Patterns of exchange/patterns of power: A new archaeology of the Hittite Empire
iv T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Introduction Part One: Hegemonic Control? Chapter One: Western Anatolia Chapter Two: Hittites in North Syria/Mitanni Chapter Three: Syro‐Mesopotamia in Hatti Part Two: First Among Equals? Chapter Four: Egypt Chapter Five: Mesopotamia Chapter Six: the Aegean Chapter Seven: Cyprus Chapter Eight: Final Conclusions Figures App e ndix A: chronological synchronisms for the ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean Appendix B: map of archaeological sites mentioned in the text Appendix C: catalogue of imports and exports
v L IST OF T ABLES 1.1 Hittite and Hittite type Objects in Western Anatolia 2.1 Hittite Seals and Sealings in Syria 2.2 Hittite and Hittite Style Objects in Syria 2.3 Syro‐Hittite Art 3.1 Syro‐Mesopotamian Objects in Hatti 4.1 Egyptian Objects in Hatti/Hittite Objects in Egypt 4.2 Synchronization of Archaeological and Textual Evidence for Eg ypto‐Hittite Relations 5.1 Babylonian Objects in Hatti 5.2 Assyrian Objects in Hatti/Hittite Objects in Assyria 6.1 Hittite Objects in the Aegean 6.2 Aegean Objects in Hatti 6.3 Synchronization of Archaeological and Textual Evidence for Ahhiyawan‐Hittite‐Aegean Relations 7.1 Hittite Objects on Cyprus 7.2 Cypriot Objects in Hatti 7.3 Synchronization of Archaeolo gical and Textual Evidence for Alashiya‐Hittite‐Cypriot Relations 8.1 Foreign Imports into Anatolia 8.2 Hittite Objects in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East
vi L IST OF F IGURES 1.1 Map of Hatti and Bordering Kingdoms 1.2 LHIIIB2/C local Milesian Mycenaean style krater depicting Hittite god 1.3 “Hittite” Swords from Değirmentepe‐Miletus 1.4 Early Empire period Hemispheroidal Seal 1.5 Anatolian Cultural Boundaries after Mellaart 1.6 Crescent Shaped Loomweights(?) from Beycesultan 1.7 Map of Hittite and Hittite Style Objects in Western An atolia 1.8 Miletus Fortification Wall 1.9 Hittite Style Relief at Karabel 1.10 Hittite Style Relief at Akpinar/Manisa 1.11 Hieroglyphic Luwian Relief Suratkaya/Latmos 2.1 Distribution Map of Hittite Seals and Sealings in Syria 2.2 Syro‐Hittite Seals from Emar 2.3 Ivory divine triad from Boğazköy 2.4 Divine bronze fig urines from Boğazköy and Lattakiya 2.5 Bronze ribbed shaft hole axes from Alalakh and Ugarit 2.6 Cast hilt bronze swords from Alalakh, Ugarit and Tell Kazel 2.7 Bronze animal spearhead from Ugarit 2.8 Bronze animal spearhead from Borowski collection 2.9 Bronze animal spearhead from Alalakh 2.10 Imported Central Anatolian Ceramics, Alalak h 2.11 plan of Hittite language documents at Ugarit 2.12 Emar Clay Plaque 2.13 Alalakh Tudhaliya Orthostat 2.14 Talmi‐sarruma Inscription, Aleppo 2.15 Aleppo temple podium blocks showing dowel holes 2.16 Hittite (?) relief block, Aleppo Temple 2.17 ‘Ain Dara and Aleppo “windows” and Boğazköy house model 2.18 Bullmen from Carchemish 2.1 9 Carchemish orthostats B29a‐b, 31a, 28a‐b 2.20 Carchemish orthostats B50b, B51b 2.21 Alalakh level III/II fortress 2.22 Emar Building A (bit hilani) 2.23 Büyükkale Building E (bit hilani) 2.24 Boğazköy Lion Gate domestic house 3.1 Taprammi bowl 3.2 Ugarit ivory tabletop 3.3 Boğazköy ivory roundel 3.4 Alaca Höyük gate reliefs 3.5 Metal pla que Alaca Höyük 4.2 Distribution map of Egyptian and Egyptian style objects in Hatti 4.3 Alaca Höyük sphinx gate 4.4 18 th dynasty representations of “chiefs of Kheta” 4.5 19 th dynasty representations of Hittites 4.6 Ramses II depiction of Muwatalli 4.7 Abu Simbel marriage stele 5.1 Distribution map of Babylonian and Assyrian and Mesopotamian style Objects in Hatti 5.2 “Babylon” stone mold (Boğazköy) 5.3 “Assyrianizing” seal Tarupasani 6.1 Tiryns bronze figurine
vii 6.2 Dövlek bronze figurine 6.3 Beycesultan MBA seal 6.4 Postern tunnels at Tiryns and Boğazköy 6.5 Boğazköy fresco fragments (Temple 9) 6.6 Hittite sherd with depiction of “Aegean” warrior 6.7 Distribution map of Hittite and Hittite style Objects in the Aegean 6.8 Distribution map of Aegean and Aegean style Ob jects in Hatti 7.1 Distribution map of Hittite and Hittite style objects in Cyprus 7.2 Distribution map of Cypriot and Cypriot style Objects in Hatti
1 P ATTERNS OF E XCHANGE / P ATTERNS OF P OWER : A N EW A RCHAEOLOGY OF THE H ITTITE E MPIRE I NTRODUCTION At the end of the Late Bronze Age, the Hittites created a successful empire and ranked among the most powerful players in the international diplomatic club of rulers. Despite this well documented fact, there are few studies that address the nature and impact of the Hittite imperialist agenda. Previous studies have fo cused almost exclusively on th e textual information relating to the empire’s “hard power,” its military encounters, and its political organization. The limited nature of historical sources cannot answer larger questions about other sources of Hittite power and influence, or the reception of Hittite rule. To achieve a more complete portrait of Hittite imperialism, we must take a broad er perspective and employ a wider methodological prism drawing on “archaeologies of empire,” contextual archaeology, and the concept of “soft power”. The present study expands our current view of the Hittite Empire’s internal and external power relations through the perspective of socio‐cultural an d ec onomic exchange as reflected in the archaeological record. Broadly defined as non‐coercive modalities of intercultural contact, the notion of exchange replaces a trade‐centered approach with one that embraces all forms of contact and takes into account differing levels of political and cultural integration. Such an approach allows for fresh perspectives on the dimensions of Hittite imperial rule and influence, in particular, highlighting the “soft” power that served as an adjunct to diplomatic maneuvering and military might. Archaeologies of Empire/Imperialism Our current understanding of the Hittite Empire is limited by the textually based focus on the “hard power” of empire. Hittite histories detail the empire ’s rise and fall, its successes and failures abroad and, of course, the challenges and accomplishments of its key players (Gurney 1979, Kuhrt 1995, MqQueen 1986, Bryce 2005, Collins 2007), following a traditional academic focus on the military and political dimensions of imperial rule. Similarly, more detailed studies on Hittite provincial archives and vassal treaties outline the organization of the empire and its treatment of vassals (Beckman 1992, 1995b, Altman 2003, 2004, 2008). These indicate that there was no uniform imperial policy. The handling of
2 subject states depended on the manner in which they came into the empire (self subjugated or conquered), their status beforehand (neutral or hostile), and their strategic importance (Altman 2003). According to our historical sources, Hittite vassal states were not politically or economically integrated with the center (Beckman 1995a, 541), but rather were deliberately kept separate in or der to avoid the administrative and military burden of new territories (Altman 2008). The picture of the empire that emerges is one of a disaggregated, noninvasive power of a rather fragile nature (Beckman 1992, 45, 49, 1995a, 541). Contemporary anthropological studies calling themselves ‘archaeologies of empire’ hav e opened up many new avenues of research that co uld greatly enrich our understanding of the Hittite Empire (Sinopoli 1994). This body of work explores many different aspects of empires, looking at multiple perspectives and scales. It encompasses a large array of themes, such as the use of art, imperial landscapes, the con cept of frontier, culturization processes (i.e. Romanization, Hellenization), networks of power, and the concept of hegemony (Kuhrt 2001, Westenholz 2000, Winter 1997, Mattingly 1997). Studies included in this category intentionally depart from the traditional top down approach that dominated early scholarship on empires, and consider both the empire’s impact on con quered territor ies (physically, culturally, and economically) and the reflexive impact on the imperial center (Eisenstadt 1979). Most of these topics can be subsumed under the rubric of imperialism: the means by which empires maintain and extend their power, authority and influence (Parker 2001, 10, Sinopoli 1994, 163, Alcock 20 01). Imperialism is thus a flexible term that incl udes military, economic and cultural supremacy, practiced international diplomacy, as well as subtle processes of acculturation and integration (Morrsion 2001). A focus on imperialism allows us to explore issues of power and influence, acceptance and resistance, and the success or failure of the Hittite imperialist venture. While there ar e various descriptive studies on the empire of the Hittites, there is very little on Hittite imperialism, despite its scholarly attraction for students of later Near Eastern empires (Parker 2001, Kuhrt 2001) and for contemporary archaeology in general (Mattingly 1997, Sinopoli 1994, Alcock 2001, Parker 2001, D’ Altroy 1992, 2001, Morrison 2001). What Bradley Parker noted in the introduction of his work on Assyrian
3 imperialism is equally true for the Hittites, “the mechanics of Assyrian imperialism, and its implications for the cultural makeup of the empire and the outlying regions, not to mention its potential for cross cultural comparison, have yet to be addressed (2001, 5).” 1 The absence of a comprehensive study on Hittite imperialism is detrimental in two important ways. It limits our understanding of the empire to the official accounts of subordination and political restructuring, thus neglecting the socio‐cultural aspects of imperial control. Furthermore, without such a study we do not have the means for cross cultur al comparison, thus robbing the Hittite empire of its place among the prolific body of work on ancient Near Eastern empires. A Multiscale Contextual Approach to Exchange In response, this study seeks to expand on the intellectual inroads provided by “archaeology of empire” and core‐periphery approaches and asks th e que stion: how did the Hittite Empire extend its influence within and beyond its borders and how was it received? It addresses this question by employing a wide‐angled, multi‐scaled investigation that reaches beyond the narrow perspectives of previous studies. Most immediately, the broad geographical scope of this project expands upon the limited regional fo cus of prevailing studies. Limited regional studies do not allow for comparisons across political boundaries and create the impression that the entire empire was a monolithic entity. In the case of the Hittites we cannot extrapolate from one region to the whole, for cross‐regional comparisons demonstr ate that quite pronounced differences can be found in the strategies of integration and the reaction to Hittite power in subordinate states. The wide net of this project allows for these comparisons, and thus produces a richer picture of the variant nature of Hittite control and the divergent paths of cultural impact. The expanded geographical approach in this study is accompanied by a wider methodological lens that articulates a theory of exchange that ties material and social exchanges to imperialism through the contemporary political concept of “soft power”. In modern parlance, soft power is the ability to wield
1 Note the studies in the special edition of BASOR 299 (1995a) on Archaeology of Empire in Anatolia and Yener’s call for new archaeological approaches to the Hittite Empire (Yener 1995a, 120).
4 and extend political influence through the seductive attractiveness of one’s culture and its conscious and unconscious spread (Nye 2002, 8‐9). Archaeologies of empire often touch upon this concept (Sinopoli 1994, 162, 2001, Woolf 1992), especially in discussions of art and cultural emulation (Higginbotham 2000). Exchange, in its broadest sense, is a clear manifestation of “soft power.” Simply put, exchange is the mutual tra nsfer of goods, peoples and ideas. It is a flexible enough term to include less obvious means of contact such as the appropriation of images, religious ideologies and symbolism, transfers of language and technological know how, influences on dress, art or architec ture, naming practices, and emulation. The literature on Hittite exchange is extensive, but has hitherto been addressed through theories of trade. Two kinds of studies exist: text‐based and archaeological. Text‐based studies describe some exchanged goods and the activities of merchants and conclude that much of their business was in transporting booty an d tribut e (Hoffner 2001, 183‐189, Klengel 1979). The textual information for trade in Hittite lands is scarce at best (Alparslan 2005, 381, Hoffner 2001, 180), so there have been numerous archaeological surveys of regional exchanges to fill out the picture (Kozal 2006, Genz forthcoming, Cyprus‐ Åström 1989 b, Todd 2001, Kozal 2002, 2003, de Martino 2008, Syria‐ Genz 2006a, Aegean‐ Güterbock 1984, Mellink 1983, Muhly 1974a‐b, Niemeier 1999, 2005b, 2008, Mee 1978, 1998, Cline 1991b, Egypt‐ Bittel 1970, Edel 1976, 1994, Freu 2004, Archi 1997, de Vos 2002, 2004, Helck 1994, Faist 2001). These studies tur n up relatively scar ce quantities of imports and exports and lead to the unavoidable conclusion that Hatti was only tangentially involved in overseas trade (Bryce 2002, 96, Collins 2007, 112‐113). 2 The meager quantities of items undercuts the narrow focus on trade 3 and much of the quantification of imports and exports is meaningless when one considers the time span involved (Manning and Hulin 2005, 291). It is also nearly impossible to determine how objects reached their final place of deposition,
2 Both Bryce and Collins assert that Hatti’s role in international trade was limited due both to their landlocked position and to their lack of an attractive product for export. 3 This is true not only for the Hittites, but even for other regions, like the Aegean, that have many more identifiable imports (Manning and Hulin 2005, 291). The problems with assessing who was responsible for transporting items and how, means that it is more productive to talk about consumption rather than tr ade (Ibid.).
5 whether through direct importation, intermediaries, discard or redistribution, despite attempts to study these channels (i.e. Cline 1994, 86‐7). A second problem with the focus on trade is that it provides only a partial picture of contacts. Trade relations cannot answer questions about the nature of empires, for it is but one tool of power. As Aslihan Yener argued some years ago, a proper look at the Hittite Empire needs to move beyond the distribution of local and non‐local artifacts to consider economic and cultural integration within and without the empire (Yener 1995a, 180). Drawing on other archaeological studies of empires, it is cle ar that exchange plays a central role in imperialism. Economic exchange, whether through coercive exploitation of the periphery, or the expansion of markets and opportunities empires bring to the periphery, is essential to imperial integration and consolidation. It is not just economic integration that is part of successful imperial str ategy. Later models like the Achaemenid and Roman Empires, demonstrate that cultural transmission can be an important element in imperial integration and control (Kuhrt and Mattingly). The cultural record is especially important because it can also inform us about the accommodation to, or reaction against, foreign imperial control; a topic th at often gets overlooked in studies of empires. By setting the meager evidence for material exchanges within the larger category of cultural contacts, we arrive at a much fuller picture of the power relations of the Hittite Empire, incorporating more subtle indirect means of power (“soft power”) into what has long been a “hard power” portrait. Therefore, th e core of this study is the identification of all moments of exchange in the archaeological record. As outlined above, this is a wide ranging data set including on the one hand, identifications of imports into Hatti and Hittite artifacts abroad, and on the other, the de tection of cultural contacts in the realms of art and architecture, literature, language, religion, dress and naming practices. For this, I rely on stylistic analysis and specialized studies on literature and religion. By the time of the Hittite Empire, there is a singular and consistent mode of representation (both in terms of stylistic conventio ns and iconographic themes) specifically related to the geographic confines of the Hittite state so that we can speak of a “Hittite style” that justifies visual analysis (Özyar 2006). A unity of motif and technique are evident throughout the Hittite sphere in both the minor and major arts. From architec tural
6 layouts, to monumental reliefs, glyptic styles, pottery and clothing fashions, the Hittite sphere developed a singular cultural style. Where elements occurring in either Hatti or abroad do not appear regularly in their place of deposition, but rather resemble either in production technique, visual characteristics or material makeup, goods and materials recognizable from other politica l and geographic entities, we are warranted in calling them imports. The problem is: how do we extrapolate meaning from these imports? This study departs from the theoretical framework of trade, instead utilizing ideas about consumption formulated through contextual archaeology. 4 A focus on consumption, how objects were used and appreciated by the consumer, allows us to interpret material exchanges in a way that ties them to networks of power. By looking carefully at where imports were deposited, we can get at who was using these objects and how (even if only for their final us e before deposition) . This can be done on multiple scales, such as the deposit, the site, the settlement and even the regional and interregional (Clarke 1968, Smith 1994). An accumulation of these data provides us with a broad view of the role of imported goods and ideas in society as a whole; the building bloc ks to answering questions about culture and power, sometimes if only in the negative. To illustrate this approach, take as an example the occurrence of Hittite seals in Greece. These are most often found in non‐elite burials, possibly worn as jewelry. Context makes plausible the argument th at Hittite seals were not especially expensive and were acquired as talismans. The reuse of an administrative instrument as a piece of adornment or amulet robs it of its bureaucratic nature and its connections to imperial power. 5 To a certain degree, consumption can also apply to cultural exchanges. Determining how culture was received and integrated into local modes of expression and by whom, whether through appropriation, emulation, or imposition is one way of understanding the effectiveness and reach of soft power and it can also challenge assumptions about an empire’s cu ltural hegemony.
4 I take my cue from Manning and Hulin who recently argued that we must discard interpretations of trade in favor of a focus on consumption, in their mind the only legitimate study of imports in archaeology (Manning and Hulin 2005, 281). 5 See Clarke 1968 and Collins, Bacharova and Rutherford 2008, 3 for discussions on how to interpret patterns of reuse.
7 New Insights/New Avenues The geographically broad and multi‐scaled approach to imperial and intercultural relations of this dissertation expands our current view of Hittite imperial strategies and international diplomacy. It provides a complementary picture to that of the well known diplomatic texts of the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds. Thi s study highlights the indebtedness of Hittite imperial culture to foreign imagery and ideas, and opens the door to further studies on the relationship between cultural transmissions and political or imperial power. The Hittite material can be brought to bear on some of the dominant themes in scholarship on the Late Bronze Age. It is hoped that the results of this study, the compilation of Hittite networks of exchange, will stimulate more work on the socio‐political underpinnings of a Hittite imperial style or the role of material culture in imperial control. In addition, by considering for the first time socio‐cultural asp ects of the Hittite Empire, this study opens the door to cross cultural comparisons with other historical empires. Outline of the Dissertation: The dissertation is organized by theme into two parts. Part I covers the cultural manifestation of empire in the Hittite periphery. Chapter one provides a brief overview of the chro nolog ical and geographical boundaries of the empire and the historical circumstances surrounding the incorporation of these regions into the larger empire. It continues with the evidence for cultural and material exchanges between Hatti and the western Anatolian states and argues for a process of power negotiation between hegemon and vassal. Chapte rs two and thr ee cover what was the most important region of the empire, the principalities located in what is today Syria. The material evidence from this region is the best illustration of a concerted imperial strategy of integration and appropriation and contrasts markedly with the regions to the west. Chap ter four introduces the second half of the dissertation; an archaeological inquiry of Hittite diplomacy abroad. The following chapters, four to seven, each present the evidence for cultural and commercial exchanges between Hatti and the Great Powers. Each chapter discusses the parameters of exchange and their function in solidifying relations between these powers. Final conclusions for both Part I and II are considered in chapter eight. This chapter returns to the idea of
8 empire and imperialism, and explains how both the material evidence for internal and external cultural and economic exchange evaluating the role of economic integration and cultural exchange (soft power) in maintaining the empire. A catalogue of all objects discussed in the text is included as Appendix C. Postscript In the time it has taken me to complete this dissertation, sev eral studies have come out that overlap with my own work in terms of their data and goals. Two new studies have appeared that deal specifically with Hittite foreign relations from an archaeological perspective. The first is Ekin Kozal’s dissertation on foreign imports to Anatolia in the 2 nd millennium bce (Kozal 2006). The second is an article on Hittite foreign relations Hermann Genz was kind enough to show me in draft form (Genz forthcoming). Kozal’s work has been indispensible in identifying foreign imports in Hittite lands, but her questions are quite different from my own. Her dissertation looked especially at issues of region al differences for greater Anatolia in terms of foreign contacts, identifying trade routes and changes in trade contacts over time. Kozal’s work does not identify Hittite material outside of the borders of Anatolia, nor does she discuss the depositional context of foreign goods. Genz’s work is a much more general overview of exchan ge relations than what is considered here. Both authors only look at artifacts, whereas this work places artifacts within a broader framework of cultural and diplomatic contacts. The most recent work on these issues is Claudia Glatz’ dissertation and summary article on Hittite archaeology and empire (Glatz 20 09 ). 6 Glatz’ study addresses the question of the integration of theempire by looking at the diffusion of discrete Hittite archaeological markers within Hittite territory. Glatz’ article is the first work to break from the tendency in Hittite scholarship to view the empire as a monolithic entity, and her study of regional archaeological patterns belies the differences in imperial policy that is al so emphasized in this study of foreign diplomacy and influence. The current popularity of foreign relations in Hittite studies underscores the absence of good syntheses and the relevance of this
6 Thank you to Aslihan Yener for bringing her work to my attention.
9 work. This dissertation expands and complements these works, widening the interpretative frameworks for empire in Anatolia.
10 P ART I: I NTERNAL P OWER R ELATIONS : H ATTI AS H EGEMON Part I of the dissertation deals with the archaeological investigation of the role of exchange in Hatti’s position as hegemon. The parameters for this study are set by the chronological and geographical scope of the empire itself. Early 20 th century histories of the Hittite Kingdom were split between dividing Hittite history into an Old and New Kingdom/Empire period or identifying within these a less distinct Middle Kingdom ending with Suppiluliuma I. 7 Today there is a growing consensus that the term Middle Kingdom is inappropriate and obsolete. 8 Instead, the Old Kingdom ends and the New Kingdom begins with the figure of Tudhaliya I (formerly known as Tudhaliya II and therefore designated for now as Tudhaliya I/II). Tudhaliya’s reign represents a period of renewed imperial aspirations and radical culture changes, including a noticeable change in the ductus and syllabary of the Hittite languag e (the new language phase is called Middle Hittite, not to be confused with the historical Middle Kingdom/Middle Hittite period)(Archi 2003, Freu 1996). Modern scholarship makes the further distinction between an Early Empire (from Tudhaliya I‐Suppiluliuma I: the period of Middle Hittite language)(Houwink ten Cate 1970, Koša k 198 0) and the Empire period (Suppiuliuma I‐Suppiluliuma II the period of New Hittite or Late Hittite)(Archi 2003, Hoffner 2009). In truth, according to a strict definition of empire; namely a stable centrally governed conglomerate of disparate units; this is really the accomplishment of Suppiuliuma I in the 14 th century (Kuhrt 1995, 266). It is Suppiluliuma who conquered beyond the borders of Anatolia and established controls for vassal‐hegemon relations. It is Suppiluliuma who raised the Hittite leadership to Great King status where it remained until the demise of the empire under Suppiluliuma II. 9 The true empire thus begins and ends with a Suppiluliuma, c. 1350‐1190 BCE. 10
7 See Archi 2003, 1‐4 on the history of the designation of the Mittleres Reich. 8 Archi 2003, 10, Bryce 2005, 6, Kuhrt 1995, 231, Freu 1996, 38, but see B. Dinçol’s recent appraisal of the ongoing controversies over the Middle Kingdom vs. Empire and absolute chronologies (Dinçol 2006). 9 A majority of scholars thus begin the Empire (Grossreich) with Suppiluliuma (see Dinçol 2006 for a summary in chart form). The Hittites themselves had no word for Empire and did not acknowledge a profound ideological shift between Tudhaliya and Suppiluliuma. Nevertheless, Suppiluliuma came to be seen as the progenitor of the dynastic line, and in his lifet im e the Hittite king was first recognized as a Great King in the Near East. Their own titulature called the kings LUGAL.GAL/ MAGNUS.REX already from the Old Hittite period. 10 Absolute dates for Suppiluliuma range from c. 1380‐1340 depending whether one follows the middle or low chronologies and whether the Egyptian queen who contacted Suppiluliuma is considered the widow of Tutankhamen or Amenhotep.
11 For simplicity’s sake, this work takes as its chronological span the absolute period between c. 1400‐1200 bce; an approximation that is near accurate for the start and end of the empire considering the uncertainties regarding the absolute dates of both Tudhaliya’s and Suppiluliuma’s reigns. 11 The period overlaps with the Amarna era and the early 19 th dynasty in Egypt, LCIII on Cyprus, LBIIA‐B in the Levant, and LHIIIA2‐B in the Aegean. It is the end of the Kassite kingdom in Babylonia and the beginning of the Middle Assyrian Empire in Assyria. For a complete picture of chronological synchronisms see Appendix A. The designation of the Hittite state as an empire under Suppiluliuma I assumes that there was a core territory which militarily dominated external states, eventually creating an overarching administrative framework to deal with disparate areas. To study the empire today we must be able to differentiate between the Hittite core and periphery, not an easy task when dealing with a people who only sporadically mentioned boundaries and whose boundaries in any case were continually in flux (Bryce 1986a, 85). In ideological terms, the Hittites had an expansive view of the boundaries of their state. Royal statements going back to the Old Hititte period (paralleling Mesopotamian rhetoric) refle ct an ideology that the natural boundaries of the state stretched from Sea to Sea (Mediterranean to Black Sea)(Otten in Younger and Larson 1990, 129‐130). In fact, for much of its history, the Hittites struggled to maintain a unified state and operated as a confederacy of semi‐autonomous lands. It is only through scat tered boundary references, festival itineraries and treaty oaths that we can reconstitute a Hittite notion of an inner and outer territory. 12 The Hittites themselves had no word for empire although they did distinguish between the Land of Hatti (KUR URU Hatti‐ Land of Hattusa) and subject territories designated with Akkadian ÌR, “servants” of Hatti. The Hatti Land was the heartland around Hattusa; the entire Halys basin (the Marassantiya) and the Old Hittite areas to the south of the river, like Kussura. Surrounding the Land of Hatti were buffer regions
11 The traditional date for Tudhaliya I/II based on the Mesopotamian middle chronology is c. 1450 bce (Gorny 1989), More recent works put him at c. 1420 (Starke 2005), while Bryce has now adopted an even lower date of c. 1400 (Bryce 2005). The different opinions in summary form is discussed by Dinçol 2006. Differences in the date for Tudhaliya are complicated by the uncertainty whether there are three or four rulers by that name. For a discussion of the problem see again Dinçol 2006, 22‐24 with references. 12 The designation of a land of Hatti is not equivalent to modern notions of nationalism or ethnic self determination (also Cohen 2008).
12 incorporated early on into the Hittite state. These are the mātum ēlitum (Upper Land) in the north‐ northeast, and the mātum šāplitum (Lower Land) in the southwest. The Upper Land is the area north and northeast of Hattusa around modern day Sivas, bounded by Isuwa in the east and Kizzuwatna in the south (Gurney 2003, 123, Bryce 1986a, 87‐88, 97‐98). The capital of this region was Samuha, which has still not been located with certainty. 13 The Lower Land, lower in relation to the high Anatolian plateau of Hattusa, comprises the Konya plain (Garstang and Gurney 1959). We do not know its precise limits, only that it bordered Arzawa and Tarhuntassa and included the Classical cities of Tyana and Hyde (Hittite Tuwanuwa and Uda) and probably stretched northwar ds to the Salt Lake (Bryce 1986a, 98). In the Empire period, the state of Tarhuntassa encroached on its territory; Hatip perhaps serving as the border (Dinçol et al. 2000, 2001, Savas 2007). Both areas were administered directly by the Hittite king in Hattusa (with the help of a governor in the Upper Land and a general in the Lower La nd). That the Hittites considered these areas their own can be seen in Hattusili III’s “Decree Regarding the hekur of Pirwa” by Hattusili III describing the devastation during the reign of Tudhaliya III (the “concentric invasions”). In earlier days the Hatti Lands were sacked by its enemies. The Kaska n enemy came an d sacked the Hatti Lands and he made Nenassa his frontier. From the Lower Land came the Arzawan enemy, and he too sacked the Hatti Lands and he made Tuwanuwa and Uda his frontier. From afar, the Arawannan enemy came and sacked th e whole of the Land of Gassiya. From afar, the Azzian enemy came and sacked all the Upper Lands and he made Samuha his frontier. The Isuwan enemy came and sacked the Land of Tegarama. From afar, the Armatanan enemy came, and he too sacked the Hatti Lands. And he made Ki zzuwatna, the city, his frontier. And Hattusa, the city, was burned down. (KBO VI 28 (CTH 88), obv. 6‐15)(adapted from Bryce 1998, 158) The meaning of Hatti Lands in this passage is ambiguous, as the opening line could be inclusive of all of the areas described, or restricted to ju st the homelan d. Even if “Hatti Lands” is restricted to the core territory it is clear that Hatti claimed hegemony over the Lower Land, Gassiya, Upper Lands, Tegarama and Kizzuwatna, all of which were sacked by their enemies at that time. Outside of these territories were
13 Gurney discusses some of the proposed sites (Gurney 2003, 123‐4) although the recent excavations at Kayalıpınar make this a very good candidate (Müller‐Karpe 2000).
13 the independent lands that the Hittites drew into their sphere through vassal treaties and dynastic marriages. Azzi‐Hayasa, Isuwa, the western Anatolian states, and the kingdoms of north Syria all fall into this category. The definition of periphery in the ancient world is not based on ethnic differentiation, a meaningless concept in pre‐national societies. Instead, the perip hery is defined by geographic and political boundaries and sometimes language differences. Hittite imperial control can be simplified into a tripartite system (Collins 2007, 104). At the center of the empire is the core, KUR URU Hatti. In the second tier are peripheral areas on the central plateau captured by the Hittites and administered directly by the Hittite king in Hattusa (with the aid of Hittite governors and administrators), i.e. the northern frontier zone with its district center at Maşat Höyük/Tapikka. The second tier also includes the re gions directly to the south and east of the Hatti Lands, Kizzuwatna, Tarhuntassa, Pala, Tegarama, Gassiya and Isuwa which it claimed as its own. For the most part these regions are logical extensions to the Hittite heartland, although Kizzuwatna and Tarhuntassa are somewhat less accessible. The third tier is geographically and politically fu rther removed from the Hittite center. These areas are separated from the Anatolian plateau by geographic boundaries, but were incorporated into the empire through recurrent invasions and vassal treaties. Kingdoms of the third tier generally retained a degree of independence, with local dynasties continuing to rule. This situation descri bes th e states of western Anatolia and the ancient states of modern Syria and northern Mesopotamia. That this was a Hittite conception can also be seen (at least for the reign of Tudhaliya) in geographic information embedded in his cult inventory texts (CTH 501‐530). Tudhaliya’s reorganization of the cult included central an d northern Anatolia, Tarhuntassa and Kizzuwatna but only western sites generally located east of Afyon and no sites south of the Taurus (Hazenboos 2003, 198). Recent work on Anatolian provinces reinforces the tripartite structure of Hittite political integration described above. The Hittite heartland is delineated by a cohesiveness of cer amic style and production, ar chitectural styles, building techniques, administrative practices and language (Glatz 2009,
14 3). By comparing key features of Hittite culture (pottery styles, landscape monuments, and glyptics) 14 Glatz has also demonstrated the extent to which regions outside of the heartland were integrated politically and culturally into the Hittite realm. The overlap of these features in the south and east show that these areas (Tarhuntassa, Kizzuwatna, and Isuwa(?)) had close and intense relationships with the Hittite core, while the areas of western Anatolia and nort hern Syria were further removed (Glatz 2009, 12). Her discussions reinforce the differences between the second and third tier polities described above. This study specifically limited the inquiry of vassal‐hegemon relations to the peripheral states that belong to the third tier of Hittite control. The reason for this is first of all one of evidence; west Anatolia and northern Syria are the most prominent areas in terms of both historical and archaeological records. They therefore provide a reasonable amount of data by which to evaluate Hittite influence. Secondly, these two regions are culturally far enough remo ved from Hittite society that Hittite artifacts and influence stand out from local indigenous traditions. I have chosen to include Tarhuntassa and Kizzuwatna (Rough and Smooth Cilicia) as part of the core of the Hittite Empire for several reasons. There are certain indications that the Hittites themselves considered these provinces an integral part of their empire even as they retained a measure of independence. With a Hittite priest presiding at Kummana, and no mention of a governor, Kizzuwatna appears to have been governed directly by the Hittite king (Jasink 2001, 52). Tarhuntassa was certainly Hittite territory when Muwatalli moved the capitol there. Under Kuru nta, Tarhuntassa was accorded a status equal to that of Carchemish. Second, archaeological evidence from these areas (i.e. Kilise Tepe, Sirkeli Höyük, Tarsus, Mersin) shows dominance of Hittite cultural elements such as pottery, seal use, and language. This study therefore includes foreign materials found in these areas as imports into Hatti, but the areas are differentiated from the heartland so that we can further distinguish exchange patterns from the power center to its provinces. The following three chapters make up Part I and lay out the evidence for the economic and cultural relationships that underpinned the hegemonic control of western Anatolia and Syria /Mitanni.
14 Glatz describes these as the NCA (north central Anatolian) assemblage rather than Hittite to avoid inappropriate ethnic connotations (Glatz 2008, 3). I have chosen to retain the term Hittite as a legitimate cultural label as already described above.
15 Chapter One: Western Anatolia Western Anatolia is defined as the entire region between the Aegean coast and the Anatolian plateau (approximately the area between the 26 th and 33 rd degree longitude). This includes several important subregions; the rugged highlands of Classical Lycia in the south, the river valleys of the central west coast, and the northwestern plain. In the Bronze Age, this area was split between larger and smaller powers known to us only by references to them in either Hittite texts or Homer’s Iliad; the latter of dubiou s historical value. Some of the better known polities are Arzawa, Wilusa, Lukka, Mira‐Kuwaliya, Seha River Land, Millawanda, Hapalla, Masa and Karkisa and all sat at the western frontier of the Hittite Empire (see Fig. 1.1). 15 As a resource center for silver and gold, horses and labor (Yakar 1976, 119) and abutting the Hittite Lower Land, the Hittites frequently found themselves engaged with their western periphery.
15 Smaller states such as Apawiya, Walma, and Millawanda inhabited this region as well, but are less well known. Although great strides have been made in the historical geography of western Anatolia, the precise boundaries of most of these states is not known and the locations of Hapalla, Walma, Pedassa, Masa and Karkisa ar e still very much in question (Melchert 2003, 6‐7). Fig. 1.1 Map of Hatti and Bordering Kingdoms (after Collins 2007, Fig. 2.5 and Bryce 2005, Map 3)
16 One of the most troublesome areas for the Hittites, western Anatolia was an arena for imperial expansion beginning with Tudhaliya I/II (15 th cent.). Tudhaliya successfully defeated a coalition of western states (the Assuwan confederacy), but with little lasting effect (Starke 1997, 455f, Bryce 1998). According to the Alaksandu Treaty (CTH 76), Wilusa submitted to being a Hittite vassal around this time. Mursili II finally brought the entire area into the empire through a series of vassal treaties after putting down an offensive headed by the powerful state of Arzawa (Heinhold‐Kramer 1977, 136‐7, Bryce 2003c, 61‐2). For the next 150 years, local dynasts tied to Hatti through diplomatic treaties, alternately relied upon or shirked Hittite rule, frequently with the support of Ahhiyawa (Br yce 2003c, 76‐79). Hittite control of the region was largely ineffectual, and by the end of the empire one of these Anatolian kingdoms obtained what amounted to Great King status (Singer 1983, 216, Latacz 2004, 299 fn. 14, Starke 2000, 250‐255, Hawkins 1983, 21). 16 The historical documentation for western Anatolia is fragmentary and one sided, surviving only in Hittite copies of treaties and correspondence, annals and inscriptions. The archaeological picture is not much clearer. With few excavations and limited exposures, relatively little is known of Bronze Age west Anatolia. 17 The most thoroughly investigated sites with LBA remains for this region are Troy, Miletus and Beycesultan. 18 The coastal region of western Anatolia is dotted with impressive Hellenistic and Roman sites, but few excavations have uncovered substantial Bronze Age remains. Regrettably few Arzawan sites are thus known, unless one counts Beycesultan within its borders, which is not at all certain. 19 Even less is known of Bronze Age Lycia, where no Bronze Age occupations have yet been located.
16 This is based on a letter to Mashuitta/Parhuitta LUGAL.GAL of X, either Mira (Hawkins 1998, 20‐21) or Seha (Singer 1983). Full treatments of the history of western Anatolia in the Bronze Age can be found in Jewell 1977, Melchert 2003 chapter 3, Bryce 1974, 1989, 2005, Hawkins 1997‐8, Heinhold‐Kramer 19 77, Singer 1983, Taracha 2001, Yakar 1976). Histories and overviews of the site of Troy are too numerous to name. For recent treatments see Korfmann 1998b, 2001, Latacz 2001 and Bryce 2006,with bibliographies. 17 The only syntheses of the western Anatolian Bronze Age are Mellaart’s 1974 article, Western Anatolia, Beycesultan and the Hittites and an unpublished dissertation by Elizabeth Jewell, The Archaeology and History of Western Anatolia during the Second Millenium BCE, which itself was an update to Furuzan Kinal’s 1953 study, Geographie et l’Histoire des Pays d’Ar zava. 18 Beycesultan’s political orientation in the LBA is not certain. Hawkins suggested that it was the principal city of Mira‐Kuwaliya (Hawkins 1998, 24), but it is in a border area and it could have belonged to the spheres of Pedassa or Hapalla see Starke, Die Hethiter map p. 306‐7 and Melchert 20 03, map 2 (p. 37) for different geographical schemes pertaining to western Anatolia. 19 Beycesultan is possibly the main city of Kuwaliya (Hawkins 1998, 24).
17 New excavations in western Anatolia will undoubtedly change the archaeological picture. At Classical Perge (Hittite Parha) a Turkish‐German team has recently turned up Mycenaean pottery (Niemeier 2008, 298) and continued excavations at Ephesus (Hittite Apasa, capital of Arzawa) are once again examining Bronze Age levels (Niemeier 2008, 302, Bammer 1987, 1994, Bu yukkolanci 2000). 20 Traces of the Bronze Age city continue to be brought to light at Miletus (ancient Millawanda)(Niemeier 1997, 1998, 2007a and b) and at Bademgediği Tepesi, possibly ancient Puranda (Meriç 2007). We can also expect much new information from the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey project (www.bu.edu/clas ) which has identified major fortified sites in the region of Classical Lydia, one of which it hopes to excavate in the near future. 21 These new excavations only reinforce the impression that the entire region of western Anatolia was oriented westwards across the Aegean, despite probable ethno‐linguistic ties to their Hittite neighbors. 22 Nevertheless, the scattered remains of Hittite imports and Hittite influenced objects and monuments point to the kind and frequency of contacts with their eastern overlords. These are summarized in Table 1.1 below. T ABLE 1.1 Hittite and Hittite Type Objects in Western Anatolia Site Region Object Material Context Strat. date Comp. date Cat. No. Beycesultan W. Anatolia (Mira‐ Kuwaliya?) Pottery Pottery Room M1 Level Ia‐b Boğazköy IV mid 15‐ 14 th cent. 1 Beycesultan W. Anatolia (Mira‐ Kuwaliya?) Pottery Pottery Room 1 Level Ia‐b Boğazköy IV mid 15‐ 14 th cent. 2 Beycesultan W. Anatolia (Mira‐ Kuwaliya?) Stamp seal Stone Trench A. II O/MH? 3 Beycesultan W. Anatolia (Mira‐ Kuwaliya?) Stamp seal Ivory Trench M Ib 12 th ? O/MH? 4
20 Neutron activation analysis on the Arzawa briefs from the Amarna Corpus also support this identification (Goren et al. 2004). 21 Other excavated sites with BA remains are Bayrakli, Iasos, Sardis, Aphrodisias, Kusura, Karatas‐Semayuk, Antissa and Thermi on Lesbos, Liman Tepe, Panaztepe, but these either have extremely limited exposures or they are cemetery sites. 22 In all likelihood the entire region of western Anatolia spoke the Luwian language, a close cognate to Hittite (Melchert 2003, Watkins 1986, Hawkins 2000, Bryce 1998, 55). One notable opponent of this hypothesis is Ilya Yakubovitch (2008).
18 Beycesultan W. Anatolia (Mira‐ Kuwaliya?) Ax bronze ? II 13 th 13 th century 5 Beycesultan W. Anatolia (Mira‐ Kuwaliya?) Crescent shaped loomweight s Clay Various Level III‐I 14‐13 th cent. 6 Civril W. Anatolia (Mira‐ Kuwaliya?) Inscription on pot sherd Ceramic Surface N/A 14‐13 th century? 7 Izmir? W Anatolia (Arzawa?) Seal silver purchased N/A 13 th cent. 8 Kadikalesi‐ Kušadasi W. Anatolia (Arzawa?) Figurine Bronze Unstratified N/A 15‐14 th cent.? 9 Metropolis W. Anatolia (Millawanda?) Seal Stone Acropolis, Byzantine level 12 th cent. 13 th cent. 10 Miletus W. Anatolia (Millawanda) Pilgrim flask Ceramic Well N/A 14 th cent. 11 Sardis w. Anatolia (Seha River Land?) arrowhead Bronze Mixed fill in Road Trench N/A 14‐13 th cent. 12 Sardis W. Anatolia (Seha River Land?) Beak spouted jug Ceramic Lydian Trench, level .99 m, Out of context N/A Büyükkal e IV mid 15‐ 14 th cent. 13 Thermi Lesbos (Lazpa) Stamp seal Bronze Dump N/A 18‐17 th cent.? 14 Troy Northwest Anatolia (Wilusa) Seal Bronze House 761, square E9 Troy VIIa, c. 1200 13‐12 th. cent. 15 Troy Northwest Anatolia (Wilusa) Figurine Bronze Courtyard House, zA7, fallen debris? Troy VIIb1/2, 2 nd half 12 th cent 13‐12 th cent. 16 Yortan(?) W. Anatolia Hemisphero idal sphere Bronze plated Purchased N/A 15‐14 th cent.? 17 Material Exchanges Hittite or Hittite influenced objects in western Anatolia consist of isolated finds of pottery fragments, weapons, seals and figurines. An orange‐brown pilgrim flask and a red burnished beak spouted jug at Miletus and Sardis are the only evidence for Hittite ceramics in the west outside of Beycesultan (cat . 11 and 13). The flask has close parallels with Boğazköy pottery of the 14 th century, however certain peculiarities like its orange‐brown color, straight lip and double ridged seam, preclude one from calling this a genuine Hittite import (Parzinger 1989, 431). Thus according to recent reports “no truly Hittite pottery has yet been found at Miletos” (Greaves 2002, 63). The form is, however, intrusive,
19 and at the very least it is influenced by Hittite traditions. The Miletus flask was found in a well where debris was dumped during Classical period construction and can tell us nothing about its original context (Mellink 1974, 114, 1975, 207, Pl. 39). The pottery fragments from Sardis were also found completely out of context, but parallel central Anatolian jugs dated to the 15‐14 th centuries (Boğazköy IV)(Hanfmann 1962b, 5, f. 3, 1983, 22). Three other objects from Miletus point to contacts with the Hittite world. One of the most intriguing is a locally made fragment of Mycenaean style pottery with an image of what can only be a Hittite style horned cap of divinity (Fig . 1. 2). Niemeier has made a good case that this is an image of a god/king with a hieroglyphic inscription to the right of the figure comparable to monumental rock reliefs like Karabel (Niemeier 2008, 325). The pottery is LHIIIB2‐C in style (end of 13 th ‐beg. of 12 th cent.) and demonstrates that the Milesians were already familiar with one of the most ubiquitous images of Hittite iconography; the figure of a tutelary deity. It is not likely, however, that Karabel or another rock relief served as the model for this drawing, for none carries this type of horned cap. Instead, images of a god in a double sided horned cap can be found on royal seals of the 13 th century and later. 23 It was perhaps off a seal or sealing therefore, that the Milesian potter crafted this piece. Unfortunately, it comes from an unstratified level in the West Sondage and no joins have been found. Also from Miletus are three swords from the cemetery of Değirmentepe that the excavator identifies as “Hittite” (Neimeier 19 99 , 2002, 297)(Fig. 1.3). 24 This type of sword, however, is also found at sites in the Levant and Syria (Tell es Sa’adiyeh, Ugarit, Alalakh)(Shalev 2004, 62) and its attribution to the Hittites is seriously in doubt (Geiger 1993, 217, Shalev 2004, 62). They are not therefore Hittite or Hittitized objects, although they represent a piece of equipment sh ared throughout the region. There are only a few other traceable Hittite imports at west Anatolian sites. In the northwest, at Troy, excavators found the first evidence of writing in the form of a Luwian biconvex seal (Korfmann 1996, Hawkins and Easton 1996)(cat. 15)(Fig. 1.4). Jablonka argues that th is is the seal of a Hittite envoy
23 Muwatalli II, Urhi‐Teshub and Tudhaliya IV all represent the Spitmutze this way (Bittel 1976, fig. 191, 192, 186), as does Ini‐Teshub (Schaeffer 1956, fig. 32 and 34). 24 Although often discussed, full publication of the finds of the cemetery await final publication.
20 stationed at Troy, because the signs BONUS 2 and SCRIBA usually identify the title of a government official (Jablonka 2006). Another argument in favor of this being the seal of a Hittite diplomat rather than a local administrative scribe, is that there is little evidence for this kind of political administration at Troy during this period (Jablonka 2006, 518). On the other ha nd, the seal’s reading is very uncertain. 25 The forms of the hieroglyphic signs are not standard, and their execution is sloppy. In addition, the seal was found in a level VIIa house dated to the early 12 th century, likely past the destruction date for the Hittite Empire . The Luwoid seal thus appears to be a local product rather than an import (also Alp 2001). If so, then Trojans (or others in the region?) must have handled Hittite seals and become cursorily familiar with Luwian hieroglyphs. Since the Hittites corresponde d with Wilusa in Hittite, there certainly would have been Hittite trained scribes employed by the Wilusan kings. The complete absence of clay tablets from cosmopolitan Troy probably indicates that most communication was written on perishable materials, perhaps wooden tablets, and perhaps in hieroglyphic Luwian. 26 In this way, scribes would have become acquainted with the hieroglyphic system. Two further “Hittite” seals have been found in Metropolis (Caria)(Schachner and Meriç 2000)(cat. 10), and Thermi on Lesbos (Lamb 1936, 142)(cat. 14). The first, found in a 12 th century CE layer on the acropolis and thought to be an imitation of a Hittite seal (Schachner and Meriç 2000, 93), finds better parallels with two seals from Iron Age Boğazköy (Boehmer‐Güterbock 1987, no. 278, p. 88‐89). The form of the seal, a vertical cylinder with hole for hanging, possibly carved on broken whetstones (Boeh mer‐ Güterbock 1987, 89), is not a type known from the Bronze Age, and the markings on the face only vaguely resemble Luwian hierolgyphs. The Thermi seal is badly worn with a pitted surface and does not carry hieroglyphs at all, but the cross motif, its shape and material (bron ze) are best paralleled in seals from Central Anatolia (Hogarth 1920, nos. 127, 128 and 216). Although from controlled excavations, this seal was found in a dump and not a stratigraphic layer. Other materials from this dump date the deposit to the
25 BONUS 2 SCRIBA x (su??)‐x (ra/i?‐ta?)‐nu BONUS 2, BONUS 2 FEMINA x?‐pa‐(ta?‐x x?) (Hawkins 1996), Tarhun‐(L196)‐tá‐nu (Alp 2001). 26 There are some indications that even at Hattusa, a parallel recording system on wooden tablets was used, possibly in hieroglyphic Luwian rather than cuneiform (Watkins 2008,8). Güterbock first suggested that hieroglyphic Luwian was inscribed on the wooden tablets and Annik Payne has recently argued the same (Güterbock 1939, 36, Payne 2008, 11 8). The issue is also addressed by Marazzi (1994).
21 Late Bronze Age (Lamb 1936, 142), but the seal itself has its closest parallels in examples from the MBA (Boehmer‐Güterbock 1987, no. 2‐3). Its usefulness as a determinant of Empire period relations with Lesbos is thus unclear. A third purchased seal, supposedly from Yortan would be a final example of a Hittite seal in the western pe riphery of the empire (cat. 17)(Dinçol and Dinçol 2010, 99‐100). This is a Hittite style hemispheroidal seal that has a very close parallel to a seal in a private collection (Fig. 1.4)(Mora 1987, V 4.1). It can be dated stylistically to the 14 th century (Fig. 1.4)(Herbordt 2006, 105). Scattered objects of bronze, an arrowhead from Sardis (Waldbaum 1983, 36)(cat. 12), 27 a bronze figurine recently recovered from the medieval fortress at KadiKalesi‐Kuşadası (cat. 9)(Akdeniz 2004), and a figurine from Troy, are also possible Hittite imports. The arrowhead is a particular type that is predominant in Hattusa and Alaca Höyük in the 13 th century (Erkanal 1977, 53‐54, Type V, variant II. T. 18, no. 69‐80). Examples however, have been found as far afield as Cyprus, Crete and Syro‐Palestine, thus preventing a direct connection to the Hittite heartland (Erkanal 1977, 54). The bronze figurine from Troy is the only example of an anthropomorphic bro nze figurine from Troy, as far as I am aware. 28 Even though there is no true parallel among central Anatolian figurines, several features are clearly Hittite inspired. The raised fist gesture, the round flat cap, the aquiline nose following the slope of the forehead, and the oversized ears are all features of Hittite major and minor sculpture (also Mellink and Strahan 1998). While Mellink declined to attribute the piece either to a local craftsman or as an import, the figurine certainly belongs to the Hittite tradition and as such demonstrates familiarity with Hittite types. So far the Hittite or Hittite inspired objects in western Anatolia are isolated pieces of pottery, weapons or figurines, and Hit tite inspired seals. There is no concentration of material in one site or one region in particular. On the frontier, at Beycesultan, the picture is considerably different. Beycesultan marks the western boundary for the distribution of Hittite style pottery. A level II pilgrim flask is a
27 Hawkins 1998, 24 suggested Sardis as a possible capital of the Seha River Land, but the results of the CLAS (Central Lydia Archaeological Survey) would now point to the massive Bronze Age site, Kaymakci as a better candidate. 28 A male smiting figurine in bronze in the British Museum is said to come from Troy (Collon 1972, Fig. 5, 6). Parallels would date it to the MBA.
22 probable central Anatolian import (Mellaart and Murray 1995, 22 with refs.)(cat. 2) and Mellaart also reports that a “small number” of coarse ware flasks and bottles (locally made?) from level II have parallels to Büyükkale III (mid 14 th century)(93). The appearance of new shapes and wares in level I can be tied to central Anatolian production (Mellaart 1970, 65‐67, Gunter 2006, 355). 29 By level I (the end of the LBA), Hittite style wares make up a considerable portion of the pottery (Lloyd 1972, MüllerKarpe 2002, 257). 30 Local traditions, such as the gold and silver wash wares and chalice drinking vessels continued to be produced, albeit in much smaller quantities (Gunter 2006, 356). The porous nature of cultural boundaries between west and central Anatolian pottery traditions can be seen in Mellaart’s maps 2 and 3 and, which indicate considerable overlap between s h ape types and the use of micaceous washes along the western fringes of the Hittite heartland (Fig. 1.5)(Mellaart and Murray 1995). Other Hittite materials from Beycesultan include two seals (cat. 3‐4)(Mellaart and Murray 1995, no. 292 and 343), central Anatolian style axes (cat. 5)(Lloyd and Mellaart 19 55, Abb. 21, 1‐3), 31 and central Anatolian style crescent shaped loomweights (cat. 6)(Fig. 1.6)(Melllart and Murray 1995, Pl. XIV). This type of loomweight is distinctive of Hittite sites (Košay 1966, L. 21). The introduction of a new weaving technology in conjunction with new ceramic wares and shapes suggests the migration of craftspeople from central Anatolia to Be ycesultan. The loomweights, pottery, seals and ax, belong to Beycesultan level II, but the seals are presumably older, as parallels derive from MBA examples in central Anatolia (Boehmer‐Güterbock 1987, nos. 17‐18). A second find in the vicinity of Beycesultan attest to the contacts between Hatti and the west. This is Luwian inscribed potsherd from Çivril (cat. 7)(Mellaart 1954, 240, 1959, 32, 240, Lloyd and Mellaart 1955, 80). The Çivril potsherd is a fragment of a deep red burnished dish, a possible Hittite import. The inscription is illegible 32 , except for the sign SCRIBA. Inscribed pots such as this have been found in north Syria (Alalakh and Tell Fray, see chapter two), in addition to central Anatolian Hittite sites (Seidl 1972b).
29 Tall necked jugs, carinated bowls, libation arms and baths are of central Anatolian character (Mellaart and Murray 1995, 57). 30 A similar phenomenon can be seen at Aphrodisias (Joukowsky 1986). 31 While the oldest and most numerous of this type were found in central Anatolia, there is also a wide distribution in the 14‐13 th centuries, stretching from the Aegean to Egypt and Syro‐Palestine (Erkanal 1977, 6‐7). A Hittite origin is therefore not assured. Two examples belong to Beycesultan level III (LBI). 32 The legible signs read SCRIBA li‐X‐tà.
23 The inscription is presumably the name of the owner, although why this dish would be so marked is puzzling. In central Anatolia, we have not identified any western Anatolian objects (unless one counts some of the “Aegean” material as originating from there (for a discussion of this problem, see chapter six). There are several examples of “gold ware” vessels from Boğaz köy Ust. 3 which may or may not be imported from the west (Fischer 1963, 32, 66, 142). 33 The locally produced gold glimmer ware of LBA Hattusa could very well have been influenced from the ceramic traditions of the Beycesultan region, although this is difficult to prove or disprove. Summary and Discussion of Finds
fi g urine relief p otter y
wea p on seal Metropolis Miletus Kušadasi Manisa Sardis Karabel Troy Suratkaya Beycesultan Çivril Yortan sealing
Fig. 1.7 Hittite and Hittite Style Objects in Western Anatolia A review of the “Hittite” material from western Anatolian sites shows three categories of imports: ceramics, seals and bronze figurines, and several weapons with parallels to Hittite examples, although not necessarily of Hittite origin. The imported Hittite ceramics include closed transport vessels (Miletus, Beyc esultan), and a beak spouted jug often seen in Hittite libation scenes (Sardis).
33 See Jewell 1974, 83 fn. 1 and Lloyd and Mellaart 1955, 79 for discussion.
24 Unfortunately, the examples from Miletus and Sardis are from nonstratified deposits, and only a general level and Trench number number are recorded for Beycesultan. It is only at Troy that the Hittite objects have a secure Bronze Age context. Both come from undistinguished residences in the Lower Town in the latest Bronze Ag e levels (Korfmann 1996, 34, Hawkins and Easton 1996, 112‐113). With their date hovering around 1200, they could also postdate the dissolution of the Hittite Empire. In addition, both objects are likely locally made under Hittite influence. The other objects, another figurine and a seal, were found in medieval levels and we can not be certain th at they belong to Bronze Age occupations of these sites. The weapons; three swords and an arrowhead, are either indicative of military encounters or high level gifts, but both types are also found in the Levant and elsewhere, and they may have reached the west thro ugh maritime contacts abroad rather than through the Hittites. 34 Only at Beycesultan and its vicinity, a political center geographically accessible to the central Anatolian plateau and bordering the empire ’s frontier, is there evidence for more sustained and integrated contacts in the form of significant influence on ceramic production and textile techonologies, and the use of Hittite style administrative tools. On the wh o le, the finds from the west are generally from undistinguished contexts. At Troy, the figurine was found in a common house of the Lower City, although the few pieces of gold and silver jewelry and bronze weapons found with it show that it was not poor (Korfmann 1996, 34‐6). The excavator suggested that the figurine had fallen from a stone and mud platform (Korfmann 1996, 35), but this is not at all clear. The seal too, comes from an undistinguished (one room) house, one of a series built against the old citadel wall (Hawkins and Easton 1996, 113). Both surfaces are well worn, attesting to its use. The material in the house is described as mixed fill containing coarse local pottery (Ibid). Context suggests that both objects were of little material value, although the seal presumably once belonged to a scribe. The context of objects in western Anatolia therefore suggests tha t material exchanges were on an informal basis, outside of the royal or elite domain. The role of western Anatolian elites in networks of
34 Milesian LHIIIC pottery in Ugarit attests to these contacts (Courtois 1973, 151‐2).
25 exchange is much more apparent in the evidence for cultural influence as indicated in the discussion to follow. Cultural Connections: Art and Architecture: Very few complete buildings have been excavated from Bronze Age west Anatolian sites. Earlier examples from EBA Troy and MBA Beycesultan display architectural traditions quite different from those found on the cen t ral Anatolian plateau. In the west, the megaron dominates elite architecture (Werner 1993). During the LBA only one architectural parallel exists between a western Anatolian site and the Hittite world. Scholars have long noted a correspondence between the new fortification wall of Miletus VI and examples from Hittite sites (Fig. 1. 8 )(Voigtlander 1975, 19, Bittel 1983, 44). 35 Like several other central Anatolian examples (i.e. Alaca Höyük and Boğazköy), the wall at Miletus is built of unbaked mudbrick in the casemate style on stone socles with intermittent rectangular towers (Voigtlander 1975, 28, 30, 32, Niemeier 1998, 38). Its date was never fixed with certainty, but it was believed to have been built in the 14 th century immediately following the destruction of the city by Mursili II (Niemeier 2007a, 16). More recent investigations can now demonstrate that the fortification wall dates to the mid‐late 13 th century, towards the end of the Miletus VI settlement (Niemeier 2007a, 17). The excavator, Wolf Dietrich Niemeier, now suggests that the construction of the defensive wall is connected to a power shift in Millawanda under Tudhliya IV from Ahhiyawan to Hittite control (Niemeier 2007a, 15). 36 Not all scholars however, see Hittite influence in the Miletus Kastenmauer wall. Simpson has claimed that this is a Mycenaean construction (Simpson 2003, 216). In truth, the reconstructions of the wall by Voigtlanter are highly speculative (Weickert et al. 1960, Beilage 2, 5). The original excavation plans do not include the casemates which are hy pothetical. The stonework does not follow Hittite techniques, nor does the layout of the wall. The wall could have depended on a Hittite model in a general
35 The wall was built on the heels of a major destruction level dated in the LHIIIA2‐B transition. 36 Hoffner’s reading of the Milawata Letter asserts that Millswata remained under Ahhiyawan control during the reign of Tudhaliya IV (Hoffner 2009, 315).
26 way, but it is unlikely that this represents a construction carried out by workers with experience on the central Anatolian plateau. When it comes to artistic influences, once again the student finds him/herself in the very unfortunate situation of knowing too little about indigenous western Anatolia artistic tradition outside of ceramics. 37 What little has survived (small scale figurines and large scale rock reliefs) betray dependence on eastern, Hittite models. The rock‐hewn monuments of western Anatolia with Luwian inscriptions warrant special attention. These are Karabel, Akpinar/Manisa, and the newly discovered Suratkaya/Latmos inscription. Standing above a hilly pass at Karabel is an image of a Hittite warrior god or king carved into the living roc k, first described by Herodotus (Fig. 1.9). Karabel originally had two separate images of a Hittite deity standing astride with his bow drawn, and three worn inscriptions. For years, scholars assumed that this was the monument of a Hittite king marking his western boun dary (Gurney 1962, 198, Akurgal 1962, 116, Mayer‐Opificius 1996, 173). The inscriptions are very worn, but JD Hawkins has proved without a doubt that this is a monument of Tarkasnawa king of Mira, a contemporary of Tudhaliya IV (Hawkins 1998, 4). A further inscription, Karabel C2, now destroyed, cou ld be reconstructed as Kupanta‐ D Kal (Hawkins 1998, 10). 38 This would mean that Tarkasnawa was imitating and adding to the work of his predecessor and probable grandfather, Kupanta‐Kurunta. 39 The site runs between Ephesus and Sardis along a major communication route between Mira and Seha. Karabel, like most Hittite reliefs, are assumed to function as boundary markers and act as geopolitical statements (Bonatz 2007, 123) in this case Tarkasnawa asserting control over the western coastal region (Hawkins 1998, 21‐31). The second m o nument, near modern Manisa, ancient Mt. Sipylus, is described by Pausanius as a monument to Kybele (Fig. 1.10). This is an unusual high relief sculpture of a seated figure in an arched hollow. It has always been described as a mother goddess figure, but it is more likely a bearded mal e
37 See Sanno Aro’s Chapter in Melchert’s The Luwians, 2003,281‐288 (chapter 7) for the problems in identifying “Luwian” art of the Bronze Age. 38 Karabel B and C are located 150 m northwards at the entrance to the pass along a stream bed.
27 mountain god (Kohlmeyer 1983, 34, Ehrinhgaus 2005, 87). Readings of the two inscriptions near the sculptures read Ku(wa)la(na)muwa REX.FILIUS (prince) (Bossert 1954a, Güterbock 1983b, Kohlmeyer 1983, Poetto 1988), and Zuwani EUNUCHUS 2 (Hawkins 2003, 140). Both names are attested in Hattusa and elsewhere, but it is not clear if these are locals or Hittites. 40 Akpinar, lying along the Gediz River (Hermos), was likely the boundary between the Seha River Land and Mira (Ehringhaus 2005, 85). The two figures clearly carry Hittite titles, but more certain identifications with known personages are lacking (see fn. 36). Ehringhaus considers the possibility that Kuwalanamuwa was a local prince of the Se ha River Land (E hringhaus 2005, 87). Actually, it seems more likely that he is a member of the house of Mira, for the other two western monuments belong to Mira and Mt. Sipylus may well be the city of Zippasla, a mountain refuge of Arzawa. In addition, Kuwalana is a town associated with Mira (CTH 57 0, KUB 5.6 + KUB 18.54), and bearers of Kuwalana‐derived names could originate from there. 41 The last inscription is in Suratkaya (ancient Latmos), 25 km east of Miletus on a rock overhang along the passes leading from Miletus to the interior of ancient Caria (Fig. 1.11). It is also connected to Mira, the name appearing in one group of signs. First published in 2001, these fragment ary inscriptions name Ku‐pa(?)‐i(a) MAGNUS.REX.FILIUS (Peschlow‐Bindokat 2001, 376). The title MAGNUS.REX.FILIUS is not attested elsewhere and could mean either a Great‐Prince (a translation of Tuhkanti, crown prince) 42 or son of the Great King, or possibly chief of the princes. Kupaya is connected to Kupanta‐Kurunta, the soon to be king of Mira in the late 14 th century (Pleschow‐Bindokat and Herbordt 2001, 377). If this was carved before his appointment to kingship by Mursili, this carving would be very early indeed. In fact, if the identification of these reliefs with Kupanta‐Kurunta of Mira is correct, the Latmos inscription would be the
40 Kuwalanamuwa “prince” is found on the rock inscriptions of HANYERI and IMAMKULU (Kohlmeyer 30‐32, 87‐89, 83‐85) and as REGIO.DOMINUS (regional lord/governor) on two sealings from Nişantepe (Herbort 2005, no. 192‐3). In cuneiform, a Kuwalanamuwa (KARAŠ‐mu‐wa) is a high official during the reign of Mursili II, and the same name can be foun d in Ugaritic klnmw (Starke 1990 StBOT 31, p. 236, fn. 806). That these are all the same person is, in my opinion, highly unlikely. Zuwani also occurs in the Nişantepe archive as Zuwani AURIGA. Once again, it is unclear if this is the same as Zuwa ni EUNUCHUS of AKPINAR. 41 Kuwalanaziti would mean “man of Kuwalana” but Kuwalanamuwa should mean something like “might of the army.” 42 This seems unlikely considering that L*525 has been identified as PRINCEPS (tuhkanti) (Herbordt 2005, p. 205, no. 504). Note however, the similar construction in Akkadian when referring to the daughter of the Great Lady for the daughter of the Great King (Singer 1991b).
28 oldest hieroglyphic Luwian monumental inscription to date. 43 This begs the question of whether the tradition of monumental hieroglyphic monuments moved from western Anatolia to Hatti, rather than the other way around as has always been assumed in the past. 44 Carved rock reliefs accompanied by Luwian inscriptions are a quintessential means of Hittite royal expression, as is the choice of divine warrior imagery. 45 Why did the western kings, in complicated relationships with the Hittites, often adversarial, employ Hittite representations of power? Historical circumstances and the concept of elite emulation can help to elucidate the choice of imagery. 46 The clearest statement comes from Tarkasnawa’s image at Karabel. The main Karabel monument, Karabel A, bears many similarities to standard royal Hittite images and is certainly a conscious appropriation of Hittite representations of royal power. Studies of Hittite royal iconography make it more and more apparent that beginning with Mursili II, it be came a cceptable for Hittite kings to portray themselves as living divinities with the symbols of the god, such as the horned conical cap or skullcap (van den Hout 1995, Bonatz 2007, 126). Karabel has the iconic image of the warrior god, but the inscription identifies him as the king. The same image of king as divine warrior is used at Fra ktin for Hattusili III and on numerous Hittite royal seals. 47 The meaning of the images seems clear enough. By uniting the figure of the king or official with the divine sphere, the images underpin claims to power and offer protection
43 While it is true that a monument need not be contemporary with the commemorated person, in this case, it must have been, otherwise, why would Kupanta‐Kurunta be called crown prince, rather than king as we know him to later be? Unless of course, this is a later unattested Kupanta. 44 See Aro in Melchert, The Luwians ,2003, 288, and Pecorella 1994, 207, who raise the same possibility. Related to this issue is where Luwian hieroglyphics originated, whether in the west, central Anatolia or the south. Also note; the Latmos inscriptions which only consist of names, do not prefigure the monumental carved reliefs of Hitt ite royalty, which always include carved images. New discoveries of architectural reliefs without hieroglyphs from Kayalipinar and Kușaklı dating to the Early Empire, must underlie the open air examples (Orthmann 2008). Also, Suratkaya/Latmos is incised rather than carved in relief. It is also not exactly on a monumental scale, the re lief being only half a meter in size (Peschlow‐Bindokat 2002, 212‐213). Carved under a rock overhang, it cannot be seen unless one is fairly close to the relief itself. 45 Some examples are directly tied to the Hittite Great King (Fraktin, Sirkeli, Yazilikaya) and many others may also be tied to the person of the king (Gavurkalesi), however, a considerable number commemorated rinces and underlings of the kings (Tașci, Hamide, Imamkulu, Gezbeli). Relief monuments are typical for the area of cent ral Anatolia, but not restricted to the Great King himself. 46 Elite emulation is a well known phenomenon first explored for ancient Near Eastern art by Irene Winter (1978). 47 Bonatz asks whether this is the living ruler or a deified ancestor (2007, 127). Dinçol sees these images as a divine figure meant to protect the image and inscription (1998, 162‐3). Bonatz points out that Van den Hout’s thesis that from Urhiteshub on living kings portrayed themselves with divine attributes, is now beyo nd dispute (2007, 126). However, “his representation as a god or as godlike is not necessarily evidence of the supposed divine existence of the ruler, whether in this life or the next. It shows, rather, the supernatural powers with which he was believed to interact, either while alive or dead (1 33).” “Via this unity with the divine, the Hittite royal house was able to cultivate the notion of a world of rule for itself and its ancestors reaching out over time and space.”
29 “through proximity to the supernatural” (Bonatz 2007, 123). Although officials could and did use divine images either as apotropaic images (DInçol 1998, 162‐163) or self representations (Bonatz 2007, 126), the image of the storm god with inscription (as opposed to the lesser figures with horned skullcap) was reserved for the Great King. The fact that Tarkasnawa makes use of this imagery, is a radical statement about his own position, perhaps even a subtle assertion of Great Kingship along the lines of the contemporary kings of Tarhuntassa and Carchemish who also adopted the divine imagery and even the title, Great King. 48 In more general terms, two scenarios for understanding the Hittite style of the monuments in the west can be employed. The first is to claim that the western monarchs of Mira (loyal Hittite vassals since Mursili II), were demonstrating their dependence on the cultural, and political/imperial sphere of the Hittites from wh ence they der ived prestige and power based on the sophisticated nature of Hittite culture and the tangible threat of Hittite force. A different way of understanding the reliefs is that the kings of Mira were consciously appropriating Hittite imperial symbols in an effort to assert their independence as high‐level kings. This seems to be the case fo r the other late 13 th century reliefs of Hemite and Hatip (Bonatz 2007, 123) and indeed there are other indications for Mira’s ascendancy at the end of the Bronze Age. A late Hittite letter to a western Anatolian king, Parhuitta, LUGAL.GAL (Great King), probably the king of Mira, represents a resurgence of Mira to near Great King status (Hawkin s 1998, 21). In the first case, the audience of the reliefs is the people of Mira (and Seha), who will recognize in the “imperial” style of the reliefs a powerful bond between distant power and present ruler. 49 In the second, the message’s subversive quality, while directed at the people of the kingdom, would only have been understood by the Hittite authorities themselves. In the absence of other forms of cultural appropriation in the west, it would appear to me that the second option is more likely. Tarkasnawa’s Hittite style royal seal can be re ad in a similar vein.
48 F. Starke suggests as much in “Mira” (Der Neu Pauly 8) 2000, 250‐255. 49 The same prestige factor could be a part of inter‐vassal competition.
30 Tarkasnawa’s royal seal first came to the attention of cuneiform scholars in the late 19 th century when it was erroneously translated as “Tarkondemos” king (Sayce 1886, Güterbock 1977, Mora 1987, 194 and Hawkins and Davies 1998 with biblio)(cat. 8)(Fig. 1.12). 50 The seal is a well wrought silver digraphic seal belonging to Tarkasnawa king of Mira. In size (1 x 4.2 cm.), shape, and arrangement of figures and inscription, the seal compares with royal seals of the Hittite Empire. 51 Sealings of the same king from Temple 1 in Boğazköy prove that he also used a simpler hieroglyphic seal (Bo. 385z, 386z, 387z, 388z, 1004z, Boehmer‐Güterbock 1987, no. 263‐4). The large format digraphic (Akkadian cuneiform‐ hieroglyphic Luwian) seal was the prerogative of the Hittite Great King, 52 but Tarkasnawa’s seal is closer to seals of high officials and vassal kings. The central image is that of the “male in mantle” flanked by hieroglyphs. This was an extremely popular image in the late Empire period (13 th century), and was utilized on seals and rock reliefs of Hittite princes and officials (Herbordt 2005, 59‐60). As in all images of this type, there is considerable ambiguity whether the central image represents Tarkasnawa, a deified Tarkasnawa, or a tutelary god who would protect the mortal king. 53 Tarkasnawa’s costume is closer to the Hittite king’s priestly attire of long mantle and skullcap modeled on the sun god, but does not find direct parallels in images of the Great King. The rendering of the cap, with vertical lines and a slight thickening at the brow is very close to the hair or hea ddresses on the processional figures of the silver fist rhyton now in Boston (Güterbock and Kendall 1995, f. 3.7). The mantle, open to reveal one leg, with a fringed end draped over his shoulder ending in a triangle, recalls the costume of Hittite worshippers on the silver
50 The seal was purchased in the late 1800s in Izmir and helped to kickstart the decipherment of Luwian hieroglyphs. 51 Most royal seals are known only from impressions. Only one example of a royal seal has survived and that is the questionable seal of Mursili II from Ugarit. Like the Tarkondemos seal, it is a large planoconvex digraphic seal, measuring c. 5 cm in diameter. Sealings of royal seals many incomplete i m pressions give measurements in the 2‐3 cm range (cf. Boehmer‐Güterbock 1987, 81‐83). Impressions from Tarkasnawa’s hieroglyphic seal at Boğazköy are in the 2 cm. range. 52 Outside of the Great Kings, only Initeshub of Carchemish (Herbordt 2005, no. 150b) and Tudhlaliya MAGNUS.HASTARIUS (probably Tudhaliya as tukhanti‐ crown prince)(Herbordt 2005, used the large digraphic seals. Digraphism itself is a regular feature of Syro‐ Hittite seals. 53 This is also true of the Karabel relief. For a full discussion of “the man in the mantle” see Herbordt 2005, 58‐60. Her comparisons based on the garment of the figure suggest that it is not a god, although she is equivocal (60). For discussions on this issue in general see Van den Hout 1995, Bonatz 2007.
31 stag rhyton now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Boehmer 1983, 59, f. 4) and several figures on official seals from the late Empire period (Herbordt 2005, Abb. 40a‐p). 54 Tarkasnawa’s silversmith or scribe, or whoever directed the production of this seal, was clearly in tune with contemporary trends at the royal court in Hattusa. Tarkasnawa modeled his seal on those of the royal family, but chose an image favored by princes and high officials. He asserts his right to a large fancy digrap hic emblem of power, but is careful not to cross a line when it comes to details of self representation. One wonders whether the “man in the mantle” was taken as a stock image, or whether Tarkasnawa might actually have worn this type of Hittite style dress. Did western Anatolians share fashion styles with the Hittite heartla nd, or is this an instance of emulation of a more sophisticated society? Without a fuller knowledge of indigenous clothing styles and customs, we cannot say at this time. Clearly, both his seal and his image at Karabel draw on images of the Hittite king and his court. If one a ccepts my interpretations above, we may also see a development in Tarkasnawa’s iconography; first approaching, and then realizing Great King imagery. The significance of Akpinar is much more difficult to decipher. If this is indeed a monument of the same Kuwalamuwa mentioned on the monumen ts of Ima mkulu and Hanyeri, then it would date to the 13 th century and would be the work of a “Hittite” official. One of the problems of interpretation is that there is no true relationship between the inscriptions at Akpinar and the seated figure. The inscriptions are situated to the right and above the figure, one set outside of the field of sculpture; they could easily have been added later. Clearly the seated god or goddess can not represent the two names. If one assumes no relationship between sculpture and names, the entire meaning of the monument changes. One can easily imagine, that the figure marks a local deity whose shrine was located on Mt. Sipylos. The two inscriptions then, are additions by Hittit e officials (?) who visited the site. Are they harmless grafitti, are they appropriation, are they political statements? So many questions remain before a plausible scenario of the relief and its inscriptions can be proposed.
54 The same “cutaway cloak” is found on the left most figure of the “Hittite” seal from Thebes, where she is often identified as a goddess (Porada 1981, 77‐78 ).
32 The three reliefs discussed above are the only examples of monumental art in western Anatolia. Akpinar and Karabel’s connection with Hittite relief work is clear. Akpinar’s sculptural depth and the motif of a seated frontal god compares to sculpture in the round from Fasillar and Eflatun Pinar. The Hittite inspired rock reliefs of Karabel could only have b een executed through specific knowledge of earlier Hittite reliefs and contact with official and royal seals or bullae. The specific image of divine king with bow and spear can be found in the near contemporary inscriptions of Hatip and Hemite, but the form of the Karab el image, a relief set in a smoothed rectangular background is rather unique for a Hittite rock relief and is only paralleled at Yazılıkaya for images of Tudhaliya IV. The method of smoothing the image field and the proportions of the figures leads me to presume that the sculptor of Karabel ha d seen the images at Yazılıkaya. Perhaps Tarkasnawa even employed a sculptor from the royal court. Like other examples of Hittite royal monumental reliefs, the three western Anatolian reliefs are situated along pathways and next to natural springs. Most Hittite monuments are understood as boundary markers, bu t clearly ha d significance as sacred spaces as well (Bonatz 2007, 122‐123, Seeher 2009). In the west, the geopolitical aims of local dynasts were presented in Hittite garb, attesting to the attraction of Hittite high culture and the potency of its representation. Language and Literature: Because there are no i ndigenous recor ds for western Anatolia, inquiries into the linguistic and literary interconnections between the west and the Hittite center must be sought exclusively in Hittite texts. The language of the west is assumed to be Luwian, while Hittite was confined to the central plateau. 55 Contacts between the two languages took place early on in Hittite history, but are particularly strong in the 13 th century (Yakubovitch 2008, 125, Van den Hout 2006, Melchert 2003, 13). In Late Hittite documents we find many intrusive Luwian elements, and of course all monumental Hittite inscriptions of
55 There are numerous arguments put forward for this hypothesis. The main arguments are that the term Arzawa replaces an earlier designation of Luwiya in the Hittite Laws, and that Arzawan ritual texts are composed in cuneiform Luwian (Bryce 2003c, 28‐31). There is some dispute over when the Luwian language was introduced in the west. Note that Yakubovich strongly rejects the assumption that Luwians were the dominant language group of western Anatolia (Yakobovich 2008 ,124). Luwian is also assumed to be the language of Wilusa and Beycesultan although the evidence for this is highly circumstantial (Watkins 1986, Starke 1997, Latacz 2001, 11 6‐7).
33 the Bronze Age are executed in Luwian. 56 The analysis of Luwian influence on Hittite language and culture is complicated however, by the difficulty in distinguishing between western Luwian (i.e. Arzawa) and south/southeastern Luwian (i.e. the Lower Land and Kizzuwatna). In the following sections I summarize the evidence for the impact of Luwian on the Hittite language during the Empire. Sin ce we are concerned here with Hittite connections with the west, I have tried as far as possible to focus on traces of western Luwian (Arzawan) in Hittite texts. Luwian loan words were already incorporated by the Hittite kingdom already in the Old Hittite period. These include the important titles of Labar n a and Tawanana (king and queen)(Melchert 2003, 20) and at least six early kings have Luwian‐derived names (i.e. Labarna, Hantili, Zidanta, Muwatalli)(Yakubovich 2008, 125). 57 In the 16‐15 th centuries, Hittite religious texts include a large number of ritual passages (incantations and songs) in Luwian cuneiform. 58 Most seem, however, to originate in Kizzuwatna, rather than western Anatolia (Melchert 2003, 174, Hutter 2003, 250). 59 In the 13 th century many Hittite compositions use Luwian words, sometimes marked (Glossenkeilworter) and other times unmarked (Melchert 2003, 13, van den Hout 2006, Hawkins 2003, 128). That there were a large number of Luwian speakers residing in the capital in the 13 th century is indisputable, but the exact status of Luwian vis‐à‐vis Hittite at this time is in debate (van den Hout 2006, Yakubovitch 2008). 60 In addition, we find the peculiar situation mentioned above that Hittite royal inscriptions are written exclusively in Luwian in a hieroglyphic script. Were the Hittite kings Luwian
56 The choice of Luwian for monumental inscriptions, does not however, mean that the royal family or most of the population of Hattusa were Luwian speakers. See Melchert 2003, 13, and Hawkins 2000, 2f. 57 Yakubovich suggests that Luwian speakers were already settled in central Anatolia at the beginning of the 2 nd millennium and spread south and west from there (Yakubovich 2008). This would account for the Luwian substrate in Old Hittite culture. Most scholars disagree with his conclusions and place the origins of Luwian culture in western Anatolia at the beginning of the 2 nd millennium BCE. For a fuller discussion of this debate see Yakubovich 2008, 124‐5. 58 Cuneiform Luwian is only attested at Hattusa. It was not used by Luwian speakers outside Hatti and appears to be a Hittite method of transliterating Luwian speech for their own purposes. However a few fragmentary letters in Cuneiform Luwian could indicate a wider pattern of use than is assumed (Houwink ten Cate 1995, 267). 59 This is clear from comparisons to named Kizzuwatnean rituals and from the names of the singers/authors although Yakubovich would assign many of these to the Lower Land rather than Kizzuwatna (2008, 128). 60 Van den Hout reasserts an old idea that Luwian was the spoken vernacular of much of the population, including the scribes, with Hittite was basically dying (2006, 240‐241). In addition, he speculates that the vernacular could have been hieroglyphic Luwian, a western dialect of Luwian (241, fn. 114).
34 speakers? Were the majority of the population Luwian speakers at this time (van den Hout 2006, 238‐9)? Neither claim can be substantiated at the moment. Related to this issue is where and when the Luwian hieroglyphic script developed. Güterbock’s remark that hieroglyphic Luwian was created “by Luwians, in Luwian countries, for the Lu wian language” (Güterbock 1956b, 518) is much more complicated today (Payne 2008, 119). Hawkins dates the earliest hieroglyphic inscriptions faithfully rendering Luwian to the 13 th century, and to the reigns of the last three Hittite kings (Hawkins 2003, 146). 61 However, hieroglyphic origins can be traced back to single symbols going back to Kültepe Ib. Old Hittite seals also regularly carry early hieroglyphic signs (Boehmer‐ Güterbock 1987, nos. 103‐132). These however, cannot be read, for they could signify any language. Although created in Anatolia apparently for the Luwian language, it cannot be determin ed if this took place in central Anatolia, Kizzuwatna or western Anatolia. If we accept Hawkins’ arguments for Cretan influence on Luwian hieroglyphs, a western Anatolian origin may be sought, although at the moment there are no attested examples of Luwian hieroglyphs in the west before the 14 th century (Hawkins 1986, 374 and 2003, 186). Payne has argued for a central Anatolian origin, due to similarities with cuneiform writing (Payne 2008, 120). With the evidence for early hieroglyphic signs at Kültepe,, I believe a central Anatolian origin seems the better option. Considering a central Anatolian origin, the spread of Luwian hieroglyphs to the south an d the west in the late LBA, is a visual confirmation of the dissemination of Hittite cultural influence under the empire . Besides hieroglyphic Luwian, western Anatolian rulers must have had the ability to also communicate in Hittite. This is certain for 14 th century Arzawa, whose king Tarhundaradu (more accurately‐ his scribe) specifically requested that correspondence from Egypt be composed in Hittite rather than Akkadian (EA 32). Letters to and from the western states found in Hatti are all written in Hittite and could easily have been originals, rather than chancellery copies. 62 It seems likely therefore, that the western states had access to Hittite scribal culture. Curiously, there is no evidence for the use of
61 Hawkins also raises the possibility that a silver bowl in Ankara supposedly from Carchemish with a hieroglyphic inscription of a Tudhaliya, could be from Tudhaliya II, thus considerably raising the earliest attested Luwian inscription (Hawkins 2003, 145‐6). 62 See for example Hoffner 2009 no. 103, a letter from Mashuiluwa.
35 cuneiform Luwian in western states. If most of the inhabitants of western Anatolia spoke Luwian, as far as we can tell, they did not adopt cuneiform Luwian from the Hittites. 63 To sum up, there are significant indicators for close linguistic contacts between Hittite scribes and Luwian speakers, and many unanswered questions. For one, how widespread were Luwian speakers (presumably from the peripheral provinces) within the Hittite state? And two, did Hatti invent hieroglyphic Luwian and export it west and south, or was it the other way aro und? Bes ides the Luwian Glossenkeil words, our evidence for the Luwian language consists of entire sentences and phrases embedded in Hittite texts. These are found exclusively in ritual texts and it is thus to the sphere of religion that we turn to next. Religion Embedded in th e text ual corpus of the Hittite Empire are gods with Luwian names and elaborate rituals conducted in the Luwian language. A general understanding of “Luwian” religion is therefore possible however we are ill equipped to localize these gods and practices to their original points of origin. 64 In fact, there is a striking absence of evidence in western Anatolia attesting to the religious life of its Bronze Age inhabitants. An EBA tradition at Beycesultan of freestanding shrines with large horned altars is a unique feature of Anatolian religion. At Troy, standing baetyls at the principle gates suggest religious rites which inc luded libations (Blegen 1963, 139, Korfmann 1998b, 373) and a small house inside the gate may have served a cultic function involving animal sacrifices (Blegen 1963, 138). The worship of aniconic stones, the acts of libations and cremation burials from level VIh at Troy speak to very general cultural conne ctions with Hittite practices, but I would not consider this as evidence of influence or interaction. 65 We can assume that, like the Hittites, the western states worshipped deities through small scale freestanding sculpture in temples just as the Hittites did. This is the only possible explanation for the reference to the importation of the gods of Lazpa and Ahhiyawa to cure Mursili II (KUB 5 6).
63 The few cuneiform documents originating from the west are written in Hittite (EA 31‐32, Hoffner 2009, no. 94‐5) and KUB 26.91 (Hoffner 2009, 290, no. 99). The latter could be a Hittite copy, although not necessarily. Also possibly KBo 2.11 (Hoffner 2009, no. 116, Hagenbucher 1989, no. 102). 64 See Hutter 2003, 211‐218 on the challenges of describing Luwian religion. 65 Korfmann argues that the Trojan baetyls belong to a larger pan Hittite/Anatolian cultural custom of libating at gates (1989b, 373). Blegen ties the cremation burials of VIh to the Hittites (Blegen 1963, 142). The connections are tenuous at best.
36 We are also generally in the dark when it comes to the particular gods worshipped in western Anatolia. Only in one instance, the Alaksandu Treaty, are the names of deities of Wilusa recorded. This treaty lists among the general groups of male and female deities, the Storm God of the Army, [X ]Appaliuna, and the D KASKAL.KUR of the land of Wilusa (CTH 76, Beckman 1999, no. 13, §20). The first is one of the many manifestations of what the Hittites recognized as local storm gods, the second could be this storm god’s name x‐appaliuna 66 and the third is a D KASKAL.KUR (divine spring‐ literally, divine Road‐ Netherworld), a local deity at Wilusa referred to by a Hittite term. 67 Korfmann believed that the Spring Cave of Troy was the cult space of this very deity, although there is little evidence for LBA worship there (Korfmann 2000, 35). 68 Even if it had been an LBA sacred site, this is probably not a case of cultural borrowing. The deification of natural landmarks is virtually universal in the ancient world. 69 We know considerably more about Arzawan rites, thanks to their incorporation into Hittite texts. Arzawan ritual literature (designated as such in the texts) was well known at the court of Boğazköy, with men and women from Arzawa acting as magical and ritual practitioners (McMahon 2003, 274, Bawanypeck 2005). Hutter has named at le ast six of these ‘men from Arz awa’ noting that most are concerned with removing plague from the army and ‘scapegoat’ rituals (Hutter 2003, 235, Collins 2010, 57). Furthermore, the rituals of the bird augurs ( LÚ MUŠEN.DÙ) derive specifically from Arzawa as do the rituals of the tutelary deity of the hunting bag ( D LAMMA KUŠ kuršaš). At least three Arzawan women, Paskuwatti, Alli and NÍG.GA.GUŠKIN, composed rituals against sorcery that were used in Hatti (Collins 2010, 58, Hutter 2003, 237). For the most part, it is difficult to date these rites and there are many questions about authorship. Those of Paskuwatti and Alli were written down in Middle Hitt ite and therefore are early (Collins 2010, 55). Many, however, appear to have been incorporated under Mursili II in an attempt to
66 See Chapter Six for arguments linking this deity with Greek Apollo. 67 See Gordon 1967 for the Hittite D KASKAL.KUR in general. 68 Korfmann identifies the Spring Cave on the outskirts of the Lower City of Troy as the Wilusan D KASKAL.KUR . The ritual nature of Troy’s Spring Cave is very much in doubt (there is no evidence of ritual activity in the cave in the Bronze Age)(Korfmann 2000, 34‐ 35). 69 Hittite documents mention D KASKAL.KUR from Tarhuntassa, Pedassa, and the Hulaya River Land, in addition to their own (Gordon 1967, 71‐74).
37 deal with the plague ravaging Hatti and Hittite army during his reign (esp. Collins 2010, 58). Some may have been commissioned specifically by the Hittite king (i.e. Uhhamuwa’s ritual, Hutter 2003, 235), but even commoners had access to Luwian practitioners in Hatti. Provisions in the rites were made for substitutions for poor custom ers (Collins 2010, 56). Despite the antiquity of some Arzawan rites, Hittite appeals to western Luwian gods and the recording of Luwian rites in Hittite texts becomes much more prominent in Mursili II’s and his successors’ reigns. Mursili II himself personally appealed to the Storm god of Arzawa in his plague prayers (K UB 14.3) and brought the gods of Ahhiyawa and Lazpa to cure his aphasia. Hattusili III makes offerings to the Storm god of Kuwaliya in a festival text (KUB 27.1) and Tudhaliya IV makes offerings to the mountains and rivers of the west, where he regularly hunts (KBo 11.40, Hutter 20 03, 234). The Hittite king and queen also participated in the local Luwian cults in parts of their kingdom, for instance at Istanuwa, probably to be located in the west of the Lower Land (Hutter 2003, 239) and rituals dedicated to the Great Sea (the Mediterranean)(Taracha 2009, 114). Hutter has suggested that Luwian ri tes in Boğazköy texts were aimed at “Luwians” living in the kingdom (Hutter 2003, 255 and fn. 35). It seems more likely however, that these were collected for the direct benefit of the royal family, for several features of the imperial royal cult incorporated Luwian elements. 70 The Luwian derived kurša became an an important symbol of divine royal protection. A cult space on Büyükkale itself was even dedicated to the kurša of the state D LAMMA (Taracha 2009, 103). Summary /Conclusions: Archaeological traces of the Hittites are particularly poor at western Anatolian sites, despite the assumed Hittite dependence on western minerals, ports, and the supposed garrisoning of troops there, which are mentioned in historical documents (i.e. Mursili’s Annals). Hittite objects or Hittite influenced objects are only occasionally f o und in the west. These are, according to this survey, two figurines, one pilgrim flask, one beak spouted jar, two vessels, an inscribed pot sherd, one impressed bulla, five stamp
70 Bille Jean Collins also rejects this idea. Collins 2010, Fn. 8.
38 seals and ceramic influence at Beycesultan I. Three axs, three swords and 1 arrowhead have parallels in Hittite metalwork, but their origins are less clear. Many of these finds were not in clear contexts, the others in undistinguished domestic spaces (see Table 1.1). That exchange took place is certain, but it could never have been on a large scale. The items that have survived in the record are small, low‐value goods with some possible prestige items (weapons‐ if they came from central Anatolia). Stray finds of figurines and pottery sherds are found out of context and tell us little about the use or a ppreciation of these objects. The general absence of Hittite seals in western Anatolia could indicate the absence of a developed administrative apparatus in this area, and a different system of diplomatic negotiations not involving traveling dignitaries moving about and living in western states. Hittite material in the west is situated at the major ur ban centers (probably the capital cities, Troy and Sardis) of the LBA states; exchange was therefore most likely tied to court contacts rather than general trade. This is more than can be said for western Anatolian materials at Hittite sites. There are no published examples of Trojan or western Anatolian pottery at Boğaz köy or elsewhere in the Hittite heartland. 71 The material remains correspond to the historical text in only the most general way. Although Hatti had been involved with the western states, especially Arzawa already from the Old Hittite period, there is no early Hittite material in the west. It is only in the 13 th century with the pottery and glyptic remains at Beycesultan, the Karabel reliefs and the pilgrim flask and arrowhead from Sardis that we have the first signs of the intense preoccupation with the west under Mursili II and his successors. If Troy is Wilusa, the two finds from 12 th century contexts do not represent the close diplomatic ties between Hatti and Wilusa through the entire 13 th century. The meager archaeological finds from this region, do not come close to and cannot hope to, reflect the vicissitudes of allegiance between vassal and hegemon described in the historical record. The clustering of Hittite material at Beycesultan can be explained by its geographic proximity to the Hittite heartland. It might also have to do with an elevated status accor ded the state of Mira‐Kuwaliya at the end of the 13 th century, as also intimated in the Tawagala Letter (KUB 14.3, CTH 181, Miller 2006 with refs.).
71 There are some rare pieces of grey ware at Gordion that may be northwestern, but these also have parallels at Boğazköy (Jewell 145). The sherds are generally dated to the MBA or undated.
39 Besides material exchanges, this chapter has also traced the cultural interconnections between Hatti and the west. Luwian (western) influence is most visible in the realm of language and religion, where the Hittite language absorbed many isolated Luwian words, and where Arzawan ritual and cult personnel were eagerly employed to carry out their rites fo r Hittite audiences. At the outset, the cultural connections appear to be almost entirely one‐sided with the Hittites absorbing much of western Luwian culture, while the west remained independent. The only example of the west drawing on Hittite culture is the appropriation of Hittite god imagery by the kings of Mira and the a doption of Luwian hieroglyphic stamp seals and inscriptions. It is still not clear however, where Luwian hieroglyphic originated and the script itself may have been indigenous in the west. 72 The images themselves, are a classic example of elite emulation, the kings of Mira elevated their status among their west Anatolian peers through public displays of their connections with Hittite authority. Certain features of worship such as libations and animal sacrifice as well as the worship of regional storm gods, demonstrate common cu ltu ral ground, but not influence. On the other hand, the Luwian influence in Hatti in the Empire period is considerable. One explanation for the Luwian impact on Hatti is that it was the natural result of the vast numbers of Arzawan subjects deported to the Hittite interior especially in the reign of Mursili II. In addition, as the superior power, Hatti drew on all of the resources of its empire, including ritual expertise; a type of imperial exploitation. 73 We can be certain that many of the Luwian rites were adopted to address the historical reality of a plague stricken society under Mursili II. We are less certain of the impetus behind their incorporation in the Hittite textual corpora, whether directly ordered by the Hittite king, the religious establishment, or the general po pulation who also utilized Arzawan rituals.
72 I am of the opinion that the limited nature of hieroglyphic finds in the west and its widespread use in central Anatolia on seals, would point to a westerly movement of scribes and script. 73 As of yet we have no evidence for the material exploitation of the west. Much of the wealth of the west was in raw materials such as silver, gold, foodstuffs and horses.
40 C HAPTER T WO : P ART I: H ITTITES I N N ORTH S YRIA /S YRO ‐M ESOPOTAMIA The historical and archaeological evidence for western Anatolia confirm that Hatti did little to integrate the region of western Anatolia into the political structure of the empire. The Hittite relationship with the region to its southeast (modern Syria and northern Iraq) was fundamentally different. Syria is geographically accessible to the central plat eau th rough the mountain passes in the south and the peoples of Anatolia already had a centuries‐long history of sustained contact with the urbanized states of north Syria when the Hittites came to power at the end of the MBA. Since the Early Bronze Age, Syria was an important corridor for goods and services comin g into central Anatolia from the south and east. By the LBA the two regions already shared many cultural features with the Hittites including the cuneiform script, an advanced urban culture and some divinities. Cultural and geographic proximity created a platform for new levels of integration in the Em pire period. As in the previous chapter, this chapter will explore the archaeological evidence for the commercial, political, and cultural ties between Hatti and Syria/Mitanni. In this chapter I have purposely lumped together the entire southeastern region comprising in the Bronze Age small Syrian principalities and the major kingdom of Mi tanni fo r two reasons. First of all, although culturally and politically fragmented, the entire region came under Mitannian control in the 15 th century. In addition, it is nearly impossible to localize material beyond reference to the entire region. 74 Due to the volume of material discussed, the material has been divided into two parts: Hittite material in Syria/Mitanni and Syro‐Mesopotamian material in Hatti. This chapter deals with the Hittite material from modern Syria and Syro‐Mesopotamia, with an emphasis on cultural connections. The archaeological material in Syria demonstrates the Hittites’ wide‐ranging im pact on the political and cultural life of the north Syrian principalities. Chapter three will cover Syro‐Mesopotamian material in Hatti and cultural relations with the Hurrian world of Syro‐Mesopotamia. Material Exchanges:
74 See discussion of Hurrian or Mitannian culture in the following chapter.
41 There is a plethora of Hittite and Hittite inspired material in the region of modern Syria, but very little from the heartland of Mitanni in the Habur headlands. From “Mitannian” sites, there are two silver objects and a class of red burnished ware that could be Hittite imports. 75 A silver medallion from Munbaqa (cat. 22) and a miniature stag figurine (cat. 18) and red burnished ceramic fragments from Brak, have parallels at Boğazköy, but are not certain imports (cat. 19‐20)(Oates et al. 1997, 73, f. 204). The medallion from Tell Munbaqa carries the Anatolian signe royale , however, by the LBA this motif had become widespread in Syria and its attribution to the Hittite heartland is therefore not at all certain. The fragments of pottery from Tell Brak look Hittite, but were not examined firsthand. Their red slip, dark grey cores and chaff temper stand out from the standar d north Mesopotamian and Syrian Euphrates Wares (Oates et al. 1997, 73). One sample has relief decoration very much like examples from Boğazköy (Oates et al. 1997, 74). Note however, that according to the excavators, they occur in levels ranging from level 7 (15 th cent.) to levels 1 (end of 13 th century) with the most sherds coming from level 2 (Oates et al. fig. 110). Most of the shapes do not have exact parallels in Hittite pottery, except, no. 516 (cat. 20) which finds a close parallel in shape in the much earlier Huseyinded vase (Sipahi 2001), The stag figurine comes from an undistinguished Midd le Assyrian level (Oates et al. fig. 236, 74, and fig. 26). Mitanni is best known from two sites on its periphery, Nuzi and Alalakh, both of which have Hittite objects dated to the period of Mitannian hegemony. At Alalakh, levels V and IV yielded two sealings and on e seal (A T 38/136) Woolley 1955, 129, Pl. LXVIIb) as well as a colander inscribed with Luwian hieroglyphs (ATP 38/230) Woolley 1955, 352, pl. CVIIIi) 76 . The ivory figurine from Nuzi is the clearest example of a Hitite import (cat. 21). The carving style, the facial characteristics, the costume of the figure and the presence of a Hittite hieroglyph all point to Hittite workmanship. This is the figure of a young female wearing a cutaway cloak an d one upturned boot, almost certainly to be identified with the Semitic Ishtar/Hurrian Shaushga. She carries an ax in one hand and the Luwian sign BONUS 2 in the other:
75 Technically, most of the sites in Syria and southeastern Anatolia in the 15‐14 th centuries should be considered Mitannian sites as they were under the political control of Mitanni. Strictly speaking, though, the excavated sites from the Mitannian center are, are Tell Brak (Nagar), Tell Munbaqa and Tell Hamidiye (Taide?). 76 The photographic plate labels the colander ATP 38/239, whereas the report write 38/230. I do not know which is correct. These are not included in the catalogue because stratigraphically they belong to levels V and IV (16‐15 th cent.) and do not fit into the EmpireEmpire period range of this study.
42 the standard symbol of Shausgha in the Empire period (Alexander 1991). 77 The piece was found in the stratum II temple which was destroyed in the early or late 14 th century (Stein 1989, but see Matthews in Oates et al. 1997, 48). The figurine could therefore predate the Hittite domination of Mitanni. The Alalakh material is even earlier (c. 15 th century, Bergoffen 2005, 58‐64 and Table IX). Therefore, outside of the historical texts, there is hardly any material evidence for the Hittites’ involvement with the area of Mitanni proper both before and after its conquest. The clearest evidence is the ivory figurine from Nuzi which appears to have been a dedication in Temple A (Star r 1937‐9, 421). This is a religious item with Hurrian associations and obviously appreciated as such in Nuzi as well. Although in Hittite style, the figure of the Hurrian Shaushga, would have resonated in Nuzi’s Hurrian setting. The Nuzi figurine shows that Hatti and Mitanni already sh ared certain ideological and iconographic associations, perhaps dating to before Suppiluliuma’s conquests. The Anatolian ceramics from Brak are associated with the “Mitannian palace” (Oates et al. fig. 204) excepting the relief sherd (from mixed fill level 4/5?). The red‐slipped ceramics of level II are dated stratigraphically to the 13 th century (Oates et al. 35, Table 1). At this time Mitanni was already tied to the Hittite Empire as a puppet state, serving as a buffer against Assyrian expansion. The Assyrians, in fact, must have been responsible for the level II destruction of the palace (Oates et al. 1997, 14). The spike in Anatolian‐style potter y immediately preceding this destruction could indicate closer ties with the center in the face of this threat. The other materials (seals and sealings from Alalakh, the silver pendant from Munbaqa, and the relief sherd from Tell Brak), clearly indicate the sporadic nature of contacts with the entire region before Suppiluliuma’s conquests. Even the seal and sealings from Alalakh, at first glance an intriguing early indication for Hittites in the region, could be imports from Kizzuwatna, rather than Hatti proper. 78 In contrast to the Mitannian center, there are a fair amount of Hittite artifacts coming from the
77 Even though she appears to be Shaushga, Mellink has pointed out that the strange imagery of the goddess in only one boot could relate to the Anatolian myth about Anzili putting on her clothes wrong (Mellink 1964). There is not direct correspondence however, and the identification of the figure is still uncertain. 78 This would make more historical sense for we know that Alalakh was politically and economically involved with Kizzuwatna in the early LBA (AT3). In addition, the “Hittite” disc seal from the level V‐IV palace with its early hieroglyphs includes the god name SANTA, a Kizzuwatnean deity.
43 independent kingdoms of north Syria, which found themselves first under Mitannian, then Hittite control. The largest concentration of material comes from two sites: Ugarit and Alalakh. This, of course, is partly a reflection of the excavation history of this region, for these two sites have been extensively excavated, and partly a reflection of their importance to the Hittite authorities. At Carchemish and at Aleppo, the two Hittite political centers in modern Syria, evidence is lacking, since excavations are limited by supra‐ site buildup and other modern political restraints. The range of goods from north Syrian sites includes seals and impressed bullae, pottery, figurines, weapons, and do cuments. Seals and Sealings The most numerous and widespread category of Hittite finds in northern Syria are the Hittite style seals and sealings with Luwian hieroglyphs. A mere glance at Fig. 2.1 will show that Hittite seals and sealings are found at most of the major tow ns of norther n Syria, testifying to the Hittites’ involvement throughout the region. 79 The seals and sealings provide valuable information about the presence of Hittite persons in the region and the level of their involvement in the local economy and political arena.
79 This section deals only with those seals and sealings which belong to the Anatolian class, and do not display characteristics of Syro‐ Hittite glyptic, which will be dealt with further on in this chapter.
44 Fig. 2.1 Distribution of Hittite Seals and Sealings in Syria T ABLE 2.1 H ITTITE S EALS AND S EALINGS IN S YRIA /S YRO ‐M ESOPOTAMIA Hittite Seals in Syria Site Material Context Inscription Strat. Date Comp Date Cat. no. Alalakh ? ? Pa‐sa‐su BONUS 2 .FEMINA N/A 13 th 23 Alalakh White steatite Eastern annex of temple Ib (AJ 30), Pa‐lu‐wa REX,FILIUS REGIO.DOMINUS 12 th cent. 13th 24 Alalakh Beige stone ? a. LUNA‐ma‐ta BONUS 2 .VIR 2 b. ma‐x‐wa BONUS 2 .FEMINA N/A ? 25 Alalakh Grey steatite Level III fort below brick paving x(ki?)‐la‐la? BONUS 2 .FEMINA 14‐13 th cent. 13 th 26 Deve Höyük Carchemish Hama Emar Tel Afis Tell Fray Tell Faq’us Aleppo Ebla Alalakh Ugarit Ras Ibn Hani Tell Tweini Tilbesar Abu Qalqal Impressed/inscribed vessel seal clay sealing 1 2 3 5 9 Minet el Beida Tell Kazel
45 Alalakh Red serpentine corner of temple courtyard behind basalt threshold, level I‐II, ] za‐i? SCRIBA? X 12 th cent. 13/12th? 27 Alalakh terracotta found on surface below tell a‐pi‐pa? N/A 28 Alalakh terracotta From upper soil‐ level doubtful Pa‐lu‐wa REX.FILIUS REGIO.DOMINUS N/A 13 th ? 29 Alalakh clay? "top soil above Niqmepa palace" p. 169‐ in level III fort but high up in filling. nu?‐x? BONUS 2 .VIR 2 14 th cent. 13 th ? 30 Alalakh steatite Upper soil‐ unstratified Geometric design, no inscription N/A 14 th cent.? 31 Alalakh steatite New excavations. Top soil over residential zone. Sq. 44.69 Geometric design, no inscription N/A 14 th cent.? 32 Aleppo? serpentine Purchased sa 2 ?‐x‐x, ? Iron Age? 40 Aleppo? ? Private collection a. TONITRUS‐la‐li?‐mi? BONUS 2 .VIR 2 b. Na?‐ti‐mu?‐li ? 41 Carchemish white steatite found high up against the brick face of the inner line of the N. Wall" Winged griffin?, BONUS 2 LB? 13‐12th? 42 Carchemish ? ? wa‐sa‐ja BONUS 2 .VIR 2 N/A 13 th (Mora) 43 Carchemish Serpentine near end of citadel mound in trial trench, found with roman limestone, basalt with cuneiform, glass and colored beads, figurines and a bulla seal (serpentine). F. 33. URBS? Zu?‐sa 4 ? N/A 13th/12th? (Mora) 54 Carchemish? Bronze ? ? N/A end of 15th‐beg. 14th? Mora 45 Carchemish? ? ? L157? x‐x BONUS 2 .VITA N/A end of 15th‐beg. 14th? (Mora) 46 Deve Höyük Stone Grave kukku 8‐7 th cent. 13 th ? 50 Deve Höyük Stone Grave Kulaziti 8‐7 th cent. 13 th ? 51 Emar Silver surface fill Upper Town Kukunu BONUS 2 .VIR 2, , A‐na‐na‐zi? N/A 13 th cent. 54 Emar Bronze fill level in Upper Town Hatanzia? ARZT? N/A 14‐13 th cent. 55 Hama Steatite grave, cemetery II x‐na? 11 th ‐9 th cent. end 13th‐ beg. 12th 57
46 Hama ? grave, cemetery II ? 11 th ‐9 th cent. 1st half of 12 th ? 58 Hama Steatite N14 19/3 1036, medieval layer below central place ? Medieval 13/12th? 59 Hama dark red serpentine P/Q 13 6‐14/4, Building II, rm. N (storage room), destruction level of c. 720. Period E. TONITRUS‐na BONUS 2 . FEMINA 8 th cent. 60 Hama seprentine .cremation urn period F2 TONITRUS (Tarhunta)‐na BONUS.FEMINA end of 13 th ‐ 12 th cent. 13th/12 th ? 61 Kalkal? Stone N/A Taki‐Sarruma REX.FILIUS N/A 13 th cent.? 62 Minet el Beida Clay no info on context‐ prob tomb. Excavated grand building and corbelled tombs that season. Pi‐ta‐ti? PINCERNA BONUS 2 .VIR 2 13 th ? 64 Ras Shamra ? acropole an S de la Maison du grand Pretre. "step trench II" p.t. 40, 1.7 m ? ? 13/12th? 66 Ras Shamra Steatite royal palace, court I, p.t. 258, 3.65 m L227 MAGNUS.REX (seal of Mursili son of Supp) 2 nd half of 14th. Schaeffer Ug. III p. 57‐ archaeological context favors date in 13th cent. 14 th cent. 67 Ras Shamra Steatite and bronze residential quarter, p.t. 972, 1.8m, found in the quarter in vicinity of temple of Baal and Dagon. Private house east of palace. Tal‐mi‐a BONUS 2 .VIR 2 SIGILLUM ? 13th cent. 68 Ras Shamra Clay acropolis, Chantier I. P.t. 125 a, 1.9 m. Pala BONUS 2 .VIR 2 ? ? 69 Ras Shamra Gold South acropolis, p.t. 3546 (zone 108), 1.7m Patiluwa? A/I‐x‐x‐pa‐ti‐lu‐ tu PONERE‐wa? 70 Tell Afis blackish greenish stone Open space Area G, EDV3, level 4 – L.1360, Iron I. Sa‐na‐sa‐li BONUS 2 . FEMINA 10‐9 th cent. 13 th cent? 74 Til Besar? Stone ? Jasatani? BONUS 2 . PINCERNA ? 13 th cent.? 76 Til Besar? Red serpentine ? Za‐yi‐a BONUS 2 .VIR 2 ? 13 th cent.? 77
47 Til Besar? Steatite ? a. Sa‐ma‐tu‐li BONUS 2 .VIR 2 , b. K‐iki‐ya BONUS 2 .FEMINA ? 13 th cent.? 78 Tell Dis Stone ? Ja‐sa‐ma? 13 th cent.? 79 Tell Kazel Stone Monumental building, stratum V wa‐Teshub c. 1200 end of 13 th cent. 83 Tell Kazel Monumental building, stratum V SCRIBA?‐L177‐ TONITRUS?‐x‐x‐sa c. 1200 12 th cent.? 84 Tell Tweini Stone Residential house Sa‐ka‐pi‐ya BONUS 2 . VIR 2 13 th cent. 13 th cent. 86 Sealings with Impressions of Hittite Seals in Syria Alalakh clay bulla from main street level II Tara‐la‐nu 2 ‐he‐pa? ‐ Barnett‐ qanuhepa cheiftan 13 th cent. 14‐13th 33 Alalakh Clay bulla from upper soil‐ level doubtful Lu‐x‐ to give? N/A 13/12th? 34 Alalakh Clay bulla from surface close to trench C Ooo iii N/A 13th? 35 Alalakh Clay bulla New excavations, Sq. 44.55 residential zone, top soil PASTOR.x.li N/A 13 th cent. 36 Ebla Clay bulla Area Z, southwestern area, collapsed level rooms. (BiVII9iv, lev. 3) BONUS 2 .AURIGA MONS‐ la‐FRATER 2 (Walananiya kartappu) 13 th cent. 13 th cent. 52 Ebla Clay bulla Surface Huratana? N/A 13 th cent. 53 Ras Ibn Hani Clay bulla North palace (E) E 87 SW, in fill covering pit? pari? DEUS? 13th cent? 65 Ras Shamra Clay tag Palais Royal court V, p.t. 1340 1.6m DEUS.MAGNUS URBS? DOMINUS?‐wa/I L441 (Massana‐ura?) 13th cent. 71 Tell Faq'us Clay bulla Foundations of building western extension of bastion. MAGNUS.HASTARIUS? 13 th cent. 13 th cent. 80 Tell Fray Clay bulla floor of Palazzetto Hattusili and Puduhepa 13 th cent. 13th cent. 81 Tell Kazel impressed pot sherd Monumental building, stratum V Simigatal SCRIBA c. 1200 13 th cent. 82 There are a total of 41 seals (6 are of doubtful provenance) and 11 sealings (not including sealed tablets, which will be discussed separately). Of the seals, two are of the same official; Paluwa. The rest of the seals represent independent individuals, the majority without stated titles. Several are from the royal/administrative field; i.e. the seal of Mursili II from Ugarit and the sealing of Pudu hepa and Hattusili from Tell Fray. Titled officers of the Hittite administration include Paluwa REX.FILIUS REGIO.DOMINUS
48 (prince, country lord) from Alalakh (cat. 24 and 29), Taki‐Sarruma REX.FILIUS from Kalkal (?)(cat. 62), Patiluwa PONERE‐wa? from Ras Shamra (cat. 70), and Yasatani URCEUS (cupbearer) from Til Besar (cat. 76) and Walananiya AURIGA from Ebla (cat. 52). Surprisingly few seals designate the owner as a scr ibe (cat. 27?, 82, 84). Many of the seals carry the familiar signs BONUS 2 .VIR 2 (Good Man) or BONUS 2 .FEMINA (Good Woman), but it is unclear whether these signs are token blessings of good will or whether they denote status with a meaning closer to nobleman/gentleman (Hawkins 1993,716, Boehmer‐Güterbock 1987, 62, n. 163e passim). In only a handful of cases can we postulate a connection between the individuals mentioned in th e seals and seali ngs (excluding of course the royal seal and sealing) with Hittite officials known from elsewhere. For example, the seal of Talmia from Ugarit (cat. 68) could be that of Talmiyanu, the son of Queen Šarelli; an Ugaritic prince whom Singer possibly identifies with Niqmaddu III, the second to last king of Ug arit, or his brother (Singer 1999, 700). This same Talmiyanu visited the king and queen of Hatti and if he is indeed Niqmaddu III, he may also have married a Hittite princess. 80 The second person attested elsewhere is Massana‐ura. His name occurs in a letter at Ugarit from Carchemish (17.248) and on a biconvex seal from Alişar Höyük (Laroche 1966, no. 156, Gelb 1935, 79 n.d. 821). A Massana‐ura is also mentioned as a treasurer in KUB XXXI 62, I 10 (Laroche 1966, no. 774). He appears to be a Hittite offi cial operating in the Ugaritic court (Singer 1999, 654 fn. 142). Other names on Hittite seals in Syria are encountered elsewhere, but without matching titles or other identifying features there is no reason to suppose the persons are one and the same. 81 In quite a few cases, the seal owners were natives of north Syria (Hurrians or Semites) who
80 Based on RS 34.136 Singer argues that it was Niqmaddu III, not Ammurapi who married Ehlinikkali (1999, 701). 81 The name Palla (RS 8.093) is found in various Hittite documents, on seals and seal impressions (Herbort 2005, no. 921, Mora 1987, VII 6.8, van den Hout, StBoT 38, 216, Noms nr. 906 and Supplement, and Beckman 1983b, 625, nr. 906). None can conclusively be linked with our Palla from Ugarit who carri es no title. A further seal with the name Pala can be found in a private collection in Jerusalem (Singer 1980, nr. 20). Paluwa (AT 39/322) can also be found in Empire period documents, but none with the title REGIO.DOMINUS or its Akkadian equivalent EN.KUR (Laroche 1966, 135 n. 922 ). An unprovenanced seal from Paris also belongs to a Paluwa (Masson 1975, no. 1). However the style of the seal differs from that of Alalakh, and the Paris example does not carry a title. One final correlation could be TONITRUS‐na (Hama 5B312) with the daughter of Sahurunuwa, Tarhuntamanawa, kno w n from a sealing at Nișantepe (Herbordt 2002, 59 and fn. 34). This would be a shortened version of her name.
49 adopted Hittite style seals. 82 Shaushgamuwa, king of Amurru certainly did, and so may Talmiyanu of Ugarit. Itamar Singer also raised the possibility that Paluwa of Alalakh is none other than m BAL.GAL (Ba’lu‐ GAL son of Abdi) a witness and litigant at Emar, although this name also appears elsewhere in Hittite texts. His use of a stone seal and a clay copy made from the impression of a seal impression is in keeping with the practice of other central Anatolian Hittite functionaries (B. Dinçol 19 98). Of all the seals and sealings found in Syria there is only one possible case of overlap where we have both the seal and its impression. The example is Woolley’s seal n. 159 from Alalakh (cat. 30) and an impression from a cache of bullae in Tarsus (Mora XIIb 139 and Tarsus 36 .104, XIIa 2.9). Examinations of the photographs of both seals seem to correspond, but this cannot be confirmed with certainty without more detailed firsthand analysis. If the correlation turns out to be correct, then this is potent evidence for the regional extent of the activities of Hittite merchants or administrators in the area. The sealings at north Syrian sites range in type from impressed document tags (Ugarit), jar stoppers (Tell Fray, Alalakh?) and vessels (Tell Faq’us). We also have numerous impressed documents (mainly from Ugarit) and vessel fragments with incised Luwian hierglyphs (Alalakh). The other sealings from north Syria include th e impressions of both major and minor figures, found in both residential and administrative settings. Some may have accompanied goods originating in the Hittite heartland (Tell Faq’us), while others were impressed locally. Even the impressions of the Hittite Great King and Queen on bullae and tablets found in Syria co uld have a local origin as there appears to have been a local Syrian office with their own copies of royal seals at their disposal (Otten 1995, 27). The sealed tablets provide more detailed information on the use of Hittite seals in the region. At Ugarit, the excavators uncov ered at least 42 tablets with Hittite style seal impressions (mostly from the Southern Archive of the Royal Palace) (Schaeffer 1955, 1956). Although most of these are diplomatic letters or treaties from the Hittite or Carchemish kings and say nothing about Hittites operating in Ugarit, some of these documents were composed an d sealed in Ugarit itself. A careful reexamination of these
82 We know for certain that other citizens of Ugarit, namely the very wealthy and influential Šipti‐Ba’al, used an Egyptian style signet with Egyptian hieroglyphs (Singer 1999, 697).
50 documents indicates that at least 12 (and possibly 2 others) were drawn up by local scribes and sealed in the city of Ugarit by Hittite named officials with Hittite style seals. These texts stand out from the corpus of documents coming from Hatti and Carchemish by their shape and their opening formula. Both follow the local Ugaritic scribal practice of oblong shaped tablets and open with the Akkadian legal formula ištu umi, “from today forward.” 83 When a scribe and witnesses are listed, as in RS 18.020 and RS 18.002 (Nu’me‐Rašap?) 84 , they are invariably locals, known from other local court cases. The documents showcase the integration of Hittite administrators and merchants in the economic fabric of the city. More often than not, they are not permanent residents of the city. The evidence suggests that most operated out of Carchemish (like Massanaura), but obviously made appearences in Ugarit for relevant co urt proceedings (Malbran‐Labat 2004). The members of the Hittite administration using Hittite stamp seals includes some well known functionaries also known outside of Ugarit, such as Armaziti, Taprammi, Kiliya, Kila’e, Takuhlinu and TakiSharruma, and some lesser known figures such as Anazi(?), Kummiyaziti, Tihiteshub and Teliteshub. 85 Kila’e was the kartappu of His Sun and the ša rēši šarri (head of the king’s household) of Ibiranu (c. 1230‐ 1210), serving at the top of the Hittite foreign office at Ugarit (Singer 1999, 638, 1983b 10). 86 A second kartappu who worked in both Ugarit and Carchemish was a figure named Takuhlinu. He too bears a Hurrian name and used a Hittite style seal. It is unclear if these are Anatolians who relocated to northern Syria under the Hittite administration, or locals who rose to high offices at Ugarit. Sing er maintained that the documentation for Takuhlinu pointed to Mukish as his home, although this is highly speculative (Singer 1983). 87 Judging from seal impressions, another Hittite figure present in Ugarit is Taprammi. Taprammi is also a fairly well‐known figure in Hittite prosopography. Besides his sealings at Ugarit, a
83 As opposed to the documents from Carchemish and Hatti which are usually cushion shaped and begin with the formula umma… 84 The correct transcription of his name is uncertain, as it is written with logograms. 85 Taki‐Sharruma does not appear to be the same scribe and prince as that on various documents dated to Tudhaliya IV including the Ulmiteshub treaty. For further details regarding his identiy, see van den Hout 1995b, 133‐136, and Imparati 1988, 90‐94. 86 A kartappu originally denoted a charioteer or military man, but evolved into the title for any high‐ranking official dealing with foreign affairs (Singer 1983b, 10). 87 Takuhli is a frequent name among the prominent citizens in the tablets of Alalakh IV (Wiseman 1953).
51 Taprammi is known from an inscription on a Boğazköy stele (BOĞAZKÖY 1), a seal impression at Boğazköy, and the bronze bowl from Kinik/Kastamonou. He carries the title of *254, scribe and in cuneiform ša rēši ekallim (palace eunuch) as well as “lord of the pithos men” and was clearly an important persona ge in the royal administration (Hawkins 1993, fn. 14‐18). The presence of sealings and sealed objects with impressions of Hittite seals provides reasonable proof that Hittite seals were being used on a regular basis in northern Syria. This is also supported by the findspots of seals, which (a t l east in the Bronze Age) come entirely from settlement contexts. 88 Where good stratigraphic contexts are available, Hittite seals were found in palaces (Ugarit), temples (Alalakh) and administrative buildings (Tell Fray). At Alalakh, all of the sealings in the post level IV levels have Hittite stamp impressions, leading to the assumption that most administrative sealing was being carried out by users of Hittite seals. Not all Hittite stamp users ho wever, were bureacrats. The seals of untitled individuals and the seals of women could have belonged to ordinary inhabitants of the region, merchants or artisans. Not all Hittite stamp users were even Hittites. Several Hittite style seals from Emar and Ugarit were used by peoples with west Semitic names (Bey er C3‐C22)(Beyer 2001, 34). At the major towns like Alalakh and Ugarit, the assumption is that local administrators imitated the Hittite bureacrats and merchants living and working in their midsts. Syro‐Hittite Glyptic The previous section catalogued and examined the use of Hittite style Luwi an stamp se als at north Syrian sites. The appearance of this seal type in Syria not only inspired direct imitation, but also a new variety of local glyptic which is best described as Syro‐Hittite. These are locally produced seals, either cylinder seals or elliptical ring seals, which combine Hittite inspired imagery, Luwian hieroglyp hs and local iconography (Beyer 2001, 35, Mora 2004a). The Syro‐Hittite style is best demonstrated in the glyptic of the kings and citizens of Carchemish and Emar who adapted Hittite iconography to the Syrian cylinder seal format and included some local
88 Hittite style seals from the Iron Age are mostly found in graves. Some must have been curated examples from the Bronze Age (Gorny 1993).
52 non‐Hittite details such as naked Ishtar figures, the Egyptian ankh and sphinxes and griffins wearing the divine cap (Fig. 2.2)(Beyer 2001, 35, Mora 2004a). There can be little doubt that the royal court of Carchemish were the creators of this type and served as a model for imitations among bureacrats an d the cultured elites in their district. The earliest example of this type belongs to Shahurunuwa, king of Carchemish, contemporary of Muwatalli (Beyer 1982b). The adoption of a local cylinder seal with Hittite iconography was a clever attempt at bridging the gap between the “Hittite” overlord and his largely Semitic and Hurrian subje cts. We have no surviving examples of these Syro‐Hittite cylinder seals, but we are well acquainted with their impressions on tablets from Ugarit and Emar. 89 There are 205 Syro‐Hittite impressions compared to 11 purely Hittite type seals and 164 Syrian and Mitannian examples (Beyer 2001, 16). The majority of these seals transcribed Semitic names and clearly belonged to local inhabitants. Invariably, their impressions were accompanied by Akkadian legends as even the users themselves were probably no t familiar with Luwian hiero glyphs. One figure had an Egyptian name, Amanmasu (RS 17.028). Some of these figures had more traditional local style seals in addition to their Syro‐Hittite cylinder seal, but many did not. Some of the owners were Hittite officials who opted for the local Syro‐Hittite style cylinder rather tha n the more canonical Hittite stamp seal (Ibid 287). At Emar Syro‐ Hittite style seal users were a part of the scribal group who developed and utilized the Syro‐Hittite writing system. 90 Scribes known from the Syrian tradition of texts at Emar did not use Syro‐Hittite cylinder seals. In conjunction with the spread of Hittite style stamp and cylinder seals, craftspeople in Syria adopted Luwian hieroglyphs and Hittite imagery on rings with elliptical bosses. These have a wide distribution even outside of Syria and th ey rarely contain titles, probably indicating a more widespread use. 91 A study of Syro‐Hittite and Hittite seals in Syria helps establish one aspect of Syrian accommodation to Hittite rule, but many questions still remain. Through a more detailed prosopographic study we could gain a better sense of which segment of the population used elliptical seals vs. cylinder
89 We do possess several cylinder seals from Syria that use Hittite hieroglyphs or motifs as fillers, but these are outside of the mainstream hybrid class of seals attributed to Carchemish (ex. Sabuniye, Aleppo, Alalakh, Thebes). 90 See Ikeda 1999 for further elaboration. 91 Impressions of Luwian ring seals have been found in the southern Levant (Tell el Fara south), at Ugarit and in large numbers at Boğazköy (Herbordt 2005).
53 seals vs. traditional Hittite stamp seals both in north Syria and in Hattusa itself. We may even be able to determine whether the impressions of ring seals from Boğazköy belonged to Syrians or Hittites. Much more work needs to be done on the localization of seal types and their dates, as well as the co nnections between the quality of engraving or specific iconography with the class or occupation of the owner. Such studies are necessary for more in depth comparisons of Hittite glyptic outside of the heartland with the mainstream tradition. Probable and Possible Imports In addition to Hittite stamp s eals, numero us Hittite artifacts have been found in Syria and Syro‐ Mesopotamia. Object types include weapons, figurines, ceramics and pendants. Some of these items are true imports from central Anatolia, while others could have been produced locally. It is often impossible to determine a point of origin for most items without more sophisticated scientific provenienci ng techniques. A final category of Hittite object, Hittite tablets, is included as imports, for these were items sent from abroad. 92 All Hittite finds from Syria are compiled in Table 2.2 below. T ABLE 2.2 H ITTITE I MPORTS TO NORTHERN S YRIA , S YRO ‐M ESOPOTAMIA Site Object Material Context Strat. Date Comp Date Cat. No. Alalakh 7 Hittite tablets clay Level IV? Level II, N/A 14 th ‐13 th cent.
N/C Emar 5 Hittite tablets 93 clay Building M1 and 1 from Balis sections 13 th cent. N/C Latakia Figurine Bronze purchased 63 Ras Ibn Hani 2 Akkadian tablet from Hatti clay Palais nord, E 86 SW, Cour II. (3 VIII), 86 NW, LI fosse under stairs 13 th cent. 13 th cent. N/C Ras Shamra Figurine/pendant electrum Domestic context SE of temple of Baal, 14 th cent.? 13 th cent. 72
92 This work only includes tablets written in Hittite, and not the numerous Akkadian documents found in Ugarit that were sent from Hatti. For one thing, these could be local copies of 93 Two more Hittite letters from the king of Carchemish are not included in this discussion (Singer 2000d, Hoffner 2009 , no. 24 and Salvini and Tremouille 2003, 225 ).
54 found with other jewelry (Ugaritica III) at the base of level 1 in Trench C (Syria 18). Ras Shamra Ax copper incrusted with gold, and iron blade temple? 14th cent. 73 Ras Shamra 4 Hittite tablets Clay Archive Sud 68, House of the Hurrian Priest, House of Urtenu, 13 th cent. 13 th cent. N/C Tell Afis 2 Hittite tablets clay Building F 13 th cent.? 13 th cent.? N/C Tell Fray inscribed storage jars clay floor of Palazzetto 13 th cent. 13 th cent. 82 There are very few objects other than seals and tablets that can be considered true imports. These include a ceremonial ax and an electrum pendant from Ugarit, a bronze figurine from Latakia and a few ceramic vessels. The electrum pendant from Ugarit fits precisely the category of miniature divine pendants found at Boğazkö y and a few sites around the Mediterranean (cat. 72). This example, in its subject matter and in its execution is very similar to a divine triad pendant in ivory from Boğazköy (Fig. 2.3)(Neve 1996, abb. 81) and a worn silver triad pendant found at Kilise Tepe (Sy mington 2001, 183, f. 13a). It was found among other jewelry, “most of a religious nature” in a domestic context south of the Temple of Ba’al (Schaeffer 1956, 94). 94 It appears then to have been appreciated as it would have been in Hatti itself as both jewelry and amulet. The second metal figurine from the region is a small bronze statuette now in the Louvre (cat. 63)(Akurgal 1962, no. 50, Bittel 1976, no. 226). It bears such striking similarities in both size and composition to a statuette from Boğazköy in the Berlin Staatliche Museum, that it is certainly another Hittite import (Fig. 2.4)(Akurgal 1962, no. 51, Bittel, 1976, no. 227). 95 Of
94 The preliminary report in Syria 18 describes the find spot as “at the base of level 1, Trench C” (Schaeffer 1937, 146). The other objects were Hathor head pendants or “qedeshet” figures of gold. His description however, makes it unclear if the objects were actually found together as a hoard or just in the same vicinity. Schaeffer ca lls them an ensemble (Ibid). 95 Both figures are bare‐chested male statues in a striding pose (almost certainly gods), wearing short kilts and thick belts. Both are missing their headdresses, but have squat and square faces with lips in a slight smile and long straight noses. Their arms were crafted as separate pieces and one bent arm survives in the Berlin piece. The most striking similarity is in the rendering of the
55 course, without excavation it is impossible to tell when the statuette made its way to modern Syria, whether a result of ancient travels or the early antiquities trade or how it was used. The other object that I consider a product of the Hittite world is an iron ax with a copper han dle inlaid with gold from Ugarit (cat. 73). Schaeffer argued that this was a locally produced Mitannian inspired piece, similar to an Egyptianizing gold‐inlaid falcon found at Minet el‐Beidha (Schaeffer 1939, 119). When one examines the iconography of the ax more closely, however, it becomes clear that the decorative motifs on the ax are more in keeping with Hittite models (also Tallon 1983, 176). Schaeffer already noted at its discovery that the ax blade emerging from two roaring lions recalls the imagery on the knife god of Yazılıkaya, although he attributed both to Hurrian iconography (Schaeffer 1956, 12 3). The open‐mouthed lions gripping the two blades are rendered on the haft in the precise manner as they are in Yazılıkaya. Additionally, the boar’s head, which Schaeffer believed was characteristic of Mitannian art because of its appearance at Nuzi, is actually a standard motif in Hittite art. A boar hunt is found on the gate reliefs of Alaca Höyük and again on the Taprammi bowl of Kastamonou. The secondary motifs of rosettes and the stylized three‐pronged plants act as fillers both on the Ugarit ax as well as in the other two Hittite examples mentioned above. The form of the plant, a triangle with three prongs is ubiquitous in Hittite art, but not on Syrian pieces. The mixing of metals also seems to have been a specialty of Hittite metalsmiths (Yener 1995). Because of the specificity of these parallels I think it is fair to say that this wa s a ceremonial object brought to Ugarit from Hatti proper. A much larger category of finds falls into the group of “possible” imports from Hatti. The first example is an ivory figurine from Alalakh (cat. 37). The subject matter of the naked child is familiar in Hittite art, and is in fact on e of the few instances where nudity is portrayed (Canby 1986). Two things point to the Hittite style. These are the girl’s unusually large ears and her hairstyle. Her hair starts fairly far back on her forehead and falls down her back in a long plait or ponytail. This same hairstyle can be seen on a similar figure now exhibited in the British Museum (Canby 1986). The stance of the figure, with hands elongated at the sides also matches. However, Alalakh has a strong tradition of ivory carving, and
kneecaps and calf muscles. The knees are rendered in two concentric ovals like an almond shaped eye and the calves are large and shapely, emphasized by incised lines.
56 the piece could easily have been produced on site. The most numerous items which may come from the Hittite world are metal weapons. Examples of swords, axs and armor from both Alalakh and Ugarit display connections with the Hittites. Both sites have spiked socketed axes, a type best represented by the example carried by the Warr ior God of the King’s Gate at Hattusa. The spiked ax seems to have held special sacred associations for the Hittites (Yener, in press) and is probably an Anatolian type, as the oldest antecedents belong to MBA Kültepe and Acemhöyük (Curtis 1980, 73‐74). 96 However, the distribution of the type is wide; examples have been found at LBA sites as far apart as Chagar Bazar, Nimrud, and Boğazköy (Erkanal 1977, 5) and centers of production can not be determined at this time. A similar situation applies to cast hilt swords that have been found at Alalakh, Ugarit, Tell es Saidiyeh and Tell Kazel (Fig. 2.6). 97 A new type of scale armor at Alalakh in level I (AT/37/37, Woolley 1955, 278, pl. LXXI) is identical in shape and size to that found at Boğazköy (Macqueen 1999, 63 n. 33) and differs from the earlier armor of Atchana, Nuzi and Ugarit. 98 Decorated weapons from Ugarit and Alalakh share features with weaponry from the Hittite world, although they are not imports. At Ugarit, Schaeffer excavated a spearhead flanked by two boars (Fig. 2.7). It has a very close parallel in an unprovenanced example from the Borowski collection (Fig. 2.8). A spearhead flanked by two li ons at Alalakh (Fig. 2.9)(Woolley 1955, pl. LXX, AT/39/305) is a related class. This can be compared to an MBA inscribed example acquired in Diyarbakir (Güterbock 1965, 197‐8) and to the sword god depiction at Yazılıkaya. Yener has convincingly described the cultic importance and ideological power of weaponry in th e Hittite world, an idea she suggests was transferred to its subject
96 A stone mold for such an ax process these were crafted in Anatolia in the MBA (Belli 2004, 22, R. 22). 97 The swords are grooved swords with crescent shaped cast hilt pommels from Alalakh (AT 36/4, Woolley 1955, pl. LXX, Ug. III 276, pl. 10), Ugarit (Schaeffer 1956, 227 f, pl. 10), Tell es Sa’idiyeh (Pritchard 1964, 7), and a circular pommel ended dagger from Tell Kazel (Badre et al. 1994, f. 41). This type Includes thr e e swords from Miletus, (see chapter one) Boğazköy and Sarköy (Geiger 1993). Crescent swords are often shown in the belts of Hittite kings and gods. The swords show affinity to Aegean examples, but the find spots in the northern Levant argue for a Canaanite origin (Sandars 1963, 140‐142, Geiger 1993, Shalev 2004, 63). Only one excavator considers them an Anatolian development from EBA Alaca Höyük examples (Neimeier 2005, 297). It is unclear whether these were shared technologies or imported items. 98 The Alalakh examples are long and narrow with rectangular holes. The best known cache of LB armor was found in a grave in Kamid el Loz and contains various shapes of armor from a significant portion of a breastplate. These range in length and shape, but none have the rounded edge and re ctangular holes of the Alalakh and Boğazköy examples (Kamid el Loz 10).
57 states (Yener, in press, 7). 99 Whether the spearhead is a product of the Hittite world, or whether the idea of sacred/ceremonial weapons adorned with supernatural beings and divine symbols is a shared attribute of both northern Syria and the Hittite world, it is impossible now to say. Ceramics: As Genz has recently pointed out, there are no cer tain exa mples of Hittite ceramics in northern Syria (Genz 2006a, 502). 100 Despite the absence of obvious imports, there are some parallels in forms between the ceramics of Atchana, Emar and Tell Fray and Boğazköy that point to a degree of familiarity with one another’s traditions. For example, Woolley recorded one large transport jar of “drab clay, well made, but not well finished” coming from Atch ana level II (Fig. 2.10)(Woolley 1955, 324, 334, Pl. CXI, type 39). 101 The same type is found at Emar (Caubet 1982, type 31) and is probably imported. The form is not paralleled elsewhere in north Syria, but has parallels at Boğazköy (Genz 2006a, 502). The same is true for one handled cups found at Emar (Ibid). 102 A thin walled, one‐handled flaring cup from Tell Fray certainly points to central Anatolia. This is a Hittite form without parallel in Syria and could either be an import or an imitation. Unfortunately, Tell Fray’s pottery was never published (Matthiae 1980, 48). 103 A second type from Emar, a red burnished jar (Type 54), is another possible import from Hittite territory (Caubet 1982, 86). Here too, a full study of the Emar pottery has not been published and no other details are given regarding this type. In more general terms, excavators have noticed a growin g trend of Anatolian influences in ceramic production beginning in the 12 th century (Mazzoni 2002, 134). Ceramics from Tel Afis level 10, have strong affinities to “Hittite” types from Porsuk and Malatya, and also Tarsus and Tille Höyük (Ibid).
99 I thank Dr. Yener for providing me a draft copy of her essay. 100 The topic is currently the subject of a masters thesis by University of Chicago student Sarah Hawley. A previous attempt (summer 2004) by Simone Arnhold of the University of Marburg to identify Hittite ceramics at Atchana turned out to be fruitless. 101 Gates has suggested that Woolley’s remarks on the potmarks on plates and a saucer (Woolley 1955, 352) could fit in with the mass production of Hittite pottery she sees at other Hittite regional centers (Gates 2001, 138, fn. 2). Atchana’s potmarks in comparison to those of Kinet Höyük and Tarsus might be worth further study. 102 parallels in Buyukkale IVc (13 th cent.) Müller Karpe 1988. T. 175, D 15. 103 These are compared to Fischer 1963, T 82, n. 677, 679, 683‐86, dated to the 14‐13 th cen turies (fn. 31).
58 Mazzoni describes this trend as “less directly related to the Hittite political domination and more to the cultural and political primacy of a city such as Jerablus/Karkemish and the rise of a few other centres such as, possibly already in the 13 th century, Tell ‘Ain Dara (2002, 134).” Although locally produced, Tell Afis ceramics show the same mass produced drab wares with potmarks that are standard for other sites in Cilicia and Anatolia (Venturi 2010, 3, Fig. 6/11, Fig. 7/11 and Fig. 10/13‐14). Ceramic evidence from sites such as Emar and Atchana indica te that Hittite ceramic styles penetrated the region of northern Syria beginning in the late 13 th century and Hittite influences became more pronounced either due to the new political ascendancy of the Carchemish dynasty or to migrations of Anatolian peoples into the area. Hittite Tablets: The last category of Hittite artifacts in Syria is the documents either written in Hittite or sent from Hatti. In addition to being historical so u rces, these are imports just like objects. Their quantity tells us about the volume and consistency of communication between the two regions and their find spots about the participants. A total of nineteen texts written in the Hittite language have been found at four Syrian sites, clearly demonstrating th e presence of Hittite speakers and scribes. Six come from Alalakh, four from Ugarit and two were recently discovered at Tell Afis. The range of texts is interesting as it includes letters (5?), divination texts (?), rituals ( RS 92.2011 and 92.6278 ), a deed (RS 17.109, Ug. 5, 49, Ug. 3, 155) , and one trilingual literary text (RS 25.421). The Hittite documents from Ugarit are three different categories of texts from three different locations (Fig. 2.11). The first is a legal deed recording a transaction between the šakinu (governor) of Ugarit and the Hittite tax collector (RS 17.109). It is the sole example of a Hittite legal docu ment found outside the Anatolian plateau. It clearly was part of the Hittite bureaucracy involved with Ugarit. It was found in the palace archives, but it is unclear if it was composed in Ugaritic or Hittite territory. 104 The fact that it was written in Hittite, possibly in Ugarit itself, shows that there was a Hittite speaking administrator at Ugarit to regulate the civil affairs of Hittite officials residing there (Laroche Ug. V. 722).
104 The orthography of the document and its unique cushion shape adhere to traditional Hittite scribal practices found at Boğazköy and it is often assumed that is was composed there, although not everyone agrees (Marquez‐Rowe 1999, 421). Script, language and prosopography date the text to the 13 th century (Ibid).
59 A second document, a trilingual Sumerian, Akkadian and Hittite lyric composition also indicates the presence of Hittite speakers and readers at Ugarit (RS 25.421). It too, is considered an Anatolian import, and in fact a duplicate of this poem is known from Boğazköy (KUB 4, 97,Starke 1990, StBot 31, 536). These types of texts served scribal schools throughout the larger Akkadian‐speaking region. The text could hardly have been used to teach Hittite, but seems likely to have been the personal possession of a Hittite scribe now residing in Ugarit (Neu 1995, 126‐8). It was found in the southern acropolis with the collection of the lamashtu tablets, in the “House of the Hurrian Pries t.” These formed a collection of both private and royal letters, economic and legal texts and fifty tablets devoted to Babylonian learning, such as lexical lists as well as magical‐medical texts. The narrow room belonged to a larger ho use in which Hurrian rituals were conducted. The documents suggest that a religious officiant fluent in both Akkadian and Hurrian, possibly with ties to Hatti, resided there. The last two documents from Ugarit are fragments of rituals from the House of Urtenu (Salvini, M. 2001, 339). Urtenu was a wealthy palace official an d m erchant who maintained a full archive of personal and royal letters. These two fragments are some of the very few ritual texts in his collection. In light of this, they may represent a novelty item in the rich library of a very cosmopolitan figure. At Ugarit then, several seg ments of the population included those literate in Hittite or at least with an interest in Hittite material. From the royal sphere, the palace, we have one bureaucratic document. From the scholarly‐religious world, there is one literary composition. Finally, from the international mercantile entrepreneur, there are ritual texts. It seem s that Hittite language and culture did not spread beyond the wealthiest, most educated and most influential figures in Ugarit, although it was not relegated to the royal administration. At Alalakh, there are a larger number of documents. 105 However, only four of the seven Hittite tablets have been published to date (Niedorf 1998, 515, 2002). Three are letters and one is a divination record. None have well documented stratigraphic contexts. The first letter (AT 125) is a letter from the king to a Pirwannu regarding a shipment of fowl (Otten 1 956, Hagenbucher 1989, nr. 298, Hoffner 2009,
105 These are AT 124, 125, 454, ATT 35, BM 131.650, BM 131.651, BM 131.652. The British Museum tablets no longer have excavation numbers.
60 373, no. 125). Hittitologists have confirmed that the letter is identical in orthography and script to the texts of Boğazköy from the Empire Period (although they disagree over the sender of the letter). 106 Pirwannu must have resided at Alalakh under the Hittite occupation and had been able to, or had a scribe who could, read and translate Hittite. 107 A second, very fragmentary letter, recently published by C. Niedorf is a letter to a Tudhaliya from a Hittite king (ATT 35‐ CTH 187=H4, Niedorf 2002, Hoffner 2009, 374, no. 126). It corroborates the existence of a local ruler of Alalakh named Tudhaliya, already suggested by Laroche in 1966 and discussed below with respec t to the Tudhaliya orthostat (Laroche 1966, n. 1389, 7). A third letter (AT 124= H1) is the letter of m MI.LU’ (Armaziti) to m Shar‐[ru‐up‐shi???] (Wiseman 1954, Rost 1956, Otten 1956, Smith 1939, Hagenbucher 1989, nr. 330, CTH 209). It is a private letter dealing with runaway carpenters. If this is the same Armaziti attested by sealings and letters at Hattusaand Ugarit, he was an active administrator during the reigns of Hattusili III and Tudhaliya IV (Imparati 1988, Laroche 1952, 421, Mora 1988). The most interesting of the Hittite texts of Alalakh is AT 454 (Neidorf 2002, H3, CTH 577) (Hoffner 1973, Neu 1974, 86 Anm. 167, Archi 1975, 146), a Hittite oracular text (Gurney in Wiseman 1953, 116). 108 The oracle belongs to the I.ŠU KIN and MUŠEN series, both of which became popular after Mursili II. According to Gurney, the particulars of the script follow the Boğazköy tradition. There are one or two peculiar orthographic features, however, which suggest that it was also influenced by local scribal traditions an d was compose d locally (Gurney in Wiseman 1953, 118). A second fragment of a Hittite divination text (ATT 47/26) is known only from its excavation card (Dassow 2005, 30). Three other fragments of Hittite texts were catalogued at the British Museum (BM 131.650, 131.651 and 652, Niedorf 2002) but have not been published. The Hitt ite tablets at Alalakh (letters and oracles) suggest that Hittite literacy was more widespread and was used by residents of the city, especially, a Hittite administrator.
106 Ehelolf 1939, 73‐75 considers the sender a local vassal king, Friedrich 1939 a king of Hatti. Singer 1999a, Hoffner 2009, 372‐ king of Carchemish. 107 Alternatively, this could be a draft of a letter by a king of Atchana that was never sent, or a Hittite copy of a letter that was sent elsewhere. 108 “Since it has been established (by oracle) that the god was desecrated by a ritual offence, we asked the temple officials and Tila said: ‘People should not look at the Storm‐god; but a woman looked in at a window and a child went into the temple.’…If (the cause is) this, ditto (i .e. and nothing else), then let the Hurri‐bird omen be favourable. Result of oracle favourable.” (Singer 1998, 35).
61 At Emar too, Hittite tablets suggest a certain degree of Hittite literacy in the town. Hittite documents from Emar consist of three letters and four divination reports. The first, a letter to a Hittite resident named Alziyamuwa concerning Zu’Ba’al’s obligations towards the Hittite king (Msk. 73.1097, Hagenbucher 1989, n. 23, Laroche 1982, 54 , Kuhrt 1995, 267, Yamada 2006, Salvini and Tremouille 2003, 226‐8, Hoffner 2008, 367, no. 123) was found in Zu‐ba’al’s private archive (building M1) and was sent from the Hittite king (Mursili II, Hattusili III, Urhi‐teshub?). 109 The second Hittite text (Msk. 74.734) is a letter from the king of Carchemish to a Hittite “prince” Armanani who resided in Emar. This letter was found in the section of Balis now under Lake Assad, but Armanani’s residence there may have once served as the center of the Hittite administration at Emar (Salvini and Tremouille 20 03, 225). A third letter to Alziyamuwa came from the king of Carchemish (BLMJ 1143, Westenholz and Ikeda 2000, Singer 2000d, 65‐72, Hoffner 2009, no. 124). Four other Hittite texts from Emar are divination reports (Msk. 73.46, 74.58, 74.92, Laroche 1982, Msk. 74.57, 74.58, 74 .92, an d 73.1096 Salvini and Tremouille 2003). They reflect the color, form and syllabary of tablets from Hattusa (Laroche 1980, 241). Subtle differences in the size of the tablets, the deities invoked, and the fact that some local terms appear, all suggest that Hittite scribes composed these texts in Emar itself, perhaps to be sent back as reports to the king, either the Great Kin g in Hatti or the king of Carchemish (Salvini and Tremouille 2003, 239, 248). These too came from the Zu‐Ba’al archive (Rutz 2008, 468). Thus the only Hittite texts found at Emar belonged either to a Hittite prince resident there, or to the famous figur e of Zu‐Ba’al, who apparently relied on Hittite scribes for his correspondence with the Hittite kings at Carchemish and Hattusa. Just last year, two further Hittite letters were excavated in a large residence (Building F) at Tell Afis, but these await publication (A. Ar chi, AGADE listserv, 30 June 2009). To sum up the Hittite tablets from Syria: letters to administrators in Hittite were sent both from Carchemish and the Hittite Great King (Hattusa?) to Alalakh and Emar. Both sites also included divinitation tablets, so that we can assume that Hittite style divinations were bein g carried out on si te.
109 Salvini and Tremouille 2003, 228‐ Mursili II, Yamada 2006, 229, n. 25‐ Hattusili III, Cohen and D’Alfonso 2008‐ Mursili III.
62 Both sites were therefore more fully integrated into the Hittite political and cultural world. At Ugarit the Hittite materials are more esoteric, literary and ritual texts in eclectic archives. There is also one legal document that was probably the personal possession of a visiting official. We might also consider as Hittite imports to Syria the doc uments written in Akkadian that originated from the Hittite court at Hattusa. These are found only at Ugarit and Ras Ibn Hani. By my count the Ugarit palace archives stored 56 documents that were most likely composed in Hattusa. 110 The tablets from Hattusa in Ugarit are addressed to the royal family and include treaty copies, letters and legal documents. They were found primarily in the palace Archiv Sud (Nougayrol 1956). They are the best demonstration of the extent to which the two courts were in contact with one another in the 14‐13 th centuries and the importance and nearly autonomous position of Ugarit itself. The Hittite material from north Syrian sites consists for the most part of Hittite seals, which are fairly widespread, some elite goods, shared weapons technology and isolated examples of Hittite texts. A few items are items of trade or gift giving (i. e. ceremonial ax from Ugarit), but many were the possessions of Hittites who worked an d resided in north Syrian sites (i.e. seals and letters). The following section will consider the cultural transmissions that accompanied the people and goods illustrated by material remains. Cultural Connections: Art and Architecture: We have alrea d y established that numbers of Hittite merchants and administrators traveled among and settled within some of the major cities of northwestern Syria. One of the major questions for this chapter is: “can we identify these residents in the art and architecture of these Syrian cities?” The answer is, as it usually is, equivoca l. There are unmistakable traces of Hittite influence in the artistic output of several settlements and possible spatial and techonological parallels with Hittite Anatolian architecture. Who the producers and consumers of these products were, and how these influences were
110 This is based on a careful consideration of content, orthography, shape and seal use. The tablets are published in Nougayrol PRU IV (1956).
63 transferred will be addressed below. Just as some Hittite texts were composed in the region of north Syria following Hittite practices, local artisans, whether originally from Hatti or locals, began in the 13 th century to create works of art that imitated Hittite forms or incorporated elements of Hittite iconography. As per the discussion of the local glyptic style above, these pieces, created in the region of Syria with varying degrees of Hittite or Syrian elements, are referred to as Syro‐Hittite. This is more a designation of origin and composition than style, for the obje cts differ considerably in their more formal aspects. Table 2.3 lists the examples of objects that belong in this category. T ABLE 2.3 S YRO ‐H ITTITE O BJECTS IN S YRIA Site Object Material Context Strat. Date Comp Date Cat. No. Alalakh figurine ivory Level II, Sq. O13, below foundations of level I wall (Woolley 168‐ high up in the court of level II fort) 13‐12 th cent. 14‐13 th cent. 37 Alalakh figurine lapis lazuli Probably annex of temple IB – in temple II "cupboard". 13‐12 th cent. 14‐13 th cent. 38 Alalakh plaque ivory found in soil above great fort, level I or II 13 th ‐12 th cent. 14‐12 th cent. 39 Carchemish 33 inlays gold “Gold tomb” pit under room E of 4 th building level NW fort 7 th cent. 13 th cent. 47 Carchemish ajour sheet gold “Gold tomb” 7 th cent. 13 th cent. 48 Carchemish medallion gold, niello “Gold tomb” 7 th cent. 13 th cent. 49 Emar stele stone ? ? 56 Syro‐Hittite objects are mostly small luxury items. Centers of production could have been at Alalakh or Aleppo, but there is good reason to believe that Carchemish was the primary workshop (Winter 1977). From Carchemish come 33 gold, steatite and lapis cloissone pieces and two gold “plaques” that were produced in Syria in Hitt ite style (cat. 47)(Seidl 1972a). Even though they were found in an Iron Age tomb (Woolley 1921, 68, 1952, 250), the similarity between these pieces and the iconography of Yazılıkaya has lead most commentators to consider them Bronze Age heirlooms (Güterbock 1954, 113,
64 Mellink 1954, 250, Bittel 1964, 127, Seidl 1972a, 42, Maxwell‐Hyslop 1993, 299). 111 The proportions of the figures, the carving techniques, and the subjects of the pieces match the reliefs of Yazılıkaya and royal seals of the late Empire period so closely that we can hardly doubt their Bronze Age date. 112 Despite the parallels with representations at Yazılıkaya, several small details suggest that these are a product of a local Syro‐Hittite workshop, rather than imports from Hatti. In particular, the style of the mace in relief no. 15, is only found elsewhere on the stamp seal of Initeshub (Seidl 1972a, 43 ). The technique of inlaying gold sheets is also one already known from LBA Syrian sites (i.e. Ugarit and Qatna), but not central Anatolia. The other two gold plaques from the tomb worked a jour, are also Syro‐Hittite (cat 59‐60). Their miniature designs and their particular arrangement of the figures an d motifs have a lot in common with Syro‐Hittite cylinder seals, concentric designs at Ugarit (i.e. the gold bowl and ivory table top) as well as the Syro‐Hittite ivory plaque from Megiddo. Further products of these workshops, the silver inlay from Assur and the ivory plaque from Megi ddo, made their way to Assyria, Canaan and Cyprus and are discussed in connection with those regions. A miniature lapis lazuli figurine found in the temple at Alalakh is also in the Syro‐Hittite category (cat. 38). This piece was part of the religious paraphernalia of the level II temple (Woolley 19 55, 81). 113 The broad face, wide nose, big eyes and ears are all characteristic of Hittite representations. Particularly “Hittite” are the pursed full lips, 114 but the semi‐nude goddess, generally considered Ishtar, is an Old Syrian image that is rarely found in Hittite Empire period iconography. 115 Miniature carvings of gods even
111 With the exception of Woolley himself and M. Vierya who considered these Iron Age in date (Woolley and Barnett 1952, 257, Vieyra 1955, 87). 112 Seidl also noted that Albright pushed back the date of the cremation pottery to the 12‐11 th centuries. This needs to be reevaluated (Seidl 1972a, 1). 113 Amir Fink’s reanalysis of the temple stratigraphy would place these items in the level Ib annex (Fink 2008). The distinction does not have major implications for the significance of the piece as the dating of both levels is in question. 114 For parallels see the gold goddess figurine in the Norbert Schimmel collection and the ivory statuette from Nuzi (Bittel 1976, Les Hittites, f. 173 and 174). 115 Anatolian MBA seals from Karahöyük and Kanesh do make use of this motif, but it is found only twice in EmpireEmpire Empire period art (Imamkulu relief and the Nuzi figurine) and these probably reflect Syrian/Hurrian influence. In the Iron Age the naked Ishtar become a regular feature of neo‐Hittite art, c.f. Carche mish.
65 in lapis lazuli, are also a distinct feature of Hittite art. 116 The Alalakh figurine is thus an excellent example of the interplay of motifs and styles characteristic of Syro‐Hittite works of art. A further example of a Syro‐Hittite elite good is an ivory inlay plaque from Alalakh which combines Syrian and Hittite iconography (cat. 39). A comparison between this plaque and a clay plaque from Emar whose purpose is unknown, has a similar feel and helps to situate the Atchana plaque in the north Syrian milieu (Fig. 2.12). 117 The sphinx, which is rendered in Syrian manner, wears a conical cap, such as are worn by gods and goddesses in Hittite iconography. The sphinx and griffin on this plaque have close parallels with figures on a Syro‐ Hittite plaque from Megiddo. The griffins are especially alike, they have the same inward tur ning sweeping arch for wings, and long high necks demarcated with a scale‐like pattern. In addition, the tri‐ petalled foliage often used as a filler in Hittite reliefs is rendered here in a similar manner as on the Megiddo plaque and employed in the same way. It would not be too pres umptuous to attribute a common workshop for both pieces, possibly even at Alalakh itself. In sum, at several prominent cities in northwestern Syria, a segment of society patronized a style of art that drew considerably from the religious iconography of the Hittite Empire. The obvious question is: who are the prod ucers an d consumers of these works? We can safely assume that they are members of the elite, for the Syro‐Hittite art style is almost entirely restricted to luxury objects and found in elite contexts. The exception to this is a small sized stele from Emar (cat. 56). The Emar stel e was executed in a graffito style, crudely cut. It shows a male god wearing a horned conical cap standing under a sun disk. The conical cap with protruding horns is a most definite Hittite feature as is the gesture of the left hand bent with a bird resting on fist. The style of the carving, crude an d shallow, with coarse lines is not in keeping with Hittite examples. The winged sun disk and the clothing of the god appear as misunderstandings of Hittite renderings perhaps from seals. At Ugarit, Hittite influence in artistic production is questionable. Stele no. 2 (RS 2.037) wears s hoes/sandals with upturned toes, a hallmark of Hittite apparel. The Ba’als of Ugarit share general characteristics with Hittite storm gods: short kilts,
116 Mellink first discussed the Hittite attributes of this figure in her article, “A Hittite Figurine from Nuzi” (1964). 117 The Emar plaque is made of and is also divided into four squares. It depicts caprids, an elaborate tree and a feather‐crowned sphinx (Die Hethiter und Ihr Reich 2005, 194). The style is different from the Atchana example, but the function may have been similar.
66 crescent swords girded across the waist, and long curls down their backs. The iconography is rooted in Old Syrian, not Hittite, tradition, but the shared images attest to a similar concept of the divine. Hittite iconography can also be found on large scale architectonic programs at several sites in modern Syria (‘Ain Dara , Aleppo, Aleppo, Alalakh and Carchemish). The following section looks at the production and consumption of Hittite style monuments in LBA Syria. In order to do this, however, it is necessary to first consider issues in style, iconography and most importantly chronology. The clearest example of monumental Hittite iconography from LBA Syria is the Tudhali ya stele from Alalakh [ALALAKH 1] (Fig. 2.13). 118 In fact, this is not a stele at all, but an orthostat, for it was built into the temple of one of the later levels of the site . 119 On the broad front face of the block, are two figures, male and female adorants. A further male carrying a spear, is carved on the narrow right side. The orthostat was therefore a corner piece decorating an entry of some sort. The carving is in a fairly flat relief and is not finished; in that respe ct resembling the work at Alaca Höyük. There is no doubt that the orthostat was hewn in a local workshop. Its size, and the work of the stones, closely resemble the other orthostats from the level I temple and relief work was usually done on site. Woolley originally thou ght this was a stele of Tudhaliya IV (Woolley 1955, 241). Güterbock somewhat corrected the mistake when he reread the inscription as “Tudhaliya, prince, Great X (a title‐ illegible)” instead of “Tudhaliya, Great King” (Güterbock 1954 105‐ fn. 1). The most recent reading of Legend A reads REX.FILIUS Mons‐tu (Tud hali ya) MAGNUS.AURIGA, “Tudhaliya, prince and chief charioteer” (Niedorf 2002, 521). 120 Legend B, inscribed above a second (unfinished) female figure standing behind Tudhaliya, also carries a royal title, although this is nearly illegible. 121 She is most likely
118 [ALALAKH 1] follows the designation of inscriptions set by J. David Hawkin’s for his forthcoming catalogue of Bronze Age hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions. 119 Its exact location at the site is not known, for it was found reused as a stair tread. Woolley thought it belonged to temple II or III, but circumstantial evidence suggests that it was part of the interior lining of the cella wall in temple Ia. Only temple Ia was decorated with orthostats and these are the same size as the Tudhaliya one. 120 The same title is carried by Takuhlinu RS 16.273. AURIGA is equated with Akkadian kartappu Hawkins notes that a reading of MAGNUS.HATTI “lord of Hatti” is just as plausible (in Herbordt 2005, 302). 121 Faint traces of REX.FILIA (princess) are visible on the left.
67 the wife of Tudhaliya, and possibly a member of the Hittite royal family. 122 Dominik Bonatz’ recent reading of the image as a local ruler in homage to the divinized Hittite king (Bonatz 2007, 132) is unsatisfactory when one considers the placement of the hieroglyphs in relation to the figures and the standards of representation in most Hittite reliefs. It is difficult to date this Tu dhaliya of At chana. The style of carving fits with Hittite Empire period reliefs, but most cannot be dated more precisely than the 14‐13 th centuries. This Tudhaliya is surely the same Tudhaliya mentioned in several places, including the letter ATT 35 discussed above. 123 The paleography of the letter indicates a date around Muwatalli II, or the very beginning of the 13 th century (Niedorf 2002). Therefore, we can safely locate a Tudhaliya in Alalakh at the end of the 14 th and the beginning of the 13 th century. If the orthostat was commissioned in his lifetime, it would date to this early period. However, this date is difficult to accept, as this would make the Tudhaliya block one of the oldest hieroglyphic reliefs. In addition, architectonic relief blocks are late at Hattusa, a feature of the reigns of Tudhaliya IV and Suppiluliuma II. 124 The figure of Tudhaliya, a prince with horned cap, is a regular feature of the 13 th century, rather than the 14 th , as already discussed in chapter one. Found reused, the archaeological context of the orthostat is not much help either. If it did indeed belong to the level Ia temple, there is no consensus on the absolute date for this period. 125 We are left then, with no consensus on the date of the Tudhaliya block. We find a second inscribed architectural block at Aleppo dating to the Late Bronze Age. This is an inscription of Talmi‐Sharruma, nephew of Mursili II and king of Aleppo [ALEPPO 1] (Fig. 2.14). It was found built into a mosque on the Aleppo citadel in the early 20 th century (Messeschmidt 1900, IIIA, Garstang 1908, 8, and Sayce 1908, 186). It reads, “This temple for Hepat
122 top‐ 207+88+46= Tudhaliya, bottom 363 + 289 GRAND + COCHER (Laroche 1960, 33), (Meriggi 1975 n. 305). 123 This could be the TUdhaliya mentioned in CTH 63 and KBo IX, 83 (Niedorf 2002, 522). It is attractive to tie this Tudhaliya with the royal ancestor of the Carchemish dynasty, but he is conventionally dated in the 10 th century (Hawkins 1995a and 1986). 124 Thank you to Joanna Smith for pointing out the significance of the variability in type and placement of Hittite relief work. 125 Levels III‐I can generally be placed in the 14‐13 th centuries parallel to Ugarit Recent 2 (Dornemann 1981, 63). Unfortunately, there are no epigraphic or pottery chronologies that can date the material more closely. Aegean pottery from all three of the latest levels is LHIIIA2, dating to the 14 th century in the conventional system (Hankey 1967, 111). Pottery however, could have been kept for a long time, and even more so if there were an active embargo against new Mycenaean imports. Radiocarbon and dendrochronological studies from the new excavations will hopefully provide new anchors for Alalakh’s stratigraphy.
68 Sharruma, the king of Aleppo, (son) of Telepinu the high priest, had it built… [Akiteshub] scribe (Werner 1991, 27, no. 21).” 126 Early explorers mention a second hieroglyphic inscription that was also built into a medieval citadel building, but failed to record the inscription and it can no longer be located (Gelb 1939, Clermont‐Ganneau 1895, 470, Barthelemy 1897, 39, Burton and Drake 1872, 185. Messerschmidt 1900, 5). 127 The Talmi‐Sharruma block is clearly a building inscription, perhaps from the same temple recently excavated on the citadel mound. This inscription clearly shows that Luwian scribes (and masons?) were operating at Aleppo in the Bronze Age. If the stone dates to Talmi‐Sharruma’s own lifetime, a probable, but not certain assumption, and it is con nected to the citadel temple, this would date both the inscription and the temple to the reign of Muwatalli, the late 14 th early 13 th century. 128 This and the Tudhaliya orthostat from Alalakh would thus provide some of the earliest evidence for the monumental use of Luwian hieroglyphs. 129 Worked blocks with Hittite style reliefs found on the citadel of Aleppo in the 1930s and in the most recent excavations, could be the foundations of Talmi‐Sharruma’s temple. 130 According to the pottery finds and parallels with other examples of north Syrian temple architecture the first phase of the temple probably goes back to the beginning of the MBA with an even earlier EBA predecessor (Gonnela et al. 2005, 89, Kohlmeyer 2009, 194). The second stage of the temple, with its Hittite style wall reliefs, was built along the same lines as the MBA temple and could have begun as early as c. 1100 (Gonnela et al. 2005, 92‐93). 131 There are some indications however, for an earlier LBA decorative scheme preceding the
126 Werner followed an older reading by Merrigi of Kiliteshub, but this is no longer tenable. The second sign is *450 a, rather than *278 li, first suggested by Laroche 1956c, 134‐6. Aki‐teshub is attested on seal RS 19.78 and on a document from the time of Muwatalli II (KBo XI 1). 127 According to Barthelemy’s account he saw a carved block that was too worn to read, but he could make out the sign for king. He also reports that he acquired a second inscribed stone in the same vicinity, but this was not described or published (1897, 39). 128 Telepinu was Mursili II’s brother, Talmi‐Sharruma is therefore his nephew and first cousin of Muwatalli. He is also the first cousin of X‐Sharruma and Shakharunuwa of Carchemish. 129 This could have implications for the origins of the Luwian script. 130 This temple was first constructed in the EBA, but was substantially remodeled in the MBA, LBA and early Iron Age (Kohlmeyer 2009). The only problem with this identification is that both iconographic and epigraphic sources identify this temple with the temple of the Storm God of Aleppo and Talmi‐Sharruma’s temple is dedicatied to Hepat‐Sharruma. It is possible that two centuries earlier than the Taita inscription, Talmi‐Sharruma refurbished the temple of the Storm God for Sharruma, his patron deity. 131 An early dating of the temple based on comparisons with Zincirli and ‘Ain Dara placed the relief work in the 10 th cent. (Khayyata and Kohlmeyer 2000, 26). In particular, the window fenestration reliefs, which Gonella et al. attribute to the earliest phase of the
69 surviving 12 th century blocks. Kohlmeyer argues that three of the orthostats on the north podium wall as well as relief blocks of the eastern, southern and western walls, all date to the Hittite Empire period (Kohlmeyer 2009, 194‐5). The three orthostats of the podium have cylindrical dowel holes, an exclusively 2 nd millennium building technique (Fig. 2.15)(Özyar 1991, 15, Gonella et al. 2005, 107). These reliefs depict hybrid creatures that have been roughly smoothed over, perhaps for reuse. Kohlmeyer’s recent dating of many of the orthostats to the 14 th ‐13 th centuries is questionable. Stylistic comparisons are closer to Malatya and Carchemish, rather than Hittite Empire sites. Even the series of orthostats with distinct Hittite flavor (Gonella et al. 2005, f. 127, 137, 138) differ significantly from Empire period reliefs. 132 An analysis of hairstyles, kneecaps and earlobes suggests that the Aleppo orthostats belong to at least two different time horizons and/or carving schools (one in a Hittite style, the other Aramean/Assyrian). Many of the orthostats belong to the period of king Taita (11 th century) who depicted himself and inscribed his name on several Syro‐Hittite style blocks (Hawkins 2009, 169). His relief appears closer to the local style with fewer stylistic ties to Hittite representations. Only one orthostat is in a purely Hittite tradition and of possible LBA date. The square jaw and oversized ear of one relief (Gonella et al. 2005 , 91 Abb. 127) is the only example of purely Hittite physiognomic representations (Fig. 2.16). It is, in my opinion, the best candidate for the remains of the LBA temple. 133 Until further studies can be carried out however, it seems unwise at this time to date even the earliest reliefs before 1200 BCE . A very similar case can be made for the near contemporary temple at ‘Ain Dara. There we find a second neo‐Hittite temple with stong Hittite stylistic references. The choice of motifs (bullmen and mountain gods) and the deep modeling of the figures are typical of Hittite Empire period iconography (Abou Assaf 19 90, 39). 134 Very particular parallels can be drawn between the spiral “window” decorations on the ‘Ain Dara and Aleppo citadel temple reliefs with an Empire period ‘house model’ from Boğazköy
temple reliefs, compares with the window reliefs at ‘Ain Dara Phase II, c. 950 (Van Loon 1995, 184). The new earlier dating is based on Hawkin’s dating of the long temple inscription to 1100 (Gonnela et al. 2005, 92, Hawkins 2009, 170‐171). 132 Their hairdos and beards are distinctly not Hittite and are found on “Aramaic” style orthostats from Carchemish and Zincirli. 133 Its context, in a pit behind the northern wall (Gonnella et al. 2005, 91), also suggests that it was an earlier piece. 134 Bittel and Orthmann date these rather later to the 10 th cent. (Abou Assaf 1990, 39).
70 (Fig. 2.17)(Neve 1996, 441). Thus Abu Assaf would like to see the first stage of construction and decoration of the ‘Ain Dara temple already in the 13 th century. 135 This again appears to me too optimistic. Parallels with both Carchemish and Aleppo, better dated by epigraphy, suggest a later time scale. The phenomenon of placing Syro‐Hittite relief decoration in temple structures in Syria is similar in general outline. All three sites, Aleppo, Alalakh and “Ain Dara, have local style temples in the nort h Syrian tradition, embellished with motifs and images that drew on Hittite models and used Luwian hieroglyphs. If Aleppo and ‘Ain Dara were initiated in the Bronze Age, a distinct possibility, but not certain, they represent the emerging Syro‐Hittite style of architecture that came to dominate the region. The questions relating to the emergence of this style a bound. Who sponsored these sculptural programs and why were the foreign images perpetuated in the following centuries? 136 The Talmi‐Sharruma inscription suggests that the images were first introduced by kings from the Hittite dynasty, later to be replaced by more hybrid styles reflecting Aramaic and Assyrian influences. At Carchemish there was also an architectural program of relief work drawing on Hittite imperial iconography. Woolley, who first excavated the site, date d the Heral d’s Wall and the Water Gate to the Hittite imperial period and earlier based on their association with the fortification walls of the citadel (Woolley and Barnett 1952, 248). However, beginning with Güterbock, then Mellink and Mallowan, scholars have argued that no single Carchemish relief work dates to the 2 nd millennium BCE (Güterbock 1954, Mellink 1954, Mallowan 1972, 63). Most scholars place the reliefs in the period between the 10‐8 th centuries (Orthmann 1971, Ussishkin 1967b, Hawkins 1972, 1986). 137 On the other hand, when one considers the technical aspects of some of the reliefs, there is reason to believe that some (those without inscriptions) do in fact belong in the late 2 nd millenium. For example, a series of basalt bullmen, some found in the foundations of the bit hilani could be much earlier than the 10 th century (Fig. 2.18)(Özyar 1991, 15). These feature Mitannian inspired iconography, act as structural elements rather than
135 Now see Kohlmeyer for a similar assessment (Kohlmeyer 2008). 136 Recent studies dealing with these issues include Mazzoni 1997 and 2000a. 137 This is based on comparisons in iconography with other Syro‐Hittite sites and a systematic ordering of the Carchemish dynastic line crossdated with Assyrian records.
71 cladding, and they use dowel holes, all features of the 2 nd and not the 1 st millenium (Özyar 1991, 15). 138 Certain blocks should in fact be dated to the end of the Empire period and much of the Iron Age material could have been reused. 139 A case in point is the reliefs of the Water Gate. The gate itself is built along the lines of a traditional Syrian 2 nd millennium gateway. The Iron Age builders reused some older orthostats, perhaps quarried from the earlier 2 nd millennium gate that it replaced (Naumann 1971, 288‐ 289, Özyar 1991, 19). Four orthostats from the Water Gate could have belonged to an earlier construction (Fig. 2.19)(B29a‐b, B31a, B28a/b‐ Özyar 1991, 23). Their style is closely associated with the style and iconography of ‘Ain Dara (Ibid 33). Two more figures, B50b and B51b, could also belong to the 2 nd millennium, as their big ears and squat proportions are closest to earlier reliefs from Hittite sites (Fig. 2.20)(Ibid 35). The Water Gate is probably the only construction at Carchemish that reflects the layout of the city during the Empire period. The ornamentation of gateways with figural carved relief blocks is clearly in the Hi ttite tradition and can be seen at both Hattusa and Alaca Höyük. Four sites in Syria then, used carved orthostat blocks with Hittite iconography in temple or gate settings either at the very end or immediately following the Hittite Empire. These are generally incorporated into local architectural traditions; not imitati ons of Hit tite buildings. Alalakh and Aleppo have some of the earliest inscribed architectural monuments definitely of the Bronze Age. These monuments stand at the beginning of the tradition of Hittite style stone relief work at Syrian sites. In the following generations Hittite iconography was incorporated into elaborate temple schemes, a break fr om the tradition of living rock monuments and the outdoor dedications of the Hittite heartland. Some Hittite details (i.e. the Hittite kalmus of the divine figure at Aleppo) show a true familiarity with Hittite Empire period iconography, probably filtered through the Syro‐Hittite stone carving school of Carchemish. Unfortunately, it remains to be proven whe ther these reliefs date to the 13 th ,12 th or 11 th centuries. Clearly in this case we are dealing specifically with rulers as patrons. This is patently clear in the inscriptions of Alalakh and Aleppo in the Bronze Age and in the Iron Age inscriptions of most Syro‐Hittite
138 According to Özyar’s survey these are all unique to the late 2 nd millennium (or early 1 st millennium at latest). 139 This is also to be considered for Aleppo and ‘Ain Dara, as discussed earlier.
72 sites including Carchemish. The carved reliefs of the LBA, ALALAKH 1 and ALEPPO 1, were commissioned by Hittites of royal stock and belong wholly to the Hittite tradition. With these monuments, Tudahliya and Talmi‐Sharruma made a deliberate statement about cultural identity and symbols of power. These images were aimed at the local popu lace (or at the very least the priests). The local non‐Hitite population would have immediately been struck by the foreignness of the Luwian hieroglyphs and the costumes of the figures, even when they could not read the monuments. This of course must have been the whole point. By inserting Hit tite elements into the major symbols of local identity, the temples, these rulers figuratively and perhaps physically too, inserted themselves into one of the major focal points of local life. Besides the manufacture of Hittite style architectural elaborations in typically “Syrian” buildings, there are several buildings in the region that reference b uilding plans from Hittite sites. At Alalakh, Sir Leonard Woolley immediately called the level III fortress the “Hittite fortress” (Fig. 2.21)(Woolley 1955, 166). Several features of its construction and layout do indeed recall Anatolian buildings and are exceptional in the realm of north Syria. The fortress is equipped with parallel buttresses, a first in the local architecture of Alalakh, but a regular feature of Hittite buildings (Naumann 1971, 491). 140 Yener has pointed out functional and construction comparisons in the courtyard construction and stocky style with other Hittite buildings such as the “Hittite Temple” at Tarsus, Building A at Örtaköy, Building C at Kuşaklı and the Level III palace at Maşat Höyük in the “cellar” wing (Yener 2005, 24). The fortress has in common with Hittite buildings the scale of the building, the stepped façade (Kușaklı Temple 1), the enclosure of a courtyard by large corridors, some with casemate rooms (Kușaklı Building C) and the alternation of large halls with suites of equally spaced rooms (Kușaklı Temple 1). So far finds within the fortress have not confirmed this identificatio n. It is hoped that the new excavations will better be able to determine the date of construction and the use of this important structure. Jean Claude Margueron has made similar speculations about buildings at Emar. Originally, Margueron beli eved that the entire city of Emar was rebuilt along Hittite lines by either Suppiluliuma I or Mursili II (Margueron 1980, 1983, 1994, Adamwaithe 2001). First of all, the earliest construction at Emar
140 Note however, that the royal palaces at Ugarit and Tilmen Höyük also use buttressing.
73 that Margueron reached could be dated by pottery, glyptic and texts to the 14 th –13 th centuries BCE. Second, the choice of the site, on the steep hilly area overlooking the river and the artificial terracing of the city, reflected Hittite urban planning as demonstrated by Hittite sites like Boğazköy. Syrian sites were generally situated on river banks or in open valleys. Third, the scale of the LBA buildin g program at Emar required a powerful governing body, and fourth, both Suppiluliuma and Mursili mention that they carried out public works in the region of Ashtata. In Mursili’s Annals, Mursili specifically states that he built a citadel and set up a garrison in the city of Ashtata. Margueron interp reted this as referring to Emar and Tell Faq’us respectively. Finally, Margueron saw in certain architectural elements at Emar (namely, what he calls the palace\bit hilani as well as in the domestic architecture) definite parallels with Hittite building styles (Margueron 1977a, 1977b, Margueron 1994). In stark contrast to Margueron’s claims for Hittite influe nc e on the city are the local style antis temples standing at the center of the city, which are clearly in a long standing Syrian tradition. The construction of Syrian‐style temples in the city was once thought to be a potent demonstration of native identity in the face of foreign occupatio n (Margueron 1994, 66). However, there is little reason to suspect that there was a need to assert local identity in the face of Hittitization since there is no evidence that the Hittites imposed any sort of cultural or religious restructuring at Emar. Margueron’s conclusions about the city were generally ac cepted until the renewed Syrian and German excavations of the last five years. The new excavations at Emar have unearthed remains of the Middle and Early Bronze Ages on the temple acropolis, the Upper Town, as well as under the city wall. It is now clear that the LBA city is located atop the earlier city (Finkbeiner 2002). This new understanding of the development of Emar has, in effect, discredited Margueron’s original position that the old city now lies under Lake Assad and that the Hittites rebuilt the city uphill when the old city was threatened by flood (Margueron 1980) . Margueron’s second conlusion that the monumental building at Emar, the so called “palace,” is a bit hilani comparable to Building E at Boğazköy (1977b, 174) rests on speculative restorations of an incomplete building (Margueron 1977b, 58, Fig. 5) (Fig. 2.22‐2.23). I am not yet prepared to accept Margueron’s reconstruction. One final example of Hittite influenced architecture in the region of modern Syria, is the “maison du nord” from Tell Fray. This house can be compared to a
74 private house in front of the Lion Gate at Boğazköy dated to the 14‐12 th century (Fig. 2.24). The two share square plans, a similar interior arrangement of rooms, and an L shaped vestibule leading into a courtyard (Matthiae and Bounni 1980, 36). Since this design is not found elsewhere at north Syrian sites, it can plausibly be argued that this is an import of a purely Hittite design vocabulary . Kurt Bittel also once speculated that the corbelled gate of Ugarit was inspired by Hittite constructions (Bittel 1976, 59). There is a marked similarity between the postern gate of Ras Shamra, constructed sometime in the 15‐14 th century, and the postern gates from Boğazköy, Tiryns and Mycenae. However, several key differences between the two preclude dependence of one on the other. The postern at Ugarit was dug into the existing glacis and was built out of carefully worked ashlar blocks. The Hittites, however, built their posterns freestanding with rou gh hewn blocks and then covered them with earthworks and the city wall. In fact, the entire royal complex of Ugarit has a decidedly local stamp with parallels to the Alalakh level IV palace with its pillared porches and ceremonial courtyards. 141 Language and Literature So far we have discussed the physical manifestations of Hittite culture on local Syrian patterns of production and consumption. Nontangible elements of culture such as language and literature, religious beliefs and activities are also prime markers for the infiltration of foreign elements from the Hittite world. For example, th e ide ntification of Hittite loan words in Ugaritic is the clearest evidence of linguistic contacts between Hittite and Ugaritic speakers. Although the influence of Hittite on the Ugaritic language is often considered negligible, the Ugaritic lexicon occasionally borrowed words from Hittite (Neu 1995, 18.1, Pardee 1996, Watson 1995, 1999, 129, 20 04). According to Watson, Hittite words represent the second largest group of loan words in Ugaritic (Watson 2004). Examples of loan words derive principally from traded items. These include tuhhui for silver, hattush for colored wool and hassann for garment, among others (Watson 2004). Clearly, these words were transferred along with th e objects the y describe. The items must have been common enough in
141 Margueron’s recent statement that Ugarit’s monumental gate, postern, and ramparts “all bear a decidedly Hittite stamp” as does the organization of the palace itself as a complex of different building complexes (Margueron in Beyond Babylon, 2008, 237) is not evident to the author .
75 Ugarit to become a part of the Ugaritic lexicon. Words not related to trade could only stem from direct contacts between native speakers living together in Ugarit. 142 Examples of these loan words are tiessar (forest) and the term akl from Hittite aggalia (furrow) (Neu 1995, 18.1). The nature of some loan words points to the sphere of religion and literature. Thus Ugaritic dģ ṯ (smoke offering) possibly comes from Hittite duhhuiš (Neu 1995, 18.1) and ztr (sub emblem) from Hittite sittar(i) sun disk (Tsevat 1971). We may thus consider the possibility that it was not just the language that transferred but also the rituals and beliefs tied up with those words. The means of tra nsfer would have been travelling priests and scribes. How else would one account for distinct literary idioms occurring both in Hittite and Ugaritic? For example, in the Ugaritic epic of Aqhat the author uses the description of yprq lșph “breaks the strait of the mouth," a strange expression probab ly related to the Hittite: aiš duwarna “to break the mouth” (meaning, to speak)(Tsevat 1971, 351). Ugarit has the most comprehensive archives from this time period from modern Syria, and we therefore do not have the same opportunities to evaluate the impact of Hittite on local dialect at other sites. At Amur ru however, there are also traces of Hittite influence in orthographic practices and language patterns. Departing from standard peripheral Akkadian, Amurru scribes followed the practice of Hittite Akkadian and replaced sa with ša (Izre’el 1992, 228). As in Ugarit, they also made use of translated Hittite idioms, although Izre’el points out tha t this is a superficial level of language contact (Izre’el 1992,227). The greatest influences belong to the texts from the reign of Shaushgamuwa and later (13 th century), exactly corresponding to the archaeological indications for a Hittite presence at the site. The linguistic connections suggest that the court of Amurru employed Hittite trained scribes in their royal chancery. Therefore, we find two kinds of documentary evidence in Syria. The first are sites with texts written in regular Hittite, som e clearly sent fro m Hatti itself, but others composed locally (Alalakh, Ugarit, Tell Afis, Emar). The second are sites like Ugarit and Amurru, where the Hittite language actually penetrated local scribal practices. Both bodies of evidence reflect Hittite speakers residing in these locations, but the second implies closer integration and perhaps more sustained contacts.
142 That contacts were local to Ugarit is demonstrated by the fact that there are no Ugaritic words in Hittite texts of the heartland.
76 Syro‐Hittite Texts: A third category of linguistic evidence demonstrating the impact of Hittite scribal culture is a class of texts produced at Emar that are referred to as Syro‐Hittite or Syro‐Anatolian. These clearly derive from Hittite practices, but only formally, not linguistically. This is a hybrid writing style with new du ct us and syllabary distinct from the older local “Syrian” style (Laroche 1981a). The Syro‐Hittite texts are written along the long side of the tablet as opposed to the short side as on the “Syrian” tablets. Whereas the Syrian tablets derive from Old Babylonian orthography and language, the Syro‐Hitti te tablets are closer to Middle Babylonian traditions of orthography and incorporate Assyrianisms, Hurrianisms and Middle Babylonian diction (Ikeda 1999, 166‐168). The Syro‐Hittite texts are chronologically later than many of the Syrian style tablets, although a considerable portion of the two types overlap. Beginning in the reign of Shahurunuwa/Mursili III this ne w style intr uded on an earlier local scribal tradition. The scribes in the Syro‐Hittite tradition carry local Semitic, Anatolian, Hurrian and even Babylonian names as opposed to the purely Semitic names of Syrian style scribes (Ikeda 1999, 177‐9). Syro‐Hittite texts often mention the temple and are used in th e correspondence with Carchemish, while the Syrian tablets belong to the palace sphere (Ibid). We can only assume that a polyglot group of scribes, among them writers of Hittite, were recruited to Emar under the new Hittite administration of the area. The creation of a new scribal tradition at this site loosely tied to current Hitt ite traditions, in addition to the popularity of the Syro‐Hittite style seals at Emar, is an example of true Hittitization. 143 Even so, we should recall that both artifact groups are largely relegated to Hittite implants and bureaucratic locals, and did not extend to the local royal establishment who continued to use Syrian style tablets and Syrian style seals. A look at the Hittitization of the scribal and glyptic arts of Emar leads us to the final elem ent of investigation, the realm of religion. Religion:
143 Whether this is through elite emulation or more formalized channels is unimportant, although the emulation model seems more pertinent.
77 Where data is available it appears that local ritual practices continued unimpeded under Hittite occupation. The primary deities of each site remained the age old Semitic deities (Ba’al, Ishtar, Ishara, Dagan) and temples continued to be built in local Syrian fashion, even if incorporating some political iconography tied to the Hittite overlord. At the same time , Hittite sacral images made their way into local iconography, as discussed above in relation to Syro‐Hittite art and Syro‐Hittite seals. Whether or not these images carried with them foreign conceptions of the divine is harder to determine. With little evidence for Hittite style rituals, cult spaces or Hittite deities in Sy ria, the answer is most likely that they did not. Hittite art of the plateau is, in all cases, tied to religious iconography, and religious images therefore served as the model for local imitation. Divine images in particular, already used by Hittite elites on personal seals, bec ame a symbol of status in the Hittite world. Dressing up local gods in Hittite garb was a way of invigorating local north Syrian gods through a new association with Hittite symbols of power. It is already clear that Hatti and Syria already had shared ideologies and iconographic borrowings from the Old H ittite period that allowed for such easy transference. Even in the pre‐Empire period, Hatti adopted Syrian gods and some elements of religious symbolism (i.e. the winged sun disk, the male smiting god, the horned cap, sphinxes and griffins)(Pinnock 2000). By the time Suppiluliuma I established a lasting presence in the south, the tw o cultures already had a solid basis for the cross‐fertilization of symbols. In only one instance do we have the inklings of Hittite Anatolian rituals practiced in Syria. These are the “rites of the gods of the land of Hatti” found at Emar (Laroche 19 88). There are in fact a total of 19 fragments from this series, only one of which has the heading, tup‐pi par‐și ša DINGIR.MEŠ KUR Ha‐at‐ ti, URU.MEŠ AN.TA u 3 KI.TA an‐nu‐um‐ma‐ “tablet of rites of the gods of the land of Hatti, cities of the Upper and Lower lands, follows” (Emar VI. 471: 1‐2). 144 Arnaud considered these Akkadian translations of Hittite originals, although there is no obvious Hittite model and many of the gods play only a minor role in Hittite ritual (Arnaud 1987, 17, Laroche 1988, 112). The existence of an original Hittite version is implied by some terms which are paralleled only in Hittite texts (i.e . keldi and ambašši). As the title notes, these texts describe typical Anatolian rituals like the breaking of bread and libations for a series of gods and
144 These are Emar VI 471‐490 and BLMJE 31. Collation can be found in Laroche 1988, 111‐117 and Lebrun 1988, 147‐155.
78 goddesses, most of whom are Luwian and Anatolian in origin. The general assumption is that these texts served as instructions for the correct execution of Anatolian rituals for the small community of local Hittite officials stationed at Emar (Fleming 1996, fn. 16). 145 We should be cautious however, in assuming that these rituals were ever practiced in Emar itself. They were found in the Temple du Devin (Building M1), now understood to be the house of the Diviner and not a temple at all. They belonged to a varied collection of texts, many ritual and many others lexical, so th at it is unclear whether these texts might have served another function. A recent reconsideration of this group of texts seeks to identify them as part of the sweeping religious reforms of Tudhaliya IV (Preschel 2008, 252). The style of the text, written in the third person instead of the first person, is, according to Doris Prechel mo re in line with the inventory lists of Tudhaliya IV than ritual instructions although the term for those, hatiwi, is never used here (2008, 250). This suggestion is difficult to accept. The only examples of inventory texts come from Hattusa itself and there is no indication that the outskirts of the empire were included in Tudhaliya’s agenda. Instead, we have the possibility, that a local Syrian priest/diviner either curated Hittite ritual documents, or practiced Anatolian rites. Summary and Conclusion: The first thing one will note from this overview is that ther e is glaring inconsistency in th e data when it comes to west Semitic Syrian sites vs. sites in the Mitannian heartland. As we have seen, archaeologically speaking, there is next to nothing from Mitannian sites to describe Hurro‐Hittite relations, especially in the period after the latter’s conquest by the former in the 14 th century. The one certain Hittite import from this area is a small ivory figurine of Shausga, a goddess of Hurrian origin, but executed in Hittite style. This figure correlates with the other divine figurines that are found outside of the Hittite heartland, but does not say much about the types of contacts that t ook place between the two states.