Transanatolia: Bridging the Gap between East and West in the Archaeology of Ancient Anatolia || Strategies for Future Success: Remembering the Hittites during the Iron Age

Strategies for Future Success: Remembering the Hittites during the Iron AgeAuthor(s): Lynn Swartz DoddSource: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 57, Transanatolia: Bridging the Gap between East and West inthe Archaeology of Ancient Anatolia (2007), pp. 203-216Published by: British Institute at AnkaraStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20455404 .

Accessed: 05/07/2014 12:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AnatolianStudies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.97.171.78 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 12:10:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20455404?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Anatolian Studies 57 (2007): 203-216

Strategies for future success:

Remembering the Hittites during the Iron Age

Lynn Swartz Dodd

University of Southern California

Abstract The Mara? and Sak,agozu valley surveys on the east side of the Amanus mountains provide new data regarding

patterns of Hittite territorial management and administration. Sites dating to the Late Bronze Age II period were

identified by the presence of burnished pottery, drab ware and, occasionally, by animal-shaped ceramic vessel fragments. The standardised drab ware pottery is emblematic of mass production and rigid control of labour sources

and raw materials through systems designed to support the economic and political strategies of the Hittite court and to

serve its interests. The settlement pattern is linked to Hittite regional needs for agricultural production, raw materials

and territorial security. The distinct site location pattern indicates a strategic, restrained use of space by the Hittites.

This left room for beneficial integrative features that local elites might emphasise for their own purposes, which comprise a foundation for the prestige later accorded to the Hittite legacy.

Ozet Amanos daglarinin dogusunda uzanan Mara? ve Sak,agozui vadisinde yapilan yuzey ara?tirmalarl, Hitit topraklarinin

organizasyonu ve yonetim yapisina ili?kin yeni veriler edinmemize olanak saglami?tir. Ge? Bronz II donemine tarih

lenen yerle?meler, perdahli kaplarin, bezemesiz mallarin ve arada bir bulunan hayvan bi?imli kaplara ait parcalarin

varligi ile belirlenmi?tir. Standartla?mi? bezemesiz mallar, Hitit sarayinin ekonomik ve politik stratejilerini destek lemek ve onun ,ikarlarina hizmet etmek tizere tasarlanmls bir seri uretimin, siki bir i, giuciu kaynaklari ve hammadde

denetiminin g6stergesidir. Yerle?im dokusu Hititlerin tarimsal uiretim, hammade kaynaklari ve toprak giuvenligi bakimindan bolgesel gereksinimleri ile baglantilidir. Farkli bir yerle?im konumu Hititlerin statejik ve amaca yonelik

bir secim yaptigini gosterir. Bu, yerli seckin ziimrenin kendi amaclari icin on planda tutabilecekleri yararli, tamam

layici ozelliklerin secimine de olanak vermi,tir. Bu Hititlerin daha sonraki unlerine bir temel olu?turmu?tur.

ittite territory management strategies were mediated

through a focused and highly selective penetration of the landscape, in a restrained pattern of settlement

investment that may have influenced how the Hittites were remembered later after the Hittite state had

collapsed. The expansionist groups whose political histories intersected in the Syro-Anatolian border region in the Late Bronze Age (the Hittites, Egyptians, Mitanni and Assyrians) devised means of projecting territorial control a great distance from their capital cities in order to

protect and enforce their claims to resources and trade

routes in an area where multiple ancient and modern

borders intersect. The archaeological footprint left by the Hittites on the east side of the Amanus mountains in the

Mara? and Sak?ag6zii valleys has been documented

through extensive surveys that provide new data about

Hittite management of their provinces. The Sakcagdzti valley is a possible route between Hattusa and Karkamis,

through an Amanus pass. The Mara? valley provides a

slightly more northern means of reaching a subsidiary

path across the Amanus (Jasink 1991: n. 3). Also, a

narrow ribbon of land on the western side of the Mara? valley allowed travellers to skirt the Aksu river in order to

connect to a warm-weather, high-altitude route across the

Taurus mountains that did not require passage through the so-called Cilician Gates. This left an interstice in which

few sites were required to control a vast landscape. The

vastness is not so evident on the map, but it is a very large

area when considered in human terms relative to the size

of the occupied sites. An analogy is the idea that

203



Anatolian Studies 2007

alatya

a rahmarnrmara?

A n *Karkamis

*Aleppo

N

m 100 km

Fig. 1. Regional map

Megiddo was worth a thousand towns because of its

ability to affect traffic well beyond its immediate place in

the landscape. By leaving most of the Mara? valley

region unsettled by people directly connected to the

administrative and material culture traditions of the

Hittite court, the occupation was not necessarily experi enced negatively as an occupation per se, but instead was

an experience of being integrated into a greater whole, which may have created opportunities that would offset

any newly imposed restrictions or requirements. Before Hittite control was consolidated in north Syria

during the second half of the Late Bronze Age, the Mara? and Sakqag6zO valleys were included within the eastern

reaches of the kingdom of Kizzuwadna. The treaty between Tudhaliya 1I and Sunas'sura of Kizzuwadna

defined the territory lying south and east of the Samri

river and across the Amanus mountains as part of that

kingdom, in contrast to the land lying north of the river

which was apportioned to the Hittites (Beckman 1999:

25, see CTH 41.11, KBo 1.5 iv 58-61). The Samri river

is equated with the modern Seyhan (del Monte, Tischler

1978: 546; 1992: 209). Therefore the Maras and

_a~gz valy,lctdsuhan ato htrvr prsmal weewti ertryaprindth

independent kingdom of Kizzuwadna. Direct Hittite

interference in these areas during the period of

Kizzuwadna's independent sovereignty was limited because treaties structured interaction with the Hittites.

These treaties offered limited possibilities for direct

Hittite contact in that landscape and with that population.

Later, after the Hittite vice-regency at Karkamis was

established, the dynamic of Hittite intervention changed.

Direct action in the landscape was possible, including

establishing new settlements or administrative centres

that would suit the extractive and management interests

of the imperial administration (Beckman 1992; 1995).

Archaeological surveys in these two regions provide a

new case revealing settlement pattern changes that

evolved during this period to serve Hittite interests.

The survey data

Drab ware

Survey data from the Mara? and Sakqag6zii valley areas

(Carter, et al. 1999; Garrard, et al. 1996) allowed identi

fication of Late Bronze (LB) II sites with differing levels

of precision. There are two recorded Late Bronze Age

sites and one unrecorded Late Bronze Age site in the

Sakcagozu valley. The number in the Iron Age is the

same (Garrard, et al. 1996: table 1). For the Mara? survey 44 Late Bronze Age sites were identified - six of

these sites were attributed specifically as having an LB II

occupation - and 50 Iron Age sites were located. The six

sites on which LB II (14th-13th centuries BCE) pottery

was found are KM 57; KM 87; KM 91; KM 48; KM 3;

KM 108. No finds of drab ware were explicitly

mentioned for the SakqagOzu survey although other

Hittite-period finds (red burnished pottery) are

mentioned for several tell sites in that surveyed region

(Garrard, et al. 1996: table 1, fig. 7:13; Dodd 2003: 2).

Thus, of necessity, the discussion of drab ware will focus

solely on the results of the Mara? survey.' The pre

Hittite, or pre-Late Bronze Age II, settlement pattern

largely persists there in the Iron Age. This result is

suggestive of population continuity over the longue

duree'. The low number of LB II sites probably should

not be considered a collapse in the settlement pattern,

i.e., that only six sites were occupied in the southern half

of the valley and none in the northern half during the

period of Hittite ascendancy. This would have been an

unfortunate situation given the potential agricultural

1 In addition to the newer data from the Mara? and Sakcag?z?

surveys, other research in the lowlands of these valleys includes

explorations by Alkim (1969) and Alkim and Alkim (1966) as well as excavations at Sakcag?z? (Garstang 1908; 1912; 1937; du Plat Taylor, et al. 1950), Domuztepe (Campbell, et al. 1999;

Carter 1997) and a survey by Brown (1967).

204



Dodd

(A~ ~ (

'C~~~~~~~~C

.17~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

J-1~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~N




productive capacity that would have been lost to the

Hittites in this well-watered region. Rather, this pattern is more likely to have resulted from incomplete knowledge of the local ceramic assemblage during the second half of the Late Bronze Age. At Kinet Hoyiik

(Gates 2001) and Tarsus (Goldman 1956; Slane 1987)

local ceramic traditions persisted through the period of Hittite domination. If the Mara? area followed suit, a

local ceramic tradition may have remained in place

alongside the drab wares that were introduced during the Hittite period. However, the development of sufficient criteria to identify the local (non-Hittite) pottery assem blage found on survey remains a problem. It is

reasonable to assume some measure of continuity between the sites where earlier and later pottery assem

blages bracket the LB II period, although admittedly this

assumption is fraught with potential interpretive compli cations. Still, similarities that exist within these second

millennium assemblages led Genz (2005) to suggest this possibility, the survival of a local potting tradition, as a

means of understanding the reappearance of certain pottery traditions in the Early Iron Age.2

Pottery with a fabric, temper and surface treatment

combination that resembles drab ware or monochrome

ware (Garstang 1937) constitutes a notable component of

the Late Bronze Age pottery assemblage in the Mara,

valley. These drab ware vessels occur in a variety of

forms, ranging from bowls, platters, plates and lids

through to deep vases, small jars, large jars, footed plates

and other shapes (see fig. 3 for examples). Generally,

drab ware vessels have an untreated surface with

calcareous grit temper that is often visible on the paste's

reddish-yellow exterior, which is otherwise untreated (for example, not burnished). The colour range found in

Maras includes: 5 YR 7/4 pink; 5 YR 7/8 reddish-yellow;

5 YR 7/6 reddish-yellow; 5 YR 5/6 yellowish-red; 2.5 YR

6/8 light red; 2.5 YR 6/4 light reddish-brown; 2.5 YR 5/8

red; 10 R 6/6 light red. The most common temper type

across all Late Bronze Age wares is calcareous grit, and

this temper sometimes occurs with portions of mica,

chaff or grog. The plain wares known from sites such as

Nor*untepe (Korbel 1985: pl. 10), Hattusa (Miiller-Karpe

1988: pls 50-54), Korucutepe (Griffen 1980: 74-75), Ma?at Hoyuik (Ozguc, 1982: fig. E), Tarsus (Korbel 1987:

pls 8-10) and Tille (Summers 1993: figs 43, 45) provide

close parallels for the sherds and rare reconstructable

vessels from the Mara? survey. For example, shallow drab ware bowls have close parallels at Bogazkoy in both

the Unterstadt and Biiyuikkale (Fischer 1963: Tafel 90 794 p. 19, Tafel 87 748 p. 16). Lids (fig. 3M) found in

Mara? fit comfortably in assemblages from both the

northern and southern Hittite realm, at Ma,at Hoytik

(Ozguii 1982: 103, no. 104) and Tarsus (Slane 1987: nos

569, 580, 579). Other bowls and jars are similar to those

found at Hattusa, Nor?untepe, Tarsus, Sabi Abyad and

Tell Rifa'at (fig. 3B, C, D, F, K, L, N, 0). These similar

ities constitute links with a supra-regional ceramic tradition that extended from the central plateau of

Anatolia through to Cilicia and into northern Syria.

Fine and decorated wares

Numerous burnished red vessel fragments were found on several surveyed sites in Mara? (this was not red lustrous

ware [RLW], however, see fig. 3E). The colours of the

fabrics include 2.5 YR 5/3 reddish-brown and 2.5 YR 5/6

red to 10 R 5/6 red. The temper is generally very fine

calcareous grit with some fine chaff, and is sometimes

micaceous. None of these sites were single period Late

Bronze Age sites and, although some of these burnished

examples compare favourably to Late Bronze Age

exemplars found in such places as Korucutepe, Tarsus

and Hattusa, the vessel fragments did not allow positive

attribution of many burnished ware sherds unequivocally

to the Late Bronze Age. Additionally, the very common

orange or red burnished 'brittle orange ware' in the local

Early Bronze Age assemblage (well-known from Gedikli

Hoyuk and Tilmen Hoyuk) muddies the interpretive waters and renders a definite attribution of much of this

material to the Late Bronze Age problematic (for details

of this assemblage, see Alkim, Alkim 1966; also, the

temper of the Late and Early Bronze Age types can be

similar). Further study of the sherds in this surface

treatment category is being undertaken. As an aside, the

visibility of these reddish burnished sherds on survey has

additional interpretive implications. The Mara? ceramic

assemblage superficially appears biased toward the

Anatolian and northwest Syrian ceramic traditions more

so than toward the ceramic traditions of the Syrian

Euphrates and Balikh, where burnished wares are less

commonly found during this period. The Sak?agozu

survey was not specifically designed to capture historic

period material but the survey team found highly-visible

Late Bronze Age diagnostics (combed jar sherds, painted

wares similar to eastern Mediterranean versions and fine,

burnished, red sherds) from the Hittite period all on a single mound, while drab ware was recorded on no sites (Garrard, et al. 1996: 73, fig. 3 Kara [Ismail] Hoyuik [not one of the officially recorded sites]).

2 Genz (2005) offered the hypothesis that some painted wares,

thought to be characteristically Iron Age or Middle Bronze Age, may be part of an unrecognised indigenous Late Bronze Age

assemblage. Research undertaken since the conclusion of the

Mara? survey should contribute to identifying better the LB II

period assemblage that remains understudied, in part because of

the surfeit of Hittite-related pottery that occurs contemporaneously.

206



Dodd

In addition to drab ware and fine burnished pottery, the

similarity between the Mara? assemblages and those

known in the Hittite world is evident in certain other vessel

shapes, such as an everted rim jar found at Bogazkoy and

Tarsus (Mellink 1956: pl. 33:395) that occurs on six sites

in the survey area (fig. 3K, L). Other shapes include deep

open jars also found at Hattusa (Miiller-Karpe 1988: shape

Tl0e Tafel 23 i), Nor?untepe (Korbel 1985), Tarsus (Slane

1987: 335, no. 473, pl. 109; Mellink 1956 II: pl. 390:D;

Korbel 1987: Tafel 30:394) and Porsuk (fig. 3J, H, N), and

bowls (fig. 3D) known from Sabi Abyad (Akkermans, et

al. 1993: pl. 18:48) and Nor?untepe (Korbel 1985: Tafel

48:1505). Another bowl (fig. 3B) is known at Nor?untepe (Korbel 1985: Tafel 170:3740 and also see Tafel 112:1188)

and Hattusa (Muiller-Karpe 1988: Tafel 31:Slm/3). A third

bowl (fig. 3C) has parallels in Hattusa (Muiller-Karpe

1988: Tafel 31 type Slk, example 8). A fourth bowl shape

(fig. 3G) is found across a wide area from Deir 'Alla

(Franken 1969: fig. 7-16:89) to Tarsus (Korbel 1987: Tafel

17:50x, 15:264.)

Figural vessels

An animal-shaped (theriomorphic) sculpture in the form of a bull or cow leg, which may have been part of a bibru

vessel, was located at site KM 48 where other Late

Bronze Age pottery types characteristic of Hittite period sites were also found. This figural piece is a fairly high

quality example and derives from a tradition that is well

known both within the Hittite heartland and in its

southern provinces. It is a tradition also present earlier in

the second millennium during the Middle Bronze Age in

the Old Assyrian and Old Hittite periods and therefore

this exemplar cannot be declared unequivocally to be a

Late Bronze Age product. However, it is a notable

coincidence that at Kinet Hoyuk in storeroom 29/96 and

kitchen 99/110 the excavators found typical 13th century drab ware bowls and tableware, in association with a

bull's horn and ear from a theriomorphic vessel. This item will be dealt with fully by the present author in the

Mara? survey final publication. In the meantime, it is

worth noting that examples of animal-shaped modelled

vessels are known at Inandiktepe, Kultepe Karum, Tokat,

Bogazkoy, Ma?at Hoyuik and Ali?ar throughout the

second millennium.

Artefacts of integration The Hittite expansion was accompanied by an insistent

reorganisation of the modes of ceramic production,

which is visible in both the heartland sites and in the

provinces at the sites noted above. Based on evidence

from Ugarit, Bogazkoy and Kinet Hoyuik, Gates (2001: 144) has argued for the pervasive influence of Hittite economic controls and standards in regions where

imperial business was transacted. That interpretation is

supported by the presence of administrative artefacts,

including Late Bronze Age II pottery, that derive both

from the capital and from far-distant southern sites in the

Hittite domain. Qualitative pottery data from Kinet

oyuik, Kilise Tepe (Symington 2001), Tille Hoyik (Summers 1993) and from sites identified during the

Mara? and Sakqag6zii surveys support the concept of a

coordinated network of pottery producers. Hittite admin

istrators managed craft training, exerted pressures designed to facilitate exchange and established local

ceramic production nodes in accord with the established

canon or mass-production scheme of the Hittite centres

(Muiller-Karpe 1988; Schoop 2003). This material culture tradition (drab wares) therefore signals the incor

poration of the find site into an area affected by the

Hittites. Examples of such sites include Tarsus (Slane

1987; Korbel 1987), Kinet Hoyuk (Gates 2001), Kilise Tepe (Hansen, Postgate 1999; Postgate 1998) and Tille

Hoyuk (Summers 1993). Material comparable to that

found in Maras occurs at Tille in the levels pre-dating Tille's burnt level, which is closely dated by

dendrochronology and C14 to ca 1170 to 1090 BCE.

This type of pottery does not occur in layers post-dating

the burning episode for this building, and therefore the

pottery was used at this site only through to the end of the

Late Bronze Age and not beyond the collapse of the

Hittite Empire. The standardisation apparent in the manufacture of

the imperial Hittite period wares supports an inference

that specialised potters, who were trained in a

widespread tradition, manufactured these wares in

workshops for local distribution (Voigt, Hendrickson 2000: 40). However, in contrast to the Kinet H6yuk

finds that include pot marks, none of the Mara? survey

finds from the LB II period has pot marks. The

suggestion has been made that the pot marks indicate the

workshop from which the pots come (Gates 2001). An

alternative suggestion is that these marks are indicators of quantities produced over a certain time, in which case

the prevalence of pot marks at Kinet Hoyuk might

indicate that a substantial quantity of pottery was

produced and consumed; especially if one were to

speculate that the pot marks reflect a quantity that would

provide useful information to managers (such as a day's

production or a kiln load). This suggestion would

account also for the low number of pots that actually are

marked. If this suggestion is correct, then the lack of pot

marks amongst the Maras survey sherds either could be

a recovery issue or could relate to a much lower intensity production at these sites in comparison to sites where many pot marks are found, such as Kinet Hoyuik or Tarsus. Based in part on the scant presence of imported

207




3 I_ O 5

D / ~~~ F _

H C

I~~ V

M _ b _

r---ww~ H~~~~~~ 10^

I | | \ J} ?~~~c

==e~~~~0



Dodd

Fig. 3. Pottery. Key: X. Vessel shape. Fabric colour and

surface treatment. Temper description. KM site. (Sherd

inventory no.). A. Plate. Reddish-yellow (5 YR 7/6) paste with a dark

grey (5 Y 4/1) core. KM 57. (142).

B. Bowl. Light grey (2.5 Y 7/2) to light brownish-grey (to

2.5 Y6/2) paste with variegated self slip (7.5 YR 6/2

to 10 YR 7/2). Fine chaff, much grit and grogg

temper. KM 91. (107). See Korbel 1985: Tafel

170:3740, Tafel 112:1188; Miller-Karpe 1988: Tafel 31:Slm/3.

C. Bowl. Light yellowish-brown (10 YR 6/4) paste with a

yellowish-red (5 YR 5/6) core and pink (7.5 YR 7/4)

slip. Body smoothed, rim burnished. Calcareous

grit temper. KM 108. (254). See Miiller-Karpe

1988: Tafel 31 type Slk: 8.

D. Bowl. Light brown (7.5 YR 6/4) paste with dark

greyish-brown (10 YR 4/2) core. Exterior burnished.

Grit and chaff temper. KM 108. (111). See Matthers

1981: fig. 220; Korbel 1985: Tafel 48:1505;

Akkermans, et al. 1993: pl. 18:48.

E. Jar. Light red (2.5 YR 6/8) paste with red (2.5 YR 5/6

to 10 R 5/6) self slip. Burnished. Calcareous grit

temper. KM 63. (72).

F. Bowl. Light red (2.5 YR 6/8) paste. Heavy calcareous

grit or sand temper. KM 225. (-8). See Slane 1987:

pl. 109 no. 473.

G. Bowl. Brown (7.5 YR 4/4) paste with reddish-brown (5

YR 5/3) slip. Grit temper. KM 74. (93).

H. Jar. Pinkish-grey ware, possible self slip. Calcareous,

micaceous sand. (-11).

I. Jar. Brown (7.5 YR 4.5/3) paste with reddish-brown (5

wares and low numbers of Canaanite jars, Gates charac

terises Kinet as a secondary port city (in contrast to

Ugarit or Ura, the major, long-distance trade entrepots).

Shipping to and from a restricted, consuming and

producing interior landscape would be the mainstay of

its economy. The valleys on the northeast side of the

Amanus are likely to have been part of the landscape

served by ports such as Kinet.

The sherds found at the Mara? valley sites include

storage jars, smaller deep jars and tableware such as

bowls. This assemblage does not suggest overtly a single

specific activity, although normal kitchen and storage

uses are not precluded. The presence of Hittite

standardised wares at six sites reflects some people's

desire (or willingness) to use and possess Hittite

tableware, local participation in Hittite potting traditions, an awareness of Hittite storage practice (through the jars that were used) and, if the bull figurine leg may be demonstrated to be from LB II (rather than an earlier

YR 4/3) slip. Burnished. Micaceous grit and chaff

temper. KM 87. (295).

J. Jar. Light olive brown (2.5 Y5/3) to dark greyish-brown

(2.5 Y4/2) paste with pale yellow (2.5 Y7/4) slip or self

slip. Micaceous quartzy grit temper. KM 225. (679).

K. Pot. Reddish-yellow (7.5 YR 7/6) paste with very pale

brown (10 YR 8/3) slip and grey (5 Y5/1 and ] 3/N)

core. Calcareous grit and chaff temper. KM 48.

(114). See Mellink 1956: pl. 33:395, pl. 6:112

smaller; Matthers 1981: fig. 223:13; Slane 1987:

no. 564 larger; Miller-Karpe 1988: Tafel 28 type

P2a larger.

L. Pot. Reddish-yellow (5 YR 6/6) paste with pinkish-grey

(5 YR 7/2) or light grey (10 YR 7/1) slip. Burnished.

Calcareous grit and fine chaff temper. KM 74. (99).

See Matthers 1981: fig. 224; Miiller-Karpe 1988:

Tafel 27:T24 no. 6 much larger (85cm).

M. Lid. Light yellowish-brown (10 YR 6/4) to reddish

yellow (5 YR 7/6) paste. Self slipped and burnished.

Fine calcareous grit or sand. KM 48. (116).

N. Jar. Light brown (7.5 YR 6/4) to brown (7.5 YR 5/4)

paste with grey (2.56 YR 4/1) core. Very pale brown

(10 YR 7/3.5) slip or self slip. Much calcareous grit

or sand. KM 57. (176). See Korbel 1985: Tafel

194:2927 smaller, Tafel 179:3575, Tafel 162:3654,

Tafel 131:2311; Miiller-Karpe 1988: Tafel 23 type

TlOe. 0. Pithos. Reddish-yellow (7.5 YR 6/6) paste with self slip

or fugitive reddish-brown (2.5 YR 5/3) slip and grey

(2.5 Y 5/1) core. Calcareous grit and chaff temper.

KM 48. (124). See Miller-Karpe 1988: Tafel 10 type

KT2i: 11, 13.

period), potentially also some participation in the ritual

traditions of the Hittites. This combination is suggestive of the actual presence of trained specialists dispatched by

the Hittite court or belonging to population groups affil

iated with the Hittites. Such people could include

transient specialist potters, agricultural and other

production managers, military and intelligence personnel, and merchants, depending on the nature of the

activity that occurred at these sites. In terms of the

expected range of Hittite settlements outside political and

cultic centres, we may envisage agricultural estates that

managed regional farm output as well as sites established

for military purposes, as, for example, is the case in the

Paphlagonia region (Matthews 2004). The sites identified in the Mara? and Sak?agdzu

valleys may have had multiple functions. Certainly, agricultural exploitation was one of these. Additionally, these two valleys had some strategic importance. There were considerable water resources year round and in

209




warm-weather periods the Mara? valley was an alter

native route northward to and from the Anatolian plateau.

Its role as an alternative route linking the central

Anatolian trade networks to southern partners was documented during the Old Assyrian period. During the Middle Bronze Age and specifically during the Old

Assyrian Colony period, the Mara? valley may have been

known as Mama, a kingdom containing a wabartum and

ruled by Anum-Khirbi/Khwera (Balkan 1957; Nashef 1991: 83; Hecker 1992; Forlanini 1995). This may be the

area identified also as Hassum (Hasuwa) in Hittite

documents of the same period (del Monte, Tischler 1992: 35; Hecker 1992; Klengel 1999). Anum-Khirbi/ Khwera/Hirwi is mentioned as a vassal of Yamhad, thus

implying that Yamhad exercised at least some control over (or benefited in some way from) traders who took

the route through Mama when other travel routes proved

problematic (Balkan 1957). If this accessibility and involvement in trade continued into the Hittite period, this would be a reason for Hittite investment and interest

(Gorny 1995). The Hittite period sites in the Mara, survey region

occur in two distinct clusters (see fig. 2). The first is

located in the west central part of the valley to the north

of a seasonal lake amid productive farmland south of

the Aksu river. The second cluster of sites is also

located south of the Aksu river, but on the east side of

the valley. This southeastern quarter of the Mara,

valley is a wide, flat plain of rich farmland. The sites on

the west side of the valley have the possibility of contra

vening and monitoring traffic moving to and from the

Syrian Gates or the Amuq plain along the western side

of the valley. The three sites on the east side of the

valley have a view of the road that leads toward the

Euphrates river and the modern city of Gaziantep.

These eastern sites can also monitor the hilly corridor

along the foot of the Mara? valley that connects to the

Sak?agdzti plain. All six sites are located south of the

Aksu river, which until recent irrigation sapped its flow,

had to be crossed by means of a bridge. In other words,

in ancient times the river would have constituted a more

significant natural impediment than today. These sites

were well positioned to contravene passage across the

river, which may have been their brief. The location of

the sites would have been especially effective in

addressing traffic moving northward from the less

secure southern Hittite province toward the territorial

heartland. Additionally, these sites may have been able

to monitor and control the footpath that crossed the

Amanus; a mountain track opens into the valley near

where these three sites are located. Thus, the standardised wares of the Hittite Empire appear in a restricted part of the surveyed area and in a patterned

manner. It is possible to imagine that the Hittite strate

gists were seeking to create a buffer zone, in order to

secure a region and routes which they considered

vulnerable. These six sites may represent an attempt by

the Hittites to filter traffic, stop contraband shipments to competitors, arrest escapees and participate in agricul tural monitoring of a well-watered region. This same

strategy may have been employed at Emar for the

purpose of securing the southeastern border and monitoring the actions of the Mitanni and, increasingly, the Assyrians along the southernmost flank of Hittite

control (Adamthwaite 2001; Faist, Finkbeiner 2002). The establishment of sites in the Mara? and Sakqagozu valleys may have been a strategic ploy (perhaps by

Mursili II?) conforming to the need to secure possible

routes westward into Hittite territory. The presence of Hittite drab ware and burnished

pottery in only six sites in the Mara? valley, and in

fewer sites in the Sakcagozui valley, may be interpreted

as an indication of a thrifty strategy of territorial

management in this region. Because of the unusual

distributions of the Late Bronze II sites, that is, this

localised, double cluster settlement arrangement, it is worthwhile revisiting the survey methodologies from which these data emerged.

The character of the local Late Bronze Age II pottery

assemblage was not particularly well understood at the

time of the survey (1996-2000). Therefore, it is possible

that there may be other sites with local assemblages that

date to the Late Bronze II period in the Mara? and

Sakqag6zO valleys. Because the local pottery sequence

for the later second millennium BC is becoming better

established as a result of new work in the region, further

research is planned in order to identify sites where a local

Late Bronze II assemblage exists. The six sites

mentioned as having been occupied during the Late

Bronze Age II period were identified by the presence of

pottery with comparanda from Hittite period sites in the

southern Syro-Anatolian portion of the Hittite Empire,

such as Tille Hoytik, Kinet Hoyuk and Tarsus, and by

comparison to ceramic corpora from Hittite sites in the

heartland, such as Hattusa (the specific references are

noted in Dodd 2002). This ceramic corpus is compara

tively well defined and these six sites are the only ones in

the Mara? survey region where pottery from that assem

blage was located.

Conceivably, there could be data collection issues

that would mask the presence of other sites (alluvial

deposition, coarse grained survey methodology, etc.).

The survey methodology employed for the Maras survey

has been described in detail elsewhere (Carter 1994; 1995; 1996; Carter, et al. 1999; Dodd 2002) and for the Sak,cagozui valley see Garrard, et al. 1996. Local maps

210



Dodd

supplied by the regional water authority were used as a

means of identifying known site locations and for plotting survey transects and newly identified sites. Local informants were consulted in most villages and many farms, and possible sites were investigated. In a

number of areas of the Kahramanmara? valley, transects

between sites were walked and occupied areas were

checked intensively by surveyors who walked lanes, interstices between structures, garden plots, etc. Corona satellite imagery from the late 1960s was used as a

means of identifying recently ploughed-under sites, and sites suspected from the satellite imagery were checked on the ground.

It is known that alluviation is a factor affecting data

preservation. Locally there are episodes of alluvial accumulation of up to 2m (Carter, et al. 1996). So, it is

possible that some of the smallest sites were not

captured by these survey methods. This prompted the author to initiate a field-walking check survey. This

survey was conducted in the major east-west corridor

along the southern foot of the valley, which is crossed by

the north-south road that can be used to move from

Sakcagdzti to the Maras valley. Transects were walked

in the open fields. Overall, a 5% sample of this valley

corridor was surveyed on foot. While material from

earlier and later periods was identified in this intensive

check survey, no additional Late Bronze Age sites were

found. Palaeolithic and Early Bronze Age materials

were gathered during this field walking. This result supports a conclusion that alluviation, although a factor

in geomorphological change locally, had not uniformly buried either extensive flat scatters or somewhat

mounded sites that pre-date the Late Bronze Age.

Similarly, we found material from the Iron Age, Roman

and Islamic periods on this check survey. Data preser

vation factors related to alluviation probably are not the

reason that no Late Bronze Age sites were identified in

this intensive survey - since both earlier and later sites

were noted. A possible explanation for this result is that

settlements in the Late Bronze Age were highly nucleated. If this were the case, even an intensive field

walking survey would not capture additional sites unless

a mound had been destroyed systematically and

ploughed across fields. In fact, there is no way to

guarantee that some flat sites were not missed in this

survey (as is the case with most surveys, barring 100%

coverage). But, the extent to which this affects the data

is not quantifiable. The unclear character of the local

Late Bronze Age assemblage is a factor in identifying Late Bronze II sites. But, this does not affect the identi

fication of sites where a Hittite-related pottery assem blage was present because that corpus is comparatively well known.

Hittite period pottery was only found on small to

medium tell sites in what apparently was a highly

nucleated settlement pattern. Only a handful of sites were pressed into service during the period of Hittite control and the Hittite interest was focused on the

southern half of the valley. Some of the people living in

these places probably were directly connected to the Hittite administrative apparatus. This connection materi alised in the pottery, which represents a systematically shared potting tradition, with standardised volumetrics and production techniques. Direct administrative connections were embodied at Tarsus, Korucutepe and Emar by bureaucrats who were in residence and whose

sealing practices mirror those of the Hittite capital (Din?ol, Dincol 2002). Merchants, craftsmen and other specialists were also part of the transferable pool of

Hittite subjects. The relative proximity of these sites to Karkamis (in comparison to Hattusa) makes it likely that

managers in Karkamis oversaw the trade and adminis

trative sphere in which these sites interacted on a regular basis. Models for such interactions are known from sites

in the orbit of Karkamis, such as Emar (Adamthwaite

2001) or Ugarit (Beckman 1992).

Klengel (1999) has clarified both the multiple kinds of power exercised in the Hittite territories and the

various positions and action spheres in which Hittite

royalty, nobility, bureaucrats and others in service relationships operated. It is possible to manage a territory solely through force of arms, but such a strategy

is exceptionally costly and has no long-term viability. Rather than relying solely on a brute force approach in

their southernmost territory along the Syro-Anatolian border, the Hittites employed a range of strategies. These

strategies were designed to create sustainable relation

ships of both dominance (essentially negative because it

is imposed) and investment (generally positive with its implications of multi-lateral benefit). Emar exemplifies the extent to which Hittite influence was negotiated in a

dual fashion, through existing social and political struc

tures and through the creation of a new register of

officials introduced by the Hittites. In Emar, court or

royal representatives were dispatched to secure the king's interests in a new frontier settlement and the local struc

tural systems were at least partly maintained in parallel

(Margueron 1980; Beckman 1992). Treaty relationships with existing rulers were a

normal feature of Hittite diplomacy. Treaties imply a

negotiated hegemonic strategy, and this kind of

approach was employed initially in Kizzuwadna and also later at Ugarit where the local ruler was the party to

the treaty. In other cases, Hittite treaties might be written with the people of a particular place rather than with a ruler (Adamthwaite 2001). Such an arrangement

211




placed the most invested local parties, such as land and

estate owners, in positions of local authority. Also, relationships that conferred responsibility could be crafted between the Hittite court and local individuals who were neither specifically among a group of elders

or designated as rulers specifically. Yamada (2006:

231) discusses the connection between performing the Hittite GIS.TUKUL duty and the property inheritance that was given in return for service. Such a relationship

conveyed responsibilities along with benefits for providing service, that is, land and the income from that

land. Adamthwaite (2001: 204) suggests that treaties with the people of a city/place might have been

employed where the Hittites were seeking to subdue a

territory. In such areas, especially where elders or some

other communal body held decision-making powers, a

treaty could be created without the presence of a ruler.

In the case of Tunip (Adamthwaite 2001: 204) a treaty

was established in the absence of a single ruler with a

corporate partner consisting of multiple individuals, the people of Tunip. This approach may reflect a strategy of

creating more, but weaker partners. The Syro-Anatolian

territories were a fractious region and it would have

been potentially advantageous if more factions were

created because then the negotiations could be

conducted with many weaker parties rather than fewer

acting in alliance. In at least two cases, the Hittites

created a king where none existed before in order to

delegate local decision making, and to have a vassal

who could be assigned various responsibilities and who

could be called to account for performance. If a local

ruler were failing in the prescribed performance, that

elite person could be replaced by others from the same

community. These kinds of relationships would create

an invested partner while requiring little infrastructure

investment by the Hittites. If the relationship between local rulers and the

Hittite king were heavy-handed, that is, if the Hittites

failed to honour treaty commitments or if an area were

not adequately and carefully secured, then vassals could

attempt to remove themselves from the Hittite system of

tribute-giving by rebellion. At such a point, Hittite

domination would have to be enforced. Vassal rulers

and designated rulers (those not already in place at the

onset of Hittite interference in a region) might choose

rebellion if their local constituents saw the Hittite

relationship as entirely counter to local interests. In such

a case, self-preservation would demand action such as

rebellion. Otherwise the local ruler himself would be

subject to overthrow by his own subjects. Texts

excavated at MaJsat tHoyuk (Ozguc, 1982) are emblematic of the tenuous nature of control that was endemic in the western and northern border areas where control was

frequently contested and relationships between the Hittites and their neighbours were sometimes difficult. Rebellious areas of the kingdom had to be managed

intensively on a regular basis. Border definition and territorial control in the Hittite's southern, Syro

Anatolian border region during the later Late Bronze

Age was similarly contested and dynamic (Weidner 1922: 2-3; Goetze 1940; Harrak 1987; del Monte,

Tischler 1992; Gurney 1992; particularly notable are texts indicating the engagement of vassals on behalf of

the major powers, as seen in the General's Letter, RS

20.33; see Izre'el, Singer 1990). The importance of securing and pacifying the Syro

Anatolian border area was acknowledged when the

Hittite king installed his sons as vice-regents at key

points in the traffic flows, on the Amuq plain at Alalakh

and in the former Mitanni stronghold at Karkamis. This

key river crossing linked the regions east and west of the

Euphrates. It is likely that securing the trans-Euphratean

traffic and territory was linked to Hittite interests at

settlements such as Tille (Summers 1993), Malatya

(Delaporte 1934; Matthiae 1962; Pecorella 1975; Hawkins 1998), Emar and, possibly, Oylum (Ozgen, Helwing 2003). The Hittite decision to establish a royal

centre at Karkamis, rather than delegating provincial

administration to a local vassal, reflects the complex

nature of managing strategic needs amid considerable

tensions. Control of river traffic (both along the river and

across the river) required significant investment and was

an essential security concern. The river was but one of

several routes that required policing. Land traffic on

lowland roads and mountain tracks had to be managed

also (Jasink 1991).

Once Kizzuwadna fell under the control of the

Hittites, the Mara? and Sakqag6zti valleys probably

were somewhat north of, and peripheral to, the main

drama for imperial border control that was playing out

to the south as the Hittites and Mitanni, and then the

Hittites, Egyptians and Assyrians, vied for control in

north Syria. But these two valleys still would have been

strategically significant from the perspective of both

agricultural productivity and security. A successful military incursion by either the weakened Mitanni or an

emboldened Assyria could be launched by successfully

pressing a military force beyond the sites of the

Euphrates, such as Tille Hoyuk, across the Gaziantep

plateau or westward past modern Pazarcik, and then

down into the valleys that neighboured Cilicia. To

avoid incursions into their heartland, as had happened

before (Bryce 2005: 146), the Hittites required a

warning or security system that would cut off possible avenues of approach through the Taurus and Amanus mountain passes,.

212



Dodd

It is clear that there would have been benefits to the

Hittites of settling people strategically in the Mara? and

Sakqag6zu valleys. But, from the perspective of the

local residents, the reasons why people might adopt Hittite systems and artefacts varied. The motivation may have been as straightforward as force, that is, when

the Hittite system was imposed by recourse to military

might or threat. The reasons for the adoption also may

reflect a more nuanced and strategic response by people

with a choice of possible affiliations that carried

differing opportunities for prestige and economic benefit among other possibilities. In this contested border region of Syro-Anatolia there were multiple alliances that could be created as the ability of Hittite,

Mitanni, Assyrian and local princes to project their

power across the landscape waxed and waned.

Therefore, it is conceivable that Hittite systems may have been embraced (rather than imposed) as a means

of ensuring local benefit. If the benefits open to traders,

farmers and local strongmen were sufficient, they could

seek proactively access to the lucrative system of trade

and exchange that supplied the needs of the growing

Hittite Kingdom. This does not imply that the integrative economic aspects of the Hittite system were the sole motivation. Rather, it is possible to see that

there were relationships in place already that linked

people in places like the Mara? valley to other areas of

the Hittite realm. As discussed above, there are

historical traces of relationships dating back to the Old

Assyrian period that linked the Mara? region to the

southernmost Hittite possessions in Syria. The Hittite

administrative apparatus might have seemed like a

valuable technology that could facilitate interactions

and prestigious connections that people were already

disposed to make themselves and, indeed, that they had

been making for centuries.

Gates has suggested (2001) that Hittite standards and

transaction systems pervaded in order to facilitate

regional business and trade. In view of this, we should

understand the appearance of drab ware, mass-produced

pottery, in this area of Syro-Anatolia not solely as an

imposition, with the attendant negative connotations, but

also as a form of integration, with its more positive

possibilities both for the settlers and the settled. Such a

reading provides one explanation for the positive

perception of the Hittite past during the Iron Age (Dodd

2005). The Hittite past and its elite traditions might then

have been perceived as prestigious and relevant, in part

because of the prior willingness of the Hittites to allow

local traditions, settlement patterns, and the economic and social ties of villagers to their land to persist and thrive alongside imperial interests in the region. Specu latively, we might envisage a number of people in the

Mara? valley who may have been co-opted into the

Hittite system either through GIS.TUKUL duty or ilku service, or who may have been named as local rulers to

serve as mediators of treaty functions, or who were

simply commissioned as petty officials such as the provincial version of a biirgermeister (Klengel 1999). It is well established that inherited land and authority

could pass down through locally powerful families over many decades of Hittite rule, undoubtedly with the condition of continued service to the crown. Karkamis,

Malatya and Ugarit are clear examples. On a smaller

scale, this long-term interaction in a system of adminis

tration or military service tied to land would be a

mechanism for dynasty-like succession among subjects who are not visible to us to the same degree as the major

princes of Syrian kingdoms such as Ugarit. The service

of lesser individuals would have been rendered to and

managed by the Hittite king's representative in Karkamis. This relationship, along with the better

known claims of actual dynastic descent, creates a

picture that resonates beyond the uppermost elite sphere of society (Hawkins 1988).

Hittite management of the Mara? and Sakcag6zti

valleys did not dislocate local settlement systems signif

icantly. The pre-Hittite, or pre-Late Bronze Age II,

patterns persist in the Iron Age. Thus, local citizens of

the Mara? valley were living in and around a newly

arrived or newly co-opted population who were

associated with Hittite interests. The mission of those

who lived at these sites was linked in material ways to

the administrative traditions that were concretely embodied in the standardised pottery forms that were

distributed throughout the region involved in the Hittite political economy. These six sites in Mara? indicate that

a tradition of Hittite presence was established during the

LB II period, through the agency of people living in

these few, strategically located settlements. Familial ties

between Mara?/Sakqag6zu and the Hittite royal line

have not been established. Significantly, the later asser

tions of Hittite-ness by elites whose inscriptions and

names were written in Luwian in the Iron Age kingdom of Gurgum and whose gods, goddesses and funerary practices reflected multiple cultural origins (Bonatz

2000; Hutter 2003: 277) are a measure of the successful

integration and management of this region by the

Hittites. From this perspective, the Hittite adminis tration of their southern territories was not invasive in a

manner that created a collective memory of dislocation

or disenfranchisement in the local mind. On the

contrary, the imperial symbols of Hittite prestige and

wealth were revived even though effective Hittite power had been destroyed, and a Hittite legacy was created anew in the Iron Age.

213




Acknowledgements This research was supported in part by travel grants from

the Friends of the UCLA Cotsen Institute for Archae

ology and by a Franklin Research Grant from the

American Philosophical Society. The author would like to thank the organisers of the Transanatolia conference,

Alexandra Fletcher and Alan Greaves, for an exceptional

conference programme. The author gratefully acknowl edges the assistance of Elizabeth Carter, Stuart Campbell

and Geoffrey Summers who gave the author access to

comparative collections and shared their considerable expertise during study seasons in Turkey.

Bibliography Alkim, U. 1969: 'The Amanus region' Archaeology 22/4:

280 Alkim, U., Alkim, H. 1966: 'Gedikli kazisi Birinci ?n

Rapor (Excavations at Gedikli [Karah?y?k] first

preliminary report)' T?rk Tarih Kurumu Belleten

30/117: 27-58

Adamthwaite, M. 2001: Late Hittite Emar: The

Chronology, Synchronisms and S ocio-Political

Aspects of a Late Bronze Age Fortress Town.

Louvain

Akkermans, P., Limpens, J., Spoor, R.H. 1993: 'On the

frontier of Assyria: excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad, 1991' Akkadica 84-85: 1-52

Balkan, K. 1957: 'Letter of King Anum-hirbi of Mama to

King Warshama of Kanish' Turk Tarih Kurumu

Yayinlarindan 7/3 la

Beckman, G. 1992: 'Hittite administration in Syria in

the light of the texts from Hattusa, Ugarit and

Emar' in M. Ch?valas, J. Hayes (eds), New

Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria. Malibu:

41-49 ? 1995: 'Hittite provincial administration in Anatolia

and Syria: the view from Masat and Emar' in O.

Carruba, M. Geiorgieri, C Mora (eds), Atti del II

Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia. Pavia:

19-38 ? 1999: Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Atlanta

Bonatz, D. 2000: Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal:

Untersuchungen zur Entstehung einer neuen

Bildgattung in der Eisenzeit im nordsyrisch s?dostanatolischen Raum. Mainz

Brown, G.H. 1967: 'Prehistoric pottery in the Antitaurus'

Anatolian Studies 17: 123-64

Bryce, T. 2005: The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford

Campbell, S., Carter, E., Healey, E., Anderson, S.,

Kennedy, A., Whitcher, S. 1999: 'Emerging

complexity on the Kahramanmara? plain, Turkey: The Domuztepe Project, 1995-1997' American

Journal of Archaeology 103: 395-41

Carter, E. 1994: 'Report on the Kahramanmara? Archae

ological Survey 1992' Arastirma Sonu?lan

Toplantisi 11: 237-42 ? 1995: 'Report on the Kahramanmara? Archaeological

Survey Project from 24/9/93 to 11/11/93' Arastirma

Sonu?lan Toplantisi 12: 331-41 ? 1996: 'The Kahramanmara? Archaeological Survey

Project: a preliminary report on the 1994 season'

Arastirma Sonu?lan Toplantisi 13: 289-306 ? 1997: 'Report on the archaeological work in

Domuztepe and its environs in 1995' Kazi

Sonu?lan Toplantisi 18: 173-87

Carter, E., Campbell, S., Snead, J. 1996: 'Excavations

and survey at Domuztepe' Anatolia Antiqua 7: 1

18

Carter, E., Eissenstat, C, Hill, C, Swartz, L. 1999: 'The

Kahramanmara? Archaeological Project Survey 1997' Kazi Sonu?lan Toplantisi 16: 569-76

del Monte, G.F., Tischler, J. 1978: Die Orts- und

Gew?ssernamen der hethitischen Texte (RGTC

6/1). Wiesbaden

?1992: Die Orts- und Gew?ssernamen der hethitischen

Texte (RGTC 6/2). Wiesbaden

Delaporte, L. 1934: 'Malatya: c?ramique du Hittite

r?cent' Revue hittite et asianique 2/16: 257-85

Din?ol, A., Din?ol, B. 2002: 'Gro?e, Prinnzen, Herren.

Die Spitzen der Reichsadministration im Spiegel ihrer Seigel' in H. Willingh?fer with U. Hasekamp

(eds) and Ay?e Baykal-Seeher (Turkish ed.), Die

Hethiter und ihr Reich. Das Volk der 1000 G?tter.

Stuttgart: 82-87

Dodd, L.S. 2002: The Ancient Past in the Ancient

Present: Cultural Identity in Gurgum during the

Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age Transition in North

Syria. PhD thesis, University of California, Los

Angeles ? 2003: 'Chronology and continuity in the Early Iron

Age: the northeastern side of the Amanus' in B.

Fischer, et al. (eds), Identifying Changes: The

Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and

its Neighbouring Regions. Istanbul: 127-36 ? 2005: 'Territory, legacy and wealth in Iron Age

Anatolia' in B. Parker, L. Rodseth (eds), Untaming the Frontier: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on

Frontier Studies. Tucson: 238-60

du Plat Taylor, J.M.-V., Seton-Williams, J., Waechter, J.

1950: 'Excavations at Sak?e G?z?' Iraq 12: 53

138 Faist, B., Finkbeiner, U. 2002: 'Emar. Eine syrische Stadt

unter hethitischer Herrschaft' Die Hethiter und ihr

Reich. Das Volk der 1000 G?tter. Bonn: 190-95

Fischer, F. 1963: Die Hethitische Keramik von

Boghazk?y. Berlin

214



Dodd

Forlanini, M. 1995: 'The Kings of Kanis' in O. Carruba, M. Giorgieri, C Mora (eds), Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Hittitologia. Pavia: 123-32

Franken, H.J. 1969: Excavations at Tell Deir Alla. A

Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery. Leiden

Gates, M.-H. 2001: 'Potmarks at Kinet H?y?k and the

Hittite ceramic industry' in ?. Jean, A.M. Din?ol, S.

Durug?n?l (eds), La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e mill?naire avant J-C.

- 4e si?cle ap. J

C). Actes de la Table ronde internationale

d'Istanbul, 2-5 novembre 1999. Institut Fran?ais d'Etudes Anatoliennes Georges Dum?zil, Istanbul.

Paris: 137-58

Garrard, A., Conolly, J., Moloney, N., Wright, K. 1996:

'The early prehistory of the Sakcag?z? region, north Levantine rift valley: report on the 1995

survey season' Anatolian Studies 46: 53-82

Garstang, J. 1908: 'Excavations at Sak?e Geuzi in north

Syria: preliminary reports for 1908' Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 1: 97-110

? 1912: 'Second interim report on the excavations at

Sak?e Guezi in north Syria, 1911' Liverpool Annals

of Archaeology and Anthropology 5: 63-72

?1937: 'Third report on the excavations at Sak?e Guezi

1908-1911' Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and

Anthropology 24: 119-40

Genz, H. 2005: 'Thoughts on the origin of the Iron Age

pottery traditions in central Anatolia' in A. ?ilin

giroglu, G. Darbyshire (eds), Anatolian Iron Ages.

Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages Collo

quium Held at Van, 4-8 August 2001. London: 47

64

Goetze, A. 1940: Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite

Geography. New Haven

Goldman, H. 1956: Excavations at G?zl? Kule, Tarsus, II. From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton

Gorny, R. 1995: 'Hittite imperialism and anti-imperial resistance as viewed from Alisar H?y?k' Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 299:

65-90

Griffen, E.E. 1980: 'The Middle and Late Bronze Age

Pottery' in M. van Loon (ed.), Korucutepe. Final

Report on the Excavations of the Universities of

Chicago, California (Los Angeles) and Amsterdam

in the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anatolia 1968

1970, Vol. 3. New York: 3-76

Gurney, O.R. 1992: 'Hittite geography: thirty years on' in H. Otten, H. Ertem, E. Akurgal, A. S?el

(eds), Hittite and Other Anatolian and Near

Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp. Ankara:

213-21

Hansen, C.K., Postgate, J.N. 1999: 'The Bronze Age to

Iron Age transition at Kilise Tepe' Anatolian

Studies 49: 111-22

Harrak, A. 1987: Assyria and Hanigalbat. A Historical

Reconstruction of Bilateral Relations from the

Middle of the Fourteenth to the End of the Twelfth Centuries BC. Hildesheim

Hawkins, J.D. 1988 'Kuzi Tesub and the "Great Kings" of Karkamis' Anatolian Studies 38: 99-108

? 1998: 'Hittites and Assyrians at Melid (Malatya)' in

H. Erkanal, V. Donbaz, A. Uguroglu (eds), XXXIV

UluslararasiAssiriyolojiKongresi (XXXIV Interna

tional Assyriology Congress) 6-10IVII/1987, Istanbul. Ankara: 63-78

Hecker, K. 1992: 'Zur Herkunft der hethitischen

Keilschrift' Uluslararasi 1. Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri (19-21 Temmuz 1990) ?orum. Ankara:

53-60

Hutter, M. 2003: 'Aspects of Luwian religion' in C.

Melchert (ed.), The Luwians. Leiden: 211-77

Izre'el, S., Singer, I. 1990: The General's Letter from

Ugarit: A Linguistic and Historical R??valuation of RS 20.33. Tel Aviv

Jasink, A.M. 1991: 'Hittite and Assyrian routes to

Cilicia' De Anatolia Antiqua 1: 253-59

Kiengel, H. 1999: Geschichte des Hethitischen Reiches.

Leiden

Korbel, G. 1987: Materialheft sp?tbronzezietliche Keramik Tarsus (Grabung Hetty Goldman). Hannover

? 1985: Die Sp?tbronzezeitliche Keramik von

Norsuntepe. Hannover

Margueron, J.-Cl. 1980: 'Emar: un exemple d'imlan

tation hittite en terre syrienne' in J.-Cl. Margueron

(ed.), Le Moyen Euphrate: zone de contacts et

d'?changes. Leiden: 285-312

Matthers, J. (ed.) 1981: The River Qoueiq, North Syria, and its Catchment. Studies Arising from the Tell

Rifa 'at Survey. Oxford

Matthews, R. 2004: 'Landscapes of terror and control:

imperial impacts in Paphlagonia' Near Eastern

Archaeology 67: 200-11

Matthiae, P. 1962: 'Das Hethitische Malatya,

Ausgrabungen einer italienischen Mission, 1961/62' Zeitschrift f?r Kunstgeschichte und

Arch?ologie, Basel-Z?rich (Raggi Verlag) 4/2: 15

26

Mellink, M.J. 1956: A Hittite Cemetery at Gordion.

Philadelphia

M?ller-Karpe, A. 1988: Hethitische T?pferei der

Oberstadt von Hattusa. Marburg Nashef, K. 1991: Die Orts- und Gew?ssernamen der

altassyrischen Zeit. Wiesbaden

215




?zgen, E. Helwing, B. 2003: 'On the shifting border

between Mesopotamia and the West: seven seasons

of joint Turkish-German excavations at Oylum

H?y?k' Anatolica 29: 61-85

?zg?c, T. 1982: Masat H?y?k II: Bogazk?y'?n Kuzey dogusunda Bir Hitit Merkezi I A Hittite Center

Northeast of Bogazk?y. Ankara

Pecorella, P.E. 1975: Malatya III. Rapporto Preliminare

d?lie Campagne 1963-1968. Il Livello Eteo

Imperiale e Quelli Neoetei. Roma

Postgate, J.N. 1998: 'Between the plateau and the sea:

Kilise Tepe 1994-97' in R. Matthews (ed), Ancient

Anatolia: Fifty Years' Work by the British Institute

of Archaeology at Ankara. Ankara: 127-41

Schoop, U.-D. 2003: 'Pottery traditions of the late

Hittite Empire: problems of definition' in B.

Fischer, H. Genz, ?. Jean, K. K?roglu (eds), Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring

Regions. Proceedings of the International

Workshop Istanbul, November 8-9, 2002.

Istanbul: 167-77

Slane, D. 1987: Middle and Late Bronze Age Architecture

and Pottery in G?zl? Kale, Tarsus: A New Analysis. PhD thesis, Bryn Mawr College

Summers, G.D. 1993: Tille H?y?k 4: The Late Bronze

Age and the Iron Age Transition. Ankara

Symington, D. 2001: 'Hittites at Kilise Tepe' in ?. Jean, A. Din?ol, S. Durug?n?l (eds), La Cilicie: espaces et pouvoirs locaux (2e mill?naire avant J-C.

- 4e

si?cle ap. J-C). Actes de la Table ronde interna

tionale d'Istanbul, 2-5 novembre 1999. Institut

Fran?ais d'Etudes Anatoliennes Georges Dum?zil, Istanbul. Paris: 167-84

Voigt, M., Hendrickson, R. 2000: 'The Early Iron Age at

Gordion: the evidence from the Yassih?y?k Strati

graphic Sequence' in E. Oren (ed.), The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Philadelphia: 327-60

Yamada, M. 2006: 'The Hittite administration in Emar: the

aspect of direct control' Zeitschrift f?r Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Arch?ologie 96/2: 222-34

Weidner, E.F. 1922: Politische Dokumente aus

Kleinasien, Die Staatsvertr?ge in akkadisher

Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazk?i. Leipzig

216



Documents

Transanatolia: Bridging the Gap between East and West in the Archaeology of Ancient Anatolia || Strategies for Future Success: Remembering the Hittites during the Iron Age