chapter 4 Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order: Trajectories of Rock-cut Monuments from Hittite into Post-Hittite Anatolia, and the Afterlife of the “Throne” of Kızıldağ Lorenzo d’Alfonso and Matteo Pedrinazzi This contribution intends to discuss the afterlife of the Hittite landscape monuments after the fall of the Hittite empire at the turn of the thirteenth century bce.1 The goal is to emphasize that Hittite rock reliefs marking sacred and strategic places (e.g., springs, caves, ponds, passes, etc.) survived to the end of the empire and enjoyed a second life in the context of renewed cultic and ritual activities in classical and Medieval times. And yet, significantly, their reuse did not take place in the centuries after the fall of the empire, during the Early and Middle Iron Age (twelfth—eighth centuries bce). The first part of this contribution presents the reasons that might have prevented the reuse of the Hittite landscape monuments in the aftermath of the fall of the empire. Because of the overall lack of evidence of post-Hittite attention to and adoption of Hittite monuments, it seems worth discussing in depth the only exceptional case opposing this general tendency: that of the rock-sculpted monuments of Kızıldağ, in the Konya plain. 1 Landscape Monuments of the Hittite Empire In the course of the second millennium bce, the proto-history of Anatolia is characterized by the formation and development of the first great power of this region: the Hittite empire.2 This power succeeded for a period of about 1 This article is the result of collaborative work conducted over many years. Lorenzo d’Alfonso is responsible for §§ 1, 2, and 3.3, while Matteo Pedrinazzi is responsible for § 3.1, which derives from his ma thesis. Both authors contributed equally to the remaining sections. 2 On the Hittite empire in general see Horst Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches, HdO I, 34. (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Hermann Genz and Dirk Paul Mielke eds., Insights into Hittite History © Lorenzo d’Alfonso and Matteo Pedrinazzi, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004462083_005 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 114 6/29/2021 1:39:29 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 115 500 years because it created, for the first time in Anatolia, a system of infrastructure that could overcome the serious challenges of an environment easily exposed to substantial small-scale climatic variations.3 Today the existence of the Hittite great power is perceivable in archaeology through the monumentality of its public architecture, in particular of the fortifications of its urban centers, chiefly the empire’s capital, Hattusa.4 Infrastructure for cult and feasting, for storage of agricultural products and for water catchment are evidence of a well-defined organization of an agropastoral political economy that must have produced a recognizable urban and extra-urban landscape in the Hittite core territory. Rituals at festivals on a recurrent calendar provided specific occasions for the inclusion of local communities and their institutions in the Hittite imperial network. Within this framework, during the Late Hittite empire (thirteenth century bce), rock-cut monuments together with other stone monuments were set up outside of cities in the landscape (Figure 4.1). Integrated in a dense program of cultic activities taking place outside the city, these monuments were a new means of making the political presence of the empire perceivable. The monuments consist primarily of carved or engraved figurative reliefs, and of Anatolian Hieroglyphic (ah) inscriptions; sometimes Hieroglyphic inscriptions accompany and serve as labels to figurative reliefs.5 and Archaeology. Colloquia Antiqua 2 (Leuven-Paris-Walpole: Peeters, 2011); Metin Alparslan and Meltem Doğan-Alparslan (eds.), Hititler: Bir Anadolu İmparatorluğu / Hittites: An Anatolian Empire (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2013); Alvise Matessi, “The Making of Hittite Imperial Landscapes: Territoriality and Balance of Power in South-Central Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age”, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 4 (2016): 117–162 with literature cited therein. 3 See Andreas Schachner, Hattuscha. Auf der Suche nach dem sagenhaften Großreich der Hethiter (München: C.H. Beck, 2011); Catherine Kuzucuoğlu, “The Rise and Fall of the Hittite State in Central Anatolia: How, When, Where Did Climate Intervene?”, in La Cappadoce Méridionale de la Préhistoire à la Période Byzantine, ed. D. Beyer, O. Henry and A. Tibet (Istanbul: 3èmes Rencontres d’Archéologie de l´ifea, 2015), 17–42; Lorenzo d’Alfonso, “Hittite Archaeology, Culture, and Arts”, Encyclopaedia of the Bible and its Reception vol. 11 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 1174–1180. 4 Besides Schachner, Hattuscha, many contributions have been devoted to the urban organization of Hittite cities and the prominence of fortifications. Among these, see Paul Dirk Mielke, “Hittite Cities: Looking for a Concept”, in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, 153–194, with literature cited therein. 5 For an overall review of Hittite open-air monuments, see e.g., Kay Kohlmeyer, “Felsbilder der hethitischen Grossreichszeit,” Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 15 (1983): 7–53; Horst Ehringhaus, Götter, Herrscher, Inschriften. Die Felsreliefs der hethitischen Großreichszeit in der Türkei (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 2005); Jürgen Seeher, “Der Landschaft sein Siegel aufdrucken: Hethitische Felsbilder und Hieroglypheninschriften als Ausdruck des 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 115 6/29/2021 1:39:30 PM 116 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi figure 4.1 Map of sites and location of landscape monuments discussed in this paper. Numbers correspond to the followings: 1, Yazılıkaya; 2, Karga; 3, Gavur Kalesi; 4, Yağrı; 5, Altınyayla; 6, Malkaya; 7, Afiyon; 8, Akpınar; 9, Yalburt; 10, Burunkaya; 11, Fıraktın; 12, Imamkulu; 13, Torbalı Karakuyu; 14, Taşçı; 15, Gezbeli, Hanyeri; 16, Köylütolu; 17, Emirğazi; 18, Eflatun Pınar; 19, Hatıp; 20, Fasıllar; 21, Suratkaya; 22, Kızıldağ; 23, Karadağ; 24, Hemite; 25, Sirkeli Höyük; 26, Karabel; 27, Cağdın; 28, Oymaağaç Höyük; 29, Ortaköy; 30, Boğazköy; 31, Hisarlik; 32, Kaman-kale Höyük; 33, Arslantepe; 34, Miletus; 35, Gözlükale; 36, Karkamiš; 37, Porsuk; 38, Aleppo; 39, Ras Shamra map by Dan Plekhov herscherlischen Macht- und Territorialanspruchs,” Altorientalische Forschungen 36 (2009): 119–39; A. Tuba Ökse, “Open-Air Sanctuaries of the Hittites,” in Genz and Mielke, Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology, 219–40. On the imperial political message see Christoph Bachhuber, “The Anatolian Plateau,” in A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, ed. D.T. Potts (Malden, ma: Blackwell, 2012), 575–95, especially 592–93; Ömür Harmanşah, Place, Memory and Healing: An Archaeology of Anatolian Rock Monuments (London: Routledge, 2015). In this paper we will not discuss the accessibility of ah as a writing system, for which see Massimiliano Marazzi, Il geroglifico anatolico. Problemi di analisi e prospettive di ricerca (Roma: Università “La Sapienza”, 1990); Massimiliano Marazzi, “Le implicazioni conoscitive e tassonomiche del sistema geroglifico anatolico,” in Ethnos, Lingua e Cultura. Studi in memoria di Giorgio Raimondo Cardona, ed. W. Belardi, brlf 34 (Roma: Il calamo, 1993), 11–26.; Massimiliano Marazzi and Natalia Bolatti Guzzo, “Studi di geroglifico anatolico per la ricostruzione della storia di un segno (L. 419; 229 ~ M. 390; 197),” 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 116 6/29/2021 1:39:30 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 117 When dealing with these monuments, access and clarity of message need to be addressed. Not all Hittite rock-cut monuments that we visit today were intended for open display; for example, the rock sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, which today is the most famous of all Hittite rock-cut monuments as well as the most visited by tourists, was in fact organized for exclusive cultic activity.6 Even when accessible for public display, some of these monuments, or at least some parts and details of them, were of limited visibility and intelligibility. We can safely maintain, however, that most of these monuments were understood by their public as claims of Hittite power. The imperial political message of Hittite artworks was generally understandable because figurative art during the Hittite empire consisted of a very limited and standardized iconographic repertoire. Figures and their attributes were well codified and bore a well-defined meaning. The codification of the semantic value of images and their attributes is consistent with the system of the ah script. Within Hittite imperial art, landscape monuments represent a sub-group characterized by an even more simplified figurative repertoire than the one represented in urban contexts, or on portable objects (Figure 4.2). For example, the representation of hunt or nature scenes and of scenes connected with the Hurro-Hittite mythological tradition is well attested in monumental art production in urban contexts, particularly on city gates;7 it is however in Centreo Mediterraneo Preclassico. Studi e ricerche, ed. Massimiliano Marazzi (Naples: Istituto Suor Orsola Benincasa, 2004), 1: 325–35; and most recently, Annik Payne, Schrift und Schriftlichkeit—Die anatolische Hieroglyphenschrift (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015). Despite these important contributions, the topic of accessibility still remains widely underexplored: it will suffice here to remind readers that while cuneiform was in use among the Hittites, only AH was used for display inscriptions, likely because it provided multiple layers of readability, so that it could conceivably reach, at least partially, a larger audience. On this aspect of AH see, among others, Clelia Mora, “Una nuova scrittura per la storia. Iscrizioni e monumenti nell’ultimo periodo dell’Impero ittita,” in Presentazione e scrittura della storia: storiografia, epigrafi, monumenti. Atti del Convegno di Pontignano (aprile 1996), ed. E. Gabba (Como: New Press, 1999), 23–42. 6 On the sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, see Jürgen Seeher, Götter in Stein gehauen. Das hethitische Felsheiligtum von Yazılıkaya (Istanbul: Verlag Ege Yayinlari, 2011), with literature cited therein. 7 On the repertoire of scenes in Hittite art, see Stefania Mazzoni, “Ricerche sul complesso dei rilievi neoittiti di Karkemish”, Rivista di Studi Orientali 51 (1977): 7–38; Stefania Mazzoni, “The gate and the city: change and continuity in Syro-Hittite urban ideology”, in Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch, ed. G. Wilhelm (Saarbrücken: sdv, 1997), 307–338; Stefania Mazzoni, “L’arte siro-ittita nel suo contesto archeologico”, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 7 (1997): 287–327; Seeher, “Der Landschaft seinen Siegel”; Alessandra Gilibert, Syro-Hittite Monumental Art and the Archaeology of Performance. topoi bsaw 2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 115–131; Federico Manuelli and Lucia Mori, “The King at the Gate’. Monumental Fortifications and the Rise of Local Elites at Arslantepe at the End of the 2nd Millennium bce”, Origini 39 (2016): 209–241, especially 222–228. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 117 6/29/2021 1:39:31 PM 118 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi figure 4.2 Simplified imagery involving gods and elites on the landscape monuments of the Hittite Empire Glatz and Plourde “Landscape monuments”, Fig. 4.11 absent on landscape monuments. On landscape monuments, representations are limited to images of a reduced number of gods of the imperial pantheon, at times standing on geniuses and landscape gods, and to images of human powerful figures that were part of the Hittite imperial elite. Similarly, with the two exceptions of YALBURT and EMIRGAZI, nonurban ah inscriptions are short and relatively simple. Rock-cut inscriptions are even shorter and simpler.8 They are characterized by the recurrence of a few, recognizable ideograms. The ideogram DEUS introducing divinities must have been widely known, and so must have been some combinations such as (DEUS)TONITRUS, or (DEUS)CERVUS/CERVUS2. Similarly, the main 8 nisantaş is carved within the Hittite capital Hattusa and thus does not count as non-urban. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 118 6/29/2021 1:39:31 PM 119 Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order recurring ideographic signs symbolizing status within the imperial network (MAGNUS REX with or without HERO, MAGNUS.DOMINA, REX, REX. FILIUS) must have been easily read. Divine and personal names were not written syllabically but through rebus writing, which might, once, have been more easily readable to a public able to infer the meaning of the ideograms and their phonetic expression. Of the thirty-two Empire monuments considered in this survey (see Table 4.1), only half contain figurative elements, while the other half consists exclusively of ah inscriptions. This is per se indicative of the prevalence of a symbolic reading of the reliefs, a reading that makes the presence of imagery less compelling while at the same time it applies to individual signs of the hieroglyphic written text. Table 4.1 Monuments of the Hittite empire Nr. Name Main components Accessibility Position Commissioner 1 Yazılıkaya inaccessible, exclusive outcrop Great King 2 Karga Relief of gods, mantel-dressed man; AH monumental inscriptions AH cursive inscription ? ? 3 4 5 Gavurkalesi Yağrı Altınyayla Relief of gods Relief of gods Relief of god on stag, hunter (?) open ? open? 6 Malkaya open 7 Afyon ? ? (stele) REX.FILIUS 8 Akpınar inaccessible Yalburt open high mountain cliff spring REX.FILIUS? 9 AH monumental inscription AH monumental inscription Relief of god; AH cursive inscriptions (later?) AH monumental inscription AH monumental inscription Outcrop ? orthostats stele on mountain pick? outcrop MAGNUS.DOMUS. FILIUS Great King? inaccessible outcrop Great King 10 Burunkaya 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 119 REX.FILIUS Great King 6/29/2021 1:39:31 PM 120 table 4.1 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi Monuments of the Hittite empire (cont.) Nr. Name Main components Accessibility Position 11 Relief of gods and altars, libating warrior, and tunic dressed figure; AH monumental inscriptions Relief of gods, geniuses, tree, and warrior; open cliff and river Great King, Great Queen open outcrop REX.FILIUS open dam Great King open cliff and river Servants of the Great King open cliff outcrop Two different REX.FILIUS ? dam? orthostat ? ? REX FILIUS, MAGNUS. DOMUS.FILIUS Great King open? spring ? inaccessible cliff on river Great King unfinished ? ? Fıraktın 12 Imamkulu 13 Torbalı Karakuyu 14 Taşçi 15 Gezbeli (Hanyeri) 16 Köylötolu AH monumental inscriptions AH monumental inscription Relief of manteldressed figures; AH cursive inscription Relief of gods and warrior figures; AH monumental inscription AH monumental inscription 17 Emirğazi AH monumental inscription 18 Eflatun Pınar Relief of gods and geniuses 19 Hatıp Relief of warrior; AH monumental inscription 20 Fasılar God, genius and lions statue 21 Suratkaya AH cursive inscription 22 Kızıldağ 1–2 AH monumental inscription (for relief see below) 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 120 Commissioner little rocky shelter MAGNUS.REX. accessible FILIUS Great King 1 inaccessible; outcrops 2 possibly accessible 6/29/2021 1:39:31 PM 121 Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order table 4.1 Monuments of the Hittite empire (cont.) Nr. Name Main components Accessibility Position Commissioner 22 Kızıldağ 3–5 AH cursive inscription outcrops Great King 23 Karadağ 1–2 AH cursive inscription little accessible ? Great King 24 Hemite Relief of warrior; AH monumental inscription Relief of mantel-dressed Great King; AH monumental inscription Relief of warrior; AH monumental inscription little accessible rocky corridor? cliff on river little accessible cliff on the river Great King inaccessible high cliff REX Relief of god; AH monumental inscription ? stele ? 25 Sirkeli 26 Karabel 27 Çağdın REX.FILIUS Monuments had a clear sacred meaning, as attested by the main components of the reliefs.9 Nine monuments include a figurative representation of a deity. If we add to these the references to deities in the ah inscriptions, only eight monuments do not explicitly refer to gods. Some of the latter are fragmentary so this number might be even lower. While the presence of gods is not surprising, it is peculiar that ten monuments present a figurative representation of powerful figures of the imperial network. These figures are either represented as warriors with weapons in a static, non-aggressive pose, or as ministers of cults, with a long tunic and a rounded cap. The shape of the helmet or cap, the type of stick and of cloth are visual elements that provide information on status and office.10 If one considers also the ah inscriptions accompanying 9 10 On this see Ömur Harmanşah, “Event, Place, Performance: Rock Reliefs and Spring Monuments in Anatolia”, in Of Rocks and Water. Towards an Archaeology of Place, ed. Ö. Harmanşah (Oxford and Philadelphia: Oxbow, 2014), 140–168; and again more broadly Harmanşah, Place, Memory and Healing. Much literature exists on the reading of symbols representing hierarchies within the imperial network. Their explanations go beyond the scope of this survey. On this matter see, e.g., Theo van den Hout, “Tuthalija iv. und die Ikonographie hethitischer Großkönige des 13. Jhs,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 52 (1995): 545–73; Susanne Herbordt, Die Prinzen- und 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 121 6/29/2021 1:39:32 PM 122 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi the figurative representations, only eight monuments do not provide a clear indication of the commissioner, and once again, in some cases this may be due to the fragmentary state of some monuments. From these elements we suggest that the first and foremost goal of the Hittite imperial landscape monuments is to affirm the participation of specific members of the imperial elite in cult places, with a commemorative intent of their active role as patrons in the cultic activities taking place besides the monuments themselves. Cultic activities may also be the central theme of the scene represented on the relief (e.g. Fıraktın and Gezbeli). Sometimes the cultic activity is explicitly referred to in texts. The recurrent presence of hole-cups excavated in the rocks above rock-reliefs has been connected to libations.11 The monument would, on the one hand, provide a setting for cultic activity by defining the special character of the cultic place by means of the artwork; on the other hand, it would also serve to remind viewers of the power of the Hittite empire and of one specific person among its highest representatives. In this second case, the monument constitutes a reminder of the ritual act either during later enactment of the same rituals, or during times when the rituals were not being performed.12 The fact that both the reduced figurative repertoire and the symbols of powers internal to the ah system are expressions of the Hittite imperial power has been the object of comparatively little attention in the last decades, and therefore needs to be reassessed here as the foremost message conveyed by this class of monuments. Current research has rightly emphasized that the commissioners of monuments are only occasionally the Hittite Great Kings of Hattusa. Rather, the majority of these monuments seem to have been commissioned by the 11 12 Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa, BoHa 19 (Mainz: von Zabern, 2005), 57–73; Zsolt Simon, “Hethitische Felsreliefs als Repräsentation der Macht: Einige ikonographische Bemerkungen,” in Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East, ed. G. Wilhelm, rai 54 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 687–97; Manfred Hutter and Sylvia Hutter-Braunsar, “König und Gott. Die ikonographische Repräsentation der hethitischen Könige,” in Zwischen Karawane und Orientexpress. Streifzüge durch Jahrtausende orientalischer Geschichte und Kultur, ed. J. Gießauf together with S. Hutter-Braunsar (Münster: UgaritVerlag, 2017), 155–74, with literature cited therein. On the cup-marks and the names of officials in ah as part of a Hittite typology of cultic monuments see now Lorenzo d’Alfonso “Suvasa and the Open-Air, Non-Royal Cultic Monuments of Hittite and Post-Hittite Anatolia”, in Samsat’tan Acemhöyük’e Eski Uygarlıkların İzinde Aliye Öztan’a Armağan / From Samosata to Acemhöyük Trailing the Ancient Civilizations. Studies Presented to Honour of Aliye Öztan, ed. S. Özkan, H. Hüryılmaz, and A. Türker (Izmir: Ege Üniversitesi Yayinlari, 2017), 55–66. Here we apply Gilibert’s conclusions on Karkemiš: Gilibert, Syro-Hittite Monumental Art, 98. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 122 6/29/2021 1:39:32 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 123 initiative of Hittite high officials in charge of peripheral territories, or rulers of political entities under Hittite imperial hegemony. Some, if not all, of them even contended with the dynasty of Hattusa for Hittite Great power.13 In Glatz and Plourde’s view, these landscape monuments act as costly signaling devices. They were used as a means to announce the political weight of the commissioners to contenders and local populations participating in Hittite cults. But a study of the costs of these monuments in fact has not been produced, and if compared with infrastructure such as dams, tunnels to underground springs, fortifications, storage facilities, and above all the cults themselves, the costly signaling of the landscape monuments was probably not very significant for opponents and the local public.14 Glatz and Plourde have shown that Hittite landscape monuments and the cults with which they were associated, were used as an arena for the display of internal conflicts characterizing the Hittite imperial network of power. Despite normative and military attempts by the dynasty of Hattusa to lower the level of conflict within the imperial network, strife among Hittite elites was not casual or exceptional. It was a hallmark of the Hittite great power along all of its history. The monuments of the late empire (thirteenth century bce) brought these conflicts from the Palace into the extra-urban landscape. The use of a reduced iconographic repertoire and of the ah simplified system, both defined by the Hittite core, is indicative of the competitive nature of the Hittite imperial power; with its adoption, competitors were neither aiming at creating an alternative power nor were they attempting to dismiss the Hittite one. The best example of this competitive nature is provided by the case of the kingdom of Tarhuntassa. A situation that incited the production of a large number of landscape monuments around the Konya plain is the confrontation between Hattusa and Tarhuntassa during the mid-thirteenth century bce. Tarhuntassa was founded in South Central Anatolia (sca) by Great King Muwatalli ii as the new capital of his empire. After his death, a weak agreement between a second-rank son and successor of Muwatalli and the later usurper 13 14 In this direction the fundamental works are Claudia Glatz, “Empire as Network: Spheres of Material Interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009): 127–41; Claudia Glatz and Aimée M. Plourde, “Landscape Monuments and Political Competition in Late Bronze Age Anatolia: An Investigation of Costly Signaling Theory,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 361 (2011): 33–66. On the relevance of the costs of cultic feasting see in general Michael Dietler, “Alcohol: Anthropological/ Archaeological Perspectives”, Annual Review of Anthropology 35 (2006): 229–249, 239. Specifically on Hittite local cults, see now also Michele Cammarosano, Hittite local cults. Writings from the Ancient World 40 (Atlanta: sbl Press 2018), especially 103–158. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 123 6/29/2021 1:39:32 PM 124 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi Hattusili iii, Muwatalli’s brother, moved the capital back to the north. The restoration of the old capital without strong sacral and political legitimation gave rise to the political claims of Tarhuntassa. The distribution of the landscape monuments of the two rivals nicely overlaps with the contested borders we read about in the treaties between Hatti and Tarhuntassa.15 Tarhuntassa did not aim to create an independent line of Great Kings, but rather directly claimed for Hittite imperial rule. The clearest evidence of this is provided by the Hatip relief of Great King Kurunt(iy)a. While the location of this relief along a main route into sca bears a clear strategic significance, the monument makes claims not only over the territory, but actually over imperial authority. The monument of Kurunt(iy)a uses Hittite imperial iconography and titles. Moreover, in the disposition of text and image Kurunt(iy)a directly follows those set up by his father Muwatalli (Figure 4.3). The monument makes no claim for a great Kingship of Tarhuntassa; in fact, it does not mention Tarhuntassa at all. Rather, it claims absolute, not territorially limited imperial rule. figure 4.3 Rock reliefs of the Great King Kurunt(iy)a and of Great King Muwatalli adopting similar space organization of text and image, as well as identical titles Drawings from Ehringhaus, Götter, Herrscher, Abb. 176 and 186 15 On the history of Tarhuntassa, see Lorenzo d’Alfonso, “The Kingdom of Tarhuntassa: A Reassessment of its Timeline and Political Significance,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Hittitology, Warsaw 2011, ed. P. Taracha and M. Kapeluś (Warsaw: Agade, 2014), 216–35, with literature cited therein. On the borders of Tarhuntassa in the textual tradition see recently Massimo Forlanini, “South Central: The Lower Land and Tarhuntašša,” in Hittite Landscape and Geography, ed. M. Weeden and L. Ullman (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 239–52, with literature cited therein. On the Hatip relief see Ali M. Dinçol, “The Rock Monument of the Great King Kurunta and its Hieroglyphic Inscription,” in iii. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Acts of the 3rd International Congress of Hittitology, ed. S. Alp A. Süel (Ankara: Uyum Ajans, 1998), 159–66. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 124 6/29/2021 1:39:32 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 125 The significance of these claims of power has enormous repercussions for the understanding of late-thirteenth century Hittite history, and carries implications concerning dynastic disputes between factions within the enlarged Hittite royal family. These disputes were significant for the imperial network, but once the empire ended, they had very little echo, even after one generation. As much as they were carved for eternity, the motivation for the existence of these monuments was ephemeral in its relation with the local communities and their elites. Apparently, Tarhuntassa did not survive the end of the empire, nor did the memory of its prominence for thirty to forty years within the second half of the thirteenth century. 2 Continuity and Discontinuity after the End of the Hittite Empire Local cult places had often existed before Hittite power emphasized its participation in the cults by placing there its monumental art. This is part of the process of appropriation of local cult places by imperial elites. Ö. Harmanşah has correctly stressed that, independently of imperial power, these cults marked important moments in the social life of local communities that pre-existed the monuments of the Hittite empire and often also survived after its fall.16 Continuity of cult from the second millennium bce well into the classical and Byzantine period in places marked by Hittite landscape monuments has been the object of new analysis. Building on the study of memory in ancient societies particularly by R. Bradley, and S.E. Alcock,17 F. Rojas and V. Sergueenkova have recently emphasized the reception and adoption of Hittite and other pre-classical monuments in classical and Byzantine times: “Hittite reliefs and inscriptions drew later observers into an intense, dynamic, and often physical process of interpretation and manipulation. Th(os)e observers, in turn, produced stories that explained their relationship with the monuments, as well as with their imagined makers and honorands”.18 This process recognized the special character of earlier (Hittite) reliefs, but their reinterpretation and the production of new stories about them are indicative of the lack of direct reception 16 17 18 Harmanşah, “Event, place, performance”; Harmanşah, Place, Memory and Healing, 89 and passim. On this, see also Clelia Mora, “Rilievi, stele, iscrizioni nel paesaggio anatolico tra Bronzo Tardo e età del Ferro. Alcune riflessioni sulla base di studi recenti”, in Paesaggi in movimento. Ricerche dedicate a Guido Rosada, eds. J. Turchetto and M. Asolati (Padova: Padova University Press, 2017), 249–259. Richard Bradley, The Past in Prehistoric Societies (London: Routledge, 2002); Susan E. Alcock, Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Felipe Rojas and Valeria Sergueenkova, “Traces of Tarhuntas: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Interaction with Hittite Monuments”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 27/2 (2014): 135–160, 138–139. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 125 6/29/2021 1:39:33 PM 126 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi of Hittite political history and the lack of intent to revive or claim the legacy of the political, imperial meaning that the monuments originally bore. This is a peculiar feature of the aftermath of the Hittite empire. Later sources neither inform us about the fall of the Hittite empire, nor show memory of its deeds. In line with this oblivion, no explicit claims of legacy of this 400-years long great power are raised in the former territories of Hittite Anatolia after the fall of the empire. The lack of political continuity is evident from the analysis of all sorts of archaeological and textual sources, but is made even clearer by the analysis of Hittite landscape monuments. Neither later rulers of post-Hittite polities, such as the kingdoms of Phrygia and Lydia, nor rulers of Aegean or Iranian provenance representing foreign hegemony on Anatolia, carved inscriptions or new monuments in order to emphasize a translatio imperii, a succession to the Hittite great power of the second millennium in the political control of Anatolia. Let us compare this lack of continuity with other near eastern contexts where rock reliefs are present. As portrayed in the article by Matthew Canepa in this volume (Chapter 7), Sasanian kings carved their own reliefs adopting the scenes and style of Achaemenid art. At Bisotun and prominently at Naqsh-e Rostam they located them next to the earlier rock monuments, reliefs, and inscriptions of the Achaemenid Great Kings. Those monuments had been produced at least 500 years before their dynasty took power. This was part of a program to portray the new dynasty as directly linked with a former, successful Iranian dynasty. The re-use of older monuments is the result of an established political strategy for the legitimation of new rulers. For example, at Bisotun, Seleucid and Parthian monuments were placed next to the famous trilingual inscriptions of Darius I, before the late and unfinished project of the Sasanian King Xosrow ii.19 The reliefs carved at the sources of the Tigris provide an example of reaffirmation of Assyrian royal presence in a place with a dense cosmic significance some 250 years after the earlier carving of a royal image. It was Shalmaneser iii who produced, during two distinct visits, rock reliefs and inscriptions on the stone walls of the tunnel where the Middle-Assyrian King Tiglath-Pileser I had formerly carved his royal image. The carving of a new royal image besides the one of an earlier king is not a sporadic act, since besides this still visible case, it is described in the Annals of Assyrian kings as a programmatic enactment of the continuity of Assyrian power, particularly in peripheral, contested 19 See the article by Matthew P. Canepa, in this volume (Chapter 7); Matthew P. Canepa, “Sasanian Rock Reliefs”, in Oxford Handbook of ancient Iran, ed. D. Potts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 856–877, with literature cited therein; on continuity at Bisotun see Heinz Luschey, “Bīsotūn ii. archaeology,” Encyclopaedia Iranica Online, 1989, http://www. iranica.com visited on 05.3.2018; Trudy Kawani, “Parthian and Elymaean Rock Reliefs”, in ed. D. Potts, Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, 751–765, especially 752–756. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 126 6/29/2021 1:39:33 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 127 regions. For the sake of comparison, it is telling that in at least three cases it is Shalmaneser iii, a new powerful Assyrian king of the early-ninth century bce who set his image besides powerful kings of the late second millennium (Tukulti-Ninurta and Tiglath-Pileser), that is, before the significant retraction of the Assyrian polity.20 The case of the reliefs of Nahr el-Kalb is slightly different. The presence of 20 monuments (including both reliefs and inscriptions) commissioned by rulers of diverse polities over more than 3000 years imply neither a succession of power from one to the other, nor the knowledge and acknowledgment of earlier polities and their leaders. From the pre-classical reliefs to the monument set up by the Libanese President E. Lahoud in 2000, they respond to a political discourse on power and political control of the region, thus de facto transforming the valley into a memorial of claims of sovereignty.21 None of the above noted policies can be applied to the use of cultic places with monuments of the Hittite empire in Anatolia. The absence of monuments of political rulers of the post-Hittite periods next to the Hittite ones, if juxtaposed with the continuity in cultic significance of these places, means that local communities and new hegemonic powers felt no relation with or interest in the Hittite political experience. The claims of political control that the monuments entail were of no concern for local communities, even when they were the product of local leaders. These leaders must have been more interested in the Hittite imperial network than they were in the dynamics of the local community. This may explain the lack of interaction with the political message of the landscape monuments of the Hittite empire in the post-Hittite period. 20 21 On the reliefs carved at the sources of the Tigris see e.g., Jutta Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs. BaF 4 (Mainz: von Zabern, 1982), 187–188; Ann Shafer, “Assyrian Royal Monuments on the Periphery: Ritual and the Making of Imperial Space”, in Ancient Near Eastern Art in context: Studies in Honor of I.J. Winter by her Students, eds. J. Cheng and M.H. Feldman (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 133–159, 141ff.; Ömur Harmanshah, “Source of the Tigris”; Ömur Harmanshah, “Event, place and performance in the Assyrian landscapes of the Early Iron Age”, Archaeological Dialogues 14/2 (2007): 179–204; Karen Sonik and David Kertai, in this volume (Chapter 2). For monuments produced by Neo-Assyrian kings next to earlier Assyrian monuments see Harmanşah, “‘Source of the Tigris’”, 192, with reference to Assyrian texts. On the Nahr al-Kalb reliefs see Anne-Marie Maïla-Afeiche (ed.), Le Site de Nahr el-Kalb (baal hors-série V. Beirut: Ministère de la culture, Direction Générale des Antiquités, 2009); Ann Shafer, “The Present in Our Past: The Assyrian Rock Reliefs at Nahr El-Kalb and the Lessons of Tradition”, in Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East. rai 57. Ed. A. Archi (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 491–499; and the contribution of Jonathan Ben-Dov to this volume (Chapter 9). 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 127 6/29/2021 1:39:34 PM 128 3 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi The Strange Case of Mr. Hartapus There is one remarkable exception that, in our view, attests to the continuity and afterlife of an open-air monument in the post-Hittite period in Anatolia: the so-called “throne” of Kızıldağ, one of the monuments associated with the enigmatic Great King Hartapus. The second part of this study will therefore concentrate on this outlier, and will investigate the circumstances that might have produced it. Methodologically, this investigation took much inspiration from Indagini su Piero, the masterpiece of Carlo Ginzburg that is a wonderful venture of microhistory into the world of art-historical interpretation. A similar approach to a completely different historical context is very much at the basis of this second part of the chapter.22 Much of the analysis of the monument derives from the master thesis of M. Pedrinazzi, not by chance entitled Indagini su Hartapus.23 3.1 Description and Previous Studies The “Throne” is the name given to a reddish rocky outcrop24 standing out on the northwestern slope of Kızıldağ (Red Mountain), a small volcanic cone overlooking the southern Konya plain (Figure 4.4). The “Throne” is formed by an almost horizontal, naturally squared flat terrace, that emerges from the slanting slope and overlooks the plain; the back part of the terrace is defined to the southeast by a flat 4 x 3 meter high natural wall, made of the same stone. The wall and terrace together give the impression of a chair with a backrest (Figure 4.5). The first notice of the “Throne” dates back to the pioneer geographer and explorer W.M. Ramsey, who was brought to the site by G. Bell in 1907. Since then, many researchers have visited the “Throne” and provided descriptions of it.25 22 23 24 25 Carlo Ginzburg, Indagini su Piero. Il Battesimo, il ciclo di Arezzo, la flagellazione di Urbino (Torino: Einaudi 1981). English version: The enigma of Piero: Piero della Francesca (London: Verso, 2000). Matteo Pedrinazzi, Indagini su Hartapus, Unpublished ma thesis, University of Pavia 2013. In literature the rock is often referred to as trachyte, but we are not aware of any geological analysis of this rock and therefore prefer to offer a more general definition of the outcrop as an igneous volcanic intermediate rock; the rocky outcrop might also be andesite. References to visits to the monuments until the mid-1990s are collected by J. David Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions. Vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), 434. For later visits see: Itamar Singer, “Great Kings of Tarhuntašša”, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 38 (1996): 63–71; A. and B. Dincol together with J. Yakar and A. Taffet in 1998: Ali M. Dinçol et al., “The Borders of the Appanage 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 128 6/29/2021 1:39:34 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 129 figure 4.4 Western side of Kızıldağ. At the center-left the volcanic rock outcrop named the “Throne” 2012 picture of the photo archive of the Kınık Höyük archaeological project 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 129 6/29/2021 1:39:34 PM 130 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi figure 4.5 The “Throne” of Kızıldağ with Matteo Pedrinazzi examining most recent fractures of the rocky outcrop Photo courtesy Archive of the Kınık Höyük Archaeological Project, 2012 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 130 6/29/2021 1:39:35 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 131 The flat surfaces of the “Throne” are a natural product of the plastic properties of the rock, typified by flat, vertical ruptures.26 As a consequence of the natural fractures, rectangular blocks of rock are visible besides and below the terrace of the “Throne”, and we can assert that weathering has significantly altered its dimensions and shape. The decay of the monument has greatly accelerated in the last fifty years in ways that cannot be ascribed to weathering. Photographs and drawings by S. Alp and H. Gonnet show that significant detachment of blocks from the rocky outcrop followed a period in which visits intensified. Also, the crack in the sculpted surface already observable in Alp’s picture dating to 1965 (Figure 4.6), has increased significantly today (Figure 4.7). Illegal activity aiming at treasure hunt with use of explosives is very likely.27 Some detachments are unfortunately still ongoing. The monumental outcrop, with its majestic location and strong impact on visitors, is falling apart and desperately needs a stabilizing intervention in order to prevent utter collapse. On the wall overlooking the vast plain is engraved a relief of a man seating on a throne with a footstool. He is holding a stick in his left hand and a cup in his right one (Figure 4.8). An ah legend in front of his face identifies the male figure as Hartapus, the Great King (MAGNUS.REX há+ra/i-tá-pusa MAGNUS.REX). The identification however is not straight forward. Even from a very first impression, one sees that the figurative relief is engraved, while the inscription is carved as a bas-relief, in a style defined in ah studies as monumental.28 The palaeography, the disposition of the signs in a sort of aedicule, and the title used in the inscription are the same as those used in the inscriptions of the Hittite Great Kings during the Empire. It is therefore dated palaeographically to the thirteenth century or to the early twelfth century, immediately after the fall of the empire. Until recently, most scholars have considered Hartapus, whose name never appears in the epigraphic material from the Hittite capital, as a king of Tarhuntassa, who, like Kurunt(iy)a, claimed absolute imperial rule.29 26 27 28 29 Kingdom of Tarhuntašša—A Geographical and Archaeological Assessment” Anatolica 26 (2000): 1–29; Dietrich Sürenhagen in 2005: “Hartapus—Ein Sohn Mursilis ii.?”, in Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 50 = ich 6/2 (2008): 729–738; by our team in 2012: Matteo Pedrinazzi, Indagini su Hartapus, 10–19; and finally by Felipe Rojas and Valeria Sergueenkova, “Traces of Tarhuntas”. This property of the rock was emphasized by Kurt Bittel, “Hartapus and Kizildağ”, in Ancient Anatolia. Aspects of Change and Cultural Development. Essays in Honor of M.J. Mellink, eds. J.V. Canby et al. (Madison—London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986), 103–111, especially 104; lastly, Sürenhagen “Hartapus”, 731. See Bittel, “Hartapus and Kizildağ”, 109. See Hawkins, Corpus, 4. See e.g., Hawkins, Corpus, 434; d’Alfonso, “The Kingdom of Tarhuntassa”, 228–230. Sürenhagen, “Hartapus”, suggests that originally the ah label was associated with a 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 131 6/29/2021 1:39:35 PM 132 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi figure 4.6 The relief of Hartapus on the “Throne” of the Kızıldağ (1965 picture by Sedet Alp, published in Sedat Alp, “Eine neue hieroglyphenhethitische Inschrift der Gruppe Kizildağ-Karadağ aus der Nähe von Aksaray und die früher publizierten Inschriften derselben Gruppe”, in Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. K. Bittel et al. Istanbul 1974, 17–27, Pl. V, Abb. 7) Public domain 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 132 6/29/2021 1:39:35 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 133 figure 4.7 The relief of Hartapus on the “Throne” of the Kızıldağ Photo courtesy Archive of the Kınık Höyük Archaeological Project, 2012 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 133 6/29/2021 1:39:35 PM 134 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi figure 4.8 Sketch of the Hartapus relief By Lorenzo d’Alfonso based on 1965 S. Alp picture [Fig. 4.6], collated with the 2012 pictures of the photo archive of the Kınık Höyük archaeological project, and the pictures published by Tayfun Bilgin on the website: http://www.hittitemonuments.com/ kizildag/ 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 134 6/29/2021 1:39:36 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 135 From the very early notes offered by H. Bossert, B. Landsberger, E. Akurgal, H. Kyrieleis, W. Orthmann and K. Bittel, it was recognized that the relief has a marked Assyrian inspiration.30 Given that the influence of Assyrian display art in Anatolia is dated to between the mid-ninth and the eighth centuries bce, there is a contrast between the dating of the inscription on palaeographic grounds, and the dating of the relief on stylistic ones.31 How and why an Assyrianized representation of a king came to be associated with a monumental ah label that is ca. 350 years earlier has never really been discussed in depth. Recently, J.D. Hawkins suggested an explanation of this state of affairs. His arguments were motivated by paleographic considerations that concern mainly the ah label, rather than the relief itself. Since Hawkins’s study is nevertheless the most elaborate interpretation of this rock monument and since it discusses whether or not the inscription and the relief were executed in two different times, it deserves due attention. Hawkins observed that there is some overlap between the palaeography and the distribution of the group of ah inscriptions produced by Great King Hartapus, and those commissioned by Great King Wasusarma and his court. He dates the latter Great King and the inscriptions associated with him to the second half of the eighth century bce and suggests that the archaic traits in palaeography and titulature of the inscriptions of Wasusarma depended on a deliberate choice of archaizing style. He emphasizes the stronger links of 30 31 bas-relief of king Hartapus that was later removed (traces of the wedge hitting from the upper-left angle of the stone surface would be visible on the picture published by S. Alp in 1974). During our visit no traces of wedges were visible on the stone surface, and the fact that the surface of the monumental inscription goes deeper than the surface on which the relief was incised makes this hypothesis difficult to maintain. On the other hand, an original image of the king might have been engraved on the portion of the stone surface originally occupying the space to the right of the inscription. That portion of the “Throne” was already lost from the earliest documented visit to the monument. In sequence: Helmut Bossert, Altanatolien (Berlin: Wasmuth, 1942); Benno Landsberger, Sam’al; Studien zur Entdeckung der Ruinenstätte Karatepe (Ankara: Türkische Historische Gesselschaft, 1948), 20 n.39; Ekrem Akurgal, Spaethethitische Bildkunst (Ankara: Archäologisches Institut der Universität Ankara, 1949), 13, 137; Helmut Kyrieleis, Throne und Klinen (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969), 63; Winfried Orthmann, Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst (Bonn: Rudolph Habelt, 1971), 115 n. 5; Kurt Bittel, Die Hethiter (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1976), 238–239; Bittel, “Hartapus and Kizildağ”. Rostislav Oreshko (“Hartapu and the Land of Maša” Altorientalische Forschungen 44/1 [2017]: 47–67) refuses to acknowledge Assyrian influence in the relief of the seated man figure, and therefore suggests a twelfth or eleventh century bce dating for both the inscription and the relief. As it will be shown below, we find the Assyrian influence on the relief unmistakable, and therefore consider Oreshko’s chronological and historical explanations not tenable. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 135 6/29/2021 1:39:38 PM 136 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi the Hartapus inscriptions with late imperial ah inscriptions in paleography, lexicon and content; thus, he explains similarities in paleography of the group of inscriptions of Great King Wasusarma with those of Hartapus as due to a deliberate archaizing intent inspired by the much earlier inscriptions of Great King Hartapus. Hawkins concludes that the Assyrianizing relief carved besides the late thirteenth or early twelfth-century ah label in monumental script is a product of the post-Hittite dynasty of Wasusarma, who would have reproduced also the Hartapus cartouche from other original inscriptions. The ninth- or eighth-century dating of the relief on the throne of Kızıldağ is thus consistent with his suggestion to assign the commissioning of the relief to Wasusarma. 32 Following Hawkins’s hypothesis, the Assyrianizing relief engraved alongside an either archaic original, or archaizing copy of an ah label naming Great King Hartapus, embodies a new conception of kingship that merged the inherited use of landmark inscriptions in ah with the iconic representation of power inspired by the new Assyrian political machine.33 In 2019, a new inscription of Great King Hartapus/Kartapus was found in a ditch next to the Turkmen Karahöyük site in the Konya plain not far away from Kızıldağ. The inscription has been accordingly named TÜRKMEN KARAHÖYÜK 1.34 The inscription has many peculiarities that cannot be addressed here but its date is unmistakably post-Hittite. Based on the copy provided by the editors, we concur with their dating of the cursive part of the inscription to the early eighth century. Even in the case of a slightly earlier date, in no way could the inscription be earlier than the late tenth century bce. As a consequence, this new inscription requires the existence of a Great King named Hartapus who lived during the early first millennium bce. On the other hand, we oppose the view expressed by P. Goedegebuure et al. that all ah inscriptions of Hartapus are to be dated to the early eight century bce. Not 32 33 34 J. David Hawkins, “The Inscriptions of the Kızıldağ and Karadağ in the Light of the Yalburt Inscription”, in Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp, eds. H. Otten et al. (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1992), 259–275: later discussed again in Hawkins, Corpus, 429 and 438–439. Mark Weeden, “Tuwati and Wasusarma. Imitating the Behaviour of Assyria” Iraq 72 (2010): 39–62; recently, Geoffrey D. Summers, “After the Collapse. Continuities and Discontinuities in the Early Iron Age of Central Anatolia”, in Innovation versus Beharrung: Was macht den Unterschied des hethitischen Reichs im Anatolien des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.?, fs. J. Seeher, ed. A. Schachner. byzas 23 (Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2017), 257–274, especially 259–260. The inscription has been published: see Petra Goedegebuure, Theo van den Hout, James Osborne, Michele Massa, Christoph Bachhuber and Fatma Şahin, “türkmen KARAHÖYÜK 1: A new Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription from Great King Hartapu, son of Mursili, conqueror of Phrygia” Anatolian Studies 70 (2020): 29–43. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 136 6/29/2021 1:39:38 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 137 only is the palaeography of all Hartapus inscriptions except for TURKMEN KARAHÖYÜK 1 consistent with the late thirteenth-century inscriptions, but so too is the design of some of the rock-carved monuments. Notably the inscriptions KIZILDAĞ 2 and 3 are to be dated to the late thirteenth century bce. The shape of the monument, the disposition of the signs, the selection of signs providing titles and filiation (KIZILDAĞ 3), the presence of the winged sundisk on top of the inscription, are identical with two monuments of the Hittite Great King Tuthaliya iv, namely BOĞAZKÖY 3 and 18.35 This typology of monument does not have any parallel in later contexts, whereas it was used by the late thirteenth-century Great King Tuthaliya in the core of the empire and its adoption in the late thirteenth- or early twelfth-century bce southern periphery makes sense as a claim of Hittite imperial authority in this region. Even the presence of the ideograms of the Storm-god above the sun-disk only makes sense in the context of immediate post-Hittite inscriptions of the twelfth and eleventh century, with parallels in the early group of Malatya (KARAHÖYÜK, GÜRÜN, KÖTÜKALE).36 Only there do divine names (first and foremost the one of the Storm-god) appear at the very beginning of the inscription making the direct link between ruler and divine sanctioned legitimation evident and prominent. These elements require that a late thirteenth—twelfth-century Hartapus existed. It is possible that some of the rock-carved, ah inscriptions are later copies of inscriptions of an earlier Hartapus commissioned by the new Hartapus. But it seems unlikely that all Hartapus’ monuments are archaizing products of one and the same late Hartapus, because the latter would not have had any late thirteenth- or twelfth-century original in the entire region to get inspiration in order to produce very archaic type of monuments such as KIZILDAĞ 2 and 3. On the other hand, the new discovery makes it now extremely likely that some of these rock-carved monumental inscriptions are copies of earlier inscriptions that were possibly decaying, or copies of earlier inscriptions to which a new king who deliberately chose the same name as his illustrious predecessor added his own name to perpetrate the memory of his deeds next to the one of his illustrious predecessor. The analysis and interpretation of the “Throne” may also be read with this perspective in mind. 35 36 See respectively: Kurt Bittel and Hans G. Güterbock, Boğazköy. Neue Untersuchungen in der hethitischen Hauptstadt, (AbhPreussAkWiss Phil.-hist. Klasse 1: Berlin 1935), Taf. 27; Peter Neve, “Die Ausgrabungen in Boğazköy-Hattuša 1983” Archäologische Anzeiger 1984: 329–381 (especially 336–337). See Hawkins, Corpus, 288–301 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 137 6/29/2021 1:39:39 PM 138 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi 3.2 Analysis and Interpretation Before getting back to the ah inscription, we would like to address the formal analysis and the iconography of the relief itself. Remarkably, despite the historical and art-historical importance of the relief, the first in depth formal, technological, and iconographic analysis of this monument is the Master thesis of Matteo Pedrinazzi entitled Indagini su Hartapus (University of Pavia, 2013). The title declares the methodological debt owed to the masterpiece of Carlo Ginzburg mentioned above. While the reader is forwarded to consult Pedrinazzi’s thesis for the detailed analysis, here we summarize the main results of his work and propose a possible new interpretation of the monument. A formal analysis of the motifs and style of the engraved relief reveals the presence of south-Anatolian, post-Hittite elements, such as the proportion of the body and the upwards pointed shoes: possibly even the hat with folded earmuffs.37 It must be emphasized, however, that most details, such as the hairstyle and the beard, the musculature of the forearm, the dress, the shape of the bowl and the position of the fingers holding it, are all derived from early ninth-century bce Assyrian models.38 What is the meaning of the engraved figure? Why would a patron/master choose to invest in a relief representing a seated king on a throne holding a staff in his hand and a bowl in the other? In this isolated format the figure of a king seated on a throne is unparalleled in the Hittite, post-Hittite and Assyrian 37 38 References and discussion in Pedrinazzi, Indagini, 51–53, and 57–58. The representation of the throne requires a separate treatment. The model is very similar to the throne depicted in Assyrian reliefs of the late eighth and seventh century bce: e.g., Ursula Magen, Assyrische Königsdarstellungen, Aspekte der Herrschaft: eine Typologie (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1986), 84–91. The similarity between the throne depicted on Kızıldağ and the eighth century one depicted on Karatepe has been noted by Dorit Symington, “Hittite and Neo-Hittite furniture”, in The Furniture of Western Asia: Ancient and Traditional, eds. G. Hermann and N. Parker (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1996), 111–138, especially 137–138. Pedrinazzi, Indagini, 62–63 underscores the similarity with a throne carved on a relief from Gözlühöyük dated to the ninth-eighth century bce, for which see Dominique Bonatz, Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung einer neuen Bildgattung in der Eisenzeit im nordsyrisch-südostanatolischen Raum (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 2000), 19 and Taf. xiii. Since this model of throne likely entered Assyria from the north-west, depending on the dating of the Kızıldağ relief it may be considered either as local (early date, ninth century bce), or as corresponding to an Assyrian model (lateeighth or seventh century bce). For hairstyle and beard see, e.g., Sedat Alp, “Eine neue hieroglyphenhethitische Inschrift der Gruppe Kizildağ-Karadağ aus der Nähe von Aksaray und die früher publizierten Inschriften derselben Gruppe”, in Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, eds. K. Bittel et al. (Istanbul: nino, 1974) 17–27, 22; Bittel “Hartapus and Kizildağ”, 105–106. On the dress, see Orthmann, Untersuchungen, 154–155. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 138 6/29/2021 1:39:39 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 139 context, making this representationan unicum. This fact adds to its peculiar position among the landscape monuments of Anatolia and Syria. Our investigation considers the Kızıldağ representation as the simplified reduction of more complex scenes attested in other earlier or contemporary traditions. The meaning of the relief will therefore be sought by comparing it to other figures seated on thrones in artistic productions conversant with this monument. In the Hittite iconographic repertoire, seated figures are exclusively gods; kings are never represented seated. Besides the ah label, no attribute permits an identification of the seated figure with a god. A divine interpretation of the figure is excluded and a Hittite derivation for the Kızıldağ iconography is therefore excluded. The figure of a ruler or of a member of the elite seated on a throne, often holding a bowl in one hand, is ubiquitous in Syro-Hittite art. Following Dominik Bonatz, the seated human figure was associated with the representation of the dead. While this is common for many ancient cultures of the Mediterranean, in the Syro-Hittite context non-divine seated anthropomorphic figures always represent the dead. Furthermore, seated human figures are only produced as statues, or as bas-reliefs on stelae: never on rock reliefs. When represented on stelae, the seated figure of the dead is associated with an offering table, sometimes also with a second figure, either presenting offerings to the seated figure or seated and participating in the banquet (Figure 4.9). The scene is evocative of the funerary banquet.39 The archaeological context of the Kızıldağ relief, the use of the rock as a support, the absence of the table for the offerings,40 let alone the overall adherence to Assyrian models, strongly discourages an iconographic reading of the monument as indebted to Syro-Hittite models. In Assyrian art only the king is represented sitting on the throne; the SyroHittite reference to the funerary banquet or context is entirely absent. Seated kings are mostly represented in a palace environment celebrating feasts; they are always accompanied by guards or servants, as in the orthostat with a seated Assurnasirpal from the northwestern Palace of Nimrud. According to Ursula 39 40 On the seated figure in Syro-Hittite art see Bonatz, Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal; see pages 108–109 for the association of the seated position with death, pages 27–32 for SyroHittite statues of seated humans, and pages 34–44 for various groups of Syro-Hittite stelae bearing the relief of one or more seated humans. To the best of our knowledge there is only one exception of a funerary stele with representation of the seated person without the banquet scene. It is a stela from the cemetery of Yunustepe, on which see Leonard Woolley, “The Iron-Age Graves of Carchemish”, Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 26 (1939): 11–37. Despite being fragmentary and remote from central Anatolia, the parallel with Kızıldağ is interesting also for the adoption of the graffito technique. The throne of Yunustepe is also similar to the one represented on Kızıldağ. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 139 6/29/2021 1:39:40 PM 140 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi figure 4.9 Funerary stele from Zincirli Höyük, late eighth century BCE Image from Maden, Assyrische Königsdarstellungen, Taf. 25.1 Magen, the iconography of the scene specifically represents the purification of weapons, while for other authors it represents ritual acts taking place in the royal palace.41 In the present case, the extra-urban, non-palatial context of 41 See Magen, Assyrische Königsdarstellungen, 81–84. Irene Winter, “Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs,” Studies in Visual Communication 7 (1981): 2–38, and John M. Russell, “The Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal ii at Nimrud: Issues in the Research and Presentation of Assyrian Art”, 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 140 6/29/2021 1:39:40 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order figure 4.10 141 Stone orthostat of Assurnasirpal II seated on a backless throne celebrating rituals: Nimrud, north-western Palace, early ninth century BCE Image from John Curtis, “Assyrian furnitures: the archaeological evidence”, in The furnitures of Western Asia Ancient and Traditional, ed. G Herrmann (Mainz 1996), 167–180, Pl. 47a 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 141 6/29/2021 1:39:40 PM 142 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi Kızıldağ makes it difficult to imagine that this is the meaning of the relief of the “Throne”. Besides celebrating rituals within the palace, a second, recurring scene featuring the king seated on a throne is attested in the Assyrian repertoire. In most such scenes, the king sits on the throne holding a fan in his left hand and a staff in the right hand. One or more servants are set beyond the throne protecting the king and/or making shade for him. In front of the king stand high officials of the army, or, more often, prisoners in chains or carriers of booty. A general meaning of the king performing rites in public for special occasions seems appropriate.42 Note that the scene takes place outside the palace, in open space. This is the case of the relief of Tiglath-Pileser iii from Nimrud Central palace, and of the relief of Sennacherib from Nineveh (south-western palace, Room I(B), 9).43 In the latter case, the cuneiform text associated with the relief informs us that the scene of the king seated on the throne is a celebration of a triumph taking place in a foreign land, specifically in Judah after the successful siege of Lachish.44 While the scene has been interpreted by Magen as typical of the late eighth and seventh century bce, it is in fact also found on Band Na of the ninth-century bce Balawat Gate C.45 In a mountain landscape, the king seated on a stool holds no fan or staff, but rather only a cup placed at the top edge of the fingers 42 43 44 45 American Journal of Archaeology 102/4 (1998): 655–715, especially 682–684, connecting the representation to the seated king with the reinforcement of the architectural space where the king seated on the throne. Russell suggests that the representation of the king holding the bowl always refers to libation, while David Stronach, “The imagery of the Wine Bowl: Wine in Assyria in the First Millennium bce”, in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine, eds. P.E. McGovern et al. (Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1995), 175–195. especially177–180, associates the representation of the king drinking wine with prestige, inclusive feasting and banqueting in the royal palace. This iconography was defined by Magen, Assyrische Königsdarstellungen, 84–91: “The king purifies the army with plant/flower” (“König reinigt Armee mit Planze/Blüte”). It is now commonly accepted, however, that the object in the hand of the king is a fan, not a plant. Moreover, the textual support to her interpretation comes from Old Babylonian sources. On the composition of the scene see e.g. Andreas Schachner, Bilder eines Weltreichs. Kunst- und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Verzierungen eines Tores aus Balawat (Imgur-Enlil) aus der Zeit von Salmanassar iii, König von Assyrien. Subartu 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 70. See e.g., Magen, Assyrische Königsdarstellungen, resp. 17.3–4 and 17.8 The inscription besides the relief reads: “Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, set up a throne and the booty of Lachish passed before him” (The British Museum, online Research collection, relief 124911: http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_ online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=366876&partId=1&searchText=lachish+r elief&page=1, accessed on 22 May 2018). See Schachner, Bilder eines Weltreichs, 69–70, with literature cited therein. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 142 6/29/2021 1:39:41 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order figure 4.11 143 Stone relief of Sennacherib receiving the booty of Lachish. Ninive, southwest Palace, early seventh century BCE Zainab Bahrani, Mesopotamia. Ancient Art and Architecture, London 2017, Fig. 10.15a, p. 242 of the right hand, as in the relief on the throne in Kızıldağ. Three beardless armed Assyrians stand beyond the king, while one unarmed steward is standing in front of him behind a table set up with a table cloth. The servant is handing the fan to the king, and the presence of the jar-holder beyond him suggests that he is also filling the cup the king brings to his mouth with liquids. Beyond the jar-holder other beardless Assyrian soldiers precede the procession of men transporting tree trunks towards the king. Band Na is fragmentary, but, after a gap, a second scene takes place on the same mountain: besides a stele (or rock relief?) bearing the image of the king and set on the top of a mountain, standards, ritual devices, and a procession of Assyrians imply the celebration of a rite in front of the stele (Figure 4.12). Although the scene is an unicum in Assyrian art, its relation with the scene representing the king performing rites in public, often associated with military success, is evident. Here it depicts not the booty from a sacked city, as in the Lachish scene, but rather the extraction of precious resources from a foreign territory. The ritual drinking of the king seems to precede the triumph scenes in which the king reviews (and possibly 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 143 6/29/2021 1:39:41 PM 144 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi figure 4.12 Shalmaneser III celebrating his victory abroad. Balawat gate, mid-ninth century BCE From Schachner, Bilder eines Weltreiches, Abb. 77 and 129 purifies) the army and inspects the booty of a successful campaign before leaving the foreign territory. Ideally the ritual after a military victory abroad is then concluded by the production of an image of the king set up in the landscape and of ritual feasting in front of it.46 We suggest that this is the model underlying the relief of Hartapus. It fits its archaeological and topographic context, pointing to an Assyrian model of the relief. The iconic representation of the king seated on the throne holding a staff with the left hand and taking a cup to his mouth conveys the idea of the celebration of a military victory that took place in this region. Instead of representing the king standing up, the relief opts for a model that is less frequently used, but well-defined and established in the Assyrian repertoire. Admittedly, the Hartapus relief reproduces only a small part of the scene of the celebration of military victory. However, this reduction is not uncommon. Images of Assyrian kings on stelae and rock reliefs outside the Assyrian palaces were derived from models present in the palace, but the scenes were simplified so that only the figure of the king was represented.47 This is true for all images of the standing king on stelae and rock reliefs, and we suggest that this may also apply to the model of seated king that underlies the Hartapus relief. While the model underlying the realization of the relief of Kızıldağ is Assyrian, the execution by a local artisan is apparent by the presence of the local traits mentioned above. A scene represented on the Balawat gate C, band Xb (Figure 4.13) could offer a good parallel for the realization of our relief. The scene shows two artisans working on the making of the image of the king at the sources of the Tigris river. The left figure, wearing the Assyrian long tunic and therefore possibly of higher status, does not participate in the stone working but either controls or instructs the right figure, dressed with the short robe, who is the sculptor, or better the stone worker of the reliefs.48 If the partici46 47 48 See e.g., Schafer, “Assyrian royal monuments”, passim and the article by Sonik and Kertai in this volume (Chapter 2). See again Schafer, “Assyrian royal monuments”, especially, 138. See e.g., Schachner, Bilder eines Weltreichs, 56–57. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 144 6/29/2021 1:39:42 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order figure 4.13 145 The production of the image of the Assyrian king at the sources of the Tigris from the Balawat gate Schachner, Bilder eines Weltreiches, Taf. 50b pation of two artisans is maintained for the Kızıldağ relief as well, one may suggest that the artisan providing the model for the relief maintained Assyrian style, while the stone worker executing the relief was local. The extreme simplicity of the execution of most details and in particular of the throne, but above all the choice of producing an incised graffito instead of a bas-relief in a carved niche, as is the rule for Assyrian rock reliefs,49 can be indicative of the limited time available for the artisan(s) to finish the work. This might have been due to time pressure. It seems on the other hand less likely that the commissioner assigned little significance and therefore little investment to the artwork. An alternative solution is to consider the incised graffito technique as a deliberate artistic choice. In this respect, Bittel’s comments on the merit of the artwork are worth of note: The linear quality of the rock carving is, of course, very obvious, but the outlines of the costume, the body (including the arms and the face), and the throne were all made by closely set, continuous chisel strokes, which transcend the effect of a merely engraved linear design and provide instead a certain depth to the image … As far as the extant monuments permit judgment, the sculptor of the Hartapus image seems to have had few contemporary equals.50 Even today the quality of the strokes is still visible on the rock. 49 50 Schafer, “Assyrian royal monuments”, 150, underlines the centrality of the raised frame for stele and niche for rock reliefs for definition and visibility of the Assyrian reliefs. Bittel, “Hartapus and Kizildağ”, 105. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 145 6/29/2021 1:39:42 PM 146 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi 3.3 Dating and Commissioner For a complete understanding of the historical meaning of the Hartapus relief, its dating needs to be reconsidered. As we have seen above, the only attempt to deal with the commissioner and the dating of the monument is Hawkins’s suggestion to assign the monument to the dynasty of Wasusarma. The latter, according to Hawkins, attempted to establish Great Kingship in Central Anatolia in the late eighth century bce, claiming continuity of power with Great King Hartapus but also taking Assyrian kingship as a model. The mention of Hartapus newly discovered inscription of TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK 1 offers evidence in support of a dating of the “Throne” to the early eighth century bce. While a dating of the Kızıldağ relief in the eighth century bce is possible, some elements prompt us to consider a slightly earlier date for its production, in the second half of the ninth century bce. The particular position of the fingers of the hand holding the cup at the fingertips, 51 as well as the tripartite beard and more generally the hair-style of the Hartapus relief, are peculiar to the representation of the Assyrian king during the reigns of Assurnasirpal ii and Shalmaneser iii.52 Even when adopted by non-Assyrian rulers and produced locally by foreign, non-Assyrian artisans, they nonetheless date to the ninth century bce. This is for instance the case of the reliefs of king Kilamuwa from Zincirli Höyük. The later, eighth century reliefs from the very same site show different and new influences, besides Assyrianizing traits.53 The relief of King Kilamuwa (Figure 4.14), and that of an undefined ruler, possibly the same 51 52 53 Bittel, “Hartapus and Kizildag”, 106, recognized in this bowl a type of ‘Urartian’ bowl dated between the late 9th and the eighth century bce. In fact, the bowl existed well earlier in the ninth century bce, as Assurnasirpal ii holds on his tip-finger an identical bowl is carved on a relief of Hall H of the northwestern palace at Nimrud, today at the Brooklyn Museum (https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/70577). While very rare during the Assyria empire, the representation of the gesture of holding a shallow bowl on fingertips spread again significantly during the Achaemenid period, s. M. Miller, “ “Manners Makyth Man”: Diacritical Drinking in Achaemenid Anatolia”, in Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, eds. Erich S Gruen (Los Angeles, ca: Getty Publications 2011) 97–134: http://www.getty.edu/research/exhibitions_events/events/ ancient_mediterranean/miller.pdf. A dating to such a later date for our relief is however categorically excluded. See e.g., Orthmann, Untersuchunugen, 151–155; Magen, Assyrische Königsdarstellungen, 65–69. See Brian Brown, “The Kilamuwa Relief: Ethnicity, Class and Power in Iron Age North Syria”, in Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, eds. J.M. Cordoba et al. (Madrid: Ediciones Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2008) 339–355, with literature cited therein. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 146 6/29/2021 1:39:42 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order figure 4.14 147 Orthostat relief of Kilamuwa, king of Sam’al, imitating Assyrian portraits of kingship, mid-to-end of ninth century BCE Pergamon Museum, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki). Free use Kilamuwa—both dated to the ninth century bce—also offer a closer parallel to the Hartapus relief in terms of the representation of the face, and more generally in the clear assumption of the Assyrian iconographic model.54 This latter point is in our view the most relevant. It is the adherence to an Assyrian iconographic model that distinguishes the relief of Hartapus from other reliefs characterized by Assyrian traits that date to the eighth century from Anatolia and northern Syria. In a recent article, Dirk Wicke has introduced two different concepts for the analysis of monuments emulating Assyrian art in southern Anatolia: “imitation aiming for an overall copy as close to the Assyrian model as possible” in contrast to “adaptation as a deliberate and selective process taking only Assyrian elements”. On one hand, adherence to the Assyrian model of representing of the king is encountered in the ninth century bce: “Images of the king… made a major impact on the iconography of local ruling elite during the first period of major Assyrian impact in southeastern Anatolia”. On the other hand, the eighth century bce monuments express a form of adaptation in which the impact of other socio-political identities 54 See e.g., Orthmann, Untersuchunugen, 66–67 on Zincirli E/2; Gilibert, Syro-Hittite Monumental Art, 81. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 147 6/29/2021 1:39:42 PM 148 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi produce a “conscious manipulation of imagery”, finally producing a new synthesis of the representation of local power.55 If compared with other geographically close reliefs showing the adoption of Assyrian stylistic features, the difference with the Hartapus relief is immediately visible. The difference with the late eighth century relief from İvriz (Figure 4.15) is radical. Located ca. 50 km southeast of the “Throne”, the famous relief of King Warpalawa worshipping the Storm-god Tarhunza is geographically the closest eighth century rock relief to the Kızıldağ relief. Despite evident Assyrianizing features, such as the hairstyle and the worshipping gesture of the hands, the scene, proportion, and all other details of the İvriz relief are strongly set in the post-Hittite figurative art tradition; even Phrygian elements such as the geometric design of the textile and the fibula –so prominently set at the core of the figure of King Warpalawa—speaks of a synthesis of different artistic traditions.56 As for Zincirli, we suggest to interpret the adherence of the Kızıldağ relief to an Assyrian iconography as representative of an earlier phase of the spread of this model towards the territories northwest of the empire. Assimilation and re-elaboration of Assyrian models within local traditions enriched by other non-Assyrian and non-local elements would be the expression of a later, eighth century phase. In our opinion, an early dating of the Hartapus relief to the ninth century bce is the most likely. An early eighth century bce date is equally possible, but the marked difference with the İvriz relief and all the reliefs of the dynasty of 55 56 The three quotes are from the article by Dirk Wicke, “Assyrian and Assyrianized. Reflections on the Impact of Assyrian Art in Southern Anatolia”, in Mesopotamia in the Ancient World: Impact, Continuities and Parallels (7th Melammu symposium), eds. R. Rollinger and E. van Dongen (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015), 561–601, resp. 587, 588, and 589. Wicke suggests an interesting parallel between imitation vs. adaptation and the intercultural vs. intracutural discourse brought into our field by Irene Winter, “Perspectives on the ‘Local Style’ of Hasanlu ivb. A Study in Receptivity”, in Mountains and Lowlands. Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia, eds. L.D. Levine and T.C. Young (Malibu: Undena, 1997), 371–386. On the impact of social and intracultural processes in the representation of kingship in the eighth century bce see also Mirko Novak, “Akkulturation von Aramäern and Luwier und der Austauch von ikonographiscen Konzepten in der späthethitischen Kunst”, in Brückenland Anatolien? Ursachen, Extensität und Modi des Kulturasustausches zwischen Anatolien und seinen Nachbarn, eds. H Bumm et al. (Tübingen: Attempto, 2002), 141–147. On the İvriz relief see Garance Fiedler, “Les Phrygiens en Tyanide et le problème des Muskis“, Res Antiquae 2 (2005): 389–398, with reference to previous literature. It is telling that the best parallel to the worshipping scene of İvriz is the relief from Karabur (Cilicia), attributed to Šamši-ilu, and promoting a more western Assyrian model of monumental reliefs receptive of western iconographies. On the relief of Karabur see Aytuǧ Taşyürek, “Some New Assyrian Rock-reliefs in Turkey”, Anatolian Studies 25 (1975): 169–180. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 148 6/29/2021 1:39:43 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order figure 4.15 149 Rock relief of İvriz: King Warpalawa worshipping the Storm-god Tarhunza Photo of Matthieu Demanuelli, Photo archive of the Kınık Höyük Archaeological Project Tuwana dating to the second half of the eighth century makes a later dating unlikely. A different investigation that may help define the commissioner and context of the relief is the link between the Kızıldağ relief of a ruler seated on a throne (based on the Assyrian model of the king celebrating a military victory) and the ah monumental inscription of the legend “Great King Hartapus”. Most researchers have maintained that the monumental inscription was carved 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 149 6/29/2021 1:39:43 PM 150 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi before the figurative relief. Michele Massa (pers.comm.) has convinced us that the surface at the contact area between the figurative relief and the monumental ah label implies that the latter could only be carved together with or later than the figurative relief, not before. The two scenarios—inscription coeval with the relief or inscription later than the relief –correspond to two very different reconstructions of the micro-historical context for the production of the “Throne”. One hypothesis follows Hawkins’s suggestion that the relief is linked with the local dynasty of Great Kings Tuwati and Wasusarma known from the TOPADA group of ah inscriptions. The palaeography and the mise-en-page of the TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK 1 (cursive portion) is strongly reminiscent of the palaeography of the TOPADA group of ah inscriptions, and Hartapus and Wasusarma, with his father Tuwati, are the only central Anatolia post-Hittite rulers to adopt the title of Great King. It seems very likely that a direct link between Wasusarma and Hartapus existed. Moreover, Hartapus in the new inscription is said to have successfully fought against a coalition of 13 kings of the land of Muška, equated to Phrygia,57 whereas according to the TOPADA inscription, Wasusarma defeated the king of Prizu(wa)nda with his 8 allies, whom d’Alfonso has suggested to correspond to Phrygia too.58 One might imagine that the two inscriptions refer to different conflicts taking place during the same war of an eastern post-Hittite coalition against a western Phrygian coalition. Hartapus could be a successor of Wasusarma; alternatively, Wasusarma could have adopted the name of Hartapus once he campaigned against the Muška kings in the south-west, rediscovering the sacred places of Kızıldağ and Karadağ, and the inscriptions of an ancient Great King and then adopting an ah inscription to write his own language. While Hawkins dates the reign of Great King Wasusarma to the eighth century bce, d’Alfonso has recently suggested that on the basis of palaeographic, literary, and historical grounds, the inscription of TOPADA and the monument of SUVASA date between to the late tenth—ninth century bce.59 The early dating of the TOPADA group nicely fits with the results of the study of the relief presented here. If the relief of Kızıldağ is coeval with the ah legend of “Hartapus, Great King”, the monument was produced to celebrate 57 58 59 Goedegebuure et al., “TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK 1”, 40–42. Lorenzo d’Alfonso, “War in Anatolia in the post-Hittite period: the Anatolian Hieroglyphic Inscription of TOPADA revised”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 71 (2019), 144–145. The results of the work on the inscriptions of TOPADA were first presented at the 2016 aos meeting in Boston. See now Lorenzo d’Alfonso and Annick Payne, “The Palaeography of Anatolian Hieroglyphic: New Perspectives”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 68 (2016): 107–127, esepcially 121–123; d’Alfonso, “Suvasa”; d’Alfonso, “War in Anatolia”, 145–148. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 150 6/29/2021 1:39:43 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 151 the military success of a descendent of Wasusarma or the same Wasusarma claiming the name of the ancient Great King over this region. In order to reaffirm the diachronic legitimation for the Great Kingship, the dynasty commissioned a new post-Hittite relief of a victorious king. The fine graffito technique adopted and mastered by the local stone-cutter who produced the relief of Hartapus is consistent with the cursive writing adopted in the TOPADA group of ah inscriptions, and might therefore represent a stylistic feature of the local workshop serving the dynasty of Tuwati and Wasusarma. The contact with Assyria after Shalmaneser’s campaign remains the reason for the adoption of an Assyrian iconographic model by an Anatolian dynasty. The employment of models, or more likely of artisans, educated in an Assyrian milieu is a necessary premise to the conception and project of the Kızıldağ relief. The relief following an Assyrian model was however sculpted by a local artisan, corresponding to the contemporary artworks at Zincirli Höyük (Sam’al) produced immediately after the passage of Shalmaneser iii. The other possibility is that the ah label “Hartapus Great King” was written after the relief had been already engraved. In this case the commission of the figurative relief and of the label might be completely different. Under this hypothesis, the commissioner of the Kızıldağ relief might directly be the Assyrian King Shalmaneser iii. The relief would celebrate the military victory and booty obtained in his campaign against Tabala, in central Anatolia, a deed narrated and celebrated on the Black obelisk and on a Shalmaneser statue from Nimrud.60 The adoption of a rare model, one not attested on any other relief or stele outside of Assyria, remains problematic, but the best iconographic parallel is the one engraved on the Balawat gate, a product of Shalmaneser iii (see above). The employment of a local artisan by the Assyrian king is unusual, but there are some interesting parallels from the western province of the empire, as for example the stele of Adad-Nerari iii from Dur-Katlimu.61 Support for this hypothesis comes from the textual sources of Shalmaneser iii. The royal inscription on the Assur statue reports that Shalmaneser carved his image between mount Tunni, named the silver mountain and identified with the Bolkar Dağ, and mount Muli.62 The production of this royal image is mentioned also on the statue from Nimrud, unfortunately in a fragmentary passage (ll. ‘172-‘181) referring to the 22nd campaign, directed against Tabala. 60 61 62 The inscriptions are numbered in the corpus of Grayson (rima 3) as A.0.102.14 and A.0.102.16. Karen Radner, “The Stele of Adad-nerari iii and Nergal-ereš from Dur-Katlimmu.”, Altorientalische Forschungen 39/2 (2012): 25–277. The inscription is numbered in the corpus of Grayson (rima 3) as A.0.102.40. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 151 6/29/2021 1:39:44 PM 152 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi Here the geographic context is even clearer than in the inscription from the Assur statue: I ascended Mount Tunni, the mountain of silver. Moving on from Mount Tunni, I went down to the cities of Puhame, the Hubusnean (Hubuškaean), (and) approached the city Hubusnu, his royal [city]. I received the tribute of […] the land Iausa[…]. I ascended [Mount M] ulu, [the mountain of alabaster]. […] alabaster […] (180’) much, I made. [I erected] my royal [statue] on Mount [x x x]. rima 3: 79 Hubušna is considered equal to Hittite Hupisna, corresponding to Hellenistic Kubistra / Herakleia and identified with today’s Ereğli.63 Therefore, from the Bolkar Dağ Mountain region beyond Ulukışla Bolkardağı the Assyrian troops had moved to the west towards Ereğli, and mount Muli likely lies even more to the west, beyond Ereğli. The area in which Shalmaneser affirms to have built his landscape monument is therefore exactly in the area where the Kızıldağ is located, west of Ereğli. The attribution to Shalmaneser would very well fit the textual source, the political scenario of the victory against Tabala, the fast, little elaborated style of that artwork and the adoption of local artisans. Interestingly, three unparalleled elements nicely combine in this interpretative hypothesis: 1) the artwork is the only relief of an Assyrian king erected in non-urban context in a remote and not controlled area. Other reliefs commemorating military campaigns or victory are either set up on the route towards conquered land much closer to Assyria, or in annexed territories;64 2) The artwork is defined in the inscription on the Aššur statue as ṣalam gešrutiya, i.e., “image of my great power”, instead of the more common ṣalam šarrutiya, “image of my kingship”. This definition is an unicum as a reference to the carving of a royal image in the Assyrian texts;65 3) if the relief of Kızıldağ is the monument mentioned by Shalmaneser in the two aforementioned royal inscriptions, then the model of the king seated on the throne is unique among the Assyrian monuments set up outside of the Land of Aššur. 63 64 65 Giuseppe Del Monte and Johann Tischler, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte (Wiesbaden: Dr. L. Reichert Verlag, 1978), 117–119. Daniele Morandi Bonacossi, “Stele e statue reali assire: localizzazione, diffusione ed implicazioni ideologiche”, Mesopotamia 23 (1988): 105–155, especially 113–118. Ann Shafer, The Carving of an Empire: Neo-Assyrian Monuments on the Periphery, unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University 1998, especially 207–208. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 152 6/29/2021 1:39:44 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 153 The exceptional location, the exceptional definition, and the exceptional representation, all reinforce the possibility that the three elements coherently refer to one and the same monument. Only few decades after it was engraved, a new Great King Hartapus visited the sacred place after having conquered the Land of Muška and defeated its 13 kings. This Great King who must have been aware of the meaning of the iconography of the relief, had his name carved in monumental signs besides it as a way to appropriate the earlier relief, and transforming its meaning, making it a monument of his victory against a different, powerful enemy. 4 Conclusions There are many reasons for the oblivion of a five-hundred-year long polity in Anatolia, the Hittite empire. One of them may well be that the landscape monuments produced during the last century of its existence did not achieve full integration of the interests of the Great King and his emissaries with those of local leaders and communities. These monuments were claims of control over disputed areas or routes within the territory of the empire, rather than outside it. But those disputes were episodic, often promoted by kings or officials who had been parachuted, so to speak, from the core of the empire into peripheral regions, with little involvement in the life of local communities. Under these circumstances, it is understandable why, in the immediate aftermath of the Hittite empire, the ceremonial life of the local communities remained attached to the traditional cultic places for centuries to come. By contrast, the discourse of power of the rock-carved monuments embellishing said places was completely lost when the conflictual network of power forming the Hittite empire fell apart. The relief of Hartapus at Kızıldağ is the only exception to this political discontinuity. Against Goedegebuure et al., we still think that Kızıldağ was a sacred place to a Great King Hartapus who ruled during the thirteenth or early twelfth century bce and was in some way connected to the dynasty ruling over the Land of Tarhuntassa. Later on, sometimes between the ninth or early eighth century, another ruler bearing the same name carved his own inscriptions and possibly copied some of those of the predecessor, thus claiming the legacy of the power of the former second-millennium bce Hartapus. It is somewhat surprising, maybe even ironic, that the only group of thirteenth or early twelfth century rock-monuments restored, copied or simply restructured and reused after 400 years, were originally the product of an opposer of the Great Kings of Hattusa. We know too little about the motivation for the selection of this monument over others, possibly only the prominence of the 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 153 6/29/2021 1:39:44 PM 154 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi natural outcrop over the plain. Although the visibility from below the relief is minimal, the representation of the victorious seated king of the ninth century means that the throne had acquired a dominant role in redefining and amplifying kingship in South-Central Anatolia. Its micro-historical context may be the military success of the Great King Wasusarma, and/or the new Great King Hartapus who linked themselves with a Great King of the past who operated in the same region. In a similar way the first Hittite king Hattusili had referred in his texts to the deeds of Sargon of Akkad, and had promoted the memory of the deeds of Anitta of Kaneš. Alternatively, the event producing the reuse of the Kızıldağ monument may be the campaign of Shalmaneser iii in Central Anatolia. The appropriation monument by the new Hartapus would merge a claim of continuity with an earlier Anatolian Great King by adopting the same language and script, at the same time with the claim of foreign Assyrian models of power. For the long durée, the most striking element is the utter change of the representation of the king from the thirteenth century to the ninth century. If compared with the continuity in adoption of the scene of the king walking over the corps of the enemies on the Zagros, the abrupt change in representation of the king from the standardized figure of the priest or the warrior into the new seated figure on a throne implies that the profound transformation of the Hittite conception and representation of kingship in the ninth century bce was already complete. Acknowledgments The paper has been written over some five years, and has a long and complex redaction history. The authors would like to thank Beate Pongraz Leisten and Anna Lanaro for the many helpful suggestions along the elaboration of this paper. Sarah Graff supported us by obtaining copies of works of limited accessibility found in the magnificent library of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. We are thankful to the editors for accepting our paper in this volume and for their preliminary notes after the oral presentation of the paper at the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World at Brown University in 2017. We want to thank James Osborne and Michele Massa, who shared with us images of the new tkh 1 inscription days after their discovery, and discussed with us several details of the relief on the “Throne”. We have reworked the new, extraordinary inscription within this paper, but it is clear to us that the inscription generates many new questions that will need a long time to be solved. Nonetheless, we have tried to match the information from 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 154 6/29/2021 1:39:45 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 155 the new inscription within the treatment of the Hartapus monument. We finally thank the editors and reviewers for several illuminating comments. Bibliography Akurgal, Ekrem. Spaethethitische Bildkunst. Ankara: Archäologisches Institut der Universität Ankara, 1949. Alcock, Susan E. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Alp, Sedat. “Eine neue hieroglyphenhethitische Inschrift der Gruppe Kizildağ-Karadağ aus der Nähe von Aksaray und die früher publizierten Inschriften derselben Gruppe.” Pages 17–27 in Anatolian Studies Presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by K. Bittel, Ph.H.J. Houwink ten Cate, and E. Reiner. Istanbul: nino, 1974. Alparslan, Metin, and Meltem Doğan-Alparslan, eds. Hititler: Bir Anadolu İmparatorluğu/Hittites: An Anatolian Empire. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2013. Bachhuber, Christoph. “The Anatolian Plateau.” Pages 575–95 in A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Edited by D.T. Potts. Malden, ma: Blackwell, 2012. Bittel, Kurt. Die Hethiter. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1976. Bittel, Kurt. “Hartapus and Kizildağ.” Pages 103–11 in Ancient Anatolia. Aspects of Change and Cultural Development. Essays in Honor of M.J. Mellink. Edited by J.V. Canby et al. Madison, wi: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986. Bonatz, Dominique. Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung einer neuen Bildgattung in der Eisenzeit im nordsyrisch-südostanatolischen Raum. Mainz: von Zabern, 2000. Börker-Klähn, Jutta. Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs. BaF 4. Mainz: von Zabern, 1982. Bossert, Helmut. Altanatolien. Berlin: Wasmuth, 1942. Bradley, Richard. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge, 2002. Brown, Brian. “The Kilamuwa Relief: Ethnicity, Class and Power in Iron Age North Syria.” Pages 339–55 in Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J.M. Córdoba Zoilo, Miquel Molist, Carmen Pérez Aparicio, Isabel Rubio de Miguel, and Sergio Martínez Lillo. Madrid: Ediciones Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2008. Bryce, Trevor. The Kingdom of the Hittites. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Canepa, Matthew P. “Sasanian Rock Reliefs.” Pages 856–77 in Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Edited by D. Potts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 155 6/29/2021 1:39:45 PM 156 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi d’Alfonso, Lorenzo. “The Kingdom of Tarhuntassa: A Reassessment of its Timeline and Political Significance.” Pages 216–35 in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Hittitology, Warsaw 2011, ed. P. Taracha and M. Kapeluś. Warsaw: Agade, 2014. d’Alfonso, Lorenzo. “Hittite Archaeology, Culture, and Arts.” Pages 1174–80 in vol. 11 of Encyclopaedia of the Bible and its Reception. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. d’Alfonso, Lorenzo. “Suvasa and the Open-Air, Non-Royal Cultic Monuments of Hittite and Post-Hittite Anatolia.” Pages 55–66 in Samsat’tan Acemhöyük’e Eski Uygarlıkların İzinde Aliye Öztan’a Armağan/From Samosata to Acemhöyük Trailing the Ancient Civilizations. Studies Presented to Honour of Aliye Öztan. Edited by S. Özkan, H. Hüryılmaz, and A. Türker. Izmir: Ege Üniversitesi Yayinlari, 2017. d’Alfonso, Lorenzo. “War in Anatolia in the Post-Hittite Period: The Anatolian Hieroglyphic Inscription of TOPADA Revised.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 71 (2019): 133–152. d’Alfonso, Lorenzo, and Annick Payne. “The Palaeography of Anatolian Hieroglyphic: New Perspectives.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 68 (2016): 107–27. Del Monte, Giuseppe, and Johann Tischler. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. Wiesbaden: Dr. L. Reichert Verlag, 1978. Dietler, Michael. “Alcohol: Anthropological/Archaeological Perspectives.” Annual Review of Anthropology 35 (2006): 229–49. Dinçol, Ali M. “The Rock Monument of the Great King Kurunta and its Hieroglyphic Inscription.” Pages 159–66 in iii. Uluslararası Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri, Acts of the 3rd International Congress of Hittitology. Edited by S. Alp A. Süel. Ankara: Uyum Ajans, 1998. Dinçol, Ali M., Jak Yakar, and Belkis Dinçol. “The Borders of the Appanage Kingdom of Tarhuntašša—A Geographical and Archaeological Assessment.” Anatolica 26 (2000): 1–29. Ehringhaus, Horst. Götter, Herrscher, Inschriften. Die Felsreliefs der hethitischen Großreichszeit in der Türkei. Mainz: von Zabern, 2005. Fiedler, Garance. “Les Phrygiens en Tyanide et le problème des Muskis.” Res Antiquae 2 (2005): 389–98. Forlanini, Massimo. “South Central: The Lower Land and Tarhuntašša.” Pages 239–52 in Hittite Landscape and Geography. Edited by M. Weeden and L. Ullman. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Genz, Hermann, and Dirk Paul Mielke, eds. Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Colloquia Antiqua 2. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Gilibert, Alessandra. Syro-Hittite Monumental Art and the Archaeology of Performance. topoi bsaw. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Ginzburg, Carlo. Indagini su Piero. Il Battesimo, il ciclo di Arezzo, la flagellazione di Urbino. Turin: Einaudi, 1981. Glatz, Claudia. “Empire as Network: Spheres of Material Interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009): 127–41. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 156 6/29/2021 1:39:45 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 157 Glatz, Claudia, and Aimée M. Plourde. “Landscape Monuments and Political Competition in Late Bronze Age Anatolia: An Investigation of Costly Signaling Theory.” Bulletin of the American Schools for Oriental Research 361 (2011): 33–66. Goedegebuure, Petra, Theo van den Hout, JamesOsborne, Michele Massa, Christoph Bachhuber and Fatma Şahin, “TÜRKMENKARAHÖYÜK 1: A new Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription from Great King Hartapu, son of Mursili, conqueror of Phrygia.” Anatolian Studies 70 (2020): 29–43. Harmanşah, Ömür. “Event, Place and Performance in the Assyrian Landscapes of the Early Iron Age.” Archaeological Dialogues 14.2 (2007): 179–204. Harmanşah, Ömür. “Event, Place, Performance: Rock Reliefs and Spring Monuments in Anatolia.” Pages 140–68 in Of Rocks and Water. Towards an Archaeology of Place. Edited by Ö. Harmanşah. Oxford: Oxbow, 2014. Harmanşah, Ömür. Place, Memory and Healing: An Archaeology of Anatolian Rock Monuments. London: Routledge, 2015. Hawkins, J. David. “The Inscriptions of the Kızıldağ and Karadağ in the Light of the Yalburt Inscription.” Pages 259–75 in Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp. Edited by H. Otten et al. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1992. Hawkins, J. David. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions. Vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000. Herbordt, Susanne. Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattusa. BoHa 19. Mainz: von Zabern, 2005. Hutter, Manfred, and Sylvia Hutter-Braunsar. “König und Gott. Die ikonographische Repräsentation der hethitischen Könige.” Pages 155–74 in Zwischen Karawane und Orientexpress. Streifzüge durch Jahrtausende orientalischer Geschichte und Kultur. Edited by J. Gießauf and S. Hutter-Braunsar. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2017. Kawani, Trudy. “Parthian and Elymaean Rock Reliefs.” Pages 751–65 in Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Edited by Daniel Potts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Klengel, Horst. Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches. HdO i, 34. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Kohlmeyer, Kay. “Felsbilder der hethitischen Grossreichszeit.” Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 15 (1983): 7–53. Kuzucuoğlu, Catherine. “The Rise and Fall of the Hittite State in Central Anatolia: How, When, Where Did Climate Intervene?” Pages 17–42 in La Cappadoce Méridionale de la Préhistoire à la Période Byzantine. Edited by D. Beyer, O. Henry, and A. Tibet. Istanbul: 3èmes Rencontres d’Archéologie de l’IFEA, 2015. Kyrieleis, Helmut. Throne und Klinen. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969. Landsberger, Benno. Sam’al; Studien zur Entdeckung der Ruinenstätte Karatepe. Ankara: Türkische Historische Gesselschaft, 1948. Luschey, Heinz. “Bīsotūn ii. Archaeology.” Encyclopaedia Iranica Online, 1989, http:// www.iranica.com visited on 05.3.2018 (cited and accessed 21 September 2020). 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 157 6/29/2021 1:39:45 PM 158 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi Magen, Ursula. Assyrische Königsdarstellungen, Aspekte der Herrschaft: eine Typologie. Mainz: von Zabern, 1986. Maïla-Afeiche, Anne-Marie, ed. Le Site de Nahr el-Kalb. baal hors-série v. Beirut: Ministère de la culture, Direction Générale des Antiquités, 2009. Manuelli, Federico, and Lucia Mori. “‘The King at the Gate.’ Monumental Fortifications and the Rise of Local Elites at Arslantepe at the End of the 2nd Millennium BCE.” Origini 39 (2016): 209–41. Marazzi, Massimiliano. Il geroglifico anatolico. Problemi di analisi e prospettive di ricerca. Roma: Università “La Sapienza,” 1990. Marazzi, Massimiliano. “Le implicazioni conoscitive e tassinomiche del sistema geroglifico anatolico.” Pages 11–26 in Ethnos, Lingua e Cultura. Studi in memoria di Giorgio Raimondo Cardona. Edited by W. Belardi. brlf 34. Roma: Il calamo, 1993. Marazzi, Massimiliano, and Natalia Bolatti Guzzo. “Studi di geroglifico anatolico per la ricostruzione della storia di un segno (L. 419; 229 ~ M. 390; 197).” Pages 325–35 in vol. 1 of Centreo Mediterraneo Preclassico. Studi e ricerche. Edited by Massimiliano Marazzi. Naples: Istituto Suor Orsola Benincasa, 2004. Matessi, Alvise. “The Making of Hittite Imperial Landscapes: Territoriality and Balance of Power in South-Central Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 4 (2016): 117–62. Mazzoni, Stefania. “Ricerche sul complesso dei rilievi neoittiti di Karkemish.” Rivista di Studi Orientali 51 (1977): 7–38. Mazzoni, Stefania. “The Gate and the City: Change and Continuity in Syro-Hittite Urban Ideology.” Pages 307–38 in Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch. Edited by G. Wilhelm. Saarbrücken: sdv, 1997. Mazzoni, Stefania. “L’arte siro-ittita nel suo contesto archeologico.” Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 7 (1997): 287–327. Mielke, Paul Dirk. “Hittite Cities: Looking for a Concept.” Pages 153–94 in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Edited by H. Genz and D.P. Mielke. Colloquia Antiqua 2. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Mora, Clelia. “Una nuova scrittura per la storia. Iscrizioni e monumenti nell’ultimo periodo dell’Impero ittita.” Pages 23–42 in Presentazione e scrittura della storia: storiografia, epigrafi, monumenti, Atti del Convegno di Pontignano (aprile 1996). Edited by E. Gabba. Como: New Press, 1999. Mora, Clelia. “Rilievi, stele, iscrizioni nel paesaggio anatolico tra Bronzo Tardo e età del Ferro. Alcune riflessioni sulla base di studi recenti.” Pages 249–59 in Paesaggi in movimento. Ricerche dedicate a Guido Rosada. Edited by J. Turchetto and M. Asolati. Padova: Padova University Press, 2017. Morandi, Bonacossi Daniele. “Stele e statue reali assire: localizzazione, diffusione ed implicazioni ideologiche.” Mesopotamia 23 (1988): 105–55. Novák, Mirko. “Akkulturation von Aramäern and Luwier und der Austauch von ikonographiscen Konzepten in der späthethitischen Kunst.” Pages 141–47 in Brückenland 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 158 6/29/2021 1:39:45 PM Forgetting an Empire, Creating a New Order 159 Anatolien? Ursachen, Extensität und Modi des Kulturasustausches zwischen Anatolien und seinen Nachbarn. Edited by Hartmut Blum, Betina Faist, Peter Pfälzner, and Anne M. Wittke. Tübingen: Attempto, 2002. Ökse, A. Tuba. “Open-Air Sanctuaries of the Hittites.” Pages 219–40 in Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Edited by H. Genz and D.P. Mielke. Colloquia Antiqua 2. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Oreshko, Rostislav. “Hartapu and the Land of Maša.” Altorientalische Forschungen 44.1 (2017): 47–67. Orthmann, Winfried. Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst. Bonn: Rudolph Habelt, 1971. Payne, Annik. Schrift und Schriftlichkeit—Die anatolische Hieroglyphenschrift. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015. Pedrinazzi, Matteo. “Indagini su Hartapus.” ma thesis, University of Pavia, 2013. Radner, Karen. “The Stele of Adad-nerari III and Nergal-ereš from Dur-Katlimmu.” Altorientalische Forschungen 39.2 (2012): 265–77. Rojas, Felipe, and Valeria Sergueenkova. “Traces of Tarhuntas: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Interaction with Hittite Monuments.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 27.2 (2014): 135–60. Russell, John M. “The Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud: Issues in the Research and Presentation of Assyrian Art.” American Journal of Archaeology 102.4 (1998): 655–715. Schachner, Andreas. Bilder eines Weltreichs. Kunst- und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Verzierungen eines Tores aus Balawat (Imgur-Enlil) aus der Zeit von Salmanassar iii, König von Assyrien. Subartu 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2007. Schachner, Andreas. Hattuscha. Auf der Suche nach dem sagenhaften Großreich der Hethiter. München: C.H. Beck, 2011. Seeher, Jürgen. “Der Landschaft sein Siegel aufdrucken: Hethitische Felsbilder und Hieroglypheninschriften als Ausdruck des herscherlischen Macht- und Territorialanspruchs.” Altorientalische Forschungen 36 (2009): 119–39. Seeher, Jürgen. Götter in Stein gehauen. Das hethitische Felsheiligtum von Yazılıkaya. Istanbul: Verlag Ege Yayinlari, 2011. Shafer, Ann. The Carving of an Empire: Neo-Assyrian Monuments on the Periphery. PhD diss., Harvard University, 1998. Shafer, Ann. “Assyrian Royal Monuments on the Periphery: Ritual and the Making of Imperial Space.” Pages 133–59 in Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of I.J. Winter by her Students. Edited by J. Cheng and M.H. Feldman. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Shafer, Ann. “The Present in Our Past: The Assyrian Rock Reliefs at Nahr El-Kalb and the Lessons of Tradition.” Pages 491–99 in Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East. Edited by A. Archi. rai 57. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 159 6/29/2021 1:39:45 PM 160 d ’ Alfonso and Pedrinazzi Simon, Zsolt. “Hethitische Felsreliefs als Repräsentation der Macht: Einige ikonographische Bemerkungen.” Pages 687–97 in Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East. Edited by G. Wilhelm. rai 54. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Singer, Itamar. “Great Kings of Tarhuntašša.” Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 38 (1996): 63–71. Stronach, David. “The Imagery of the Wine Bowl: Wine in Assyria in the First Millennium BCE.” Pages 175–95 in The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Edited by Patrick E. McGovern, Solomon H. Katz, and Stuart Fleming. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1995. Summers, Geoffrey D. “After the Collapse. Continuities and Discontinuities in the Early Iron Age of Central Anatolia.” Pages 257–74 in Innovation versus Beharrung: Was macht den Unterschied des hethitischen Reichs im Anatolien des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.?, fs J. Seeher. Edited by A. Schachner. byzas 23. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2017. Sürenhagen, Dietrich. “Hartapus—Ein Sohn Mursilis II.?” Pages 729–38 in vi Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia. Edited by Alfonso Archi and Rita Francia. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 50 = ich 6.2. Rome: cnr, 2008. Symington, Dorit. “Hittite and Neo-Hittite furniture.” Pages 111–38 in The Furniture of Western Asia: Ancient and Traditional. Edited by G. Hermann and N. Parker. Mainz: von Zabern, 1996. Taşyürek, Aytuǧ. “Some New Assyrian Rock-reliefs in Turkey.” Anatolian Studies 25 (1975): 169–80. Van den Hout, Theo. “Tuthalija IV. und die Ikonographie hethitischer Großkönige des 13. Jhs.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 52 (1995): 545–73. Weeden, Mark. “Tuwati and Wasusarma. Imitating the Behaviour of Assyria.” Iraq 72 (2010): 39–62. Wicke, Dirk. “Assyrian and Assyrianized. Reflections on the Impact of Assyrian Art in Southern Anatolia.” Pages 561–601 in Mesopotamia in the Ancient World: Impact, Continuities and Parallels (7th Melammu symposium). Edited by R. Rollinger and E. van Dongen. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2015. Winter, Irene. “Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in NeoAssyrian Reliefs.” Studies in Visual Communication 7 (1981): 2–38. Winter, Irene. “Perspectives on the ‘Local Style’ of Hasanlu IVB. A Study in Receptivity.” Pages 371–86 in Mountains and Lowlands. Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Edited by L.D. Levine and T.C. Young. Malibu: Undena, 1997. Woolley, Leonard. “The Iron-Age Graves of Carchemish.” Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 26 (1939): 11–37. 9789004462076_Ben-Dov and Rojas_text_proof-02.indb 160 6/29/2021 1:39:46 PM