of Qadeš, Amurru under king Bentešina defected to Egypt.103 As the outcome of the battle was favourable to the Hittites, Bentešina was removed, although he was later reinstalled on the throne of Amurru.104 During the reign of Ḫattušili III a treaty was concluded with Bentešina and a double royal marriage between the two houses ensued.105 The strong ties between the royal houses were ratified by a treaty in the next generation.106 Like Ugarit, Amurru was instrumental in the international trade, as it allowed the passage of merchants and diplomatic missions from Babylonia, Egypt or Aḫḫiyawa 98  Singer 2011a; Klengel 1992a: 160–174; Miller 2008b: 547–49; Devecchi 2012; Bryce 2009: 41–42. 99  Klengel 1992a: 165 and 169; Miller 2008b: 549–50. 100  Roche 2003; Devecchi 2010. 101   The Treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Aziru (CTH 49 = Beckman 21999a: 36–41); Altman 2004: 324–35; Singer 2011a: 208–11; Devecchi 2012. 102  The Treaty between Muršili II and Duppi-Teššub (CTH 62 = Beckman 21999a: 59–64); Altman 2004: 361–371; Singer 2011a: 219. See also Muršili’s Dictate to Tuppi-Teššub’s Syrian Antagonists (CTH 63.A = Miller 2007a). 103  Klengel 1999: 206; Ḫattušili III’s Report (CTH 83.1.B = Ünal 1974: 20–21). 104  Klengel 1992a: 169–70; Singer 2011a: 222; cf. Cammarosano 2009. 105  The Treaty between Ḫattušili III and Bentešina (CTH 92 = Beckman 21999a: 100–103); Altman 2004: 371–83. 106  The Treaty between Tudḫaliya IV and Šaušgamuwa (CTH 105 = Beckman 21999a: 103–107); Altman 2004: 440–60; Singer 2011a: 225–26.

303 (i.e. Mycenaean Greece) through its territory.107 When Ḫatti and Assyria were at war, Amurru was warned not to trade with Assyria.108 But when peace between the two great powers was restored, traffic, presumably commercial as well as diplomatic, was resumed.109 It is not known when Amurru fell, but it should be around the time of the end of Ugarit. According to the Medinet Habu inscriptions of Ramesses III the Sea Peoples set camp within its territory.110 The geographical coverage of the Land of Amurru did not encompass an area much beyond the An-Sariyeh and Lebanon mountain ranges.111 From the Amarna correspondence we learn of the conquest of the Syrian-Lebanon coastal plain by two rulers of Amurru, Abdi-Aširta and Aziru.112 The cities which were attacked were situated along a strip of some 100km, from Tartus to the Nahr alKabir (classical Eleutheros) and south towards Tripoli and Byblos (which managed to keep its independence).113 It is here that the southern border of the kingdom can probably be drawn. There is no clear city that can be called Amurru’s capital, but its kings perhaps sat at Ṣumur, the former Egyptian seat of government.114 The eastern border of the kingdom was dictated by the mountain ranges: the southern Al Ansariya range which ends in the Homs gap and the Lebanon range. It was through the Homs gap that Amurru reached and controlled for a period Tunip as well as Niya; see §7. The northern border of Amurru met the kingdom of Siyannu, perhaps at Tartus.115 But if Arwad was under the control, or perhaps influence, of Amurru,116 then the border was north of this point; see §5.2. 107  E.g. a Letter of Ḫattušili III to Kadašman-Enlil (CTH 172 = Beckman 21999a: 138–43, 142); Klengel 1992a: 170–71; Singer 2011a: 224; a Letter of Queen Puduḫepa to Ramesses II (CTH 176 = Hoffner 2009: 281–90, 288); CTH 105 [fn. 106] (= Beckman 21999a: 106; Beckman et al. 2011: 50–68). 108   C TH 105 [fn. 106]; Singer 2009; Devecchi 2010; Singer 2011a: 226. 109  A Letter from Middle Assyrian Ḫarbe (Tell Huera) (= Jakob 2009: 61–62, no. 23); Jakob 2009: 62. 110  Klengel 1992a: 174; Singer 2011a: 230. 111  Devecchi 2012; cf. Singer 1991a. 112  Klengel 1965–1970, II: 9–22; Bryce 2003b: 145–68; Klengel 1992a: 160–74; Singer 2011a. 113  E.g. Ṣumur (Tell Kazel?): van Soldt 2012; Chiti and Pedrazzi 2014; Irqata (Tell Arqa?): Hawkins 1976–1980b; Singer 2011a: 221; Ullasa (Al Aabde or Tripoli?): RGTC 12/2: 321; Goren et al. 2003: 8; Waḫliya (El-mina-Tripoli?): RGTC 12/2: 335; RGTC 7/1: 163–164. 114  Singer 2011a: 215. 115  Thus the Treaty between Niqmaddu and Aziru [fn. 94]. 116  Singer 2011a: 214.

304 The Orontes River Valley and Inner Syrian City-States (see fig. 22.3) The Orontes river valley forms a narrow land corridor that enables travel across the longitude of Syria. Its southern entry is at Qadeš, reached by either the Homs gap or the Beqa valley. Continuing north, one passes near Qaṭna to the east, and reaches the Ghab marshes, to Tunip. Here and to the east are the Nuḫašše and Niya Lands. Through the northern ends of the valley one can reach Ugarit or follow the river and arrive at Alalaḫ. The history of this region is known from the Amarna correspondence, Ugarit, the Ḫattuša archives and some new sources (Qaṭna, Qadeš, Tell Afis and Tell Sakka). 7

7.1 Nuḫašše Nuḫašše was a geo-political territory situated between Ḫalab and Hama, east of the Orontes.117 Nuḫašše is sometimes described to have extended all the way from the Orontes to the Euphrates but that is not likely, although during one time, it gained the western territories of Ḫalab; see §3.118 In our sources Nuḫašše may be described as a single entity, but on other occasions it is seen to consist of several principalities, each with its own king. During the Amarna period, at least the northern part of Nuḫašše belonged to Mittani but following Šuppiluliuma’s campaigns it passed to the Hittites. A king of Nuḫašše, a certain Šarrupše, cooperated with the Hittites but was later removed from the scene.119 The city of Ugulzat, which appears to have been a city of Nuḫašše was then given to a pro-Hittite ruler. Its location remains uncertain.120 After Šarrupše was disposed of, a certain Addu-nirari was king of Nuḫašše and he, according to the traditional interpretation of events, incited the rulers of Mukiš and Niya to revolt against the Hittites.121 This rebellion was quashed and Nuḫašše gained a new ruler, Tette, who signed a treaty with Šuppiluliuma.122 But Tette revolted against Muršili II together with another ruler of one of the Nuḫašše principalities. Although this attempt was

117  Klengel 1998–2001; Bryce 2009: 515. 118  CTH 75 [fn. 51]. 119  CTH 51 [fn. 33] (= Beckman 21999a: 43); the Treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Tette (CTH 53 = Beckman 21999a: 54–58); Altman 2001. 120  RGTC 12/2: 319; Richter and Lange 2012: 58–66 (no. 4); Abdallah and Durand 2014; Alexandrov 2014, locating Ugulzat at Tell Sakka, 17km southeast of Damascus; cf. Liebig 2014. 121  C TH 46 [fn. 34] (= Beckman 21999a: 34–35); also EA 51. Cf. Richter 2005; Richter and Lange 2012: 155–66. 122  See above note 117.

Cohen

thwarted by Karkamiš,123 the region proved to be problematic to govern. Eventually, Nuḫašše lost its geo-political integrity, remaining without local ruling dynasties.124 The recent discovery of two Hittite letters from Tell Afis (15km east of Idlib; ancient name not known, possibly ʾpš known from the Iron Age inscription of Zakkur of Hamath) confirms the imperial hold on the region of Nuḫašše.125 It is possible that a Hittite administration center was located at Ebla (Tell Mardih), some 12km south of Tell Afis.126 After Ḫattušili III’s usurpation, Urḫi-Teššub was exiled to Nuḫašše; see §7.2.127 7.2 Niya Niya was a city-state located somewhere in the southern Orontes valley. Its capital city, bearing the same name, is identified with Qalat al-Mudiq (Apamea).128 While Takuwa the ruler of Niya surrendered to Šuppiluliuma, his brother, Aki-Teššub, revolted together with a certain Akiya, the ruler of Araḫatu (location unknown).129 After the suppression of the revolt Niya disappears from the scene as a political player, although it paid tribute to Ḫatti.130 The city Zulapa in Niya was of some political importance (because Urḫi-Teššub was perhaps exiled to that place).131 7.3 Barga The history of this principality is known almost exclusively from a historical composition concerned with Tette’s rebellion.132 The city of Iyaruwatta (location unclear), once a part of the geopolitical entity Barga, was given to the antiTette faction at Nuḫašše for its part in driving the rebel

123  CTH 61 [fn. 66] (= Goetze 1933: 82–89; Beal 2003: 86; Miller 2007b); CTH 63 [fn. 102] (= Beckman 21999a: 169–73); Bryce 1988; Klengel 1992a: 154–55; Bryce 1998: 216–19; Altman 2000; Miller 2007b; Miller 2013d. 124  Klengel 1992a: 156. 125  Archi 2012; Hawkins 1987–1990; Bryce 2009: 8. 126  Archi 2012: 54; for Middle Bronze Ebla, destroyed perhaps by Muršili I, see Bryce 2009: 211. 127  The Apology of Ḫattušili III (CTH 81 = van den Hout 2003: 203). 128  RGTC 12/2: 210–212; Röllig 1998–2001; Archi 2010: 37–38. 129  CTH 51 [fn. 33]; CTH 46 [fn. 34]; RGTC 6: 28–29; Klengel 1965– 1970, III: 93. 130  A Disposition regarding Bentešina and a Tribute from Niya (CTH 209.3.A [KUB 8.79+] = Hagenbuchner 1989: 398–405); Houwink ten Cate 2006. 131  E.g. a Letter from Puduḫepa to Ramesses (CTH 176 = Beckman 21999a: 131–35, 133); Houwink ten Cate 2006; Bányai 2010; RGTC 6: 517; Klengel 1965–1970, III: 77–78; Zulapa is identified with modern Salba (7km from Tell ʿAšarneh/Tunip). 132  See CTH 63 [fn. 102] (= Beckman 21999a: 169–72; Miller 2007a).

HITTITE SYRIA: PHILOLOGY

out.133 Barga’s location was suggested to be at Barqum, 20km southwest of Halab,134 but there are grounds for locating it in the Orontes valley.135 7.4 Tunip Tunip (Tell ʿAšarneh?, 35km northwest of Hama) was under Egyptian vassalage during the Amarna period, but later it passed to Aziru’s control.136 Aziru reports to the Pharaoh that Šuppiluliuma is at Nuḫašše, a two-days march to Tunip.137 This allows us to posit that the city was located south of the Nuḫašše lands. Tunip was one of the cities taken by the Hittites, but explicit evidence is lacking. A treaty concluded between the king of Tunip and a Hittite king, whose identity is not known, may be attributed either to Šuppiluliuma or Tudḫalia I; see §2.138 7.5 Qaṭna Qaṭna (Tell Mishrife; 15km northeast from Homs),139 was a serious political player among the Amorite kingdoms before coming under the control of Mittani and then passing to Egyptian influence. It was suggested that prior to the Hittite takeover, Qaṭna was part of the Nuḫašše Lands, ruling over a vast territory that included the Lebanon range, but this remains to be more carefully assessed.140 Qaṭna was conquered by Šuppiluliuma but when and how are issues that remain under discussion.141 The publication of the Idadda Archive from Qaṭna reveals that Idadda, the king of Qaṭna, was a contemporary of the king of Nuḫašše, Šarrupše and the king of Niya, Takuwa, but it remains difficult to place these rulers in a chronological relation to Šuppiluliuma’s Syrian campaigns.142 Akizzi, a figure recognized in the Amarna correspondence, was the last known ruler of Qaṭna.143 133  RGTC 6: 135–36; RGTC 6/2: 48; Radner 2004; cf. Richter 2007: 308. 134  RGTC 12/2: 52; Radner 2004; cf. Astour 1969: 413. 135  RGTC 7/1: 186–187; Lipinski 2000: 258–61; Richter 2007: 307–8. Additional data about Barga comes from the Idadda Archive at Qaṭna; Richter and Lange 2012: 58–66 (no. 4), 165; Stavi 2015: 114–15. 136  RGTC 12/2: 294. For Tunip, Bryce 2009: 720; van Soldt 2014; see EA 57, 59 and 161; Klengel 1992a: 165. 137  EA 165, 166 and 167; Klengel 1965–1970, II: 75. 138  CTH 135 [fn. 31]; for the toponyms in the treaty, Astour 1969: 392–93; RGTC 12/2: 119, 145, 147; RGTC 6: 143, 158. 139  Richter 2006; Bryce 2009: 570–71. 140  Richter 2007. 141  CTH 51 [fn. 33] (= Beckman 21999a: 43). 142  Richter 2005; Richter and Lange 2012: 155–66; Gromova 2012; Wilhelm 2015; Stavi 2015. 143  EA 52, 53, 55 and 57; Klengel 1992a: 156–57.

305 7.6 Qadeš The city of Qadeš on the Orontes (Tell Nebi Mend; 25km southwest from Homs),144 together with Amurru, was considered to form the southwestern border to the Hittite empire.145 It was the southern entry point to the Orontes Valley and the Ghab marshes. The city’s king, Šutatarra, and prince, Aitaqqama, tried attacking the Hittites from the town of Abzuya (location unknown),146 but they were captured and deported to Ḫatti.147 Later Aitaqqama was reinstalled as the ruler of Qadeš, where, as the Hittites withdrew from the area, he tried to claim the Beqa region.148 Revolts against Muršili II led to the murder of Aitaqqama by his son Niqmaddu, who was accepted as the ruler of Qadeš.149 The city perhaps fell into Egyptian hands for a while, but during and following the Battle of Qadeš (1275) it remained in Hittite control.150 7.7 The South Orontes Valley and the Beqa Valley After defeating the rulers of Qadeš, Šuppiluliuma proceeded to Apina, where he defeated a coalition of local kings.151 Apina is usually identified with Apa or Upi, a land also encompassing Damascus.152 Scholars have questioned this equation, and suggested that Apina be located in the Orontes valley.153 However, newly discovered sources from Qaṭna and elsewhere invite a re-assessment of the identification and location of Apina.154 Regardless of the debate about Apina, note that Apa was known to the Hittites. During the Battle of Qadeš, the Egyptians were repelled beyond Apa and the area was secured by Muwattalli’s brother, Ḫattušili.155 Beyond the Orontes Valley the Hittites ventured south to mark their border with Egypt. When Šuppiluliuma 144  Klengel 2006b; Bryce 2009: 571–72. 145  CTH 83; KBo 15.44 = Singer 2014a: 69. 146  RGTC 6: 28; Klengel 1965–1970, III: 93, 109, fn. 79. 147  CTH 51 [fn. 33] (= Beckman 21999a: 44–45); Bryce 1998: 176; Klengel 2006b: 141. It is possible that at this stage, however, Qadeš was under Mittani rule; CTH 40 [fn. 63] (= Güterbock 1956: 97; del Monte 2009: 109, and fn. 37); Murnane 1990: 142–43. 148  Klengel 1992a: 158–59. 149  CTH 61 [fn. 66] (= Goetze 1933: 112–21; del Monte 1993: 93–95). For Niqmaddu in the Tell Nebi Mend documents, see Millard 2010; cf. Singer 2011b. 150  Murnane 1990; Klengel 1992a: 158; Singer 2011a: 171–72. 151  CTH 51 (= Beckman 21999a: 44). 152  RGTC 6: 457; Klengel 1992a: 179; Bryce 1998: 175. Also the Syrian Itinerary (CTH 215 [KBo 8.38] = Klengel 1995: 132). 153  Klengel 1999: 158, fn. 81; Altman 2003. 154  Alexandrov 2014. 155  The Arma-Tarḫunta Affair (CTH 86 = Ünal 1974: 20–21); Klengel 1992a: 118; Bryce 1998: 261–62; Freu and Mazoyer 2008: 144.

306

Cohen

was besieging Karkamiš, he sent his generals to repel the Egyptian forces in the Amqa (the Beqa valley).156 It is probably at the entry to the Amqa valley that Šuppiluliuma drew the southern border of the empire: at the Lebanon (Hitt. Niblani) and Anti-Lebanon (Hitt. Šariyani) mountain ranges.157 8

The Middle Euphrates River Valley (see fig. 22.4)

8.1 Aštata In spite of the geo-political importance of Aštata, only an approximate location of this entity can be given: south of Karkamiš on the Euphrates.158 Sometime before Šuppiluliuma’s campaigns in Syria, Aštata gained the eastern territories of Halab.159 At around this time, a treaty was signed with the people of Aštata.160 After the subjugation of Karkamiš, it became part of the Hittite empire. Following revolts in Syria, Muršili II arrived at Aštata, where he built a fortress.161 After the empire was established, Aštata was considered Ḫatti’s easternmost border on the Euphrates, mirroring Qadeš at the southwest border.162 However, once its territories lay under the control of Karkamiš, Aštata lost its geo-political integrity. Aštata appears in sources recovered from Emar or sent from that city (to Ugarit).163 This association between Emar and Aštata has led to the assumption that the geographical terms were interchangeable. Hence, the location of the city of Aštata was assumed to be around the Emar region.164 In spite of the fact that the exact location 156  CTH 40 [fn. 63] (= Güterbock 1956: 94, 97; del Monte 2009: 112– 13); Muršili II’s Second Plague Prayer (CTH 378.II = Singer 2002: 57–61, 58); Miller 2007c: 267–71; Bryce 2009: 38; Stavi 2015. 157  CTH 51 [fn. 33] (= Beckman 21999a: 44); a Treaty delineating the Borders of Syria (CTH 212.15 [KBo 16.32+] = Singer 2014a). 158  For the earliest mention of Aštata, see CTH 19 [n. 21] (= van den Hout 2003); Klengel 1999: 70. 159  CTH 75 [fn. 51] (= Beckman 21999a: 92–95, 94); see §3. 160  The Treaty with the People of Aštata (CTH 212.50 [KBo 50.134] = Miller 2007d: 127–28), perhaps signed with Tudḫalia I; Klinger 1995: 245; Devecchi 2007: 214; Archi 2014b: 142. 161  CTH 61 [fn. 66] (= Goetze 1933: 120–121; del Monte 1993: 95; Beal 2003: 89); Klengel 1965–1970, I: 89; Adamthwaite 2001: 220; Archi 2014b: 144. 162  Thus KBo 15.44; Klengel 1965–1970, I: 89; Klengel 1988: 650; Singer 2014a: 69. 163  Yamada 1994. 164  Several sites have been suggested: Emar: Margueron 1993: 91; Tell Faqous, 10km south of Emar: Arnaud 1996: 8, fn. 5; Tell El-Qitar (Til Abni?), between Karkamiš and Emar: Adamthwaite 2001: 222–24; and also Archi 1993; Snell 1983; Sallaberger et al. 2006: 99; McClellan 2007. Cf. Lipinski 2000: 164; Fales 2014b.

of Aštata has not been determined, the range of its eastern borders can be somewhat better understood thanks to the treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Šattiwaza.165 Four cities are mentioned in the treaty as belonging to Aštata: Ekalte, Aḫuna, Terqa and another city, whose name is lost in a textual break. Ekalte is located on the east bank of the Euphrates at Tell Munbaqa, 70km from Karkamiš.166 The city of Aḫuna is probably Old Babylonian Aḫuna, located at the Baliḫ river, north of Tuttul (Tell Bia).167 Terqa is Tell Al-Asharah 30km below the confluence of the Habur and the Euphrates.168 Therefore, it seems that Aštata was understood to be a narrow strip on the (mainly?) eastern side of the Euphrates running from Ekalte down to Terqa, but more discussion is required to determine its borders. 8.2 The City of Emar The city of Emar (Tell Meskene), on the west bank of the Euphrates, some 100km down the river from Karkamiš, was a well-established emporium.169 Throughout its history it served as the Euphrates gateway, linking southern Mesopotamia with inland Syria.170 The city came under direct Hittite control after the conquests of Šuppiluliuma.171 By the time of Muršili II, Hittite intervention in the city became tighter.172 It is still a matter of controversy whether or not Emar kingship was abolished and replaced by Hittite officials.173 Regardless, thanks to the textual finds from the city, the workings of 165  CTH 51 [fn. 33] (= Beckman 21999a: 45–46). 166  Mayer 1993–1997: 417; RGTC 12/2: 68; Yamada 1994: 265. 167  Luciani 1999–2000: 93–94; cf. Bryce 2009: 15. For suggested locations, Córdoba 1990; Frayne 2001: 231–32; Kessler 2006. 168  Rouault 2004; Bryce 2009: 703. Due to the distance of Terqa from Karkamiš, scholars have searched for another Terqa elsewhere; Luciani 1999–2000: 94–97; Sallaberger et al. 2006: 95; Jakob 2009: 65–66; cf. Durand and Marti 2005: 127, fnn. 23–24; Cancik-Kirschbaum 2008: 214–15. 169  For Emar in the Ebla documentation, Archi 1990; for the Old Babylonian city, Durand 1990. 170  Hallo 1964; Goetze 1957b. 171  So it can be assumed; Emar is not mentioned in the surviving portions of CTH 40 [fn. 63]. It is known that a treaty was signed with Emar, but it has not survived; Klengel 1988: 653; d’Alfonso 2000: 280. For Emar in the Old Kingdom, see ‘Res Gestae of Ḫattušili I’ (CTH 14–15 = de Martino 2003: 106–7); Klengel 1988: 648; Archi 2014b: 143. 172   It was assumed that following his fortification of Aštata (see §8.1), Muršili II had the city removed from its original location and re-founded elsewhere; Margueron 1995. However, it is obvious nowadays that Late Bronze Age Emar rested on top of older layers; Finkbeiner et al. 2003. 173  Cohen and d’Alfonso 2008; Cohen 2013; Yamada 2013.

HITTITE SYRIA: PHILOLOGY

Figure 22.1

307

Map showing locations in the Upper Euphrates.

the Hittite imperial administration can be studied. Emar was controlled from Karkamiš by the Hittite viceroy and a host of officials, as well as some local administrators, among them the famous Zu-Bala family.174 Throughout Hittite rule Emar continued to function as an important trading station. A merchant quarter in the city included representatives from Babylonia or the Land of Suḫu, as well as Assur; trade was also conducted with Ugarit.175 In the last days of the empire, there are indications that Emar broke away from Karkamiš.176 A terminus post quem for the destruction of the city is provided by a business

174  E.g.: Arnaud 1987; d’Alfonso 2005; Mora 2008; Cohen 2009; Cohen 2011; see a Royal Letter concerning Zu-Bala (= Hoffner 2009: 367–71). 175  Cohen and Singer 2006. 176  Cohen 2012; Cohen 2013.

note from the merchant quarter: it is dated to the second year of the Babylonian king Meli-šiḪU, or 1185 BCE.177 A few additional sites around Emar, but whose ancient names cannot be verified, yielded textual materials relating to the Hittite empire: Tell Faqous,178 Tell el-Qitar (see §8.1) and Tell Fray.179

177  Durand and Marti 2005: 167; Cohen and d’Alfonso 2008: 14. For the decline of the area following the Late Bronze Age, see Morandi Bonacossi 2000: 375–81. 178  Beyer 2001: 124; Cohen 2009: 13, fn. 22 and 57, fn. 199; Arnaud 1996. 179   Matthiae 1980; Bounni 1993; Archi 1980; Faist 2001: 215, fn. 73. For suggestions, Harrak 1987: 48–49; Bounni 1988: 368– 69; Adamthwaite 2001: 220; cf. del Monte 1993: 71, fn. 40 and 97, fn. 82.

308

Figure 22.2

Cohen

Map showing locations in northwest Syria.

HITTITE SYRIA: PHILOLOGY

Figure 22.3

Map showing locations on the Mediterranean coast and the Orontes valley.

309

310

Figure 22.4

Cohen

Map showing locations in the mid-Euphrates area.

CHAPTER 23

A Commercial Geography of Anatolia: Integrating Hittite and Assyrian Texts, Archaeology and Topography Gojko Barjamovic Two centuries prior to the formation of the Hittite state, Anatolia was divided into several dozen microstates locked in internal warfare and shifting political alliances.1 This contested political landscape gave rise to several permanent settlements of foreign traders, attracted by the mineral wealth of the area, and able to act as nonaligned interlocutors between the competing states. The foreign merchants formed enclaves in various Anatolian towns, their extraterritorial legal status regulated by negotiation and commercial treaty. In return for their role as hosts to traders, the Anatolian states made large sums on taxation, and secured a constant inflow of luxury products and strategic resources from afar. The best-known example of such a trading settlement was the Assyrian commercial port (kārum) at the site of Kültepe (ancient Kaneš) near the modern-day regional capital of Kayseri in Central Turkey. More than 23,000 documents relating to their affairs have been recovered at the site. Many of the geographical names recorded in these documents are the same as those known from the later Hittite sources. Most of these places remain unlocated despite ongoing excavations at numerous sites that contain remains dating to the period. But the political and topographical continuity in the region means that any reconstruction of the Bronze Age geography in Anatolia must build on both the Assyrian and Hittite corpora, and make sense in both contexts. Two conflicting models of the historical geography in Anatolia in the Bronze Age currently exist: one maximalist and one minimalist. Both are based on the same core of evidence mentioned above: the Old Assyrian commercial archives dating mainly to the 19th century BCE, and records written during the period of Hittite rule in Anatolia, 15th–12th centuries BCE. This core can be expanded by a variety of other sources, including earlier and later written records, linguistic, ethnographic, archaeological and topographical data.2 The minimalist model concentrates the main polities involved in the Assyrian trade system within a territory stretching roughly two 1  Barjamovic, Hertel and Larsen 2012, ch. 2. 2  Barjamovic 2011: §2.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_024

hundred kilometres from the eastern shore of the Tuz Gölü to the site of Kültepe. According to the maximalist model, the same commercial network covered the entirety of the Central Anatolian Plateau, from the foothills of the Pontus to the Mediterranean watershed. Depending on the emphasis placed on the individual components of the ancient dataset, one can defend one position or model against the other. However, it is possible to exclude certain scenarios based on commercial logic. The present chapter develops this notion to show why only a maximalist solution offers a model consistent with the constraints that govern long-distance trade. The term ‘Old Assyrian’ here refers to the historical period c. 1950–1750 BCE in northern Iraq and Turkey as well as the particular linguistic stage and material culture associated with the commercial settlements.3 In archaeological terms it is coterminous with the early Middle Bronze Age (MBA I) in Turkey.4 Geographically it is focused on the archaeological site of Kültepe near the modern-day Turkish city of Kayseri. The Old Assyrian commercial system is exceptionally well documented through the aforementioned corpus of merchant records written on clay tablets that came out of the archives at Kültepe.5 In addition to the well-preserved physical remains of their houses,6 this material offers unique insights into the way a large commercial structure functioned across long distances. The basic principles governing the exchange have been known for more than fifty years,7 but only recently have the two important parameters of chronology8 and volume9 become sufficiently well established to help anchor the analysis. Alongside a shift towards the study of entire commercial archives, as opposed to individual

3  Larsen 2015. 4  Sagona and Zimansky 2009. 5  Michel 2003. 6  T. Özgüç 2003. 7  Garelli 1963; Larsen 1967. 8  Barjamovic et al. 2012. 9  Barjamovic in press.

312 texts,10 the new data on volume and chronology sets important ramifications for an assessment of the intensity of commercial activities. A fairly conservative estimate of the Assyrian trade during the best-attested period 1895– 1865 BCE reaches 1500 annual donkey-loads from Aššur to Anatolia, corresponding to several tons of tin and thousands of luxury fabrics.11 It is plain to see why the transport of such massive amounts of goods must affect the way in which we interpret commercial traffic, and hence its geography. One may imagine that smaller consignments could cross a landscape independently of set routes and the protection from local authorities. But for large shipments, such routes and protection are necessities that restrict movement.12 They required a support infrastructure of roads, bridges, guardposts, and a mercantilist system of treaties that regulated taxation and defence, causing movement to become fixed and regulated.13 Such large-scale commercial exchange required predictability, and so the identification of repeated procedural patterns allows us to reconstruct a relational geography of the trade even when individual localizations remain uncertain or unknown. A statistical approach to the relational dependency lies at the heart of the maximalist model and structures a grid of toponyms14 that can be applied to a physical map only once the grid is established in its entirety.15 The same data may also be submitted to an analysis of bilateral trade flows and gravity relationships for further substantiation or revision of the model.16 Such relationships are important, for when one deals with trade in bulk, each step along the route represents a transport cost for the merchant financing the consignment. One can thus assume that great care was taken in choosing the way that a given caravan would travel. When texts show that shipments commonly went from place A to B via C, perhaps even crossing a bridge or a border where tolls were paid, then the commercial logic of the system prevents a significant number of deviations from the most cost-effective route of travel between those points. When one detects patterns in the way consignments move through thousands of texts, this should therefore be taken as significant evidence for the 10  Michel and Garelli 1997; Larsen 2010, 2013, 2014; Veenhof 2010b; 2017a. 11  Stratford 2010; Barjamovic in press. 12  Barjamovic 2011: §1. 13  Veenhof 2013; Barjamovic in press. 14  Barjamovic 2011: Ch. 2. 15  Ibid. §4.14 and §5.17. 16  Barjamovic et al. in press.

Barjamovic

existence of a route. The geography must be reconstructed accordingly, even when only piecemeal evidence for the individual steps along the route survive due to the way in which costs were recorded and reported by those hired to move the shipments. The fact that the Assyrian records were produced as a result of trade does not make them a less reliable source of geographical information than the Hittite texts.17 Both corpora reflect views of the landscape that must necessarily be synchronized. And the rules of commerce restrain the number of possible reconstructions valid for the Assyrian sources in important ways that also limit the number of possible interpretations of the Hittite material. The two datasets are interdependent. A key point in which the maximalist model differs from the minimalist one is in the location of the main market cities in the Assyrian commercial network, Durhumit and Purušhaddum. These toponyms occur in both Assyrian and Hittite sources (as Durmitta and Parsuhanda), and both remained prominent cities politically at least until the 16th century BCE.18 After that time Parsuhanda appears to have declined in importance, although a cult continued to be maintained there, presumably until the end of the Hittite state.19 Durmitta, on the other hand, rose to be a significant provincial capital that saw rebuilding and renewal towards the end of the Empire period.20 The prevailing identification of Purušhaddum with the archaeological site of Acemhöyük near the modernday city of Aksaray21 is problematic for several reasons, including the fact that it does not fit the archaeological profile of the site itself. Archaeological remains found there would have to date to both the Hittite Kingdom and the Empire Period, but although the publication record from Acemhöyük has been poor,22 no LBA material has 17  Cf. Forlanini 2012a: 294f.; Cammarosano and Marizza 2015: 180; Kryszeń 2016: 352 fn. 809; de Martino present volume. In all these instances, the Assyrian texts are consulted and utilized as the sum of solitary records and not approached as part of a logical system that has to make sense as a whole. But geographical arguments based on the Assyrian archives only become compelling en masse. Individually the sources say very little. As it is a vast group of texts (almost exactly twice the size of the Hittite corpus, see Streck 2010) of extreme density (mostly written by a few hundred individuals over a thirty-year period), recognizable patterns of movement are rendered more compelling than they could be by any single isolated source. 18  Kempinski and Košak 1982. 19  Singer 1996a. 20  Barjamovic 2011: 266–267. 21  Forlanini and de Martino, present volume. 22  Cf. Veenhof 2017b in response to Özgüç 2015.

313

Commercial Geography

been identified at the site, even as part of surface collection. Instead, the mound was apparently abandoned by the beginning of the Old Hittite Kingdom as part of the general pattern of destruction that characterizes Central Anatolian sites at the time.23 More importantly, the identification of Purušhaddum with Acemhöyük fails to take the commercial logic of the Assyrian trade into account. Wherever one locates it, Purušhaddum constituted an Assyrian terminus on a route coming from the copper markets at Durhumit that passed through Wahšušana and Šalatuwar.24 Although only six documents refer directly to a journey between Purušhaddum and Wahšušana via Šalatuwar, and no single record mentions all the individual stations on the route from Durhumit,25 the overall pattern of commercial links is clear from the way in which the four cities are geographically associated in the texts.26 Following the minimalist model, this pattern would require a different explanation that seems excluded by the volume of trade involved. The copper was shipped from Durhumit in large quantities (one transaction mentions 15 tons) mainly by cart and wagon.27 This would have required careful planning, a good road surface, and set procedures of taxation and protection. Records also demonstrate that one had to cross two bridges, one on either side of Šalatuwar, when travelling between Wahšušana and Purušhaddum. In addition, Wahšušana itself controlled a ferry crossing, and records suggest that Šalatuwar and Wahšušana were located at least 3 days of travel apart.28 Such detailed topographic information provides key evidence for the location of these places and cannot be ignored. In both the minimalist and maximalist model Šalatuwar is placed west of the Porsuk Çay, based on the narrative of the so-called Anitta-text.29 This account relates how the ruler of Salatiwara (in the Hittite spelling) sought to halt Anitta of Kussara’s attack by taking up a defensive military position at the Hulanna River. If correct, the identification

23  Barjamovic et al. 2012: Ch. 2. 24  Barjamovic 2011: §§5.13–5.16. 25  Cf. BIN 4, 70 which refers to a journey from Durhumit to Šalatuwar via Wahšušana. 26  Barjamovic 2011: 341; Barjamovic et al. in prep. 27   Dercksen 1996. The forthcoming edition of the archive of Šu-Ištar (published by H. Erol) whose family specialized in copper trade will add more evidence for the voluminous traffic in copper and further invalidate notions of roundabout routes due to the commercial constraints on the undertaking. 28  Barjamovic 2011: 343–344. 29  Neu 1974; Carruba 2003.

of the Hulanna with modern-day Porsuk Çay30 means that one must likely place Salatiwara not too far from that river, and in such a position that its army could prevent an enemy from crossing the river and advancing on the capital city beyond it. One could construct a scenario in which the ruler of Salatiwara drew back from his capital to lure Anitta away from the city, but the text suggests that this cannot have been the purpose of his operation. Instead, Anitta was prevented from crossing the Hulanna at a strongpoint chosen by Salatiwara, and this led him to circumnavigate the fortified enemy in order to attack the city from the rear. The location of Šalatuwar is therefore directly tied to the course of the Hulanna, and its position has to be across the river when seen from the direction of Anitta’s advance. The Anitta-text thus places Šalatuwar beyond the Hulanna River, and in turn, west of the confluence of the Sakarya and Porsuk Çay. This line of argumentation is by no means new, and was first proposed by Forlanini as a component of the minimalist model.31 Although the position of Šalatuwar has moved back and forth on his maps over the past four decades, its location west of the Porsuk has become established in his more recent work on the region.32 In turn, he locates Wahšušana in its relative proximity, and roughly equidistant from Šalatuwar and Durhumit, which in his model is located on the western bank of the Kızılırmak. But the location of Šalatuwar at Porsuk cannot be retained while at the same time keeping the identification of Purušhaddum at Acemhöyük. Not only does it fail to integrate the topographical details of the situation, such as the correct number of bridges and crossings. It also contradicts commercial logic. According to the minimalist scenario, the route from Durhumit to Purušhaddum would lead heavily laden wagons three to four days due west and across the Sakarya at Šalatuwar, only to turn back across the river and travel south and east across the dry and thinly populated region west of the Tuz Gölü for a week or more to Purušhaddum (see Fig. 23.1). There are no ecological incentives for such a route, and from a commercial point of view it makes no sense. The reconstruction grows even less plausible if one follows the suggestion to identify Wahšušana with the site of Ballıkuyumcu located 32km southwest of Ankara.33 Its position on a main route to Purušhaddum via Šalatuwar

30  Forlanini 1977; 2008a; see Corti this volume. 31  Summarized in Forlanini 2008a: 60. 32  Forlanini 2008a; 2015. 33  Forlanini 2008a: 59 fn. 118.

314 seems unlikely following this scenario, especially if Durhumit is identified with the site of Büklükale.34 If one identifies Purušhaddum with Acemhöyük, then the existence of the Assyrian copper route essentially forces one to abandon the identification of Porsuk with Hulanna, and/or Šalatuwar with Salatiwara, and to locate all cities in the western part of the Assyrian commercial circuit (including Ulama) inside the narrow territory between the Kızılırmak and the Tuz Gölü. Since it is furthermore clear that Wahšušana and Ninašša shared a frontier (marked by a river named Zuliya),35 one must also fit Ninašša into this region. An important qualitative difference between the minimalist and maximalist model of the geography is that the former produces an image of the Assyrian trade in Anatolia as a relatively localized phenomenon that had minor impact on the region at large. It packs five of the main polities recorded in the Assyrian trade network, Purušhaddum, Šalatuwar, Ulama, Ninašša and Wahšušana, into a relative proximity of one another with important consequences for their possible size of territory and economic potential. The maximalist reconstruction, which instead proposes that the Assyrian commercial network covered the Anatolian Plateau in its entirety, links the Assyrian network to other commercial systems at either end of the plateau. The minimalist model builds primarily on an internal analysis of criteria in Assyrian and Hittite written sources, and does not take the commercial data into consideration. But as one tests the minimalist model against the merchant records, it fails to convince in spatial terms and does not provide a satisfactory alternative. A less precise but just as crucial argument is therefore one of distance. In a commercial system where bulk goods on a large scale are moved about, it is hard to accept that distances of less than 60km between the main ports of trade would produce a sufficient price gap to render the trade feasible.36 What would the effect upon prices be if Ninašša, Šalatuwar and Ulama were all located within only a few hours of walking distance from one another? And can one imagine that such a small system would have the economic potential to absorb the volume of goods recorded in the Assyrian texts? Integrating all the routes into a single minimalist model results in an improbable reconstruction, even if one disregards a number of the important topographical issues raised above, such as the association of Wahšušana with a ferry crossing, and the location of Šalatuwar beyond the Hulanna and between two bridges. 34  Seen most recently in Forlanini 2015: 50. 35  Cf. Barjamovic 2011: 328. 36  Barjamovic 2011: 364–365.

Barjamovic

The move of Purušhaddum away from Acemhöyük to accommodate the location of Šalatuwar frees up other locations in the system to move with it. This interpretation fits the riverine topography,37 the distances travelled,38 the archaeological data, and the commercial logic of the system in its entirety. But the exact position of Purušhaddum still depends upon the location of Šalatuwar as well its control of a major trade route leading into a separate commercial network.39 One candidate site for Šalatuwar is Kepen southwest of Sivrihisar.40 But this mound is located relatively far from the Porsuk River and at a position that forces Purušhaddum west towards Bolvadin and the plain Afyon. This is far from ideal, as it also pulls Purušhaddum away from the Lower Land, which we know it was part of, and into a region commonly thought to be a part of the Arzawa Lands. But, recent studies show that the Sakarya River in antiquity passed east of the site of Yassıhöyük (Gordion) with its substantial MBA levels (Marsh 2012). This position of Šalatuwar would thus now also fit the topography outlined by the Assyrian records and the Anitta text, providing another possible candidate for the city. A location of Šalatuwar at Gordion would allow Purušhaddum to move further east to the plain of Akşehir. An inverse gravity calculation based on 9,900 Old Assyrian texts seems to favour such a position of Purušhaddum slightly west of Konya (Barjamovic et al. in press). Karahöyük also remains a possible candidate, although its location west of the Sakarya line renders the identification less likely. One would have to explain why copper transports from Wahšušana did not simply cross the Cihanbeyli Yaylası directly instead of passing through Šalatuwar. The aridity of the area immediately west of the Tuz Gölü could be a reason. But then the probable location of Afşar along the copper route west of Wahšušana41 draws the route in the direction of Gordion and away from Konya.

37  Not addressed by by Forlanini 2012a in his review of the maximalist model. 38  Also discounted by Forlanini, except when they fit the minimalist model cf. 2012a: 298b. 39  Barjamovic in press. 40  Barjamovic 2011: §5.17. 41  For the likely identification the modern village of Afşar with Bronze Age Aliašša, cf. Forlanini 2005a. The location of Aliašša should have repercussions for the location of Ninašša and Wahšušana if the copper was passing through Wahšušana before reaching Aliašša as the texts seem to suggest, cf. Barjamovic 2011: 346–347. Any localisation of these places must also take into account the existence of a river (Zuliya) between Ninašša and Wahšušana (Barjamovic 2011: 328).

Commercial Geography

A more reasonable location, both in terms of the position of Šalatuwar, and in reference to the links that that both Purušhaddum and Šalatuwar had with a separate trade network,42 seems to be somewhere in the EberAkşehir valley between Afyon and Ilgın. This would presumably allow Purušhaddum to remain within the Hittite ‘Lower Land’43 and at the same time explain its fairly late conquest by the Old Hittite kings.44 The eastern half of the valley is now known in great detail from archaeological surveys.45 Suitable candidates for a sufficiently large MBA settlement are yet to be identified,46 and Purušhaddum could even be located under the modern settlement of Akşehir (or its Karahöyük). In sum, placing Purušhaddum at Acemhöyük is problematic as one looks at the trade volume and number of routes. The area between the Tuz Gölü and the Kızılırmak is too small and too rugged to accommodate four or five thriving states and a population that could drive a trade in the volume reflected in the Assyrian archives. The minimalist model reconstructs a political landscape and a demography that in reality assigns MBA Central Anatolia to a minor economic role. This disagrees with what we know about the size and population of e.g. ancient Kaneš in the Middle Bronze Age.47 In addition, the sometimes very detailed topographical information about rivers and frontiers provided by the Assyrian records cannot simply be ignored or dismissed as uncertain or difficult when they appear to contradict Hittite sources.48 Due to the magnitude and complexity of the data, most attempts to reconstruct the historical geography of Bronze Age Anatolia have been based on compartmentalized analyses of the evidence, either as linked to a modern taxonomy, such as ‘The Central Taurus,’ or to preconceptions about ancient geography, such as ‘The Geography of the Lower Land’ or ‘The Hittite Heartland.’ But analyses that are based on topographical entities or modern interpretations of ancient taxonomy contain at their root presumptions about where a region begins and ends that dictates what to leave out of the analysis. One runs the danger of missing both unexpected evidence and the bigger picture. When dealing with trade in particular an analysis of the commercial geography of the system in its entirety has to make sense. 42  Cf. Erol, H. 2015. 43  Singer 1996a. 44  Dercksen 2010. 45  Johnson and Harmanşah 2015. 46  I proposed Bolvadin-Üçhöyük in Barjamovic 2010, but this may be a better candidate for Hittite Wiyanawanda. 47  Hertel 2014; Barjamovic 2014. 48  Forlanini 2012; Cammarosana and Marizza 2015: 180f.

315 A commercial argument similar to that of Purušhaddum can also be made for the location of the city of Durhumit. Early literature placed it in the northeastern corner of the Hittite state, based primarily on its position on the Kaska frontier. With the publication of the text KUB 48.105+,49 which lists a partially preserved inventory of settlements belonging to four Hittite provinces, Durhumit was moved 250 kilometres south and west to accommodate the occurrence of the towns of Ninašša and Uwalma within its territory.50 However, this argument rests upon an identification of those two places with the cities of Ninašša and Ulama attested in the Assyrian caravan records, which is problematic. Ninašša survived the tumultuous reigns of the Old Hittite kings into the Empire period, and is known to have functioned as a regional or provincial centre on its own. It is therefore necessary (though by no means impossible) to explain its inclusion in the province of Durmitta. More importantly, ‘Uwalma’ is not the same as ‘Ulama’. The latter city is known to have been destroyed already during the reign of Hattušili I in the seventeenth century BCE with no indication for its renovation other than this roughly 400 year later inventory. KUB 48.105+ is however by no means easy to explain for the maximalist. One solution would be to posit that the two toponyms Ninašša and Uwalma represent smaller settlements within the provincial territory of Durmitta that are homonymous with the earlier regional centres, perhaps for historical reasons. But this is also a somewhat desperate measure that also omits to explain why Durmitta does not occur in the texts from Maşathöyük and Ortaköy as one might expect if the two were located in relative vicinity of one another.51 This would then somehow have to be related to the nature and date of the archive being from a time when Durmitta was on the margins of Hittite control. Alternatively, it could push its localization further away. As the role of Durhumit in the Assyrian copper trade has become evident in the study of the Kültepe-texts,52 a move back to the eastern Kaska frontier in the Pontus may be preferable (though not required). This is the area that has historically supplied most of Anatolia’s copper, and signs of ancient workings abound.53 One solution would be to extend the Kaska territory south from the mountains onto the central plateau, and to ascribe the copper 49  Archi and Klengel 1980. 50  Forlanini 1985: 49; 2015: 50; Cammarosano and Marizza 2015: 180f. 51  As correctly pointed out by Forlanini 2015. 52  Dercksen 1996. 53  Summarized in Barjamovic 2011: 261–265.

316 deposits at Bâla to its territory.54 However, since the volume of copper directly reflected in the records amounts to more than a hundred tons during the thirty-year period covered by the Assyrian texts, both the mineral and timber resources involved in its extraction would have to have been considerable. Traces of such a production in the Bâla region are still awaiting discovery. The region of Çankırı seems more promising, both in terms of copper deposits and the ancient settlement pattern.55 It would also seem to fit the position of Durmitta on the Kaska frontier.56 Locating Durmitta in the northwest has recently been proposed by Kryszeń based on a careful re-analysis of the Hittite corpus.57 He produces a series of compelling arguments for placing the city west of the Hittite capital regions, but somewhat further north of the location proposed by e.g. Forlanini. However, this movement is not without its own problems, and a location of Durmitta west of the Kızılırmak seems difficult based on the Assyrian data. A number of commercial records from Kültepe clearly demonstrate that a network of smugglers’ routes circumnavigated Kaneš to bring commodities directly to Durhumit from the Euphrates’ crossings.58 A location of Durhumit west of the Kızılırmak seems difficult to explain in this respect, since it would require the smugglers’ routes to pass straight through the states that the caravans were set to avoid and pull the city far west of the other toponyms associated with that network. These routes, known collectively as ‘the Narrow Track’, branched out from the main Assyrian caravan trail heading for Kaneš in either Timelkiya or Hurrama, and passed through Luhuzattiya and Kuššara to emerge at Šamuha on the Upper Kızılırmak. From there they travelled to Durhumit via Karahna, Hanaknak and Tapikka. All three places are securely located in the northeastern provinces of the Hittite state. A location of Durmitta in Paphlagonia59 thus constitutes a less likely compromise that would account for the copper, and allow one to identify Ninašša and Uwalma with their older namesakes and have them remain within the boundaries of a (huge) Durmitta province. But it would also extend the smuggler’s route from the Euphrates far 54  For considerable copper deposits at Karaalı near Bâla, although with only a later dating thus far, see de Jesus 1980: 237–238. For a location of Durmitta further north on the Kızılırmak see Corti, this volume. 55  Matthews and Glatz 2009a. 56  Kryszeń 2016. 57  Kryszeń 2016. 58  Barjamovic 2011, §4.8–10. 59  Matthews and Glatz 2009a; 2009b.

Barjamovic

to the west and north (cf. Fig. 2), make it difficult to locate the Wahšušana ferry on a meaningful route between Durhumit and Šalatuwar, and almost impossible to reconcile its position with a location at the head of a route passing from Hanaknak and via Tapikka.60 Several Old Assyrian records thus seem to require the location of Durhumit in a northeastern circuit. In addition to its location at the terminus of the smuggler’s network, Durhumit is commonly associated with a group of toponyms that have generally been placed in this part of Central Anatolia, including Zimišhuna and Šinahuttum. Most prominent is the association of Durhumit with Kuburnat, which can itself be securely located at the head of the smuggler’s routes that led from Timelkiya and/or Hurrama via Šamuha and Karahna.61 The task of reconstructing the historical geography of Bronze Age Anatolia is not an easy one, and it is a field currently very much in flux. The many detailed studies of the present volume are a clear witness to this fact. As shown here, moving just one element in the reconstruction can send ripples through the entire model and may hold important consequences for our understanding of history centuries apart. In the given case, an upshot of moving Purušhaddum and Durhumit away from the centre of the later Hittite state and toward its edges means that much else in the system also has to shift. Moving the location of Durmitta east affects the position of Nerik and several other important cities, causing a mess in the established reconstruction. The argument made here is that repeated 60  Barjamovic 2011, 258. Forlanini 2012 understands the last few lines of the unusually detailed itinerary Kt 91/437 (AKT 8, 146), which records expenses from a journey passing through Hanaknak and Tapikka (wr. Tapakkaš) to Durhumit, to refer also to a continuation of that trip from Durhumit to Wahšušana. This leads him to reject the significance of the text due to its being a record of a broken journey that omits some stops. However, the passage mentioning Wahšušana refers to a separate event involving a different individual, conjoined with, but not in direct continuation of the detailed itinerary. The record shows that leaving Tapikka the traveller made only one stop before reaching a ford in the (territory?) of Durhumit. However, the phrasing does not clearly refer to “territory” specifically as it uses a construction of genitive with suppressed head-noun: i-ša (= “in the x of Durhumit”). There are not many candidates for the river in question, as only a short distance was seemingly covered between each stop in the text. Proposing that Durhumit could have had a very extensive territory stretching from a river in the region of Maşathöyük (Tapikka) to the Kızılırmak (which would be the upshot of the localizations for Durmitta proposed by e.g. Kryszeń 2016 and Corti, present volume) seems unlikely, though perhaps not impossible. 61  Barjamovic 2011: 256f., 268.

317

Commercial Geography

Figure 23.1

An impossible route: the minimalist model (with localizations proposed by Forlanini 2008a shown here) requires a position of Purušhaddum vis-a-vis Šalatuwar that is incompatible with a regular traffic measured in tons of copper.

behaviour (as expressed through spatial patterns) based on the objective of profit (trade) if identifiable in a large textual corpus of great chronological density is nevertheless more significant than any single source. The combined dictates of riverine topography, trade directionality and commercial rationality reduce the number of possible models of a historical geography. A possible solution would be to dissociate toponyms in the two corpora, such as MBA Durhumit from LBA Durmitta, but convincing historical reasons are needed to advocate this dissociation where none currently suggest themselves. Hopefully, future excavation, gravity modelling, spatial analyses,62 and especially XRF-analysis 62  Cf. e.g. Palmisano 2017.

of tablet clays63 will prove either the minimalist or the maximalist model wrong. For the moment, the commercial logic of the system, which builds on the movement of large and voluminous quantities of goods at great expense by the Assyrian merchants, sets certain limits for any reconstruction. One cannot pay attention only to individual records of travel, and explain those according to a preferred model on a local scale. The internal logic of the entire system of trade must be taken into account.

63  E. Stratford is currently preparing a work based on pXRF-based provenance studies of Old Assyrian tablets.

Figure 23.2

The maximalist model ( from Barjamovic 2011), which integrates topographical details (bridges, rivers, inns) and the commercial logic of the Assyrian trade (routes, volume, and a smuggler’s route that connects the Euphrates to Durhumit but avoids Kaneš).

318 Barjamovic

CHAPTER 24

Moving through the Landscape in Hittite Texts Jürgen Lorenz Introduction In Hittite times, most people did not have many reasons to travel. Travel was time consuming and could be quite dangerous.1 So unless people were forced to travel, they preferred to stay at home.2 It is therefore safe to assume that the purpose of most journeys was some official mission. This could be a military campaign, or an administrative or commercial mission. In addition, travel could also be necessary in the context of the great festivals in spring and autumn when the king and the officials accompanying him visited provincial towns to perform rites there.

Obstacles in the Country

Looking at a map of Anatolia, it becomes clear that the most obvious obstacles to travelling are the various mountainous regions surrounding the central Anatolian plateau. In addition to that some Anatolian rivers are of a size that crossing in times of a higher water level could pose a real danger. Although Anatolia was covered in woods to a great extent in Hittite times,3 these normally should not have presented a hindrance to travel, because once a road *  I would like to thank G. Wilhelm for the permission to work at and consult the files and photo collection of the Arbeitsstelle “Hethitische Forschungen” of the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz. I would also like to thank F. Fuscagni and S. Košak for their warm welcome at the Arbeitsstelle and their continued interest. I am indebted to C. Lorenz for the calculation of distances with the help of geographical coordinates. Furthermore I would like to thank E. Rieken for interesting and profitable discussions on the topic and A. Bauer for her comments on an earlier version of this article and for correcting my English. For their invitation to participate in this volume and their valuable comments and suggestions I would like to thank L. Z. Ullmann and M. Weeden. 1  The most prominent victim killed during a journey was the Hittite prince and son of Šuppiluliuma I, Zannanza, on his way to Egypt, cf. van den Hout (1994) concerning the details of the affair. 2  For economically motivated deportations within the context of Hittite military campaigns see Korn and Lorenz (2014). There is no textual evidence dealing with the difficulties faced in moving a vast number of people, who surely did not want to be displaced. 3  For the environmental conditions of Bronze Age Anatolia and especially forestation see Dörfler et al. (2011: 103).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341746_025

is cut through them, they no longer pose any difficulty, although maintenance would certainly have been a perennial issue. As no deserts exist in Anatolia, the Hittites were confronted with this natural phenomenon only during military campaigns in Syria and Mesopotamia.4 In this light it is no wonder that, as attested in the invocation rituals, the Hittites viewed mountains and rivers as the most prominent natural obstacles in the landscape.5 Although rivers were normally crossed at fords, there is also evidence for bridge building. The determinative of the Hittite word for bridge (armizzi-) is commonly GIŠ (wood), but NA4 (stone) is also attested.6 These materials are mentioned in a letter found in Maşat and ordering for a bridge to be finished.7 As in modern wars, bridges were seen as strategically important and were therefore destroyed to prevent enemy troops from crossing rivers.8 The Anatolian rivers are not navigable most of the year, and so it is not surprising that boats are only rarely mentioned in Hittite sources. Nevertheless, rivers are sometimes not seen as obstacles that had to be crossed, but also as means of communication. In a rare case when transport by river is mentioned, it involves goods rather than people.9 A real obstacle to the Hittites was the sea, and it comes as no surprise that enemies could be quite certain of not being followed when they fled by ship.10 This may have changed by the time of Šuppiluliuma II, because naval battles are mentioned in his account of the conquest of Alašiya. It appears most likely that the ships with which Šuppiluliuma crossed the sea belonged to a fleet of the

4  Cf. the lack of water during a campaign in Mittanian territory mentioned in KUB 34.23 obv. II 26ʹff. 5  Cf. KUB 15.34+ obv. 45f. in comparison with KBo 44.44 7ff. See also KUB 19.37 rev. III 49ff. were mountains are described as difficult to access. 6  KUB 20.2 rev. IV 19ʹ. 7  HKM 72:4ff. S. Alp (1991: 256ff.). 8  KBo 16.36+ obv. II 13ʹff. S. Alp (1991: 33f.). 9  For the shipments mentioned in the letter KUB 31.79 see Hoffner (2009: 81–84). 10  Goetze 1933: 50ff. KBo 3.4 obv. II 30ff. which cites the example of Uḫḫa-ziti who fled the approaching Muršili.

320

Lorenz

vassal kingdoms of the north Syrian coast, even though this is not mentioned in the text.11

Weather Conditions

In Hittite times, winter weather was surely a serious hindrance to travelling the Anatolian roads and even more those leaving Anatolia through the mountains. As such, it is not surprising that the Hittite king did not conduct any military campaigns in Central Anatolia during the winter, and that the approaching winter is mentioned in the annals as a reason not to proceed any further.12 The danger that people perished in extreme weather conditions was very real as people were held back during a great cold in order not to risk their lives during a journey according to one letter.13 The correspondence with the Egyptian pharaoh mentions the winter as a reason not to send people on their way.14 Apart from temperatures below freezing, snow must have been a serious problem. Although there are some attestations for ice15, it is all the more surprising that snow, to my knowledge, is never mentioned in Hittite texts.16 Conversely, hot weather is frequent in the Anatolian summers, but poses no serious problem as people could rest during the hottest hours of the day. Still, we can only assume this to be the case, as nothing of the sort is ever mentioned in the texts. Roads Even when the land is relatively flat, travelling is easier when some kind of roads exist. There are some archaeological finds attesting to roads having existed, and a road network can be assumed to have existed during the Hittite period with reasonable certainty.

11  KBo 12.38 rev. III 5ʹ–13ʹ. See Güterbock (1967: 73f.). For an extensive discussion of this issue see Beal (1992: 206ff.). 12  Goetze 1933: 168ff. 13  KBo 18.79 28ʹff. and in broken context KBo 18.35 left edge 2ʹf. 14  KUB 21.38 obv. 23ʹf. Cf. Edel (1994: 218f.). 15  For instance KBo 18.108 obv. 5 and KBo 18.35 left edge 3ʹ. See Hagenbuchner (1989: 166f.) and Marizza (2009: 137). See Weeden (2014: 34). 16  It is possible that the Akkadogram šurīpu “ice, cold” and its Hittite equivalent eka- is used for both ice and snow. Von Soden suggested this meaning which deviates from the normal Old Babylonian usage for an attestation of šurīpu in an Akkadian letter from Šimšāra. See Freydank (1968: 316f.).

Hittite texts do not mention any construction activities concerning roads. There is no evidence that the roads of the territory controlled by the Hittites are of a different make as those of the surrounding countries. The same appears to be true with respect to the territory controlled by the Gasgaen tribes. During the Gasgaen occupation of Nerik, for instance, the roads were deemed inaccessible but they still existed.17

Road Conditions

Most of the roads in Anatolia appear to have been suitable for driving by chariot. However, road conditions were not uniform. The annals mention explicitly that in rare circumstances the king had to travel on foot over difficult stretches.18 By contrast, some of the roads in Anatolia were apparently in such good condition that even marching by night was possible. Since the Hittites did not want to be seen, it is rather unlikely that they carried torches to illuminate their way.19

Resting Places and Road Markers

Whereas fortifications (BÀD KARAŠ) are attested as a resting place for troops20 during military campaigns, the king could most probably rely on a network of local palaces as places where he could stay during his journeys or reside for longer periods.21 The arzana-house appears to be a place where ordinary travellers could eat and drink and stay for the night during their journey. Some texts mention an arzana-house as an official institution where rites of festivals could take place,22 whereas other sources point to a tavern or inn.23 17  KUB 21.19 rev. III 12ʹff. Singer (2002: 99). 18  Goetze 1933: 54, 162, 166ff. 19  KBo 4.4 rev. III 31ff. and KBo 5.8 obv. I 25. Goetze 1933: 125f., 147f. Because he knows that the enemy is watching him Mursili deceives by moving his army in daylight in one direction and turning around after nightfall to move in the opposite direction to be able to attack his enemy next morning. KBo 5.8 rev. III 18ʹff. Goetze 1933: 157ff. 20  Attested for instance in KBo 5.6 obv. I 23ff. and KUB 19.37 obv. II 25ff. 21  For the functions and purposes of the regional palaces which are attested in various towns, see Siegelová (2001). 22  IBoT 1.29 rev. 46ff and KUB 25.51 rev. IV 2ʹ–7ʹ. 23  For an extensive discussion of the various functions see Hoffner (1974b) and Taggar-Cohen (2010: 121ff.).

321

Travelling in Texts

It is unclear if these houses were private property24 or belonged to official households, because payment for food and lodging is never mentioned. Crossing borders in Hittite times was not hindered by physical obstacles, travellers were sometimes reminded that they were entering or leaving a country by the presence of a Hieroglyphic Luwian rock inscription.25 Other inscriptions on the side of the road had religious or commemorative themes.26 Road signs mentioning mileages, a common feature of the road network from the Roman period, are entirely unattested in Late Bronze Age Anatolia.

Roads in Military Contexts

In times of war, communication routes play an important role. They are of major importance when it comes to movements of military units and the communication and coordination of and between different military commanders. While it is essential to keep one’s own communication lines open, it is equally import to prevent the enemy from doing the same. One of the strategies the Hittites and their enemies employed to this end was to control27 and in times of war cut off the roads as the main lines of communication of the enemy.28 In time of relative calm, these surveys seemed also to be conducted in order to prevent surprise raids on crop or cattle.29 Another strategy to control communication lines consisted of building fortifications near them.30

Designation of Roads

A common way to refer to a specific road is to associate it with the name of a town. Thus, KASKAL URUX translates literally as “Road of the Town X”. This practice is attested

24  Which may have been the case with the arzana-houses that Hittites had opened on Gasgaen territory. Cf. KBo 5.6 obv. I 15ff. 25  E.g. the inscription of Karabel, which marks the border of the country of Mira. See Hawkins (1998). For an alternative interpretation of these monuments see Glatz and Plourde (2011). Cf. also Weeden (2014: 57). 26  For the rock inscriptions of the Empire period see Ehringhaus (2005). 27  KUB 13.1+ obv. I passim. See Miller (2013a: 216ff.). 28  HKM 17:8 and KBo 3.4 rev. III 39ʹff. See Goetze 1933: 76. 29  HKM 46:18ff. 30  ABoT 60 obv. 16ʹff. Cf. Hagenbuchner (1989: 79), who supposes that in KBo 3.4 rev. III 39ʹff. and 57ff. similar situations are described.

in land grants31 and lists of fields32, as well as in oracle inquiries33 and festival texts.34 Some other designations such as ‘Great Road’ (KASKAL GAL),35 ‘Long Road’ (KASKAL GÍD.DA)36 and ‘King’s Road’ (KASKAL LUGAL) are rarely attested.37

Means of Travelling

People who did not hold a high office in the Hittite state administration most probably travelled on foot, whereas we can assume that higher ranking people drove by chariot. Communication with Egypt also mentions riding as a means of transportation.38 In the festival texts, the king mostly uses different types of carts to travel the country, as attested by the use of the word for chariot (GIŠGIGIR) and another type of cart called GIŠḫuluganni-, which also appears to have had two wheels.39

Virtual Travelling

In order to avoid time consuming or dangerous travel, Hittite kings could also travel virtually by visiting a house in the capital that was a substitute for the city they intended to go to.40 This is not unexpected if one keeps in mind that the cults of cities which were lost during Hittite history were transferred to safer places.41 The most prominent example for this practice is the transfer of the cults of Nerik during the long Gasgaean occupation of that town.42 31  E.g. Bo 90/722: rev. 9ʹ. See Wilhelm (2013: 94f.). 32  See for example KUB 8.75+ obv. I 22, 23 and passim. 33  Cf. for example KUB 5.1 rev. III 58. 34  IBoT IV 81 obv. II 21ʹf. 35  KUB 10.18 obv. I 24 and KUB 20.2 rev. IV 22ʹ. 36  For instance HKM 46:19, KUB 13.1+ obv. 12, 15, 33 and KUB 33.13 12ʹ. 37  Attested for instance in KBo 6.6 obv. I 30ʺ, KBo 6.3 rev. III 24 and KUB 33.3+ rev. IV 3ʹ. KASKAL LUGAL is also one of the tokens mentioned in the oracle texts, although the interpretation of KASKAL LUGAL in KUB 5.1 passim by Ünal (1974: 33ff.) is ‘military campaign of the king’. 38  See Beal (1992: 190) and Weeden (2014: 51ff.) with references. 39  For the different types of carts that were used, see HagenbuchnerDresel (2004). For other types of carts such as GIŠKIN.TIḪI.A or GIŠ MAR.GÍD.DA see Weeden (2011: 237f.). 40  See Görke 2010:63f. with further references. 41  See Görke 2010:61ff. 42  See Haas (1970: 7). KUB 28.80 Rev. 4ff. mentions for instance festivals of Nerik, which are performed in Ḫakmiš. See Dardano (2006: 204f.).

322

Lorenz

Travelling Speed

Since most of the towns of the Hittite empire lack secure localisations, we are very often unable to calculate the distances that were covered in a day, even if there is textual evidence for how long a journey lasted. A rare exception is a letter from Maşat Höyük/Tapikka, in which a maximum of two days is calculated for soldiers to travel the distance to the Hittite king who was at that moment in Ortaköy/ Šapinuwa.43 This means two days for a distance of approximately 50km. In a different letter, troops are again ordered to the king,44 who we assume was in Ḫattuša at the time.45 Travel time is set for a maximum of three days, and the distance covered is little more than approx. 100km. Although we do not know how much time was needed for the preparation of the journey and even if we assume that a calculation from only two attestations is questionable, a travelling speed of about 30km a day does not look unreasonable.46

Geographical Information Management

Hittite sources make few mentions of geography in general and we do not know how the Hittites stored geographical information especially with respect to their theatres of war. The extensive oracle texts connected to the wars against the Gasgaeans attest to a detailed knowledge of the territory that lay beyond the borders of the Hittite empire.47 Even information concerning the topography and natural phenomena of the Hittite Lands itself is scarce.48 There are rare exceptions such as the description of the surroundings of a provincial town on a tablet found in the Hittite capital in 2004.49 Border descriptions in Hittite treaties are also quite detailed,50 and similarly good

43  HKM 20. 44  HKM 15. 45  In contrast to the previously cited letter HKM 20, which states explicitly that the king is in Šapinuwa, we do not find anything comparable in HKM 15. This strongly suggests that the king ordered the troops to his residence in Ḫattuša that time. 46  This fits very well with the data provided by Barjamovic (2011: 18) for caravans in the Old Assyrian period. 47  See for instance KUB 22.25+. 48  See Görke 2010 and Haas 1999b. 49  Lorenz and Rieken 2007. 50  Border descriptions are found for instance in KBo 4.10+ and the Bronze Tablet. Cf. van den Hout (1995: 24ff.) and Otten (1988: 10ff.).

geographical information is attested in lists of fields and land grants.51 Itineraries Itineraries such as those frequently compiled in the OldAssyrian period are almost absent in Hittite times.52 The only example of a quite similar text was unearthed in Ortaköy/Šapinuwa. It lists roads that depart from a certain city and lead through mountain ranges to another city, although the purpose of the text is rather unclear.53 Some of the other text fragments listed under CTH 824 (Itinerarfragmente)54 are in all likelihood very compact versions of military campaigns,55 while others are probably fragments of oracle inquiries.

The Festivals56

Religious duties during the great festivals in spring and autumn were one of the main reasons why the Hittite king had to travel. These duties led him to a number of cult centres within the empire in order to perform the rites described in numerous festival texts. One major obstacle in reconstructing the routes taken during the festivals is that we are unable to localise most of the towns mentioned in the texts. Therefore even the basic direction of travel can only rarely be ascertained.57 Although we are able to identify certain clusters of cities in the vicinity of each other, it is far from clear in many cases where exactly we have to look for them.

51  For instance KUB 26.50+. See Imparati (1974) and more recently Rüster and Wilhelm (2012). 52  For the itineraries and trade routes of the Old Assyrian period see Nashef (1987) and more recently Forlanini (2006) and Barjamovic (2011). 53  For a transcription, a Turkish translation and a comment on the text see Süel (2005b); see further chapter 15 in this volume. 54  See the fragments listed under CTH 824 in the Konkordanz at http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/hetkonk/ 55  This is most likely the case for instance with KBo 16.53, KBo 16.55 and KBo 34.138. See Forlanini (2007). 56  See chapter 14 by Ö. Sir Gavaz in this volume. 57  Nakamura (2002: 438) has drawn a map of the routes taken during the nuntarriyašḫa-festival. For textual evidence of which towns are visited during the festival see Nakamura (2002: 78ff.).

323

Travelling in Texts



Messengers and Internal/International Communication

Messengers were sent to the local centres with orders from the capital, and reports were sent back to Ḫattuša. The local centres also corresponded with their hinterlands and to some degree with each other.58 The international correspondence with Egypt mentions messengers on horseback.59 However, it is unknown whether horsemen were also employed for communication with other great powers, and we are likewise in the dark about how messengers travelled within the Hittite countries. Sometimes communication between the great powers of the time was suspended because the roads were insecure, unless we were to agree with the Hittite king, who suspected in a letter that road security was only an excuse not to send messengers.60 Trade Trade routes that were used extensively in the Old Assyrian period are of minor importance in Hittite times. As merchants in the Hittite empire were mainly agents of the Hittite king61 and are rarely mentioned in Hittite documents, their numbers were most probably small. A pertinent paragraph in the Hittite Laws suggests nevertheless

58  Most of the tablets found in Maşat are part of a correspondence between the capital and a provincial centre, but other letters were discovered as well. See Alp (1991: 1f.). 59  KUB 26.90 6ʹ, KUB 21.38 obv. 18ʹ, 21ʹ. For horsemen in Hittite times see Beal (1992: 190f.). 60  KBo 1.10+ obv. 36ff. 61  See Hoffner (2001: 189).

that killing and robbing travelling tradesmen was a common phenomenon.62

Oracle Texts

Roads are frequently mentioned in the context of bird oracle inquiries and play an important role in the context of orientation. Sometimes roads were especially selected for the observation of oracle birds.63 Conclusion Information about travelling and the obstacles travellers faced is overall scarce in Hittite texts. Although the Hittites seemed to have a relatively clear understanding of the geography of their empire and the surrounding territories, there is almost no textual evidence that shows that they stored this information in written form. Pinpointing the exact location of more Hittite cities would provide us a clearer picture of the speeds with which the Hittite king travelled during the festivals and with which the army marched during their campaigns. What is reasonably clear is that the cold season led to a very reduced activity and that travelling was sometimes avoided altogether. Also, the time when people travelled just for fun or to explore new and unknown regions of the world had yet to come.

62  KBo 6.2 obv. I 10ff. with duplicates. See Hoffner (1997: 19f.). See also KBo 1.10+ rev. 14ff. on Babylonian merchants who are killed in Hittite-controlled North Syria. 63  HKM 48:4ff., 18ff.

Bibliography Abay, E. 2011a: Tarih Öncesi Çağlarda Denizli Bölgesi ve Beycesultan Kazıları, in F. Özlem (ed.), Altın Kent Denizli, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 8–19. Abay, E. 2011b: Preliminary Report on the Survey Project of Çivril, Baklan and Çal Plains in the Upper Meander Basin, Southwest Anatolia, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 48, 1–87. Abay, E. 2011c: Beycesultan, in A. Çilingiroğlu (ed.), Ege Üniversitesi Kazıları, İzmir, 116–142. Abay, E. and Dedeoğlu, F. 2009: Beycesultan 2007–2008 Yılları Kazı Çalışmaları Ön Raporu, Arkeoloji Dergisi 13, 53–79. Abbasoğlu, H. 2005: 2004 yılı Perge kazı ve onarım çalışmaları / Excavation and restoration work at Perge in 2004, ANMED 12, 67–71. Abdallah, F. and Durand, J.-M. 2014: Deux documents cuneiformes retrouvés au Tell Sakka, in N. Ziegler and E. CancikKirschbaum (eds), Entre les fleuves—II. D’Aššur à Mari et au delà, Berlin, 233–248. Adamthwaite, M. R. 2001: Late Hittite Emar: The Chronology, Synchronisms and Socio-political Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 8, Leuven. Adıbelli, I. A. 2016: Kırşehir Kalehöyük Kazıları, in T. C. Kırşehir Valiliği (ed.) Kırşehir Arkeolojik ve Paleoantropolojik Çalışmalar, Kırşehir, 87–132. Ahrens, A. 2011: Strangers in a Strange Land? The Function and Social Significance of Egyptian Imports in the Northern Levant during the 2nd Millennium BC, in: K. Duistermaat and I. Regulski (eds), Proceedings of the International Confe­ rence “Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean”, held in Cairo, 26–29 October 2008, Netherlands-Vlamish Institute in Cairo (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 202), Leuven, 289–311. Ahrens, A., Kozal, E. and Novák, M. 2010: Sirkeli Höyük in Smooth Cilicia. A General Overview from the 4th to the 1st Millennium BC, in: P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. Marchetti (eds), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May—10 May 2008, “Sapienza”, Università di Roma (6ICAANE); Vol. 2: Excavations, Surveys and Restorations, Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East, Wiesbaden, 55–74. Ainsworth, W. F. 1842: Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldea and Armenia, London. Akar, M. 2013: The Late Bronze Age Fortresses at Alalakh: Architecture and Identity in Mediterranean Exchange Systems, in K. A. Yener (ed.), 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, Leuven, Paris and Wapole, MA, 37–60. Akbulut, N., Bayarı, S. and Şahin, S. 2009: Rivers of Turkey, in K. Tockner (ed.), Rivers of Europe, Amsterdam, 643–672. Akdeniz, E. 2006a: A New Excavation in Western Anatolia: Kadıkalesi (Ancient Anaia), OLBA 13, 1–33. Akdeniz, E. 2006b: II. Muršili’nin Arzawa Seferi ve Tarihi Coğrafya Açısından Bazı Öneriler, Arkeoloji Dergisi, Ege Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayını 7, 17–40. Akdoğan, R. 2010: Hethitische Texte in Transkription. Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri II (ABoT 2), DBH 32, Wiesbaden. Akdoğan, R. 2011: Ankara Arkeoloji Müzesinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri II/Boğazköy Tablets in the Archaeological Museum of Ankara II, Catalogue and Index by Oğuz Soysal, Chicago Hittite Supplements I, Chicago. 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. Aksoy, B. 1991: Prehistoric and early historic pottery of the Bolkardağ mining district, in Le Guen-Pollet, Br. and O. Pelon (eds), La Cappadoce méridionale jusqu’à la fin de l’époque romaine. État de recherches, Paris, 11–14. Aksu, A. E., Uluğ, A., Piper, D., Konuk, Y. T., and Turgut, S. 1992: Quaternary sedimentary history of Adana, Cilicia and Iskenderun Basins: northeast Mediterranean Sea, Marine Geology 104, 55–71. Alaura, S. 2015: Lost, Denied, (Re)constructed: The Identity of the Hittites and Luwians in the Historiographical Debate of the 19th and Early 20th Centuries. In G. Garbati and T. Pedrazzi (eds) Transformations and Crisis in the Mediterranean. “Identity” and Interculturality in the Levant and the Phoenician West during the 12th to 8th Centuries BCE. Proceedings of an International Conference Held in Rome, CNR, May 8–9, 2013, Pisa-Rome, 21–34. Alex, M. 1985: Klimadaten ausgewählter Stationen des Vorderen Orients, Wiesbaden. Alexander, R. L. 1968: The Mountain God at Eflatun Pınar, Anatolica 2, 77–87. Alexander, R. L. 1973–76: The Tyskiewicz Group of Stamp Cylinders, Anatolica 5, 141–215. Alexandrov, B. 2014: La reconstitution de la conquête hittite de la Syrie à l’époque amarnienne: l’apport des textes de Tell Sakka, in N. Ziegler and E. Cancik-Kirschbaum (eds), Entre les fleuves. II, D’Aššur à Mari et au-delà, Berlin, 249–264. Alexandrov, B. and Sideltsev, A. 2009: Hittite āššweni, RA 103, 59–84.

326 Alfonso, L. d’ 1999: Tarḫuntašša in einem Text aus Emar, Altorientalische Forschungen 26, 314–321. Alfonso, L. d’ 2000: Syro-Hittite Administration at Emar: New Considerations on the Basis of a Prosopographic Study, Altorientalische Forschungen 27, 269–295. Alfonso, L. d’ 2005: Le procedure giudiziarie ittite in Siria (XIII sec. a.C.), Studia Mediterranea 17, Pavia. Alfonso, L. d’ 2007: The Treaty between Talmi-Teššub King of Karkemiš and Šuppiluliyama Great King of Ḫatti, in D. Groddek and M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum: Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag, DBH 25, Wiesbaden, 203–220. Alfonso, L. d’ 2010: Geo-Archaeological Survey in Northern Tyanitis and the Ancient History of Southern Cappadocia, in L. d’Alfonso, M. E. Balza and C. Mora (eds), GeoArchaeological Activities in Southern Cappadocia (Turkey), Studia Mediterranea 22, Pavia, 27–52. Alfonso, L. d’ 2013: Missione archeologica a Kınık Höyük. Uno sguardo d’insieme a conclusione della seconda campagna di scavo (2012), Athenaeum 101, 693–701. Alfonso, L. d’ and Mora, C. 2011: Missione archeologica in Cappadocia meridionale, 2010, Athenaeum 99, 549–598. Alfonso, L. d’ and Mora, C. and Tomassini Pieri, B. 2011: Il passaggio dall’età del Bronzo Tardo all’età del Ferro in Cappadocia Meridionale, in S. Mazzoni, F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri, and A. d’Agostino, Ricerche italiane in Anatolia. Risultati delle attività sul campo per le età del Bronzo e del Ferro, Studia Asiana 6, Roma, 69–103. Alfonso, L. d’, Gorrini, M. E. and Mora, C. 2014: Archaeological excavations at Kınık Höyük. Preliminary report of the third campaign (2013), Athenaeum 102, 565–586. Algaze, G., Breuninger, R. and Knutstad, J. 1994: The TigrisEuphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: Final report of the Birecik and Carchemish Dam survey areas, Anatolica 20, 1–96. Alkım, U.B. 1956: Kırşehir hüyüğü ve topraküstü buluntuları/ Kırşehir Hüyük und Lesefunde, Belleten 20/77, 61–101. Alkım, U.B. 1972a: İslahiye ve Samsun Bölgesinde 1971 Çalışmaları, Belleten 36/143, 422–426. Alkım, U.B. 1972b: Samsun Province, Anatolian Studies 22, 56. Alkım, U.B. 1973a: Tilmen Höyük ve Samsun Bölgesi Çalışmaları (1971), Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 20/2, 5–16. Alkım, U.B. 1973b: İslahiye ve Samsun Bölgesinde 1972 Dönemi Çalışmaları, Belleten 37/147, 435–438. Alkım, U.B. 1973c: Tilmen Hüyük and the Samsun region, Anatolian Studies 23, 62–65. Alkım, U.B. 1974a: Tilmen Höyük Kazısı ve Samsun Bölgesi Araştırmaları (1972), Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 21(2), 23–28. Alkım, U.B. 1974b: Samsun Bölgesinde 1973 Çalışmaları, Belleten 38/151, 553–556.

Bibliography Alkım, U.B. 1974c: Samsun region, 1973, Anatolian Studies 24, 50–53. Alkım, U.B. 1975: Samsun Bölgesi Çalışmaları (1973), Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 22/1, 5–12. Alkım, U.B. 1976: İkiztepe and Samsun survey, Anatolian Studies 26, 42–44. Alkım, U.B. 1978: İkiztepe and the Samsun region, 1977, Anatolian Studies 28, 23–27. Alkım, U.B., Alkım, H. and Bilgi, Ö. 1988: İkiztepe I. Birinci ve İkinci Dönem Kazıları, Ankara. Alkım, U.B., Alkım, H. and Bilgi, Ö. 2003: İkiztepe II. Üçüncü, Dördüncü, Beşinci, Altıncı, Yedinci Dönem Kazıları (1976– 1980), Ankara. Allcock, S.L. 2013: Living with a changing landscape: Holocene climate variability and socio-evolutionary trajectories, central Turkey. Unpublished PhD thesis, Plymouth University, UK. Allcock, S.L. and Roberts, N. 2014: Changes in regional settlement patterns in Cappadocia (central Turkey) since the Neolithic: a combined site survey perspective, Anatolian Studies 64, 33–58. Alp, S. 1961/1962: Amasya Civarında Zara Bucağında Bulunan Hitit Heykeli ile Diğer Hiti Eserleri, Anatolia 6, 191–216. Alp, S. 1974: Eine neue hieroglyphenhethitische Inschrift der Gruppe Kızıldağ-Karadağ aus der Nähe von Aksaray und die früher publizierten Inschriften derselben Gruppe, in K. Bittel, Ph. J. Houwink ten Cate and E. Reiner (eds), Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, PIHANS 35, Istanbul, 17–27. Alp, S. 1977: Hitit Kenti Ḫanḫana’nın Yeri, Belleten 41, 649–652 Alp, S. 1979: Maşat Höyük’te Keşfedilen Çivi Yazılı Hitit Tabletleri, VIII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara, 11–15 Ekim 1976, 1. Cilt, Ankara 1979, 165–196. Alp, S. 1983: Beiträge zur Erforschung des hethitischen Tempels. Kultanlagen im Lichte der Keilschrifttexte. Neue Deutungen, Ankara. Alp, S. 1991a: Hethitische Keilschrifttafeln aus Maşat-Höyük, Ankara. Alp, S. 1991b: Hethitische Briefe aus Maşat-Höyük, Ankara. Alp, S. 1994: Zilinder- und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya, Ankara. Alp, S. 1995: Zur Lage der Stadt Tarḫuntašša, in O. Carruba (ed.), Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Studia Mediterranea 9, 1–11. Alp, S. 2002: Hitit Güneşi, Ankara. Alparslan, M. 2010: Das Land Hakmiš: Geschichte, Lokalisation und politische Bedeutung einer hethitischen Metropole, Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, 25–31 August 2008, Ankara, 29–44.

Bibliography Alparslan, M. 2017: The Upper Land: Borders and Places of a Political and Geographical Landscape, in M. Alparslan and M. Doğan-Alparslan (eds) Proceedings of the International Workshop “Places and Spaces in Hittite Anatolia I: Hatti and the East”, 25–26. October 2013, Istanbul. Alparslan, M. and Doğan-Alparslan, M. 2015: The Hittites and their Geography: Problems of Hittite Historical Geography, European Journal of Archaeology 18/1, 90–110. Alster, B. and Oshima, T. 2007: Sargonic Dinner at Kaneš: the Old Assyrian Sargon Legend, Iraq 69, 1–20. Altman, A. 2000: Some Remarks on the So-Called “Arbitrage Concerning Barga” (CTH 63a), Ugaritforschungen 32, 1–11. Altman, A. 2001: The Submission of Šarupši of Nuḫašše to Šuppiluliuma I (CTH 53: A, obv. i, 2–11), Ugarit-Forschungen 33, 27–47. Altman, A. 2003: A Note on Abina in the Šattiwaza Treaty (CTH 51.I: A obv. 40, 43–45), Akkadica 124, 123–125. Altman, A. 2004: The “Historical Prologues” of the Hittite Vassal Treaties. An Inquiry into the Concepts of Hittite Interstate Law, Ramat-Gan. Altman, A. 2008: Ugarit’s Political Standing in the Beginning of the 14th Century BCE Reconsidered, Ugarit-Forschungen 40, 26–64. Alvaro, C. 2012: The Topography and Architecture at Arslantepe during the Second and First Millennia BC: Reconsidering more than 100 years of Researches, Origini 34, 345–360. Anderson, J.G.C. 1903: A Journey of Exploration in Pontus, Studia Pontica I, Toronto. Archi, A. 1980: Materiale epigrafico ittita da Tell Fray, SMEA 22, 31–32. Archi, A. 1990: Imâr au IIIème millénaire d’après les archives d’Ebla, MARI 6, 21–38. Archi, A. 1992: Substrate: Some Remarks on the Formation of the West Hurrian Pantheon, in H. Otten (ed.), Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, Ankara, 7–14. Archi, A. 1993: A Seal Impression from El-Qiṭār/Til-Abnu (Syria), Anatolian Studies 43, 201–206. Archi, A. 2008: Haššum/Hassuwan and Uršum/Uršaum from the point of view of Ebla, in T. Tarhan, A. Tibet, E. Konyar (eds) Muhibbe Darga Armağanı, Istanbul, 87–100. Archi, A. 2010: Hamath, Niya and Tunip in the 3rd Millennium B.C according to the Ebla Documents, SMEA 52, 33–39. Archi, A. 2012: Hittites at Tell Afis (Syria): II. The Cuneiform Tablets, Orientalia 81, 32–55. Archi, A. 2013: Ritualization at Ebla, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 13, 212–237. Archi, A. 2014a: La situation géopolitique de la Syrie avant l’expansion d’Akkad, Syria supplément 2, 161–171.

327 Archi, A. 2014b: Aštata: A Case of Hittite Imperial Policy, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 14, 141–163. Archi, A. and Klengel, H. 1980: Ein hethitischer Text über die Reorganisation des Kultes, Altorientalische Forschungen 7, 143–157. Archi, A. and Venturi, F. 2013: Tell Afis in the thirteenth century b.c.e. Under the Rule of the Hittites, Near Eastern Archaeology 76/4, 214–222. Archi, A., Pecorella, P. E. and Salvini, M. 1971: Gaziantep e la sua regione: uno studio storico e topografico degli insediamenti preclassici, Rome. Ardos, M. 1984: Türkiye Ovalarının Jeomorfolojisi, vol. 1, Istanbul. Ardzinba, V. 2010: Eskiçağ Anadolu Ayinleri ve Mitleri, Translated by Orhan Uravelli, Ankara. Arık, R. O. 1937a: Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafından Yapılan Alacahöyük Hafriyatı 1935’deki Çalışmalara ve Keşiflere Ait İlk Rapor, Ankara. Arık, R. O. 1937b: Les Premiers Resultats des Fouilles d’Alaca Höyük, Belleten 1/1, 210–11. Arıkan, Y. 1998: Hitit Dualarında Geçen Bazı Tanrı Adları, in S. Alp and A. Süel (ed.) III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 16–22 Eylül 1996—Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16– 22, 1996, Ankara, 45–51. Arıkan, Y. 2005: Hitit Kültünde Bir Görevli: LÚtazeli-, in A. Süel (ed.), V. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 02–08 Eylül 2002—Acts of the Vth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 02–08, 2002, Ankara, 49–82. Arıkan, Y. 2006: The Blind in Hittite Documents, Altorienta­ lische Forschungen 33, 144–154. Arnaud, D. 1987: Les Hittites sur le Moyen-Euphrate: Protecteurs et Indigènes, Hethitica 8, 9–27. Arnaud, D. 1996: Mariage et remariage des femmes chez les syriens du Moyen-Euphrate, à l’âge du Bronze Récent d’après deux nouveaux documents, Semitica 46, 7–16. Arnaud, D. 1997: Prolégomènes à la redaction d’une histoire d’Ougarit I.: Ougarit avant Suppiluliuma Ier, SMEA 39, 151–161. Artzy, M., Mommsen, H. and Asaro, F. 2004. Arzawa: Neutron Activation Analysis of EA32, in: Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. (ed.) Inscribed in Clay. Provenance Study of the Amarna-Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology, Tel Aviv, 45–47. Asouti, E. and Kabukcu, C. 2014: Holocene semi-arid oak woodlands in the Irano-Anatolian region of Southwest Asia: natural or anthropogenic?, Quaternary Science Reviews 90, 158–182. Astour, M.C. 1969: The Partition of the Confederacy of MukišNuḫašše-Nii by Šuppiluliuma: A Study in Political Geography of the Amarna Age, Orientalia 38, 381–414.

328 Astour, M.C. 1977: Tunip-Hamath and Its Region, a Contribution to the Historical Geography of Central Syria, Orientalia 46, 51–64. Astour, M.C. 1979: The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu, UgaritForschungen 11, 13–28. Astour, M.C. 1981: Ugarit and the Great Powers, in G. D. Young (ed.), Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic, Winona Lake, Ind., 3–29. Astour, M.C. 1989: Hittite History and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature, Pocket-book 73, Partille. Astour, M.C. 1992: Alalakh, in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 1, New York, 142–145. Astour, M.C. 1995a: Overland Trade Routes in Ancient Western Asia, in J. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, New York, 1401–1420. Astour, M.C. 1995b: La topographie du royaume d’ougarit, in M. Yon, M. Sznycer, and P. Bordreuil (eds), Le Pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C., RSO 11, Paris, 54–71. Astour, M.C. 1997: Ḫaššu and Ḫasuwan: A Contribution to North Syrian History and Geography, Ugarit-Forschungen 29, 1–66. Astour, M.C. 2002: A Reconstruction of the History of Ebla (Part 2), in C. H. Gordon and G. A. Rendsburg (eds), Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language, Winona Lake, Ind., 57–195. Atakay Gündoğdu, E. 2009: Çorum Güneybatısındaki Volkanik Kayaçların Jeolojik ve Petrolojik Özellikleri ve Alacahöyük Kazısında Jeoarkeolojik Çalışmaları, PhD Dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Atalay, E. and Ertekin, A. 1986: Çorum yöresinde yeni bulunan kaya kabartması, Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Bülteni 8, 19–26. Ayali-Darshan, N. 2015: The Identification of mrq in Leiden Magical Papyrus I 343 + I 345 in Light of the Eblaite Texts, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74, 87–89. Aykurt, A. 2010: Late Bronze Age Pottery from Çeşme Bağlara­ rası, OLBA XVIII, 1–63. Aykurt, A. 2013: An Updated Assessment on Western Anatolian Middle Bronze Age Chronology in Light of Excavations of the Izmir Region, Colloquium Anatolicum 12, 37–77. Aykurt, A. 2014: An Example of Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery: Krater from Liman Tepe, in N. Çınardalı-Karaaslan, A. Aykurt, N. Kolankaya-Bostancı and Y. H. Erbil (eds), Armağan Erkanal’a Armağan, Anadolu Kültürlerine Bir Bakış / Compiled in Honor of Armağan Erkanal, Some Observation on Anatolian Cultures, Ankara, 55–73. Aytaç, I. 2006: Harput—Palu—Diyarbakır Güzergahındaki Kervansaraylar, Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Araştırmaları 2006, 18–22. Åström, P. 1966: Excavations at Kalopsidha and Ayios Iakovos in Cyprus, Lund, 1966.

Bibliography Åström, P. 1988: A Cypriot Cult Scene, Journal of Prehistoric Religion 2, 5–11. Bachelot, L. 2005: Le quartier d’habitations de l’age du Bronze Récent in Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994–1998, in L. Bachelot and F. M. Fales (eds) Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994–1998. History of the Ancient Near East VI/1–2, Padua, 301–377. Bachmann, H.-G. 1984: Düsenrohre und Gebläsetöpfe: Keramikfunde aus Metallverarbeitungs-Werkstätten, in K. Bittel, H. G. Bachmann, R. Naumann, P. Neve, W. Orthmann, H. Otten, Boğazköy VI. Funde aus den Grabungen bis 1979, Berlin, 107–116. Bachmann, M. and Özenir, S. 2004: Das Quellheiligtum Eflatun Pınar, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2004/1, 85–122. Badali, E. 1991: Strumenti musicali, musici e musica nella celebrazione delle feste ittite, Heidelberg. Badertscher, S., Borsato, A., Frisia, S., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., Tüysüz, O. and Fleitmann, D. 2014: Speleothems as sensitive recorders of volcanic eruptions—the Bronze Age Minoan eruption recorded in a stalagmite from Turkey, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 392, 58–66. Badre, L. 2000: Recently discovered Bronze Age temples: Middle Bronze Beirut and Late Bronze Tell Kazel, in P. Matthiae, A. Enea, L. Peyronel, and F. Pinnock (eds), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th-23rd 1998, Rome, 34–54. Bagh, T. 2003: The Relationship between Levantine Painted Ware, Syro/Cilician Ware and Khabur Ware and the Chronolgical Implications, in M. Bietak (ed.), The Syn­ chronisation 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, Wien, 219–238. Bagg, A. 2007: Die Orts-und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Texte, Teil 1: Die Levante, RGTC 7/1, Wiesbaden. Bahar, H. 1996: Konya Hatıp’ta bulunan yeni bir Hitit anıtı, Ein neues hethitisches Denkmal aus Konya Hatip, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 73, 2–8. Bahar, H. 2005: Tarhuntašša Araştırmaları 1994–2002, in A. Süel (ed.), Acts of the Vth International Congress of Hittitology, Ankara, 83–117. Bahar, H. 2013: İlkçağda Kulu ve Çevresi. Selçuk Üniversitesi (ed.) Aidiyet, Göç ve Tarimin Şehri: Kulu Sempozyumu Bildileri 19–21 Ekim 2012, Konya, 17–44. Bahar, H., Karauğuz, G. and Koçak, Ö. 1996: Eskiçağ Konya Araştırmaları 1. Phrygia Paroreus Bölgesi: Anıtlar, Yerleşmeler ve Küçük Buluntular, Istanbul. Bahar, H. and Koçak, Ö. 2004: Eskiçağ Konya Araştırmaları 2. Neolitik Çağ’dan Roma Dönemi Sonuna kadar, Konya. Bahar, H., Çay, T. and İscan, F. 2007: The Land and City of Tarhuntašša. Geodetic Researches around it, Paper presented to the “XXI International CIPA Symposium, 01–06 October

Bibliography 2007, Athens, Greece, http://cipa.icomos.org/fileadmin/ template/doc/ATHENS/FP019.pdf, accessed 27.03.2016. Baird, D. 1996: Konya Plain, Anatolian Archaeology 2, 12. Baird, D. 1997: Konya Plain, Anatolian Archaeology 3, 12–13. Baird, D. 1998: Konya Plain, Anatolian Archaeology 4, 16. Baird, D. 2001: Settlement and Landscape in the Konya Plain, South Central Turkey, from the Epipaleolithic to the Medieval Period, in H. Karpuz, A. Baş and R. Duran (eds), I. Uluslar Arası “Çatalhöyük’ten Günümüze Çumra” Kongresi Bildirler Kitabı Çumra Belediyesi’nin Katkılarıla Bir Kültür Hizmeti Olarak Hazırlanmıştır, Çumra, 269–276. Baker, P. 2008: Economy, environment and society at Kilise Tepe, southern central Turkey. Faunal remains from the 1994–1998 excvations, in E. Vila (ed.) Archaeozoology of the Near East 8, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 40, Maison de L’Orient de la Méditerranée, Lyon, 407–429. Bal, Y., Çetin, C. and Demirkol, C. 1997: An update on the coastline changes and evolution of the Seyhan and Ceyhan Deltas in the Northeast Mediterranean, Turkey, in J. K. Beddow (ed.), GEONEV ‘97. Abstracts. International Symposium on Geology and Environment, Istanbul September 1–5, Istanbul, 64. Balfanz, K. 1995: Eine spätbronzezeitliche Elfenbeinspindel aus Troia VIIA, Studia Troica, 5, 107–116. Balkan, K. 1957: Mama Kralı Anum-Hirbi’nin, Kaniš Kralı Waršama’ya Gönderdiği Mektup, Ankara. Balkan, K. 1973: İnandık’ta 1966 Yılında Bulunan Eski Hitit Çağına Ait Bir Bağış Belgesi / Eine Schenkungsurkunde aus der althethitischen Zeit, gefunden in Inandik 1966, Ankara. Baltacıoğlu, H. 2004: Yazılı Kaynaklar ve Arkeolojik Veriler Işığında Hattuša ile Arinna Arasındaki Uzaklık, Archivum Anatolicum 7/2, 13–47. Bányai, M. 2010: Ist Urḫi-Teššub der König von Zulapa?, Anatolica 36, 1–16. Barjamovic, G. 2008: The geography of trade. Assyrian colonies in Anatolia c. 1975–1725 and a study of early interregional networks of exchange, in J. G. Dercksen (ed.), Anatolia and the Jazira in the Old Assyrian Period, Old Assyrian Archives, Studies 3, Leiden, 87–100. Barjamovic, G. 2010: Sites, Routes and Historical Geography in Central Anatolia, in I. Singer (ed.), ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Tel Aviv, 10–25. Barjamovic, G. 2011: A Historical Geography of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Colony Period, Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 38, Copenhagen. Barjamovic, G. 2014: The Size of Kanesh and the Demography of Early Middle Bronze Age Anatolia, in L. Atici, F. Kulakoğlu, G. Barjamovic and A. Fairbairn (eds), Current Research in Kültepe/Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and Integrative Approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism, and Identity

329 during the Middle Bronze Age, Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series 4, Bristol, CT, 55–68. Barjamovic, G. (in press): Interlocking Commercial Networks and the Infrastructure of Trade in Western Asia During the Bronze Age in K. Kristiansen, T. Lindkvist and J. Myrdal (eds), Trade and Civilization in the Pre-Modern World, Cambridge. Barjamovic, G., Chaney, Th., Coşar, K. and Hortaçsu, A. in press: Trade, Merchants and the Lost Cities of the Bronze Age. Barjamovic, G., Hertel, Th. and Larsen, M.T. 2012: Ups and Downs at Kanesh—Observations on Chronology, History and Society in the Old Assyrian period, PIHANS 120, OAAS 5, Leiden. Barjamovic, G. and Gander, M. 2012: Tegaram(m)a. RlA 13/5–6, 503–504. Barth, H. 1860: Reise von Trapezunt durch die nördliche Hälfte Klein-Asiens nach Scutari im Herbst 1858, Gotha. Basedow, M. A. 2000: Beşik-Tepe. Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld, Mainz am Rhein. Basso, E. 2010: The Pottery of Southern Cappadocia: Preliminary Petrographic Analyses of Sherds from Northern Tyanitis, in L. d’Alfonso, M. E. Balza and C. Mora (eds), Geo-Archaeological Activities in Southern Cappadocia (Turkey), Studia Mediterranea 22, Pavia, 71–80. Batiuk, S. D. and Burke, A. A. 2005: The Tell Atchana Mapping and GIS Project, in K. A. Yener (ed.), The Amuq Valley Regional Projects. Vol. 1, Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002, Chicago, 145–152. Batu, S. 1938: Türk Atları ve At Yetiştirme Bilgisi, Ankara. Bauer, A. A. 2006: Between the steppe and the sown: prehistoric Sinop and inter-regional interaction along the Black Sea coast, in D. L. Peterson, L. M. Popova, and A. T. Smith (eds), Beyond the Steppe and the Sown. Proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Conference on Eurasian Archaeology, Colloquia Pontica, Leiden, 225–246. Bawanypeck, D. 2013: ‘Luwian’ Religious Texts in the Archives of Ḫattuša, in A. Mouton, I. Rutherford, I. Yakubovich (eds) Luwian Identities, Leiden—Boston, 159–176. Bayram, S. 1998: New and Some Rare Geographical Names in the Kültepe Texts, Archivum Anatolicum 3, 41–66. Beal, R. H. 1992a: The Organization of the Hittite Military, Texte der Hethiter 20, Heidelberg. Beal, R. H. 1992b: The Location of Cilician Ura, Anatolian Studies 42, 65–74. Beal, R. H. 1993: Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša and the Imperial Hittite Mausoleum. A new Interpretation of §10 of the Bronze Tablet, Anatolian Studies 43, 29–39. Beal, R. H. 1999: Seeking Divine Approval for Campaign Strategy: KUB 5.1 + KUB 52.65, Ktema 24, 41–54. Beal, R. H. 2003: The Ten Years Annals of Great King Muršili of Ḫatti, in W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Jr (eds), The Context of Scripture. Volume Two: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, Leiden—Boston—Köln, 82–90.

330 Beckman, G.M. 1995: The Siege of Uršu Text (CTH 7) and Old Hittite Historiography, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 47, 23–34. Beckman, G.M. 1996: Hittite Diplomatic Texts, Atlanta-Georgia. Beckman, G.M. 21999a: Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Second Edition), Atlanta-Georgia. Beckman, G.M. 1999b: The city and the country in Hatti, in H. Klengel and J. Renger (eds), Landwirtschaft im Alten Orient: Ausgewählte Vorträge der XLI. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Berlin 4.- 1994, Berlin, 161–169. Beckman, G.M. 2001: Hantili I, in Th. Richter, D. Prechel, J. Klinger (eds), Kulturgeschichte. Altorientalische Studien für V. Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, Saarbrücken, 51–58. Beckman, G.M. 2006: Annals of Ḫattušili I, in M. W. Chavalas (ed.), Historical Sources in Translation: The Ancient Near East, Malden, Oxford, 219–222. Beckman, G.M. 2013: The Ritual of Palliya of Kizzuwatna. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 13/2, 113–145. Beckman, G.M., Bryce, T. R. and Cline, E. H. 2011: The Ahhiyawa Texts, SBL 28, Atlanta. Becks, R. and Guzowska, M. 2004: On the Aegean-Type Weaving at Troica, Studia Troica 14, 101–115. Belke, K. and Restle, M. 1984: Galatien und Lykaonien, Tabula Imperii Byzantini 4, Vienna. Bell, G.L. 1910: The east bank of the Euphrates from Tell Ahmar to Hit, Geographical Journal 36/5, 513–537. Belmonte Marín, J.A. 2001: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texte aus Syrien im 2. Jt. V. Chr. RGTC 12/2 = TAVO Bh. 7/12/2, Wiesbaden. Benzi, M. 1987: I Micenei a Iasos, in L. de Lachenal (ed.), Studi su Iasos di Caria: Venticinque anni di scavi della Missione Archeologica Italiana, Bollettino d’Arte Supplement No: 31– 32, Rome, 29–34. Benzi, M. 2002: Anatolia and the Eastern Aegean at the Time of the Trojan War, in F. Montanari (ed.), Omero tremila anni dopo, Rome, 343–410. Berges, D. and Nollé, J. 2000: Tyana. Archäologisch-historische Untersuchungen zum südwestlichen Kappadokien, Inschriften griechischer Städte Kleinasiens 55.1, 2, Bonn. Beyer, D. 2001: Emar IV. Les sceaux. Mission archéologique de Meskéne-Emar. Recherches au pays d’Aštata, OBO Series Archaeologica 20, Göttingen. Beyer, D. 2010: From the Bronze Age to the Iron Age at Zeyve Höyük/Porsuk: A temporary review, in L. d’Alfonso, M. E. Balza and C. Mora (eds), Geo-Archaeological Activities in Southern Cappadocia (Turkey), Studia Mediterranea 22, Pavia, 97–109. Beyer, D. 2015: Quelques nouvelles données sur la chronologie des phases anciennes de Porsuk, du Bronze Moyen à la réoccupation du fer, in D. Beyer, O. Henry and A. Tibet (eds), La Cappadoce méridionale de la préhistoire à la période byzantine, Istanbul, 101–110.

Bibliography Beyer, D., Charlier, I., Kirner, F., Laroche-Traunecker, F. and Tibet, A. 2014: Zeyve Höyük—Porsuk. Rapport préliminaire sur la campagne 2013, Anatolia Antiqua 22, 327–342. Biga, M.G. 2014: Karkemish in the Ebla Texts: Some New Data, in N. Marchetti (ed.), Karkemish: An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates, Bologna, 75–80. Bilgen, A.N. 1999: Kastamonu Kınık Kazısı 1994–1995 Meta­lür­ jik Buluntuları, Anadolu Araştırmaları 15, 269–293. Bilgen, A.N. 2005: Çavlum. Eskişehir Alpu Ovasında bir Orta Tunç Çağı Mezarlığı, Eskişehir. Bilgi, Ö. 1998: MÖ 2. Binyılda Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi, S. Alp and A. Süel (ed.) III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 16–22 Eylül 1996—Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16–22, 1996, Ankara, 63–75. Bilgi, Ö. 2001: Protohistorik Çağ’da Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi Madencileri; Hind Avrupalıların Anavatanı Sorununa Yeni Bir Yaklaşım. Protohistoric Age Metallurgists of the Central Black Sea Region: A New Perspective on the Question of the IndoEuropeans’ Original Homeland, Istanbul. Bilgi, Ö. 2012: Anadolu’da İnsan Görüntüleri, Istanbul. Bilgi, Ö., Atasoy, S., Dönmez, Ş. and Summerer, L. 2002: Samsun (Amisos) Bölgesi’nin Kültürel Gelişimi Projesi ile İlgili Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 19/1, 279–296. Bilgi, Ö., Atasoy, S., Dönmez, Ş. and Summerer, L. 2005: Samsun (Amisos) Bölgesi’nin Kültür el Gelişimi Projesi, Belleten 68(252), 387–402. Bilgi, Ö., Atasoy, S., Dönmez, Ş., and Ulugergerli, E. 2004: Samsun İli 2002 Dönemi Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 21/1, 87–96. Bilgi, Ö., Atasoy, S., Gökçe, F., and Dönmez, Ş. 2003: 2001 Yılı Samsun İli Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 20/2: 41–50. Bilgi, Ö., Dönmez, Ş., and Ulugergerli, E. 2005: Samsun İli 2003 Dönemi Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 22/1, 115–124. Bingöl, M.Ü, Ketenoğlu, O, Geven, F., Güney, K., Erdoğan, N., İlarslan, R. 2010: Deveci Dağları (Yozgat-Tokat) Vejetasyon Tiplerinin Floristik Kompozisyonu Üzerine Bir Araştırma, BİBAD-Biyoloji Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi 3/1, 65–71. Bittel, K. 1939: Archäologische Funde aus der Türkei 1934–1938, Archäologischer Anzeiger 54, 94–107. Bittel, K. 1939–41: Die Reliefs am Karabel bei Nif (Kemal-Paşa), Archiv für Orientforschung 13, 181–193. Bittel, K. 1940: Der Depotfund von Soloi/Pompeiopolis, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 12, 83–205. Bittel, K. 1957: Versuchsgrabung im nördlichen Stadtteil, in K. Bittel, R. Naumann, Th. Beran, R. Hachmann and G. Kurth, Boğazköy III. Funde aus den Grabungen 1952–1955, Berlin, 23–28. Bittel, K. 1958: Die hethitischen Grabfunde von Osmankayası, WVDOG 71, Berlin.

Bibliography Bittel, K. 1970: Hattusha. The Capital of the Hittites. Flexner Lectures 1967, New York—Oxford. Bittel, K. 1973: Boğazköy [1971], Archiv für Orientforschung 24, 191. Bittel, K. 1975: Das hethitische Felsheiligtum Yazılıkaya, Berlin. Bittel, K. and Naumann, R. 1952: Architektur, Topographie, Landeskunde und Siedlungsgeschichte, Stuttgart. Blanton, R.E. 2000: Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Settlement Patterns of the Coast Lands of Western Rough Cilicia, BAR-IS 879, Oxford. Blaylock, S. 1998: Adıyaman Survey 1985–1991, in R. J. Matthews (ed.) Ancient Anatolia: fifty years’ work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London, 101–110. Blaylock, S., French, D. H. and Summers, G. D. 1990: The Adıyaman Survey, an Interim Report, Anatolian Studies 40, 81–135. Blegen, C. W., Caskey, J. L., Rawson, M. and Sperling, J. 1950: Troy. General Introduction. The First and Second Settlements, Princeton. Blegen, C. W., Caskey, J. L. and Rawson, M. 1951: Troy. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Settlements, Princeton. Blegen, C. W., Caskey, J. L. and Rawson, M. 1953: Troy III. The Sixth Settlement, Princeton. Blegen, C. W., Boulter, C., Caskey, J. L. and Rawson, M. 1958: Troy IV. Settlements VIIa, VIIb and VIII, Princeton. Boer, J. G. de 2006–7: Phantom Mycenaeans in the Black Sea, TALANTA 38–39, 277–302. Boehmer, R. M. 1983: Die Reliefkeramik von Boğazköy, BoğazköyḪattuša 13, Berlin. Bonatz, D. 2007: The Divine Image of the King: Religious Representation of Political Power in the Hittite Empire, in M. Heinz and M. H. Feldman (eds), Representations of Political Power—Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake, Ind., 111–136. Bonatz, D. 2014: Tell Fekheriye in the Late Bronze Age: Archaeological Investigations into the Structures of Political Governance in the Upper Mesopotamian Piedmont, in D. Bonatz (ed.) The Archaeology of Political Spaces, Berlin, 61–84. Bossert, H.Th. 1944: Ein hethitisches Königssiegel. Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte und Entzifferung der hethitischen Hieroglyphenschrift, Berlin. Bossert, H.Th. 1946: Asia, Universite Matbaasi Komandit, Istanbul. Bossert, H.Th. 1950: Orta Anadolu’da Yapılan Bir Gezi Hakkında Kısa Ön-Rapor / Vorbericht über eine wissenschaftliche Reise in Zentralanatolien, Belleten 14, 667–675. Bossert, H.Th. 1951: Die Göttin Hepat in den hieroglyphen-­ hethitischen Texten, Belleten 59: 316–332. Bossert, H.Th. 1954–56: Die Felsinschrift von Şırzı, Archiv für Orientforshung 17, 56–70.

331 Bossert, H. Th. and Alkim, U. B. 1947: Karatepe. Kadirli and its environments / Second preliminary report, Istanbul. Bottema S. and Woldring, H. 1984: Late Quaternary vegetation and climate of south-western Turkey, Palaeohistoria 26, 123–149. Bottema, S., Woldring, H. and Aytuğ, B. 1993/1994: Late Quaternary vegetation history of northern Turkey, Palaeo­ historia 35/36, 13–72. Bounni, A. 1988: Découvertes archéologiques récentes en Syrie, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 132/2, 361–380. Bounni, A. 1993: Tell Fray, in O. Rouault and M. G. MasettiRouault (eds), L’Eufrate e il tempo: Le civilté del medio Eufrate e della Gezira siriana, Milan, 199–202. Bounni, A. and Al-Maqdissi, M. 1998: Compte rendu de la cinquième campagne de Fouilles à Tell Sianū sur la côte Syrienne, Altorientalische Forschungen 25, 257–267. Bouthillier, Chr., Colantoni, C., Debruyne, S., Glatz, C., Hald, M. M., Heslop, D., Kozal, E., Miller, B., Popkin, P., Postgate, J. 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. Bouzek, J. 1985: The Aegean, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations in the Second Millennium B.C., Göteborg and Prague. Boyer, P., Roberts, N., and Baird, D. 2006: Holocene environment and settlement on the Çarşamba alluvial fan, South Central Turkey: Integrating Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Field Survey, GeoArchaeology 21, 675–699. Boyer, P., Roberts, N., and Baird, D. 2006: Holocene Environment and Settlement on the Çarşamba Alluvial Fan, South-Central Turkey: Integrating Geoarchaeology and Archaeological Field Survey, Geoarchaeology 21, 675–698. Boysal, Y. 1967: Müsgebi Kazısı 1963 Kısa Raporu, Belleten 31, 67–76. Boysal, Y. 1969: Katalog der Vasen im Museum in Bodrum I: Mykenisch-Protogeometrisch, Ankara. Bozkurt, E. 2001: Neotectonics of Turkey—a synthesis, Geodinamica Acta 14, 3–30. Börker-Klähn, J. 1975: Eflatun Pınar—Zur Rekonstruktion und Deutung, Jahrbuch des Deutchen Archäologischen Institut 90, 1–41. Börker-Klähn, J. 2007: Die Schlacht um Tuṷanuṷa als Atlante Storico, in D. Groddek and M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hetheorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag, DBH 25, Wiesbaden, 91–118. Börker-Klähn, J. 2014: Landeskundliches: Suppilulija, Karahna, Urista, in N. Çınardalı-Karaaslan, A. Aykurt, N. KolankayaBostancı and Y. H. Erbil (eds), Armağan Erkanal’a Armağan, Anadolu Kültürlerine Bir Bakış / Compiled in Honor of Armağan Erkanal, Some Observation on Anatolian Cultures, Ankara, 131–146.

332 Braidwood, R.J. 1937: Mounds in the Plain of Antioch: An Archaeological Survey, OIP 48, Chicago. Braidwood, R.J., and Braidwood, L. 1960: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Vol. 1, The Earlier Assemblages, Phases A–J, OIP 61, Chicago. Branting, S.A. 1996: The Alişar regional survey 1993–1994, Anatolica 22, 145–158. Braudel, F. 2001: The Mediterranean in the Ancient World, London. Bretschneider, J. and Van Lerberghe, K. 2009: An Archaeological and Historical Study Based on Eight Seasons of Excavations at Tell Tweini (Syria) in the A and C Fields. The Syro-Belgian ‘Tell Tweini’ Project (1999–2007), in J. Bretschneider and K. Van Lerberghe (eds), In Search of Gibala, Aula orientalis Supplementa 24, Barcelona, 11–68. Broodbank, C. 2013: The Making of the Middle Sea, London. Brown, G.B. 1967: Prehistoric Pottery from the Antitaurus, Anatolian Studies 17, 123–164. Brown, M. in press: Carchemish and the Hittite Empire in the Middle Euphrates Valley, in D. Lawrence, M. Altaweel and G. Philip (eds) Studies in Honor of Tony J. Wilkinson: New Agendas in Remote Sensing and Landscape Archaeology in the Near East, Chicago. Brown, M. and Smith, S. 2016: The Land of Carchemish and its neighbours during the Neo-Hittite period (c. 1190–717 BC), in T. J. Wilkinson, E. J. Peltenburg and E. Barbanes Wilkinson (eds) Carchemish in Context, London, 22–37. Brückner, H., Kelterbaum, D., Marunchak, O., Porotov, A., and Vött, A. 2010: The Holocene sea level story since 7500 BP— Lessons from the Eastern Mediterranean, The Black and Azov Seas, Quarternary International 225, 160–179. Brunke, H. 2012: Kraftgesetz und Statistik—Anmerkungen zum Thema „Gravitationsmodelle in der historischen Geographie“, Altorientalische Forschungen 41/2, 147–154. Bryce, T.R. 1974a: The Lukka-Problem—And a Possible Solution, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33, 395–404. Bryce, T.R. 1974b: Some Geographical and Political Aspects of Mursili’s Arzawan Campaign, Anatolian Studies 24, 103–116. Bryce, T.R. 1988: Tette and the Rebellions in Nuhassi, Anatolian Studies 38, 21–28. Bryce, T.R. 1998: The Kingdom of the Hittites, Oxford. Bryce, T.R. 2003a: History, in H. C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Erste Abteilung, Naher und der Mittlere Osten 68, Boston, 27–127. Bryce, T.R. 2003b: Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age, London, New York. Bryce, T.R. 2005: The Kingdom of the Hittites, Oxford. Bryce, T.R. 2007a: The Secession of Tarhuntašša, in D. Groddek and M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische

Bibliography Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag, DBH 25, Wiesbaden, 119–129. Bryce, T.R. 2007b: The Geopolitical Layout of Late Bronze Age Anatolia’s Coastlands: Recent Advances and Important Caveats, in M. Alparslan, M. Doğan-Alparslan and H. Peker (ed.), VITA. Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Istanbul, 125–131. Bryce, T.R. 2009: The Routledge Handbook of the Peoples and Places of Ancient Western Asia: The Near East from the Early Bronze Age to the Fall of the Persian Empire, Abingdon. Bryce, T.R. 2010: The Hittite Deal with the Ḫiyawa-Men, in: Cohen, Y., A. Gilan, and J. L. Miller, (eds), Pax Hethitica: studies on the Hittites and their neighbours in honour of Itamar Singer, Wiesbaden, 47–53. Buchholz, H.-G. 1983: Doppeläxte und die Frage der Balkanbeziehungen des ägäischen Kulturkreises, in A.G. Poulter (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria. Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, 43–134. Budde, L. 1969: Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien, Beiträge zur Kunst des christlichen Ostens 5, Recklinghausen. Bunnens, G. 2009: Assyrian Empire Building and Aramization of Culture as Seen from Tell Ahmar/Til Barsib, Syria 86, 67–82. Burian, J. 1997: Dardani, Der Neue Pauly 3, 317–318. Burney, C. 1956: Northern Anatolia before Classical times, Anatolian Studies 6, 179–203. Burns, B. E. 2010: Trade, in E. H. Cline (ed.), The Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 BC), Oxford, 291–304. Burton-Ferguson, R., Aksu, A. E and Hall, C. J. 2005: Seismic stratigraphy and structural evolution of the Adana Basin, eastern Mediterranean, Marine Geology 221, 189–222. Büyükkolancı, M. 2007: Apaša, das alte Ephesos und Ayasoluk, in J. Cobet, V. von Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier and K. Zimmermann (eds), Frühes Ionien eine Bestandsaufnahme, PanionionSymposion Güzelçamlı 26 September-1.Oktober 1999, Mainz am Rhein, 21–26. Büyükkolancı, M. 2008: Selçuk Ayasuluk Tepesi (Eski Efes) ‘Appasas’ mı?, in A. Erkanal-Öktü, S. Günel and U. Deniz (eds), Batı Anadolu ve Doğu Akdeniz Geç Tunç Çağı Kültürleri Üzerine Yeni Araştırmalar, Ankara, 41–55. Callot, O. 2011: Les sanctuaires de l’acropole d’Ougarit, les temples de Baal et de Dagan, Ras Shamra, Ougarit XIX, Lyon. Cammarosano, M. 2006: Il decreto antico-ittita di Pimpira, Eothen 14, Firenze. Cammarosano, M. 2009: A Coregency for Muršili III?, Altorientalische Forschungen 36, 171–202. Cammarosano, M. and Marizza, M. 2015: Das Land Tumanna und sein König in den hethitischen Quellen, Die Welt des Orients 45, 158–192.

Bibliography Camatta, P. 2006: Die Stadt Hanhana und ein Identifizier­ ungsvorschlag, Altorientalische Forschungen 33, 263–270. Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. 2008: Assur und Hatti—Zwischen Allianz und Konflikt, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Ḫattuša-Boǧazköy: das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. Akten des 6. Internationalen Colloquiums der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft (22.–24. März 2006, Würzburg), CDOG 6, Wiesbaden, 205–222. Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. 2009: Ortsnamenreihungen als Quellen zur historischen Geographie: Der Westen des mittelassyrischen Reiches unter Tukultī-Ninurta I, in E. Cancik-Kirschbaum and N. Ziegler (eds), Entre les fleuves: Untersuchungen zur historischen Geographie Obermesopotamiens im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., BBVO 20, Berlin, 121–150. Carpenter, R. 1966: Discontinuity in Greek civilization, Cambridge. Carruba, O. 1962: Review of Friedrich, Johannes: Die hethitischen Gesetze. Transkription, Übersetzung, sprachliche Erläuterungen und vollständiges Wörterverzeichnis, Leiden 1959, Kratylos 7, 155–160. Carruba, O. 1974: Tahurwaili von Hatti und die heth. Geschichte um 1500 v. Chr., in K. Bittel, Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, and E. Reiner (eds), Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Istanbul, 73–93. Carruba, O. 1977: Beiträge zur mittelhethitischen Geschichte I. Die Tuthalijas und die Arnuwandas, SMEA 18, 137–174. Carruba, O. 1993: Zur Datierung der ältesten Schenkung­ surkunden und anonymen Tabarna-Siegel, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43, 71–85. Carruba, O. 1996: Neues zur Frügeschichte Lykiens, F. Blakolmer, K. Krierer, F. Krinzinger, A. Landskron-Dinstl, H. D. Szementhy, K. Zhuber-Okrog (eds), Fremde Zeiten, Wien, 25–39. Carruba, O. 2003: Anittae res gestae, Studia Mediterranea 13, Pavia. Carruba, O. 2008: Annali etei del Medio Regno, Studia Mediterranea18, Pavia. Carter, C. W. 1962: Hittite Cult Inventories, Chicago IL (PhD University of Chicago). Casabonne, O. 2001: Kiršu: une capitale cilicienne (6e–4e s. Av. J.-C.), in M. Mazoyer, Pérez-Rey, J., Lebrun, R. and MalbranLabat, F. (eds), Ville et pouvoir: origines et dévelopments, Vol. 1, Collection Kubaba, Paris, 101–114. Casabonne, O. 2002: Quelques villes et capitals Ciliciennes a l’age du Fer: toponymie et geographie historique, Anatolica Antiqua 10, 185–195. Casabonne, O. 2005: Quelques Remarques et Hypothèses sur Ura et la Cilicie Trachée, Colloquium Anatolicum 4, 67–81. Casana, J. 2007: Structural Transformations in Settlement Systems of the Northern Levant, American Journal of Archaeology 111/2, 195–221.

333 Casana, J. 2008: Mediterranean Valleys revisited: Linking soil erosion, land use and climate variability in the northern Levant, Geomorphology 101, 429–42. 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. Casana, J. 2012: Site Morphology and Settlement History in the Northern Levant, in R. Matthews, J. Curtis, M. Seymour, A. Fletcher, A. Gascoigne, C. Glatz, S. J. Simpson, H. Taylor, J. Tubb and R. Chapman (eds), 7ICAANE Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 12–16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, Wiesbaden, 593–608. Casana, J. 2013: Settlement, Territory and the Political Land­ scape of Late Bronze Age Polities in the Northern Levant, in J. Osborne and P. VanValkenburgh (eds), Territoriality in Archaeology. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 22/1, 107–125. Casana, J. 2014: The Late Roman Landscape of the Northern Levant: A view from Tell Qarqur and the lower Orontes River Valley, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 33/2, 193–219. Casana, J., Herrmann, J., and Fogel, A. 2008: Deep subsurface geophysical prospection using low frequency ground penetrating radar and electrical resistance tomography at Tell Qarqur, Syria. Archaeological Prospection 15, 1–19. Casana, J. and Wilkinson, T. J. 2005: Settlement and Landscapes in the Amuq Region. In K. A. Yener (ed.), The Amuq Valley Regional Projects, vol. 1, Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002, OIP 131, Chicago, 25–65. Caubet, A. 2014: Late Bronze Age Ceramics from Emar, in M. Luciani and A. Hausleiter (eds) Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syro-Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions, Rahden/Westfalen, 71–83. Cavaignac, E. 1950: Les Hittites, Maisonneuve, Paris. Ceccini, S. M., and Mazzoni, S. (eds) 1998: Tell Afis (Syria), Scavi sull’acropoli 1988–1992. Pisa. Chačatrjan V. N. 1971: Vostočnye provincii chettskoj imperii (Voprosy toponimiki) [Östliche Provinzen des Ḫatti-Reiches (Fragen der Toponymie)], Jerevan. Chambon, G. 2009: Gravitationsmodelle in der historischen Geographie des Alten Orients. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ihrer Anwendung. In: E. Cancik-Kirschbaum and N. Ziegler (eds) Entre les fleuves—1. Untersuchungen zur historischen Geographie Obermesopotamiens im 2. Jahrtausend, BBVO 20, Berlin, 323–337. Chantre, E. 1898: Recherches archéologiques dans l’Asie Occidentale. Mission en Cappadoce 1893–1894, Paris. Charpin, D. 2004: Histoire Politique du Proche-Orient Amorrite (2002–1595), in D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard, and M. Stol (eds), Mesopotamien: Die altbabylonische Zeit, OBO 160/4, Fribourg, Göttingen.

334 Charpin, D. 2008: Die Beziehungen zwischen Anatolien und der Syro-Mesopotamischen Welt in der altbabylonischen Zeit, in G. Wilhelm (ed.) Ḫattuša-Boǧazköy: das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. Akten des 6. Internationalen Colloquiums der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (22.–24. März 2006, Würzburg), CDOG 6, Wiesbaden, 95–107. Charpin, D. and Durand, J. M. 2004: Prétendants au trône dans le Proche Orient amorrite, in J. G. Dercksen (ed.) Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, Leiden, 99–115. Chesney, F.R. 1868: Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition: Carried on by Order of the British Government During the Years 1835, 1836, and 1837, London. Chiti, B. and Pedrazzi, T. 2014: Tell Kazel (Syria), Area II. New Evidence from a Late Bronze/lron Age Quarter, in P. Bieliński, M. Gawlikowski, R. Koliński, D. Ławecka, A. Sołtysiak, and Z. Wygnańska (eds), Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of the Archaeology of Ancient Near East, 30 April–4 May 2012, University of Warsaw, Wiesbaden, 67–84. Cipollari, P., Cosentino, D., Radeff, G., Schildgen, T. F., Faranda, C., Grossi, G., Gliozzi, E., Smedile, A., Gennari, R., Darbaş, G., Dudas, F., Gürbüz, K., Nazik, A. and Echtler, H. 2003: Easternmost Mediterranean evidence of the Zanclean flooding event and subsequent surface uplift: Adana Basin, southern Turkey, in A. H. Robertson, O. Parlak and U. C. Ünlügenç (eds), Geological development of Anatolia and the easternmost Mediterranean Region, Geological Society special publication 372, London, 473–493. Cline, E.H. 2009: Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean, BAR International Series 591, Oxford. Cline, E.H. 2014: 1177 B.C. The year civilization collapsed, Princeton. Cline, E.H. and O’Conner, D. 2003: The Mystery of the ‘Sea Peoples,’ in D. O’ Connor and S. Quirke (eds) Mysterious Lands, London, 107–138. Cohen, H.R. 1970: The Palaeoecology of South-Central Anatolia at the End of the Pleistocene and the Beginning of the Holocene, Anatolian Studies 20, 119–137. Cohen, Y. 2009: The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age, HSS 59, Winona Lake, Ind. Cohen, Y. 2011: The Administration of Cult in Hittite Emar, Altorientalische Forschungen 38, 145–147. Cohen, Y. 2012: Aḫi-malik, The Last Overseer in the City of Emar, in K. Abraham and Y. Fleischmann (eds), Looking at the Bible and the Ancient Near East through the Same Eyes: A Tribute to Aharon Skaist, Bethesda, Md., 13–27. Cohen, Y. 2013: Problems in the History and Chronology of Emar, KASKAL 10, 281–294. Cohen, Y. and Alfonso, L. d’ 2008: The Duration of the Emar Archives and the Relative and Absolute Chronology of the

Bibliography City, in L. d’Alfonso, Y. Cohen, and D. Sürenhagen (eds), The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires. History, Landscape, and Society, AOAT 349, Münster, 3–25. Cohen, Y. and Singer, I. 2006: A Late Synchronism between Ugarit and Emar, in Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, and O. Lipschits (eds), Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman, Winona Lake, Ind, 123–139. Coindoz, M. 1991: Cappadoce méridionale: Le site de Porsuk et les voies de communication entre la Tyanitide et les Portes Ciliciennes, in Br. Le Guen-Pollet and O. Pelon (eds), La Cappadoce méridionale jusqu’à la fin de l’époque romaine. Etat de recherches, Paris, 77–90. Collins, B. J. 1987: §54 of the Hittite Laws and the Old Kingdom Periphery, Orientalia 56, 136–141. Collon, D., Jackson, M. and Postgate, J. N. 2009: Excavations at Kilise Tepe 2008, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31/3, 159–184. Comfort, A. and Ergeç, R. 2001: Following the Euphrates in Antiquity: North-South Routes around Zeugma, Anatolian Studies 51, 19–49. Contenau, G. 1934: La civilisation des Hittites et des Mitanniens, Paris. Cooper, J., Schwartz, G. M. and Westbrook, R. 2005: A MittaniEra Tablet from Umm el-Marra, SCCNH 15, Bethesda, Md, 41–56. Cordani, V. 2011: Dating the Ascension to the Throne of Šuppiluliuma I, KASKAL 8, 141–160. Cordani, V. 2013: Suppiluliuma in Syria after the First Syrian War: The (non-)Evidence of the Amarna Letters, in S. de Martino and J. L. Miller (eds), New Results and New Questions on the Reign of Suppiluliuma I, Eothen 19, Firenze, 43–64. Córdoba, J. M. 1990: Tell es-Seman = Aḫunā?: Stationen einer altbabylonischen Reiseroute durch das Baliḫ-Tal, Altorientalische Forschungen 17, 360–378. Cornelius, F. 1955: Hethitische Reisewege, Revue Hittite et Asianique 13, 49–62. Cornelius, F. 1958a: Zur hethitischen Geographie: die Nachbarn des Hethiterreiches, Revue Hittite et Asianique 62: 1–17. Cornelius, F. 1958b: Geographie des Hethiterreiches, Orientalia Neue Serie 27, 225–251, 373–398. Cornelius, F. 1961: Zur Geographie der Hethiter (Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise), Bibliotheca Orientalis 18, 214–218. Cornelius, F. 1963: Neue Aufschlüsse zur hethitischen Geographie, Orientalia Neue Serie 32, 233–245. Cornelius, F. 1967: Neue Arbeiten zur hethitischen Geographie, Anatolica 1: 62–77. Cornelius, F. 1970: Das hethitische ANTAḪŠUM(ŠAR)-Fest, in D. O. Edzard (ed.) Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweistrom­ land und in den angrenzenden Gebieten—Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, München, 29. Juni bis 3 Juli. 1970, München, 171–174.

Bibliography Cornelius, F. 1973: Geschichte der Hethiter. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der geographischen Verhältnisse und der Rechtsgeschichte, Darmstadt. Cornelius, F. 1976: Streitpunkte der hethitischen Geographie, Bibliotheca Orientalis 33, 283–285. Corti, C. 2006a: Hattušili III e la gestione del culto nella città santa di Nerik (1), in C. Mora and P. Piacentini (eds), L’ufficio e il documento: i luoghi, i modi e gli strumenti dell’amministrazione in Egitto e nel Vicino Oriente antico, Quaderni di Acme 83, Milano, 313–329. Corti, C. 2006b: Il culto nella regione del Mar Nero: i rituali di invocazione alle divinità, Unpublished Dissertation, Università degli Studi di Firenze. Corti, C. 2009: Hattušili III and the Cult Management of the Holy City of Nerik (II), in F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri and C. Corti (eds), Central-North Anatolia in the Hittite Period. New Perspectives in Light of Recent Research. Acts of the Conference held at the University of Florence 7.-9.2.2007, Studia Asiana 5, Rome, 13–23. Corti, C. 2010a: The Hittite Tablet UK09.OB.2: A Preliminary Analysis, Anatolica 36, 131–133. Corti, C. 2010b: The religious traditions of the ‘Zalpa Kingdom’. New edition of CTH 733 and related documents, in A. Süel (ed.), Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum August 25–31, 2008, Ankara, 139–156. Corti, C. 2010c: Because for a long time (the Gods of Zalpa) have been ignored .. hence these offerings in this way do we donate. New Celebrations in the Zalpuwa Land, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religion 10/1, 91–102. Corti, C. (in press): Wine and Vineyards in the Hittite Kingdom: A Case Study of Northern Anatolia and the Southern Black Sea Coast, in L. Thys Şenocak (ed.), Of Vines and Wines: The Production and Consumption of Wine in Anatolian Civilizations Through the Ages, Proceedings of the international symposium held at Koç University, Istanbul, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement series, Leuven. Corti, C., and Pecchioli Daddi, F. 2012: The Power in the Heaven. Remarks on the So-Called Kumarbi Cycle, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Organization, Representation and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Winona Lake, Ind., 611–618. Courtois, J.-C. 1973: Prospection archaéologique dans la moyenne vallée de l’Oronte, Syria 50, 53–99. Crasso, D. 2005: Ankuwa in Hittite Written Sources: Preliminary Observations, KASKAL 2, 147–158. Crasso, D. 2008: The location of Ankuwa and the geographic connections with the Hittite capital and the neighbouring towns, in K. Strobel (ed.), New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millenium B.C., Eothen 16, Firenze, 87–130.

335 Crespin, A.S. 1999: Between Phrygia and Cilicia. The Porsuk area and the beginning of the Iron Age, in A. Çilingiloğlu and R.J. Matthews (eds), Anatolian Iron Ages 4. Proceedings of the Fourth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium, London, 61–71. Crouwel, J.H. 2006: Late Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery a Brief Review, in E. Rystedt, B. Wells (eds), Pictorial pursuits. Figurative painting on Mycenaean and Geometric pottery, Stockholm, 15–22. Crouwel, J.H. 2007: Pictorial Pottery of LH III C Middle and its Antecedents, in S. Deger-Jalkotzy, M. Zavadil (eds), LH III C Chronology and Synchronisms II LH III C Middle, Wien, 73–88. Czichon, R.M. 1997: Studien zur Regionalgeschichte von Hattuša-Boğazköy 1996, erster Vorbericht, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 129, 89–102. Czichon, R.M. 1998: Studien zur Regionalgeschichte von Hattuscha/Bogazköy 1997, zweiter Vorbericht, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 130, 83–93. Czichon, R.M. 1999a: Studien zur Regionalgeschichte von Hattuscha-Bogazköy 1998, dritter Vorbericht, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 131, 47–57. Czichon, R.M. 1999b: Das Umland der Hethitischen Hauptstadt Hattuša: erste Ergebnisse eines Surveys, in E.-L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt (eds), Stadt und Umland: neue Ergebnisse der archäologischen Bau- und Siedlungsforschung, Berlin, 123–128. Czichon, R.M. 2000: Das Hattuscha/Bogazköy Surveyprojekt, in: P. Matthiae, Enea, A., Peyronel, L., Pinnock, F. (eds), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, 269–277. Czichon, R.M. 2003: Studien zur Regionalgeschichte von Hattuscha/Bogazköy vom Chalkolithikum bis zur Byzantinischen Zeit, unpublished Habilitationsschrift, Würzburg, 2003. Czichon, R.M. 2008: Die hethitische Kultur im mittleren Schwarzmeergebiet unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Umgebung von Vezirköprü, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), HattušaBoğazköy. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients, CDOG 6, Wiesbaden, 265–276. Czichon, R.M. 2009: Archäologische Forschungen am Oymaağaç Höyük in den Jahren 2005 and 2006, F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri and C. Corti (eds), Central-North Anatolia in the Hittite Period. New Perspectives in Light of Recent Research. Acts of the Conference held at the University of Florence 7.9.2.2007, Studia Asiana 5, Rome, 25–31. Czichon, R.M. 2011: Arbeitsbericht der Kampagne 2011, http:// nerik.de/artikel/artikel.php?artikelid=148 (last accessed 17 January 2014). Czichon, R.M. 2009: Archäologische Forschungen am Oymaağaç Höyük in den Jahren 2005 and 2006, in F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri and C. Corti (eds), Central-North

336 Anatolia in the Hittite Period. New Perspectives at the Light of Recent Excavations, Florence, 25–31. Czichon, R.M. 2008: Die hethitische Kultur im mittleren Schwarzmeergebiet unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Umgebung von Vezirköprü, CDOG 6, 265–277. Czichon, R.M. 2013: Oymaağaç Höyük/Nerik(?), in M. DoğanAlparslan and M. Alparslan (eds), Hititler: Bir Anadolu İmparatorluğu/ Hittites: An Anatolian Empire, Istanbul, 298–309. Czichon, R.M., Flender, M. and Klinger, J. 2006: Interdiszi­plinäre Geländebegehungen im Gebiet von Oymaağaç-Verziköprü / Provinz Samsun, Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 138, 157–176. Czichon, R.M. and Klinger, J. 2005: Auf der Suche nach der hethitischen Kultstadt Nerik, Alter Orient 6, 18–19. Czichon, R.M., Klinger, J., Breuer, P., Eerbeek, J., Fox, S., Marinova-Wolff, E., Marquardt, H., von der OstenWoldenburg, H., Reichmuth, S., Riehl, S. and Johannsen, Th. 2012: Archäologische Forschungen am Oymaagac Höyük-Nerik(?) in den Jahren 2007–2010, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 143, 169–250. Çambel, H. 1999: Karatepe-Aslantaş. The inscriptions: facsimile edition. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions 2, Mainz. Çay, T., Koçak, Ö., Üyümez, M., İşcan, F., İlasli, A. 2007: Afyonkarahisar’ın Doğusunda Önemli Bir Orta Tunç Çağı Nekropolü: Dede Mezarı, Belleten 71/262, 811–841. Çetin, H., Bal, Y. and Demirkol, C. 1999: Engineering and Environmental Effects of Coastline Changes in Turkey, Northeastern Mediterranean, Environmental & Engineering Geoscience 5, 1–16. Çifçi, A. and Greaves, A. M. 2010: Settlement Patterns in the Second and First Millennia BC Elbistan Plain, Anatolica 36, 89–110. Çınardalı Karaaslan, N. 2008: Recent Investigations at Panaztepe Harbour Town, in A. Erkanal-Öktü, S. Günel and U. Deniz (eds), Batı Anadolu ve Doğu Akdeniz Geç Tunç Çağı Kültürleri Üzerine Yeni Araştırmalar, Ankara, 57–68. Çınaroğlu, A. and Çelik, D. 2006: 2004 Yılı Alaca Höyük ve Alaca Höyük Hitit Barajı Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 27/1, Ankara, 1–6. Çınaroğlu, A. and Çelik, D. 2010: Atatürk ve Alacahöyük, Ankara. Çınaroğlu, A. and Çelik, D. 2011: 2009 Yılı Alaca Höyük Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 34/4, 183–193. Çınaroğlu, A. and Genç, E. 2004: Kastamonu-Kınık 2002 Yılı Kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 25/1, 355–366. Çınaroğlu, A. and Genç, E. 2005: 2003 Yılı Kastamonu-Kınık Kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 26/1, 277–290. Dalaison, J. 2002: Les limites de la cité d’Amaseia au haute-Empire, Anatolia Antiqua 10, 261–276.

Bibliography Dalfez, H. N., Kukla, G., and Weiss, H. (eds) 1997: Third Millennium BC climate change and the Old World Collapse, Proceedings of NATO ASI Series I, Vol. 49, Berlin. Dardano, P. 1997: L’aneddoto e il racconto in età antico-hittita: la cosiddetta “cronica di palazzo”, Rome. Dardano, P. 2006: Die hethitischen Tontafelkataloge aus Ḫattuša (CTH 276–282), StBoT 47, Wiesbaden. Darga, M.A. 1973: Karahna Şehri Kült Envanteri, Istanbul. Darga, M.A. 1980: Şemsiyetepe 1979 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2, 27–30. Darga, M.A. 1981: Şemsiyetepe 1980 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3, 53–57. Darga, M.A. 1982: Şemsiyetepe 1981 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4, 55–62. Darga, M.A. 1983: Şemsiyetepe 1982 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 5, 91–96. Darga, M.A. 1985: Şemsiyetepe 1984 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 7, 119–128. Darga, M., and Sivas, T. 2001: Şarhöyük-Dorylaion 1999 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 22/2 Ankara, 51–62. Darga, M. and Starke, F. 2003: Eine Tonbulle mit hieroglyphenluwischem Siegelabdruck aus Şarhöyük-Dorylaion, Studia Troica 13, 161–164. Dassow, E.M. von 2005: Archives of Alalah IV in Archaeological Context, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 338, 1–69. Dassow, E.M. von 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. Dassow, E.M. von 2013: Piecing Together the Song of Release, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 65, 127–162. Davesne, A., Laroche, E. and Laroche-Traunecker, F. 1998: Gulnar 1: Le site de Meydancikkale. Recherches enterprises sous la direction d’Emmanuel Laroche, 1971–1982, Paris. Deckers, K. 2011: Bronze Age archaeological sites in the landscape: On the former distribution and density of deciduous oak in northern Syria, in N.J. Conard, P. Drechsler, and A. Morales (eds) Between Sand and Sea. The archaeology and human ecology of southwestern Asia, Tübingen, 177–190. Delaporte, L. 1932: Grabung am Has Hüyük 1931, Archaeo­ logischer Anzeiger 47, 230–233. Delaporte, L. 1936: Les Hittites, Paris. Delaporte, L. 1940: Malatya: Fouilles de la Mission Archéologique Française—Arslantepe. La Porte des Lions, Paris. Dengate, J.A. 1978: A site survey along the south shore of the Black Sea, in E. Akurgal (ed.), The Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, vol. 1. Ankara, 245–258. Dercksen, J.G. 1996: The Old Assyrian Copper Trade in Anatolia, Istanbul.

Bibliography Dercksen, J.G. 2001: “When we met in Hattuš”—Trade according to Old Assyrian texts from Alishar and Boğazköy, in W. H. van Soldt (ed.), Veenhof Anniversary Volume, Leiden, 39–66. Dercksen, J.G. 2005: Akkad is King! The Sargon Text from Kültepe, JEOL 39, 107–129. Dercksen, J.G. 2010: Anitta and the Man of Purušhanda, in Ş. Dönmez (ed.) Veysel Donbaz’a Sunulan Yazılar DUB.SAR É .DUB.BA.A: Studies presented in honour of Veysel Donbaz, Istanbul, 71–76. Devecchi, E. 2005: Gli Annali di Ḫattušili I nella versione accadica, Studia Mediterranea 16, Pavia. Devecchi, E. 2007: A Fragment of a Treaty with Mukiš, SMEA 49, 207–216. Devecchi, E. 2010: Amurru Between Hatti, Assyria, and Ahhiyawa. Discussing a Recent Hypothesis, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 100, 242–256. Devecchi, E. 2012: Treaties and Edicts in the Hittite World, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg 20–25 July 2008, Winona Lake, Ind, 637–645. Devecchi, E. 2013: Suppiluliuma’s Syrian Campaigns in Light of the Documents from Ugarit, in S. de Martino and J. L. Miller (eds), New Results and New Questions on the Reign of Suppiluliuma I, Eothen 19, Firenze, 81–97. Devecchi, E. 2014: Unteres Land, RlA 14, 341–342. Diakonoff, I. M. and Kashkai, S. M. 1981: Geographical Names According to Urartian Texts. Répertoire Géographiques des Textes Cunéiformes 9, Wiesbaden. Dietler, M. 2010: Archaeologies of Colonialism: Consumption, Entanglement, and Violence in Ancient Mediterranean France, Berkeley. Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1981: Die Inschrift der Statue des Königs Idrimi von Alalaḫ, Ugarit-Forschungen 13, 201–268. Dikaios, P. 1932: Les cultes préhistoriques dans l’île de Chypre, Syria 13, 345–354. Dikaios, P. 1938: The Excavations at Vounous-Bellapais in Cyprus, 1931–2, Archaeologia 88, 1–168. Dinçol, A.M. 1974: Über die Hydronomie und Oronomie Anatoliens zur Zeit der Hethiter, Berytus 23, 29–40. Dinçol, A.M. 1998a: The Rock Monument of the Great King Kurunta and its Hieroglyphic Inscription, in S. Alp and A. Süel (eds), III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirleri, Çorum 16–22 Eylül 1996—Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16–22, 1996, Ankara, 159–166. Dinçol, A.M. 1998b: Die Entdeckung des Felsmonuments in Hatıp und ihre Auswirkungen über die historischen und geographischen Fragen des Hethiterreichs, TÜBA-AR 1, 27–36.

337 Dinçol, A.M. and Dinçol, B. 1988: Hieroglyphische Siegel und Siegelabdrücke aus Eskiyapar, in E. Neu and Chr. Rüster (eds) Documentum Asiae Minoris. Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 87–97. Dinçol, A.M. and Dinçol, B. 2001: Studies in Historical Geogra­ phy of the Central Taurus, in O. Belli (ed.), Istanbul University’s Contribution to Archaeology in Turkey 1932–2000, 318–319. Dinçol, A.M. and Dinçol, B. 2006: İki Farklı Dünya’nın Buluştuğu Noktada Bir Anadolu İmparatorluğu: Batı ve Doğu Arasındaki Arabulucu Hititler, in Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak and R. Slotta (eds), Uluburun Gemisi. 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya Ticareti, Bochum, 213–220. Dinçol, A.M. and Darga, M. 1969/70: Die Feste von Karahna, Anatolica 3, 99–118. Dinçol, A.M. and Yakar, J. 1974: The Theories on the Localization of Nerik Reconsidered, Belleten 38/152, 573–582. Dinçol, A.M., Dinçol, B., Hawkins, J. D., Marchetti, N. and Peker, H. 2014: A Stele of Suhi from Karkemish, Orientalia 83, 143–153. Dinçol, A.M., Dinçol, B., Hawkins, J. D., Öztan, A. and Peker, H. 2015: Two New Inscribed Storm-God Stelae from Arsuz (İskenderun): ARSUZ 1 and 2, Anatolian Studies 65, 59–77. Dinçol, A.M., Yakar, J., Dinçol, B. and Taffet, A. 2000: The Borders of the Appanage Kingdom of Tarhuntašša: A Geographical and Archaeological Assessment, Anatolica 26, 1–29. Dinçol, A.M., Yakar, J., Dinçol, B. and Taffet, A. 2001: Die Grenzen von Tarhuntašša im Lichte geographischer Beobachtungen, in E. Jean, A.M. Dinçol and S. Durugönül (eds), La Cilicie: Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.-C.—4e siècle ap. J.-C.). Actes de la table ronde international d’Istanbul, 2–5 novembre 1999, Istanbul-Paris, 79–86. Dinçol, B. 1994: New archaeological and epigraphical finds from Ivriz. A preliminary report, Tel Aviv Journal of Archaeology 21, 117–128. Doğan-Alparslan, M. 2012: Hitit Kralı II. Muwatalli: Kışılığı ve İcraatı Filolojik Belgeler Işığında, Studia ad Orientem Antiquum 1, Istanbul. Doğan-Alparslan, M. 2015: Ein Hieroglyphensiegel aus Şarhöyük, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 65, 273–279. Doğan-Alparslan, M. and Alparslan, M. 2010: Ein hethitisches Siegel aus Amasya—Oluz Höyük, Altorientalische Forschungen 37/2, 307–305. Doğan-Alparslan, M. and Alparslan, M. 2011: Wohnsitze und Hauptstädte der hethitischen Könige, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 61, 85–103. Doğan-Alparslan, M. and Alparslan, M. 2013: A New Luwian Rock Inscription from Kahramanmaraş, in A. Mouton, I. Rutherford, and I Yakubovich (eds), Luwian Identities— Culture, Language and Religion between Anatolia and the Aegean, Leiden-Boston, 215–232.

338 Dommelen, P. van 2006: Colonial matters: Material culture and postcolonial theory in colonial situations, in C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuechler, M. Rowlands, and P. Spyer (eds), Handbook of Material Culture, London, 104–124. Donceel-Voûte, P. 1979: Gökırmak valley, 1977, Anatolian Studies 29, 196–197. Doonan, O. P. 2004: Sinop Landscapes: Exploring Connection in a Black Sea Hinterland, Philadelphia. Doonan, O. P. and Bauer, A. 2005: Sinop Province Archaeological Project: Report on the 2003 field season, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 22, 275–284. Doonan, O. P., Casson, A., and Gantos, A. 2008: Sinop Province archaeological project: report on the 2006 field season, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 25, 133–150. Doonan, O. P., Gantos, A., Hiebert, F., Besonen, M. and Yaycioğlu, A. 2000: Sinop Bölgesel Arkeoloji Araştırması, 1998: Karasu Vadi Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 17: 345–356. Doonan, O. P., Gantos, A., Hiebert, F., Besonen, M. and Yaycioğlu, A. 2001a: Systematic Survey of the Karasu River Valley (Sinop province), 1998–99, TÜBA-AR 4, 113–135. Doonan, O. P., Gantos, A., Hiebert, F., Besonen, M. and Yaycioğlu, A. 2001b: Sinop Hinterlandı Sistematik Yüzey Araştırması, 1999, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 18, 137–148. Doonan, O.P., Bauer, A., Casson, A., Besonen, M., Conrad, M., Evren, E., and Domzalski, K. 2014: Sinop Regional Archaeological Project: Report on the 2010–11 Field Seasons, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 31, 146–164. Dornemann, R.H. 1979: Tell Hadidi: A Millennium of Bronze Age City Occupation, in D. Freedman (ed.), Archaeological Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project: Euphrates Valley Syria, Cambridge, 115–151. Dornemann, R. H. 2003: Seven Seasons of American Schools of Oriental Research Excavations at Tell Qarqur, Syria, 1993– 1999, in N. Lapp (ed.), Preliminary Excavation Reports and Other Archaeological Excavations: Tell Qarqur, Iron I Sites in the North Central Highlands of Palestine, ASOR Annual 56, Boston. Dornemann, R. H. 2012: The Qarqur Challenge: The Bronze Age and Earlier. Near Eastern Archaeology 75/4, 220–230. Dönmez, Ş. 1999: Sinop-Samsun-Amasya İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, 1997, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 16, 513–536. Dönmez, Ş. 2000a: Sinop-Samsun-Amasya İlleri 1998 Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 17, 229–244. Dönmez, Ş. 2000b: Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi Yüzey Araştırması, in O. Belli (ed.), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi, Ankara, 330–334. Dönmez, Ş. 2002a: 1997–1999 Yüzey Araştırmalarında İncelenen Samsun-Amasya İlleri M. Ö. 2. Binyılı Yerleşmeleri, Belleten 65 (244), 873–903. Dönmez, Ş. 2002b: The 2nd millennium BC settlements in Samsun and Amasya provinces, cental Black Sea region, Turkey, Ancient West and East 1, 243–203.

Bibliography Dönmez, Ş. 2004: Boyabat-Kovuklukaya: A Bronze Age settlement in the central Black Sea region, Turkey, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 41, 38–82. Dönmez, Ş. 2008: An overview of the 2nd millennium BC cultures of the central Black Sea region in the light of new resaerch, TÜBA-AR 11, 85–104. Dönmez, Ş. 2012: An overview of the 2nd millennium BC and Iron Age cultures of the province of Sinop in the light of new research, in D. K. Tezgör (ed.), Sinope, The Results of Fifteen Years of Research, Leiden, 153–174. Dönmez, Ş. and Yurtsever Beyazıt, A. 2008: A general look at the central Black Sea region during the Middle Bronze Age and a new approach to the Zalpa problem in the light of new evidence, in J. G. Dercksen (ed.), Anatolia and the Jazira in the Old Assyrian Period, Old Assyrian Archives, Studies 3, Leiden, 101–136. Dönmez, Ş. and Yurtsever Beyazıt, A. 2013. Oluz Höyük kazısı altıncı dönem (2012) çalısmarı: Değerlendirmeler ve sonuçlar, Colloquium Anatolicum 12, 165–192. Dönmez, A. and Brice, W. C. 1949: The Distribution of Some Varieties of Early Pottery in South-east Turkey, Iraq 11, 44–58. Dörfler, W., Chr. Herking, R. Neef, R. Pasternak, and A. von den Driesch 2011: Environment and Economy in Hittite Anatolia, in H. Genz and D. P. Mielke (eds), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Colloquia Antiqua 2, Leuven, Paris, Walpole, 99–124. Drews, R. 1993: The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC., Princeton. Driesch, A. von den 2009: Tierknochenabfall aus Gebäude E, in S. Arnhold (ed.), Das hethitische Gebäude E auf der Akropolis von Kuşaklı, Rahden, 143–160. Driesch, A. von den and N. Pöllath 2004: Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Nutztierhaltung und Jagd auf Büyükkaya in BoğazköyHattuša, Zentralanatolien, Mainz am Rhein. Dupré, S. 1983: Porsuk I: Céramiques de l’âge du Bronze et de l’âge du Fer, “Mémoire” N° 20, Paris. Duran, Y. 2010: Hitit Çivi Yazılı Belgelerine Göre Hattuşa-TapikaŞapinuwa Coğrafin Üçgenindeki Tarihi Coğrafya Araştırmaları İçin Yeni Öneriler, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ankara. Durand, J.-M. 1990: La Cité-état d’Imâr à l’époque des Rois de Mari, MARI 6, 39–92. Durand, J.-M. 2002: Le culte d’Addu d’Alep et l’affaire d’Alahtum, Florilegium marianum 7, Paris. Durand, J.-M. and Charpin, D. 2006: La lettre de Labarna au roi de Tigunânum, un réexamen, in G. del Olmo Lete, L. Feliu, and A. Millet Albà (eds), Šapal tibnim mû illakū: Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Aula Orientalis Supplementa 22, Barcelona, 219–227. Durand, J.-M. and Marti, L. 2005: Chroniques du MoyenEuphrate 5. Une attaque de Qaṭna par le sûhum et la question du “pays de Mari”, RA 99, 123–132.

Bibliography Dusar, B., Verstraeten, G., Notebaert, B., and Bakker, J. 2011: Holocene environmental change and its impact on sediment dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean, Earth-Science Reviews 108, 137–157. Dusinberre, E. R. M. 2005: Gordion Special Studies III: Gordion Seals and Sealings: Individuals and Society, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia. Düring, B. S. and Glatz, C. 2010: The Cide Archaeological Project 2009: First results, Anatolia Antiqua 18, 203–213. Düring, B. S. and Glatz, C. (eds) 2015: Kinetic Landscapes. The Cide Archaeological Project 2009–2011: Surveying the Western Turkish Black Sea Region, Warsaw. Düring, B. S., Glatz, C. and Şerifoğlu, T. E. 2012: The Cide Archaeological Project 2011: Third preliminary report, Anatolia Antiqua 20, 167–175. Easton, D. F. 1981: Hittite land donations and Tabarna seals, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33, 3–43. Eastwood, W. J., Roberts, N. and Lamb, H. F. 1998: Palaeoecological and archaeological evidence for human occupation in the southwest of Turkey: the Beyşehir Occupation Phase, Anatolian Studies 48, 69–86. Eastwood, W.J., Tibby, J.C., Roberts, N., Birks, H.J.B. and Lamb, H.F. 2002: The environmental impact of the Minoan eruption of Santorini (Thera): numerical analysis of palaeoecological data from southwest Turkey, The Holocene 12, 431–444. Edel, E. 1994: Die ägyptisch-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache, Band I, Umschriften und Übersetzungen, Opladen. Edel, E. and Görg, M. 2005: Die Ortsnamenlisten im nördlichen Säulenhof des Totentempels Amenophis’ III, Wiesbaden. Eder, C. 2003: Die Datierung des spätbabylonischen Alalah, in R. Dittman, C. Eder, and B. Jacobs (eds), Altertumswissen­ schaften im Dialog: Festschrift für Wolfram Nagel zur Vol­ lendung seins 80. Lebensjahres, AOAT 306, Münster, 227–288. Efe, T. 1993: 1991 Yıllında Kütahya, Bilecik ve Eskişehir İllerinde Yapılan Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 10, 345–364. Efe, T. 1996: 1994 Yıllında Kütahya, Bilecik ve Eskişehir İllerinde Yapılan Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 13/1, 131–152. Efe, T. 1997: 1995 Yıllında Kütahya, Bilecik ve Eskişehir İllerinde Yapılan Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 14/2, 215–232. Efe, T. 2004: Yassıkaya, an Early Bronze Age site near Heraclea Pontica (Kdz Ereğli) on the Black Sea Coast, in B. Hänsel and E. Studenikova (eds), Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis. Neolithikum und ältere Bronzezeit. Gedenkschrift für Nemejcova-Pavukova, Rahden, 27–38. Efe, T. and Ay-Efe, D. 2007: The Küllüoba Excavations and the Cultural / Political Development of Western Anatolia Before

339 the Second Millennium BC, in M. Alparslan, M. DoğanAlparslan and H. Peker (eds), VITA. Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Istanbul, 251–267. Efe, T. and Fidan, E. 2008: Complex two in the Early Bronze II Upper Town of Küllüoba near Eskişehir, Anatolica 34, 67–102. Efe, T. and Türkteki, M. 2011a: İç Batı Anadolu Bölgesi: Giriş, in V. Şahoğlu and P. Sotirakopoulou (eds), Karşıdan Karşıya. MÖ 3. Bin’de Kiklad Adaları ve Batı Anadolu, İstanbul, 186–191. Efe, T. and Türkteki, M. 2011b: İç Batı Anadolu’da Maden İşçiliği, in V. Şahoğlu and P. Sotirakopoulou (eds), Karşıdan Karşıya. MÖ 3. Bin’de Kiklad Adaları ve Batı Anadolu, İstanbul, 224–226. Efe, T. and Türkteki, M. 2011c: Erken Tunç Çağı’nda Bölgeler Arası İlişkiler ve Ticaret in V. Şahoğlu and P. Sotirakopoulou (eds), Karşıdan Karşıya. MÖ 3. Bin’de Kiklad Adaları ve Batı Anadolu, Istanbul, 232–233. Eger, A. 2011: The Swamps of Home: Marsh Formation and Settlement in the Early Medieval Near East, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 70/1, 55–79. Ehringhaus, H. 1999: Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabung auf dem Sirkeli Höyük, Provinz Adana / Türkei im Jahre 1997, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 49, 83–140. Ehringhaus, H. 2001: Kurunta als hethitischer Großkönig, Antike Welt 32, 515–520. Ehringhaus, H. 2005: Götter Herrscher Inschriften. Die Felsreliefs der hethitischen Großreichzeit in der Türkei, Mainz am Rhein. Ehringhaus, H. 2014: Das Ende das ein Anfang war, Mainz am Rhein. Eidem, J. 2013: Qala’at Halwanji (Northwestern Syria), 2008– 2009, Anatolica 39, 1–24. Eidem, J. and Pütt, K. 2001: Iron Age Sites on the Upper Euphrates, Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 44, 83–96. Einwag, B. and Otto, A. 1999: Tell Bazi, in G. del Olmo Lete and J.-L. Montero Fenollós (eds) Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates: The Tishrin Dam Area, Barcelona, 179–191. Elitok, Ö., Özdamar, Ş., Bacak, G., Bektaş, U. 2014: Geological, petrological, and geodynamical characteristics of the Karacaali Magmatic Complex (Kırıkkale) in the Central Anatolian Crystalline Complex, Turkey, Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 23, 645–667, doi:10.3906/yer-1312–7. Elton, H. 2006: Göksu Archaeological Project 2002–2004, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 23/1, 331–342. Elton, H. 2008: Göksu Archaeological Project 2005–2006, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 25/2, 237–250. Emre, K. 1978: Yanarlar. A Hittite Cemetery Near Afyon, Ankara. Emre, K. 1993: The Hittite Dam of Karakuyu, in T. Mikasa (ed.), Essays in Anatolian Archaeology, Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Centre of Japan 7, Wiesbaden.

340 Emre, K. 2002: Felsreliefs, Stelen, Orthostaten. Großplastik als monumentale Form staatlicher und religiöser Repräsentation, In Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter, Katalog der Ausstellung, Bonn 18. Januar-28. April 2002, Bonn, 218–233. Emre, K. and Çinaroğlu, A. 1993: A group of metal Hittite vessels from Kınık-Kastamonu, in M. J. Mellink, E. Porada, and T. Özgüç (eds), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors: Studies in Honour of Nimet Özgüç, Ankara, 675–717. Engin, A. in press: Second millenium BC settlement patterns in the East of the Upper Kızılırmak Basin. Engin, A., Uysal, B., Zengin-Koşan, O., Ay-Şafak, F. and Bozkurt, A. 2014: Sivas İli 2012 Yılı Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 31/2, 43–64. Erarslan, A. 2009: Local Settlement Transitions in Southeastern Anatolia during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC, Altorientalische Forschungen 36:2, 268–292. Erdoğu, B. and Özbaşaran, M. 2008: Salt in Prehistoric Central Anatolia, in O. Weller, A. Dufraisse, and P. Pétrequin (eds), Sel, eau et forêt, d’hier à aujourd’hui, Paris, 163–173. Eriksson, K.O. 1991: Red-Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: A product of Late Bronze Age Cyprus, in J. A. Barlow, D. L. Bolger and B. Kling (eds), Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Preshistoric Record, Philadelphia University Monograph 74, Philadelphia, 81–96. Eriksson, K.O. 1993: Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 103, Jonsered. Erkanal-Öktü, A. 2000: Überblick über die Siegelfunde von Bakla Tepe, Liman Tepe und Panaztepe“, in I. Pini (ed.), Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, Minoischmykenische Glyptik. Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion, 6, Berlin, 67–77. Erkanal-Öktü, A. 2008: The Late Bronze Age Cemeteries of Panaztepe, in A. Erkanal-Öktü, S. Günel and U. Deniz (eds), Batı Anadolu ve Doğu Akdeniz Geç Tunç Çağı Kültürleri Üzerine Yeni Araştırmalar, Ankara, 69–90. Erkanal, A. and Çınardalı Karaaslan, N. 2010: Panaztepe 2008 Yılı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31/2, 101–116. Erkanal-Öktü, A. and Çınardalı Karaaslan, N. 2009: Panaztepe 2007 Yılı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 30/1, 471–496. Erkanal, H. 1996: Early Bronze Age Urbanization in the Coastal Region of Western Anatolia/ Erken Tunç Çağı’nda Batı Anadolu Sahil Kesiminde Kentleşme, in Y. Sey (ed.) Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective/Tarihten Günümüze Anadolu’da Konut ve Yerleşme, Istanbul, 70–82. Erkanal, H. 2008: Geç Tunç Çağı’nda Liman Tepe, in A. ErkanalÖktü, S. Günel and U. Deniz (eds), Batı Anadolu ve Doğu Akdeniz Geç Tunç Çağı Kültürleri Üzerine Yeni Araştırmalar, Ankara, 91–100.

Bibliography Erkanal, H. 2011: Erken Tunç Çağı Batı Anadolu Sahil Kesimi Yerleşim Modelleri ve Konut Mimarisi, in V. Şahoğlu and P. Sotirakopoulou (eds), Karşıdan Karşıya. MÖ 3. Bin’de Kiklad Adaları ve Batı Anadolu, Istanbul, 130–135. Erkanal, H. and Aykurt, A. 2008: Liman Tepe 2006 Yılı Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 29, 28 Mayıs-01 Haziran 2007, I, Ankara, 223–242. Erkanal, H. and Günel, S. 1995: 1993 Liman Tepe Kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 16, 30 Mayıs-3 Haziran 1994, I, Ankara, 263–279. Erkanal, H. and Günel, S. 1996: 1994 Liman Tepe Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 17, Ankara, 305–327. Erkanal, H. and Karaturgut, E. 2004: 2002 Yılı Çeşme-Bağlararası Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 25, Ankara, 153–164. Erkanal, H. and Keskin, L. 2009: Relations between the Urla peninsula and the Minoan world, in C. F. Macdonald, E. Hallager and W.-D. Niemeier (eds), The Minoans in the central, eastern and northern Aegean—new evidence, Athens, 97–107. Erkanal, H. and Özkan, T. 1999: Bakla Tepe Kazıları/Excavations at Bakla Tepe, in T. Özkan, H. Erkanal (eds), Tahtalı Barajı Kurtarma kazısı Projesi/ Tahtalı Dam Area Salvage Project, İzmir. Erkanal, H. and Şahoğlu, V. 2012: Bakla Tepe (1995–2001), in O. Bingöl, A. Öztan and H. Taşkıran (eds), Anadolu/Anatolia III, Ankara, 91–98. Erkanal, H., Şahoğlu, V., Tuncel, R., Kouka, O., Keskin, L. and Tuğcu, İ. 2009: Liman Tepe 2007 Yılı Kazıları, 30 Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 1, 26–30 Mayıs 2008, Ankara, 299–322. Erkanal, H., Şahoğlu, V., Tuncel, R., Kouka, O., Keskin, L. and Tuğcu, İ. 2010: Liman Tepe 2008 Yılı Kara Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31/1, 347–360. Erkanal, H., Şahoğlu, V., Aykurt, A., Kouka, O. and Tuğcu, İ. 2013: Liman Tepe 2010 Yılı Kara Kazıları, 33. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4, 23–28 Mayıs 2011, Ankara, 463–478. Erkut, S. 1992: Hitit Çağının Önemli Kült Kenti Arinna’nın Yeri, in H. Otten, H. Ertem, E. Akurgal, A. Süel (eds), Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Sedat Alp, Ankara, 159–165. Erkut, S. 1994: Hititçe GIŠgazziduri- Üzerine Bir Araştırma, XI. Türk Tarih Kongresi, 137ff.. Erkut, S. 1997: Çivi Yazılı Hitit Tabletleri, Belleten 61/232, 495–497. Erkut, S. 1998: Hititlerde AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR Bitkisi ve Bayramı Üzerine bir İnceleme, in S. Alp and A. Süel (eds) III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 16–22 Eylül 1996—Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16–22, 1996, Ankara: 189–195. Erkut, S. 1999: Hitit Kenti Kaštama’nın Yeri Üzerine, XII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, 129–132.

Bibliography Erkut, S. 2003: Hititçe Çivi Yazılı Boğazköy Belgelerinde Geçen Sümerce LU.SIMUG.A=Metal İşleyicileri Hakkında, A.Ü.D.T.C. Fakültesi Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 33, 69–77. Erol, H. 2015: ina maqāt ubrī lu kaspam lu hurāṣam ašāmma … “Yabancilar geldiğinde ya gümüş ya da altın satın alacağım …”, in İ. Albayrak, H. Erol and M. Çayır (eds), Cahit Günbattı’ya armağan. Studies in Honour of Cahit Günbattı, Ankara, 87–98. Erol, H. in press: Kültepe Tabletleri XI-a. I. Cilt. Šu-İštar’a Ait Belgeler. Ankara. Erol, O. 1978: Geomorphologic Arguments for Mid- to Late Holocene Environmental Change in Central Anatolian (Pluvial) Lake Basins, in N. Dalfes, G. Kukla and H. Weiss (eds), Third Millennium Climate Change and Old World Collapse, Berlin, 321–350. Erol, O. 1984: Die naturräumliche Gliederung der Türkei. Wiesbaden. Erol, O. 2003: Ceyhan Deltasinin Jeomorfolojik Evrimi. Geo­ morphological Evolution of the Ceyhan River Delta: Eastern Mediterranean Coast of Turkey, Aegean Geographical Journal 12, 58–81. Ertem, H. 1980: Hitit Devletinin İki Eyaleti: Pala- Tum(m)ana ile Yakın Çevresindeki Yerlerin Lokalizasyonu Üzerine Yeni Denemeler, Ankara. Ertem, H. 1988: Korucutepe 1, 1973–1975 kazı yıllarında ele geçen Erken Hitit—İmparatorluk Çağı arası buluntuları, Ankara. Esin, U. 2001: Salvage Excavations at Tepecik, in O. Belli (ed.), İstanbul University´s contribution to Archaeology in Turkey (1932–2000), Istanbul, 102–107. Evans, G. 1971: The recent sedimentation of Turkey and the adjacent Mediterranean and Black Seas: a review, in: A. S. Campbell (ed.), Geology and history of Turkey, Tripoli 1971, 385–406. Evans, G. 1973: Recent coastal sedimentation: a review, in D. J. Blackman (ed.), Marine archaeology. Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium of the Colston Research Society, held in the University of Bristol, April 4th–8th, 1971, Colston papers 23, London, 89–112. Fabbro, R. del 2014: The Roads from and to Aleppo: Some Historical-geographical Considerations in Light of New Archaeological Data, in G. B. Lanfranchi, D. Morandi Bonacossi, C. Pappi, and S. Ponchia (eds), Leggo! Studies Presented to Fredrick Mario Fales on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Leipziger altorientalistische Studien 2, Wiesbaden, 201–222. Fairbairn, A. and Omura, S. 2005: Archaeological identification and significance of ÉSAG (agricultural storage pits) at Kaman-Kalehöyük, central Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 55, 15–23. Faist, B. 2001: Der Fernhandel des assyrischen Reiches zwischen dem 14. und 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr, AOAT 265, Münster.

341 Faist, B. 2006: Itineraries and Travellers in the Middle Assyrian Period, SAAB 15, 147–160. Fales, F. M. 1993: River transport in Neo-Assyrian letters, in J. Zablocka and S. Zawadzki (eds) Šulmu IV. Everyday Life in the Ancient Near East, Poznań, 79–92. Fales, F. M. 2014a: Til-Barsip (A. Philologisch), RlA 14, 34–37. Fales, F. M. 2014b: Til-abni/ē/ā, Til-abnim, RlA 14, 32–33. Fales, F. M. 2014c: Til-Garimmu, RlA 14, 43–44. Feldman, M. 2006: Diplomacy by Design: Luxury Arts and an ‘International Style’ in the Ancient Near East, 1400–1200 BCE, Chicago. Fernández-Blanco, D., Bertotti, G., Çiner, T. A. 2013: Cenozoic tectonics of the Tuz Gölü Basin (Central Anatolian Plateau, Turkey), Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences 22, 715–738. doi:10.3906/yer-1206–7. Fink, A. 2010: Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana (Alalakh): Stratig­ raphy, Chronology, History, BAR International Series 2120, Oxford. Finkbeiner, U., Sakal, F., Attoura, H., Eixler, W., Lineberry, D., Starke, F., and Wilhelm, S. 2003: Emar 2002—Bericht über die 5. Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen, Baghdader Mitteilungen 34, 9–100. Finkbeiner, U. 1999–2000: Emar and Balis 1996–1998, Berytus 44, 5–34 Finkelstein, J. J. 1956: A Hittite mandattu-Text, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 10, 101–105. Finné, M., Holmgren, K., Sundqvist, H. S., Weiberg, E., and Lindblom, M. 2011: Climate in the eastern Mediterranean, and adjacent regions, during the past 6000 years—a review, Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 3153–3173. Fiorentino, G., Caracuta, V., Calcagnile, L., Elia, M. d’, Matthiae, P., Mavelli, F. 2008: Third millennium B. C. climate change in Syria highlighted by Carbon stable isotope analysis of 14C-AMS dated plant remains from Ebla, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 266, 51–58. Fontugne, M., Kuzucuoğlu, C., Karabiyoğlu, M., Hatté, C. and Pastre, J.-F. 1999: From Pleniglacial to Holocene: A 14C Chronostratigraphy of Environmental Changes in the Konya Plain, Turkey, Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 573–591. Forlanini, M. 1977: L’Anatolia Nordoccidentale Nell’Impero Eteo, SMEA 18, 197–224. Forlanini, M. 1979, Appunti di geografia etea, in O. Carruba (ed.), Studia Mediterranea Piero Meriggi dicata, Pavia, 165–185. Forlanini, M. 1980: La Prima Lista di VBoT 68 e la Provincia di Arinna, SMEA 22, 71–80. Forlanini, M. 1984: Die Götter von Zalpa. Hethitische Götter und Städte am Schwarzen Meer, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 74, 245–265. Forlanini, M. 1985, Remarques géographiques sur les textes cappadociens, Hethitica 6, 45–67.

342 Forlanini, M. 1986, Maps XVI–XX and commentaries, in M. Forlanini and M. Marazzi (eds), Anatolia. Atlante storico dei Vicino Oriente Antico 4.3: a: L’impero hittita, Roma. Forlanini, M. 1987a: Toponymie antique d’origine hattie?, Hethitica 8, 105–122 Forlanini, M. 1987b: Le mont Sarpa, Hethitica 7, 73–87. Forlanini, M. 1988: La regione del Tauro nei testi hittiti, Vicino Oriente 7, 129–169. Forlanini, M. 1990: Uda, un cas probable d’homonymie, Hethitica 10, 109–127. Forlanini, M. 1992a: Le spedizioni militari ittite verso Nerik. I percorsi orientali, Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere 125, 277–308. Forlanini, M. 1992b: Am mittleren Kızılırmak, in H. Otten, H. Ertem, E. Akurgal, and A. Süel (eds), Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Sedat Alp, Ankara 171–179. Forlanini, M. 1996: Un coin de Phrygie à l’epoque Hittite. Continuité toponymique et religieuse, Hethitica 13, 5–12. Forlanini, M. 1997a: La ricostruzione della geografia storica del Ponto nella tarda età del bronzo e la continuità della toponomastica indigena fino all’ età romana, Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere 131, 397–422. Forlanini, M. 1997b: Gab es eine hethitische Stadt Hamsa? Archivum Anatolicum 3 (Fs. Bilgiç), 117–123. Forlanini, M. 1998a: The geography of Hittite Anatolia in the light of recent epigraphical discoveries, in S. Alp and A. Süel (eds), Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Ankara, 217–222. Forlanini, M. 1998b: L’ Anatolia occidentale e gli hittiti: appunti su alcune nuove scoperte e le loro conseguenze per la geografia storica, SMEA 40/2, 219–253. Forlanini, M. 2000: L’orizzonte geografico dei testi hittiti e le “liste di evocazione”, in L. Milano, S. de Martino, F. M. Fales, and G. B. Lanfranchi (eds), Landscapes. Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East—Papers presented to the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Venezia, 7–11 July 1997. Part II: Geography and Cultural Landscapes, HANEM 3/2, Padua, 9–20. Forlanini, M. 2001: Quelques notes sur la géographie historique de la Cilicie, in E. Jean, A. M. Dinçol, S. Durugönul (eds) La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénire av. J.-C.— 4e siècle ap. J.-C.), Actes de la Table Ronde Inter­nationale d’Istanbul, 2–5 novembre 1999, IFEA Paris, 553–554. Forlanini, M. 2002: Tapikka: una marca di frontiera. Note sulla struttura territoriale ed economica, S. de Martino and F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), Anatolia antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati, 255–276. Forlanini, M. 2004a: Luhuzatija, Lawazantija e la localizzazione delle città del Kizzuwatna, in D. Groddek and S. Rössle (eds),

Bibliography Šarnikzel.Hethitologische Studien zum Gedanken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer, Dresden, 297–309. Forlanini, M. 2004b: Dall’alto Habur alle montagne dell’anatolia nel II millennio A.C.: Nota sulla geografia storica di una regione poco conosciuta, in C. Nicolle (ed.), Nomades et sedentaires dans le Proche-Orient ancien: compte rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre assyriologique internationale (Paris, 10–13 juillet 2000), Amurru 3, Paris, 405–426. Forlanini, M. 2005a: Notes sur la géographie anatolienne dans les textes paléo-assyriens, NABU 2005/1, 14–15. Forlanini, M. 2005b: Un peuple, plusieurs noms. Le problème des ethniques au proche orient ancien. Cas connus, cas à découvrir, in: Soldt, W. H. van (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers Read at the 48th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 1–4 July 2002, Leiden 2005, 111–119. Forlanini, M. 2006: Étapes et itinéraires entre Aššur et L’Anatolie des marchands paléo-assyriens, KASKAL 3, 147–175. Forlanini, M. 2007a: The Offering List of KBo 4.13 (I 17ʹ-48ʹ) to the local gods of the kingdom, known as “Sacrifice List”, and the history of the formation of the early Hittite state and its initial growing beyond central Anatolia, in A. Archi and R. Francia (eds), VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia. Roma, 5–9 settembre 2005 (SMEA 49), 259–280. Forlanini, M. 2007b: Geographica Diachronica, in D. Groddek and M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet (DBH 25), Wiesbaden, 263–270. Forlanini, M. 2007c: Happurija, Eine Hauptstadt von Arzawa?, in M. Alparslan, M. Doğan-Alparslan and H. Peker (eds), VITA. Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Istanbul, 285–298. Forlanini, M. 2008a: The Historical Geography of Anatolia and the Transition from the Kārum-Period to the Early Hittite Empire, Anatolia And The Jazira During The Old Assyrian Period (Old Assyrian Archives, Studies, Vol: 3, J. G. Dercksen (ed.), 58–86. Forlanini, M. 2008b: The Central Provinces of Hatti: an Updating, in K. Ströbel (ed.), New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millennium B.C., Eothen 16, Firenze, 145–188. Forlanini, M. 2009a: On the Middle Kızılırmak, 2, in F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri, and C. Corti (eds), Central-North Anatolia in the Hittite Period. New Perspectives in Light of Recent Research, Studia Asiana 5, Rome, 39–69. Forlanini, M. 2009b: Kudupa, un port de la Cilicie hittite, NABU 2009/2, 40–41 (N° 30). Forlanini, M. 2009c: Upper Mesopotamia in the Middle of the 17th Century B.C. According to the Hittite Texts, KASKAL 6, 49–75.

Bibliography Forlanini, M. 2010a: Deportati e mercenari dall’Anatolia occidentale all’alto Eufrate sotto l’impero ittita, Orientalia 79: 152–163. Forlanini, M. 2010b: La région autour de Nerik selon les sources hittites, SMEA 52, 119–135. Forlanini, M. 2010c: An Attempt at Reconstructing the Branches of the Hittite Royal Family of the Early Kingdom Period, in Y. Cohen, A. Gilan, and J. L. Miller (eds), Pax Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites and Their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer, StBoT 51, Wiesbaden, 115–135. Forlanini, M. 2010d: New Evidence and Recent Suggestions on the Anatolian Geography in the Old Assyrian Period, in Ş. Dönmez (ed.), DUB.SAR É.DUB.BA.A Studies Presented in Honour of Veysel Donbaz, Istanbul, 135–142. Forlanini, M. 2011: ABoT 2.7 et la ville de Ḫu(wa)rniya dans le Pays Bas hittite, NABU 2011/2, 33–35 (N° 25). Forlanini, M. 2012a: review of: Barjamovic, A Historical Geography of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Colony Period (CNIP 38, Copenhagen 2011), Bibliotheca Orientalis 69/3–4, col. 290–299. Forlanini, M. 2012b: The Historical Geography of Western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age: still an open question (review of Gander, Die geographischen Beziehungen der LukkaLänder, Texte der Hethiter 27, Heidelberg 2010), Orientalia 81/2, 133–140. Forlanini, M. 2013a: How to Infer Ancient Roads and Itineraries from Heterogeneous Hittite Texts: The Case of the Cilician (Kizzuwatean) Road System, KASKAL 10, 1–34. Forlanini, M. 2013b: Les routes du Palâ, in M. Mazoyer, S. H. Aufrère (eds), De Hattuša à Memphis. Jacques Freu in honorem, Paris, 43–58. Forlanini, M. 2014: Kaššu roi de Tummanna, Nouvelles Assyriologique Brèves et Utilitaires 2014/1, 32–33. Forlanini, M. and Marazzi, M. 1986: Fascicolo 4.3. Anatolia: L’Impero Hittita, in M. Liverani, L. Milano and A. Palmieri (eds) Atlante Storico del Vicino Oriente, Roma. Forrer, E.O. 1924: Vorhomerische Griechen in den Keil­ schrifttexten von Boghazköi, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 63, 1–21. Forrer, E.O. 1926a: Forschungen 1. Band/1. Heft: Die ArzaovaLänder, Berlin. Forrer, E.O. 1926b: Forschungen 2. Band/1. Heft: Astronomische Festlegung des Soppilulijomas, Morsilis und Amenophis IV; Lage von Kizzuvadna; Gargamis und Astata; Die PippidSprache, Berlin. Forrer, E.O. 1927: Ergebnisse einer archäologischen Reise in Kleinasien 1926. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesell­ schaft 65, 27–43. Forrer, E.O. 1929: Forschungen (Band 1, Heft 2). Die Nachbarländer des Hatti-Reiches von Arazova bis Griechenland, Berlin.

343 Forrer, E.O. 1932: Assuva, RlA 1, 227. Forrer, E.O. 1928–1932: Bala, RlA 1, 392–393. Forrer, E.O. 1937: Kilikien zur Zeit des Hatti-Reiches, Klio 30, 135–186. Forrer, E.O. 1938: Quelle und Brunnen in Alt-Vorderasien, Glotta 26, 178–202. Fortin, M. (ed.) 2006: Tell ‘Acharneh 1998–2004, Subartu XVIII, Brepols. Fortin, M. 2007: La vallée du Ghab: Nouvelle prospection Archéologique, in D. M. Bonacossi (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscape of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria: Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Udine 9–11 December 2004, Udine, 253–68. Fortin, M. and Cooper, L. 2013: Shedding New Light on the Elusive Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages at Tell ‘Acharneh (Syria), in K. A. Yener (ed.), 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, Leuven, Paris, and Wapole, MA, 11–36. Frayne, D.R. 1993: Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC), Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 2, Toronto. Frayne, D.R. 2001: In Abraham’s Footsteps, in P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl (eds), The World of the Aramaeans, JSOTS 324, Sheffield, 216–236. French, D.H. 1965: Prehistoric sites in the Göksu valley, Anato­ lian Studies 15, 177–201. French, D.H. 1970: Notes on Site Distribution in the Çumra Area, Anatolian Studies 20, 139–148. French, D.H. 1980: The Roman Road System of Asia Minor, in H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 7/2, Berlin, 698–729. French, D.H. 1982: Mycenaeans in the Black Sea, Thracia Pontica 1, 19–28. French, D.H. 1984: Roman Roads and Milestones in Anatolia 1982, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 1, 87–88. French, D.H. 1988: Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor 2/1–2, Ankara. French, D.H. 1991: Pre- and Early-Roman Roads of Asia Minor: The Persian Royal Road, Iran 36, 15–43. French, E.B. 2007: The Mycenean pottery, in J. N. Postgate and D. Thomas (eds), Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994–98: From Bronze to Byzantine in Western Cilicia, British Institute at Ankara—Monographs 30, London, 373–376. Freu J. 1980: Luwiya. Géographie historique des provinces méridionales de I’empire hittite: Kizzuwatna, Arzawa, Lukka, Milawatta, Université de Nice. Centre de Recherches Comparatives sur le langues de la Méditerranée Ancienne, Doc. N.6, 177–352.

344 Freu J. 1987: Problèmes de chronologie et de géographie hittites. Madduwatta et les débuts de l’empire, Hethitica 8, 123–175. Freu, J. 2004. Les îles de la mer Égée, Lazpa, les pays Aḫḫiyawa et les Hittites, in: Res Antiquae 1, 275–323. Freu, J. 2005a: Les « barbares » gasgas et le royaume hittite, in Barbares et civilisés dans l’antiquité, Paris, 61–99. Freu, J. 2005b: Des Grand Rois de Tarḫuntašša aux Grand Rois de Tabal, Res Antiquae 2, 399–417. Freu, J. 2006: Histoire politique du royaume d’ Ugarit, Paris. Freu, J. 2007: L’ affirmation du nouvel empire hittite, in J. Freu and M. Mazoyer (eds), Les débuts du nouvel empire hittite (Les hittites et leur histoire II), Paris, 9–311. Freu, J. 2008a: Quatre-vingts ans d’ histoire hittite (1320–1240 av. J.-Chr.) in J. Freu and M. Mazoyer (eds), L’ apogée du nouvel empire hittite, Les hittites et leur histoire III, Paris, 13–286. Freu, J. 2008b: Homère, la guerre de Troie et le pays de Wiluša, in M. Mazoyer (ed.), Homère et l’ Anatolie, Paris, 107–147. Freu, J. 2008c: Homère, les Hittites et le pays d’ Aḫḫiyawa, in M. Mazoyer (ed.), Homère et l’ Anatolie, Paris, 77–106. Freu, J. 2010: Les derniers Grands Rois de Ḫatti (c. 1240–1185 av. J. C.), in J. Freu and M. Mazoyer (eds), Le déclin et la chute du nouvel empire hittite (Les hittites et leur histoire IV), Paris, 9–270. Freu, J. 2010–2011 [2012]: Le vase d’argent du musée des civilisations anatoliennes d’Ankara et la fin de l’empire hittite, in Talanta 42–43, 185–192. Freu, J. and Mazoyer, M. 2007a: Des origines à la fin de l’ancien royaume Hittite (Les Hittites et leur histoire, Tome 1), Paris. Freu, J. and Mazoyer, M. 2007b: Les debuts du Nouvel Empire hittite (Les Hittites et leur histoire, Tome 2), Paris. Freu, J. and Mazoyer, M. 2008: L’ apogée du nouvel empire Hittite, Paris. Freu, J. and Mazoyer, M. 2009: Le déclin et la chute du nouvel empire Hittite, Paris. Freydank, H. 1968: bīt šurīpim in Boǧazköy, Die Welt des Orients 4, 316–317. Friedrich, J. 1926: Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache, 1. Teil: Die Verträge Muršiliš’ II. mit Duppi-Tešup von Amurru, Targašnalliš von Ḫapalla MVAeG 31/1, Leipzig. Friedrich, J. 1930: Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache, 2. Teil: Die Verträge Muršiliš’ II. mit Manapa-Dattaš vom Lande des Flusses Šeḫa, des Muwattalliš mit Alakšanduš von Wiluša und des Šuppiluliumaš mit Ḫukkanāš und den Leuten von Ḫajaša (mit Indices zum 1. und 2. Teil), MVAeG 34/1, Leipzig. Friedrich, J. 1952: Hethitisches Worterbuch, Heidelberg. Fuchs, A. 1994: Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad, Göttingen. Fugmann, E. 1958: Hama Fouilles et Recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 1931–1938, Volume 2. L’Architecture des Periodes Pre-Hellenistiques, Copenhagen.

Bibliography Fuscagni, F. 2011–12: Rituale di evocazione per Ištar di Ninive celebrato dal LÚḪAL insieme ai LÚ.MEŠNAR (CTH 716.1) (hethiter.net/: CTH 716.1). Galik, A. and Horejs, B. 2011: Çukuriçi Höyük—Various Aspects of its Earliest Settlement Phase, in R. Krauß (ed.) MenschenKulturen-Traditionen. Beginnings—New Research in the Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, 8th–9th April 2009, Forschungscluster 1, 83–94. Galmarini, N. 2014: The Festivals for Mount Puškurunuwa, in P. Taracha and M. Kapełuś, (eds) Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology, Warsaw, 5–9. Sept. 2011, Warsaw, 277–295. Gander, M. 2010: Die geographischen Beziehungen der LukkaLänder Texte der Hethiter 27, Heidelberg. Gander, M. 2012: Aḫḫiyawa—Ḫiyawa—Que: Gibt es Evidenz für die Anwesenheit von Griechen in Kilikien am Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit, in: SMEA 54, 281–309. Gander, M. 2014: Tlos, Oinoanda and the Hittite Invasion of the Lukka lands. Some thoughts on the history of NorthWestern Lycia in the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, Klio 96, 369–415. Gander, M. 2015a: Asia, Ionia, Maeonia und Luwiya? Bemerkungen zu den neuen Toponymen aus Kom el-Hettan (Theben-West) mit Exkursen zu Westkleinasien in der Spätbronzezeit, Klio 97, 443–502. Gander, M. 2015b: Review of Fischer, Robert Die AhhijawaFrage. Mit einer Kommentierten Bibliographie, DBH 26, Wiesbaden, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 110/4–5, 290–295. Garelli, P. 1963: Les Assyriens en Cappadoce, Paris. Garstang, J. 1910: The Land of the Hittites. An Account of Recent Explorations and Discoveries in Asia Minor, with Descriptions of the Hittite Monuments, New York. Garstang, J. 1937: Explorations in Cilicia. The Neilson Expedition: Preliminary Report I, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 24, 52–64. Garstang, J. 1942: Šamuḫa and Malatia, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1, 450–459. Garstang, J. 1943: Hittite Military Roads in Asia Minor. A Study in Imperial Strategy, American Journal of Archaeology 47: 35–62. Garstang, J. 1944, The Hulaya River Land and Dadassas. A Crucial Problem in Hittite Geography, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3, 14–37. Garstang, J. 1948: The Location of Pakhuwa, Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 28, 48–54. Garstang, J. 1953: Prehistoric Mersin. Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey: the Neilson Expedition in Cilicia, Oxford. Garstang J. and Gurney, O. R. 1959, The Geography of the Hittite Empire, BIAA Occasional Publications 5, London.

Bibliography Gates, M.-H. 1981: Alalakh Levels VI and V: A Chronological Reassessment, Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4/2, Malibu. Gates, M.-H. 1996: Archaeology in Turkey, American Journal of Archaeology 100, 277–335. Gates, M.-H. 1997: Archaeology in Turkey, American Journal of Archaeology 101, 241–305 Gates, M.-H. 2000: Kinet Höyük (Hatay, Turkey) and MB Levantine Chronology, Akkadica 119–120, 77–102. Gates, M.-H. 2001: Potmarks at Kinet Höyük and the Hittite ceramic industry, in É. Jean, A. M. Dinçol, and S. Durugönül (eds), 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, Istanbul, 137–157. Gates, M.-H. 2006: Dating the Hittite levels at Kinet Höyük: A revised chronology, in D. P. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop and J. Seeher (eds), Structuring and Dating in Hittite Archaeology: Requirements, Problems, New Approaches; International Workshop, Istanbul, 26–27. November 2004, Byzas 4, Istanbul, 293–309. Gates, M.-H. 2011: Southern and Southeastern Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age, in S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds), The Oxford handbook of Ancient Anatolia. 10,000–323 B.C.E., Oxford, 393–412. Gates, M.-H. 2013: The Hittite Seaport at Izziya at Late Bronze Age Kinet Höyük (Cilicia), Near Eastern Archaeology 76/4, 223–234. Gelb, I. J. 1935: Inscriptions from Alishar and Vicinity, OIP 27; Researches in Anatolia 6, Chicago. Genz, H. 2004: Büyükkaya I. Die Keramik der Eisenzeit. Funde aus den Grabungskampagnen 1993 bis 1998, Mainz. Gerber, C. 2008: New Insights into the Settlement History of the Tavium Region (NW Part of the Yozgat Province), in K. Strobel (ed.), New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millenium B.C., Eothen 16, Firenze, 189–234. Gerçek, N. İ. 2012: The Kaška and the Northern Frontier of Ḫatti, Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan. Ghasemi, Å. 2012: The Late Bronze Age (1600–1200 BC), University of Copenhagen, accessed September 8, 2014, http://aushariye.hum.ku.dk/english/late_bronzeage. Gilan, A. 2014: The End of God-Napping and the Religious Foundations of the New Hittite Empire, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 104, 195–205. Gilan, A. 2015: Formen und Inhalte althethitischer historischer Literatur, Texte der Hethiter 29, Heidelberg. Giorgieri, M. 1995: I testi ittiti di giuramento, PhD Dissertation, University of Firenze Giorgieri M. and Mora, C. 2010: Kingship in Ḫatti during the 13th Century: Forms of Rule and Struggles for Power before the Fall of the Empire, in Y. Cohen, A. Gilan and J. L.

345 Miller (eds), Pax Hethitica.Studies on the Hittites and Their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer (StBoT 51), Wiesbaden, 136–157. Girginer, S. 2005: Kizzuwatna Araştırmaları Projesi: 2002 Yılı Adana ve Çevresi Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmaları ve Kummanni-Comana İlişkileri. In A. Süel (ed.) V. Uluslarası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 02–08 Eylül 2002, Ankara, 377–404. Girginer, S. 2008: Tepebağ Höyük ve Tariki Adana, Adana Life. Kent Kültürü ve Yaşam Dergisi Nisan 2008, 110–114. Girginer, S. 2012: Tatarlı Höyük Kazısı 2011, ANMED 2012–10, 20–22. Girginer, K. S., Oyman-Girginer, Ö., Akıl, H., Cevher, M., Aklan, İ. and Fırat, M. C. 2015: 2013 Yılı Tatarlı Höyük Kazısı, Kazı Sonucları Toplantası 36/2, 431–446. Girginer, K. S., Özdemir, H. F. and Kaplan, B. 2007: 2002–2006 Yılları Kapadokya ve Kilikya Yüzey Araştırmaları: Genel Bir Değerlendirme, in B. Can (ed.): Atatürk Üniversitesi 50. Kuruluş Yıldönümü Arkeoloji Bölümü armağanı. Doğudan yükselen ışık arkeoloji yazıları, Istanbul, 231–266 . Giusfredi, F. 2013: Further Considerations on the ANKARA SILVER BOWL, in L. Feliu, J. Llop, A. Millet and J. Sanmartín (eds), Time and History in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona 26–30 July 2010, Winona Lake, Ind., 651–665. Glatz, C. 2009b: Empire as network: Spheres of material interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, 127–141. Glatz, C. 2012: Bearing the Marks of Control? Reassessing Pot Marks in Late Bronze Age Anatolia, American Journal of Archaeology 116 (1), 5–38. Glatz, C. 2015a: Beyond the frontier—The second millennium BC in the Cide Region, in B. S. Düring, C. Glatz and E. T. Şerifoğlu (eds), Kinetic Landscapes: The Cide Archaeological Project 2009–2011: Surveying the Western Turkish Black Sea Region, Warsaw, 183–211. Glatz, C. 2015b: Plain Pots, Festivals and Feasting in Late Bronze Age Anatolia. Claudia Glatz (ed.), Plain Pottery Traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East: Production, Use, and Social Significance, California, 183–214. Glatz, C., Düring, B. S. and Şerifoğlu, T. E. 2011: The Cide Archaeological Project 2010: Second preliminary report, Anatolia Antiqua 19, 279–288. Glatz, C., Düring, B. S. and Wilkinson, T. C. 2015: Developing an adaptive field methodology for challenging landscapes. In B. S. Düring, C. Glatz and T. E. Şerifoğlu (eds), Kinetic Landscapes: The Cide Archaeological Project 2009–2011: Surveying the Western Turkish Black Sea Region, Warsaw, 53–103. Glatz, C. and Matthews, R. 2005: Anthropology of a frontier zone: Hittite-Kaska relations in Late Bronze Age

346 north-central Anatolia, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 339, 47–65. Glatz, C., Matthews, R. and Schachner, A. 2009: Chapter four: A landscape of conflict and control: Paphlagonia during the second millennium BC. In R. Matthews and C. Glatz (eds), At Empires’ Edge: Project Paphlagonia Regional Survey in NorthCentral Turkey, London, 107–147. Glatz, C. and Plourde, A. M. 2011: Landscape Monuments and Political Competition in Late Bronze Age Anatolia. An Investigation of Costly Signalling Theory, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 361, 47–65. Glocker, J. 2011: Ališarruma, König von Išuwa: Altorientalische Forschungen 38: 254–276. Goetze, A. 1924: Kleinasien zur Hethiterzeit. Orient und Antike, Heft 1. Heidelberg. Goetze, A. 1926: Zu den Annalen-Tafeln des Muršiliš, OLZ 27, 391–394. Goetze, A. 1928. Madduwattaš, MVAeG 32/1, Berlin. Goetze, A. 1930: Bemerkungen zu dem hethitischen Text AO 9608 des Louvre, Revue Hittite et Asiatique 1(1): 18–30 Goetze, A. 1933: Die Annalen des Muršiliš, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Agyptischen Gesellschaft 38, Leipzig Goetze, A. 1940: Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography. Yale Oriental Series Researches 22, New Haven. Goetze, A. 1957: Kleinasien (Kulturgeschichte des alten Orients 3.1), München. Goetze, A. 1956: The Inventory IBoT I 31, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 10, 32–38. Goetze, A. 1957a: Kulturgeschichte Des Alten Orients— Kleinasien, München. Goetze, A. 1957b: The Roads of Northern Cappadocia in Hittite Times, Revue hittite et asianique 15/61, 91–103. Goetze, A. 1957c: The Syrian Town of Emar, BASOR 147, 22–27. Goetze, A. 1960: Review of J. Garstang, O. R. Gurney, The Geography of the Hittite Empire, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 14, 43–48. Goldman, H. 1935: Preliminary Expedition to Cilicia 1934, and Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus 1935, American Journal of Archaeology 39, 526–549. Goldman, H. 1956: Excavation at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus II. From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton. Gonnet, H. 1968: Les montagnes d’ Asie Mineure d’après les textes hittites, Révue Hittite et Asianique 26/83, 93–170. Gonnet, H. 1979: La titulature royale hittite au IIe millénaire avant J.-C., Hethitica 3, 1–108. Gonnet, H. 1983: Nouvelles données archeologiques relatives aux inscriptions hiéroglyphiques de Hartapus à Kizildağ, in R. Donceel and R. Lebrun (eds), Archéologie et religions de l’Anatolie ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Paul Naster, Homo Religiosus 10, Louvain, 119–125.

Bibliography González Salazar, J. M. 1994: Tiliura, un ejemplo de la política fronteriza durante el imperio hitita (CTH 89), Aula Orientalis 12, 159–176. Gordin, S. 2008: Scribal Families of Hattuša in the 13th Century BCE. A Prosopographic Study, Tel Aviv (Unpublished M. A. Thesis of Tel Aviv University, Faculty of Humanitites, Depart­ ment of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures). Gordon, E. J. 1967: The Meaning of the ideogram dKASKAL. KUR = “Underground Water-course” and its Significance for Bronze Age Historical Geography, Journal of Cueniform Studies 21 (Special Volume Honoring Professor Albrecht Goetze), 70–88. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I., and Na’aman, N. 2003: The Expansion of the Kingdom of Amurru According to the Petrographic Investigation of the Amarna Tablets, BASOR 329, 1–11. Goren, Y., Mommsen, H., and Klinger, J. 2011: Non-destructive provenance study of cuneiform tablets using X-ray fluorescence (pXRF), Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 684–696. Gorny, R.L. 1994: The 1993 Season at Alişar Höyük in Central Turkey, Anatolica 20, 191–202. Gorny, R.L. 1995: Hittite Imperialism and Anti-Imperial Resis­ tance as Viewed from Alishar Höyük, BASOR 299–300, 65–89. Gorny, R.L. 1997: Zippalanda and Ankuwa: The Geography of Central Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C., JAOS 117, 549–557. Gorny, R.L. 1999: The 1998 Alişar Regional Project Season, Anatolica 25, 150–173. Gorny, R.L. 2006: 2002–2005 Yılları Arasında Çadır Höyük’te Düzenlenen Arkeolojik Kazı Çalışmaları: İkinci Bin Yerleşimleri—The Excavation Seasons at Çadır Höyük: The Second Millennium Settlements, İdol-Arkeologlar Derneği Dergisi 10, 8–23. Gorny, R.L. 2016: Çaltepe—Daha and the IŠTAR luliya, in S. Erkut and Ö. Sir Gavaz (eds) ANTAHŠUM SAR “ČİĞDEM” Eski Anadolu Araştırmalarına ve Hititlere Adanmış Bir Hayat / Studies in Honour of Ahmet Ünal Armağanı, Istanbul, 245–267. Gosselain, O.P. 2000: Materializing Identities: An African Perspective, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7/3, 187–217. Govedarica, B. 2003: On the oscillations of the Black Sea level in the Holocene period from an archaeological viewpoint, in G. A. Wagner, E. Pernicka, and H.-P. Uerpmann (eds), Troia and the Troad, Scientific Approaches, Berlin, 95–104. Göktürk, O.M., Fleitmann, D., Badertscher, S., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., Leuenberger, M., Fankhauser, A., Tüysüz, O., and Kramers, J. 2011: Climate on the Southern Black Sea coast during the Holocene: Implications from the Sofular Cave record, Quat.Sci.Rev. 30, 2433–2445. Görke, S. 2010: Die Darstellung von Orten nach den ‘Reisefesten’ des hethitischen Königs in J. C. Gertz and D. Jericke (eds), Ort und Bedeutung. Beiträge zum Symposium, “Die

Bibliography Darstellung von Orten. Von der Antike bis in die Moderne” am 20. und 21. Juni 2008 in Heidelberg. Kamen, 49–68. Graeve, V. von and Niemeier, W. D. 2002: 1998–2000 Yılı Milet Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2, 75–88. Graff, S.R. 2006: Economy and Society: An archaeological reconstruction of the political and informal economy of northwestern Syria in the third millennium BC. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Grave, P., Kealhofer, L., Marsh, B., Schoop, U-D., Seeher, J., Bennett, J. W. and Stopic, A. 2014: Ceramics, trade, provenience and geology: Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age, Antiquity 88 (342): 1180–1200. Grayson, A.K. 1975: Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley, New York. Greaves, A.M. 2010: Western Anatolia, in E.H. Cline (ed.), The Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 BC), Oxford, 877–889. Greaves, A.M. and Helwing, B. 2001: Archaeology in Turkey: the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages, 1997–1999, Journal of American Archaeology 105, 463–597. Grélois, J.-P. 1988: Les annales décenneles de Mursili (CTH 61, 1), Hethitica 9, 17–145. Groddek, D. 2002: Muršili II, die groβen Feste und die “Pest”. Überlegung zur Anordnung der Fragmente der späteren Jahre seiner Regierung in den AM, in S. de Martino and F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), Anatolia Antica. Studi in memoria di F. Imparati, Eothen 11, Firenze, 329–338. Groddek, D. 2004: Hethitische Texte in Transkription. KUB 51, DBH 15, Dresden. Groddek, D. 2008: Hethitische Texte in Transkription KBo 22, Wiesbaden. Groddek, D. 2009: Neues zu mSUM-ma-dLAMMA und CTH 142, Altorientalische Forschungen 36, 159–170. Gromova, D. 2007: Hittite Role in Political History of Syria in the Amarna Age Reconsidered, Ugarit-Forschungen 39, 278–308. Gromova, D. 2012: Idanda Archive and the Syrian Campaigns of Suppiluliuma I: New Pieces for the Puzzle, Babel & Bibel 6, 1–6. Gromova, D. 2013: The Historical Preamble of the TalmiŠarruma Treaty (CTH 75) and Some Chronological Problems of the History of Halap, in L. Feliu, J. Llop, A. Millet Albà, and J. Sanmartín (eds), Time and History in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona, Winona Lake, Ind., 101–105. Gunter, A.C. 1991: Gordion Excavations Final Reports III: The Bronze Age, University Museum, Philadelphia. Gurney, O.R. 1948: Mita of Paḫḫuwa, Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 28, 32–47. Gurney, O.R. 1952: The Hittites, London. Gurney, O.R. 1992: Hittite Geography: Thirty Years On, in H. Otten, E. Akurgal, H. Ertem and A. Süel (eds) Hittite and

347 other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, Ankara, 213–221. Gurney, O.R. 1993: The Treaty with Ulmi-Tešub, Anatolian Studies, 13–28. Gurney, O.R. 1995: The Hittite Names of Kerkenes Dağ and Kuşaklı Höyük, Anatolian Studies 45, London, 69–71. Gurney, O.R. 1997: The Annals of Hattusilis III, Anatolian Studies 47, 127–139. Gurney, O.R. 2002a: The Authorship of the Tawagalawas Letter, in P. Taracha (ed.), Silva Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Warsaw, 133–141. Gurney, O.R. 2002b: The Authorship of the Ulmi-Tešub Treaty, in S. de Martino and F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), Anatolia Antica. Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati, Eothen 11, vol. I, 339–344. Gurney, O. R. 2003: The Upper Land, mātum elītum, in G. M. Beckman, R. H. Beal and G. McMahon (eds), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Winona Lake, Ind, 119–126. Gülçur, S. 1995: Aksaray, Niğde ve Nevşehir İlleri 1993 Yüzey Araştırmaları”, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 11, 191–213. Gülçur, S. 1999: Western Cappadocia. Distrubution of Mounds and Flat-Settlements, Anonymous (ed.) Çağlarboyu Anadoluda Yerleşim ve Konut Uluslurarası Sempozyumu, İstanbul, 5–7 Haziran, 197–210. Gülersoy, A. E. and Gülersoy, Ö. 2016: Hitit Başkenti Şapinuva Perspektifinde Ortaköy (Çorum)’ün Doğal, Sosyo-Kültürel Miras Değerleri ve Turizm Potansiyeli, Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences (http://jss.gantep.edu.tr, accessed 30.10.2016) 2016, 15/2, 485–530. Günbattı, C. 1996: Two new tablets throwing light on the relations between Anatolian kings and Assyrian merchants in the period of the Assyrian colonies, Archivum Anatolicum 2, 25–37. Günbattı, C. 1997: Kültepe’den Akadli Sargon’a âit bir tablet, Archivum Anatolicum 3, 131–155. Günel, S. 1999a: Panaztepe II. M.Ö. 2. Bine Tarihlendirilen Panaztepe Seramiğinin BatƖ Anadolu ve Ege Arkeolojisindeki Yeri ve Önemi / Die Keramik von Panaztepe und ihre Bedeutung für Westkleinasien und die Ägäis im 2. Jahrtausend, Ankara. Günel, S. 1999b: Vorbericht über die mittel- und spätbronze­ zeitliche Keramik vom Liman Tepe, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 49, 41–82. Günel, S. 2006: Çine-Tepecik Höyüğü 2004 Yılı Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 27/1, Ankara, 19–28. Günel, S. 2007: Çine-Tepecik Höyüğü 2005 Yılı Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 28/1, Ankara, 231–246. Günel, S. 2008a: Çine-Tepecik Kazıları ve Bölge Arkeolojisine Katkıları, in A. Erkanal-Öktü, S. Günel and U. Deniz (eds),

348 Batı Anadolu ve Doğu Akdeniz Geç Tunç Çağı Kültürleri Üzerine Yeni Araştırmalar, Ankara, 129–139. Günel, S. 2008b: Çine—Tepecik Höyük 2006 Yılı Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 29/1, 28 Mayıs-01 Haziran 2007, Ankara, 73–90. Günel, S. 2009: Çine-Tepecik 2007 Yılı Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 30/1, Ankara, 227–240. Günel, S. 2010a: 2008 Yılı Çine-Tepecik Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31/1, Ankara, 459–473. Günel, S. 2010b: Mycenaean cultural impact on the Çine (Marsyas) plain southwest Anatolia: the evidence from ÇineTepecik, Anatolian Studies 60, 25–49. Günel, S. 2011a: Çine-Tepecik Kazıları Işığında Bölgenin Tarihöncesi Kültürleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme, in A. Öztan and Ş. Dönmez (eds), Karadeniz’den Fırat’a Bilgi Üretimi. Önder Bilgi’ye Armağan Yazılar, Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayınları, İstanbul, 217–232. Günel, S. 2011b: Çine-Tepecik Geç Tunç Çağı Yerleşmesi, Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü-Haberler 32, 1–8. Günel, S. 2011c: Ein Terrakotta-Model aus dem Zentrum ÇineTepecik, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 61: 7–20. Günel, S. 2012: Menderes Bölgesinde M.Ö. 2. Binyıl Kenti: ÇineTepecik, Colloquium Anatolicum XI, 55–80. Günel, S. 2013: Çine-Tepecik 2010 Yılı Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33/2, Ankara, 19–37. Günel, S. 2014a: New Contributions regarding Prehistoric Cultures in Meander Region: Çine-Tepecik, in B. Horejs and M. Mehofer (eds), Western Anatolia before Troy. ProtoUrbanisation in the 4th millennium BC?, 21–24 November, 2012, Vienna, 83–103. Günel, S. 2014b: Çine-Tepecik Erken Tunç Çağı Taş Kap ve İdolleri / Early Bronze Age Stone Vessels and Idols of ÇineTepecik, in A. Engin, B. Helwing and B. Uysal (eds), armizzi: Engin Özgen’e Armağan / Studies in Honor of Engin Özgen, Ankara, 165–173. Günel, S. 2014c: MÖ 2. Binde Çine-Tepecik Yerleşmesinin Batı Anadolu Arkeolojisindeki Yeri ve Katkıları, in N. ÇınardalıKaraaslan, A. Aykurt, N. Kolankaya-Bostancı and Y. H. Erbil (eds), Armağan Erkanal’a Armağan, Anadolu Kültürlerine Bir Bakış / Compiled in Honor of Armağan Erkanal, Some Observation on Anatolian Cultures, Ankara, 243–256. Günel, S. 2015a: Çine-Tepecik: New Contributions on Late Bronze Age Cultures in Western Anatolia, in N. Chr. Stampolidis, Ç. Maner and K. Kopanias (eds), NOSTOI, Indigenous Culture, Migration, Integration in the Aegean Islands, Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age, Koç University, Istanbul, 627–646. Günel, S. 2015b: Ein Zentrum mit interregionalen Beziehungen in Westanatolien in der Bronzezeit: Çine-Tepecik/Bronz Çağında Batı Anadolu’da Bölgelerarası Bağlantıları Gösteren Bir Merkez: Çine-Tepecik, in Ü. Yalçın and H.

Bibliography D. Bienert (eds), Anatolien-Brücke der Kulturen. Aktuelle Forschungen und Perspektiven in den deutsch-türkischen Altertumswissenschaften, 7–9 Juli, 2014, Bonn, 205–216. Günel, S. and Herbordt, S. 2010: Ein hethitischer Siegelabdruck aus Çine-Tepecik, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1, 1–11. Günel, S. and Herbordt, S. 2014: Mykenische Kraterfragmente mit figürlichen Darstellungen und ein Siegelabdruck eines hethitischen Prinzen aus der spätbronzezeitlichen Siedlung von Çine-Tepecik, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 2014/1, 1–14. Güneri, S. 1987: Orta Anadolu Höyükleri, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 4, 207–225. Güneri, S. 1988: Orta Anadolu Höyükleri 1986, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 5/2, 77–103. Güneri, S. 1989: Orta Anadolu Höyükleri, Karaman-Ereğli Araştırmaları, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 28, 97–144. Gürel, A. and Lermi, A. 2010: Pleistocene-Holocene Fills of the Bor-Ereğli Plain (Central Anatolia): Recent GeoArchaeological Contributions, in L. d’Alfonso, M. E. Balza and C. Mora (eds), Geo-Archaeological Activities in Southern Cappadocia (Turkey), Studia Mediterranea 22, Pavia, 55–68. Gürsan-Salzmann, A. 1992: Alaca Höyük: A Reassessment of the Excavation and Sequence of the Early Bronze Age Settlement, PhD Dissertation, Pennsylvania. Gürsan-Salzmann, A. 2005: Ethnographic Lessons for Past Agro-Pastoral Systems in the Sakarya-Porsuk Valleys, in L. Kealhofer (ed.) The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, Philadelphia, 172–189. Güterbock, H.G. 1936: Neue Aḫḫijava-Texte, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 43, 321–327. Güterbock, H.G. 1940: Siegel aus Boğazköy 1. Teil: Die Königssiegel der Grabungen bis 1938, AfO Bh. 5, Berlin. Güterbock, H.G. 1944: Zile Yakınında Maşat’tan Gelme Bir Eti Mektubu / Ein hethitischer Brief aus Maşat bei Zile, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 2, 389– 397, 399–405. Güterbock, H.G. 1954: Authority and Law in the Hittite Kingdom, in E. A. Speiser (ed.) Authority and Law in the Ancient Orient, JAOS Supplementary Volume 17, 16–24. Güterbock, H.G. 1956: The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son, Mursili II, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 10, 41–68, 75–98, 107–130. Güterbock, H.G. 1960: An Outline of the Hittite AN.TAḪ.ŠUM Festival, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19, 80–89. Güterbock, H.G. 1961: The North-Central Area of Hittite Anatolia, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 20, 85–97. Güterbock, H.G. 1967a: Das dritte Monument am Karabel, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 17, 63–71 Güterbock, H.G. 1967b: The Hittite Conquest of Cyprus Reconsidered, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26, 73–81. Güterbock, H.G. 1973: Hittite Hieroglyphic Seal Impressions from Korucutepe, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32, 135–147.

Bibliography Güterbock, H.G. 1975: Hieroglyphensiegel aus dem Tempelbezirk, in K. Bittel, H. G. Güterbock, G. Neumann, P. Neve, H. Otten and U. Seidl, Boğazköy V. Funde aus den Grabungen 1970 und 1971, Berlin, 47–75. Güterbock, H.G. 1980: Hittite Hieroglyphic seal impressions, in M. N. van Loon (ed.) Korucutepe. Final Report on the Excavations of the Universities of Chicago, California (Los Angeles), and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anatolia, 1968–1970 Vol. 3, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, 127–132. Güterbock, H.G. 1983: The Hittites and the Aegean World I. The Ahhiyawa Problem Reconsidered, American Journal of Archaeology 87, 133–138. Güterbock, H.G. 1984: Hittites and Akhaeans. A New Look, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 128, 114–122. Güterbock, H.G. 1986: Troy in Hittite Texts? Wilusa, Ahhiyawa and Hittite History, in M. J. Mellink (ed.), Troy and the Trojan war. A Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr PA, 33–44. Güterbock, H.G. 1990: Wer war Tawagalawa?, Orientalia 59, 157–165. Güterbock, H.G. 1992: A New Look at One Ahhiyawa-Text, in H. Otten, H. Ertem, E. Akurgal, and A. Süel (eds), Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, Ankara, 235–243. Haas, V. 1970: Der Kult von Nerik. Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Religionsgeschichte, Roma. Haas, V. 1994: Geschichte der hethitischen Religion, HdO, Leiden. Haas, V. 1999a: Nerik(ka), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 229–231. Haas, V. 1999b: Natur-und Landschaftsbeschreibungen im hethitischen Schrifttum. Ein literarischer Spaziergang. in L. Milano, S. de Martino, F. M. Fales, G. B. Lanfranchi (eds), Landscapes. Territories, Fontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East. Papers presented to the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Venezia, 7–11 July 1997, Padova, 17–27. Haas, V. 2008: Hethitische Orakel. Vorzeichen und Abwehrstrat­ egien. Ein Beitrag zur hethitschen Kulturgeschichte. BerlinNew York. Hagenbuchner, A. 1989: Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter 1. Die Briefe unter ihren kulturellen, sprachlichen und thematischen Gesichtspunkten 2. Die Briefe mit Transkription, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Texte der Hethiter 15–16, Heidelberg. Hagenbuchner-Dresel, A. 2004: Die Fortbewegungsmittel des hethitischen Königspaares im Kult, in D. Groddek and S. Rößle (eds), Šarnikzel. Hethitologische Studien zum Gedenken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer (19.02. 1894—10.01. 1986), Dresden, 361–372.

349 Haider, P. W. 1988: Griechenland—Nordafrika: ihre Beziehungen zwischen 1500 und 600 v. Chr., Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell­ schaft, Darmstadt. Haider, P. W. 1997: Troia zwischen Hethitern, Mykenern und Mysern. Besitzt der Troianische Krieg einen historischen Hintergrund?, in Galter, H. D. (ed.), Troia: Mythen und Archäologie, Graz, 97–140. Haider, P. W. 1999: Zur historischen Geographie Westkleinasiens im 13. Jh. v. Chr., in H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger (eds), 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, Wien, 665–675. Haider, P. W. 2000: Die Peloponnes in ägyptischen Quellen des 15. und 14. Jhs. v. Chr., in Blakolmer, F. (ed.), Österreichische Forschungen zur ägäischen Bronzezeit 1998: Akten der Tagung am Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universität Wien, 2.-3. Mai 1998, Wien, 2000. Haider, P. W. 2004: Westkleinasien nach ägyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches, in Ulf, C. (ed.), Der neue Streit um Troia, München, 174–192. Haines, R. C. 1971: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch Vol. 2, The Structural Remains of the Later Phases: Çatal Höyük, Tell alJudaidah, and Tell Ta’yinat, Chicago. Hallo, W. W. 1964: The Road to Emar, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 18, 57–88. Hamilton, W. J. 1842: Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia. With some account of their antiquities and geoglogy, London. Hansen, O. 1994: A Mycenaean Sword from Boğazköy-Hattuša found in 1991, Annual of the British School at Athens 89, 213–215. Hansen, C. K. and J. N. Postgate 2007a: Pottery from Level III, in J. N. Postgate and D. Thomas (eds), Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994–98: From Bronze to Byzantine in Western Cilicia, BIAAM 30, London, 329–341. Hansen, C. K. and J. N. Postgate 2007b: Pottery from Level II, in J. N. Postgate and D. Thomas (eds), Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994–98: From Bronze to Byzantine in Western Cilicia, BIAAM 30, London, 343–370. Harmanşah, Ö. 2014a (ed.): Of Rocks and Water: Towards an Archaeology of Place, Oxford and Oakville. Harmanşah, Ö. 2014b: Place, Memory and Healing, An Archaeology of Anatolian Rock Monuments, London. Harmanşah, Ö. and Johnson, P. 2011: Yalburt Yaylası (Ilgın, Konya) Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırma Projesi, 2010 Sezonu Sonuçları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 29.2, 335–360. Harmanşah, Ö. and Johnson, P. 2012: Pınarlar, Mağaralar ve Hitit Anadolu’sunda Kirsal Peysaj: Yalburt Yaylası Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırma Projesi (Ilgın, Konya) 2011 Sezonu Sonuçları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 30/2, 73–84. Harmanşah, Ö. and Johnson, P. 2015: Landscape, Politics and Water in the Hittite Borderlands: Yalburt Yaylası

350 Archaeological Landscape Research Project 2010–2014, in S. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds), The Archaeology of Anatolia: Recent Discoveries (2011–2014), Volume I, Cambridge, 255–277. Harrak, A. 1987: Assyria and Hanigalbat: A Historical Reconstruction of Bilateral Relations from the Middle of the 14th to the End of the 12th Centuries BC, Hildesheim. Harris, S. 1992: U.E.A. Speleological Expedition, Turkey 1992, Unpublished report, University of East Anglia Fell and Cave Club, Norwich. Harris, S. 1993: FACC in Turkish delight, Caves and Caving 62, 24–27. Harrison, T. 2010: The Late Bronze/Early Iron Age Transition in the Northern Orontes Valley, in F. Venturi (ed.), Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age. Bologna, 83–102. Harrison, T. 2014: Recent Discoveries at Tayinat (Ancient Kunulua/Calno) and their Biblical Implications, in C. Maier (ed.), Congress Volume Munich 2013 (21st Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (IOSOT)), Leiden, 396–425. Hashimoto, K., Bong, W. S. K, Yokoyama, K., Schachner, A. and Nakai, I. 2013: Provenance Study of Pottery from Boğazkoy, Turkey by Heavy Mineral Analysis: a Preliminary Report, in A. Schachner, Die Arbeiten in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2012, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2013/1, 177–187. Hauptmann, H. 1969a: Grabungen in der prähistorischen Siedlung von Yarıkkaya, in K. Bittel, et al. (eds), Boğazköy IV. Funde aus den Grabungen 1967 und 1968, Berlin, 66–69. Hawkins, J.D. 1969: A hieroglyphic Hittite inscription from Porsuk, Anatolian Studies 19, 99–109. Hawkins, J.D. 1972–75: Hazazu, RlA 4, 240. Hawkins, J.D. 1976–1980a: Karkamiš, RlA 5, 426–446. Hawkins, J.D. 1976–1980b: Irqata, RlA 5, 165–166. Hawkins, J.D. 1980–83: Kummuh, RlA 6, 338–340. Hawkins, J.D. 1983: The Hittite Name of Til Barsip: Evidence from a New Hieroglyphic Fragment from Tell Ahmar, Anatolian Studies 33, 131–136. Hawkins, J.D. 1987–1990: Luḫuti, RlA 7, 159–161. Hawkins, J.D. 1988: Kuzi-Tešub and the ‘Great Kings’ of Karkemiš, Anatolian Studies 38, 99–108. Hawkins, J.D. 1992: The Inscriptions of the Kizildağ and the Karadağ in the Light of the Yalburt Inscription, in H. Otten, E. Akurgal and A. Süel (eds) Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, Ankara, 259–275. Hawkins, J. D. 1993a: Melid. A. Historisch, RlA 8, 35–41. Hawkins, J. D. 1993b: A bowl epigraph of the official Taprammi, in M. J. Mellink, E. Porada and T. Özgüç (eds), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, Ankara, 715–717.

Bibliography Hawkins, J.D. 1995a: The Hieroglyphic inscription of the sacred pool complex at Hattusa. With an archaeological introduction by Neve, P. StBoT Beiheft 3, Wiesbaden. Hawkins, J.D. 1995b: The Political Geography of North Syria and South-East Anatolia in the Neo-Assyrian Period, in M. Liverani (ed.), Neo-Assyrian Geography, Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5, Roma, 87–101. Hawkins, J.D. 1996a: Eine Stele Tudhaliyas IV. aus Delihasanli, in J. Seeher (ed.), Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 1995, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1996/1, 356–359. Hawkins, J.D. 1996b. A Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription on a Silver Bowl in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, in Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Yıllığı, 1996, 7–24. Hawkins, J.D. 1998a: The Land of Išuwa: the Hieroglyphic Evidence, in S. Alp and A. Süel (eds) III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 16–22 Eylül 1996—Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16– 22, 1996, Ankara, 281–295. Hawkins, J.D. 1998b: Tarkasnawa King of Mira: ‘Tarkendemos’, Boğazköy sealings and Karabel, Anatolian Studies 48, 1–31. Hawkins, J.D. 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age, UISK 8.1, Berlin— New York. Hawkins, J.D. 2001: Urhi-Tešub, tuhkanti, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, 167–179. Hawkins, J.D. 2002a: Anatolia: The End of the Hittite Empire and After, in E. A. Braun-Hölzinger and H. Matthäus (eds), Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. Zum 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr.. Kontinuität und Wandel von Strukturen und Mechanismenkultureller Interaktion, Paderborn, 144–151. Hawkins, J.D. 2002b: The Historical Geography of Western Anatolia in the Hittite Texts, in D. F. Easton, J. D. Hawkins, A. G. Sherratt, and E. S. Sherratt (eds). Troy in Recent Perspective, in Anatolian Studies 52, 75–109. Hawkins, J.D. 2004: The Stag-God of the Countryside and Related Problems, in J.H.W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives. Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, Oxford, 355–369. Hawkins, J.D. 2005. A Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription on a Silver Bowl, in Studia Troica 15, 193–204. Hawkins, J.D. 2006: Tudḫaliya the Hunter, in Th. P. J. van den Hout (ed.), The Life and Times of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV—Proceedings of a Symposium held in Honour of J. de Roos, 12–13 December 2003, Leiden, 49–76. Hawkins, J.D. 2007: Que. A. Archäologisch, RlA 11, 191–195. Hawkins, J.D. 2009a: The Arzawa Letters in Recent Perspective, in British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 14, 73–83.

Bibliography Hawkins, J.D. 2009b: Cilicia, the Amuq, and Aleppo: New Light in a Dark Age, Near Eastern Archaeology 72 (4), 164–73. Hawkins, J.D. 2013: Luwians versus Hittites, in A. Mouton, I. C. Rutherford, I. Yakubovich (eds), Luwian identities: Culture, Language and Religion between Anatolia and the Aegean, Leiden, 25–40. Hawkins, J.D. 2014: A New Look at the Luwian Language, Kadmos 52 (2013 [2014]), 1–18. Hawkins, J.D. 2015a: Usnû, RlA 14, 506. Hawkins, J.D. 2015b: The Political Geography of Arzawa (Western Anatolia), in: Ç. Maner, N. Stampolidis, K. Kopanias (eds), Nostoi: Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, (Proceedings of the symposium held in Istanbul, March 31th—April 3rd 2011), 15–36. Hawkins, J.D. and Easton, D. F. 1996: A Hieroglyphic Seal from Troia, Studia Troica 6, 111–118. Hawkins, J.D. and Frangipane, M. 1993: Melid A, B, in D. Edzard (ed.) RlA 8, 35–52. Hawkins, J.D. and Weeden, M. 2008: The Hieroglyphic Rock Inscription of Malkaya: A New Look, Anatolian Archaeologi­ cal Studies: Kaman-Kalehöyük 17, 241–249. Hazenbos, J. 2003: The Organization of the Anatolian Local Cults during the Thirteenth Century B.C. An Appraisal of the Hittite Cult Inventories, CM 21, Leiden, Boston. Hazenbos, J. 2012: Šullupašša/i, RlA 13, 289. Hecker, K. 2006a: Purušḫattum, RlA 11, 1–2, 119–120. Hecker, K. 2006b: Altassyrische Briefe. Briefe, in G. Wilhelm and B. Janowski (eds), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Neue Folge, Band 3, Gütersloh, 77–100. Heffron, Y. 2014: The Material Culture of Hittite ‘God-drinking’, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 14, 164–185. Heidel, A. 1953: The Octagonal Sennacherib Prism in the Iraq Museum, Sumer 9, 117–187. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 1977: Arzawa. Untersuchungen zu seiner Geschichte nach den hethitischen Quellen, Texte der Hethiter 8, Heidelberg. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 1983: Untersuchungen zu Piyamaradu (Teil I), Or 52, 81–97. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 1986: Untersuchungen zu Piyamaradu (Teil II), Or 55, 47–62. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 1989: Maša, in: RlA 7, Nr. 3, 441–442. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 1994: Milawa(n)da, RlA 8, 188–189. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2004a: Zur Gleichsetzung der Namen Ilios-Wiluša und Troia-Taruiša, in: Chr. Ulf (ed.), Der neue Streit um Troia. Eine Bilanz, München 2nd ed. 2004, 146–168. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2004b: Aḫḫiyawa: Land der homerischen Achäer im Krieg mit Wiluša?, in: Chr. Ulf (ed.), Der neue Streit um Troia. Eine Bilanz, München 2nd ed. 2004, 193–214. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2004c: Ist die Identität von Ilios und Wiluša endgültig erwiesen?, in: SMEA 46, 29–57.

351 Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2004d: Emil Forrers Lokalisierung von heth. Wiluša. Eine Richtigstellung, in: D. Groddek and S. Rößle (eds), Šarnikzel. Hethitologische Studien zum Gedenken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer (19.02.1894–10.01.1986), Dresden, 373–378. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2005: Pijamaradu, RlA 10, 561–562. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2007a: Albrecht Goetze und die Aḫḫiyawa-Frage, SMEA 49, 363–376. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2007b: Anmerkungen zur AḫḫiyawaUrkunde KUB 31.29 (Bo 5316/ AU XVIII), in: M. Alparslan, M. Doğan-Alparslan, H. Peker (eds), VITA. Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Istanbul, 315–326. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2010: Zur Datierungsgeschichte des “Tawagalawa-Briefes” und zur problematischen Rolle des Fragments KBo 16.35 als Datierungshilfe”, in: Cohen, Y., Gilan, A. and Miller, J.L. (eds), Pax Hethitica: studies on the Hittites and their neighbours in honour of Itamar Singer, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2010, S. 191–213. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. 2013: Zur Lage des hethitischen Vasallenstaates Wiluša im Südwesten Kleinasiens, in M. Mazoyer, and S. H. Aufrère (eds), De Hattusa à Memphis: Jacques Freu in honorem, Paris, 59–74. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. (forthcoming): Der Tawagalawa-Brief, Heidelberg. Helck, W. 21995: Die Beziehungen Aegyptens und Vorderasiens zur Ägäis bis ins 7. Jahrhundert v.Chr., Darmstadt, 2nd edition. Heltzer, M. 1999: The Economy of Ugarit, in W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, HdO 39, Leiden, Boston, 423–454. Herbordt, S. 2005: Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem NişantepeArchiv, Mit Kommentaren zu den Siegelinschriften und Hieroglyphen von J. David Hawkins, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 19, Mainz am Rhein. Herbordt S., Bawanypeck D. and Hawkins J.D. 2011: Die Siegel der Grosskönige und Grossköniginnen auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattuša, Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 23, Darmstadt-Mainz. Hertel, D. 2008: Troia. Archäologie, Geschichte, Mythos, München 3rd edition. Hertel, Th. K. 2014: The Lower Town at Kültepe/Kanesh: The Urban Layout and the Population, in L. Atici, F. Kulakoğlu, G. Barjamovic and A. Fairbairn (eds), Current Research in Kültepe/Kanesh: An Interdisciplinary and Integrative Approach to Trade Networks, Internationalism, and Identity during the Middle Bronze Age, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 4, Bristol, CT, 25–54. Highcock, N., Crabtree, P., Campana, D. V., Capardoni, M., Lanaro, A., Matessi, A., Miller, N. F., Strosahl, P., Trameri, A.

352 and d’Alfonso, L. 2015: Kınık Höyük, Niğde: A New Archaeological Project in Southern Cappadocia, in S. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds), The Archaeology of Anatolia: Recent Discoveries (2011–2014), Vol. 1, 98–127. Hild, F. 1977: Das byzantinische Strassensystem in Kappadokien, Vienna. Hild, F. and Hellenkeper, H. 1990: Kilikien und Isaurien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5), Wien. Hillier, S. 1991: The Mycenaeans in the Black Sea, in R. Laffineur and L. Basch (eds), THALASSA. L’Egée préhistorique et la mer, Aegaeum 7, Liège, 207–216. Hoffmann, I. 1984: Der Erlass Telipinus, Texte der Hethiter 11, Heidelberg. Hoffner, H.A. 1968–69: A Hittite Text in Epic Style about Merchants, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 22, 34–45. Hoffner, H.A. 1972: Rev. of Houwink ten Cate Ph. H. J. 1970, Journal of Near Easten Studies 31/1, 29–35. Hoffner, H.A. 1974a: Alimenta Hethaeorum. Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor, New Haven. Hoffner, H.A. 1974b: The Arzana House, in K. Bittel, Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate and E. Reiner (eds), Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Istanbul, 113–121. Hoffner, H.A. 1982: The Milawata-Letter Augmented and Reinterpreted, in H. Hirsch and H. Hunger (eds) Vorträge gehalten auf der 28. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Wien, 6.-10. Juli 1981, Horn, 130–137. Hoffner, H.A. 1997a: Hittite Canonical Compositions— Historiography: Deeds of Šuppiluliuma, in W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture, Vol. I, Canonical Composition from the Biblical World, Leiden, New York and Köln, 185–192. Hoffner, H.A. 1997b: Hittite Canonical Compositions— Historiography: Proclamation of Anitta of Kuššar, in W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture, Vol. I, Canonical Composition from the Biblical World, Leiden, New York and Köln, 182–184. Hoffner, H.A. 1997c: The Laws of the Hittites: a Critical Edition (DMOA 23), Leiden, New York, Köln. Hoffner, H.A. 1998: Hittite Myths. 2nd edition, SBL 2, Atlanta. Hoffner, H.A. 2000: Hittite Monumental Inscriptions— Functional Inscriptions: The Treaty of Tudḫaliya IV with Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša, in W. W. Hallo (ed), The Context of Scripture, Vol. II, Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Leiden, New York and Köln, 100–106. Hoffner, H.A. 2001: Some Thoughts on Merchants and Trade in the Hittite Kingdom, in T. Richter, D. Prechel and J. Klinger (eds), Kulturgeschichten. Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, Saarbrücken, 179–189. Hoffner, H.A. 2002: The Treatment and Long-Term Use of Persons Captured in Battle according to the Maşat Texts, in

Bibliography K. A. Yener and H. A. Hoffner (eds) Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History. Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock, Winona Lake, Ind, 61–72. Hoffner, H.A. 2003: 2. Historiography (Hittite), in W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden-Boston, 182–193. Hoffner, H.A. 2006: Hittite Historical Texts II: “The Treaty with Kurunta of Tarhuntašša”, in M. W. Chavalas (ed.), The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation, Malden, Oxford, Victoria, 270–275. Hoffner, H.A. 2009: Letters from the Hittite Kingdom, SBL 15, Atlanta. Hogarth, D. G. 1893: Modern and Ancient Roads in Eastern Asia Minor. RGS Supplementary Papers III/5, London. Hogarth, D. G. 1914: Carchemish: report on the excavations at Djerabis on behalf of the British Museum, vol. 1, London. Hogarth, D. G., and Munro, J. A. R. 1893: Modern and Ancient Roads in Eastern Asia Minor, London. Horowitz, W., Oshima, T. and Sanders, S. L. 2006: Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times, Jerusalem. Hout, Th. van den 1984: Kurunta und die Datierung einiger hethitischen Texte, RA 78, 89–92. Hout, Th. van den 1989: A chronology of the TarhuntassaTreaties, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 41, 100–114. Hout, Th. van den 1990: Review of: Archi A., Keilschriftur­ kunden aus Boghazköi 57 Hethitische Briefe und Texte verschiedenen Inhalts: KUB 57, Berlin, Bibliotheca Orientalis 47, 423–432. Hout, Th. van den 1994: Der Falke und das Kücken: der neue Pharao und der Prinz?, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 84, 60–88. Hout, Th. van den 1995a: Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung, StBoT 38, Wiesbaden. Hout, Th. van den 1995b: Khattushili III, King of the Hittites, in J. C. Sasson (ed.) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, New York, 1107–1120. Hout, Th. van den 1997: Hittite Canonical Compositions— Biography and Autobiography: Apology of Hattušili III, in W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture, Vol. I, Canonical Composition from the Biblical World, Leiden, New York and Köln, 199–204. Hout, Th. van den 1998c, The Purity of Kingship. An Edition of CTH 569 and Related Hittite Oracle Inquiries of Tuthaliya IV, Leiden-Boston-Köln. Hout, Th. van den 2001: Zur Geschichte des jüngeren hethitischen Reiches, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, 213–223. Hout, Th. van den 2002: Tombs and Memorials: The (Divine) Stone-House and Hegur Reconsidered, in K. A. Yener and

Bibliography H. A. Hoffner (ed.), Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History. Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock, Winona Lake, Ind, 73–91. Hout, Th. van den 2003: Biography and Autobiography: The Proclamation of Telipinu (1.76); The Apology of Ḫattušili III (1.77), in W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden-Boston, 194–204. Hout, Th. van den 2003–2005: Pala, Paläer, Palaisch, RlA 10, 191–192. Hout, Th. van den 2012: Tarḫund/tašša, RlA 13, 460–463. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J. 1961: The Luwian Population Groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera during the Hellenistic Period, DMOA, Leiden. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H.J. 1966: Mursilis’ North-Western Campaigns—Additional Fragments of His Comprehensive Annals, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25, 162–191. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H.J. 1967: Mursilis’ Northwestern Campaigns—A Commentary, Anatolica 1, 44–61. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J. 1970: The Records of the Early Hittite Empire (c. 1450–1380 B.C.), Istanbul. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H.J. 1979: The Mashuiluwas Affair. A Join (KBo XIX 46) and a Duplicate (KBo IX 77) to Mursilis’s Comprehensive Annals (12th Year of his Reign), in Carruba, O. (ed.), Studia Mediterranea Piero Meriggi dicata, Pavia, 267–292. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J. 1983–84: Sidelights on the AhhiyawaQuestion from Hittite Vassal and Royal Correspondence, JEOL 28, 33–79. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H. J. 1988: Brief Comments on the Hittite Cult Calendar: The Main Recension of the Outline of the nuntarriyašḫaš Festival, especially Days 8–12 and 15ʹ–22ʹ, in E. Neu and Chr. Rüster (eds), Documentum Asiae minoris antiquae. Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 167–194. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H.J. 1992: The Bronze Tablet of Tudhaliyas IV and its Geographical and Historical Relations, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 82, 233–270. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H.J. 2003: A New Look at the Outline Tablets of the AN.TAḪ.ŠUMSAR Festival: The Text-Copy VS NF 12.1, G. M. Beckman, R. Beal, and G. McMahon, Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. On the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Winona Lake, Ind, 205–219. Houwink ten Cate, Ph. H.J. 2006: The Apparently Delayed Homecoming of Tudḫaliya IV to His Capital Ḫattuša, in T. P. J. van den Hout (ed.), The Life and Times of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Honor of J. de Roos, 12–13 December 2003, Leiden, Leiden, 107–115. Höflmayer, F. 2014: Book Review of The Late MBA and LBA Pottery Horizons at Qatna: Innovation and Conservation in the

353 Ceramic Tradition of a Regional Capital and the Implications for Second Millennium Syrian Chronology, by Marco Iamoni, American Journal of Archaeology 118/2, online book review 1775. Hrouda, B. 1997: Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabung­ sergebnisse auf dem Sirkeli Höyük / Südtürkei von 1992– 1996, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47, 91–150. Hrouda, B. 1998: Survey in der Umgebung von Sirkeli Höyük 1994, in: G. Arsebük, M. J. Mellink and W. Schirmer (eds), Light on Top of the Black Hill. Studies presented to Halet Çambel, Istanbul, 427–433. Hrozný, B. 1929: Hethiter und Griechen, Archiv Orientální 1, 323–343. Hunt, R. 1995: On Dry Farming in Upper Mesopotamia, Current Anthropology 36/2, 289–290. Hunt, C. O., Gilbertson, D. D. and El-Rishi, H. A. 2007: An eight thousand year history of landscape, climate and copper exploitation in the Middle East: the Wadi Faynan and the Wadi Dana National Reserve in southern Jordan, Journal of Archaeolical Sciience 34, 1306–1338. Hutter, M. 2003: Aspects of Luwian Religion, in H. C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians, Leiden-Boston, 211–280. Hüser, A. 2007: Hethitische Anlagen zur Wasserversorgung und Entsorgung, Kuşaklı-Sarissa 3, Rahden. Hütteroth, W.-D. 1968: Ländliche Siedlungen im südlichen Inneranatolien in den letzten vierhundert Jahren, Göttingen. Hütteroth, W.-D. 1982: Türkei, Darmstadt. Hütteroth, V. D. and Höhfeld, V. 2002: Türkei. Geographie, Geschichte, Wirtschaft, Politik, Darmstadt. Iamoni, M. 2012: The Late MBA and LBA Pottery Horizons at Qatna: Innovation and Conservation in the Ceramic Tradition of a Regional Capital and the Implications for Second Millen­ nium Syrian Chronology, Studi Archeologici su Qatna 2, Udine. Imparati, F. 1974: Una concessione di terre da parte di Tudhaliya IV, RHA 32, Paris. Imparati, F. 1990: Obligations et manquements cultuels envers la divinité Pirwa, Orientalia 59, 166–187. Imparati, F. 1992: Hitit Yasaları (Hittite Laws, translated by Erendiz Özbayoğlu), Ankara. Imparati, F. 1999: Il testo oraculare KUB XXII 51 (CTH 577), Hethitica 14, 153–177. Imparati F. and Pecchioli Daddi, F. 1991: La relazioni politiche fra Hatti e Tarhuntassa all’ epoca di Hattusili III e Tuthaliya IV, in F. Imparati (ed.), Quattro studi ittiti, Eothen 4, 23–68. Ivanova, M. 2013: Domestic architecture in the Early Bronze Age of Western Anatolia: the row-houses of Troy I, Anatolian Studies 63, 17–33. Izre’el, S. 1991: Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study, HSS 40–41, Atlanta. Işık, F., Atıcı, M. and Tekoğlu, R. 2011: Die Nachhethitische Königsstele von Karakuyu beim Karabel-Pass, in

354 Schwertheim, E. (ed.) Asia Minor Studien 66, Studien zum antiken Kleinasien VII, Bonn, 1–33. Işın, M. A. 1998: Sinop region field survey, Anatolia Antiqua 6, 95–139. Jablonka, P. 1996: Ausgrabungen im Süden der Unterstadt von Troia. Grabungsbericht 1995, Studia Troica 6, 65–96. Jablonka, P. 2010: Troy, in E. H. Cline (ed.), The Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 BC), Oxford, 849–861. Jaeger, B. and Krauss, R. 1990: Zwei Skarabäen aus der mykenischen Fundstelle Panaztepe, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 122, 153–156. Jahukyan, G. B. 1961: The Hayaša Language and Its Relation to the Indo-European Languages, Archiv Orientální 29, 353–403. Jakob, S. 2009: Die mittelassyrischen Texte aus Tell Chuera in Nordost-Syrien, Ausgrabungen in Tell Chuēra in NordostSyrien 3, Wiesbaden. Jakob-Rost, L. 1963: Zu den hethitischen Bildbeschreibungen, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 9, 173–239. James, P. 2012: Review article: Tree-Rings, Kings and Old World Archaeology and Environment, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 144, 144–150. Jasink, A. M. 2001a: Šuppiluliuma and Hartapu: two “Great Kings” in Conflict, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, 235–239. Jasink, A. M. 2001b: Kizzuwatna and Tarhuntašša—their historical evolution and interactions with Hatti, in É. Jean, A. M. Dinçol, and S. Durugönul (eds) La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénire av. J.-C.—4e siècle ap. J.-C.), Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale d’Istanbul, 2–5 novembre 1999, IFEA, Paris, 47–56. Jasink, A. M. 2003: Il ruolo di Tarhuntašša da Muwatalli II a Šuppiluliuma II, in P. Marrassini (ed.), Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues, Wiesbaden, 269–285. Jean, É. 1998: Prospection archéologique dans la ville basse nord de Kuşaklı: ramassage de surface, in A. Müller-Karpe (ed.), Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı, 1997, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 130, 154–160. Jean, É. 2006: The Hittites at Mersin-Yumuktepe: Old Problems and New Directions, in D. P. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop and J. Seeher (eds), Structuring and Dating in Hittite Archaeology: Requirements, Problems, New Approaches; International Workshop, Istanbul, 311–332. Jesus, P. S. de 1977: The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia. PhD Dissertation. University College London. Jesus, P. S. de 1978: Metal resources in ancient Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 28, 97–102. Jesus, P. S. de 1980: The Development of Prehistoric Mining and Metallurgy in Anatolia, Oxford.

Bibliography Johnson, P. A. 2010: Landscapes of Achaemenid Paphlagonia, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Johnson, P. A. 2011: Topographies of Urbanization: Survey in and around Pompeiopolis, in L. Summerer (ed.), Pompeiopolis I: eine Zwischenbilanz aus der Metropole Paphlagoniens nach fünf Kampagnen (2006–2010). Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes, Bd 21, Langenweißbach, 195–205. Johnson, P. A. and Harmanşah, Ö. 2015: Landscape, Politics, and Water in the Hittite Borderlands: Yalburt Yaylası Archaeological Landscape Research Project 2010–2014, in S. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds), The Archaeology of Anatolia: Current Work (2013–2014), Cambridge, 259–281. Jung, R. 2010: End of the Bronze Age, in E. H. Cline (ed.), The Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 BC), Oxford, 171–184. Kaniewski, D., Paulissen, E., Van Campo, E., Weiss, H., Otto, T., Bretschneider, J., and Van Lerberghe, K. 2010: Late second– early first millennium BC abrupt climate changes in coastal Syria and their possible significance for the history of the Eastern Mediterranean, Quaternary Research 74, 207–215. Kaniewski, D., van Campo, E., Guiot, J., Le Burel, S., Otto, T. and Baeteman, C. 2013: Environmental Roots of the Late Bronze Age Crisis, PLoS ONE 8(8), e71004. Kapełuś, M. 2013: The town of Zithara, in M. Mazoyer, S. H. Aufrère (eds), De Hattuša à Memphis: Jacques Freu in honorem, Paris, 93–104. Kaptan, E. 1990: Findings Related to the History of Mining in Turkey, Mineral Resources Exploration Bulletin 111, 75–84. Kara, A., Ay, N., Ayas, E., Darga, M., Sivas, T., Sivas, H. 2004: Characterization of Şarhöyük (Dorylaion) Artifacts from Hittite Period, Key Engineering Materials, Vols 264–268, 2387–2390. Karabiyikoğlu, M. and Kuzucuoğlu, C. 1998: Late PleistoceneHolocene Chronology, Environmental Evolution and Climatic Changes of the Konya Basin, Southern Inner Anatolia, Ankara. Karaca, Ö. 1981: Pirot Höyük 1980 Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 3, 109–114. Karaca, Ö. 1982: Pirot Höyük 1981 Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4, 69–82. Karaca, Ö. 1983: Pirot Höyük 1980 Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 5, 103–108. Karaca, Ö. 1984: Pirot Höyük 1980 Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 6, 37–48. Karageorghis, V. 1970: Two Religious Documents of the Early Cypriote Bronze Age, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, 10–13. Karageorghis, V. 1971: Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1970, Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique 95, 335–432.

Bibliography Karageorghis, V. 1991: The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus I. Chalcolithic-Late Cypriote, Nicosia. Karasu, C. 1988: nuntariyašhaš Bayramında Hitit Kralının Kült Gezileri, Belleten 52, 409–428. Karasu, C. 2007: Some Observations on Katapa, M. Alparslan, M. Doğan-Alparslan, and H. Peker (eds), VITA. Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Istanbul, 373–381. Karasu, C., Poetto, M. and Savaş, Ö. 2000: New Fragments Pertaining to the Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription of Yalburt, Archivium Anatolicum 4, 99–112. Karauğuz, G. 2006: 2004 Yılı Devrek (Zonguldak) Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 23, 69–82. Karauğuz, G. 2007: 2005 Yılı Devrek-Gökçebey (Tefen) Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 24, 327–340. Karauğuz, G. 2008a: Karadeniz Ereğlisi ve Amasra Arkeoloji Müzelerinde Bulunan Bazı Eserler Hakkında, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 25, 55–64. Karauğuz, G. 2008b: Zonguldak İli ve İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırması 2006, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 25, 43–54. Karauğuz, G. 2009: Çaycuma, Gökçebey (Tefen) ve Devrek İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırması, 2007, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 26, 105–116. Karauğuz, G. and Düring, B. S. 2009: A note on the prehistory of the Devrek Region, northern Turkey, Anatolica 35, 153–165. Karauğuz, G. and Düring, B. S. 2014: Kaššu roi de Tummanna, Nouvelles Assyriologique Brèves et Utilitaires 2014/1, 32–33. Karauğuz, G., Bahar, H. and Kunt, H. İ. 2002: Kızıldağ Üzerine Yeni Bazı Gözlemler/ New Observations about Kızıldağ, TÜBA-AR 5, 7–32. Kashima, K. 2001: The Relationship between the Distribution of Archaeological Sites and their Geomorphologic Conditions in the Lake Tuz Basin, Central Turkey, Anatolian Archaeological Studies 10, 129–139. Kashima, K. 2008: Palaeo-Environmental Changes at KamanKalehöyük, Kırşehir, Turkey—A Verfication of the Bronze age and the Iron Age, Anatolian Archaeological Studies 17, 251–263. Kashima, K. and Matsubara, H. 1995: Reconstruction of paleo-history of inner lakes in middle west part of Turkey using diatom analysis, Anatolian Archeological Studies 4, 135–142. Kawakami, N. 2006, The Location of Purušḫanta, al Rāfidān 27, 59–99. Kayan, İ. 2006: Ephesos. Yedi Bin Yıllık Paleocoğrafya. Kayıp Denizi Keşfetmek, ATLAS 161, 136–139. Kealhofer, L., Grave, P., Genz, H. and Marsh, B. 2009: Postcollapse: the re-emergence of polity in Iron Age Boğazköy, central Anatolia, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28, 275–300.

355 Kelder, J. 2005: Greece during the Late Bronze Age, JEOL 39, 131–179. Kelder, J. 2010: The kingdom of Mycenae: A Great Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age Aegean, CDL Press, Bethesda, Md. Kelletat, D. 2005: A Holocene Sea Level Curve for the Eastern Mediterranean from Multiple Indicators, Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 137, 1–9. Kempinski, A. and Košak, S. 1970: Der Išmeriga-Vertrag, Die Welt des Orients 5, 191–217. Kempinski, A. and Košak, S. 1982: CTH 13: The Extensive Annals of Hattušili I (?), Tel Aviv 9, 87–116. Kennedy, D. A. and Garelli, P. 1960: Seize tablettes cappadociennes de l’Ashmolean Museum d’Oxford, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 14, 1–22. Keskin, E. 2009: Çorum’da Roma ve Bizans Dönemi Eserleri, in Y. Bayram (ed.) Coğrafyası, Tarihi, Kültürü ve Edebiyatıyla Çorum, 212–221. Kessler, K. 2006: Ichnae, in H. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds), Brill’s New Pauly (Brill Online, 2015). Killebrew, A. E., Lehmann, G. and Gates, M. H. 2009: Summary of the 2007 Cilicia Survey (Iskenderun Bay Region), Araştirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi 26, 227–238. King, C. 2004: The Black Sea. A History, Oxford. King, L. W. 1920: Hittite Texts in the Cuneiform Character from the Tablets in the British Museum. Autographed by Leonard William King, London. Kitchen, K. A. 1996: Ramesside Inscriptions II. Ramesses II, Royal Inscriptions, Oxford. Kitchen, K. A. and Lawrence, P. J. N. 2012: Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East, Part 1, Wiesbaden. Kınal, F. 1953: Géographie et Histoire des Pays d’ Arzava, Ankara. Kızıltan, Z. 1992: Samsun Bölgesi Yüzey Araştırmaları 1971–1977, Belleten 56, 213–241. Kleiner, G. 1969/70: Stand der Erforschung von Alt-Milet, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19/20, 113- 123. Klengel, H. 1961: Zu KUB XIX 19 und XXXIV 43, ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Geographie, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 8, 15–23. Klengel, H. 1965–1970: Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v. u. Z, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentichung 40, Berlin. Klengel, H. 1968: Die Hethiter und Išuwa, Oriens Antiquus 7, 63–76. Klengel, H. 1974: “Hungerjahre” in Ḫatti, Altorientalische Forschungen 1, 165–174 Klengel, H. 1976: Nochmals zu Išuwa, Oriens Antiquus 15, 85–89. Klengel, H. 1976–1980: Išuwa, RlA 5, 214–216. Klengel, H. 1986: The Economy of the Hittite Household (É), Oikumene 5, 23–31.

356 Klengel, H. 1988: Die Keilschrifttexte von Meskene und die Geschichte von Aštata/Emar, OLZ 83, 645–653. Klengel, H. 1991: Tutḫalija IV. von Ḫatti: Prolegomena zu einer Biographie, Altorientalische Forschungen 18, 224–238. Klengel, H. 1992a: Syria 3000–300 BC: A Handbook of Political History, Berlin. Klengel, H. 1992b: Die Hethiter und Syrien: Aspekte einer politischen Auseinandersetzung, in H. Otten, H. Ertem, E. Akurgal and A. Süel (eds), Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, Ankara, 341–353. Klengel, H. 1993–1997: Murmuriga, RlA 8, 434. Klengel, H. 1995: Tunip und andere Probleme der historischen Geographie Mittelsyriens, in K. van Lerberghe and A. Schoors (eds), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East, Leuven, 125–134. Klengel, H. 1997: Die historische Rolle der Stadt Aleppo in vorantiken Syrien, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch : 1. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 9.-10. Mai 1996 in Halle/Saale, CDOG 1, Saarbrucken, 359–374. Klengel, H. 1998–2001: Nuḫašše, RlA 9, 610–611. Klengel, H. 1999: Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, Leiden-Boston-Köln. Klengel, H. 1992: Syria 3000–300 B.C.: A Handbook of Political History, Berlin. Klengel, H. 1999: Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, Handbuch der Orientalistik I/34, Leiden, Boston, Köln. Klengel, H. 2006a: Studien zur hethitischen Wirtschaft, 2. Feldund Gartenbau, Altorientalische Forschungen 33, 3–21. Klengel, H. 2006b: Qadeš. A. Geschichte, RlA 11, 140–142. Klengel, H. 2007a: Studien zur hethitischen Wirtschaft, 3. Tierwirtschaft und Jagd, Altorientalische Forschungen 34, 154–173. Klengel, H. 2007b: Ura, Ugarit und der hethitische Mittelmeerhandel, in M. Alparslan, M. Doğan-Alparslan, and H. Peker (eds), VITA. Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Istanbul, 383–388. Klengel, H. 2011: History of the Hittites, in H. Genz and D. P. Mielke (eds), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, Colloquia Antiqua 2, Louvain, Paris, Walpole, MA, 31–46. Klinger, J. 1995: Synchronismen in der Epoche vor Šuppiluliuma I.—einige Anmerkungen zur Chronologie der mittelhethitischen Geschichte, in O. Carruba, M. Giorgieri, and C. Mora (eds), Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia, Studia Mediterranea 9, Pavia, 235–248. Klinger, J. 1996: Der Kult von Matilla im Rahmen der beiden großen hethitischen Reisefeste, SMEA 37, 67–78. Klinger, J. 2001: Die hurritische Tradition in Ḫattuša und das Corpus hurritischer Texte, in T. Richter, D. Prechel and

Bibliography J. Klinger (eds), Kulturgeschichten: Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65.Geburtstag, Saarbrücken, 197–208. Klinger, J. 2002: Die hethitisch-kaškäische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Großreichszeit, in S. de Martino and F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), Anatolia Antica: Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati. Tomo I. Firenze, 437–451. Klinger, J. 2005: Das Korpus der Kaskäer-Texte, Altorientalische Forschungen 32, 347–359. Klinger, J. 2006: Studien zur hethitischen Wirtschaft, 2: Feldund Gartenbau, Altorientalische Forschungen 33, 3–21. Klinger, J. 2008: Zalpa, Nerik und Hakmiš: die Bedeutung der nördlichen Periferie Zentralanatoliens in hethitischer Zeit, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Hattuša-Boğazköy. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients, CDOG 6, Wiesbaden, 277–290. Klinger, J. 2010: Ethnogenèse et identité dans l’Anatolie de la période hittite ou: Qui étaient les Hittites?, in I. KlockFontanille, S. Biettlot, and K. Meshoub (eds), Identité et altérité culturelles: Le cas des Hittites dans le Proche-Orient ancient. Actes de colloque Université de Limoges 27–28 novembre 2008, Bruxelles, 227–240. Klinkott, M. 2004: Die Wehrmauern von Troia VI-Bauaufnahme und Auswertung, Studia Troica, 14, 33–85. Knappett, C. 2000: The provenance of Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware: Cyprus, Syria or Anatolia?, Internet Archaeology 9: http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.9.7. Knappett, C., Kilikoğlu, V., Steele, V. and Stern, B. 2005: The circulation and consumption of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware: Petrographic, chemical and residue analysis, Anatolian Studies 55, 25–59. Knudtzon, J. A. 1902: Die zwei Arzawa-Briefe, die ältesten Urkunden in indogermanischer Sprache. Mit Bemerkungen von Bugge, S. und Torp, A., Leipzig. Koçak, Ö. 2006: Mining at the central Black Sea region in the ancient period, in D. B. Erciyas and E. Koparal (eds), Black Sea Studies Symposium Proceedings, Istanbul, 39–62. Koçbulut, F., Kavak, K. Ş. and Tatar, O. 2015: Analysis of Ezinepazarı–Sungurlu Fault Zone (Turkey) using Landsat TM data and its kinematic implications, Arabian Journal of Geosciences 8/8, 6425–6439. Kohlmeyer, K. 1983: Felsbilder der hethitischen Großreichszeit, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 15, 7–154. Konyar, E. 2006: Old Hittite Presence in the East of the Euphrates in Light of the Stratagraphical Data from İmikuşağı (Elazığ), in D. P. Mielke, U-D. Schoop and J. Seeher (eds), Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie. Voraussetzungen—Probleme—Neue Ansätze. Structuring and Dating in Hittite Archaeology. Requirements—Problems— New Approaches, Istanbul, 333–348. Konyar, E. 2007: Kizzuvatna’nın Doğu Sınırları: Adana, Osmaniye ve Kahramanmaraş Höyükleri’nde 2006 Yılı Araştırmaları /

Bibliography The Eastern Borders of Kizzuwatna: Mound Surveys in the Provinces of Adana, Osmaniye and Kahramanmaraş in 2006, ANMED 5, 86–92. Konyar, E. 2008: Kahramanmaraş Yüzey Araştırması 2007 / Surveys in Kahramanmaraş in 2007, ANMED 6, 130–136. Konyar, E. 2009: Kahramanmaraş Yüzey Araştırması 2008 / Surveys in Kahramanmaraş in 2008, ANMED 7, 138–142. Konyar, E. 2010: Kahramanmaraş Yüzey Araştırması 2009 / Surveys in Kahramanmaraş in 2009, ANMED 8, 136–142. Konyar, E. 2011: Kahramanmaraş Yüzey Araştırması 2010 / Surveys in Kahramanmaraş in 2010, ANMED 9, 174–179. Korbel, G. 1985: Die spätbronzezeitliche Keramik von Norşuntepe, Hannover. Korfmann, M. 1983: Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978, Mainz am Rhein. Korfmann, M. 1986a: Beşik-Tepe: New Evidence fort he Period oft he Trojan Sixth and Seventh Settlements, in M. J. Mellink (ed.), Troy and Trojan War, 17–28. Korfmann, M. 1986b: Beşik-Tepe. Grabungen am Beşik-Yassıtepe, Beşik-Sivritepe und Beşik-Gräberfeld, Archäologischer Anzeiger 3, 303–345. Korfmann, M. 1988: Beşik-Tepe. Grabungen am Beşik-Yassıtepe und im Beşik- Gräberfeld, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 391–404. Korfmann, M. 1995: Troia: A residential and trading city at the Dardanelles, in R. Laffineur and W-D. Niemeier (eds), POLITEIA: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 12, Liège, 173–183. Korfmann, M. 1996: Troia—Ausgrabungen 1995, Studia Troica, 6, 1–63. Korfmann, M. O. 2006: Geç Tunç Çağı’nda Troia, in Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak and R. Slotta (eds) Uluburun Gemisi. 3000 Yıl Önce Dünya Ticareti, Bochum, 251–266. Korn, E. and Lorenz, J. 2014: Staatsverträge der Bronzezeit: Lizenzen zur Bereicherung?, Die Welt des Orients 44, 57–75. Kosyan, A. 2014: To the East of Hatti, in A. Özfırat (ed.) SCRIPTA: Essays in Honour of Veli Sevin. A Lifetime Immersed in Archaeology, Istanbul, 277–282. Košak, S. 1994: Rev. of Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi 60, Berlin, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 84, 288–290. Košak, S. 2003: A Note on “The Tale of the Merchants”, in G. M. Beckman, R. H. Beal and G. McMahon (ed.), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Winona Lake, Ind, 249–252. Koşay, H. Z. 1938: Alacahöyük Hafriyatı 1936 Excavations, Ankara. Koşay, H. Z. 1951: Alaca Höyük Kazısı 1937–39 (Les Fouilles d’Alaca Höyük), Ankara. Koşay, H. Z. 1966: Kuşsaray (Çorum) Sondajı, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 15/1, 89–94.

357 Koşay, H. Z. and Akok, M. 1966: Alaca Höyük Kazısı 1940–48 (Ausgrabungen von Alaca Höyük), Ankara. Koşay, H. Z. and Akok, M. 1973: Alaca Höyük Kazısı (Alaca Höyük Excavations 1963–67), Ankara. Kozal, E. 2003: Analysis of the distribution patterns of Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware, Mycenean and Cypriot Pottery in Anatolia in the 15th-13th centuries BC, in B. Fischer, H. Genz, É. Jean and K. Köroğlu (eds), Identifying changes: The transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its neighbouring regions, Istanbul, 65–77. Kozal, E. 2007: Regionality in Anatolia between 15th and 13th centuries BC: Red Lustrous Wheel-made Ware versus Mycenean pottery, in I. Hein (ed), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers of a Conference, Vienna 5th-6th of November 2004, Vienna, 141–148. Kozal, E. 2013: Exploring Sirkeli Höyük in the Late Bronze Age and its interregional Connections, in K. A. Yener (ed.), 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, Leuven, 215–227. Kozal, E. and Novák, M. 2013: Sirkeli Höyük. A Bronze and Iron Age Urban Settlement in Plain Cilicia, in Ü. Yalcın (ed.), Anatolian Metal VI (= Der Anschnitt Beiheft 25), 229–238. Kozal, E. and Novák, M. in press 2017: Facing Muwattalli. Some Thoughts on the Visibility and Function of the Rock Reliefs at Sirkeli Höyük, Cilicia, in E. Kozal, M. Akar, Y. Heffron, Ç. Çilingiroğlu, T. E. Şerifoğlu, C. Çakırlar, S. Ünlüsoy and É. Jean (eds), Questions, Approaches, and Dialogues in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology. Studies in Honor of MarieHenriette and Charles Gates, AOAT, Münster. Kozal, E. and Novák, M. in press: Alalakh and Kizzuwatna. Some Thoughts on the Synchronization, in: Ç. Maner, A. Gilbert and M. Horowitz (eds), Overturning Certainties, Festschrift Presented to K. Aslıhan Yener for her 40 years of Field Archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean, Leiden-Boston. Kökten, K., Özgüç, N. and Özgüç, T. 1945: 1940 ve 1941 Yılında Türk Tarih Kurumu Adına Yapılan Samsun Bölgesi Kazıları Hakkında İlk Kısa Rapor, Belleten 9, 361–400. Köroğlu, K. 1996: Urartu Krallığı Döneminde Elazığ (Alzi) ve Çevresi, Istanbul. Körte, G. and Körte, A. 1904: Gordion: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung im Jahre 1900, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft 5, Berlin. Kryszeń, A. 2012a: Review of Gander, Max: Die geographischen Beziehungen der Lukka-Länder, Heidelberg 2010, Bibliotheca Orientalis 69, 569–572. Kryszeń, A. 2012b: Towards a Reconstruction of Hittite geography—The Case of Šallapa, Palamedes 7, 5–24

358 Kryszeń, A. 2014: Methodology and Problems of Hittite Geography, in P. Taracha and M. Kapełuś, (eds) Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology, Warsaw, 5–9. Sept. 2011, Warsaw, 422–430. Kryszeń, A. 2016: A Historical Geography of the Hittite Heartland, AOAT 437, Münster. Kulakoğlu, E. 2006: Gaziantep ve Adıyaman illeri kültür envanteri projesi 2005 yılı çalişmalari sonuç raporu, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 24/2, 325–334 Kuleli, T. 2010: Quantitative analysis of shoreline changes at the Mediterranean Coast in Turkey, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 167, 387–397. Kuniholm, P. I. 1993: A date-list for Bronze Age and Iron Age monuments based on combined dendrochronological and radiocarbon evidence. In Mellink, M. J., Porada, E. and Özgüç, T. (eds) Aspects of art and iconography: Anatolia and its neighbours. Ankara, 371–373. Kuniholm, P. I., Kromer, B., Manning, S. W., Newton, M., Latini, C.E. and Bruce, M.J. 1996: Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220–718 BC. Nature 381, 780–783. Kuniholm, P. I., Newton, M. W. and Liebhart, R.F. 2011: Dendrochronology at Gordion, in Rose, C.B. and Darbyshire, G. (eds) The New Chronology of Iron Age Gordion, Philadelphia, 79–122. Kuniholm, P. I., Newton, M. W., Switsur, R. and Postgate, J. N. 2007: Dating, in J. N. Postgate and D. Thomas (eds), Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994–98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in western Cilicia, BIAAM 30, London, 619–623. Kurt, L., Kurt, F., Ketenoğlu, O., Aydoğdu, M., Seren, S., Bingöl, Ü. 1998: Amasya-Yozgat ve Çorum Arasında Kalan Bölgenin (Karadağ, Kırlar ve Buzluk dağları) Florasına Katkı, Fırat Ünivertesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 10/1, 83–108. Kuzucuoğlu, C. 2003: Environmental changes in southern (Antalya) and southeastern (Euphrates valley) Turkey at the end of the 2nd millennium BC and beginning of the 1st millennium BC, in B. Fischer, H. Genz, É. Jean and K. Köroğlu (eds), Identifying changes: The transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its neighbouring regions, Istanbul, 271–282. Kuzucuoğlu, C. 2009: Climate and environment in times of cultural changes from the 4th to the 1st millennium BC in the Near and Middle East, in A. Cardarelli, A. Cazzella, M. Frangipane and R. Peroni (eds), Reasons for Change. ‘Birth’, ‘Decline’, and ‘Collapse’ of Societies from the End of the Fourth to the Beginning of the First Millennium BC, Sciences of Antiquity, History, Archaeology and Anthropology, Rome, 141–163. Kuzucuoğlu, C. 2012: Le rôle du climat dans les changements culturels, du Vè au 1er millénaire avant notre ère, en la

Bibliography Méditerranée orientale, in J.-F. Berger (ed.), Des climats et des hommes, Paris, 239–256. Kuzucuoğlu, C. 2015: The rise and fall of the Hittite State in central Anatolia: how, when, where, did climate intervene?, in D. Beyer, O. Henry, A. Tibet (eds), Archaeology of southern Cappadocia, Proceedings of the 3rd Archaeology Meeting of the IFEA, Anatolica Varia, Istanbul, 17–41. Kuzucuoğlu, C., Dörfler, W. and Kunesch, S. 2011: Mid- to lateHolocene climate change in central Turkey: The Tecer Lake record, The Holocene 21, 173–188. Kuzucuoğlu, C., Marro, C., Özdoğan, A. and Tibet, A. 1997: Prospection archéologique franco-turque dans la région de Kastamonu (Mer Noire): Deuxième rapport préliminaire, Anatolia Antiqua 5, 275–306. Kuzucuoğlu, C., Mouralis, D. and Fontugne, M. 2004: Holocene terraces in the Euphrates valley, between Halfeti and Karkemish (Gaziantep, Turkey), Quaternaire 15, 195–206. Kuzuoğlu, R. 2007: Eski Asurca Metinlerde Geçen Coğrafya Adları, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Ankara. Kühne, C. 1999: Imperial Mitanni: An attempt at historical reconstruction, in D. I. Owen and G. Wilhelm (eds), Nuzi at Seventy-Five. Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 10. Bethesda, Maryland, 203–221. Kürschner, H. 2006: Die Vegetation von Vezirköprü-Oymaağaç (Nord-Türkei). Eine Übersicht über die vorläufigen Ergebnisse zum Naturraumpotential, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 138, 189–197. Lackenbacher, S. 2002: Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit, LAPO 20, Paris. Lackenbacher, S. and Malbran-Labat, F. 2005: Ugarit et les Hittites dans les archives de la “maison d’Urtenu”, SMEA 47, 227–240. Lagarce, J., Lagarce, E., Bounni, A., Saliby, N. 1983: Les fouilles à Ras Ibn Hani en Syrie (campagnes de 1980, 1981 et 1892), Contribution à l’étude de quelques aspects de la civilisation ugaritique, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 127/2, 249–290. Langbein, W. B. and Schumm, S. A. 1958: Yield of sediment in relation to mean annual precipitation, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 39, 1076–1084. Laroche, E. 1957: Études de Vocabulaire VI, RHA 15/60, 9–29. Laroche, E. 1958: Études sur les hiéroglyphes hittites, Syria 35, 252–283. Laroche, E. 1960: Les Hiéroglyphes Hittites, Paris. Laroche, E. 1961: Études de toponymie anatolienne, RHA 19/69, 57–98. Laroche, E. 1966: Les noms des Hittites, Paris. Laroche, E. 1971: Catalogue des Textes Hittites, Paris. Supplements RHA 30 (1972), 94–133; RHA 33 (1975), 68–71. Now see http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/CTH/.

Bibliography Laroche, E. 1985: Toponymes hittites ou pré-hittites dans la Turquie moderne, Hethitica 6, 83–102. Larsen, M.T. 1967: Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures, (PIHANS 22), Istanbul. Larsen, M.T. 2010: Kültepe Tabletleri VI-a: The Archive of the Šalim-Aššur Family. Volume 1: The first two generations, TTKY 6/33d-a, AKT 6a, Ankara. Larsen, M.T. 2013: Kültepe Tabletleri VI-b: The Archive of the Šalim-Aššur Family. Volume 2: Ennam-Aššur, TTKY 6/33d-b, AKT 6b, Ankara. Larsen, M.T. 2014: Kültepe Tabletleri VI-c: The Archive of the Šalim-Aššur Family. Volume 3: Ali-Ahum, TTKY 6/33d-c, AKT 6c, Ankara. Larsen, M.T. 2015: Ancient Kanesh. A Merchant Colony in Bronze Age Anatolia, Cambridge. Lasserre, F. 1981: Strabon. Géographie Tome IX (Livre XII), Paris. Latacz, J. 2010: Troia und Homer, Der Weg zur Lösung eines alten Rätsels, 6th edition, Leipzig. Lattimore, O. 1940: Inner Asian Frontiers of China, American Geographical Society Research Series 21, New York. Lauinger, J. 2008: The Temple of Ištar at Old Babylonian Alalakh,  JANER 8, 181–217. Lauinger, J. 2012: Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayınat: Text and Commentary, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 87–123. Lauinger, J. 2015: Following the man of Yamhad: settlement and territory at Old Babylonian Alalah, CHANE 75, Leiden. Lebrun, R. 1976: Samuha, foyer religieux de l’empire hittite, Louvain-la-Neuve. Lebrun, R. 1977: Textes religieux hittites de la fin de l’empire, Hethitica 2, 93–153. Lebrun, R. 1980: Hymnes et prières hittites, Louvain-la-Neuve. Lebrun, R. 2000: Des cités apostoliques de Lycaonie, de Lycie et de Pamphilie au second millénaire avant Jésus-Christ, in Graziani S., M. C. Casaburi, G. Lacerenza (eds), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, Iatituto Universitario Orientale—Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici—Series minor, Naples, 1681–1691. Lebrun, R. 2001: Propos concernant Urikina, Ussa et Uda, in G. Wilhelm (ed.) Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie (Würzburg 4.–8. Oktober 1999), StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, 326–332. Lebrun, R. 2007: TYNNA, la cappadocienne, in D. Groddek and M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag (DBH 25), Wiesbaden, 459–466. Lebrun, R. 2011: Notes relatives à la ville de Landa, Res Antiquae 8, 213–220. Lehmann, G., Killebrew, A. E., Gates, M.-H. and Halpern, B. 2005: The Mopsos Project: The 2004 Season of Archaeological

359 Survey in the bay of Iskenderun, Eastern Cilicia, Araştirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi 23, 79–87. Lehner, J. 2011: A Preliminary Report on the Microstructure and Microanalysis of Metal from Boğazköy, in A. Schachner (ed.), Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 2010, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2011/1, 57–64. Lehner, J. and Schachner, A. in press: The Organization of Metal Production at Hattuša: A First Assessment, in Ç. Maner, A. Gilbert and M. Horowitz, Overturning Certainties, Festschrift Presented to K. Aslıhan Yener for her 40 years of Field Archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean, Leiden-Boston. Lemaire, A. 1993: Ougarit, Oura et la Cilicie vers la fin du XIIIe s. av. J.-C., Ugarit-Forschungen 25, 227–236. Leng, M. J., Roberts, N., Reed, J. M. and Sloane, H. J. 1999: Late Quaternary palaeohydrology of the Konya Basin, based on isotope studies of modern hydrology and lacustrine carbonates, Journal of Palaeolimnology 22, 182–204. Leshtakov, K. 2007: The eastern Balkans and the Aegean economic system during the LBA. Ox-hide and bun-ingots in Bulgarian lands, in I. Galanki, H. Thomas, Y. Galanakis, and R. Laffineur (eds), Between the Aegean and the Baltic seas—Prehistory across borders, Aegaeum 27, Liège, 447–458. Lewy, J. 1934: La chronologie de Bitḫāna et d’Anitta de Kuššar, Revue Hittite et Asianique 3/17, 1–8. Liebig, M. 2014: Zum alten Namen von Tell Sakka (no. 87), NABU 2014, 135–136. Linder, E. 1986: The Khorsabad Wall relief: Mediterranean Seascape or River Transport of Timbers?, Journal of the American Oriental Society 106/2, 273–281. Lipinski, E. 2000: The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 100, Leuven. Liverani, M. 1975: Communautés de villages et palais royal dans le Syrie du IIème millénaire. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18, 146–64. Liverani, M. 1987: The Collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End of the Bronze Age: the Case of Syria, in M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen (eds), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 66–73. Liverani, M. 1988: Antico Oriente: Storia, Società, Economia, Rome. Liverani, M. 1987: The Collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End of the Bronze Age: the Case of Syria, in M. Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen (eds), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 66–73. Liverani, M. 1990: Prestige and interest. lnternational relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 B.C., Padova. Liverani, M. 2001: International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 BC: Studies in Diplomacy, New York. Lloyd, S. 1972: Beycesultan III. Late Bronze Age Architecture, London.

360 Lloyd, S. and Gökçe, N. 1951: Excavations at Polatli: A New Investigation of Second and Third Millennium Stratigraphy in Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 1, 21–75. Lloyd, S. and Mellaart, J. 1962: Beycesultan I. The Chalcolitic and Early Bronze Age Levels, London. Lloyd, S. and Mellaart, J. 1965: Beycesultan II. Middle Bronze Age Architecture and Pottery, London. Lombardi, A. 1997: Il culto delle montagne all’ epoca di Tuthaliya IV: continuità e innovazione, SMEA 39, 85–110. Lombardi, A. 1998: Note su Šarpa e Šarlaimmi, montagne sacre di Hupišna, in S. de Martino and F. Imparati (eds), Studi e testi 1, Eothen 9, 65–84. Lombardi, A. 2002: Sfondo storico e analisi strutturale della preghiera di Tudḫaliya IV alla dea Sole di Arinna (CTH 385.9), in S. de Martino and F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), Anatolia antica: Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati, Eothen 11, Firenze, 497–506. Loon, M. N. van 1967: The Tabqa Reservoir Survey, Damascus. Loon, M. N. van 1980 (ed.): Korucutepe. Final Report on the Excavations of the Universities of Chicago, California (Los Angeles), and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anatolia, 1968–1970, Vol. 3, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford. Lorenz, J. and Rieken, E. 2007: Auf dem Weg der Stadt Sassuna, in D. Groddek and M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge. Silvin Kosak zum 65. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 467–486. Luciani, M. 1999–2001: On Assyrian Frontiers and the Middle Euphrates, SAAB 13, 87–114. Luciani, M. 2008: The Late MB to Early LBA in Qatna with Special Emphasis on Decorated and Imported Pottery, in M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds), The Bronze Age in the Lebanon, Vienna, 115–126. Luciani, M. 2014: The Northern Levant (Syria) During the Late Bronze Age: Small Kingdoms between the Supraregional Empires of the International Age, in Ann E. Killebrew and M. Steiner (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000–332 BCE, Oxford, 509–523. Lumsden, S. 2002: Gavurkalesi: Investigations at a Hittite Sacred Place. In A. K. Yener and H. A. Hoffner Jr. (eds), Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History: Papers in Memory of Hans G. Güterbock, Winona Lake, 111–125. Lumsden, S. 2016: Four Seasons at Gavurkalesi, in I. Thuesen (ed.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 22–26 May 2000, Copenhagen, Vol. I, 445–466. Macqueen, J. G. 1980: Nerik and its Weather-God, Anatolian Studies 30 (Special Number in Honour of the Seventieth Birthday of Professor O. R. Gurney. 28th January, 1981), 179–187. Macqueen, J. G. 1986: The Hittites and their contemporaries in Asia Minor. Revised and enlarged edition, London.

Bibliography MacSweeney, N., 2010: Hittites and Arzawans: a view from western Anatolia, Anatolian Studies 60, 7–24. Malbran-Labat, F. 1991: Traité (no. 1); Listes (nos. 2–5); Lettres (nos. 6–29), in P. Bordreuil (ed.), Une bibliothèque au sud de la ville: les textes de la 34e campagne (1973), RSO 7, Paris, 15–64. Mallwitz, A. 1959/60: Zur mykenischen Befestigung von Milet, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 9/10, 67–76. Maner, Ç. 2014: Preliminary report on the first season of the Konya-Ereğli (KEYAR) survey (2013), Anatolia Antiqua 22, 343–360. Maner, Ç. 2015: Preliminary Report on the Second Season of the Konya-Ereğli Survey (KEYAR) 2014, Anatolia Antiqua 23, 249–273. Manning, S. W., Bronk Ramsay, C., Kutschera, W., Higham, T., Kromer, B., Steier, P. and Wild, E. M. 2006: Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700–1400 B.C., Science 312, 565–569. Manning, S. W., Kromer, B., Bronk Ramsay, C., Parson, C. L., Talamo, S., Trano, N. and Watkins, J. 2010: 14C Record and Wiggle-Match Placement for the Anatolian (Gordion Area) Juniper Tree-Ring Chronology ~1729 to 751 Cal BC, and typical Aegean/Anatolian (growing season related) regional 14C offset assessment, Radiocarbon 52, 1571–1597. Mantellini, S., Micale, M. G. and Peyronel, L. 2013: Exploiting Diversity. The Archaeological Landscape of the Eblaite Chora, in P. Matthiae and N. Marchetti (eds) Ebla and its Landscape: Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East, Walnut Creek, CA, 163–194. Manuelli, F. 2013: Arslantepe, Late Bronze Age. Hittite Influence and Local Traditions in an Eastern Anatolian Community, Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Arslantepe IX, Roma. Maqdissi, M., Parayre, D. and Sauvage, M. 2010: Mission archéologique syro-française de l’Oronte, Tell al-Nasriyah et Tell Massin: les sites quadrangulaires, nouveau regard: rapport préliminaire sur les opération des campagnes 2007– 2008, Akkadica 131/2, 165–200. Maran, J. 1992: Pevkakia Magula III. Die Mittlere Bronzezeit, Bonn. Marazzi, M. 2008: Messa a coltura e procedure di gestione e controllo dei campi nell’Anatolia hittita. Caratteristiche della documentazione e stato della ricerca, in M. Perna and F. Pomponio (eds) The Management of Agricultural Land and the Production of Textiles in the Mycenaean and Near Eastern Economies, Studi egei e vicinorientali 4, Paris, 63–88. Marchesi, G. 2014: Epigraphic Materials of Karkemish from the Middle Bronze Age, Orientalia 83, 166–181. Marchetti, N. 2011: Kinku: Sigilli dell’età del Bronzo dalla regione di Gaziantep in Turchia, Bologna.

Bibliography Marchetti, N. 2014 (ed.): Karkemish: An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates. Bologna. Marek, C. 1993: Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia, Tübingen. Marfoe, L. 1979: Between Qadesh and Kumidi: A History of Frontier Settlement and Land Use in the Biqa‘, Lebanon, Ph. D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Marfoe, L. 1997: Kamid el-Loz 14: Settlement History of the Biqa‘ up to the Iron Age, Bonn. Margueron, J.-C. 1980: Emar: un exemple d’implantation hittite en terre syrienne, in  J.-C. Margueron (ed.),  Le Moyen Euphrate, Leiden, 285–314. Margueron, J.-C. 1982: Aux marches de l’empire Hittite: une champagne de fouille à Tel Faq’ous (Syrie), citadelle du pays d’Astata, in M. Yon (ed.) La Syrie au bronze recent, Paris, 47–66. Margueron, J.-C. 1993: Meskene (Imar/Emar) B: Archäologisch, RlA 8, 84–93. Margueron, J.-C. 1995: Emar, Capital of Aštata in the Fourteenth Century BCE, Biblical Archaeologist 58/3, 126–138. Marizza M. 2007: Dignitari ittiti del tempo di Tuthaliya I/II, Arnuwanda I, Tuthaliya III (Eothen 15), Firenze. Marizza M. 2009: Lettere ittite di re e dignitari, Testi del Vicino Oriente antico 4/3, Brescia. Marro, C. 2000: Archaeological survey in the Kastamonu region, Turkey: remarks on the pre-classical cultural geography of the southern Black Sea, in P. Matthiae, A. Enea, L. Peyronel and F. Pinnock (eds), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Rome, May 18th-23rd 1998, Rome, 945–965. Marro, C., Özdoğan, A. and Tibet, A. 1996: Prospection archéologique Franco-Turque dans la région de Kastamonu (Mer Noire): Premier rapport préliminaire, Anatolia Antiqua 4, 273–290. Marro, C., Özdoğan, A. and Tibet, A. 1998. Prospection archéologique Franco-Turque dans la région de Kastamonu (Mer Noire): Troisième rapport préliminaire, Anatolia Antiqua 6, 317–335. Marsh, B. 1999: Alluvial Burial of Gordion, An Iron-Age City in Anatolia, Journal of Field Archaeology 26: 163–176. Marsh, B. 2005: Physical geography, human adaptation, and human impact at Gordion, in L. Kealhofer (ed.) The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, Philadelphia, 161–171. Marsh, B. 2010: Geoarchaeology of the Human Landscape at Boğazköy-Hattuša, in A. Schachner (ed.), Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2009, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2010/1, 201–207. Marsh, B. 2012: Reading Gordion Settlement History from Stream Sedimentation, in ed. C.B. Rose (ed.) The Archaeology of Phrygian Gordion, Royal City of Midas, Philadelphia, 39–45.

361 Marsh, B. and Kealhofer, L. 2014: Scales of impact: settlement history and landscape change in the Gordion region, central Anatolia, The Holocene 24, 689–701. Marsh, B., Roberts, N., Toprak, V., Matthews, R., Eastwood, W., Carolan, J., Arcasoy, A. and Lütfi Süzen, M. 2009: Contexts of human interaction: geology, geography, geomorphology and environment, in R. Matthews and C. Glatz (eds), At Empires’ Edge. Project Paphlagonia Regional Survey in North-central Turkey, London, 27–73. Martino, S. de 1991: Alcune osservazioni su KBo III 27, Altorientalische Forschungen 18, 54–66. Martino, S. de 1992: I rapporti tra Ittiti e Hurriti durante il regno di Muršili I., Hethitica 11, 19–37. Martino, S. de 1996: L’Anatolia occidentale nel Medio Regno ittita, Eothen 5, Firenze. Martino, S. de 1999: Ura and the boundaries of Tarhuntašša, Altorientalische Forschungen 26, 291–300. Martino, S. de 2002: The Military Exploits of the Hittite King Hattušili I in Lands Situated between the Upper Euphrates and the Upper Tigris, in P. Taracha (ed.), Silva Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Warsaw, 77–85. Martino, S. de 2003: Annali e Res Gestae antico ittiti, Studia Mediterranea 12, Pavia. Martino, S. de 2005: Hittite Letters from the Time of Tutḫaliya I/II, Arnuwanda I and Tutḫaliya III, Altorientalische Forschungen 32, 291–321. Martino, S. de 2006: The city of Tawiniya and the Meaning of the Word paššu- in Hittite Texts, in R. Bombi, G. Cifoletti, F. Fusco, L. Innocente, V. Orioles, Studi linguistici in onore di Roberto Gusmani, Alessandria, 537–547. Martino, S. de 2007: Das Fragment von Yassı-Höyük YH 2005/1, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 57, 606–607. Martino, S. de 2009a: Šamuha, RlA 12, 1–2. Martino, S. de 2009b: Anatolia after the Collapse of the Hittite Empire, in: E. Borgna and P. Càssola Guida (eds), Dall’ Egeo all’ Adriatico: Organizzazioni sociali, modi di scambio e interazione in età postpalaziale (XII–XI sec. a.C.)—From the Aegean to the Adriatic: Social Organisation, Modes of Exchange and Inter‑ action in the Post palatial Times (12th–11th B.C.), Rome, 21–28. Martino, S. de 2010: Kurunta e l’Anatolia occidentale, in I. Singer (ed.), Ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis. Luwian and Hittite Studies Presnted to J. David Hawkins in the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Tel Aviv, 44–49. Martino, S. de 2011: Western and South-Eastern Anatolia and Syria in the 13th and 12th Centuries. Possible Connections to the Poem, in: C. Ulf and R. Rollinger (eds) Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers Ilias, Darmstadt, 181–205. Martino, S. de 2012: Malatya and Išuwa in Hittite Texts: New Elements of Discussion, Origini 34, 375–383.

362 Martino, S. de 2014: The Mittani State: The Formation of the Kingdom of Mittani, in E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, N. Brisch, and J. Eidem (eds), Constituent, Confederate, and Conquered Space, Berlin, 109–132. Martino, S. de 2017: The Region of Ankara at the Hittite Age: the “province” of Ka/iššiya in a diachronic perspective, in M. Alparslan (eds) Proceedings of the International Workshop “Places and Spaces in Hittite Anatolia I: Hatti and the East”, 25–26. October 2013, Istanbul. Martino, S. de and Süel, A. 2015: The Third Tablet of the itkalzi Ritual, Eothen 21, Essays on the Hurrian Šapinuwa Tablets 1, Firenze. Martino, S. de, Fales, F. M. and Ponchia, S. 2010: Archaeological Investigations At Yassı-Hüyük (Yozgat) The Site of YassıHüyük Within The Overall Picture of Hittite Geography, in A. Süel (ed.), VII. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 25–31 Ağustos 2008 − Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25–31, 2008, Vol. I, Ankara, 189–197. Martino, S. de, Murat, L. and Süel, A. 2013: The Eleventh Tablet of the itkalzi Ritual from Šapinuwa, KASKAL 10, 131–148. Mason, K. 1943: Turkey, Volume II, Geographical Handbook Series BR 507A, London. Masson, E. 1975: Quelques sceaux hittites hiéroglyphiques, Syria 52, 213–239. Masson, E. 1979: Les inscriptions louvites hiéroglyphiques d’Emirgazi, Journal des Savants 1979, 3–52. Masson, E. 1980: Les inscriptions louvites de Köylütolu et de Beyköy, Kadmos 19, 106–122. Matessi, A., Capardoni, M. and Lanaro, A. 2014: Excavations at Kınık Höyük: A Preliminary Report on the First Season (Aug.—Oct. 2011), in P. Bieliński, M. Gawlikowski, R. Koliński, D. Ławecka, A. Sołtysiak and Z. Wygnańska (eds), Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 30 April—4th May 2012, University of Warsaw. Volume 2: Excavations and Progress Report Posters, Wiesbaden, 321–340. Matsumoto, K. and Wada, H. 2001: Report on the Archaeological Survey in the Hilly Area of Akkar Region in North Lebanon, Al-Rafidan 22, 93–111. Matsumura, K. 2011: Büklükale Kazısı 2009, Kazı Sonuçları Toptlantısı 32/4, 411–420. Matsumura, K. 2013: Büklükale, in M. Doğan-Alparslan and M. Alparslan (eds), Hititler: Bir Anadolu İmparatorluğu/ Hittites An Anatolian Empire, Istanbul, 274–281. Matsumura, K. 2014: Büklükale Kazısı 2012, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 35/3, 428–434. Matsumura, K. 2015: Büklükale Kazısı 2013, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 36/3, 671–683.

Bibliography Matthers, J. 1981: The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria, and its Catchment: Studies arising from the Tell Rifa’at survey 1977–79, BAR International Series 98, Oxford. Matthews, R. 2000: Time with the past in Paphlagonia, in P. Matthiae, A. Enea, L. Peyronel, and F. Pinnock (eds), Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, 1013–1024. Matthews, R. 2009: Project Paphlagonia: Research issues, approaches and methods, in R. Matthews, and C. Glatz (eds), At Empires’ Edge. Project Paphlagonia Regional Survey in North-central Turkey, London, 1–26. Matthews, R. and Glatz, C. 2009a: The historical geography of north-central Anatolia in the Hittite period: texts and archaeology in concert, Anatolian Studies 59, 51–72. Matthews, R. and Glatz, C. (eds) 2009b: At Empires’ Edge. Project Paphlagonia Regional Survey in North-central Turkey, London. Matthiae, P. 1980: Ittiti e Assiri a Tell Fray: lo scavo di una città medio-siriana sull’Eufrate, SMEA 21, 35–51. Maul, S. 1994: Die Korrespondenz des Iasīm-Sūmû. Ein Nachtrag zu ARMT XIII 25–57, in D. Charpin and J. M. Durand (eds) Florilegium marianum II, Mémorial M. Birot, Mémoires de NABU n° 3, Paris, 23–54. Maxwell Hyslop, R., du Plat Taylor, J., Seton Williams, M. V. and D’A. Waechter, J. 1942: An Archaeological Survey of the Plain of Jabbul, 1939, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 74:1, 8–40. Mayer, W. 1993–1997: Munbāqa, Tall. A. Philologisch, RlA 8, 417. Mazzoni, S. 2013: Tell Afis: History and Excavations, Near Eastern Archaeology 76 (4), 204–212. Mazzoni, S. 2015: Hitit Medeniyeti Merkezi Uşaklı Höyük’te Arazi ve Kutsal Alan, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 148, (Ocak-Nisan 2015), 27–38. Mazzoni, S., d’Agostino, A. and Orsi, V. 2010: Survey of the archaeological landscape of Uṣaklı / Kuṣaklı Höyük (Yozgat), Anatolica 36 111–163. Mazzoni, S. and Pecchioli Daddi, F. 2015: The Uşaklı Höyük Survey Project (2008–2012). A Final Report, Studia Asiana 10, Firenze. McGeough K. M. 2007: Exchange Relationships at Ugarit, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 26, Leuven. McClellan, T. 1987: A Syrian Fortress of the Bronze Age: El-Qitar, National Geographic Research 2, 418–440. McClellan, T. 1989: The Chronology and Ceramic Assemblages of Alalakh, in A. Leonard Jr. and B. B. Williams (eds), Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented Helene J. Kantor, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 47, Chicago, 181–212. McClellan, T. 1992: The 12th Century B.C. in Syria: Comments on Sader’s Paper, in W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky (eds) The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque, 164–173. McClellan, T. 2007: Qiṭār, Tall al-, RlA 11, 180–182.

Bibliography McMahon, G. 1991: The Hittite State Cult of the Tutelary Deities, Chicago. McMahon, G. 1995: A Public Ritual for the Tutelary Deity of the Hunting Bag and the Heptad, in O. Carruba (ed.) Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Studia Mediterranea 9, 263–268. McManners, K. 1995: The Backpacker’s Handbook, New York. Mee, V. 1978: Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC., Anatolian Studies 28, 123–155. Meester, T. de 1970: Soils of the Great Konya Basin, Turkey / Büyük Konya Havzasının Toprakları, Türkiye, Wageningen. Melchert, H.C. 1978: The Acts of Hattušili I, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37, 1–22. Melchert, H.C. 1988: “Thorn” and “Minus” in Hieroglyphic Luvian Orthography, Anatolian Studies 38, 29–42. Melchert, H.C. 1993: Cuneiform Luvian Lexicon, Chapell Hill, N.C. Melchert, H.C. 2001: Hittite damnaššara- ‘domestic’/ Ddamnaššareš ‘household deities’, JANER 1/1, 150–157. Melchert, H.C. 2002: Tarhuntašša in the SÜDBURG Hieroglyphic Inscription, in K. A. Yener and H. A. Hoffner (eds) Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History in Memory of H. G. Güterbock, Winona Lake, Ind, 137–143. Melchert, H.C. 2003: Introduction, in H. C. Melchert (ed.), The Luwians, Leiden-Boston, 1–7. Melchert, H.C. 2007: The Border of Tarhuntassa revisited, in M. Alparslan, M. Doğan-Alparslan, H. Peker (eds), VITA. Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Istanbul, 507–513. Mellaart, J. 1954: Preliminary Report on a Survey of Pre-Classical Remains in Southern Turkey, Anatolian Studies 4, 175–240. Mellaart, J. 1954: Preliminary Report on a Survey of Pre-Classical Remains in Southern Turkey, Anatolian Studies 4, 175–240. Mellaart, J. 1958a: Second Millennium Pottery from the Konya Plain and Neighbourhood, Belleten 26, 311–345. Mellaart, J. 1958b: The End of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Aegean, American Journal of Archaeology 62, 9–33. Mellaart, J. 1962: The Late Bronze Age Monuments of Eflatun Pınar and Fasıllar near Beyşehir, Anatolian Studies 12, 111–117. Mellaart, J. 1963: Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau, II: The Late Chalcolitic and the Early Bronze Ages in the Konya Plain, Anatolian Studies 13, 199–236. Mellaart, J. 1974: Western Anatolia, Beycesultan and the Hittites, in E. Akurgal and U. B. Alkim (eds), Mansel’e Armağan (Mélanges Mansel), Ankara, 493–536. Mellaart, J. 1983: Yaraşli Hillfort. A Hittite Stronghold in Galatia? In R. M. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann (eds), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, Mainz, 345–348.

363 Mellink, M. J. 1956: A Hittite Cemetery at Gordion, University Museum Monograph. Philadelphia. Mellink, M. J. 1972: Archaeology in Asia Minor, American Journal of Archaeology 76, 165–188. Mellink, M. J. 1986: The Early Bronze Age in West Anatolia, in G. Cadogan (ed.), The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean, Leiden, 139–152. Meriç, R. 2003: Excavations at Bademgediği Tepe (Puranda) 1999–2002: A Preliminary Report, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 53, 79–98. Meriç, R. 2007a: Ein Vorbericht über eine spätbronzezeitliche befestigte Höhensiedlung bei Metropolis in Ionien: die Arzawa-Stadt Puranda?, in J. Cobet, V. von Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier and K. Zimmermann (eds), Frühes Ionien eine Bestandsaufnahme, Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı 26 September–1.Oktober 1999, Mainz am Rhein, 27–36. Meriç, R. 2007b: 2005 Yılı Metropolis Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 28/2, 243–252. Meriç, R. and Mountjoy, P.A. 2001: Three Mycenaean vases from Ionia, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 51, 137–141. Meriç, R. and Mountjoy, P. A. 2002: Mycenaean Pottery from Bademgediği Tepe (Puranda) in Ionia: A preliminary report, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 52, 79–98. Meriç, R. and. Öz, A. K. 2015: Bademgediği Tepe (Puranda) Near Metropolis, in N. Chr. Stampolidis, Ç. Maner and K. Kopanias (eds) NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration, Integration in the Aegean Islands, Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age, Koç University, Istanbul, 609–626. Meriggi, P. 1962: Alcuni monticoli di Kataonia, Oriens Antiquus 1, 265–281. Meriggi, P. 1963: Terzo viaggio anatolico, Oriens Antiquus 2, 275–299. Meriggi, P. 1966: Quinto viaggio anatolico. Oriens Antiquus 5, 67–106. Meriggi, P. 1971: Ottavo e ultimo viaggio anatolico, Oriens Antiquus 10, 57–66. Mermerci, D. 1993: Oyaca Kasabası Külhüyük 1992-Kurtarma Kazısı, Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi 1992 Yıllığı: 3–24. Michel, C. 2001: Correspondance des marchands de Kaniš au début du IIe millénaire avant J.C., LAPO 19, Paris. Michel, C. 2003: Old Assyrian Bibliography of Cuneiform Texts, Bullae, Seals and the Results of the Excavations at Aššur, Kültepe/Kaniš, Acemhöyük, Alişar and Boğazköy, PIHANS 97, OAAS 1, Leiden. Michel, C. 2008: Nouvelles données de géographie historique anatolienne d’après des archives récentes de Kültepe, in K. Strobel (ed.), New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millenium B.C., Eothen 16, Firenze, 235–252. Michel, C. 2011–2013: T/Darittara, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 13, Berlin, 464.

364 Michel, C. and Garelli, P. 1997: Tablettes paléo-assyriennes de Kültepe, vol. 1 (kt 90/k), Paris. Mielke, D.P. 2006a: İnandıktepe und Sarissa. Ein Beitrag zur Datierung althethitischer Fundkomplexe, in D. P. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop and J. Seeher (eds), Strukturierung und Datierung der hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen— Probleme—Neue Ansätze. Internationaler Workshop Istanbul, 26–27. November 2004, BYZAS 4, Istanbul, 251–276. Mielke, D.P. 2006b: Dendrochronologie und hethitische Archäologie—einige kritische Anmerkungen, in D. P. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop and J. Seeher (eds), Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen, Probleme, neue Ansätze / Structuring and Dating in Hittite Archaeology: Requirements, Problems, New Approaches. Internationaler Workshop, Istanbul, 26–27 November 2004, BYZAS 4, Istanbul, 77–94. Mielke, D.P. 2007: Red Lustrous Wheelmade Ware from Hittite contexts, in I. Hein (ed.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers of a Conference, Vienna 5th-6th of November 2004, Vienna, 155–168. Mielke, D.P. 2011: Key Sites of the Hittite Empire, in S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds), The Oxford handbook of Ancient Anatolia. 10,000–323 B.C.E., Oxford, 1031–1054. Mielke, D.P., Schoop, U.-D. and Seeher, J. (eds) 2006: Strukturierung und Datierung der hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen—Probleme—Neue Ansätze. Internationaler Workshop Istanbul, 26–27. November 2004, BYZAS 4, Istanbul. Miglus, P.A. and Strommenger, E. 2002: Tall Bi’a/Tuttul—VIII: Stadtbefestigungen, Häuser und Tempel, Saarbrücken. Mikami, Ts. and Omura, S. 1991: General Survey of KamanKalehöyük in Turkey (1985), in H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa (ed.) Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and 1st millennium B.C. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Cultural Centre of Japan 4, 62–86. Millard, A.R. 2010: The Cuneiform Tablets from Tell Nebi Mend, Levant 42, 226–236. Miller, J.L. 1999a: A collection of zoomorphic terracotta from Geven Gediği, in A. Müller-Karpe (ed.), Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı 1998, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 131, 91–96. Miller, J.L. 1999b: The Expeditions of Ḫattušili I to the Eastern Frontiers: A Study in the Historical Geography and Internal Chronology of the Great King’s Campaigns, MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University. Miller, J.L. 2001a: Ḫattušili I’s Expansion into Northern Syria in Light of the Tikunani Letter, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.–8. Oktober 1999, StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, 410–429.

Bibliography Miller, J.L. 2001b: Anum-Hirbi and His Kingdom, Altorientalische Forschungen 28, 65–101. Miller, J.L. 2004: Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatna Rituals, StBoT 46, Wiesbaden. Miller, J.L. 2005: Von Syrien durch Kizzuwatna nach Ḫatti: Die Rituale der Allaituraḫḫi und Giziya, in D. Prechel (ed.), Motivation und Mechanismen des Kulturkontaktes in der späten Bronzezeit, Eothen 13, Firenze, 129–144. Miller, J.L. 2007a: Mursili’s Dictate to Tuppi-Teššub’s Syrian Antagonists, KASKAL 4, 121–152. Miller, J.L. 2007b: The Kings of Nuḫḫašše and Mursili’s Casus Belli: Two New Joins to Year 7 of the Annals of Mursili, in D. Groddek and M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum: Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag, DBH 25, Wiesbaden, 521–534. Miller, J.L. 2007c: Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibḫururiya in the Light of a Newly Reconstructed Hittite Text, Altorientalische Forschungen 34, 252–293. Miller, J.L. 2007d: Joins and Duplicates among the Boǧazköy Tablets (11–20), Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 97, 125–132. Miller, J.L. 2007e: Joins and Duplicates among the Boğazköy Tablets (21–30), Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 97, 133–141. Miller, J.L. 2008a: Šallapa, RlA 11, 577–578. Miller, J.L. 2008b: The Rebellion of Hatti’s Syrian Vassals and Egypt’s Meddling in Amurru, SMEA 50, 533–554. Miller, J.L. 2009–2011: Ša/inaḫu(i)t(ta), Reallexikon der Assyriologie 12, Berlin, 4–6. Miller, J.L. 2013a: Royal Hittite Instructions and Related Administrative Texts, Atlanta. Miller, J.L. 2013b: The Placement of the Death of Tutḫaliya III and the Kinza/Nuḫḫašše rebellion within the Deeds of Suppiluliuma I, in S. de Martino, J. L. Miller (eds), New Results and New Questions on the Reign of Suppiluliuma I, Eothen 19, Firenze, 115–132. Miller, J.L. 2013c: The Location of Niḫriya and its Disassociation from Na‌ʾiri, in H. Baker, K. Kaniuth, and A. Otto (eds), Stories from Long Ago: Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf, Münster, 349–372. Miller, J.L. 2013d: Tette (Tettiš), RlA 13, 615–616. Miller, N. F. 1997: Farming and herding along the Euphrates: Environmental constraint and cultural choice (fourth to second millennia B.C.), in R. Zettler (ed) Subsistence and Settlement in a Marginal Environment: Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989– 1995 Preliminary Report. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 14, Philadelphia, 123–132. Miller, N. F. 1999: Interpreting ancient environment and patterns of land use: seeds, charcoal and archaeological context, TÜBA-AR 2, 15–29.

Bibliography Miller, N. F. 2010: Botanical Aspects of Environment and Economy at Gordion, Turkey. Gordion Special Studies V. Philadelphia. Miller, N. F., Zeder, M. A. and Arter, S. R. 2009: From Food and Fuel to Farms and Flocks: The Integration of Plant and Animal Remains in the Study of Ancient Agropastoral Economies at Gordion, Turkey, Current Anthropology 50, 915–924. Momigliano, N. 2009: Minoans at Iasos, in C. F. Macdonald, E. Hallager and W.-D. Niemeier (eds), The Minoans in the central, eastern and northern Aegean—new evidence, Athens, 121–140. Momigliano, N. 2012: Bronze Age Carian Iasos. Structures and Finds from the Area of the Roman Agora (c.3000–1500), Rome. Monte, G.F. del 1991–92: Ulmitešub re di Tarḫuntaša, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 14–15, 123–148. Monte, G.F. del 1992: Die Orts und Gewässernamen der Hethitischen Texte, RGTC 6/2, Wiesbaden. Monte, G.F. del 1993: L’annalistica ittita, Testi del Vicino Oriente antico 4/2, Brescia. Monte, G.F. del 1995: I testi amministrativi da Maşat Höyük/ Tapika, Oriens Antiqui Miscellanea 2, 89–138. Monte, G.F. del 2009: L’opera storiografica di Mursili II re di Hattusa, Vol. 1, Le gesta di Suppiluliuma, Pisa. Monte, G. F. del and Tischler, J. 1978: Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte RGTC 6; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B 7, Wiesbaden. Mora, C. 2003: On Some Clauses in the Kurunta Treaty and the Political Scenery at the End of the Hittite Empire, in G. M. Beckman, R. Beal, and G. McMahon, Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. On the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Winona Lake, Ind, 289–296. Mora, C. 2007: Three Metal Bowls, in M. Alparslan, M. DoğanAlparslan and H. Peker (eds), VITA. Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol’a Armağan. Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali Dinçol, Istanbul, 515–521. Mora, C. 2008: Entre Anatolie et Syrie, entre Âge du Bronze et Âge du Fer, entre paix et guerre: l’histoire inachevée de Karkemiš et les données d’Emar, in L. d’Alfonso, Y. Cohen and D. Sürenhagen (eds), The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires. History, Landscape, and Society, AOAT 349, Münster, 79–90. Mora, C. 2010: Studies on Ancient Anatolia at Pavia University, and the Hittite Lower Land, in L. d’Alfonso, M. E. Balza, and C. Mora (eds), Geo-Archaeological Activities in Southern Cappadocia—Turkey—Proceedings of the Meeting held at Pavia, 20.11.2008, Studia Mediterranea 22, Pavia, 13–25. Mora, C. 2013: Seals and Seal-Impressions, in F. Manuelli (ed.) Arslantepe. Late Bronze Age. Hittite Influence and Local Traditions in an Eastern Anatolian Community. Arslantepe IX. Rome, 251–274.

365 Mora, C. and Balatti, S. 2012: Stelae from Tuwana, in G. B. Lanfranchi, D. Morandi Bonacossi, C. Pappi, and S. Ponchia (eds), Leggo! Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Wiesbaden, 527–538. Mora, C. and Alfonso, L. d’ 2012: Anatolia after the end of the Hittite Empire. New evidence from southern Cappadocia, Origini: Preistoria E Protostoria Delle Civiltà Antiche. Prehistory and Protohistory of Ancient Civilizations 34, 385–398. Moran, W.  1992: The Amarna Letters, Baltimore. Morandi Bonacossi, D. 2000: The Syrian Jezireh in the Late Assyrian Period: A View from the Countryside, in G. Bunnens (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7, Louvain, 349–396. Morandi Bonacossi, D. 2013: The Crisis of Qatna at the Begin­ ning of the Late Bronze Age II and the Iron Age II Settlement Revival. A Regional Trajectory towards the Collapse of the Late Bronze Age Palace System in the Northern Levant, in K. A. Yener (ed.), 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, Leuven— Paris—Walpole, MA, 113–146. Mordtmann, A.D. 1925: Anatolien, Skizzen und Reisebriefe aus Kleinasien, Hannover. Mori, L. 2003: Reconstructing the Emar landscape, Rome. Mountjoy, P.A. 1998: The East Aegean—West Anatolian Inter­ face in the Late Bronze Age: Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa, Anatolian Studies 48, 33–67. Mountjoy, P.A. 1999a: Troia VII Reconsidered, Studia Troica 9, 295–346. Mountjoy, P.A. 1999b: Regional Mycenean Decorated Pottery, Rahden. Mountjoy, P.A. 2006: Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from Anatolia in the Transitional LH IIIB2-LH IIIC Early and the LH IIIC Phases, in E. Rystedt and B. Wells (eds), Pictorial pursuits. Figurative painting on Mycenaean and Geometric pottery, Stockholm, 107–121. Mountjoy, P.A. 2011: A Bronze Age Ship from Ashkelon with Particular Reference to the Bronze Age Ship from Bademgediği Tepe, American Journal of Archaeology 115/3, 483–488. Mouton, A. 2011: Sulusaray/Sebastopolis du Pont (Province de Tokat): La Karahna des Textes Hittites? Anatolia Antiqua 19, 101–111. Muhly, J.D. 1993: Early Bronze Age Tin and the Taurus, American Journal of Archaeology 97, 239–253. Muhly, J.D. 2011: Metals and Metallurgy, in G. McMahon and S. Steadman, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, New York, 858–876.

366 Mullins, R.A. 2010: A Comparative Analysis of the Alalakh 2003–2004 Season Pottery, in A. Yener (ed.), Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh, Istanbul, 51–63. Murat, L. 2008: Hitit Tarihi-Cografyasında Hakmiš ve Ištahara Ülkelerinin Konumu / The Locations of Hakmiš and Ištahara in Historical Geography of Hittite, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 44, 181–204. Murnane, W.J. 1990: The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Seti I at Karnak, 2nd ed., Chicago. Mühlenbruch, T. 2014: Hethitische Keramik im Kontext. Das Gebäude B von Kayalıpınar und die Nutzung institutioneller Gebäude des 2. Jt.s v.Chr. im ostmediterranen Raum, Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 26, Rhaden/ Westfalen. Müller, D. 1997: Topographischer Bildkommentar zu den Histo­ rien Herodots. Kleinasien, Berlin. Müller-Karpe, A. 1994: Altanatolisches Metallhandwerk, Neumünster. Müller-Karpe, A. 2000a: Kayalıpınar in Ostkappadokien. Ein neuer hethitischer Tontafelfundplatz, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 132, 355–365. Müller-Karpe, A. 2000b: Die Akropolis der hethitischen Stadt Kuşaklı-Sarissa, Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 16, 91–110. Müller-Karpe, A. 2002: Kuşaklı-Sarissa. Kultort im Oberen Land, in Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ed.), Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter [Ausstellungskatalog Bonn/Berlin], 176–189. Müller-Karpe, A. 2003: Die Stele von Altınyayla—Ein neues Relief der hethitischen Großreichszeit, in M. Özdoğan, H. Hauptmann and N. Başgelen (eds), From Villages to Towns. Studies Presented to Ufuk Esin, Istanbul, 313–319. Müller-Karpe, A. 2006: Untersuchungen in Kayalıpınar 2005 (with contributions from V. Müller-Karpe, E. Rieken, W. Sommerfeld, G. Wilhelm and M. Zeiler), Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 138, 211–247. Müller-Karpe, A. 2007: Die sogenannte “Karawanserei” von Kuşaklı-Sarissa. Von der Prospektion zur Rekonstruktion, in M. Posselt, B. Zickgraf and C. Dobiat (eds), Geophysik und Ausgrabung. Einsatz und Auswertung zerstörungsfreier Prospektion in der Archäologie, Rhaden/ Westfalen, 111–119. Müller-Karpe, A. 2009a: Recent Research on Hittite Archaeology in the “Upper Land”, in F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri and C. Corti (eds), Central-North Anatolia in the Hittite Period. New Perspectives in Light of Recent Research. Acts of the Conference held at the University of Florence 7.-9.2.2007, Rome, 109–118. Müller-Karpe, A. 2009b: The Rise and Fall of the Hittite Empire in the Light of Dendroarchaeological Research, in S. W. Manning and M. J. Bruce (eds), Tree-Rings, Kings, and Old

Bibliography World Archaeology and Environment. Papers in Honor of P. I. Kuniholm, Oxford and Oakville, 253–262. Müller-Karpe, A. 2009c: Die kappadokische Mauer— Nordgrenze des Assyrischen Reiches?, in A. Nunn (ed.) Mauern als Grenzen, Mainz, 47–56. Müller-Karpe, A. 2013a: Einige archäologische sowie archäoastronomische Aspekte hethitischer Sakralbauten, in K. Kaniuth, A. Löhnert, J. L. Miller, A. Otto, M. Roaf and W. Sallaberger (eds), Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.-13. Oktober 2009 in München, Wiesbaden, 335–384. Müller-Karpe, A. 2013b: Kuşaklı—Šarišša, in M. DoğanAlparslan and M. Alparslan, Hititler: Bir Anadolu İmpara­ torluğu / Hittites: an Anatolian Empire, Istanbul, 220–225. Müller-Karpe, A. and Müller-Karpe, V. et al. 2009: Untersuchungen in Kayalıpınar 2006–2009 (with contributions from E. Rieken, T. Mühlenbruch, Chr. Salzmann, M. Zeiler and J. Wangen), Mitteilung der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 141, 173- 238. Müller-Karpe, A., Müller-Karpe, V. and Schrimpf, A. 2009: Geometrie und Astronomie im Stadtplan des hethitischen Sarissa, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 141, 45–64. Müller-Karpe, V. 2001: Zur frühhethitischen Kultur im Mündugsgebiet des Maraššantija, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.-8. Oktober 1999, StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, 430–442. Na’aman, N. 1976: Two Notes on the Monolith Inscription of Shalmaneser III from Kurkh, Tel Aviv 3, 89–106. Na’aman, N. 1980: The Historical Introduction of the Aleppo Treaty Reconsidered, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 32, 32–42. Nakamura, M. 2002: Das hethitische nuntarryašḫa-Fest, Leiden. Nashef, Kh. 1982: Die Orts-und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit, RGTC 5, Wiesbaden. Nashef, Kh. 1987: Rekonstruktion der Reiserouten zur Zeit der altassyrischen Niederlassungen (Beihefte zum TAVO B-83), Wiesbaden. Nashef, Kh. 1991: Die Orts und Gewässernamen der altassyrischen Zeit, RGTC 4, Wiesbaden. Naumann, R. 1971: Architektur Kleinasiens von ihren Anfängen bis zum Ende der hethitischen Zeit, Tübingen. Naumann, R. 1975: Eski Anadolu Mimarlığı, Ankara. Neu, E. 1974: Der Anitta-Text, StBoT 18, Wiesbaden. Neu, E. 1979: Zum sprachlichen Alter des Ḫukkana-Vertrages, in: Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiet der indogermanischen Sprachen 93, 64–84. Neumann, J. 1986: Wind and Current Conditions in the Region of the ‘Windy Ilion’ (Troy), Archäologischer Anzeiger 1986/3, 345–363.

Bibliography Neve, P. 1995/96: Der Große Tempel (Tempel 1) in BoğazköyḪattuša, Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 12, 41–62. Neve, P. 1999: Die Oberstadt von Hattuša I. Die Bauwerke. Die Bebauung im zentralen Tempelviertel, Berlin. Newhard, J.M.L., Levine, N. and Rutherford, A. 2008: Least Cost Pathway Analysis and Inter-regional Interactions in the Göksu Valley, Turkey, Anatolian Studies 58, 87–102. Newton, M. W. and Kuniholm, P. I. 2004: A Dendrochronological Framework for the Assyrian Colony Period in Asia Minor, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi 7, 165–176. Nibbi, A. 2004: The Location of Qadesh: Persisting Difficulties, Discussions in Egyptology 58, 71–79. Niedorf, C. 1998: Die Toponyme der Texte aus Alalaḫ IV, UgaritForschungen 30, 516–568. Niemeier, W.-D. 1998: The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples, in S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern (eds), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, Jerusalem, 17–65. Niemeier, W.-D. 2007a: Milet von den Anfängen menschlicher Besiedlung bis zur Ionischen Wanderung, in J. Cobet, V. von Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier and K. Zimmermann (eds), Frühes Ionien eine Bestandsaufnahme, Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı 26 September-1.Oktober 1999, Mainz am Rhein, 3–20. Niemeier, W.-D. 2007b: Westkleinasien und Ägäis von den Anfängen bis zur Ionischen Wanderung: Topographie, Geschichte und Beziehungen nach dem archäologischen Befund und den Hethitischen Quellen, in J. Cobet, V. von Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier and K. Zimmermann (eds), Frühes Ionien eine Bestandsaufnahme, Panionion-Symposion Güzelçamlı 26 September-1.Oktober 1999, Mainz am Rhein, 37–96. Niemeier, W.-D. 2008: Ḫattusas Beziehungen zu WestKleinasien und dem mykenischen Griechenland (Aḫḫijawa), in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Ḫattuša-Boğazköy. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients, Wiesbaden, 291–349. Niemeier, W.-D. and Niemeier, B. 1997: Milet 1994–1995. Projekt ‘Minoisch-Mykenisches bis Protogeometrisches Milet’: Zielsetzung und Grabungen auf dem Stadionhügel und am Athenatempel, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1997/2, 189–248. Nocera, G.M. di 2008: Settlements, Population and Landscape on the Upper Euphrates between V and II Millennium B. C. Results of the Archaeological Survey Project 2003–2005 in the Malatya Plain, in J. M. Cordoba, M. Molist, M. C. Perez I. Rubio and S. Martinez (eds), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, 633–646. Nocera, G.M. di 1998: Die Siedlung der Mittelbronzezeit von Arslantepe: Eine Zentralsiedlung von Beginn des zweiten Jahrtausends in der Ebene von Malatya (Türkei), Dipartimento

367 di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Arslantepe III, Rome. Nougayrol, J. 1956: Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit. IV. Textes accadiens des archives sud, Mission de Ras Shamra IX, Paris. Novák, M. 2015a: Archaeology of Exchange: Evidence for Supra-Regional Contacts according to the Archaeological Sources in Ḫatti, in B. Eder and R. Pruzsinszky (eds), Policy of Exchange. Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium BCE, Oriental and European Archaeology 2, Vienna, 339–348. Novák, M. 2015b: Urbanism and Architecture, in U. Finkbeiner, M. Novák, F. Sakal and P. Sconzo (eds), Middle Euphrates, ARCANE 4, Turnhout, 41–84. Novák, M. and Rutishauser, S. 2012: Tutḫaliya, Šunaššura und die Grenze zwischen Ḫatti und Kizzuwatna, in C. Mittermayer and S. Ecklin (eds), Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger: mu-ni u4 ul-li2-a-aš ĝa2-ĝa2-de3, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 256, Göttingen, 259–270. Novák, M., Kozal, E. and Yaşin Meier, D. (eds) (in press): Sirkeli Höyük 2006–2014. Vorbericht der Türkisch-Schweizerischen Forschungen (= Puruna–Pyramos. Studien zu einem fluvialen Siedlungssystem im Ebenen Kilikien I), Wiesbaden. Oberheid, R. 2007: Emil O. Forrer und die Anfänge der Hethitologie: eine wissenschaftshistorische Biografie, Berlin. Oettinger, N. 1979: Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums, Nürnberg. Oettinger, N. 2008: The Seer Mopsos (Muksas) as a Historical Figure, in B. J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova, and I. C. Rutherford (eds), Anatolian Interfaces. Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction. September 17–19, 2004, Oxford, 63–66. Okay, A. I. 2008: Geology of Turkey: A synopsis, Anschnitt 21, 19–42. Okay, A. I. and Tüysüz, O. 1999: Tethyan Sutures of Northern Turkey, Geological Society, London, Special Publications 156, 475–515. doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.156.01.22. Omura, M. 2016: Yassıhöyük Excavations First Five Seasons 2009–2013, Anatolian Archaeological Studies 19, 11–72. Omura, S. 1991: 1989 Yılı Kırşehir, Yozgat, Nevşehir, Aksaray İlleri Sınırları İcinde Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 7, 69–89. Omura, S. 1992: 1990 Yılı Orta Anadolu’da Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 9, 541–560. Omura, S. 1993: 1991 Yılı Orta Anadolu’da Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 10, 365–387. Omura, S. 1994: 1992 Yılı Orta Anadolu’da Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 11, 311–336.

368 Omura, S. 1997: 1995 Yılı Orta Anadolu’da Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 14/2, 283–302. Omura, S. 1998: 1996 Yılı Orta Anadolu’da Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 15/2, 41–50. Omura, S. 2000a: Preliminary Report of the General Survey in Central Anatolia (1999), Anatolian Archaeological Studies 9, 37–96. Omura, S. 2000b: 1998 Yılı İç Anadolu Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 17/2, 25–29. Omura, S. 2001a: Preliminary Report of the General Survey in Central Anatolia (2000), Anatolian Archaeological Studies 10, 37–86. Omura, S. 2001b: 1999 Yılı Orta Anadolu’da Yürütülen Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 18/1, 83–88. Omura, S. 2002a: Preliminary Report of the General Survey in Central Anatolia (2001), Anatolian Archaeological Studies— Kaman-Kalehöyük 11, 45–112. Omura, S. 2002b: Preliminary Report on the 16th Excavation at Kaman-Kalehöyük (2001), Anatolian Archaeological Studies—Kaman-Kalehöyük 11, 1–43. Omura, S. 2003: Preliminary Report of the General Survey in Central Anatolia (2002), Anatolian Archaeological Studies— Kaman-Kalehöyük 12, 37–38. Omura, S. 2006: Preliminary Report of the General Survey in Central Anatolia (2005), Anatolian Archaeological Studies— Kaman-Kalehöyük 15, 63–102. Omura, S. 2008: 2003–2006 Yıllarında İç Anadolu’da Yapılmış Olan Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 25, 213–224. Omura, S. 2011: Kaman-Kalehöyük Excavations in Central Anatolia, in S.R. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia 10,000–323 B.C.E, Oxford, 1095–1111. Omura, S. 2014: 2013 Kırşehir-İlinde Yapılan Yüzey Araştır­ maları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 32, 503–512. Omura, S. 2016: 2011–2014 Yıllarında Kırşehir İlinde Yapılan Arkeolojik Yüzey Araştırmaları, in T. C. Kırşehir Valiliği (ed.) Kırşehir Arkeolojik ve Paleoantropolojik Çalışmalar, Kırşehir, 145–188. Oreshko, R. 2012: Studies in Hieroglyphic Luwian: Towards a Philological and Historical Reinterpretation of the SÜDBURG inscription, PhD Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin. Oreshko, R. 2013: Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of Western Anatolia: Long Arm of the Empire or Vernacular Tradi­ tion(s)?, in A. Mouton, I. C. Rutherford, and I. Yakubovich (eds), Luwian identities: Culture, Language and Religion between Anatolia and the Aegean, Leiden, 345–420. Oreshko, R. 2014: ‘The Achaean Hides, Caged in Yonder Beams’: The Value of Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign *429 Reconsidered and a New Light on the Cilician Ahhiyawa, Kadmos 52, 19–33.

Bibliography Orlin, L. L. 1970: Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia, The Hague, Paris. Orthmann, W. 1967: Das Gräberfeld bei Ilıca, Wiesbaden. Orthmann, W. 1974–77: Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Anatolien, AfO 25, 265–279. Osten, H.H. von der 1929: Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor 1927–28, Chicago. Osten, H.H. 1930: Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor 1929, OIC 6, Chicago. Osten, H.H. 1937: The Alishar Hüyük: Seasons of 1930–32, Chicago. Otten, H. 1957: Zusätzliche Lesungen zum Alakšandu-Vertrag, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 5, 26–30. Otten, H. 1973: Eine althethitische Erzählung um die Stadt Zalpa, StBoT 17, Wiesbaden. Otten, H. 1975a: Ḫulaja, RlA 4/6, 489. Otten, H. 1975b: Ḫuntara, RlA 4/6, 500. Otten, H. 1975c: Ḫuwatnuwanda, RlA 4/6, 529. Otten, H. 1981: Die Apologie Hattusilis III. Das Bild der Überlieferung, StBoT 24, Wiesbaden. Otten, H. 1988: Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy. Ein Staatsvertrag Tutḫalijas IV. StBoT Beiheft 1, Wiesbaden. Otten, H. 1992: Eine Anklageschrift gegen Ḫalpaziti? in H. Otten, E. Akurgal, H. Ertem and A. Süel (eds), Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, Ankara, 409–418. Otto, A. 2006: Alltag und Gesellschaft zur Spätbronzezeit: eine Fallstudie aus Tall Bazi (Syrien), Turnhout. Otto, A. 2014: The Late Bronze Age Pottery of the ‘Weststadt’ of Tell Bazi (North Syria), in M. Luciani and A. Hausleiter (eds) Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syro-Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions, Rahden/ Westfalen, 85–118. Ökse, T.A. 1993: Sivas’ta Arkeolojik Araştırmaların Tarihçesi, in M. A. Çelik (ed.), Revak, Sivas, 21–35. Ökse, T.A. 1998: Yukarı Kızılırmak Havzası Tunç Çağları ve Demirçağ Yerleşim Tarihi /Siedlungsgeschichte des oberen Kızılırmak-Gebietes von der Frühbronze bis zur Mittel­ eisenzeit, Belleten 62/234, 299–336. Ökse, T.A. 1999: Grabungen am Quellteich Šuppitaššu, in A. Müller-Karpe (ed.), Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı 1998, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 131, 86–91. Ökse, T.A. 2000: Neue hethitische Siedlungen zwischen Maşat Höyük und Kuşaklı, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 50, 87–111. Ökse, T.A. 2001: Hethitisches Territorium am Oberen Maraššantia: Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 45), Wiesbaden, 499–510. Ökse, T.A. 2005: Kızılırmak ve Fırat Havzalarını Birbirine Bağlayan Eski Kervan Yolları, Bilig: Ahmet Yesevi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 34, 15–32.

Bibliography Ökse, T.A. 2006: Hethiterforschung anhand von Geländebe­ gehungen. Darstellung der Probleme und Möglichkeiten der Auswertung, in D. P. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop and J. Seeher (eds), Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen, Probleme, neue Ansätze, BYZAS 4, Istanbul, 167–183. Ökse, T.A. 2011: Open-Air Sanctuaries of the Hittites, in H. Genz and D. P. Mielke (eds), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, Colloquia Antiqua 2, Leuven, Paris, Walpole, 219–240. Ökse, T.A. 2014: Second Millennium BC Settlement Patterns in the Upper Kızılırmak Region/Yukarı Kızılırmak Bölgesinde MÖ 2. Bin Yerleşim Modelleri, in A. Engin, B. Helwing and B. Uysal (eds), Armizzi: Engin Özgen’e Armağan / Studies in Honor of Engin Özgen, Ankara, 205–217. Öner, E., Hocaoğlu, B. and Uncu, L. 2005: Palaeogeographical Surveys Around the Mound of Gözlükule (Tarsus), in A. Özyar (ed.), Field seasons 2001–2003 of the Tarsus-Gözlükule interdisciplinary research project, Istanbul, 69–82. Özbal, H., Pehlivan, N. and Earl, B. 2001: Durağan ve Bakırçay Arsenik Cevherlesmelerinin Jeolojik, Mineralojik ve Kimyasal İncelenmesi, Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 16, 29–40. Özbaşaran, M. 2011: The Neolithic on the Plateau, in G. McMahon and S. Steadman, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, New York, 99–124. Özçağlar, A. 1989: Zile-Turhal Yöresinin Morfografik Özellikleri. Coğrafya Araştırmaları Dergisi (Atatürk Kültür, Dil Ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Coğrafya Bilim Ve Uygulama Kolu Yay.) 1/1, 185–195. Özçağlar, A. 1990: Bahçebaşı Kapması, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 33/1–2, 389–396. Özcan, A. 2012: Yağrı Steli/Yağrı Stele, in A. Sina and T. Yiğit (eds) Ömer Çapar’a Armağan, Ankara, 221–229. Özcan, A. 2013: Uda şehri’nin yeri hakkında, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 32/53, 195–212. Özcan, K. 2005: Ortaçağda Anadolu’nun İdari Coğrafyasına Bakış, Anadolu’da Selçuklu İdari Birimleri, Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi 3 (1), 73–99. Özcan, M., Summers, G. and Summers, F. 2000: 1998 Yili Kerkenes Dağı Projesi, XVII. Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi, 24–28 Mayis 1999, Ankara II, 211–228. Özdoğan, M. 1977: Lower Euphrates Basin 1977 Survey, Istanbul. Özdoğan, M., Marro, C., Tibet, A. and Kuzucuoğlu, C. 2000: Kastamonu Yüzey Araştırması 1998 Yılı Çalışmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 17, 41–56. Özfırat, A. 2001a: Erste Betrachtungen zum ostanatolischen Hochland im 2. Jt. v. Chr., Istanbuler Mitteilungen 51, 27–60. Özfırat, A. 2001b: Doğu Anadolu Yayla Kültürleri (M. Ö. II. Binyıl), Istanbul.

369 Özgen, E., and Helwing, B. 2001: Ausgrabungen Auf Dem Oylum Höyük, 1997–2000. Zweiter Vorläufiger Bericht, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 51, 59–136. Özgen, E., Helwing, B. and Engin, A. 2001: The Oylum Regional Project: Archaeological Prospection 2000, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 19/2, 217–229. Özgen, E., Helwing, B., Herling, L. and Engin, A. 2002: The Oylum Regional Project: Results of the 2001 Prospection Season, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 20/2, 151–159. Özgen, E., Helwing, B. and Tekin, H. 1997: Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen auf dem Oylum Höyük, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47, 39–90. Özgen, I., Engin, A., Uysal, B., Ensert, K. and Ay Şafak, F. 2012: Oylum Höyük: 2010, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33/1, 497–518. Özgen, I. and Gates, M.-H. 1992: Report on the Bilkent University Archaeological Survey in Cilicia and the Northern Hatay: August 1991, Araştirma Sonuçlari Toplantısı 10, 387–394. Özgüç, N. 1966: Excavations at Acemhöyük, Anatolia 10, 29–52 Özgüç, N. 2009: Samsat—Sumeysat, Samosata Kumaha, Hahha, Hahhum. Ankara. Özgüç, N. 2015: Acemhöyük—Burušhaddum I. Silindir Mühürler ve Mühür Baskılı Bullalar/ Cylinder Seals and Bullae With Cylinder Seal Impressions, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 5/7, Ankara. Özgüç, T. 1947: Sivas ve Maltepe Kazıları, Belleten 11/41, 164–166. Özgüç, T. 1957: The Bitik Vase, Anatolia 2, 57–78. Özgüç, T. 1959: Kültepe-Kaniş. New Researches at the Center of the Assyrien Trade Colonies, Ankara. Özgüç, T. 1978: Excavations at Maşat Höyük and Investigations in its Vicinity, Ankara. Özgüç, T. 1982: Maşat Höyük II. A Hittite Center Northeast of Boğazköy, Ankara. Özgüç, T. 1983: New Finds from Kanesh and What They Mean for Hittite Art, in R. M. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann (eds), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens, Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, Mainz am Rhein, 421–426. Özgüç, T. 1988: İnandıktepe. Eski Hitit Çağında Önemli Bir Kült Merkezi. An important cult center in the old Hittite period, Ankara. Özgüç, T. 1991: The newly discovered cult objects, from the Karum of Kanesh, in M. Mori (ed.), Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa, Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Centre of Japan 5, Wiesbaden, 319–334. Özgüç, T. 1992: An anthropomorphic Vase from Karum of Kanesh, in H. Otten, E. Akurgal, H. Ertem and A. Süel (eds), Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp / Sedat Alp’a Armağan, Ankara, 425–429. Özgüç, T. 1999a: Vases used for Ritual Purposes from Eskiyapar, in H.I.H. Prince T. Mikasa (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolia, Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, Wiesbaden, vol. XI, 1–22.

370 Özgüç, T. 1999b: The Metal Figurines of two Hittite Gods, Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Centre of Japan 11, 23–38. Özgüç, T. 1999c: Kültepe-Kaniš / Neša Sarayları ve Mabedleri. The Palaces and Tempels of Kültepe-Kaniš / Neša, Ankara. Özgüç, T. 2002: Alacahöyük. Ein Kultort im Kerngebiet des Reiches, in H. Willinghöfer (ed.) Die Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 Götter, Katalog der Ausstellung, Bonn 18. Januar-28. April 2002, Bonn. Özgüç, T. 2003: Kültepe—Kaniš / Neša. The earliest international trade center and the oldest capital city of the Hittites, Istanbul. Özgüç, T. and Özgüç, N. 1949: Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafindan Yapılan Karahöyük Harfıyat Raporu 1947, Ausgrabungen in Karahöyük, Ankara. Özgüç, T. and Temizer, R. 1993: The Eskiyapar Treasure, in M. J. Mellink, E. Porada and T. Özgüç (eds) Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbours. Studies in Honour of Nimet Özgüç, Ankara, 613–628. Özgüner, P. and Summers, G. D. in press: The Çevre Kale Fortress and the Outer Enclosure on the Karaca Dağ at Yaraşlı. Anatolia Antiqua. Özsait, M. 1989: 1987 Yılı Amasya-Suluova Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 6, 287–300. Özsait, M. 1990a: 1988 Yılı Gümüş hacıköy Çevresi Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 7, 367–380. Özsait, M. 1990b: Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi’nde Yeni Prehistorik Yerleşmeler, Tarih Boyunca Karadeniz Kongresi Bildirileri 2, 124–130. Özsait, M. 1991: 1989 Yılı Göynücek Çevresi Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 8, 45–54. Özsait, M. 1994: 1988 Yılı Tokat-Erbaa Çevresi Tarihöncesi Araştırmaları, Türk Tarih Kongresi 11, 113–117. Özsait, M. 1998: 1995 ve 1996 Yıllarında Amasya Merzifon ve Gümüşhacıköy Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 15, 143–162. Özsait, M. 1999: 1997 Yılı Tokat ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 16, 89–107. Özsait, M. 2000a: 1997 ve 1998 Yılı Tokat-Zile ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 17, 73–88. Özsait, M. 2000b: Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi Yüzey Araştırmaları, in O. Belli (ed.), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi (1932–1999), Ankara, 335–341. Özsait, M. 2001: Surveys in the Central Black Sea Region, in O. Belli (ed.), İstanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeo­ logy in Turkey (1932–2000), Ankara, 307–312. Özsait, M. 2003: 2001 Yılı Samsun ve Amasya Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 20, 127–140. Özsait, M. 2004: 2002 Yılı Samsun-Amasya Yüzey Araştırmalarının İlk Sonuçları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 21, 273–284.

Bibliography Özsait, M. 2007: 2005 Yılı Tokat ili, Zile ve Yurhal İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 24, 451–462. Özsait, M. and Dündar, A. 1997: 1995 Yılı Amasya-Gümühacıköy ve Hamamözü Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 14, 171–192. Özsait, M. and Koçak, Ö. 1996: 1994 Yılı Amasya-Taşova Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 13, 273–292. Özsait, M. and Özsait, N. 1998: Amasya’da M. Ö. II. Bin Yılı Yerleşmeleri, S. Alp and A. Süel (eds) III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 16–22 Eylül 1996—Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16–22, 1996, Ankara, 457–468. Özsait, M. and Özsait, N. 2001: Les sites archéologiques du IIe millénaire avant J.-C. à Tokat, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.–8. Oktober 1999, StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, 541–550. Özsait, M. and Özsait, N. 2002: Amasya-Merzifon Araştırmaları, Anadolu Araştırmaları 16, 527–552. Özsait, M. and Özsait, N. 2008: Les sites archéologiques du IIe millenaire avant J.-C. à Yalvaç, in A. Archi, and R. Francia (eds), VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5–9 settembre 2005, Parte II (Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolici 50), Roma, 597–605. Öztan, A. and Arbuckle, B. 2012: 2011 yılı Acemhöyük kazıları ve sonuçları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 34/1, 275–294. Özyar, A. 2005: Field Seasons 2001–2003 of the Tarsus-Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project, Istanbul. Palmisano, A. 2017: Drawing Pathways from the Past: the Trade Routes of the Old Assyrian Caravans Across Upper Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia, in F. Kulakoğlu and G. Barjamovic (eds) Proceedings of the end Kültepe Interna­ tional Meeting. Movement, Resources, Interaction. (Kültepe International Meetings 2. Subartu 39). Turnhout, 29–48. Pamir, H. 2005: The Orontes Delta Survey, in K. A. Yener (ed.), The Amuq Valley Regional Projects, Vol. 1, Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002. Oriental Institute Publication 131, Chicago 67–98. Panayotov, S.V. 2014: George Smith’s identification of Karkemish: from the account of his assistant Mathewson, in N. Marchetti (ed.) Karkemish: An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates, Bologna, 44–51. Pantazis, V. D. 2009: Wilusa: Reconsidering the Evidence, Klio 91, 291–310. Pardee, D. 2003: Ugaritic Letters, in W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World, Leiden, 87–116. Parr, P. (ed.) 2015: Excavations at Tell Nebi Mend, Syria Volume I, Oxford. Patsch, C. 1901: Dardani, Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie 4.2, 2155–2157.

Bibliography Pattenden, P. 1983: The Byzantine Early Warning System, Byzantion 53, 258–299. Peccerillo, A. and Taylor, S. R. 1976: Geochemistry of eocene calc-alkaline volcanic rocks from the Kastamonu area, Northern Turkey, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 58/1, 63–81. Pecchioli Daddi, F. and Polvani, A. M. 1990: La mitologia ittita, Testi del Vicino Oriente antico 4/1, Pavia. Pecorella, P. E. 1975: Malatya-III, Orientis Antiqui Collectio 12, Rome. Pedersén, O. 1998: Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C, Bethesda, Md. Pelon, O. 1992: Quatre campagnes à Porsuk (Cappadoce méridionale) de 1986 à 1989, Syria 69, 305–347. Pelon, O. 2004: Le site de Porsuk-Ulukışla en Cappadoce méridionale, in M. Mazoyer and O. Casabonne (eds), Studia Anatolica et Varia: Mélanges offerts au professeur René Lebrun, II, Paris, 195–211. Peltenburg, E. 1994: Constructing Authority: The Vounous Enclosure Modell, Opuscula Atheniensia 20, 157–162. Peltenburg, E. 2010: The emergence of Carchemish as a major polity: Land of Carchemish Survey (Syria) 2006, in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro and N. Marchetti (eds), Proceedings of the 6th ICAANE Conference, vol. 2, Wiesbaden, 539–552. Peltenburg, E., Wilkinson, T. J., Ricci, A., Lawrence, D., McCarthy, A., Barbanes Wilkinson, E., Newson, P. and Perini, S. 2012: The Land of Carchemish (Syria) Project 2009—The Sajur Triangle, in R. Matthews and J. Curtis (eds), Proceedings of the 7th ICAANE Conference, vol. 3, London, 209–221. Perrot, J. 1962: Reconnaissance Archéologique en Turquie Meridionale 1961, Jerusalem. Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 2002: Die Hethiter im Latmos. Eine hethitisch-luwische Hieroglypheninschrift am Suratkaya (Beşparmak/Westtürkei), Antike Welt 33/2, 211–215. Peschlow-Bindokat, A. and Herbordt, S. 2001: Eine Hethitische Grossprinzeninschrift aus dem Latmos, Vorläufiger Bericht, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 2001/3, 363–78. Pfälzner, P. 2007: Archaeological Investigations in the Royal Palace of Qatna, in D. Morandi Bonacossi (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital. Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in CentralWestern Syria. Proceedings of the International Conference held in Udine, 9–11 December 2004. Studi Archeologici su Qatna 1. Udine, 29–63. Philip, G., Abdulkarim, M., Newson, P., Beck, A., Bridgland, D. R., Bshesh, M., Shaw, A., Westaway, R. and Wilkinson, K. 2005: Settlement and Landscape Development in the Homs Region, Syria. Report on Work Undertaken during 2001– 2003, Levant 37, 21–42.

371 Philip, G. and Bradbury, J. 2010: Pre-Classical Activity in the Basalt Landscape of the Homs Region, Syria: Implications for the Development of ‘Sub-Optimal’ Zones in the Levant During the Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age, Levant 42/2, 136–169. Pierallini, S. 2000: Observations on the Lower City of Ḫattuša: a comparison between the epigraphic sources and the archaeological documentation, Altorientalische Forschungen 27, 325–343. Plat Taylor, J. du, Williams, M. and Wachter, J. 1950: The excavations at Sakce Gözü, Iraq 12, 53–138. Poetto, M. 1993: L’iscrizione luvio-geroglifica di Yalburt. Nuove acquisizioni relative alla geografia dell’Anatolia sud-occidentale, Iuculano, Pavia. Poetto, M. 1998: Traces of Geography in Hieroglyphic Luwian Documents of the Late Empire Early Post-Empire Period (Boğazköy-Südburg and Kızıldağ IV): The Case of Masa, in S. Alp and A. Süel (eds), III. Uluslararasi Hititoloji Kongresi bildirileri Çorum 16–22 Eylül 1996 = Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology Çorum September 16–22, 1996, Ankara, 469–479. Polacco, L. 1973: Topaklı’daki İtalyan kazılarında: Tarih öncesinden Bizans dönemine, Anadolu 17, 31–41. Polacco, L. 1973–74: [Topaklı], in: Atti dell’ Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 132, 130–133. Polit, A. 1999: Die Stadt Katapa im Lichte hethitischer Keilschrifttexte, Hethitica 14, 81–96. Polvani, A. M. 1998: Il re di Kuššara e l’inventario di culto KUB LVIII 15, in L. Agostiniani, M. G. Arcamone, O. Carruba, F. Imparati, R. Rizza (eds), do-ra-qe pe-re, Studi in memoria di Adriana Quattordio Moreschini, Pisa, Roma, 321–326. Popko, M. 1986: Die kleinasiatischen Stadtnamen Kulila und Matilla, Altorientalische Forschungen 18, 176–179. Popko, M. 1988a: Der 28. und 29. Tag des hethitischen AN.TAH. ŠUM-Festes, Altorientalische Forschungen 15, 83–113. Popko, M. 1988b: Review of Archi, KUB 57, Orientalia 51, 91–92. Popko, M. 1994: Zippalanda: Ein Kultzentrum im hethitischen Kleinasien. Texte der Hethiter 21. Heidelberg. Popko, M. 1995: Zur Geographie des nördlichen Zentral­ anatoliens in der Hethiterzeit, in Th. van den Hout (ed.) Studio historiae ardens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, PIHANSt 74, Istanbul, 253–259. Popko, M. 1999: Berg als Ritualschauplatz. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der hethitischen Religion, Hethitica 14, 97–108. Popko, M. 2000: Zippalanda and Ankuwa Once More, Journal of the American Oriental Society 120, 445–448. Popko, M. 2009: Arinna Eine heilige Stadt der Hethiter, Wiesbaden.

372 Postgate, J. N. 1999: The Bronze to Iron Age transition at Kilise Tepe, Anatolian Studies 49, 111–121. Postgate, J. N. 2007: The ceramics of centralisation and dissolution: A case study from Rough Cilicia, Anatolian Studies 57, 141–150. Postgate, J. N. 2008: The chronology of the Iron Age seen from Kilise Tepe, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 45, 166–187. Postgate, J. N. and Stone, A. B. 2013: A Luwian shrine? The Stele Building at Kilise Tepe, in A. Mouton, I. C. Rutherford and I. Yakubovich (eds), Luwian Identities: Culture, Language and Religion between Anatolia and the Aegean, LeidenBoston, 193–213. Postgate, J. N. and Thomas, D. 2007a: (eds) Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994–98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in western Cilicia, BIAAM 30, London. Postgate, J. N. and Thomas, D. 2007b: Level II: The end of the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, in J. N. Postgate, and D. Thomas (eds) Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994–98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in western Cilicia, BIAAM 30, London, 121–164. Potts, D. 2014: Nomadism in Iran from Antiquity to the Modern Era, New York. 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 R. Laffineur and E. Greco (eds), EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference: Italian School of Archaeology, Athens, 14–18 April 2004, Aegaeum 25, Liège, 117–121. 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 K. A. Yener (ed.), 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, Leuven, Paris, and Wapole, MA., 89–112. Radner, K. 2004: Pargâ (Bargâ), RlA 10, 336–337. Rahmstorf, L. 2003: Clay Spools from Tiryns and other contemporary sites. An indication of foreign influence in LH IIIC?, in N. Kyparissi-Apostolika and M. Papakonstantinou (eds), 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium. The Periphery of the Mycenaean World, 26–30 September 1999, Lamia, 397–415. Rahmstorf, L. 2005: Ethnicity and changes in weaving technology in Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean in the 12th century BC, in V. Karageorghis, H. Matthäus and S. Rogge (eds), Cyprus: Religion and Society from the Late Bronze Age to the end of the Archaic Period. Proceedings of an International Symposium on Cypriote Archaeology, Erlangen, 23–24 July 2004, 143–169.

Bibliography Rahmstorf, L. 2008: Tiryns XVI: Kleinfunde aus Tiryns. Terrakotta, Stein, Bein und Glas/Fayence, vornehmlich der Spätbronzezeit, Mainz am Rhein. Raimond, É. 2004: La problématique lukkienne, Colloquium Anatolicum 3, 93–146. Ramsay, W. M. 1890: The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, London. Ramsay, W. M. 1903: Cilicia, Tarsus and the Great Taurus Pass, The Geographical Journal 22, 357–410. Ramsay, W. M. 1908: Luke the Physician and Other Studies in the History of Religion, London. Ramsay, W. M. and Hogarth, D. G. 1893: Pre-Hellenic Monuments of Cappadocia, Récueil de traveaux relativs à l´archéologie égyptienne et assyrienne 14, 89–97. Ranoszek, R. 1933: Kronika króla hetyckiego Tuthaljasa (IV), Rocznik Orientalistyczny 9, 43–112. Rauh, N. K., Townsend, Rh. F., Hoff, M. C., Dillon, M., Doyle, M. W., Ward, Ch. A., Rothaus, R. M., Caner, H., Akkemik, Ü., Wandsnider, L., Ozaner, F. S. and Dore, Ch. D. 2009: Life in the truck lane: Urban development in western Rough Cilicia, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 78, 253–312. Rehren, T. and Radivojevic, M. 2010: A Preliminary Report on the Slag Samples from Çamlıbel Tarlası, in A. Schachner (ed.), Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2009, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2010/1, 207–216. Reichmuth, S. 2013:  Mita von Pahhuwa (CTH 146), in R. Fischer, D. Groddek and H. Marquardt (eds), Hethitologie in Dresden (DBH 35), Wiesbaden, 107–144. Reyhan, E., Ozulu, İ. M., Tombuş, F. E. 2012: Ortaköy-Şapinuva Hitit Yolu, in Ö. İpek (ed.) 2. Çorum Kazı ve Araştırmalar Sempozyumu, Çorum, 143–154. Reyhan, E., Ozulu, İ. M., Tombuş, F. E. 2014: Ortaköy-Şapinuva (Çorum) Arkeolojik Alanı ve Yakın Çevresindeki Antik Yollarin Araştırılması, in P. Taracha and M. Kapełuś (eds) Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology, Warsaw, 5–9. Sept. 2011, Warsaw, 696–707. Richter, T. 2004: Die Ausbreitung der Hurriter bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit: Eine kurze Zwischenbilanz, in J.-W. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld (eds), 2000 v. Chr.: Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende. Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 3, Saarbrücken, 263–311. Richter, T. 2005: Qaṭna in the Late Bronze Age: Preliminary Remarks, in D. I. Owen and G. Wilhelm (eds), General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 11/1, SCCNH 15, Bethesda, Md., 109–126. Richter, T. 2006: Qaṭna. A. Nach schriftlichen Quellen, RlA 11, 159–161. Richter, T. 2007: Topographical Names in the Late Bronze Age Texts Unearthed in Mišrife/Qaṭna, in D. Morandi

Bibliography Bonacossi (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qaṭna and in Central-western Syria, Udine, 305–310. Richter, T. 2008: Šuppiluliuma I. in Syrien: Der ‘einjährige Feldzug’ und seine Folgen, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), ḪattušaBoğazköy: das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. Akten des 6. Internationalen Colloquiums der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (22.–24. März 2006, Würzburg), CDOG 6, Wiesbaden, 173–203. Richter, T. and Lange, S. 2012: Das Archiv des Idadda: Die Keilschrifttexten aus den deutsch-syrischen Ausgrabungen 2001–2003 im Königspalast von Qatna, Qaṭna Studien 3, Wiesbaden. Riehl, S., Pustovoytov, K., Dornauer, A. and Sallaberger, W. 2012: Mid-to-Late Holocene Agricultural System Trans­ formations in the Northern Fertile Crescent: A Review of the Archaeobotanical, Geoarchaeological, and Philological Evidence, in L. Giosan, D. Q. Fuller, K. Nicoll, R. Flad and P. D. Clift (eds), Climate Landscapes and Civilization, American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series 198, Washington DC, 115–136. Rieken, E. 2009: Die Tontafelfunde aus Kayalıpınar (mit einem Beitrag von Gernot Wilhelm), in F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri and C. Corti (eds), Central-North Anatolia in the Hittite Period. New Perspectives in Light of Recent Research. Acts of the Conference held at the University of Florence 7.-9.2.2007, Studia Asiana 5, Rome, 119–144. Rieken, E. 2014: Ein Kultinventar für Šamuha aus Šamuha und andere Texte aus Kayalıpınar, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 146, 43–54. Riemschneider, K. K. 1958: Die hethitischen Landschenkung­ surkunden, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 6, 321–381. Riis, P. J., Jensen, J., Buhl, M.-L., and Otzen, B. 1996: Sukas X: The Bronze and Early Iron Age Remains at the southern harbour, Copenhagen. Riis, P., Thuesen, I., Lund, J., and Riis, T. 2004: Topographical Studies in the Ǧabla Plain, Historik-Filosofiske Skrifger 5, 1, Copenhagen. Roberts, N. 1983: Age, Palaeoenvironments and Climatic Significance of Late Pleistocene Konya Lake, Turkey, Quaternary Research 19, 54–171. Roberts, N. and Kuzucuoğlu, C. 1998: Évolution de l’environnement en Anatolie de 20000 à 6000 BP, Paléorient 23/2, 7–24. Roberts, N., Allcock, S. L., Arnaud, F., Dean, J. R. Eastwood, W. J., Jones, M. D., Leng, M. J., Metcalfe, S. E., Malet, E., Woodbridge, J. and Yiğitbaşıoğlu, H. 2016: A tale of two lakes: a multi-proxy comparison of Late Glacial and Holocene environmental

373 change in Cappadocia, Turkey, Journal of Quaternary Science 31/4, 348–362. Roberts, N., Eastwood, W. J., Kuzucuoğlu, C., Fiorentino, G. and Caracuta, V. 2011: Climatic, vegetation and cultural change in the eastern Mediterranean during the mid-Holocene environmental transition, The Holocene 21, 147–162. Roberts, N., Reed, J., Leng, M. J., Kuzucuoğlu, C., Fontugne, M., Bertaux, J., Woldring, H., Bottema, S., Black, S., Hunt, E. and Karabıyıkoğlu, M. 2001: The tempo of Holocene climatic change in the eastern Mediterranean region: new high-resolution crater-lake sediment data from central Turkey, The Holocene 11, 721–736. Roche, C. 2003: La tablette TK 03.1, Berytus 47, 123–128. Rohling, E. J., Hayes, A., Mayewski, P. A., and Kucera, M. 2009: Holocene climate variability in the eastern Mediterranean, and the end of the Bronze Age, in C. Bachhuber and G. Roberts (eds), Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2–5. Roosevelt, Chr. H., Cobb, P., Moss, E., Olson, B.R. and Ünlüsoy, S. 2015: Excavation is Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice, Journal of Field Archaeology 40/3, 325–346. Roosevelt, Chr. H., Luke, Chr. and Ünlüsoy, S. 2016: Kaymakçı Arkeoloji Projesi: 2014 Yılı Kazı Sonuçları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 37/2, 243–268. Rosen, A. M. 2007: Civilizing Climate. Social Responses to Climate Change in the Ancient Near East, Lanham. Rouault, O. 2004: Chronological Problems Concerning the Middle Euphrates during the Bronze Age, in R. Pruzsinszky and H. Hunger (eds), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited: Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000 (Vienna 8th–9th November 2002), Vienna, 51–59. Röllig, W. 1972–1975: Ḫazzi, RlA 4, 241–242. Röllig, W. 1992: Achäer und Trojaner in hethitischen Quellen?, in I. Gamer-Wallert (ed.), Troia. Brücke zwischen Orient und Okzident, Tübingen, 183–200. Röllig, W. 1997: Aspects of Historical Geography of Northeastern Syria from Middle Assyrian to Neo-Assyrian Times, in S. Parpola and R. Whiting (eds), Assyria 1995, Helsinki, 281–293. Röllig, W. 1998–2001: Niḫi, Ni’i, Nija, RlA 9, 313–314. Rosada, G. and Lachin, T. 2010: Civitas Tyana … inde fuit Apollonius magus, in L. d’Alfonso, M. E. Balza and C. Mora (eds), Geo-Archaeological Activities in Southern Cappadocia (Turkey), Studia Mediterranea 22, Pavia, 111–127. Rossner, E. P. 1988: Die hethitischen Felsreliefs in der Türkei. Ein archäologischer Reiseführer, 2nd edition, Regensburg. Russell, H. F. 1980: Pre-classical Pottery of Eastern Anatolia: Based on a Survey by Charles Burney of Sites Along the Euphrates and Around Lake Van, Oxford Russell, H. F. 1984: Shalmaneser’s Campaign to Urartu in 856 B.C. and the Historical Geography of Eastern Anatolia

374 According to the Assyrian Sources, Anatolian Studies 34, 171–201. Rüster, Ch., and Wilhelm, G. 2012: Landschenkungsurkunden hethitischer Könige, Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten Beiheft 4, Wiesbaden. Rutherford, I.C. 2004: Women Singers and the Religious Organisation of Hatti. On the Interpretation of CTH 235.1 & 2 and Other Texts, in M. Hutter and S. Hutter-Braunsar (eds), Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität. Akten des religionsgeschichtlichen Symposiums „Kleinasiens und angrenzende Gebiete vom Beginn des 2. bis zur Mitte des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.“ (Bonn, 20.-22. Februar 2003), AOAT 318, Münster, 377–394. Rutter, J. B. 2010: Mycenaean Pottery, in E. H. Cline (ed.), The Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 BC), Oxford, 415–429. Sader, H. S. 1992: 12th century BC in Syria: the problem of the rise of the Aramaeans, in W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky (eds), The Crisis Years of the 12th century BC: From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque, IA, 157–63. Sagona, A. 2000: Excavations at Sos Höyük, 1998 to 2000: Fifth Preliminary Report, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 37, 56–127. Sagona, A. and Zimansky, P. 2009: Ancient Turkey, Cambridge and New York. Sagona, A., Pemberton, E. and McPhee, I. 1993: Excavations at Büyüktepe Höyük, 1992: Third Preliminary Report, Anatolian Studies 43, 69–83. Sallaberger, W., Einwag, B., and Otto, A. 2006: Schenkungen von Mittani-Königen an die Einwohner von Baṣīru. Die zwei Urkunden aus Tall Bazi am Mittleren Euphrat, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 96, 69–104. Salmeri, G. and Agata, A. L. d’ 2002: Cilicia Survey 2001, Araştirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi 20, 207–211. Salvini, M. 1994: Una lettera di Ḫattušili I relativa alla spedizione contro Ḫaḫḫum, SMEA 34, 61–80. Salvini, M. 2008: Corpus dei Testi Urartei Volume I, Le iscrizioni su Pietra e Roccia, Vol. I, Testi, Roma. Sakuma, Y. 2009: Neue Kenntnisse hethitischer Orakeltexte 2, Altorientalische Forschungen 36, 293–318. Sanlaville, P. (ed.) 1985: Holocene settlement in north Syria: résultants de deux prospections archéologiques effectuées dans la région du nahr Sajour et sur le haut Euphrate syrien, BAR International Series 238, Oxford. Sanlaville, P. (ed.) 1996: Changements climatiques dans la région levantine à la fin du Pléistocene Supérieur et au débout de l’Holocène. Leur rélations avec l’évolution des sociétés humaines, Paléorient 22, 7–30. Savaş, S. Ö. 2001: Kizzuuatnalı Büyük Hitit Kraliçesi Puduhepa’nın Evlilik Anıtı ile Ölüm Anıtı. in E. Jean, A. M. Dinçol and S. Durugönül (eds), La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millenaire av. J.-C.—4e siècle ap. J.-C.), Actes de

Bibliography la table ronde internationale d’Istanbul, 2–5 novembre 1999, Istanbul-Paris, 95–114. Sayce, A. H. 1880: The Hittite Monuments, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 2, 76–78. Sayre, E. V., Joel, E. C., Blackman, M. J., Yener, K. A. and Özbal, H. 2001: Stable lead isotope studies of Black Sea Anatolian ore sources and related Bronze Age and Phryigian artefacts from nearby archaeological sites, Archaeometry 43/1, 77–115. Schachermeyr, F. 1935: Hethiter und Achäer, Leipzig. Schachner, A. 1994/95: Untersuchung zur chronologischen Stellung der grau-minyschen Keramik in Westanatolien unter Berücksichtigung der Schliemann-Sammlung im Berliner Museum für Vor-und Frühgeschte, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 26/27, 90–115. Schachner, A. 2008: Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2008/1, 113–161. Schachner, A. 2009: Das 16. Jahrhundert v. C.—eine Zeiten­ wende im hethitischen Zentralanatolien, Istanbuler Mittei­ lungen 59, 9–34. Schachner, A. 2010: M. Ö. 16. Yüzyıl: Hitit Anadolusu’nda Bir Dönüm Noktası, in VII. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 25–31 Ağustos 2008 − Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25–31, 2008, Volume II, Ankara, 661–691. Schachner, A. 2011a: Hattuscha. Auf der Suche nach dem sagenhaften Großreich der Hethiter, München. Schachner, A. 2011b: Von einer anatolischen Stadt zur Haupt­ stadt eines Großreichs—Entstehung, Entwicklung und Wandel Hattušas in hethitischer Zeit, Mesopotamia 46, 79–101. Schachner, A. 2011c: Hattuşa—kayalardan şekillendirilmiş bir şehir, in Ö. Ipek (ed.), 1. Çorum kazı ve araştırmalar sempozyumu, Çorum, 111–136. Schachner, A. 2011d: Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 2010, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 31–86. Schachner, A. 2012a: Die Funktionen des Palast der hethitischen Großkönige in Boğzaköy-Hattuša, in F. Arnold, A. Busch, R. Haensch and U. Wulf-Rheidt (eds), Orte der Herrschaft. Charakteristika von antiken Machtzentren, MenschenKulturen-Traditionen 3, Rahden, 81–96. Schachner, A. 2012b: Orta Anadolu´da Coğrafya ve Ekonomi. Hititlerin Biçak Sırtındaki Imparatorluğu, Colloquium Anatolicum 11, 25–54. Schachner, A. 2012c: Gedanken zur Datierung, Entwicklung und Funktion der hethitischen Kunst, Altorientalische Forschungen 39, 130–166. Schachner, A. 2012d: Orta Anadolu’da Coğrafya ve Ekonomi: Hititlerin Bıçak Sırtındaki İmparatorluğu, Colloquium Anatolicum XI, 25–54. Schachner, A. 2013a: Die Arbeiten in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2012, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2013/1, 147–194.

Bibliography Schachner, A. 2013b: Hattuša, Hitit İmparatorluğu’nun Başkenti, in M. Doğan-Alparslan and M. Alparslan (eds), Hititler: Bir Anadolu İmparatorluğu/ Hittites An Anatolian Empire, Istanbul, 150–175. Schachner, A. 2014a: Hitit Başkenti Hattuša’nın Yakın Çevresiyle İlişkisi, 4. Çorum Kazı ve Araştırmalar Sempozyumu (6 Aralık 2013): 11–44. Schachner, A. 2014b: Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 2013, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2014/1, 93–168. Schachner, A. and Wittenberg, H. 2013: Hattuşa’daki su havuzlarının kullanımı ve toplumsal önemi, in Ö. İpek (ed.), 3. Çorum Kazı ve Araştırmalar Sempozyumu, Çorum, 19–36. Schaeffer, C. F. A. (ed.) 1952: Enkomi-Alasia I, Paris. Schaeffer, C. F. A., Virolleaud, C. and Nougayrol, J. 1955–70: Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit, Volumes 2–6, Mission de Ras Shamra, Paris. Schiettecatte, J. P. 1971: Geology of the Misis Mountains, in A. S. Campbell (ed.), Geology and history of Turkey, Tripoli, 305–315. Schirmer, W. 1969a: Der sogenannte Tumulus im Stadtplanquadrat P-Q/27, in K. Bittel, H. G. Güterbock, H. Hauptmann, H. Kühne, P. Neve, W. Schirmer (eds), Boğazköy IV. Funde aus den Grabungen 1967 und 1968, Berlin, 64–66. Schirmer, W. 1969b: Hethitische Steinpflaster im Stadtplan­ quadrat S/30, in K. Bittel et al. (eds), Boğazköy IV. Funde aus den Grabungen 1967 und 1968, Berlin, 66. Schloen, D. 2001: The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake, Ind. Schmidt, K. 2002: Norşuntepe, Kleinfunde II, Artefakte aus Felsgestein, Knochen und Geweih, Ton, Metall und Glas, Archaeologia Euphratica 2, Mainz. Schneider, Th. 2002: Sinuhes Notiz über die Könige: syrischanatolische Herrschertitel in ägyptischer Überlieferung, Ägypten & Levante 12, 257–272. Schoop, U.-D. 2006: Dating the Hittites with statistics. Ten pottery assemblages from Boğazköy-Hattuša, in D. P. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop and J. Seeher (eds), Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie: Voraussetzungen, Probleme, neue Ansätze, Byzas 4, Istanbul, 215–239. Schoop, U.-D. 2011a: Çamlıbel Tarlası, ein metallverarbeitender Fundplatz des vierten Jahrtausends v. Chr. im nördlichen Zentralanatolien, in Ü. Yalçın (ed.), Anatolian Metalls V, Bochum, 53–68. Schoop, U.-D. 2011b: Hittite pottery: a summary, in H. Genz and D. P. Mielke (eds), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, Leuven, 241–273. Schuler, E. von 1956: Die Würdenträgereide des Arnuwanda, Orientalia 25, 209–240.

375 Schuler, E. von 1957: Hethitische Dienstanweisungen für höhere Hof- und Staatsbeamte. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Recht Kleinasiens, AfO Beiheft 10, Gratz. Schuler, E. von 1965: Die Kaškäer: Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des alten Kleinasien, Berlin. Schuler, E. von 1976–80: Kaškäer: RlA 5, Berlin, 460–463. Schürr, D. 2010: Zur Vorgeschichte Lykiens: Städtenamen in hethitischen Quellen, Klio 92, 7–33. Schürr, D. 2014: Lykische Orte und ihre Namen: Drei Namentypen, in: P. Taracha and M. Kapełuś (eds) Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology, Warsaw, 5–9. Sept. 2011, Warsaw, 743–774. Schwartz, G. M., Curvers, H. H., Gerritsen, F. A., MacCormack, J. A., Miller, N. F., and Weber, J. A. 2000: Excavation and survey in the Jabbul Plain, Western Syria: The Umm el-Marra Project 1996–1997, American Journal of Archaeology 104/3, 419–462. Schwemer, D. 2001a: Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschrifkulturen, Wiesbaden. Schwemer, D. 2001b: Der Vertrag zwischen Tutḫaliya von Ḫatti und Šunašsura von Kizzuwatna, in B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm (ed.), Texte der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Neue Folge. Band 2: Staatsverträge, Herrscherinschriften und andere Dokumente zur politischen Geschichte, Gütersloh, 97–106. Schwemer, D. 2004: Von Tahurpa nach Hattusa. Überlegungen zu den ersten Tagen des AN.DAH.ŠUM-Festes, in M. Hutter and S. Hutter-Braunsar (eds), Offizielle Religion, lokale Kulte und individuelle Religiosität. Akten des religionsgeschichtlichen Symposiums „Kleinasien und angrenzende Gebiete vom Beginn des 2. bis zur Mitte des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.“, Bonn, 20.-22. Februar 2003, AOAT 318, Münster, 395–412. Schwemer, D. 2008: Fremde Götter in Ḫatti. Die hethitische Religion im Spannungsfeld von Synkretismus und Abgrenzung, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Ḫattuša-Boğazköy: das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. Akten des 6. Internationalen Colloquiums der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft (22.–24. März 2006, Würzburg), Wiesbaden, 137–157. Seeher, J. 1995: Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattuša 1994, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1995/1, 597–625. Seeher, J. 2000a: Getreidelagerung in unterirdischen Großspeichern: Zur Methode und ihrer Anwendung im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. am Beispiel der Befunde in Hattuša, SMEA 42, 261–301. Seeher, J. 2000b: Die Bronzezeitliche Nekropole von Demircihüyük-Sarıket, Ausgrabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Museum Bursa, 1990–1991, Istanbuler Forschungen 44, Tübingen.

376 Seeher, J. 2003: Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2002, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1–24. Seeher, J. 2004: Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattuša 2003, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 59–76. Seeher, J. 2006: Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Ḫattuša 2005, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2006/1, 171–187. Seeher, J. 2007: A Mudbrick City wall at Hattusa. Diary of a Reconstruction, Istanbul. Seeher, J. 2009: Der Landschaft sein Siegel aufdrücken— hethitische Felsbilder und Hieroglypheninschriften als Ausdruck des herrscherlichen Macht- und Territorial­ anspruchs, Altorientalische Forschungen 36, 119–139. Seeher, J. 2010: After the empire: observations on the Early Iron Age in central Anatolia, in I. Singer (ed.), Ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis: Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Tel Aviv, 220–229. Seeher, J. 2011a: Hittite pottery: a summary, in H. Genz and D. P. Mielke (eds), Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, Leuven, 241–273. Seeher, J. 2011b: The Plateau: The Hittites, in S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia 10,000–323 B.C.E, Oxford, 376–392. Seeher, J. 2012: Natürliche und künstliche, unbewusste und beabsichtigte Landmarken: Menschliche Wahrnehmung und herrscherliche Betonung der Besetzung von Landschaft und Territorien, in F. Pirson (ed.), Manifestationen von Macht und Hierarchien in Stadtraum und Landschaft: wissenschaftliches Netzwerk der Abteilung Istanbul im Rahmen des Forschungsclusters 3 “Politische Räume” des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Byzas 13, Istanbul, 25–42. Sertok, M. K., Kulakoğlu, F., Squadrone, F. F. 2008: Şaraga Höyük Salvage Excavations, in H. Kühne, R. M. Czichon and F. J. Kreppner (eds), Proceedings of the 4th ICAANE Conference, Vol. 2, Wiesbaden, 411–418. Seton-Williams, M.V. 1954: Cilician Survey, Anatolian Studies 4, 121–174. Seton-Williams, M.V. 1967: Preliminary Report on the Exca­ vations at Tell Rifa’at, Iraq 29, 16–23. Sever, H. 1993: Zank Höyük Kurtarma Kazısı—1991, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 14/1, 247–257. Sever, H. 1994: Zank Höyük Kurtarma Kazısı—1992, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 15/1, 257–267. Sever, H. 1998: Zank Höyük Kazısı—1996, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 19/1, 529–542. Sever, H., Bayram, S., Çeçen, S., and Menekşe, Ş. 1992: 1990 Yılı Nevşehir, Niğde ve Aksaray İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 9, 523–540. Sevin, V. 1983: İmikuşağı Kazıları, 1982, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 5, 137–142.

Bibliography Sevin, V. 1984: İmikuşağı Kazıları, 1983, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 6, 93–102. Sevin, V. 1986: Malatya-Elazıǧ-Bingöl İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, 1985, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 4, 279–300. Sevin, V. 1987: Elazıǧ-Bingöl İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, 1986, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 5/2, 1–44. Sevin, V. 1988: Elazıǧ-Bingöl İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, 1987, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 6, 451–500. Sevin, V. and Köroǧlu, K. 1985: İmikuşağı Kazıları, 1984, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 7, 163–180. Sevin, V. and Köroǧlu, K. 2004: Late Bronze Age at Yumuktepe: New evidence from step-trench south, in I. Caneva and V. Sevin (eds), Mersin-Yumuktepe: A Reappraisal, Lecce, 73–83. Sevin, V. and Derin, Z. 1986, İmikuşağı Kazıları, 1985, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 8, 181–204. Sevinç, M. G. 1996: Kırşehir Kızılırmak Çayı İçinde Üç Hitit Yontusu, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 18/2, 169–80. Sevinç, M. G. 1999: “Kırşehir Kızılırmak Yayı İçinde Üç Hitit Anıtı”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 92, 33–41. Sevinç, U. and Yalçınkaya, U. 2011: Çorum İli Çevre Durum Raporu, Çorum Valiliği, Çevre ve Şehircilik il Müdürlüğü, Çorum. Seyrek, A., Tuncer, D., Westaway, R., Guillou, H., Scaillet, S., White, T. S., Bridgland, D. R. 2014: The kinematics of central-southern Turkey and northwest Syria revisited, Tectonophysics 618, 35–66. Sherratt, S. 1998: Sea Peoples and the Economic Structure of the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean, in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern (eds) Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, Jerusalem, 292–313. Sherratt, S. 2012: The intercultural transformative capacities of irregularly appropriated goods, in J. Maran and F. Stockhammer (eds), Materiality and Social Practice. Transformative Capacities of Intercultural Encounters, Oxford, 152–172. Shelton, K. 2010: Mainland Greece, in E. H. Cline (ed.), The Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000–1000 BC), Oxford, 139–148. Siegelová, J. 2001: Der Regionalpalast in der Verwaltung des hethitischen Staates, Altorientalische Forschungen 28, 193–208. Siegelová, J. and Tsumoto, H. 2011: Metals and metallurgy in Hittite Anatolia, in H. Genz and D. P. Mielke (eds), Insights into Hittite history and archaeology, Leuven, 275–300. Simon, Zs. 2009: Die ANKARA-Silberschale und das Ende des hethitischen Reiches, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 99, 247–269. Simon, Zs. 2012: Hethitische Felsreliefs als Repräsentation der Macht, in G. Wilhelm (ed.) Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008, Winona Lake, Indiana, 687–698.

Bibliography Simon, Zs. 2013: Überlegungen zu Masaurhisas, einem König aus Tabal, und der Herrscherliste von Tuwana, Anatolica 39, 277–296. Simon, Zs. 2015: Against the identification of Karkiša with Carians, in N. Stampolidis, K. Kopanias and Ç. Maner (eds) Nostoi: Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, Istanbul, 791–809. Simpson, St. J. 1990: Iron Age Crop Storage and Ceramic Manufacture in Rural Mesopotamia, a Review of the British Museum Excavations at Qasrij Cliff and Khirbet Casrij in Northern Iraq, Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 27, 119–140. Singer, I. 1983a: Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century B.C. According to the Hittite Sources, Anatolian Studies 33, 205–217. Singer, I. 1983b: The Hittite KI.LAM Festival, Part: 1, StBoT 27, Wiesbaden. Singer, I. 1984a: The Hittite KI.LAM Festival, Part: 2, StBoT 28, Wiesbaden. Singer, I. 1984b: The AGRIG in the Hittite Texts, Anatolian Studies 34, 97–127. Singer, I. 1991a: A Concise History of Amurru, in S. Izre’el (ed.), Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study, HSS 40–41, Atlanta, 134–195. Singer, I. 1991b: The ‘Land of Amurru’ and the ‘Lands of Amurru’ in the Šaušgamuwa Treaty, Iraq 53, 69–74. Singer, I. 1996a: Muwatalli’s Prayer to the Assembly of Gods through the Storm-God of Lightning (CTH 381), Atlanta, Georgia. Singer, I. 1996b: Great Kings of Tarhuntašša, SMEA 38, 63–71. Singer, I. 1998: From Hattuša to Tarhuntašša: Some Thoughts on Muwatalli’s Reign, in S. Ap and A. Süel (eds) III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 16–22 Eylül 1996—Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16–22, 1996, Ankara, 535–541. Singer, I. 1999: A Political History of Ugarit, in W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, HdO 1/39), Leiden-Boston-Köln, 603–733. Singer, I. 2000: New Evidence on the End of the Hittite Empire, in E. D. Oren (ed.), The Sea Peoples and Their World. A Reassessment, Philadelphia, 21–33. Singer, I. 2001: The Treaties between Karkamiš and Hatti, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.-8. Oktober 1999, StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, 635–641. Singer, I. 2002: Hittite Prayers, Atlanta. Singer, I. 2004: The Kuruštama Treaty Revisited, in D. Groddek and S. Rössle (eds), Šarnikzel. Hethitologische Studien zum Gedenken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer, DBH 10, Dresden, 591–607. Singer, I. 2005: Piḫaššaš(š)i-, RlA 10, 559–561.

377 Singer, I. 2006a: Ships Bound for Lukka. A New Interpretation of the Companion Letters RS 94.2530 and RS 94.2523, Altorientalische Forschungen 33, 242–262. Singer, I. 2006b: The Failed Reforms of Akhenaten and Muwatalli, British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 6, 37–58. Singer, I. 2007: Who were the Kaška? Phasis Greek and Roman Studies 10/2, 166–181. Singer, I. 2008a: A Hittite-Assyrian Diplomatic Exchange in the Late 13th Century BCE, in A. Archi and R. Francia (eds) VI Congresso Internazional di Ittitologia Roma, 5–9 settembre 2005, Parte II (SMEA 50), 713–720. Singer, I. 2008b: “Purple-Dyers in Lazpa”, in B.-J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova, and I. C. Rutherford (eds), Anatolian Interfaces. Hittites, Greeks and Their Neighbours. Proceedings of an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction. September 17–19, 2004, Oxford 2008, 21–43. Singer, I. 2011a: The Calm Before the Storm: Selected Writings of Itamar Singer on the End of the Late Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Levant, Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series 1, Atlanta. Singer, I. 2011b: The Historical Context of Two Tell Nebi Mend/ Qadeš Letters, KASKAL 8, 161–175. Singer, I. 2014a: The Boundaries of Hittite Syria and the Historical Context of KBo 16.32 + KBo 31.71, in J. Elayi and J. M. Durand (eds), Bible et Proche-Orient. Mélanges André Lemaire, vol. III, Transeuphratène 46, Paris, 67–77. Singer, I. 2014b: The Distinctiveness of the Historical Introductions of Hittite State Treaties, in P. Taracha and M. Kapełuś (eds) Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology, Warsaw, 5–9. Sept. 2011, Warsaw, 896–921. Singer, I. 2017: Alalaḫ/Mukiš under Hittite Rule and Thereafter, in Ç. Maner, A. Gilbert and M. Horowitz, From the Silver Mountains to the Plains of Amuq: Festschrift Presented to K. Aslıhan Yener, Leiden. Sipahi, T. 2000: Eine althethitische Reliefvase vom Hüseyindede Tepesi, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 50, 63–85. Sipahi, T. 2003: 2001 Yılı Çorum ve Çankırı Bölgeleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 20, 275–284. Sipahi, T. 2005: 2003 Yılı Hüseyindede-Fatmaören Kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 26, 271–280. Sipahi, T. 2006: 2004 Yılı Fatmaören Kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 27, 445–456. Sipahi, T. 2010a: 2008 Yılı Boyalı Höyük Kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 31, 287–300. Sipahi, T. 2010b: Çorum’un Batısında Hitit’lere ait yeni Yerleşimler, in A. Süel (ed.), VII. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 25–31 Ağustos 2008 − Acts of the

378 VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25–31, 2008, Volume II, Ankara, 725–736. Sipahi, T. 2011: Eskiyapar Kazıları, in Ö. İpek (ed.) 1. Çorum Kazı ve Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, Çorum, 79–108 Sipahi, T. 2012a: Yeniden Başlayan Eskiyapar Kazısı ve Buluntuları Üzerine Genel Bir Değerlendirme, Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler 33, 1–7. Sipahi, T. 2012b: 2011 Yılı Eskiyapar Kazısı, in Ö. İpek (ed.) 2. Çorum Kazı ve Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, Çorum, 45–61. Sipahi, T. 2013a: Eskiyapar, in M. Doğan-Alparslan and M. Alparslan (eds), Hititler: Bir Anadolu İmparatorluğu/ Hittites An Anatolian Empire, Istanbul, 240–249. Sipahi, T. 2013b: Hitit Çağında Eskiyapar, in Ö. İpek (ed.) 3. Çorum Kazı ve Araştırmalar Sempozyumu, Çorum, 61–73. Sipahi, T. 2014: Son Yıllardaki Çalışmaların Ve Buluntuların Işığında Eski Hitit Kabartmalı Vazoları Üzerine Değelendirmeler, Anadolu/Anatolia 40, 39–54. Sipahi, T. and Yıldırım, T. 1998: 1996 Yılı Çorum Bölgesi Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 15, 19–39. Sipahi, T. and Yıldırım, T. 2000: 1998 Yılı Çorum Bölgesi Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 17, 31–40. Sipahi, T. and Yıldırım, T. 2001: 1999 Yılı Çorum Yöresi Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 18, 101–112. Sipahi, T. and Yıldırım, T. 2005: 2003 Yılı Çorum ve Çankırı İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 22, 353–364. Sipahi, T. and Yıldırım, T. 2008: 2006 yılı Çorum-Çankırı İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 25, 277–294. Sipahi, T. and Yıldırım, T. 2010: 2008 Yılı Çankırı ve Çorum İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 27/3, 447–460. Sipahi, T. and Yıldırım, T. 2012: 2010 Yılı Çankırı Çorum İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 29, 201–214 Sir Gavaz, Ö. 2012a: Hititçe Çivi Yazılı Metinlerde Geçen “Arabalar” Üzerine Bir İnceleme, in A. Sina and T. Yiğit (eds) Ömer Çapar’a Armağan, Ankara, 123–138. Sir Gavaz, Ö. 2012b: Hitit Krallarının Kült Gezileri. Ayinler, Ziyaret Merkezleri, Yollar ve Lokalizasyonla İlgili Yeni Gözlemler, Çorum. Sir Gavaz, Ö. 2012c: Involving The Whereabouts Of The Tahurpa City, KASKAL 9, 31–43. Sir Gavaz, Ö. 2014: A New Contribution to the Hittite Historical Geography: Pertaining to the Location of an Important Cult Centre Katapa, 11. Annual International Conference on History: From Ancient to Modern (Athens, 29–31 July / 1 August 2013), 5–14. Sir Gavaz, Ö. 2015: “Hititçe Metinlerde Geçen HUR.SAGPiškurunuwa Üzerine”, Ö. İpek (ed.) 5. Çorum Kazı ve Araştırmalar Sempozyumu (28–29 Kasım 2014), Çorum, 195–204.

Bibliography Sir Gavaz, Ö. in press: The Location of the City of Matilla: A New Look, International Workshop “Places and Spaces in Hittite Anatolia I: Hatti and the East” (25–26 October 2013), Istanbul. Sir Gavaz, Ö. and Yalçın, Ü. in press: Alacahöyük İTÇ Zanaatkarları ve Arinna’lı Ustalar, in A. Süel (ed.) Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Hittitology (01–07 Eylül 2014), Ankara. Slane, D. A. 1987: Middle and Late Bronze Age Architecture and Pottery in Gözlü Kule, Tarsus: A New Analysis. PhD Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College Smit, D. W. 1990–91: The Hittite Corridor, Talanta 22–23, 113–115. Snell, D. 1983–1984: The Cuneiform Tablet from El-Qiṭr, AbrNahrain 22, 159–170. Soldt, W. H. van 1998: PRU 6 no. 78 (RS 19.41): Towns in the Land of Siyannu or in the Land of Ugarit, in M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper (eds), “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient: Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendugn seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, AOAT 250, Münster, 777–784. Soldt, W. H. van 2005a: The Topography of the City-state of Ugarit, AOAT 324, Münster. Soldt, W. H. van 2005b: Von Königen, Beamten und Schreibern: Die Kontakte von Ugarit mit seiner Umwelt, in D. Prechel (ed.), Motivation und Mechanismen des Kulturkontaktes in der späten Bronzezeit, Eothen 13, 247–267. Soldt, W. H. van 2010: Sijannu, RlA 12, 481–482. Soldt, W. H. van 2012: Ṣumur, RlA 13, 309–312. Soldt, W. H. van 2014a: Ugarit. A. Geschichte und Literatur, RlA 14, 280–283. Soldt, W. H. van 2014b: Tunip, RlA 14, 186–188. Sommer, F. 1932: Die Aḫḫijava-Urkunden, München. Somuncu, M. and Yiğit, T. 2010: Hattuşa Milli Parkı ve Dünya Mirası Alanının Korunması, VII. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 25–31 Ağustos 2008 − Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25–31, 2008, Volume II, Ankara, 771–782. Souček, V. and Siegelová, J. 1996: Systematische Bibliographie der Hethitologie, 1915–1995, Prague. Sourouzian, H. 2008: Three Seasons of Work at the Temple of Amenhotep III at Kom el Hettan Part III. Works in the Dewatered Area of the Peristyle Court and the Hypostyle Hall, Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 80, 401–487. Sourouzian, H. and Stadelmann, R. 2005: Die ältesten Erwähnungen von Ioniern und Danaern, Antike Welt 36, 79–83. Soysal, O. 1989: Mursili I. Eine historische Studie, PhD Dissertation, Julius-Maximilians Universität, Würzburg. Soysal, O. 1998: A Forgotten Hittite Fragment of the KI.LAM Festival, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 50, 59–65.

Bibliography Soysal, O. 2004: Hattischer Wortschatz in hethitischer Textüberlieferung, HdO 1/74, Leiden. Soysal, O. 2012: Joins, Duplicates, and More from the Unpublished Bo 9000-Fragments, Anatolica 38, 169–190. Spezzaferri, S., Basso, D. and Koral, H. 2000: Holocene palaeoceanographic evolution of the Iskenderun Bay, SouthEastern Turkey, as a response to river mouth diversions and human impact, Mediterranean Marine 1/1, 19–43. Starke, F. 1981: Die keilschrift-luwischen Wörter für “Insel” und “Lampe”, Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiet der indogermanischen Sprachen 95, 141–157. Starke, F. 1985: Die keilschrift-luwischen Texte in Umschrift (StBoT 30), Wiesbaden. Starke, F. 1990: Untersuchungen zur Stammbildung des keilschrift-luwischen Nomens (StBoT 31), Wiesbaden. Starke, F. 1997: Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend, Studia Troica 7, 447–487. Starke, F. 2001: Troia im Machtgefüge des zweiten Jahrtausends vor Christus. Die Geschichte des Landes Wilusa, in: Archäologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg (ed.), Troia: Traum und Wirklichkeit, Darmstadt, 34–45. Stavi, B. 2013: The Last Years of the Reign of Tutḫaliya III Reconsidered, in S. de Martino, J. L. Miller (eds), New Results and New Questions on the Reign of Suppiluliuma I, Eothen 19, Firenze, 133–163. Stavi, B. 2015: The Reign of Tudhaliya II and Šuppiluliuma I. The Contribution of the Hittite Documentation to a Reconstruction of the Amarna Age, Texte der Hethiter 31, Heidelberg. Steel, L. 2014: Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age. In A. E. Killebrew and M. Steiner (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: c. 8000–332 BCE, Oxford, 577–591. Stein, D. 1997: Alalakh, in E. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, New York, Oxford, 55–59. Steiner, G. 1964: Die Aḫḫiyawa-Frage heute, Saeculum 15, 365–392. Steiner, G. 1990: Neue Überlegungen zur Aḫḫijawa-Frage, in: Türk Tarih Kongresi 10, 523–530. Steiner, G. 1993a: Ein Bolid in Anatolien als Manifestation einer Gottheit, in: H. D. Galter (ed.) Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens. Beiträge zum 3. Grazer Morgenländischen Symposium, 23.-27. September 1991, Graz, 211–230. Steiner, G. 1993b: Die historische Rolle der ‘Lukkā’, in J. Borchhardt and G. Dobesch (eds), Akten des II. Internationalen LykienSymposions. Wien 6.-12. Mai 1990, Vienna, 123–137. Steiner, G. 2007: The Case of Wiluša and Aḫḫiyawa, Bibliotheca Orientalis 64, 590–611. Steiner, G. 2011: Namen, Orte und Personen in der hethitischen und griechischen Überlieferung, in C. Ulf and R. Rollinger

379 (eds), Lag Troia in Kilikien? Der aktuelle Streit um Homers Ilias, Darmstadt, 265–291. Stone, E. and Zimansky, P. E. 1999: The Iron Age settlement at ʻAin Dara, Syria: survey and surroundings, Oxford. Stratford, E. P. 2010: Agents, Archives, and Risk: A Micronarrative Account of Old Assyrian Trade through Šalim-Aḫum’s Activities in 1890 B.C. PhD-dissertation, University of Chicago. Streck, M. P. 2010: Großes Fach Altorientalistik. Der Umfang des keilschriftlichen Textkorpus, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 142, 33–56. Strobel, K. 2008a: Tawinija/Tavium and the Regional Hittite Road Network, in K. Strobel (ed.), New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millenium B.C., Eothen 16, Firenze, 281–302. Strobel, K. 2008b: Neues zur Geographie und Geschichte des Alten Anatolien. Eine Einführung mit Beiträgen zur Hethitischen Geographie des westlichen Anatolien, in K. Strobel (ed.), New Perspectives on the Historical Geography and Topography of Anatolia in the II and I Millenium B.C., Eothen 16, 9–61. Strobel, K. and Gerber, Chr. 2003: Tavium (Büyüknefes, Provinz Yozgat)-Bericht über die Kampagnen 2000–2002, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 55, 188. Stümpel, H. 1998: Geophysikalische Prospektion 1997, in A. Müller-Karpe (ed.), Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı, 1997, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 130, 154–160. Summerer, L. 2006: Die Göttin am Skylax, Ein monumentales hellenistisches Felsrelief in Nordanatolien, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2006/1, 17–29. Summers, G. D. 1993: Tille Höyük 4—The Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age Transition, London. Summers, G. D. 1998: The 1998 Spring Survey in the Northern Yozgat Province, Kerkenes 1998 Preliminary Reports, http:// www.kerkenes.metu.edu.tr/kerk1/11prelim/1998/index.html, last accessed 30.11.2016. Summers, G. D. 2013: Some implications of revised C14 and dendrochronological dating for the ‘late bronze levels’ at Tille Höyük on the Euphrates, in K. A. Yener (ed.) Across the border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 42, Leuven, 311–328. Süel, A. 1990: 1988 Yılı Çorum İli Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 7, Ankara, 341–359. Süel, A. 1991: 1989 Yılı Çorum İli Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 8, 91–110. Süel, A. 1993: 1990 yılı Çorum-Ortaköy Kazı Çalışmaları”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 14/1, 495–508. Süel, A. 1995: Ortaköy’ün Hitit Çağı’ndaki Adı, Belleten 225, 271–283. Süel, A. 1997: Ortaköy-Šapinuwa Arşivleri, 1996 Yılı Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Konferansları, 93–99.

380 Süel, A. 1998a: Ortaköy-Şapinuwa Tabletlerinin Tarihlendiril­ mesi, S. Alp and A. Süel (ed.) III. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 16–22 Eylül 1996—Acts of the IIIrd International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 16– 22, 1996, Ankara, 551–558. Süel, A. 1998b: Ortaköy-Şapinuwa: Bir Hitit Merkezi, TÜBA-AR 1, 37–61. Süel, A. 1999: The Name of Ortaköy in the Hittite Period”, XII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara (1999), 117–128. Süel, A. 2001: Ortaköy Tabletleri Işığında Batı Anadolu İle İlgili Bazı Konular Üzerine, in G. Wilhelm (ed.) Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, Würzburg, 4.-8. Oktober 1999, StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, 670–678. Süel, A. 2004: Şapinuwa’daki Kraliçe Hakkında, in F. Pecchioli Daddi and S. de Martino (eds) Anatolia Antica, Studi in Memoria di Fiorella Imparati, Eothen 11, Roma, 819–826. Süel, A. 2005: Ortaköy Tabletlerinde Geçen Bazı Yeni Coğrafya İsimleri, in A. Süel (ed.), V. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 02–08 Eylül 2002—Acts of the Vth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, September 02– 08, 2002, Ankara, 679–685. Süel, A. 2008: Hitit Devleti’nin Bir Diğer Başkenti: Şapinuva, in T. Tarhan, A. Tibet, E. Konyar (eds) Muhibbe Darga Armağanı, Istanbul, 457–474. Süel, A. 2009: Another Capital City of the Hittite State: Šapinuwa, in F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri and C. Corti (eds), Central-North Anatolia in the Hittite Period. New Perspectives in Light of Recent Research. Acts of the Conference held at the University of Florence 7.-9.2.2007, Studia Asiana 5, Rome, 193–205. Süel, A. 2011: Ortaköy-Şapinuva Tabarna Mühürleri, in A. Öztan and Ş. Dönmez, Karadeniz’den Fırat’a Bilgi Üretimleri, Önder Bilgi’ye Armağan Yazılar, Ankara, 403–414. Süel, M. 2005: Ortaköy-Şapinuva hitit kenti bezemeli çanak çömlek örnekleri, in A. Süel (ed.), V. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 02–08 Eylül 2002—Acts of the Vth International Congress of Hittitology. Çorum September 02–08, 2002, Ankara, 679–685. Süel, M. 2008: Ortaköy/Šapinuwa antik kenti, Ağilönü bölgesinde yeni çalişmalar, in A. Archi and R. Francia (eds), VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma, 5–9 settembre 2005, Parte II, SMEA 50, 721–727. Süel, M. 2010: Şapinuva Hitit kenti, Ağılönü Kutsal Alanı, in A. Süel (ed.) VII. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Çorum 25–31 Ağustos 2008 − Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, August 25–31, 2008, 829–834. Süel, M. 2014: Şapinuva-Ağılönü Kutsal Alanının Hitit Dünyasındakı Yeri, in P. Taracha and M. Kapełuś, (eds) Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology, Warsaw, 5–9. Sept. 2011, Warsaw, 943–955.

Bibliography Süel, A. and Süel, M. 1998: Bir Hitit Başkenti: Şapinuwa, Çorum Çevre Dergisi 5, 84–89. Süel, A. and Süel, M. 2004: Şapinuva, Arkeo Atlas 3, 60–61. Süel, A. and Süel, M. 2005: Hitit Başkenti: Şapinuva, Bilim ve Gelecek Dergisi 14 Nisan, 56–70. Süel, A. and Süel, M. 2006: Stratejik bir Başkent: Şapinuva, National Geographic Türkiye, January, 80–81. Süel, A. and Süel, M. 2011: Başkent Şapinuva: Hitit Dünyasındaki Yeri ve Önemi, in Ö. İpek (ed.), I. Çorum Kazı ve Araştırmalar Sempozyumu, 02 Ekim 2010 Çorum, Çorum, 93–11. Süel, A. and Weeden, M. in press: Mrs Woman, A Busy Hittite Lady from Ortaköy, in A. Süel (ed.) Proceedings of the IXth International Congress of Hittitology, Ankara. Sürenhagen, D. 1992: Untersuchungen zur Bronzetafel und weiteren Verträgen mit der Sekundogenitur in Tarhuntašša, Orientalistische Literatürzeitung 87, 341–371. Sürenhagen, D. 1986: Ein Königssiegel aus Kargamis, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 118, 183–190. Sürenhagen, D. 2008: Hartapus—Ein Sohn Mursilis II.?, in A. Archi and R. Francia (eds), VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia, Roma 5–9 settembre 2005, part II (SMEA 50), Roma, 729–738. Symington, D. 2001: Hittites at Kilise Tepe, in E. Jean, A. M. Dinçol and S. Durugönül (eds), La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millenaire av. J.-C.—4e siècle ap. J.-C.), Actes de la table ronde internationale d’Istanbul, 2–5 novembre 1999, Istanbul-Paris, 167–184. Symington, D. 2007: Seals with hieroglyphic inscriptions, in J. N. Postgate and D. Thomas (eds), Excavations at Kilise Tepe, 1994–98: From Bronze Age to Byzantine in Western Cilicia, BIAAM 30, London, 441–443. Swift, G. A., Jr. 1958: The Pottery of ‛Amuq Phases K-O, and its Historical Relationships. PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago. Swoboda H., Keil, J. and Knoll, F. 1935: Denkmäler aus Lykaonien, Pamphylien und Isaurien, Brünn. Şahin, S. and Tekoğlu, R. 2003: A Hieroglyphic Stele from Afyon Archaeological Museum, Athenaeum 91, 540–545. Şahoğlu, V. 2005: The Anatolian Trade Network and the İzmir Region During the Early Bronze Age, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24/4, 339–361. Şahoğlu, V. 2007: Çeşme-Bağlararası: A New Excavation in Western Anatolia, in F. Felten, W. Gauss and R. Smetana (eds), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms, Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Salzburg, Wien, 309–322. Şahoğlu, V. 2010: Anadolu’nun İlk Şaraphanesi Çeşme’de Çıktı, Ege Life 70, 22–24.

Bibliography Şahoğlu, V. 2012: Çeşme-Bağlararası (2002–2005, 2009), in O. Bingöl, A. Öztan and H. Taşkıran (eds), Anadolu/Anatolia III, Ankara, 83–90. Şahoğlu, V. 2015: Çeşme-Bağlararası-A Western Anatolian Harbour Settlement at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, in N. Chr. Stampolidis, Ç. Maner and K. Kopanias (eds) NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration, Integration in the Aegean Islands, Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze AgeEarly Iron Age, Koç University, Istanbul, 593–608. Şahoğlu, V., Erkanal, H., Çayır-Böyükulusoy, Ü. and Erbil, Y. 2013: Çeşme-Bağlararası 2010 Yılı Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33/4, 489–508. Şahoğlu, V., Erkanal, H. and Çayır, Ü. 2011: Çeşme-Bağlararası 2009 Yılı Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 32/4, 463–474. Şenyurt, Y. 1999: Nevşehir İli 1997 Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 16/1, 451–466. Şenyurt, Y. 2000: Nevşehir İli 1998 Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 17/2, 365–373. Şenyurt, Y. 2010: Ovaören-Göstesin Geç Hitit/Luwi Hiyeroglif Yazıtı, in Ş. Dönmez (ed.) DUB.SAR É.DUB.BA.A. Studies Presented in Honour of Veysel Donbaz, Istanbul, 261–268. Şenyurt, Y., Kamış, Y. and Akçay, A. 2014a: Ovaören 2012 yılı kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 35/2, 62–80. Şenyurt, Y., Kamış, Y. and Akçay, A. 2014b: Ovaören 2013 Yılı Kazıları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 36/2, 101–120. Şerifoğlu, T. E. 2007: The Malatya-Elazığ Region during the Middle Bronze Age: A Re-Evaluation of the Archaeological Evidence, Anatolian Studies 57, 101–114 Şerifoğlu, T. E. 2009: An Attempt to Identify the Late Bronze Age Cultural Provinces of the Carchemish-Harran Area, Akkadica 130, 167–187. Şerifoğlu, T. E. 2011: Between the Hittites and the Mittanians: the Malatya-Elazığ area during the Late Bronze Age, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 48, 126–163. Şerifoğlu, T. E., MacSweeney, N., and Colantoni, C. 2014: The Lower Göksu Archaeological Salvage Survey Projekt: Preliminary Results of the First Season, Anatolica 40, 71–92. Şerifoğlu, T. E., MacSweeney, N., and Colantoni, C. 2015a: The Lower Göksu Archaeological Salvage Survey Projekt: The Second Season, Anatolica 41, 177–189. Şerifoğlu, T. E., MacSweeney, N., and Colantoni, C. 2015b: Lower Göksu Archaeological Salvage Survey Project: The Results of the 2013 and 2014 Seasons, in S. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds), The Archaeology of Anatolia: Recent Discoveries (2011– 2014). Volume I, Cambridge, 228–254. Taffet, A. 2001: The likely Locations of Middle and Late Bronze Age Harbors in Cilicia—An Assessment Based on Levantine Models, in É. Jean, A. M. Dinçol and S. Durugönül (eds), La Cilicie: Espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e millénaire av. J.C.– 4e

381 siècle ap. J.-C.): Actes de la table ronde internationale d’Istanbul, 2–5 novembre 1999, Varia Anatolica 13, Paris, 127–136. Taggar-Cohen, A. 2006: Hittite Priesthood, Texte der Hethiter 26, Heidelberg. Taggar-Cohen, A. 2010: The Prince, the KAR.KID Women and the arzana-house: A Hittite royal festival to the goddess Kataḫḫa (CTH 633), Altorientalische Forschungen 37, 113–131. Talbert, R. J. 2000 (ed.): Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton. Tanju, E. and İpek, Ö. 2004: Çorum Bölgesinde Fotoğraflarla Hitit Tarih ve Kültürü, Çorum. Taracha, P. 2003: Is Tuthaliya’s sword really Aegean? in G. M. Beckman, R. H. Beal and J. G. McMahon (eds), Hittite Studies in Honour of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Winona Lake, Ind, 367–377. Taracha, P. 2009: Religions of Second Millennium Anatolia, Wiesbaden. Tate, G. 1992: Les Campagnes de la Syrie du Nord 1, BAH Beyrouth 133, Beirut. Taut, B. 2002: Die Stadtkrone, Berlin. Tchalenko, G. 1953–1958: Villages antiques de la Syrie du nord. 3 vols, Paris. Teffeteller, A. 2013: Singers of Lazpa, in A. Mouton, I. Rutherford and I. Yakubovich, Luwian Identities, Leiden—Boston, 567–589. Tekoğlu, R. and Lemaire, A. 2002: La bilingue royale louvitophénicienne de Çineköy, in: Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2000 (2002), 961–1007. Temizer, R. 1988: Introduction, in T. Özgüç, Inandiktepe: An Important Cult Center in the Old Hittite Period, TTK 43, Ankara, XXIII–XXXII. Tenner, E. 1926: Ein hethitischer Annalentext des Königs Muršiliš II (KBo V 8 = Bo 2022). Text, Übersetzungsversuch, sprachliche Anmerkungen, Jubiläums-Festschrift der II. städtischen Realschule zu Leipzig, 83–106. Texier, C. F. M. 1842–1852: Description de l’Arménie, la Perse et la Mésopotamie. Géographie, géologie, monuments anciens et modernes, moeurs et coutumes, Paris. Thalmann, J.-P. 2006: Tell Arqa I: Les niveaux de l’âge du Bronze, Institut français du Proche-Orient, Beirut. Thalmann, J.-P. 2007: Settlement patterns and agriculture in the Akkar Plain during the Late Early and Middle Bronze Ages, in D. Morandi Bonacossi (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Udine, 9–11 December 2004, Udine, 219–32. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1912: Une Relation de la Huitième Campagne de Sargon (714 av. J.-C.), Avec une Carte et Trente Planches,

382 Musée du Louvre—Départment des Antiquités Orientales, Paris. Tischler, J. 2010: Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar, Teil IV -15 (U), Innsbruck. Topbaş, A., Efe, T. and İlaslı, A. 1998: Salvage Excavations of the Afyon Archaeological Museum, Part 2: The Settlement of Karaoğlan Mevkii and the Early Bronze Age Cemetery of Kaklık Mevkii, Anatolia Antiqua 6, 21–47. Torri, G. 2005: Militärische Feldzüge nach Ostanatolien in der mittelhethitischen Zeit, Altorientalische Forschungen 32, 386–400. Trémouille, M.-C. 1996: Une “fête du mois” pour Teššub et Hebat, SMEA 37, 79–104. Trémouille, M.-C. 2001: Kizzuwatna, terre de frontière, in É. Jean, A. M. Dinçol and S. Durugönül (eds), 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, Paris, 57–78. Trémouille, M.-C. 2007: Notes sur le fragment à caractère historique KUB 31.45, in D. Groddek and M. Zorman (eds), Tabularia Hethaeorum. Hethitologische Beiträge Silvin Košak zum 65. Geburtstag, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 25, Wiesbaden, 681–692. Trémouille, M.-C. 2014: Tunta, RlA 14, 190. Tschihatscheff, P.A. 1867: P. v. Tshihatscheff’s Reisen in Kleinasien und Armenien 1847–1863. Itinerare redigirt und mit einer neuen Construction der Karte von Kleinasien begleitet von H. Kiepert. Petermann’s Geographische Mittheilungen Ergänzungshft no. 20. Gotha. Tüfekçi Sivas, T. and Sivas, H. 2004: 2002 Yılı Eskişehir, Kütahya ve Afyonkarahisar İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 21/2, 155–166. Tüfekçi Sivas, T. and Sivas, H. 2005: 2003 Yılı Eskişehir, Kütahya ve Afyonkarahisar İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 22, 285–298. Tülek, F. and Ögüt, B. 2014: Prehistoric Pottery of Osmaniye Province in East Cilicia: A Holistic Approach, in P. Bieliński (ed.): Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. 30 April–4 May 2012, University of Warsaw, Wiesbaden, 155–164. Turan, O. 2002: Selçuk Kervansarayları, Türkler Ansiklopedisi 7, Ankara, 755–765. Türker, A. 2015: Tunç Çağlarında Nevşehir Kültürlerinin Araştırılması 2012–2013 Çalışma Raporu: Hacıbektaş ve Çevresi, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 32/1, 231–252. Ullmann, L. Z. 2010: Movement and the Making of Place in the Hittite Landscape, PhD Dissertation, Columbia University. Ullmann, L. Z. 2014: The Significance of Place. Rethinking Hittite Rock Reliefs in Relation to the Topography of the Land of Hatti. In Ö. Harmanşah (ed.) Of Rocks and Water

Bibliography Towards an Archaeology of Place, Joukowsky Institute Publication 5, Oxford and Oakville, 111–127. Uzunoğlu, E. 1981: İmamoğlu Kazılari 1980 Yılı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 4, 17–19. Uzunoğlu, E. 1982: İmamoğlu Kazılari 1981 Yılı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 5, 131–136. Uzunoğlu, E. 1984: İmamoğlu Kazılari 1983 Yılı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 6, 235–244. Uzunoğlu, E. 1985: İmamoğlu Kazılari 1984 Yılı Çalışmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 7, 181–200. Uzunoğlu, E. 1986: Malatya İmamoğlu Höyüğü 1985 Yılı Kazı Çalişmaları, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 8/1, 213–229. Ünal, A. 1974: Hattušili III: I-1, Historischer Abriss, I-2, Quellen und Indices, Texte der Hethiter 3–4, Heidelberg. Ünal, A. 1976–80: Išmirika, RlA 5, 197–198. Ünal, A. 1977: Naturkatastrophen in Anatolien im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. / M. Ö. II. Binyil Anadolusunda Doğal Afetler, Belleten 163, 447–472. Ünal, A. 1981: Hitit Kenti Ankuwa’nın Tarihçesi ve Lokalizasyonu Hakkında, Belleten 180, 433–455. Ünal, A. 1984: Nochmals Zur Geschichte und Lage der Hethitischen Stadt Ankuwa, SMEA 24, 87–107. Ünal, A. 1987: Review of H. Freydank, Keilschriftturkunden aus Boghazköi 55 Hethtische Rituale und Festbeschreibungen, KUB 55, Bibliotheca Orientalis 44, 474–486. Ünal, A. 1991: Two Peoples on Both Sides of the Aegean Sea. Did the Achaeans and the Hittites Know Each Other?, in H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and 1st Millennium B.C., Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Centre in Japan 4, Wiesbaden, 16–44. Ünal, A. 1995: Reminiszenzen an die Zeit der altassyrischen Handelskolonien in hethitischen Texten, Altorientalische Forschungen 22, 269–276. Ünal, A. 1997: Muwatalli II, Heth. König ca. 1290–1265 v. Chr., RlA 8, 524–527. Ünal, A. 1998: Hittite and Hurrian Cuneiform Tablets from Ortakoy (Çorum), Central Turkey. With Two Excursuses on the Man of the Storm God and a Full Edition of KBo 23.27, Istanbul. Ünal, A. 1999: A Hittite Mycenaean Type B sword from the vicinity of Kastamou, northwest Turkey, in H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolia, Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Centre of Japan 11, Wiesbaden, 207–226. Ünal, A. 2002: Hititler Devrinde Anadolu I, Istanbul. Ünal, A. 2003: Hititler Devrinde Anadolu II, Istanbul. Ünal, A. 2007: Multilinguales Handwörterbuch des Hethitischen/A Concise Multilingual Hittite Dictionary/Hititçe Çok Dilli El Sözlüğü, Hamburg. Ünal, A. 2014a: Puduhepa ve Zamanı, Çorum. Ünal, A. 2014b: Fraudulent Premises of Anatolian Historiography and Early Hittite Involvement in and Direct Control of

Bibliography Cilicia-Kizzuwatna, in N. Çinardali-Karaaslan, A. Aykurt, N. Kolankaya-Bostancı (eds), Some Observations on Anatolian Cultures Compiled in Honor of Armaǧan Erkanal, Ankara, 469–500. Ünal, A. 2015: A Hittite Treaty Tablet from Oylum Höyük in southeastern Turkey and the location of Hassu(wa), Anatolian Studies 65, 19–34. Ünal, A. and Girginer, S. 2010: Tatarlı Höyük Kazılarında Bulunan “Anadolu Hiyeroglifli” Damga Mühür Baskısı, in Ş. Dönmez (ed.) Veysel Donbaz’a Sunulan Yazılar DUB.SAR É .DUB.BA.A: Studies presented in honour of Veysel Donbaz, Istanbul, 275–281. Ünlü, E. 2005: Locally produced and painted Late Bronze to Iron Age transitional period pottery of Tarsus-Gözlükule, in A. Özyar (ed.), Field Seasons 2001–2003 of the Tarsus-Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Research Project, Istanbul, 145–168. Van De Mieroop M. 2000: Sargon of Agade and his successors in Anatolia, SMEA 42/1, 133–59. Vardar, L.E. 2008: Galatia Bölgesi Kaleleri/Yerleşmeleri Yüzey Araştırması: Ankara ve Eskişehir İlleri, 2006, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 25, 453–468. Vargyas, P. 1985: Marchands hittites à Ugarit, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16, 71–79. Veenhof, K.R. 2006: Traveling in Ancient Anatolia: Two new Sources from Karum Kanesh, in A. Erkanal-Öktü, E. Özgen, S. Günel, A.T. Ökse, H. Tekin (eds), Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan. Kültürlerin Yansıması / Studies in Honor of Hayat Erkanal. Cultural Reflections, Istanbul, 778–783. Veenhof, K.R. 2010a: Ancient Assur: The City, its Traders, and its Commercial Network, JESHO 53, 39–82. Veenhof, K.R. 2010b: Kültepe Tabletleri V. The Archive of Kuliya, son of Ali-abum (Kt. 92/k 188–263), Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 6/33c, Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri 5, Ankara. Veenhof, K.R. 2013: New Mesopotamian Treaties from the Early Second Millennium BC from kārum Kanesh and Tell Leilan (Šehna), Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 19, 23–58. Veenhof, K.R. 2017a: Kültepe Tabletleri VIII. The Archive of Elamma, son of Iddin-Suen, and his Family (Kt. 91/k 285–568 and Kt. 92/k 94–187), Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından 6/X, Ankara Kültepe Tabletleri 8, Ankara. Veenhof, K.R. 2017b: Acemhöyük: Seals, Chronology and History, in F. Kulakoğlu and G. Barjamovic (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd Kültepe International Meeting. Kültepe, 26–30 July 2015. Studies Dedicated to Klaas Veenhof, (Kültepe International Meetings 2. Subartu 39), Turnhout, 243–257. Veenhof, K.R. and Eidem, J. 2008: Mesopotamia. The Old Assyrian Period, OBO 160/5, Fribourg, Göttingen. Venturi, F. 2011: The North Syrian Plateau Before and After the Fall of the Hittite Empire: New Evidence from Tell Afis, in K. Strobel (ed.), Empires after Empire: Anatolia, Syria and

383 Assyria after Suppiluliuma II (ca. 1200–800/700 B.C.), Eothen 17, Firenze, 139–66. Vermoere, M. 2004: Holocene Vegetation History in the Territory of Sagalassos (Southwest Turkey), A Palynogical Approach, Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Arcaheology 6, Turnhout. Voigt, M. M. 2011: Gordion: the changing political and economic roles of a first millennium B.C.E. city, in S. R. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia (10,000–323 B.C.E.), Oxford and New York, 1069–1094. Voigt, M. M. and Henrickson, R. C. 2000: Formation of the Phrygian State: The Early Iron Age at Gordion, Anatolian Studies 50, 37–54. Voigtländer, W. 1975: Die mykenische Stadtmauer in Milet und einzelne Wehranlagen der späten Bronzezeit, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 25, 17–34. Voigtländer, W. 1985: Zur Topographie Milets ein Neues Modell zur Antiken Stadt, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1985/1, 77–91. Waal, W. 2012: Writing in Anatolia: The origins of the Anatolian hieroglyphs and the introductions of the cuneiform script, Altorientalische Forschungen 39/2, 287–315. Waal, W. 2012: Review of Barjamovic 2011, Akkadica 133, 175–177. Waelkens, M. 2000: Sagalassos and Pisidia during the Late Bronze Age, in M. Waelkens and L. Loots (eds), Sagalassos V: Report on the survey and excavation campaigns of 1996 and 1997, Leuven, 473–485. Warburton, D. 2003: Love and war in the later Bronze Age: Egypt and Hatti, in Matthews, R. and Roemer, C. (eds), Ancient Perspectives on Egypt, London, 75–100. Waterfield, R. 2005: The Expedition of Cyrus, Oxford. Watkins, C. 1986: The Language of the Trojans, in Mellink, M. J. (ed.), Troy and the Trojan war. A Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984, Bryn Mawr College, 45–62. Wäfler, M. 2000: Historische Geographie. Theoretische Perspektiven, Subartu 7, 317–334. Wäfler, M. 2001: Zur historischen Geographie von Idamaraṣ zur Zeit der Archive von Mari (2) und Šubat-enlil/Šeḫnā, Tall alḤamīdīya 3 = OBO SA 21, Freiburg-Schweiz-Göttingen. Weber, J. 1997: Faunal remains from Tell es-Sweyhat and Tell Hajji Ibrahim, in R. Zettler (ed.) Subsistence and Settlement in a Marginal Environment: Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989–1995 Preliminary Report, MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 14, Philadelphia, 133–168. Weeden, M. 2010a: Tuwati and Wasusarma: Imitating the behaviour of Assyria, Iraq 72, 39–61. Weeden, M. 2010b: A Hittite seal from Kaman-Kalehöyük, in I. Singer (ed.), Ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis. Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Tel Aviv, 249–255. Weeden, M. 2011a: Hittite Logograms and Hittite Scholarship, StBoT 54, Wiesbaden.

384 Weeden, M. 2011b: Hittite Schools outside of Hattusa, Altorientalische Forschungen 38/1, 116–134. Weeden, M. 2012: A further join to the Milawata letter, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 2012/3 (49). Weeden, M. 2013a: After the Hittites: The Kingdoms of Karkamish and Palistin in Northern Syria, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 56/2, 1–20. Weeden, M. 2013b: A Hittite Tablet from Büklükale, Anatolian Archaeological Studies 18, 19–35. Weeden, M. 2014: State Correspondence in the Hittite World, in K. Radner (ed.), State Correspondance in the Ancient World. From New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire, New York, 32–63. Weeden, M. 2016: Hittite Epigraphic Finds from Büklükale 2010–14, Anatolian Archaeological Studies 19, 7–30. Weeden, M. 2017: A Cuneiform Fragment from the 2016 Season at Büklükale, BKT 3: Part of a Diplomatic Text? Anatolian Archaeological Studies 20, 17–21. Weeden, M. in press: Before Hittitology—the first identifications of the Hittites in England. M. Alparslan, M. DoğanAlparslan and A. Schachner (eds), The Discovery of an Anatolian Empire. A Workshop and Exhibition on the Occasion of the 100th Anniversary of the Decipherment of the Hittite Language, Istanbul, 14.–15. November 2015. Weiss, B. 1982: The decline of the Late Bronze Age civilization as a possible response to climate change, Climatic Change 4, 173–198. Welton, M. L. 2010: Mobility and social organization on the ancient Anatolian Black Sea Coast: An archaeological, spatial and isotopic investigation of the cemetery at İkiztepe, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Toronto, University of Toronto. Werner, R. 1961: Review of J. Garstang and O. R. Gurney 1959, Bibliotheca Orientalis, 76–77. Westenholz, J. G. 2007: Notes on the Old Assyrian Sargon Legend, Iraq 69, 21–27. Weulersse, J. 1940: L’Oronte, étude de fleuve, Tours. White, S. 2011: The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire, Cambridge. Widmer, P. 2005–2006: Mykenisch RU-WA-NI-JO ‘Luwier’, in Kadmos 45, 82–84. Wilhelm, G. 1982: Grundzüge der Geschichte und Kultur der Hurriter, Darmstadt. Wilhelm, G. 1988: Zur ersten Zeile des Šunaššura-Vertrages, in E. Neu and Chr. Rüster (eds), Documentum Asiae minoris antiquae. Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 359–370. Wilhelm, G. 1992: Zum eblaitischen Gott Kura, Vicino Oriente 8/2, 23–31. Wilhelm, G. 1995: Die Tontafelfunde der 2. Ausgrabungs­ kampagne 1994 in Kuşakli, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 127, 37–42.

Bibliography Wilhelm, G. 1997: Keilschrifttexte aus Gebäude A, Kuşaklı-Sarissa 1/1, Rahden/Westfalen. Wilhelm, G. 1998–2000: Namni/Nanni, RlA 9, 140. Wilhelm, G. 2002a: Noch einmal zur Lage von Šamuha, in S. De Martino and F. Pecchioli Daddi (eds), Anatolia Antica, Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imparati (Fs. Imparati), Trieste, 885–890. Wilhelm, G. 2002b: Die Keilschriftfunde der Kampagne 2001 in Kuşaklı, in A. Müller-Karpe (ed.) Untersuchungen in Kuşaklı 2001, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 134, 342–351. Wilhelm, G. 2003–2005: Oberes Land, RlA 10, Berlin, New York, 7–8. Wilhelm, G. 2005: Zur Datierung der älteren hethitischen Landschenkungsurkunden, Altorientalische Forschungen 32, 272–279. Wilhelm, G. 2006–08: Puruna, RlA 11, 118–119. Wilhelm, G. 2007: Ausgewählte Textfunde der Kampagne 2006, in A. Schachner (ed.), Die Ausgrabungen in BoğazköyḪattuša 2006, Archäologischer Anzeiger 2007/1, 86–90. Wilhelm, G. 2008: Hurrians in the Kültepe Texts, in J. G. Dercksen (ed.), Anatolia and the Jazira in the Old Assyrian Period, PIHANS 111, Leiden, 181–194. Wilhelm, G. 2010: Eine Anrufung mit Bezug auf die Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen hethitischer Götter, in R. Francia and G. Torri (eds), Studi di Ittitologia in onore di Alfonso Archi, Orientalia NS 79, 268–272. Wilhelm, G. 2012a: Ein hethitisches Tontafelfragment des Martin von Wagner-Museums der Universität Würzburg, in M. Fritz, and S. Zeilfelder (eds), Novalis Indogermanica (Fs. Neumann), Graz, 523–526. Wilhelm, G. 2012b: Šuppiluliuma I. und die Chronologie der Amarna-Zeit, in R. Hachmann (ed.), Kāmid el-Lōz 20: Die Keilschriftbriefe und der Horizont von El-Amarna, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 87, Bonn, 225–257. Wilhelm, G. 2014: Vertrag Tutḫaliyas I. mit Šunaššura von Kizzuwatna (2. akk. Fassung) CTH 41.I.2, hethiter.net/: CTH 41.I.2 (INTR 2014–02–19). Wilhelm, G. 2015: Suppiluliuma and the Decline of the Mittanian Kingdom, in P. Pfälzner and M. Maqdissi (eds), Qatna and the Network of Bronze Age Globalism: Proceedings of an International Conference in Stuttgart and Tübingen in October 2009, Wiesbaden, 69–79. Wilkinson, T. J. 1990: Town and country in SE Anatolia I: Settlement and land use at Kurban Höyük and other sites in the Lower Karababa Basin, Oriental Institute Publications 109, Chicago. Wilkinson, T. J. 1994: The Structure and Dynamics of DryFarming States in Upper Mesopotamia, Current Anthropology 35, 483–505.

Bibliography Wilkinson, T. J. 1997: The History of the Lake of Antioch: A Preliminary Note, in G. Young, M. Chavalas and R. Averback (eds), Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on His 80th Birthday, Bethesda, MD, 557–76. Wilkinson, T. J. 1999: Holocene Valley fills of Southern Turkey and Northwestern Syria: Recent geoarchaeological contributions, Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 555–571. Wilkinson, T. J. 2000: Geoarchaeology of the Amuq Plain, in K. A. Yener, C. Edens, T. P. Harrison, J. Verstraete, and T. J. Wilkinson (eds), The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995– 1998, American Journal of Archaeology 104, 163–220, 168–79. Wilkinson, T. J. 2003: Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East, Tucson. Wilkinson, T. J. 2004: On the Margin of the Euphrates: Settlement and Land Use at Tell es-Sweyhat and in the Upper Lake Assad Area—Syria, Chicago. Wilkinson, T. J., Ur, J. and Casana, J. 2004: From nucleation to dispersal: Trends in settlement pattern in the northern Fertile Crescent, in S. E. Alcock and J. F. Cherry, Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, Oxford, 189–205. Wilkinson, T. J. and Rayne, L. 2010: Hydraulic landscapes and imperial power in the Near East, Water History 2/2, 115–144. Wilkinson, T. J., Galiatsatos, N., Lawrence, D., Ricci, A., Dunford, R., Philip, G. 2012: Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Landscapes of Settlement and Mobility in the Middle Euphrates—A Reassessment, Levant 44/2, 139–185. Wilkinson, T. J., Peltenburg, E. J., McCarthy, A., Barbanes Wilkinson, E., and Brown, M. 2007: Archaeology in the land of Carchemish: landscape surveys in the area of Jerablus Tahtani, 2006, Levant 39, 213–247. Wilkinson, T. J., Peltenburg, E. J. and Barbanes Wilkinson, E. (eds) 2016: Carchemish in Context, Oxford. Willcox, G. 2002: Evidence for ancient forest cover and deforestation from charcoal analysis of ten archaeological sites on the Euphrates, in S. Thiébault (ed.) Charcoal Analysis: Methodological Approaches, Palaeoecological Results and Wood Uses, BAR International Series 1063, Oxford, 141–145. Wiseman, D. J. 1953: The Alalakh Tablets, Occasional Public­ ations of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 2, London. Wiseman, D. J. 1961: Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626–556 BC.) in the British Museum, London. Wittenberg, H. and Schachner, A. 2013: The ponds of Hattuša— early groundwater management in the Hittite kingdom, Water Science & Technology, Water Supply 13/3, 692–698. Wittfogel, K. A. 1956: The hydraulic civilizations, in W. L. Thomas (ed.) Man’s role in changing the face of the earth, Chicago, 152–64.

385 Wittfogel, K. A. 1957: Oriental Despotism: a comparative study of total power, New Haven. Wittke, A.-M., Olshausen, E. and Szydlak, R. 2007: Historischer Atlas der antiken Welt, Der neue Pauly Suppl. 3, Stuttgart-Weimar. Woldring, H. and Bottema, S. 2003: The vegetation history of East-Central Anatolia in relation to archaeology: the Eski Acıgöl pollen evidence compared with the Near Eastern environment, Palaeohistoria 43/44, 1–34. Woolley, C. L. 1955: Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949, London. Wright, N. J., Fairbairn, A. S., Faith, J. T. and Matsumura, K. 2015: Woodland modification in Bronze and Iron Age central Anatolia: An anthracological signature for the Hittite state?, Journal of Archaeological Science 55, 219–230. Yağcı, R. 2001: The Importance of Soli in the Archaeology of Cilicia in the Second Millennium B.C., in É. Jean, A. M. Dinçol and S. Durugönül (eds), 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, Paris, 159–165. Yakar, J. 1980: Recent contributions to the historical geography of the Hittite empire, Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 112, 75–93. Yakar, J. 2000: Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia. Rural SocioEconomy in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Tel Aviv. Yakar, J. 2001: La Cilicie: Espace et pouvoires locaux, in É. Jean, A. M. Dinçol and S. Durugönül (eds), 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, Paris, 123–125. Yakar, J. 2006: Traits of nomadic people: Ethnoarchaeological and archaeological research in Turkey, in S. R. Hauser (ed.), Die Sichtbarkeit von Nomaden und saisonaler Besiedlung in der Archäologie. Multidisziplinäre Annäherungen an ein methodisches Problem, Halle, 45–63. Yakar, J. 2007: Anadolu’nun Etnoarkeolojisi, Tunç ve Demir Çağlarında Kırsal Kesimin Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısı, Çev. Selen Hırçın Riegel, Istanbul. Yakar, J. and Dinçol, A. 1974: Remarks on the historical geography of North-Central Anatolia during the Pre-Hittite and Hittite Periods, Tel Aviv 1, 85–99. Yakar, J. and Gürsan-Salzmann, A. 1978: The Provinces of Malatya and Sivas: An Archaeological Survey of Preclassical Sites, Expedition, 59–62. Yakar, J. and Gürsan-Salzmann, A. 1979: Archaeological Survey in the Malatya and Sivas Provinces-1977, Tel Aviv 6, 34–53. Yakar J., Dinçol, A. Dinçol, B. and Taffet, A.: 2001: The Territory of the Appanage Kingdom of Tarhuntašša—An Archaeological

386 Appraisal, in G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie, StBoT 45, Wiesbaden, 711–720. Yakubovich, I. 2010: Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language, Leiden-Boston. Yakubovich, I. 2014: From Lower Land to Cappadocia, in M. Kozuh (ed.), Extraction and Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, Chicago, 347–352. Yamada, M. 1994: The Northern Border of the Land of Aštata, Acta Sumerologica Japan 16, 261–268. Yamada, M. 2011: The second military conflict between ‘Assyria’ and ‘Ḫatti’ in the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 105/1, 199–220. Yamada, M. 2013: The Chronology of the Emar Texts Reassessed, Orient 48, 125–156. 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, Leiden (CHANE 3). Yanko-Hombach, V. 2007: Late Quaternary history of the Black Sea: an overview with respect to the Noah’s Flood hypothesis, in G. Erkut and S. Mitchell (eds), The Black Sea—Past, Present and Future, Ankara, 5–20. Yasuda, Y., Kitugawa, H. and Nakagawa, T. 2000: The earliest record of major anthropogenic deforestation in the Ghab Valley, northwest Syria: a palynological study, Quaternary International 73/74, 127–136. Yener, K. A. 1986: The archaeometry of silver in Anatolia: The Bolkardağ mining district, American Journal of Archaeology 90, 469–472. Yener, K. A. 2000: The Domestication of Metals. The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia, CHANE 4, Leiden. Yener, K. A. 2005: Alalakh Spatial Organization, in K. A. Yener (ed.), The Amuq Valley Regional Projects. Vol. 1, Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002, Chicago, 99–113. Yener, K. A. (ed.) 2010: Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh. Volume 1: 2003–2004 Excavation Seasons, Istanbul. Yener, K. A. 2013: New Excavations at Alalakh: The 14th–12th Centuries BC., in K. A. Yener (ed.), 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, Leuven, Paris, and Wapole, MA, 11–36. 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 104/2, 163–220. Yener, A. and Akar, M. 2013: Alalah—Tell Atchana, in M. DoğanAlparslan and M. Alparslan (eds), Hititler: Bir Anadolu İmparatorluğu/ Hittites An Anatolian Empire, Istanbul, 264–271.

Bibliography Yener, K. A. and Vandiver, P. B. 1993: Tin processing at Göltepe, an Early Bronze Age site in Anatolia, American Journal of Archaeology 97, 255–264. Yener, A., Dinçol, B. and Peker, H. 2014: Prince Tuthaliya and Princess Ašnuhepa, NABU 2014 (88), 136–138. Yiğit, T. 1995: Tarih Öncesi ve Hitit Döneminde Išuwa Bölgesi, Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 17/28, 233–251. Yıldırım, T. 2000: Yörüklü/Hüseyindede: Eine neue hethitische Siedlung im Süd-westen von Çorum, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 50, 43–62. Yıldırım, T. and Sipahi, T. 1999: 1997 Yılı Çorum Bölgesi Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 16, 433–450. Yıldırım, T. and Sipahi, T. 2004: 2002 Yılı Çorum ve Çankırı İlleri Yüzey Araştırmaları, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 21/2, 305–313. Yıldırım, T. and Sipahi, T. 2007: 2005 Yılı Çorum, Çankırı İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 24/2, 335–350. Yıldırım, T. and Sipahi, T. 2009: 2007 Yılı Çorum ve Çankırı İlleri Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 26/3, 91–106. Yıldırım, T. and Sipahi, T. 2011: 2009 Yılı Çankırı Çorum Yüzey Araştırması, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 28, 39–53 Yılmaz, C. 2005: Kızılırmak Deltasında Meydana Gelen Erozyonun Coğrafi Analizi, in O. Tüysüz and M. K. Erturaç (eds), Turqua; Türkiye Kuvaterner Sempozyumu V., Istanbul, 227–234. Yılmaz, M. and Serinci, H. 2010: Çorum İli’ndeki Hitit Yerleşmelerinin Turizm Potansiyellerinin Değerlendirilmesi, in A. Süel (ed.) Acts of the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum August 25–31, 2008, 987–1006. Yılmaz, Ö. and Altıner, D. 2016: Sedimentological and paleontological approach for the provenance of Hittite stone wall blocks from Yenicekale Outcrop at Boğazköy, Turkey, in A. Schachner, Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen an Yenicekale in der südwestlichen Oberstadt von BoğazköyHattuša (2006–2008), in: A. Schachner and J. Seeher (eds), Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in der westlichen Oberstadt von Hattusa I, Bogazköy-Hattusa 24, 62–68 Yon, M. 1994: Minet el-Beida, RlA 8, 213–215. Yon, M. 2006: The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra, Winona Lake, Ind. Yoshida, D. 1992: Das AN.TAH.SUMSAR ‑Fest im Tempel der Sonnengottin, Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Centre in Japan 6, 121‑156. Yoshida, D. 1999: Hethitische Hieroglyphensiegel aus KamanKalehöyük, in H. I. H Prince Takahito Mikasa (ed.) Essays on Ancient Anatolia, Bulletin of the Middle East Culture Centre in Japan 11, Wiesbaden, 183–198.

Bibliography Yoshida, D. 2006 ‘Mittelhethitische’ Siegelfunde von KamanKalehöyük, Anatolian Archaeological Studies—KamanKalehöyük 15, 151–162. Yukich, S. T. 2013: Spatial dimensions of social complexity: environment, economy and settlement in the Jabbul plain 3000– 550 BC, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Near Eastern Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Zeeb, F. 1998: Die Ortsnamen und geographischen Bezeic­ hungen der Texte aus Alalaḫ VII, Ugaritforschungen 30, 830–886. Zeeb, F. 2001: Die Palastwirtschaft in Altsyrien nach den spätaltbabylonischen Getreidelieferlisten aus Alalah (Schicht VII), AOAT 282, Münster. Zeeb, F. 2004: The History of Alalakh as a Test Case for an Ultrashort Chronology of the Mid-Second Millennium B.C.E., in H. Hunger and R. Pruzsinszky (eds), Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited: Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000 (Vienna 8th–9th November 2002), Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 6, Vienna, 81–95. Zeist, W. van and Bakker-Heeres, J. A. H. 1975: Prehistoric and early historic plant husbandry in the Altınova Plain, southeastern Turkey, in M. N. van Loon (ed.), Korucutepe: Final Report on the Excavations of the Universities of Chicago,

387 California (Los Angeles) and Amsterdam in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anatolia 1968–70, Vol. 1, Amsterdam, Oxford, 221–257. Zeist, W. van and Bottema, S. 1991: Late Quarternary Vegetation of the Near East, Wiesbaden. Zeist, W. van and Woldring, H. 1980: Holocene vegetation and climate of northwestern Syria, Palaeohistoria 22, 111–125. Zeist, W. van, Timmers, R. W. and Bottema, S. 1968: Studies of modern and Holocene pollen precipitation in southeastern Turkey, Palaeohistoria 14, 19–39. Zeist, W. van, Woldring, H. and Stapert, D. 1975: Late Quaternary vegetation and climate of southwestern Turkey, Palaeohistoria 17, 55–143. Zeynep-Oruc, S. 2013: Harbor Settlement Patterns of the Second Millenium BC in Cilicia and the Amuq (Master Thesis Bilkent University Ankara 2013) accessible online (31.08.2016) at http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0006056.pdf. Zgusta, L. 1984: Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen, Heidelberg. Zimansky, P. E. 2007: The Lattimore model and Hatti’s Kaska frontier, in E. C. Stone (ed.), Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams Los Angeles, 157–172. Zohary, D. 1973: Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East, Stuttgart.

Index Modern Place-Names Abant 21, 76 Acemhöyük 61, 89, 89n, 98, 243, 243n, 312–15 Acıpayam 268 Adaköy 247n Adana 3, 91, 134–5, 137–40, 281, 281n, 283–84, 286, 293, 296–8 Adıyaman 148–153 Afşar 314, 314n Ağılönü 29, 32, 34, 36 Ağrı 212 Ahlat 66 Ahmet Can 40, 44n, 45n, 47, 49, 195 Akbelen 223, 230 Akbucak 182 Akçaköy (Yozgat) 4n, 5, 46, 50–51, 106, 108, 179–80, 182, 184–85, 185n, 187n, 190–91, 194, 196, 209–10 Akçiçek 192, 196 Akdoğan-Kaletepe 54 Akkar Plain 162, 165, 296, 303 Akkaya 231 Akmağdeni 196n Akören 188, 192 Akpınar (Manisa) 128 Akpınarhöyük 52, 52n, 109 Akşehir 90, 94, 314–15 Aktepe 209n Aktoprakhöyük 52, 52n Al-Aabde 303n Alaca 50, 52, 52n, 56, 180, 182, 187n, 188, 194, 196n, 200, 221 Alacahöyük 5, 46, 50–51, 54–55, 179, 183–6, 183n, 184n, 189, 192, 196, 203n, 221 Alaca üzeri 52, 52n Alaçam 226, 226n Alaeddin Tepe 243n Al-Ansariya 160, 162, 303 Alıcık 80n, 224n Alime Tepesi 53 Alişar(höyük) 2, 53, 57, 59, 181–82, 181n, 187n, 190, 192n, 196n, 210 Altınova 58, 62–64 Altıntaş 110n, 188 Altınyayla 41, 59, 60, 63, 67, 70 Amasya 51–52, 75, 77–78, 80, 80n, 82–83, 85, 182, 201, 201n, 203, 209n, 210, 210n, 211n, 211n2, 212n, 216–17, 216n, 223–4, 228n, 232 Ambarlıkaya 38 Amuq 19, 141, 148, 161, 162, 163, 165, 165n, 168, 287, 295, 298, 299n, 300 Anahşa Kalesi 242 Anamur 250n, 251 Ancoz 290 Arab al-Mulk 302 Araç 77, 81, 234n Arifegazili 41 Arlasun 242 Armasun 247 Arslantepe 60, 149–51, 213, 213n, 213n2, 288 Arsuz 136–37, 278n Astar Valley 232

Aşvan 148 Atköprü 78 Aydıncık 52–53, 56, 198, 203n, 210n Aynur Özfırat 58 Ayvalıpınar 53, 56, 80n, 205n Azaz 292, 298 Bab Al-Hawa 298 Babalı Höyük 191 Bacılı 195 Bademgediği 122, 123, 127, 129, 263 Bafra 76, 80n, 226–27, 226n Bağınardıhöyük 52 Bağlarbaşı 39 Bağlıca Köy 182 Bahçe 135, 284, 291–92, 298 Bakla Tepe 119, 129 Bâla 106n, 316, 316n Ballıkuyumcu 111, 111n, 257, 313 Baltasarılar 194n Baniyas 302 Barqum 305 Bayburt 58, 216 Baydiğin 51–52, 51n Bayındırhöyük 52, 52n Belen 135, 140, 298 Belkis 297 Belpınar 52, 188–9 Beqa 161, 162, 304–06 Beycesultan 119, 120, 125n, 127, 128 Beypazarı 234 Bitlis 66 Boğazköy/kale 1–5, 7, 18, 20, 23–24, 29–32, 37, 41, 44n, 46n, 47, 51–52, 54, 56, 59, 65–66, 77, 77n, 79, 81–86, 92, 97, 100, 101, 110, 115, 149, 179, 181–85, 187n, 190–97, 194n, 207, 212–13, 220, 231n, 236, 246, 292 Boğazlıyan 179, 181n Bolatcık 188, 192 Boloshöyük 53–54, 204, 209 Bor 91, 94, 243n Boyabat 76n 77, 79, 81, 182 Boyalı Höyük 46, 82n, 85 Boybat 228n, 229–30 Boybeypınarı 290 Bozdoğanhöyük 52–53, 52n Bozok Plateau 179 Bozyazı 251 Burunkaya 93n, 251 Buzhöyük 182 B. Hırka 52n, 185 Büklükale 5, 55, 106–07, 106n, 110–12, 114–15, 117, 228n, 231–32, 232n, 258, 314 Büyükkale 109, 109n Büyükkaya 37, 40, 42, 49, 77 Büyük Küllü Tepe 99 Büyük Nefesköy 46, 46n, 179–80, 183, 183n, 186, 193n, 194–95, 194n Büyüktepe Höyük 58 Can Hasan 90 Cihanbeyli plateau 90, 107, 314

389

index Çadırhöyük 182, 182n, 196–98, 196n Çakmak 248 Çalışhöyük 111, 257, 261 Çalköy 52, 52n Çamlıbel Pass 50, 53, 209, 211n Çamlıbel Tarlası 7, 39n Çamurlu 187n Çankırı 75–79, 82, 82n, 84–86, 107, 221, 233, 233n, 254n, 316 Çarşamba 1, 76, 89–90, 94, 98, 217, 243, 246n Çatalbaş 185, 191 Çatal Höyük 89–90 Chatal Höyük (Amuq) 166, 168 Çay 250n Çekerek 31, 50–53, 53n, 56, 83, 179, 181n, 187n, 198, 200–02, 201n, 205–07, 205n, 210n, 223, 224n Cemilbey 221–222 Çeçbel 41, 44–46, 49, 193 Çekerek 51, 52, 53, 53n, 56, 210n Çelebibağı 192 Çerkeş 77, 233–4 Çerkezhöyük 53, 53n Çeşme-Bağlararası 122, 124n, 128, 129 Çıradere 41, 43–44, 49 Çineköy 278 Çoğu 259n Çomaklı 98 Çorum 29–30, 32, 50, 50n, 52, 55, 75, 77–78, 82, 82n, 179–80, 187n, 197, 198n, 200, 221–4, 222n, 232, 233n Çöplühöyük 52, 52n Çumra 90, 93, 243n Cihanbeyli 90, 106, 111n, 314 Cihanpaşa (Yozgat) 4n, 5, 46, 50–51, 106, 108, 179–80, 182–5, 185n, 187n, 187n2, 190–91, 194, 196, 209–10, 210n Darende 214 Delihasan 41 Demircihöyük 52, 115, 119, 128 Denizli 120, 127, 267 Derbent (Köy) 41, 194n, 195 Dersim 212 Dinorna 244 Divle 242n Divriği 214, 214n Diyarbakir 213 Doǧantepe 53, 80n, 201n, 222 Dumanlı 82n, 234n Durağan 77, 230 Durdanoz 242 Durgut 259n Dündartepe 80, 85 Düziçi 283n Eber 90, 315 Eflani 82, 82n, 233 Eflatun Pınar 19, 93n, 247 Egypt 5, 17–19, 23–25, 100, 153, 159–60, 209, 221n, 295–96, 301n, 302–03, 305, 319, 321 Elazığ 58, 65, 148, 150, 210, 212, 212n, 212n2, 213n, 289 Elbistan 6, 134, 146–51, 153–155, 209–10, 214, 214n, 281–84, 289, 292n, 293–94, 296 Emirgazi 93n, 99, 241, 241n Emirler (Çorum) 44, 184, 192, 193, 197

Emirler Kale 44, 49 Erbaa 50n, 211, 211n Ergani 148, 215, 290 Ermenek 91, 93n, 95 Erzincan 106, 214n, 216–17, 217n, 288–89 Erzurum 32, 58, 216 Eskişehir 107, 111, 112, 115, 116 Eskiyapar 3n, 46, 50–57, 85, 179, 181n, 183, 185–86, 190, 192, 192n, 194, 196, 220 Evren 192 Fatmaören Höyüğü 82n, 85 Fevzipaşa 284 Fraktin 58–60, 70, 135, 283, 293 Garıplı 108 Gavurevleri 81, 232 Gavur Kalesi 1, 53, 106, 111–12, 115, 256 Gaziantep 151, 189n, 292n, 295–8 Gazipaşa 95, 185, 188–9 Gediksaray 53, 56, 80n Gene 244 Geven Gediği 65 Gezbel 60, 70, 282–83, 293–94 Gilindire 245, 250, 250n Gökdin Kale 62, 66–67 Gökören 52, 52n Gölbaşı 21, 148 Gölhisar 21, 108n Göllüce Mevkii 65 Gölören/Gölviran 241n Gölpınar 50, 55 Gömü 240 Göynücek 51–52, 203, 207, 211n Güdül 234 Güllü Höyük 108n Güllüoluk 195 Gülyayla 195 Gümüşhacıköy 77, 227 Gümüşhane 216 Güneşli 195 Halab/Aleppo 148, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 167, 169, 214n, 291, 293, 295, 296, 297–301, 299n, 304–06 Hama 160, 162, 164, 167, 169, 236, 242, 296, 304–05 Hamamlı 242 Hanözü/Ortaburun 53 Hanyeri 70, 135, 293 Harmandalı 110 Harput 212n, 215 Hasanbeyli 283 Hatıp 5n, 92, 102, 243n, 244, 244n, 246, 250, 251 Haydarkalesi 66 Havza 78, 80n, 83n, 224–25, 225 Hazar (Lake) 215 Hekimhan 214 Hıdırlı 81 Hışırhöyük 52, 52n Homs 161–62, 167, 296, 299n, 303–05 Horumhöyük 148 Höyük 53, 53n, 54, 222 Höyükdoruğu 81, 81n

390 Ilgın 93, 98–99, 260, 260n, 315 Izollu-Izoli 212n İğdir 53, 53n, 204n, 207n İkiztepe 76n, 78, 80, 80n, 140n, 226 İmamkulu 60, 70, 135, 293 İmamoğluhöyük 149, 150, 152 İmikuşağı 152 İnandıktepe 46, 78, 82, 84, 85 İneblolu 77 İskilip 182, 232 İsmil 248n İskenderun 134–40, 165, 278, 298 İslahiye 135, 292n, 295–98, 297n İvriz 19, 240n, 41n, 248n, 283 Jableh 302 Jisr as-Shugur 166, 301 Kadışehri 182 Kahvepınar 66 Kaicit Köy 184 Kale 53, 111n, 203n, 212n Kalecik 80n, 232–33 Kalecikkaya 184, 192 Kalkankaya 59–60, 62, 66 Kaman-Kalehöyük 22–23, 25, 77, 106–09, 109n, 112–14, 116, 118 Kangal 214 Karabel 5, 128, 262, 262, 270–71, 271, 321n Karaburun 108n Karabük 75, 82, 233–34 Karacadağ 90, 98–99, 99n, 241n, 248n Karaçomak 81 Karadağ 31, 50–51, 53, 90, 93n, 98, 180, 200–01, 201n, 202n, 202n2, 203n, 203n2, 206, 211n, 222–3, 251 Karahöyük (Cilicia) 140 Karahöyük (Elbistan) 150, 151, 210n, 289, 294 Karahöyük (Konya) 89, 98, 243n, 314 Karahöyük (Eskişehir) 112, 112n Karakaya 45–46, 49, 193 Karakeçili 39 Karakuyu 40, 63, 271, 271n Karamahmut 192 Karaman 89, 93–94, 99, 243n, 248–51, 249n, 249n2, 275, 283 Karaoğlan (Meander) 120 Karaoğlan (Ankara) 111 Karapınar 93, 99, 111n, 248, 248n Karaşehirhöyük 183n Karatepe 80n, 136, 137n, 138, 283n Karayünhöyük 53 Kargı 75–76, 225 Kastamonu 75–78, 76n, 80n, 81–83, 81n, 81n2, 85, 88, 224, 230n, 231–32, 231n, 236 Kavak 50n, 78, 80, 80n, 224–26, 228n Kayalı Boğaz 40–41, 43, 46, 49 Kayalıpınar 3n, 5, 58–62, 65–67, 72–73, 204, 206, 209, 211, 222n, 287n, 288, 288n Kaymakçı 121 Kazankaya 51, 53, 53n, 56, 201–03 Keban-Dam 58, 62, 65 Kelkit 31, 206n, 216–17 Kemah 290 Kemerhisar 95n, 98, 239

index Kepen 112, 314 Kesikkaya 38 Kesikköprü 109 Kilisetepe 20, 22, 90, 92, 94–96, 8, 100–02, 100n, 105, 140, 245 Killik 52, 82n, 185, 188–89, 192 Killik Mezraası 195 Kıcılı 192 Kinethöyük 100, 137–40, 140n, 141, 165, 169, 287 Kınık 76–77, 79, 82–84, 94–95, 97, 102, 232 Kıplanpınarhöyük 52, 52n Kırıkkale 50, 50n, 106–07, 110–11, 233 Kırkgeçit Dere 248 Kırşehir 106–12, 116, 187n, 190 Kızıldağ 93n, 110, 251, 273, 275 Kızıldere 285 Kızılhamzahöyük 52, 52n Kızılırmak 232 Kızıllı 52, 52n Kızkalesi 245 Kızlarkayası 38 Kocakoç 214n Kocamantepe 53, 56, 80n, 201n Konya 18–19, 22, 24, 89–94, 90n, 98–99, 101, 106–07, 110, 112–13, 135–36, 243, 243n, 243n2, 244n, 250, 275, 286, 288n, 314 Korucak 230 Korucutepe 22, 60, 62–65, 213 Kozlubucak 99 Köçekli Plateau 77, 232 Kökez 98 Körkün 135 Köylütolu 93, 93n, 99, 262, 262n Külhöyük 107, 111, 115, 256 Kurbanhöyük 152–53 Kuşaklı 5, 20, 21–22, 38–41, 58, 60–67, 71, 74, 77, 83–84, 97, 100–01, 110, 115, 182, 185, 196, 197, 211–12, 231, 292n Kuzören 111, 112 Küçük Hırka 52, 82n, 192n Küçükkale 109 Küçük Köhne 187n, 196n Küçüközlü 63 Külah 44, 184 Külahtepe 49 Külhöyük 106, 108n, 111–12, 115, 256 Ladik 21, 225 Lebanon 159–62, 169, 302–03, 305–06 Levant 5n, 9, 18–19, 23, 99–101, 141–42, 146, 148, 159–65, 167–69, 171, 173–75, 200, 303 Lidarhöyük 152, 198 Liman Tepe 119, 121, 122, 125, 128, 129 Maden 148, 215 Mahmutbeyli 44, 193 Malatya 60, 147–52, 154, 211, 211n, 212n 213–14, 213n, 214n, 243n, 281, 288–90, 288n Malkaya 109 Maltepe 79, 81n, 81n2, 82, 94–95, 110, 110n, 234n Maltepehöyük 241n Maraş 148, 284n, 292–93, 295–98 Maşat(höyük) 5, 28–30, 31, 50, 51, 52–56, 77, 77n, 79, 179, 198, 200, 201n, 201n2, 202–07, 209, 210, 211n, 221, 281, 293, 315, 316n, 319, 322, 323n

391

index Mecitözü 187n, 224n Mercantepehöyük 52, 188–189 Mercimektepehöyük 185 Mersin 77, 97, 101, 101n, 134, 136–37, 139–41, 140n, 242, 284 Merzifon 77–78, 194, 201, 222, 224, 224n, 228n, 232 Meskene 151, 152–53, 306 Mesopotamia 1, 17–19, 23–25, 44n, 55, 63, 91, 120, 153, 159–60, 165, 169, 209, 213, 217, 296, 306, 319 Meydancık 95, 245n, 251 Minet al-Beida 301, 301n Mızrak Mağarası 79, 81, 84, 232 Niğde 19, 91, 94, 98–99, 110, 240, 241n, 242, 243n, 251 Niksar 203n, 211, 211n? Norşuntepe 60, 63 Obruk plateau 90, 99 Okçular Kale 81, 88 Oluzhöyük 80, 80n, 82, 83 Onhorez Tepe 80n Ordu 216–17 Ortaköy 5–7, 8n, 28–36, 38, 50–56, 110, 179, 187n, 188, 190–91, 198, 200, 201n, 202–03, 202n, 202n2, 203n, 203n2, 203n3, 206–07, 220, 223, 234–36, 234n, 315, 322 Osmancık 223, 227 Osmankayası 39–40, 44 Ova Ören 107, 110, 113–114 Oylumhöyük 5, 150–53, 293 Oymaağaç 5, 46, 79–80, 79n, 80n, 82–83, 115, 179, 198, 220, 222, 225, 225n, 230n, 236 Örükkayahöyük 52 Pah 214n Palu 213, 213n Panaztepe 121, 129 Perçem 52, 190, 192, 192n, 195–96 Peyniryemez 182, 196 Pınarbaşı (Kastamonu) 81, 232 Pınarbaşı (Göksün) 214n, 296, 298 Pınarbaşı (Konya) 90 Pirothöyük 150 Porsuk 66, 89, 92, 95–97, 99–102, 100n, 105, 135, 242, 242n, 242n2 Porsuk 1 and 2 112, 112n Pozantı 91, 242, 283 Qalat al-Mudiq 167, 304 Ras Shamra 159, 160, 164, 169 Reşadiye 50–51, 53 Ru’ad 302 Rumkale 148 Sağlık 195 Sakça Gözü 292 Salman, Çorum 49 Salman Höyük 82n, 234 Salurhöyük 182, 182n, 187n Samsat(höyük) 148–49, 152, 154, 290, 293, 295, 297, 298 Saraç Köyü 65 Saraydüzü 230 Sarıbuǧday 222, 224n Sariçi Höyük 77

Sarıkale 38–39, 44–45 Sarıkaya 182 Savcılı Kışla 109 Selçuk-Ayasoluk 123, 127 Seyfe Kale 108 Side 250, 250n Silifke 89, 91, 94–95, 99, 101n, 134–35, 140, 244–45 Sinandı 241n, 248n Sinnelik 53, 53n Sinope 182 Sircali Höyük 98 Sirkeli Höyük 137–42, 140n, 169, 281n, 84–86 Sivas 5, 58, 61–62, 65, 77, 135, 87, 205, 209, 209n, 211, 214, 288–89 Siverek/Sivavorak 291 Sivritepe 226n Sofular Cave 23 Soğucak 52, 52n, 82n Sorgun 52, 179, 182, 187, 188–89, 191, 196, 196n Suluca-Karahöyük 108 Suludere 52, 190, 192, 192n, 195–96 Suluova 224 Sulutaş 98 Sungurlu 50n, 82n, 110n, 187n, 193n, 194 Soshöyük 58 Suratkaya 128–29, 271 Sur Tepesi 66 Susanhöyük 99 Şabanözü 234 Şaragahöyük 149, 151 Şarkışla 65 Şebin-Karahisar 216 Şemsiyetepe 152 Şereflikoçhisar 107, 110 Taanıkkaya 38 Tahirabat 82n, 184, 189, 190, 192 Tartus 303 Taşçı 60, 70, 283, 293 Taşköprü 77, 81n, 231–2 Taşköprü Yolu Höyük 81, 81n Taşlı Geçithöyük 297n Tatarlı Höyük 3, 137–39, 140–41, 210, 285–86, 285n Tefenni 264 Tekkeköy 80 Tell Acharneh Tell Afis 5, 159, 168–69, 174, 304 Tell Ahmar 148–50, 152–53, 301 Tell Al-Asharah 306 Tell Arqa 169, 303n Tell ʿAšarneh/ʿAcharneh 160, 166, 169, 304n, 305 Tell Atchana 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 298 Tell Aushariye 148–49, 152, 153 Tell Bazi 147, 150–54 Tell Bia 152, 296, 306 Tell Daruk 302 Tell el-Qitar 152–53, 306–07 Tell es-Sweyhat 151–53  Tell Faqous 306–07 Tell Fekheriye 291 Tell Fray 152–53, 307 Tell Hadidi 151–53 Tell Huera 303

392 Tell Judaidah 160, 166, 168 Tell Kazel 165, 303 Tell Mardi(k)h 19, 167, 304 Tell Mishrife 159, 160, 164, 167, 169, 305 Tell Munbaqa 147, 150–53, 152n, 306 Tell Nebi Mend 167, 305 Tell Qarqur 160, 163, 166, 169 Tell Rifa’at 148, 152 Tell Sakka 304, 304n Tell Siyannu 169, 302 Tell Sha’ir 150 Tell Shioukh Fawqani 150 152 Tell Tayinat 166, 168, 292, 292n, 299 Tell Tweini 21, 301 Tepecik 63, 80n, 81, 81n, 81n2, 119, 123–30, 125n, 132–33 Tepeköy 242 Tepelerarası 29, 32, 36 Thera/Santorini 17, 21, 124, 124n Til Beshar 148, 293 Tilkilitepe 44, 49 Tille Höyük 66, 149, 150 Tilmenhöyük 292, 297, 297n Titrişhöyük 152 Tokat 28, 50–52, 77, 203, 210–11, 210n, 211n Topaklı Höyük 108 Torbalı 271 Tosya 75–76, 232 Trabzon 216 Tripoli 303 Troy 77, 119–21, 123, 127–29 Tufanbeyli 281, 293–94 Tumbulhöyük 52, 189, 192 Tunceli 212–14, 214n 216 Turhal 50, 203, 203n, 204–05, 210, 210n Tutaş 188–89, 192 Ulukışla 241, 241n, 248, 248n, 283 Ulupınar Köy 249n Umm El-Marra 151, 154, 168 Uşaklı/Kuşaklı (Yozgat) 5, 185, 197 Uzuncaburç 244n Vezirköprü 46, 76, 225–26 Viranşehir 137 Yağrı/Yağcı 112, 112n, 258n Yalburt 5n, 93, 93n, 260, 262, 262n, 267, 267n, 269 Yaraşlı 111–12, 260 Yassıçal 201n, 223n Yassıhöyük (Gordion) 115, 314 Yassıhöyük (Kırşehir) 106–09, 112 Yassıhöyük (Tanır) 150 Yassıhöyük (Ova Ören) 110n, 114 Yassıhöyük (Yozgat) 5, 184–85, 185n, 191 Yaşçayır 110 Yatankavak Kayapınarhöyük 52 Yaylacık Tekke 52, 52n Yazılıkaya 39–42, 44, 46 Yazır 44–46, 49, 193 Yekbaz 46 Yenicekale 38, 43

index Yerkapı 38, 45, 47 Yerköy 181n, 183n, 185n Yollarbaşı 99 Yozgat 4, 5, 46, 50–51, 106, 108, 179–80, 182, 183n, 184–85, 185n, 187n, 187n2, 190–91, 194, 196, 209–10, 210n Yozgat Ceska Castle 185, 190 Yörüklü-Hüseyindede 46, 82, 84, 115 Yüksekyayla 52, 185, 190, 192, 192n, 195–96 Zank Höyük 108 Zeferiye 99 Zengibar Kalesi 249 Zeyve Höyük 89, 95–97, 105, 135, 242, 242n, 242n2, 283 Zidankuyu Höyük 53, 53n Zile 28, 50–51, 53–56, 56n, 180, 182, 200, 202, 203–05, 205n, 206n, 207, 211 Zincirli 283, 284n, 297 Zoldura 101 Modern Rivers and Waters Acıgöl 248 Afrin 148, 161, 167, 287, 287n, 293, 298 Akar Çayı/Akarçay 90, 91, 266 Akçay 225 Alaca Çay 51–52 Araç Çay 77, 234n Aştavul 51 Balih 296, 306 Bartın 76 Beygirsöğüdü-Deresi 44 Beyşehir Gölü 19, 89, 91–3, 243n, 246n, 247, 247n, 247n2, 249n, 250 Budaközü Çay 38–40, 43–44, 179, 190 Büyüköz 50 Büyük Menderes 123, 126 Ceyhan 18–19, 135–36, 138, 140, 281, 284n, 285n, 287, 292, 293, 297 Cide 76, 80n, 81 Çakit (Suyu) 91, 135, 242n, 286 Çaltı 214 Çarşamba 18, 76, 89–90, 94, 98, 217, 243, 246n Çekerek 50–3, 83, 179, 187n, 205, 205n, 206–07, 223 Çorum Çay 50, 221–22 Daday 75–76, 232 Deliceırmak/ Çay 46, 76, 106–7, 109, 181 Devrekani 76, 78, 81 Dicle/Tigris 18, 212, 296–7 Ecemiş Çay 283 Eflatun Pınar 19, 93n, 247 Eğri Öz Suyu 179, 197 Eğridir Gölü 89, 91, 246, 246n, 250, 250n Euphrates 18–9, 22–23, 25, 58–60, 67, 146–57, 211–14, 211n, 212n, 213n, 214n, 217, 281–94, 295–97, 299–302, 304, 306–07, 316, 318 Filyos 76, 78, 234n Gediz 119, 121 Gelingüllü dam 182n, 197

393

index Gerede 233 Ghab (marshes) 19, 304–05 Gökırmak/ Çay 76–77, 78, 82, 228–32, 236 Göksu 20, 89, 91, 94–95, 134–35, 246n, 249n Habur 306 Honar Çayı 50 İvriz 19, 283 Jabbul 300n Kahta Çay 148 Kanak Su 182n, 197 Karasu 76, 296, 297n, 298 Kelkit 206n, 217 Kılıçözü 106, 107, 109, 113 Kızılırmak 2, 5, 7, 18–19, 24–5, 46, 61–62, 66–67, 75–78, 82, 85–86, 106, 106n, 106n2, 108n, 109–14, 110n, 116–18, 180, 181n, 182, 187n, 194, 204, 211, 211n, 214, 216, 216n, 221, 223, 225–26, 228, 231, 232n, 233, 236, 253–54, 257–59, 263, 265, 288, 313–16 Kocadere 242n Kurbağa Gölü 241, 241n Kuruçay 214 Küçük Menderes 119, 123 Limonlu Çay 282 Meke Gölü 248 Menderes 95, 119, 123, 126 Murat Su 211–14 Nahr Al-Kabir 301, 303 Nar lake 19 Ova Çayı 107 Özderesi 36, 51 Porsuk 107, 107n, 112, 115, 236, 258, 266, 313, 314 Qoueiq 147, 148, 150, 161 Rumailiah River 21 Sakarya 22, 106–07, 111–12, 117, 234, 236, 253, 258, 258n, 266, 313–14 Sajur 151, 152, 154 Samsam Gölü 242n Seyhan 18–19, 135–37, 140, 281, 281n, 282–83, 286, 294 Soğanlı Çay 234n Suğla Gölü 90, 249–51 Sultan Sazlığı 241n Tatlı Çay 78 Tersakan 225 Tohma Su 214, 289 Tuz Gölü 7, 18–19, 89, 90–01, 93, 106–7, 110–11, 113, 116, 205n, 243, 243n, 253, 311, 313–15 Van (Lake) 90, 217

Yazır Deresi 37, 41, 46 Yenice 60, 76, 234n Yeşilırmak 18, 50–51, 75–76, 83, 179, 205–06, 216, 223 Zamantı Su 234, 283, 293–94 Modern Mountain Names Akçababçalı Dağ 210, 214 Akdağ (Range) 50, 53, 204, 206, 209, 224 Akdağ (Cilicia) 283 Ala Dağ 19, 94 Alan Dağı/Dağları 19, 31, 50–53, 202, 203, 206, 210n Amanus 19, 134–35, 139, 141–42, 160, 162, 281, 283, 285–87, 287n, 290–93, 292n, 295–97, 297n Anamas Dağı 246n Arisama Dağı 99, 99n, 241n Babalı Dağ 187n Banaz Çayı 266 Baran Dağı 109 Binboğa Dağları 148, 281, 293 Bolkar Dağı 19, 91, 94, 97, 242n, 282–83, 287n Bozdağları 128, 243 Buzluk Dağları 50–51, 53–54, 56, 200, 202, 204n, 205–07, 206n Çaltepe Dağı 182, 196 Çeçbel Pass 41, 44, 46, 193 Çiçek Dağı 106, 108, 179 Canık Dağları 179, 216 Dagni Dağı 50 Delidağ 210, 214 Eǧerli Daǧ 221 Elmalı Dağı 221 Emirdağ 91, 99, 112, 240n Erenler Dağları 90, 98, 246n Erciyes Dağı 19, 58, 58n, 60, 241n, 288n, 293 Fığla Tepesi 29, 31, 52 Giresun Dağları 216–17 Güneyk Dağı 248n Hamzasultan Tepesi 209 Hasan Dağı 19, 110, 241n, 242n Hezanlı Dağ 210 Ilgaz Dağları 7, 75–76, 78, 82, 179, 229, 231, 233 İbikçam 44–45, 45n, 193, 195 İtyelmez ridge 50 Jebel (Al-)Ansariyeh 19, 160, 162, 301 Jebel El-Aqra 287n, 299, 301 Jebel Semaan 299 Jebel Zawiyeh 160 Kale Dağı 283 Kalkanlı Dağlar 106, 108, 109 Karababa Dağı 209

394 Karaca Dağı 90, 98–99, 99n, 241n, 248n Karadağ (Amasya) 201, 211n Karadağ (Çorum) 31, 50–51, 53, 180, 200, 201n, 202n, 202n2, 203n, 203n2, 206, 222–23 Karadağ (Çumra) 90, 93n, 98, 251 Karanfil Dağı 283 Karayün ridge 50, 53–54, 56 Karatonus Dağı 59 Kartal Dağı 292, 292n, 293 Kerkenes Dağı 52, 179, 184, 187n, 191, 196–97, 197n Kırlar 50, 201n, 202n Kocakaya 44n, 49 Koroğlu 75, 7, 233–34 Korumkaya 41, 49 Köse Dağı 187n Kötü Dağ 241n Kumcaaiz 227 Kunduz Dağları 223 Küre Dağları 75, 77, 179, 231 Kurd Dagh, Kurt Dağ 160, 292, 292n, 293, 295, 298–99 Melendiz Dağı 89, 91, 93–94, 97–99, 110 Mercan Dağları 212 Misis Mountains 135, 136, 285 Munzur Dağları 212 Nöbeti Baba 44, 193 Nur Dağları 19, 292 Nurhak Dağları 214 Otogeçe Dağları 50 Sarıtaş Daǧı 222 Sivrihisar Dağları 107, 236 Sultan Dağları 90, 91, 98–99 Sündiken Dağları 107n, 236 Tahtalı Dağlar 135, 209–10, 293 Tavşan Daǧ 222–24, 233n, 236 Tecer Dağları 209n, 210 Uğurludağ 82n, 187n Place Names from Hittite Texts Ahhiyawa 2, 235, 262, 265, 267–69, 272–73, 275–79, 275n, 276n, 277n, 303 Ahuna 301, 306 Ala 259 Also Alalha 31, 296 Alana 247 Alasiya 31, 266, 276, 302, 319 Alha 213–14, 213n, 287, 296 Alkamaha 187 Allalla 251 Alluprata 250 Almina 232 Altana 229–31, 231n Amurru 254n, 277n, 296, 302–03, 305 Anamusta 242, 282–83, 283n Anasepa 241

index Anisa 240–41, 269n Ankataha 190 Ankuwa 2, 4, 31, 181–83, 181n, 182n, 185–86, 188, 197–98, 198n, 217, 288 Antaliya 187 Apina/Apa/Upi 305 Appala 259 Appawiya 269–70, 270n, 272 Arantanna 259 Arawanna 213, 233–34, 234n, 234n2, 256, 261, 287, 291 Ardu[kka(?)] 264–65, 265n, 274 Ari(m)matta 246–47, 247n, 247n2, 286 Aripsa 216–17, 217n, 288 Arlanduya 241, 248 Armatana 213, 287–88, 290–91 Arinna 3n, 5, 31, 46, 54–55, 179, 181n, 183–85, 183n, 183n2, 188–96, 192n, 198, 200, 221, 221n, 223, 257, 261, 274, 299n Arinnanda 123, 262, 269 Arullassa 241–42 Aruna 282 Arusna 285–86, 286n Arzawa 2, 5, 31, 89, 99, 123–24, 126, 129, 205, 234, 240n, 241, 243, 258–60, 258n, 262–76, 262n, 263n, 264n, 278, 278n, 314 Arziya 211n, 239 Astarpa 266, 269–70 Asula 241 Assuitsu(s)a 211–12 Assuwa 31, 235, 264–65, 265n, 272, 275 Assuwassa 257 Aštata 147, 149–54, 157, 296, 300–01, 306, 306n, 306n2 Ad/taniya 134, 137, 140, 251, 282, 286, 284 Atarawanna 256 Attarimma 31, 265–67, 269 Atriya 268, 268n Athulisa 231–32, 231n Adunuwa 242n Auna 265 Awarna 267–68 Awina 265 Ayaranna 233 Azzi 59, 62, 64, 66, 68, 209, 215–17, 215n, 215n2, 215n3, 216n, 244n, 288–89 Barga 304–05, 305n Daddassi 249 Dahasda 30 Dankusna 227 Dasa 249 Dudduska 253 Dukkama 217, 288 Dunta 265 Dupura 44 D/Turmitta 98, 201, 213, 221, 227–28, 228n, 231–33, 232n, 236–37, 243, 250n, 253–55, 254n, 254n2, 257, 259, 274, 287, 312, 315–17, 316n, 316n2 Durpina 282–83 Egara 284 Ekalte 147n, 151, 306 Ellipra 137, 250, 284 Erimma 242, 282–83

395

index Gasaya 187 Gurnuwala 258 Hahaliya 190 Hahha/Hahhu 296–98 Hahhana 227 Haisehla 225 Haitta 182, 184–85, 191 Hakkura 183–85, 184n, 188, 191, 193 Hakmis/Hakpis 31, 80n, 181n, 188, 201, 201n, 201n2, 211, 211n, 219–24, 228, 235–36, 253, 288 Halibutta/i 186–87, 190 Halila 253 Halimana 217 Hamsa 214, 214n Hanhana 31, 181n, 187, 190–91, 191n, 200, 219–24, 221n, 227n, 232, 236–37, 247, 254n, 257 Hanziwa 30–31, 201–03 Harasta 221n Hariyasa 254 Harpanda 222, 222n Happala 204n Hapalla 240, 240n, 262n, 264–66, 269–73, 278n Hapanuwa 275 Hapartuna 190 Hapatha 222–24 Happuriya 31, 265, 274 Harahara 256 Haraz(z)uwa 247–48 Harpisa 222 Harsuwanda 256 Hartana 256–57, 259 Harziuna 239–40, 257–60, 265 Hashahatta 226–28, 228n Hashasa 248 Haspina 235 Haspinuwa 235 Hassu/Hassuwa 214, 214n, 291–93, 296–98, 297n, 297n2, 298n, 299n Hassuwanta 248, 250 Hatenzuwa 223, 225–26, 228n, 253 Hatra 214, 264 Hattena 211, 219–20, 222–24, 222n, 228–29, 233n, 236–37, 253 Hadduhina 254 Ha/urhasuwanta 249 Ha/u(r)ranassa/i 31, 182, 184–85, 185n, 185n2, 188, 191, 197, 255 Hauttassa 247 Hauwaliya 249 Hawalkina 223, 223n Hawiliya 231 Hayasa 31, 58, 62, 64, 66, 68, 209–10, 215–17, 215n, 215n2, 215n3, 216n, 288–90 Hazka 213 Hazkalla 187 Hilaluha 227, 227n Hilikka 240n Hinariwanda 229 Hinduwa 267 Hinzuta 214–15 Hi(p)puriya 185–86, 185n Hisurla 183, 186, 186n, 188, 193 Hiyasna 186, 186n, 186n2, 195

Hulaniya 259 Hupiggassa 182, 186, 186n Hub/pe/isna 239–41, 240n, 241n, 241n2, 242n, 242n2, 244, 248, 248n, 250, 250n, 254–55, 282 Huhhura 250 Huhuli 256 Hullusiwanda 265, 274 Hu(n)tara 251, 252 Hurma 28, 65, 213–14, 214n, 255, 263–64, 287, 291, 294 Hurna 31, 223, 227, 229 Hurniya 239, 241, 243–44, 244n, 248, 250 Hursama 201, 223, 225, 225n, 227 Hursanassa 266–67, 269 Huddu 244 Hutpa 30–31 Huwalusa 274 Huwalusiya 264–65 Huwana-x 240 Huwarmassiya 260 Ikakali/Igingalliš 296–97 Ikkuwaniya 243n, 244, 244n, 244n2, 246, 246n, 250, 275 Ilaluha 227, 227n, 236 Illaya 239 Imralla 182, 186–187 Innuwita 239 Inzilitipa 227n Irriwa 242 Isaruissa 256 Ishupitta 30, 31, 203, 203n, 204n, 207, 210–11, 210n, 211n, 237 Iskamaha 31, 188, 202–03, 203n Ismirikka 291, 291n Istahara 188, 201n, 203, 219–24, 228–29, 233, 236 Istaharunuwa 222 Isdammutar 222 Istapanna 249 Ispuha 233–34 I/Astanuwa 258 Istuhila 184–85, 193 Išuwa 9, 19, 31, 58, 62, 64–65, 68, 209–10, 212, 212n, 213–15, 213n, 217, 287–91, 288n Iyalanda 260, 266–68, 268n, 274 Izziya 138, 140, 251n, 277, 287 Iwatallissa 229 Iyaruwatta 304 Ka/iskilussa 228–30, 228n Kalasma/Kalaspa 213, 232–34, 234n, 236, 256–57, 261, 287, 291 Kalasmitta 254 Kalimuna 222 Kalpassanahila 190n Kalzatapa 285n, 287 Kammala 234, 256, 274 Kammaliya 259 Kammama 30–31, 188, 201–03, 201n, 203n, 203n2, 205n, 206, 222–23, 223n, 223n2, 227, 229 Ka(n)tisissa 225–26 Kane/iš 2, 5–6, 18, 53, 59–60, 120, 182, 195, 226, 240, 241n, 243, 258, 288, 296, 311, 315–16, 318 Kaparuwa 250 Kapatta 227

396 Kapiruha 227 Kappuwa 233–234 Kapusku 227n Karkamiš/Carchemish 25, 146–49, 146n, 151–54, 153n, 157–58, 246n, 269, 282n, 288–89, 288n, 291, 291n, 295–97, 299–302, 300n, 301n, 304, 306–07, 306n, 306n2 Karkisa 265–66, 272–75, 278n Karkiya 274–75 Karkarna 251 Kartapaha 186–87, 187n Kasduha 224 Kastama 188, 221n, 222, 224–25, 224n, 225n, 225n2, 227 Kassiya 31, 231, 234–37, 234n, 254, 256–57, 274 Kasula 31, 232, 252 Katapa 31, 52n, 183–85, 185n, 187–93, 187n, 187n2, 188n, 191n, 195, 197, 201n, 203, 237 Katti/ela 109n, 259 Kaumar 227n Kinnara 256 Kinza 167 Kissiya 232, 243 Kistama 227 Kizzuwatna 3, 8, 19, 31, 59–60, 134–45, 210, 232, 240, 242, 244, 247n, 250, 250n, 258, 264n, 265, 281–94 Kiziwar 227n Kulilla 189 Kuluppa 227, 227n Kummaha 31, 215, 281, 289–90 Kummani 134, 138, 245n, 281, 283–87, 281n, 286n, 287n Kunzinasa 247–48 Kurup(p)i(ya) 264–65, 275 Kursawanta 247 Kurtalissa 213, 287 Kurtannassa 241–42 Kurustama 221, 221n, 221n2 Kussar(a) 59, 62, 235–36, 235n, 313, 316 Kutpina 242 Kuwalapassa 267–68 Kuwaliya 31, 129, 266, 269–71 Lahtarahura 187 La(hu)(wa)zantiya 3, 134, 138, 210, 210n, 264, 281, 283–85, 285n, 285n2, 285n3, 287, 287n, 293 Lalanda 31, 240, 240n, 260 Lalatta 244 Lalha 233–34 Lallupiya 258 Lamiya 134, 264n, 282 Lanizidasa 254 Landa 242n, 243, 243n, 254 Lazpa 272–74, 277 Lihzina 226, 228, 228n Lissina 254 Luhma 251–52, 252n Lukka 2, 21, 31, 89, 129, 180, 201, 203, 240, 246n, 250n, 251, 259–61, 265–69, 265n, 273–76, 278, 278n Lusa 264–65, 275 Lusna 242n, 243, 244n, 250, 250n, 255 Luwana 282–83 Luwiya 232, 242, 262–63, 263n Mahuirasa 260, 262n Makkuwaliya 188, 203

index Malazziya 30–31, 204–06, 205n Mallid/taskuriya 190, 193, 193n, 243, 254, 256–57, 259 Malitiya 209, 212–14, 217 Manzana 214 Mari/esta/uha 187, 237 Masa 31, 234, 246n, 251, 256, 265, 270, 272–75, 278n Massiya 260 Mata 249 Mazuwati 301 Matilla 183–84, 189, 189n Millawanda/Milawata 2, 124, 262, 268–69, 271n, 272–73, 276–77, 276n, 277, 279 Mira 5, 126, 129, 259–61, 262n, 265–66, 269–75, 270n, 277, 278n, 321n Misturha 226–28 Mida 186, 190, 193, 213, 214n Mila 248 Mira 5, 126, 129, 259–61, 262n, 265–66, 269–72, 270n, 274–75, 277, 278n, 321n Mukiš 31, 148, 244, 287n, 298, 299, 301–02, 302n, 304 Murmurik/ga 288, 288n, 301, 301n Musnahi 241 Mutamutassa 244, 266–67, 268n Nahhanta 247 Nahhuriya 240 Nahita 94, 99, 240, 240n, 250n, 251, 251n Nerik 5, 46, 82–83, 179, 187n, 188, 191n, 196, 198, 201, 216n, 219–28, 230, 230n, 236, 316, 320, 321n Ninainta 241, 241n, 248 Ne/inassa 232, 232n, 242n, 243, 243n, 250, 253–55, 314–16, 314n Ninniwa 256 Nirhanta 190, 190n Niya 160, 167, 296, 298, 302–05, 304n Nuhašše 160, 96, 98, 298n, 300, 302, 304–05 Pahahanta 241n Pah(ha)tima 243, 257 Pahhisalma 243 Pahhuwa 213–15, 214, 214n, 214n2, 288n, 290–91 Pala 219, 228–29, 231–37, 253, 256 Palmata 248 Palunta 265–66 Papahhi 290 Paparzina 265 Paraiyassa 249 Parha 98, 246, 249, 262, 267, 278 Parhanda 241 Parminassa 241, 241n Parminiya 241n Parsa 190, 239n Parsananhila 186–87, 190, 190n, 190n2, 196n Parsananziya 190 Parsuhalta 265, 265n Parsuhanda/-hunta 6, 98, 239, 241, 241n, 242n, 243, 244n, 265, 265n, 312 Partahuina 251–52 Partanta 244, 252n Partiya 252 Patara 267 Pard/tuwata 235, 259–60 Pasuhalta 265 Paduwanda 242, 250, 283

397

index Pikainarisa 226 Piggaya 276 Pinali(ya) 267–68 Pitalahsi 222 Pe/id/tassa 31, 244, 246–47, 251, 259, 262n, 264n, 266, 269–70 Pitiyarig/k(a) 62, 67, 211n, 214 Pittaniyasa 254 Pittapara 229 Pitura 282 Puranda 123, 262, 266, 269 Purushanda 239n, 242–43, 243n, 247n, 254, 257, 286

Sulupasi 211–12 Sulupassi 30–31, 211, 211n, 211n2 Sulupassiya 187 Suppiluliya 30, 53, 201–02, 201n, 202n, 204 Sura 248 Surimma 249, 250n Surud/ta 266–67, 269 Suttasna 247–48 Suwanzana 239–41 Šipru 301, 301n Šurun 301, 301n

Qadeš 64, 167, 167n, 273, 275, 295–96, 302–06, 305n Qaduma 299, 301 Qaṭna 5, 159–60, 164, 167–69, 174, 296, 304–05, 305n

Tahanturiya 190 Tahanziya 190, 201 Taharamma 256 Tahaya 186, 190, 190n, 196n Tahurpa 3, 3n, 46, 55, 179, 181n, 183–84, 185n, 186, 186n, 188–95, 200, 220 Takalmuha 221–22 Takkasta/Taggasta 31, 188, 204n, 206, 227 Takkimis 227 Takupsa 227 Takupta 223, 223n Tagurka 221 Talawa 266–68 Talipziya 187 Talpa 288 Tamettaya 254 Tammiya 187 Tanistaha 186 Tanizila 227, 227n Tarriyahatana 242 Ta/emelha 192–93, 192n, 193n Tamina 246n, 275 Tapapahsuwa 225 Tapapanuwa 253 Tapapanuua 31 Taparla 241 Tapasawa 227 Tapasawatta 241 Tappašpa 222, 224 Tapigga/Tapikka 5, 28–31, 56, 179, 188, 188n, 198, 200, 203–07, 207n, 210, 221, 254, 293, 316, 316n, 322 Tappilussa 225 Taptena 225, 227 Tarâpa 249 Tarhuntassa 41, 89, 89n, 92–93, 95, 98, 102, 106, 239–52, 260, 264n, 267, 276–77, 282–83, 286 Tarittara 228–30, 233 Tarkuma 226 Tarmazziya 251 Taruisa 264 Tarukka 31, 227–30, 227n, 236 Tašhiniya 296–97 Tasli 44 Tasmaha 31, 188, 227 Taspina 227n Tasta 187 Tastarissa 225–27, 225n Tasummiya 187 Tata 30–31 Tatta 249 Tatasuna 183–85, 188, 191, 193–94, 193n

Sahhaniya 239 Sahhu(wa)liya 260 Sahhuwiya 239, 243, 257 Sahumisa 30 Sahuzzimissa 201 Sakkura 187 Salampa 187 Salatiwara 6, 112n, 115n, 235, 235n, 256, 258, 313–14 Saliya 242, 242n, 248, 249n, 282–83 Sallapa 31, 111–12, 240, 258–60, 268–70 Sallawassa 249 Sallunatasses 241 Sallusa 249, 250 Salpa 260 Sammaha 234 Samuha 3, 5, 58, 61–62, 65–67, 72–73, 204, 206, 209, 211, 211n, 211n2, 214, 288–90, 316 Sanahuitta 31, 181n, 188, 210–11, 226 Sanantarwa 246 Sanapra 242 Sanhad/ta 249, 250n Sanhara 31 Sannukida 187 Santasara 190 Santimma 247–48 Sapantalliya 30–31 Sapinuwa 5, 8n, 28, 303, 38, 50–51, 50n, 56, 179, 187–88, 187n, 190, 193, 196, 196n, 198, 200–03, 201n, 201n2, 206–07, 220, 223, 223n, 230, 322, 322n Sapitt/dduwa 228–31, 230n, 231n, 233 Sappa 234, 236–37, 256 Sapparanda 240 Sarahattu 226 Saranduwa 249, 249n, 250n Sarissa 5, 9, 20–21, 38–39, 41, 58–67, 71, 74, 77, 77n, 83–84, 100–01, 110, 114, 231 211–12 Sarma(n)na 251 Sarnanta 249 Serigga 282–83 Serissa 211, 227 Simuwanta 248 Sinuwanda 241, 247, 285–86 Sipidduwa 227 Sisura 259 Siyannu 244n, 296, 302–03, 302n, 302n2, 302n3 Suhuriya 201 Sukziya 243, 264

398 Tatimma 226–27, 226n, 226n2 Tatimuwa 225–27 Tatiska 194, 194n Tawiniya 4, 46, 46n, 179, 183, 186, 186n, 188, 194–95, 194n, 194n2, 221, 232, 254n, 258 Tedumna 241 Tegarama 213–14, 213n, 287–89, 288n, 288n2, 288n3, 288n4, 291 Tenizidasa 254 Tepurziya 213, 290–91 Terqa 301, 306, 306n Tikukuwa 229 Tilipzia 187 Tiliura 228, 236, 236n Timana 213 Timiya 215 Timmuhala 187 Tippuwa 44, 44n, 45n, 46, 46n, 49, 188, 190–91 195–6, 195n, 195n2 Tittipuwanda 233 Tiwaliya 190 Tiwalwalliya 259 Tiwara 31, 190 Tuba 151, 300n Tuhasiya 187 Tuha/i/usi/na 196, 196n, 196n2 Tuhpilisa 233n Tuhupurpuna 232 Tukastuwa 192 Tulma 187 Tummana 204, 219, 227–37, 253, 256 Tummanda 265, 265n Tunip 160, 165n, 166–67, 296–98, 298n, 303–05, 304n, 305n Tunna 96, 242, 242n, 248 Tunteraha 227n Tupisa 249 Tupizalma 187 Tuppazziya 10, 210, 240, 241n Turutna 282–83 Tuwanuwa 95n, 98–99, 239–42, 239n, 240n, 242n, 243n, 248, 250, 254–55, 262n, 269 Uda 239–41, 239n, 241n, 241n2, 288, 288n Udanna 285n Ugarit 5, 23, 31, 159–60, 164–65, 168–69, 175, 244–45, 244n, 251, 278, 284, 296, 298–304, 306–07 Ugulzat 304, 304n Uksu 244 Ullam(m)a 243n, 250n, 255, 264 Ura 99, 134, 134n, 140, 216, 216n, 216n2, 240, 244–45, 244n, 244n2, 245n, 249–52, 249n, 252n, 302, 302n Uratta 254 Uršu/Waršuwa 214n, 296–97, 297n, 297n2, 299–300 Usawala 249n, 250 Ussa 235, 239, 242–44, 242n, 243n, 247, 286 Ussanda 251 Ussuha 265 Utima 268, 268n Utruna 224 Uwalma 232, 243, 243n, 255, 315–16 Wala 250 Walama 250n

index Walhuwassantiya 233 Walippa 250 Waliwanda 260, 267–68, 268n Walma 246, 249n, 250, 250n, 250n2, 250n3, 255, 260, 269–70 Walwara 249, 249n, 250n, 250n2 Waniba 190 Wanna(n)da 251 Wanzataruwa 247–48 Warkatawi 195 Warsiyalla 265, 273–75 Washaya 227, 229–30, 236, 259 Wassukkana 291 Wastis(s)a 190, 193 Wasuduwanda 239 Wattarwa 235 Wattanna 250 Wilusa/Wilusiya 2, 5, 129, 262, 263n, 264–65, 268, 270–75, 277, 278n, 278n2 Wisaspura 256 Wiyanawanda 246n, 267, 270, 275 Wiyandanna 249 Yaninna 244 Yasanda 241, 242 Zallara 31, 240, 242n, 244–45, 245n, 249n, 250, 254, 259 Zallawassi 80n, 249 Zalpa (north) 219, 225–28, 226n, 226n2 Zalpa (Syrian) 296–97, 296n, 297n, 297n2, 297n3 Zalwar/Zalpa(r)/Zalbar 287n, 292, 297, 297, 297n2 Zalpuwa 219, 224–28, 227n, 228n, 228n2, 230–31, 236, 296, 296n Za/inneshapa 224, 225n Zanduza 259 Zapishuna 188, 204–05, 205n Zarata 247 Zarniya 246 Zarnusa(ssa) 283 Zaruna 31, 291–93, 296–98 Zarwisa 239, 244, 244n, 248, 283 Zatarziya 256–57 Zazisa 212–13, 212n Zazza 256 Zihhana 227, 227n, 229, 236 Ziharziya 31 Zihnuwa 226–29, 227n, 236 Zigaballa 227 Ziggaratta 230 Zikkasta 205, 281, 293 Zikmar 188, 222–23 Zilpitta 187 Zinziluwa 242, 282–83 Zippalanda 4, 5, 46, 65, 182, 184–88, 190, 193, 93n, 195–98 Zippasna 296 Zid/taparha 233–34, 234n Zithara 31, 193, 200, 200n, 221–22, 221n Ziulila 233–35, 256 Zuhma 212–14 Zulapa 304, 304n Zuluza 227n Zunnahara 138, 140, 247n, 284, 286

399

index Hittite Mountain Names Ammana 285 Ammarik 297n, 299, 299n, 301 Ammuna 240 Arlanta 247–48 Asharpaya 233–34, 233n At/dalur 291–93, 292n, 297–98, 297n, 297n2 D/Taha 182, 187, 190, 196–97, 196n, 196n2, 197n Dunniyari 287n Haharwa 31, 223–34, 227, 234n, 236 Halanu/Halunuwa 190 Haluna 31, 207 Haliwa 213 Halwanna 207 Hana 244, 244n Harana 185n, 190, 201, 213 Harki 241n Hattanna 249, 250n, 251 Hawa 246, 246n Hazalmuna 31, 190, 201 Hazzi 287n, 301 Hutnuwanta 239n Huwalanuwanda 235, 239n Huwatnuwanda 235–36, 239, 242–44 Illuriya 229 Iyalanda 260, 266–68, 274 Iyaliya 259 Iyawanda 274 Karna 213 Kassu 229–31, 231n, 231n2 Kuwa(kuwa)liyatta 243, 247–48, 248n Labasunawa 190 Lula 241, 241n, 241n2, 242n, 248, 248n, 283, 286 Manuzziya 287n Marsuwa 190, 201 Muliyanta 287n Nanni/Namni 287n, 301 Niblani 306 Parashunta 235, 239 Pirpira 233n, 235 Piskurunuwa 31, 182, 184–85, 190–91, 191n Sarissa 59 Sarlaimmi 244, 248, 283 Sarmana 251 Sarpa 99, 99n, 241, 241 Sarwa 31, 190, 201 Sithana 182 Šariyani 306 Tapala 45, 193, 193n Tehsina 223

Zabarasna/Saparassana 242, 282–83, 282n Zaliyanu 224 Zallurbi 287n Zara 205, 287 Zippasla 266, 276 Ziwana 256 Zukuka 231n Hittite River and Water Names Alda 287, 287n Dahara 228–29, 231, 231n Hula(n)na River (Land) 31, 219, 234–37, 235n, 235n2, 256, 274, 313–14 Hulaya River (Land) 235, 239, 239n, 241–43, 246–50, 241n, 244n, 246n, 248n, 264n Kastaraya 98, 246, 249–50 Maliya 258 Marassanta/iya 2, 9, 46, 59, 61–62, 66–67, 76, 223, 225, 229–30, 253, 255, 274 Puran(a) 287, 292, 297–98 Sa/ehiriya 111, 235–36, 258, 269 Seha 5, 262n, 265–66, 268–70, 270n, 272–75, 272n, 277, 278n, 278n2 Samri 135, 282–83, 294 Sariya 205, 223, 229–30, 232, 236 Siyanta 266, 270 Šuppitaššu 21, 65 Tarmana 287, 287n Zuliya 3, 51, 83, 187n, 201, 201n, 206–07, 314, 314n Toponyms from Other ANE Texts Abarnani 283 ʾadnyh 284 Alalah 135, 281n, 295–302, 304 Alaya 290 Aliašša 314n Alimus 292 Alzi/Alši/Alše 215, 215n, 290, 291 Amadani 290 Arpad 148, 152 Arwad 302–03 Arzenia (river) 215n Assur/Aššur 215n, 283n, 284, 307, 312 Atuna 242 Babylon(ia) 298–99 303, 307 Bit-Zamani 215n Dardaniya 273 Dnnym 283 Durhumit 6, 98n, 232, 312–18, 313n, 316n

400 Ebla 19, 23, 162, 164, 167–68, 296, 304, 304n, 306n Emar 5, 147–48, 150–54, 295–96, 299–300, 302, 306–07, 306n, 306n2, 306n3, 306n4 Enzata 215 Enzite/Enzi 215, 215n, 215n2 Gibala 21, 301 Hahhu(m) 293, 296–97 Hanaknak 205, 316, 316n Hanigalbat 147n, 295, 300–01 Harbe 303n Hazazu 292, 292n, 292n2 Hilakku 284n, 289 Hiliki 289 Hirika 284n Hiyawa 134, 137, 278, 278n, 286n Hur(r)ama 6, 294, 316 Illubru 250, 284 Ingira 137, 284 Kammanu 289 Kaneš 2, 5, 6, 18, 53, 59–60, 182, 195, 226, 240, 241n, 241n2, 243, 258, 288, 296, 311, 315–16, 318 Kar-Shalmaneser 301 Kašiyari (Mt) 290 Katpatuka 239n Kimuhi 289 Kisuatni 134, 138, 283 Kuburnat 192, 202n, 204, 204n, 316 Kudupa 244–45 Kummuh/Kummuhi 148–49, 289–90, 290n Kunuluwa/Kinaliya 292, 292n, 299 Luhuzattiya 6, 281, 293, 316 Lukarma 289 lwsnd 284 Lusanda 138, 283 Lutibu 292, 292n

index Saluria 215 Saluara 297n Samal/Sam’al 297 Siyannu 244n, 296, 302–03, 302n, 302n2, 302n3 snġr 284n Suhme 212, 215n Suhu 307 Ṣumur 165, 303, 303n Šubari 290 Tanaya 278, 278n Tapakkaš 316n Tarhunaradu 277 Ta/iritar 230, 230n Tarzu 137, 284 Tepurzi 290 Tigunanu 296–97, 296n Til-Barsip 301 Til-garimmu 213n, 289, 289n Timelkiya 316 Tubezi 241n Tuttul 152, 296, 306 Ulama 243, 314–15 ʾunġ 284n Unqi 299 Usnu/Usnatu 302, 302n Wahšušana 111n, 232n, 257–58, 313–14, 313n, 314n, 316n Yamhad 159–60, 164, 298–300, 299n Zimišhuna 205, 316 Zu(wa)maka 289 Classical Place-Names

Maḫadu 301 Mamma 292, 297n Mari 296–97, 297n, 297n2, 299 Masuwari 148–49, 152, 301 Merhisa (Mt) 215 mlwm 140, 284n

Alabanda 267–68, 268n Alinda 267–68 Amesia 180 Anchiale 137 Arca(s) 214 Argaios 58, 242n Armataza 247n Armenia 215–16 Arnña (Lycian) 267 Augusta 286

Nahitiya 94, 240n Namdanu (Mt) 215n Nihani 290 Ninašša 314–16, 314n

Bidana 249 Bithynia 219 Blaene 228, 232 Byblos 18, 303

Pahri 138, 138n, 283n, 284 Patin(a) 299 Pirindu 244 PITHOS.GRYLLUS 289 Pitru 149, 152 POCULUM.PES.L.67 210n, 289 Purushatum/Purušhaddum 6, 98n, 239n, 242n, 312–17

Caena 242n Calycadnos (river) 244, 246, 251, 282 Camacha 290 Cana 244, 244n Cappadocia 19, 21–22, 24–25, 58–59, 67, 69, 91, 95, 106, 79, 196, 235, 239n, 281, 283–84, 293 Caria 267–68, 275, 278n Casius 287n, 301 Celenderis 245, 249, 249n, 250n, 250n2

Qaue/Que 134, 137, 283, 283n, 284n, 286n

401

index Cilicia 3, 8, 91, 95, 100–01, 134–43, 145, 162, 165, 234, 242n, 244n, 250–51, 262n, 263, 265, 277–78, 282–83, 283n, 284n, 286–87, 287n, 289, 292–94, 292n, 302 Cilician Gates 19, 89, 91–92, 91n, 97, 99, 135, 142, 241–43, 241n, 242n, 247n, 248, 281–83, 286, 296 Commagene 289–90 Comana 3, 281, 293 Corne 244 Corycus 245, 249n Cotenna 249, 251 Cybistra 241n, 244, 248 Cyprus 18, 23, 100, 100n, 141, 165, 19, 276, 302

Lystra 243, 244n

*Dakopa 223n Dalisandos 251 Domanitis 228, 231 Dona 242n Dorylaeum 112

Oinoanda 267 Oenoandos/Epihaneia 136, 140n, 286 Olba 137, 244n Orontes 5, 19, 135, 148, 159, 160, 159–67, 169, 292, 295–299, 299n Ouasada 251

Eleutheros 303 Ephesos 123, 262, 269, 270 Eretna 216

Padyandos 242 Pagrum 138n, 283n Paltos 302 Pamphylia 250, 250n, 278 Paphlagonia 4, 7, 80n, 82, 82n, 219, 234n, 252, 316 Peloponnese 278 Perge 95, 97–98, 246, 262, 267, 278 Pessinus 112 Phokaia 270, 278n Phrygia 24, 91, 250n, 265–66, 278n, 278n2 Pinara 267 Pisidia 98, 249n, 250, 250n, 266, 278n Pitnissos 254n Podandus 242 Pont(h)us 219, 311 Pontus Euxinus 219

Galatia 107, 219 Gaziura 204, 216, 216n Gordion 20–23, 107, 111–12, 112n, 115–16, 115n, 258, 258n, 314 Holmoi 250n Hyde 239n, 241, 241n, 288n Hyllarima 268n Hyria 134n, 244 Hytenna 250, 250n Iasos 123, 124n, 126–129 Iconium/Ikonion 244, 244n, 275 Idrias 268n Ilios 129, 273n, 278n Isamos 242n Isaura 249, 249n Isauria 251 Issos 277, 287 Kadena 242n Kandyba 267 Kastabala 285, 285n Kelenderis 95 Kindya 267 Kourdonos 242 Lalandos 240n Laodicea 260n Laskoria 193 Lasonia 250 Latmos (Mt) 128–29, 268, 271 Liparis (river) 285 Loandos 285 Loulon 241, 241n, 241n2, 283, 286 Lycandos 293 Lycaonia 240, 244, 50, 263, 265–66 Lycia 250, 266–69, 278n Lydia 250, 270, 272 Lycaonia 240, 244, 250, 23, 265–66

Melas 250 Melitene 214, 243n Miletos/Miletus 123–24, 124n, 127–29, 262, 268–69, 278n, 279 Milyas 268–69 Misis/Mopsuestia 136–140, 283n, 284 Mycenae 278, 278n Mylasa 268n Mysia 250, 278n Nagidos 250, 251n

Rhodes 278, 278n Salarama 245 Saros 135, 282 Seleucia 134n, 244 Selinus 95 Selma/Selmea 111, 260n Sillyon/Selywon 249 Sipylos 128 Smyrna 270 Soli/Pompeiopolis 137, 284 Tarsus 100–01, 101n, 134–42, 284 Tavium 1, 46, 179–80, 183n, 186, 194, 194n, 206n, 242n Thebes 18, 278, 278n Tlos 266–68 Tmolos 128 Tonosa 59, 67 Tyana 95n, 98–99, 239n, 240n, 243n, 269 Tyanitis 239–40, 239n, 240n, 241n, 242n Tymandos 265n Tynna 97, 242, 242n, 242n2 Verisa 209n *Warkina 223n

402

index

Xanthos 267, 278

NA4

Zela 54, 180, 202, 206n Zeugma 297

ṢĀRIPŪTU 272

Classical River-Names Amnias 76 Arsania 212 Calycadnus 244, 246n, 251, 252 Caicos 272, 278n, 278n2 Cestrus/Kestros 98, 246, 249, 267 Halys 2, 19, 59, 61, 242n Hermos 119, 270, 272, 278n, 278n2 Iris 206, 216 Kydnos 135 Meander 119–120, 266, 268, 272, 273, 278 Parthenius 252 Pyramos 135, 138, 285n, 287, 292–93 Sangarius 258 Saros 135, 282 Sindros 266 Other Place-Names Haykh 215 Hattic Words ur-, uri-, ari- 183, 287 Hittite Words and Logograms A.AB.BA 216–17, 288 ala- 273 AN.TAH.ŠUMSAR 45, 180, 182–86, 188–89, 191, 191n, 193–95, 198 aškuwamma 186–87 hadauri 186 hantezzis auris 281n, 293 NA4 hekur 216 hisuwa 257 gazziduri 184 GIGIR 180–81, 189, 191, 321 gursawa 276n, 277 GlS

GIŠ

kulawani- 273 D KASKAL.KUR 246–48, 283 KI.LAM 180, 181n, 187, 197, 197n, 227n, 255 KUR AN.TA / KUR ELITI 58 KUŠ kurša 183, 185–86, 187, 194–95 lukkattima 180, 201, 203 luli-, luliya- 183

peruna 217

General Index Animal husbandry 20, 42, 147, 179, 181, 219 aphaeresis 278 Araxes Culture 64 barley 18, 20, 25, 42, 64, 135n, 148 Beyşehir Occupation 21, 24, 76, 92, 95 bridge 66, 67, 137, 186n, 197, 206, 212n, 258, 286, 312, 313, 314, 319 bronze 65, 66, 77, 81, 84, 91, 121, 127, 129, 166, 204, 209, 210, 215n bulgur 20 casemate wall 63n, 65–66, 83, 97, 114, 137 cattle 20, 25, 64, 90, 147, 181n, 223, 229, 235, 321 Celâli uprising 24 centurationes 63 climate 1, 17, 22–25, 31, 51, 60, 63–64, 76–77, 82, 90, 147–48, 10–61, 188, 209, 295 chariot 28, 60, 66–67, 78, 96, 180–81, 180n, 189, 191, 215n, 229, 237, 240, 248, 275, 277, 299, 320–21 copper 18, 19, 25, 43, 51, 77, 106, 116, 148, 165, 226, 230, 230n, 232, 313–316 crossing (river) 67, 82, 106, 109, 111, 113, 114, 148, 149, 152, 153, 211, 258, 282, 292, 293, 300, 313, 316 dam (ancient) 51, 55, 63, 93, 99, 153 darnel 20 dendrochronology 17, 23, 66, 84, 96–97, 150 dodder 20 drought 20, 22–25, 64, 92, 295 düden 247 earthquake 19, 61–62, 65, 75, 121–22, 136 einkorn 20, 64 emmer 20, 64 fault 19, 27, 50, 50n, 75–76, 90, 106–07, 135, 135n, 160 ferry 313–316 ford 66, 223, 230, 316n, 319 goat 19–20, 25, 64, 90, 130, 147, 161 Hišuwa festival 257, 284–85, 287 Horse 20, 61, 66, 130, 181, 184n, 302, 323, 323n ḫuwasi 41, 65, 67, 186n, 197, 247 juniper 19, 21, 51, 90, 292 Kamares ware 123, 126 katabothron 247 Lentil 64 Luwian 7n, 83, 102, 129, 34, 137, 142, 210n, 240n, 240n2, 242n, 246–47, 252, 258, 262–63, 262n, 263n, 273–74, 278, 278n, 282, 289, 291, 321 midden 20 Minoan 18, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128

403

index Minyan ware 121–122 Myceneaean 4, 67, 77n, 81n, 120, 121–25, 127–130, 263, 269, 273, 275, 278, 303 nuntarriyashas festival 180, 183–87, 189–91, 191n, 192n, 193–95, 195n, 197–98, 54, 322n oak 19, 21–22, 51, 90, 148, 160 Œcumene 20 olive 1, 82, 128, 159–60 Ottoman 21, 24, 29, 42, 94, 212n pea 64 Peutinger Table 138n, 206n, 242n, 283n pine 19, 21, 51 pollen 17, 20–26, 76, 92, 95 purulli festival 180, 193, 195, 195n, 197 radiocarbon 17, 23, 77, 97, 149 road 8, 29, 31, 41, 42, 46, 66–67 sea-peoples 23, 159, 166, 295, 302–03 sheep 19–20, 25, 64, 90, 147, 161, 181n, 206, 223, 229, 235, 284 silver 19, 25, 77, 91, 94, 127 speleothems 23 temple 5, 28, 38, 42–43, 54, 61–62, 64–66, 83–85, 96, 115, 120, 123, 137–8, 137n, 141, 152, 165–67, 166n, 182, 184, 193, 196–97, 227, 240, 254, 256–57, 298 terebinth 19 transport 18, 43, 44n, 61, 64, 66–67, 77, 77n, 82, 135, 148, 161, 165, 180–82, 211, 211n, 285, 285n, 299, 312, 314, 319, 321 vetch 64 vine 21, 51, 64, 135n, 161, 227 walnut 21 wheat 18, 20, 25, 42, 64, 135n, 147, 246n Gods and Myths Hulla 184 Hupasiya 230 Hurri 65 Illuyanka 228n, 230 Inara 230 Mezulla 184, 189 Nawatiyalla 244, 244n Storm-god of Arinna 184 Sun-goddess of Arinna 184, 192n, 223, 261, 299n Sahassara 241 Tarhu(nt) 18, 239n, 248, 251 Telipinu 221, 232, 254–55, 254n, 259, 264 Teššub 18, 285–86, 300 Teteshapi 195 Zintuhi 184

Names (Peoples and Persons) Abdi-Aširta 303 Addu-Nirari 304 Aitaqqama 305 Aki-Teššub 304 Akiya 304 Akizzi 305 Alaksandu 263, 263n, 265, 270, 272–75 Alantalli 271, 271n Anum-Hirbi/Aniš-Hurwi 292, 297, 297n Alluwamna 257 Ammuna 189n, 259 Anitta 226, 235, 235n, 255, 255n, 258, 296n, 313 Ari-Šarruma 62 Arnuwanda I 84n, 223–24, 230, 234, 243–44, 251, 256–57, 265–66, 286, 286n, 288, 290–91 Askaliya 255 Asmunikal 84, 196, 223, 227, 230, 236 Asnuhepa 299 Attarissiya 266, 276 Atpa 268, 272, 277 Aziru 300n, 302, 302n, 303, 303n, 303n2, 305 Barattarna 292n Bentešina 303, 303n, 304n Dabalatarhunta 277 Duppi-Teššub 254n, 303, 303n Halpaziti 251, 264n Hannutti 240, 271 Hantili I 243, 243n Hantili II 224 Harapseki 257 Hartapu 251, 275 Hattusili I 140, 210n, 212n, 214n, 226, 235n, 242, 255, 23, 264n, 286–87, 290–92, 295–300, 306n, 315 Hattusili III 2, 59–60, 62n, 64–65, 188, 198, 209–10, 213n, 219–24, 234–36, 235n, 239–40, 242, 242n, 24547, 245n, 249–51, 251n, 253, 256, 259–60, 266, 268, 270, 272, 277, 282, 288n, 290, 293, 295, 303–05, 302n, 303n, 304n Huhazalma 242, 244 Hutupiyanza 231, 233 Ini-Teššub 152, 246n, 302n Idadda 305, 305n Idrimi 134, 281n, 292, 292n, 292n2, 298 Kadašman-Enlil 303n Kilamuwa 283, 284n Kilušhepa 62 Kaska 2, 56, 59, 75, 78–79, 84–86, 184, 187, 196, 203, 206, 06n, 219–20, 219n, 222–24, 227, 230, 230n, 233–34, 253, 255, 290, 315–16 Kupanta-Kurunta/iya 259, 261, 266, 270–71, 270n Kurunta/iya 9, 59, 92, 138, 244–47, 245n, 246n, 250n, 251, 251n, 267, 282 Madduwatta 249, 260–61, 266, 271, 276 Manapatarhunta 265, 268, 270, 272, 274–75, 276n, 277 Mashuiluwa 259–61, 269–70, 270n, 274

404 Meli-šiḪU 307 Mita of Pahhuwa 214, 288n, 290 Mursili I 114, 140, 146, 81, 210n, 242n, 243, 255, 262n, 263–64, 286, 295, 298–99, 304n Mursili II 3, 32, 124, 126, 152–53, 181, 181n, 84, 187, 01, 201n, 203, 205, 214n, 215–17, 215n, 215n2, 220, 222–27, 229–30, 230n, 233–34, 236, 240, 240n, 42n, 50, 251n, 253, 254n, 256–61, 262n, 264–69, 264n, 276, 281n, 287n, 288–90, 296, 299n, 299n2, 300–06, 300n, 300n2, 303n, 306n, 319n, 320n Also Mursili III 65, 240, 245, 251, 251n, 266, 70, 272 Neriglissar 244, 244n Niqmaddu 167, 298n, 302, 302n, 302n2, 303n, 305, 305n Nuwanza 288 Palliya/Pilliya 134, 281n, 281n2, 85, 287, 294 Pendumli 220n, 231 Pimpirit 255 Piyamakurunta 269 Piyamaradu 251, 251n, 259, 268, 272, 274, 276, 276n, 276n2, 277, 277 Piyassili 146, 300n Pudu-Heba/Puduhepa 59–60, 250, 251n, 260, 277, 293, 303n, 304n Ramesses II 273, 295, 303, 303n Ramesses III 303 Sahurunuwa 221n, 222n, 235, 241, 244, 249–50, 250n, 259–60, 266, 268, 269n, 301 Sarlakurunta 233 Sennacherib 284, 289 Seti I 167, 303 Shalmaneser III 138, 215, 283–84, 83n, 284n, 287n, 291–92, 292n Sisines 242n Sunassura 134, 212n, 242, 264n, 281–83, 288n, 294 Suppiluliuma I 56, 62, 146, 152–53, 165, 167, 203n, 265–66, 212–13, 212n, 220, 222–23, 226, 228–34, 233n, 233n2, 236, 239–40, 240n, 254n, 256–57, 259–60, 260n, 262n, 263n, 266, 269, 271, 274, 287–91, 288n, 288n2, 295–96, 295n, 298–306

index Suppiluliuma II 83, 244, 246–47, 246n, 267, 300n, 319 Šarri-Kušuh 146, 259, 269, 288, 299, 299n, 300–01, 300n Šarrupše 304–05 Šattiwaza 212–14, 212n, 254n, 287, 298n, 300–01, 300n, 301n, 306 Šaušgamuwa 277n, 303n Šipṭi-Baal 284 Šutatarra 305 Takuwa 304–05 Talmi-Šarruma 299–300, 300n Tarhunazi 289 Targasnalli 240n, 269, 271 Tarkasnawa 26, 271, 271n Tawagalawa 251, 251n, 260, 267–69, 272, 274–77 Telipinu 3, 142, 220, 222, 241n, 243, 243n, 255, 257, 259–60, 264, 281n, 288, 296, 298n Telipinu the Priest 288 Tette 212n, 254n, 298, 304, 304n Tudhaliya I/II 3, 56, 81, 134, 166, 200, 212, 262n, 264, 264n, 266, 268, 272, 281–82, 282n, 287–91, 288n, 298, 298n, 299–300 Tudhaliya III 3, 56, 138, 200, 257, 266, 269, 270, 274–75, 288–90, 298 Tudhaliya IV 126, 138, 206, 266–67, 271, 277, 277n, 282, 302n, 303n Tunip-Teššub 296–97 Uhhaziti 266–67, 269, 272, 276, 319n Urhi-Teššub 65, 221, 240, 245, 251n, 266, 270, 272, 304 Ulmi-Teššub 235, 239, 242, 245–46, 245n, 282, 286 Walmu 273 Warpalawa 240n Wenamum 18 Zu-Bala 307, 307n Zuwa 184