BORDERED PLACES I BOUNDED TIMES
CROSS-DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES
ON TURKEY
Edited by
Emma L. Baysal & Leonidas Karakatsanis
BRITISH INSTITUTE AT ANKARA
Monograph 51
2017
Published by
British Institute at Ankara
10 Carlton House Terrace, London SWl Y 5AH
www.biaa.ac.uk
ISBN 978 1 898249 38 2
© British Institute at Ankara 20 I 7
Typeset by Gina Coulthard
Printed by Short Run Press Ltd, Exeter
All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the British Institute at Ankara.
Contents
Acknowledgements Leonidas Karakatsanis & Emma L. Baysal
Preface Susan Sherratt
List of figures
Introduction
Expanding the perspective: towards a deep history of borders, boundaries and frontiers
in Turkey Leonidas Karakatsanis & Emma L. Baysal
A. Borders in prehistory
1. Material culture reconsidered: personal adornment and the conceptualisation of
boundaries in the Epipalaeolithic Emma L. Baysal
2. Ubaid 'islands' in a non-Ubaid 'sea': an attempt to define the Ubaid and its cultural
boundaries in northeastern Mesopotamia Konstantinos Kopanias
111
\-
x
1
15
27
B. Early states
3. Borders are rough-hewn: monuments, local landscapes and the politics of place in a
Hittite borderland 6mur Harman§ah
4. Fortified cities, high rocky mountains, steep places: what do we know about the border
between the Hittite state and Azzi-Ijaya8a? Anna Katarzyna Chrzanowska
5. A view over high mountains: the Assyrian perception of the Urartians and their kings
Julia Linke
6. Fortification architecture of Late Bronze Age Anatolia: where are the borders?
Cigdem Maner
53
C. A Greek Anatolia?
7. Conceptualising interregional relations in Ionia and central-west Anatolia from the
Archaic to the Hellenistic period David Hill
8. Borders make the polis: Klazomenai ElifKoparal
9. Altarnative. A borderland approach to Archaic East Greek art: a case study
Leticia R. Rodriguez
85
97
37
65
73
111
D. Empires
10. The coming of Rome and the redefinition of cultural and ethnic boundaries in
north-central Anatolia Jesper Majbom Madsen
11. Boundaries of a frontier region: late antique northern Mesopotamia El(f Keser-Kayaalp
12. Mountains as frontiers in the historiography of the early Islamic conquests
Abby Robinson
123
135
E. Imprints of an Ottoman past
13. From the centre of memory to the margins of space and representation: ethnic
boundaries and the Turks in the Republic of Macedonia Maj a Muhic
14. Penneability, social practices and borderline identities: perspectives from the
Bulgarian-Turkish border since the mid 20th century Nikolai Vukov
157
F. Borders in the making
15. Hospitality, conditionality and managing migrant time across borders: Syrian migrants
in Turkey Souad Osseiran
16. Crossing back and forth: identity and belonging across and beyond bordered worlds in
the films of Fatih Akm Marc Herzog
183
149
169
195
3. Borders are rough-hewn:
monuments, local landscapes and the politics of place
in a Hittite borderland
Omur Ha
r man~h
University of Illinois at Chicago
Abstract
Cultural historian Elliott Colla proposed in a recent paper that ancient borders, unlike their modern versions, were often
roughly hewn, both materially and conceptually. With this he not only refers to the artfully crafted and politically
contested nature of borders in antiquity but also cleverly highlights their geological grounding. For the Hittite imperial
landscapes, Calla's statement has special resonance, since Hittite frontiers are often discussed with respect to the making
of rock reliefs and spring monuments that commemorate the kingship ideology at both politically contested border
regions and appropriate local sites of geological wonder and cultic significance such as caves, springs and sinkholes.
Treaties were signed and border disputes were settled at these liminal sites where divinities and ancestors of the underworld took part as witnesses. One such monument is the Yalburt Yaylas1 Sacred Mountain Spring Monument that features
a lengthy Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription put up by the Hittite kings in the countryside. Excavated by the Anatolian
Civilisations Museum, Ankara, in the 1970s, the Yalburt Monument near Konya is dated to the time of Tudhaliya IV
(1237- 1209 BC). Since 2010, the Yalburt Yaylas1Archaeological Landscape Research Project has investigated the landscapes surrounding the Yalburt Monument. The preliminary results of the extensive and intensive archaeological surveys
suggest that the region of Yalburt was a deeply contested frontier, where the Land of Hatti linked to the politically
powerful polities of western and southern Anatolia. This paper discusses the nature of a Hittite borderland with respect
to settlement programmes, monument construction and regional politics.
Oz et
Ktiltiir tarih9isi Elliott Colla, yakm bir zaman once sundugu bir bildirisinde, eski9agda s1mrlann modern versiyonlanmn
oldugunu soyler. Bu soylemle, sumlann hem
aksine, s1khkla hem fiziksel, hem de kavramsal olarak kabaca i~lenm
ustaca 9izlm~
oldugunu, hem de siyasi olarak 9eki~ml
bir dogas1 olduguna vurgu yapmaktadir. Aym zamanda bu
eder. imparatorluk donemi Hitit topografyasma baktig1m1zda, Elliott Colla' mn bu
olgunun jeolojik temellerine i~aret
edilen amtlar
onerisi ayn bir onem kazamr. <;::unkti Hitit smir boylan s1khkla kayalara oyulan ve su kaynaklanna in~a
Bu amtlar bir yandan siyasi 9eki~mlr
sahne olan smir bolgelerinde kralhk ideolojisini
arac1hg1yla tar1~lmkdi.
ya~tmk
, bir yandan da magaralar, su kaynaklan ve dtidenler gibijeolojik a91dan mucizevi olan ve dini onem ta~1yn
bu yerel birimleri s1mrlar i9ine dahil etmektedir. Anla~mr
ve smir tari~mln
yeralti dtinyas1 tannlannm ve kutsal
niteligindeki mahallerde imzalamr ve 9oztime baglamrdi. Bu amtlardan bir tanesi de Yalburt
atalann huzurunda, bu e~ik
uzunca bir yaz1ta sahiptir. Bu yaz1t Hitit
Yaylas1 Kutsal Dag Pman Amt1'd1r ve Luvice hiyeroglifle yaz1hm~
imparatorlugu'nun kirsal alanda yer alan onemli yaz1tlanndan biridir. 1970 ' lerde Ankara Anadolu Medeniyetleri Mtizesi
~ olan Konya yakmlanndaki bu amt, 4. Tudhaliya' nm zamanma tarihtarafmdan bir kurtarma kaz1smda ortaya 91kanhm
Projesi, Yalburt
lenir (M.6. 1237- 1209). 2010 yilmdan beri Yalburt Yaylas1 ve <;::evresi Arkeolojik Ytizey Ara~tim
Amt1 'm 9evreleyen arazi tizerinde ger9kl~timd.
Ger9kl~tin
yaygm ve yo gun yiizey ar~timln
ilk
sonu9lanna g6re, Yalburt bolgesinin yiiksek siyasi rekabetin stiregeldigi bir smir bolgesi oldugu ve Hatti Olkesi 'nin
kar~1y
geldigi anl~1mktdir.
Bu bildiride,
Bati ve Gtiney Anadolu 'nun politik olarak gti9lii yonetimleriye burada kar~1
~ im
programlan, amt in~atl
ve bolge siyaseti ele almarak incelenmektedir.
bu Hitit s1mr bolgesi, yerl
37
Bordered Places I Bounded Times
landscape archaeology, which is geared towards a concrete
understanding of archaeological or historical landscapes
as socio-spatial products and artefacts of material practices
such as place-making, construction and movement (see,
for example, Knapp , Ashmore 1999; Evanset al. 2009;
Harmn~h
2013: 28- 31; and various papers in Bowser,
Zedeiio 2009 and Bender 1993; notable in this sense is Tim
Ingold 's notion of taskscapes : 2000: 189- 208). The
complexity of borders and borderlands in the ancient world
requires us to see them as real landscapes in their ontological groundedness. Although this might seem obvious
when stated as such, I contrast this rather straightforward
observation with our common conceptualisation of premodem/ancient borders as imagined cartographic features
or dividing lines abstractly drawn. This notion derives
from a long history of mapmaking and scientific cartography, which leads us to move seamlessly from the lines
on a map to actual borders and frontiers on the ground.
This paper attempts to reimagine borderland landscapes as
ambiguous and contested topographies before the advent
of scientific mapmaking, and prior to their capture in the
representational clarity of modem political maps.
In this paper, I argue that borderlands are a feature of
the physical landscape first and foremost, along with being
a product of the political imagination, and I advocate for
an explicitly spatial reading of borderlands as vibrant,
contested and fluid. Secondly, I suggest that borderlands
are best understood as a specific regional landscape that is
composed of a constellation of interconnected places
where political negotiation takes place through practices
of public spectacles and commemorative activities which
involve the construction and maintenance of monuments
and sites of memory (Nora 1989; 1996). Pierre Nora associates 'sites of memory' with the post-industrial world and
its cultural amnesia, as sites where an artificial recovery
of collective memory is attempted through material manifestations in the form of monument building and commemorative
ceremonies.
He
contrasts
pre-modern
environments of memory, where oral cultures were strong,
with the post-industrial world, where our ability to
remember collectively is lost in the context of the modem
nation-state. Yet this contrast has its problems. Arguments
have been made to show that neither has modernity been
able to take away all those environments of memory nor
are pre-modern contexts devoid of creating politically
charged, artificially configured ' sites of memory'. By 'site
of memory' I refer to places of commemoration where
collectively shared pasts are negotiated through ceremonies, spectacles, inscriptions and monument building.
Scholarly discussions of borderlands and frontiers
often focus on the ' boundary situations' or borderland
processes (Parker 2006: 78), sharp material culture differentiations at frontiers (Lightfoot, Martinez 1995: 4 71) or
The horizon is an arc wherein a given landscape comes
to an end - an end of visibility, of presence, of availability. A place per se has no horizon, only an enclosure
or perimeter. Only when places are concatenated in a
landscape is there anything like a horizon, which is the
undelimited limit, or better the boundary, for the
landscape as a whole. As a boundary, the horizon does
not merely close off the landscape; it opens it up for
further exploration, that is, for bodily ingression
(Edward Casey 2001: 417).
Introduction: borderlands as a constellation of places
Frontiers and borderlands are complex geographies that
tend to house marginal and relatively fluid cultural
practices and particular political configurations that are
difficult to explain through the normative laws of the
imperial centre. In his work on Anatolian borderlands,
Keith Hopwood has shown how semi-nomadic pastoralists
of the Byzantine and Turkish communities in the Bey~hir
Lake basin during the medieval period interacted and
mingled by sharing lifestyles while 'the incursions of the
armies of central governments were unwelcome to the
inhabitants' of the borderlands (Hopwood 1993: 131).
However, historical studies on borderlands rarely offer
spatially informed perspectives on the topographic configuration of borderland landscapes and the kinds of spatial
practices and material interventions through which they
are shaped, maintained and transformed (note, however,
Oya Pancaroglu's 2005 work on the association of sacred
cave sites and borderlands in medieval Anatolia). This
contribution to Bordered Places I Bounded Times attempts
to address these issues from an archaeological perspective
and investigates the material shaping of a borderland zone
in south-central Anatolia during the Bronze Age.
In a recent unpublished paper, Elliot Colla suggested
that, in contrast to the border fences of 20th- and 21stcentury nation-states, 'pre-modem boundaries and frontiers
are often rough-hewn both materially and conceptually'. He
continued by suggesting that, ' as structures they gesture not
so much to the site they occupy, but to polities located
elsewhere. As signs of the periphery, they point to centres
elsewhere; in themselves, they mark distance more than
proximity, absence more than presence ' (Colla 2008). With
this statement, Colla refers to the artfully crafted, politically
contested but also physically ambiguous nature of borders
in antiquity and cleverly highlights their geological
grounding. This geological grounding of borderlands as real
topographies where spatial practices of the political nature
materialise is rarely explored, and it is my intention to
contribute to borderland/frontier studies via this perspective.
If we consider a borderland landscape as a cultural
artefact and a political reality on the ground, we engage
directly with one of the central concerns of contemporary
38
Chapter 3:
Harmn~h.
Monuments, local landscapes and the politics ofplace in a Hittite borderland
separation of its imperial core ('Land of Hatti') cannot be
easily defined with respect to its continuously shifting
frontiers (Pecchioli Daddi 2009: xii). In the second half of
this paper, I will discuss a geographically well-defined
cluster of Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age monuments
in a borderland region in south-central Turkey (dated
roughly between 1400-1000 BC; fig. 3.1). These are
monuments at springs and prominent rock outcrops which
are roughly carved into the living rock with images and
inscriptions, and therefore are deeply embedded in particular geology of the landscape (on Anatolian rock
monuments, see Kohlmeyer 1982; Harmn~h
2014a;
forthcoming; Ehringhaus 2005; Bonatz 2007; Glatz 2009;
Seeber 2009; Glatz, Plourde 2011 ; Ullmann 2010; 2014;
Okse 2011). I argue that such 'roughly hewn' monuments
are unfinished discourses written over powerful places,
and this was how, in a way, frontier landscapes were
configured as borderlands. As Christopher Tilley suggests
in his work The Materiality ofStone, places and landscapes
'form potent mediums for socialization and knowledge for
to know a landscape is to know who you are, how to go
on and where you belong' (Tilley 2004: 25). This relationship between place, belonging and knowledge is always
unfinished, as are the rough-hewn inscriptions of place,
the political agents, military conflicts and treaties settling
border definitions. Today's widespread, modernist understanding of borders relies heavily on the cartographic
representation of borders as linear geopolitical features in
the landscape, a notion that derives from the way modem
nation-states are imagined on the ground. The notion of
space as quantifiable as well as dividable is frequently,
albeit anachronistically, adopted in the historical imagination of ancient states, and comes with the expectation of
sharp material culture variation on either side of a given
border. In the similarly popular core-periphery models that
are frequently used in borderland and frontier case studies,
frontiers are imagined as territories defined by movement
from a powerful and innovative core to a passive and
receiving periphery (Lightfoot, Martinez 1995: 4 71-72).
In contrast, I suggest that borderlands are complex
zones of interaction and hybridisation, the continuity of
which depends on place-based events, monument building
activities and state-sponsored celebrations, and that such
borderland zones tend to have a defining role in the
making of imperial cores. In such contexts they materialise
as unique cultural and built landscapes of anxiety, contestation and identity crisis. This proposal works particularly
well in the eclectic empire of the Hittites, where the precise
Hittite centre
Fig. 3.1. Map of the Kanya plain and lakes region at the time of the Hittite Empire, with locations of landscape
monuments (map by 6. Harmn~h
and M. Massa).
39
Bordered Places I Bounded Times
the meanings and political associations of which are
spectral and fleeting despite the claims of eternal preservation in the act of carving the 'untouched' rock.
Borderlands and frontiers literature in the field of
archaeology is often impacted by the contemporary
structure of modern nation-states. Such an understanding
is often uncritically projected back to the ancient world,
resulting in a predominant understanding of borders as
lin ear and as largely impermeable features of the
landscape. As mentioned above, the spatial understanding
of borderlands largely depends on presumed coreperiphery models of territorial dynamics (for excellent,
critical overviews of archaeological and relevant anthropological theories of frontiers and borderlands , see
Lightfoot, Martinez 1995; Rodseth, Parker 2005; Parker
2006 , all with extensive bibliographies). The modern
notion of borders is a product of Cartesian theories of
space that divide up landscapes without much respect to
local configurations of meaningful places and cultural
relationships. The boundary itself is a component of the
modernist notion of space, which is abstract, finite and
quantifiable, constituting space as a container which is
disassociated from its contents, as Henri Lefebvre argues
(Lefebvre 1991: 170, 181 ). The immediate relationship
between bodies that constitute space and the space itself
is denied. Modern nation-states have not only implemented this post-Enlightenment understanding of
spatiality through violent demarcation of territories and
the creation of subjects of the state as 'contents ' ofrazorwire demarcated territories, but they have also ingrained
this way of understanding the world as a world of
containers such that other forms of spatiality have become
inconceivable; this is well illustrated by the academic
desire to map the political boundaries of ancient states. In
Lefebvre 's terms, boundaries are both real spaces and
representational spaces at the same time. They are places
of friction and negotiation as real geographies of social
encounter and political contestation (borderlands as real
spaces) and as imagined lines that are fabricated by ideological discourses of territorial division in the utopian
fashion of mapmaking by sovereign powers (borders as
representational spaces).
In recent years, I have met a transnational Arab family
operating a falafel shop in the city of Providence. From
our conversations, I learned that when the modem border
between Turkey and Syria was set, their extended family's
land was split, with half the family remaining in Syria and
the other half in Turkey. The family members have to cross
the militarised border for ceremonies and celebrations such
as weddings and funerals . The modernist notion of a
nation-state border is imposed in the form of a violent
intervention of a straight line drawn and engineered on
abstract maps . The inked line on the map materialises as a
linear strip of mined fields , a complex of barbed-wire
fences and military watchtowers, as well as split and traumatised families. However, the borderland zone where this
Arab family lived (i.e. the transition zone from northern
Syrian basalt and limestone hills to southeastern Turkey's
arid steppe landscapes around the Tigris and Euphrates
rivers) has historically been a zone of shifting cultural
identities and the cohabitation of different ethnic and
religious groups , including Arab, Kurdish, SyrianOrthodox, Armenian and other communities. It is
necessary, therefore, to seek a nuanced notion of borders
and borderlands that speaks to the historically specific
understandings of geographical space in both modernity
and antiquity, rather than reflecting one model over
another.
Hittite borderlands and rock monuments: a placebased approach
If ancient borderlands can be defined as contested geopolitical zones of interaction for different territorial or
colonial entities and as geographically meaningful regions
in the imagination of sovereign powers and local communities (Parker 2006: 80), in what ways can they be studied
and mapped on the ground? What are the physical manifestations of borderlands in archaeological landscapes? In
the following , I present the case of a cluster of Anatolian
rock monuments of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages
which date to the last two centuries of the Hittite Empire
(ca 1400-1200 BC) and the aftermath of its collapse when
former Hittite territories were balkanised into small
regional states while claiming the ancestral heritage of the
Hittite Empire (for a detailed discussion of this transition
and the role of monuments and city building practices, see
Harmn~h
2013: 40- 71). In these imperial and postimperial contexts, rock reliefs and spring monuments were
constructed at prominent springs, mouths of caves or
sinkholes , on the steep rock walls of river gorges or
mountain passes - but each time presenting a special,
eventful geology. These monuments commemorate the
kingship ideology at politically contested border regions
and appropriate local sites of geological wonder and cultic
significance such as caves, springs and sinkholes while
transforming them into state-sanctioned sites of ritual
practice. In official interstate treaty texts, we learn that
these monuments appear as sites of contestation in borderlands and that borders are configured around such
monuments.
During its 1986 season, during restoration work on the
wall near one of the monumental city gates known as
Yerkap1 at the Hittite capital Hattufa/Bogazkoy, the
German archaeological project discovered the so-called
'Bronze Tablet ': an impressive artefact with a wellpreserved 353-line inscription of a treaty between the
40
Chapter 3: Hannan§ah. Monuments, local landscapes and the politics ofplace in a Hittite borderland
faint relief images of feet with upturned toes emerging
from the very rough surface of the moss-covered bedrock
about Sm above the mouths of the spring. The site was
locally known as 'The Prophet's Feet', based on these
relief images (Bahar, personal communication June 2009).
When the whole image and its accompanying inscription
was cleaned and studied closely, it was understood that this
was a rock-relief monument of Kurunta, king of
Tarhuntasfa in the second half of the 13th century BC
(Dinc;ol, Dinc;ol 1996).
Here, in the midst of the Hulaya River Land, we find
Kurunta putting up a rock monument which uses the image
of a striding god wearing a homed peak cap and short
tunic, and carrying a bow and arrow, a dagger and a lance
- an iconographic repertoire associated with the Hittite
Great Kings. I have argued elsewhere that this representation of divinity and/or deified king presents a carefully
articulated ambiguity in its iconographic choices and
attempts to endow the king with the visual power of a
divine image, while this powerful imagery became a
shared pictorial rhetoric of kingship in Late Bronze Age
Anatolia (Harmn~h
2014a). What is perhaps even more
scandalous about the monument is that the inscription that
accompanies the relief announces Kurunta, rather pretentiously, as the 'Great King', which is a title known to have
been exclusive to the kings resident at Hattufa (Singer
1996; Mora 2003). If the identification of modem Konya
with the Hittite urban centre Ikkuwaniya is correct (Bryce
1998: 482, n.17), the geopolitics of this relatively recently
discovered monument dedicated to Kurunta become even
more prominent and forceful.
Further west in the same borderland zone, in the
volcanic mountain range and rocky hills south of the
Konya plain, two further sites of rock reliefs and Hieroglyphic Luwian monuments were discovered in the early
20th century: KlZlldag and Karadag (fig. 3.1; Bittel 1986;
Hawkins 1992). Both these sets of monuments are carved
in prominent rock outcrops on mountain peaks, and their
inscriptions refer' to the ruler Hartapus who, like Kurunta,
also presents himself as a 'Great King'. K1z1ldag is a darkred andesite outcrop, part of the volcanic geology of the
Karadag range, and it rises stunningly above the now
seasonal Hotam1~
salt-lake (for figures, see Harmn~h
2015: 3 .4-7). On a very prominent outcrop on the northwestern slope of K1z1ldag, overlooking the lake, one finds
a major cluster of monuments and inscriptions. On a
throne-like flattened surface of the rock facing northnorthwest, a male figure is depicted seated on a throne and
holding a spear in one hand and a cup in the other. One
accompanying Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription identifies
him as 'Hartapus, Great King'. The two other inscriptions
that were also carved on the same outcrop have been
dynamited in the recent decades, but the most complete
Hittite Great King Tudhaliya IV and Kurunta, the king of
Tarhuntasfa (Bo 86/299 = CTH 106.A; Hou wink ten Cate
1992; Hawkins 1995: 49-53; 2002: 144; Bryce 1998:
295-299; De Martino 1999; on the excavation of the
Bronze Tablet, about 35m from Yerkap1, see Neve 1987:
405-08, Abb. 21-23; the principal standard edition of the
Bronze Tablet is Otten 1988; for a more recent translation
of the text, see Beckman 1999: 108-24; the border
description between Tarhuntasfa and Hatti was already
known from the Ulmi Tesub treaty [KBo IV 10], yet the
Bronze Tablet provides a more comprehensive version
from the time of Tudhaliya IV in the second half of the
13th century BC).
Ever since its discovery, the publication of the text and
and the secondary literature produced about it have
infonned us a great deal about the historical geography of
the Hittite Empire and its borderlands, particularly to the
south. The treaty provides a thorough geographic description of the definition of the border between the kingdom
ofTarhuntasfa and 'the Land of Hatti' (KUR uRuHatti): i.e.
the core territories of the Hittite Empire. The Land of Hatti
was usually considered at the height of the Hittite Empire
to have been a combination of the Upper Land, located in
the bend of Marassanda river (classical Halys, modem
K1z1hrmak) in north-central Turkey, and the Lower Land
in the environs of the modem Konya plain (Gurney 2003;
Forlanini 2009). Tarhuntasfa occupied the central Mediterranean coastland and the mountainous landscape of the
Central Taurus range, and gradually became powerful in
the last two centuries of the Hittite Empire. In fact, the
Hittite king Muwatalli II attempted to move the Hittite
capital from Hattufa to Tarhuntasfa - an unknown urban
centre. This was a massive imperial attempt to reorient the
political geography of the Hittite Empire, though ultimately unsuccessful (Singer 2006). Kurunta was a famous
ruler of Tarhuntassa, installed by the Hittite kings, and he
had direct blood ties with the imperial family at Hattufa,
being the son of Muwatalli II. The borderland between
Hatti and Tarhuntasfa is described in the KuruntaTudhaliya IV treaty of the Bronze Tablet, and geographically identified as the Hulaya River Land and the Land of
Pedassa (Hawkins 1995: 50). The Hulaya River Land is
confidently, but perhaps not so conclusively, associated
with the <:;ar~mb
river basin that caITies the fresh waters
of the Bey~hir
and Sugla lakes into the Konya plain
(Hawkins 1995). This identification owes a great deal to
the recently discovered rock-relief monument at Hatip
Springs immediately outside the modem town of Konya,
in the southwestern suburbs of the city known as Meram
(Bahar 1996). At the western edge of the small neighbourhood ofHatip, an impressive rock fac;ade sharply rises with
a prolific spring emerging from several mouths at its
bottom. In 1994 Hasan Bahar of Selc;uk University located
41
Bordered Places I Bounded Times
one originally read: 'Beloved of the Storm God, the Sun,
Great King Hartapus, son of Mursilis, Great King, Hero,
built this city' (Hawkins 2000: 1.438).
On the southwestern edge of the mountain, about 50m
south of the Hartapus relief is an impressive rock-cut
installation accompanied by a longer Luwian inscription
ofHartapus. The rock-cut installation is described often as
a 'throne' (Gonnet 1983; Hawkins 2000: 435); it faces the
Hotam1~
lake and is accessed by a series of elaborately
carved rock-cut steps. The hieroglyphic inscription is
carved to the southern side of the installation on a flattened
surface, and reads: 'The Sun, Great King, Hartapus, Hero,
beloved of the Storm-God, son of Mursilis, Great King,
Hero: by the goodness (of) the celestial Storm-God (and
of) every god, (he) who conquered every country, (and)
conquered the country ... ' (Hawkins 2000: 1.438).
Based on epigraphic grounds, David Hawkins convincingly argues for a dating of Hartapus' inscriptions in the
12th century BC, immediately after the fall of the Hittite
Empire, especially considering its close affinity with the
Yalburt Yaylas1 Mountain Spring Commemorative
Monument of Tudhaliya IV and the Bogazkoy Siidburg
Inscription of the Hieroglyphic Chamber (Hawkins 2000:
1.434 ). Since Hartapus announces himself as the Great
King, a title that is usually reserved for the Hittite Great
Kings resident at Hattusa, he might have been challenging
the authority of HattuSa at this time, in a manner similar
to Kurunta 's political gesture at the Hatip spring. What is
really intriguing in this inscription is how Hartapus shares
the imperial rhetoric of founding new cities and carving
reliefs and commemorative inscriptions on the living rock
of the Hittite rulers of HattuSa. The inscriptions of
Hartapus from nearby Karadag, refer to the very place as
the 'divine Great Mountain'. Therefore, it is, I think, safe
to assume that the whole volcanic massif that incorporates
lake
both Karadag and K1Z1ldag, as well as the Hotam1~
may have been viewed as a sacred landscape in the second
millennium BC. With the discovery of Kurunta's rock
relief and inscription at the Hatip springs, where he claims
his ' Great Kingship ', the K1z1ldag and Karadag
monuments can now be more meaningfully linked both to
the geopolitics of the Hulaya River Land as borderlands
and to the royal rhetoric of kingship at the end of the Hittite
Empire.
In the absence of thorough archaeological work at
K1z1ldag and Karadag (for a recent survey of the surface
finds at K1Z1ldag, see Karauguz et al. 2002), there is
currently no substantive evidence that would argue against
dating the K1Z1ldag and Karadag monuments towards the
very end of the Late Bronze Age . While the inscriptions
are certainly dated to the transition between the end of the
Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Early Iron Age,
the relief image of Hartapus sitting on a throne has long
been dated on stylistic grounds to the Middle Iron Age
(eighth century BC). However, these stylistic grounds have
been challenged by many (for a bibliography, see Hawkins
2000: 1.434, see also Rojas, Sergueenkova 2014: 145-46).
In close association with the Hulaya River Land and in
the borderlands region between Hatti and Tarhuntasfa, the
Land of Pedassa is frequently mentioned in the treaty texts
(Hawkins 1995: 50). Pedassa (sometimes read Pitassa) is
usually identified with the region to the north of the Sultan
Daglan range, corresponding to the sub-provinces of
Kadmham, Sarayonu and Ilgm, where the Yalburt
Monument is located, and perhaps further north all the way
to the Sangarios river valley.
At Yalburt Yaylas1, the late Hittite king Tudhaliya IV, a
contemporary of Kurunta, raised a very important
commemorative monument at the mountain spring site, and
celebrated his victories over the Lukka Lands and the
surrounding landscape m southwestern Anatolia
(Harmn~h,
Johnson 2012 ; 2013; Harmn~h
et al. 2014).
In the following sections, I will come back to this monument
to discuss the specific regional context in which the Yalburt
Monument was built. However, it is important to point out
that we must consider its specific historical circumstances
in the very context of the politics of this borderland.
The Divine Road of the Earth: the geology of liminality
In the discussion of the borderlands in the Bronze Tablet
text and other treaty documents from the last few centuries
of the Hittite Empire, rock monuments are given a special
place in the political configuration of territory. Various
types of rock monuments, which were clearly built at
places of high local significance in the borderland landscapes, are referred to as politically charged places of
contestation between different territorial entities. This is
evident in the sense that the references to such monuments
often raise issues of inviolability, forbidding particular
political agents to visit such sites. The following section
from the Bronze Tablet treaty text is informative in this
sense: 'In the direction of Mount Huwatnuwanda, his
frontier is the hallapuwanza, but the hallapuwanza belongs
to the land of the Hulaya River. Up behind the city of
Kusawanta, his frontier is the Stone Monument of the Dog'
(Beckman 1999: 109, text l 8A§5.i.29f).
Similarly, in another treaty between the Great King
Hattusili III and Ulmi-Teshub ofTarhuntassa (CTH 106B
= KBo 4.10), the frontier is marked as the 'Divine Road
of the Earth ' (DINGIR.KASKAL.KUR) , translated here
by Gary Beckman as the 'sinkhole' of the city of
Arimmatta and belonging to the land of Pedassa/Pitassa:
In the direction of the border district of the land of
Pitassa, his frontier is the sinkhole of the city of
Arimmatta, but Arimmatta belongs to the land of
42
Chapter 3:
Harmn~h.
Monuments, local landscapes and the politics o,fplace in a Hittite borderland
the textual contexts (Bryce 2002: 182- 83; Van den Hout
2002: 74-80). In a text of Suppiluliuma II concerning his
father's deeds and especially the conquest of Alasiya (KBo
12.38), the divine rock-hekur, appears to have been built
or carved by the Hittite king, supplied with a commemorative text, while an image (ALAM) of his father was
installed on it (Balza, Mora 2011: 215) . The divine rockhekur monuments also appear to be more like religious
institutions that comprised a complex of buildings and
large numbers of religious personnel and paraphernalia
2015: 43, n.14). In
(Balza, Mora 2011: 218; Harmn~h
contrast, the 'Divine Road of the Earth' monuments are
associated with the geological features of springs, natural
tunnels, river gorges or caves , as well as sinkholes:
features that clearly link to the circulation of water above
and below the earth. Mimetically built architectonic structures such as Chamber 2 of the Siidburg Sacred Pool
Complex at HattuSa are also understood as 'Divine Roads
of the Earth ' , thanks to Hawkins' ingenious reading of the
Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription inscribed on its walls
2015: 58- 67).
(Hawkins 1995: 44-45; see also Harmn~h
The divine rock-hekur and the Divine Road of the
Earth monuments are often located in contested frontier
regions. At the same time, in the geographical and the
multi-tiered cosmic imagination of the world of the
Anatolian communities, these monuments are also considered liminal spaces, as entrances to the underworld, and
places where ritual communication with dead ancestors
could be established (Gordon 1967). While the divine
rock-hekur institutions memorialised the ancestor cult of
the Hittite kings , the Divine Road of the Earth monuments
were utilised as sites for the signing of inter-polity treaties
(Gordon 1967: 71). In this way, through the watery
orifices of karst geologies, a multiplicity of Hittite divinities, mountains, springs and rivers, and the Divine Road
itself as well as the deified ancestors served as witnesses
to the signing of such treaties . It is therefore possible to
argue that the rock monuments that appear in the definitions of borderlands are not random and isolated topographical markers that were always there and that happen
to be used for describing borders. On the contrary, these
were sites that were monumentalised and maintained by
Late Bronze Age political elites precisely to serve as
powerful colonial claims to borderland territories. The
miraculous and wondrous aspects of these places as
geologically distinct localities of rock outcrops, mountain
peaks, caves, sinkholes or springs are drawn into the
affective rhetoric of evocative places that formed the
edges of their empires. In the following section, I tum to
the Yalburt Yaylas1 Sacred Mountain Spring Monument
in the karst uplands of modern Ilgm, which may have
served precisely this function during the last century of
the Hittite Empire.
Pitassa. In the direction of Mount Huwatnuwanta, his
frontier is the hallapuwanza, but the hallapuwanza
belongs to the land of the Hulaya River. Up behind the
city of Kursawanta, [his] frontier is the Stone
Monument of the Dog (Beckman 1999: 104, text
18§3.19f).
The meaning of hallapuwanza is unknown; however,
it is clear that the numerous instances within the treaty
documents point to symbolically charged places as loci of
territorial delineation (see also Van den Hout 1995: 27).
From one generation to the next, the places of power and
ritual practice, such as the 'Divine Road of the Earth' of
the city of Arimmatta or the ' Stone Monument of the Dog' ,
maintain their importance in the political-cum-cultic
landscape of the borderlands . Further on in the text, the
treaty also requires that the ruler Kurunta should not come
close to or go up to particular monuments, including the
monument referred to in texts as the 'Eternal Rock
Sanctuary' ; this monument may have been associated with
the funerary cult of the dead Hittite kings:
Concerning the matter of the Eternal Rock Sanctuary
4
( N A hekur SAG.US), Marassanta made an oral appeal
to my father, resulting in the ruling: 'Kurunta shall not
be found near the Eternal Rock Sanctuary'. My father
had a tablet made for Marassanta, and Marassanta has
it in his possession. My father did not know this,
however - how the text concerning the Eternal Rock
Sanctuary is inscribed within the kuntarra-shrine of the
Stormgod, and how for all time it should not be
permitted for Kurunta to forfeit the Eternal Rock
Sanctuary. But when it happened that my father heard
the text, then my father himself reversed the decision.
And when I, Tudhaliya, Great King, became King, I
sent a man, and he saw how the text concerning the
Eternal Rock Sanctuary is inscribed within the
kuntarra-shrine of the Storm-god: 'For all time it shall
not be permitted for Kurunta to forfeit the Eternal Rock
Sanctuary' . If it happens that Marassanta brings the
tablet which he holds, it shall not be accepted
(Beckmann 1996: 111, text 18§ 1O.i.91 f).
The expressions that describe rock monuments are
usually collected under the two titles 'Eternal Rock
Sanctuary' - or, more accurately, the divine rock-hekur
4
( N A hekur SAG.US) - and the 'Divine Road of the Eaiih'
(DINGIR.KASKAL.KUR) . The divine rock-hekur (alternatively spelled as hegur), which is also often translated
as 'Everlasting Peak' (cf. Balza, Mora 2011 ), has been
interpreted as a cult or burial place, or a monument to dead
ancestors ('Imperial Mausoleum') that was associated with
a rocky outcrop and/or mountain peak, largely based on
43
Bordered Places Bounded Times
I
limestone-schist contact m the local geology of the
Karadag-Gavurdag Massif. This spring marks the
boundary today between the villages of (:obankaya and
Biiyiikoba in the karst uplands of the modem town ofllgm
and accompanying summer pasture settlement of Yalburt
Yaylasi. One of the longest Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions that is known from the Hittite world was inscribed
on the inner face of the upper ashlar course of the pool
(figs 3.2-3.4). In the inscription, which was distributed
over at least 22 blocks, Tudhaliya IV speaks in a victorious , exalted and violent tone of the Great Kings and
commemorates his military victories in the southeastern
part of the Anatolian plateau, specifically the Lukka Lands
(fig. 3.3 ; Poetto 1993 ; Hawkins 1995).
Since 2010, I have been directing a diachronic regional
survey project in the territory of the sub-province of Ilgm,
which takes the Yalburt Monument as the literal centre of
its research objectives and geographical focus (for preliminary reports , see Harmn~h
, Johnson 2012 ; 2013 ; 2014).
The Yalburt Yaylas1 Archaeological Landscape Research
Project has investigated both the long-term settlement at
Yalburt Yaylas1 as well as the landscapes in the close
vicinity of the Yalburt Monument by systematically
exploring the ecologies of the settlement and cultural
history of the environment from antiquity to contemporary
post-industrial times (Johnson, Harmn~h
2015). The
preliminary results of the survey present us with complex
dynamic s of settlement, and suggest what kinds of
evidence a critical archaeology of borderlands may offer
in understanding the politics of landscape in the last
centuries of the Hittite Empire . The survey project has
The mountain spring: the political ecology of borders
In the Hittite borderland region of Pedassa, which has been
discussed in some detail above (fig. 3 .1 ), an important
sacred spring monument was built in the pastoral
highlands to the northwest of the Kon ya plain at the time
of one of the last rulers of the Hittite Empire, Tudhaliya
IV (1209- 1237 BC). The architectural and epigraphic
aspects of this monument and its specific geographical
context locate this unique monument at the centre of
frontier politics of the of Hatti-Tarhuntasfa borderlands .
The Yalburt Yaylas1 Sacred Mountain Spring Monument
is a pool built of locally quarried ashlar limestone blocks
in two courses, and it is strategically placed at the mouth
of a prominent spring whose sweet waters rise at a
Fig. 3.2. Yalburt Yay lasz Sacred Mountain Spring
Monument near modern Ilgzn (photo from the archives of
the Anatolian Civilisations Museum, Ankara).
Fig. 3.3. Yalbu rt Yaylasz Sacred Mountain Spring Monuni ent near modern llgzn: Luwian Hieroglyphic inscription of
Tudhaliy a I V(© Yalburt Yay lasz Archaeological Landscape Research Project).
44
Chapter 3:
~
Harmn~h.
Monuments, local landscapes and the politics ofplace in a Hittite borderland
KEY
1970-72 [ABC], 1975,
spring trenches
extent of pre-Ottoman
settlement
o ~ extn
of cemeteries
U LBA sherd
Hellenistic
& Roman
cemetery
Fig. 3.4. Map of Yalburt Yaylasz archaeological site (map by Peri Johnson;© Yalburt Yaylasz Archaeological Landscape
Research Project).
focused particularly on the political tensions and cultural
relationships between local histories of settlement and the
imperial interventions that challenged the course of those
histories in the short and long terms.
The survey area roughly corresponds to the modern
boundaries of the Ilgm sub-province (ilc;e) of the broader
Konya province, and falls directly to the west of the Kon ya
plain, which itself corresponds to the core of the Hittite
Lower Land (fig. 3.5). The survey area historically
connects what were the core Hittite territories to the west
through the route known as the 'common road' , especially
during the Late Iron Age and the Hellenistic period (see,
for example, Strabo 14.2.29; XenophonAnabasis 1.2.1418). This road, leading from Konya to Afyon and onwards
to the west, was most likely used by the Hittite armies on
their way to Lycia (Harmn~h,
Johnson 2012: 336). The
diachronic regional survey project combines the field
methodologies of archaeological survey, geomorphological study and landscape ethnography. Since its inception
in 2010, the project has concentrated on three hydrologically linked tectonic basins - the Ilgm plain, the Atlant1
plain and the <:,avu~9
lake basin - as well as the Bulasan
45
Bordered Places I Bounded Times
KEY
@
2010-2015
Yalburt Project
survey units
©
~
~ANGIR
KARATE PE@
MAGAZA
ALBURT
G0M0$L0 H6Y0K©
YA YLASI
iMiRCiK TEPE©
CiHANGiR TEPE@
©AK<;E$ME
©MELEMEN SIRTI
©<;OBANKAYA HOYOGO
@DOG ER
@BAGLAR HOYOK
@BOZUKKUYU
@C::EVLiK MEVKti H6Y0K
TOKAR MEVKii@
@ AKGEt;:iT
@PINAR MEVKil
@KANLI KUYU
@ ~$UK
@DOGAN LI
© CAY!~
..
..
.
HOYOK
@AG!LARDI
KURT
@ HASAN
BOZ HOYUK©eAGYERi MEVKii@
CIKRILLI KUYU @
GAVURUN DEGiRMENi@?>SARAYCIK HOYOK
©NODALAR HOYOK
ANTiKE MEVKii©
BULCUK
HOYOGO
"f§J
KURBAN
TEPS
@
~
BULCUK UYUZ
KUYUSU
0&ELDE$
KARASEViN<;@
OREN C::E$MESi©
©MAHMUTHISAR
@DEDiGi DEDE
J E$ILGOL@
Fig. 3. 5. Yalburt Yaylasz Archaeological Landscape Project: survey region and units 2010- 2014 (map by Peri Johnson;
© Yalburt Yaylasz Archaeological Landscape Research Project) .
river valley, which provides an important corridor of settlement and agriculture between the Ilgm and Atlantl plains
(fig. 3.5). This landscape connects the two major fortresses
of the Hittite period- Kale Tepesi and Uzun Pmar-Kartal
Pmar complex, which were surveyed and dated by the
Yalburt Project in a recent field season - with the Hittite
earthen dam of Koyli.itolu Yayla to the east of the Ilgm
plain and the mountain-spring monument of Yalburt
Yaylas1, which sits to the north of the survey area on the
degraded slopes of the Karadag-Gavurdag mountain.
46
Chapter 3:
Harmn~h.
Monuments, local landscapes and the politics ofplace in a Hittite borderland
The Yalburt Monument was excavated by the
Anatolian Civilisations Museum, Ankara, from 1970 to
1975, following its discovery during the digging of a
massive canal for the spring (Temizer 1988; Harmn~h,
Johnson et al. 2014). It was built on top of an important
spring on the southern slopes of the Karadag mountain in
an area that comes into contact with impermeable layers
of schist. The recent surface survey work at the Yalburt
Yaylas1 archaeological site and the excavations carried out
by Raci Temizer's team in the 1970s near the Hittite pool,
on top of the Yalburt mound and on the Kalkamak ridge
to the southeast of the Hittite pool have revealed a relative
absence (or scarcity) of evidence related to a significant
Hittite settlement at the site (fig. 3.4). Nevertheless, a
gradually expanding Late Iron Age, Hellenistic, Roman
and late Roman settlement around the spring monument
has been documented, both stratigraphically and from
surface remains.
The site's Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription commemorates the Hittite Great King Tudhaliya IV's successful
campaign to the southwest, especially to the lands of
Nipira, Kuwakuwaluwanta, the Lukka Lands and
Wiyanawanda (Hawkins 1995: 66-85). The inscription
also mentions his construction of 'a stone-stand place'
(SCALPRUM.CRUS.LOCUS) at a 'frontier/borderland' most likely this expression refers to the monument itself
(Hawkins tentatively interpreted this as a 'socle' in his
commentary based on the cuneiform equivalent of the
Luwian expression: NA4 .KI.GUB: Hawkins 1995: 74).
This is one of the best-known commemorative texts from
the territories of the Hittite Empire, including the capital
Hattusa. It has shed light on important aspects of the
historical geography and political history of the last
century of the Hittite Empire. But why did Tudhaliya IV
decide to build such an important monument to his military
prowess in the midst of this upland frontier region, and
how does this imperial intervention relate to the long-term
history of the local settlement landscapes in this area? Over
the last three years, the Yalburt Project has come up with
a series of possible answers, simply by looking at the
incredibly rich archaeological landscape around the
monument.
First and foremost, the preliminary results of the
projects's 2010- 2014 seasons suggest that the environs of
Yalburt Yaylas1 were a deeply contested borderland zone,
where the Land of Hatti linked to the politically powerful
polities of western Anatolia. The country known as
Pedassa in the Hittite texts was a self-governing political
entity for most of the lifespan of the Empire and is known
to have caused trouble to Hittite kings prior to Tudhaliya
IV (Hawkins identifies Mount Huwatnuwanda with the
Sultan mountains, while the region of Ilgm is considered
to have been included in Pedassa [at least the southern
portion of it]: Hawkins 1995: 51, n.177; for a similar identification, see also Barjamovic 2010: 371). The military
road that connected the Lower Land to the southwestern
territories passed through the Ilgm plain, and the military
significance of the Ilgm plain as a parade and review
ground for armies moving from east to west is well known
from other episodes in history. According to Xenophon,
on his expedition to Persia, Cyrus the Younger chose this
route and camped for three days with his army in the plains
of ancient Tyriaion where he had a review of his Greek
mercenary soldiers to impress the Cilician queen
(Anabasis 1.2 .14-18). A Hellenistic inscription from the
village of Mahmuthisar within the survey area records the
letters of the Pergamene king Eumenes II to the citizens
of Tyriaion, usually identified with modern Ilgm, and
grants economic and political autonomy as well as the
settlement of military officials in the city (Jonnes, Riel
1997). These deep historical associations with the military
puts Tudhaliya's Yalburt inscription in an excellent
perspective.
However, perhaps more significantly the results of the
extensive and intensive survey in the survey area point to
a major Hittite imperial intervention in the region in the
form of a rigorous programme of irrigation, agricultural
intensification and new settlement in the last centuries of
the Empire, and a complex process of landscape negotiation between local communities and the Hittite colonial
intervention (Harmn~h,
Johnson 2012; 2013). The
Yalburt Project has documented a massive Hittite dam to
the east of the Ilgm plain, known in the scholarly literature as Koyliitolu Yayla, where another commemorative
inscription dated to the time ofTudhaliya IV was discovered in the 19th century (Masson 1980). The project has
also documented a large fortress site, locally known as
Kale Tepesi, located at the critical pass between the Ilgm
plain and the Bulasan river valley, and only a few kilometres from Koyli.itolu dam. The fortress features wellpreserved ashlar masonry walls that have close
technological affinities with those of the Yalburt
Monument (Harmn~h,
Johnson 2012: figs 3-4).
Moreover, a series of new lowland settlements has been
attested on the Ilgm and Atlant1 plains, dated by surface
finds to the very end of the Hittite Empire. The region of
Ilgm, then, presents us with a complex picture of a
borderland landscape, where Hittite imperial interventions not only included the construction of commemorative monuments but also an anxious interest in
agricultural intensification and renewed settlement with
close cultural ties to the imperial centre. A more nuanced
understanding of this borderland region, however, must
also take into consideration the various strategies of
resistance by local communities in the making of this
frontier.
47
Bordered Places I Bounded Times
of a regional cult practice into the much more global Hittite
religion, that supported and maintained the imperial
ideology, went hand in hand with an intervention into the
agricultural production and settlement system, through the
construction of new town foundations to serve as admin istrative centres and the introduction of new water regimes.
In this paper, I advocate looking at borderland regions
in antiquity from the perspective of places of cultural
significance, and suggest that borderlands were configured
not along linear, preconceived landscape features , as is
often assumed, but mostly around places and nodes of
power, which were literally and metaphorically 'roughly
hewn ' . The rough-hewn nature of these places emphasises
the continuous reworking of locations as alive and active
rather than static and conservative. At places of power,
such as the rock and spring monuments of the Hittites that
were raised in the Hulaya River Land-Pedassa region,
tensions existed between local communities and the
imperial powers who were interested in appropriating
these local places of power to configure the edges of their
imperial territories. Methodologically, a critical archaeology of place and place-making that traces the genealogy
of such locations and their cultural biography is perhaps
the most effective in studying borderlands.
Conclusions
Recent work on textual documents from the reign of
Tudhaliya IV has shown that large-scale efforts were put
into the documentation and organisation of local cults
across the Hittite Empire in the second half of the 13th
century BC, if not earlier (for a detailed study of the Hittite
cult inventories, see Hazenbos 2003 ; for a questioning of
the dating of these inventories exclusively to the reign of
Tudhaliya IV, see Cammarosano 2012) . This wide-scale
inventorying of small cult places, temples, sanctuaries,
huwasi stones and other cult installations in the cities and
the countryside of the Empire points to an ambitious
programme and a desire to survey and control cult activities at the time of Tudhaliya IV.
The results of the Yalburt Project 's archaeological
survey of a wide region in the vicinity of the Yalburt
Yaylas1 Sacred Spring Monument suggests that Tudhaliya
IV's interest in documenting or organising local cult places
in the countryside and the borderlands of his empire may
in fact have been part of a much more substantial intervention into the economic and cultural life of these places and
thier local communities. The king seems to have commissioned the construction of a spring sanctuary with a monumental water reservoir at Yalburt Yaylas1 and supplied it
with a lengthy commemorative inscription celebrating his
victories in southwestern Anatolia. This gesture can be
understood as a form of co-opting and monumentalising
the so-called 'Divine Road of the Earth' sites, and linking
them to the broader geopolitics of his imperial network on
the central Anatolian plateau. Moreover, this appropriation
Acknowledgements
A longer version of this chapter has been published as
2015 . The contribution here, which
chapter 3 ofHarmn~h
uses po1iions of the original publication, is republished here
with the pennission of Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge.
Bibliography
Bahar, H. 1996: 'Ein Neues Hethitisches Denkmal in Konya-Hatip ' Arkeoloji ve Sanat 18.73 : 6- 7
Balza, M.E., Mora, C. 2011: ' And I built this Everlasting Peak for him ' . The two scribal traditions of the Hittites and
the NA 4 hekur SAG.US' Altorientalische Forschungen, Akademie Verlag 38.2: 213- 25
Barjamovic, G. 2010: A Historical Geography ofAnatolia in the Old Assyrian Colony Period (Carsten Niebuhr Institute
Publications 38). Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press
Beckman G. (ed. H.A. Hoffner Jr) 1996: Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the
Ancient World Series). Atlanta, Scholars Press
- 1999: Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Series) (2nd edition).
Atlanta, Scholars Press
Bender, B. (ed.) 1993: Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Providence/Oxford, Berg
Bittel, K. 1986: ' Hartapus and Kiz1ldag' in J.V. Canby, E. Porada, B.S. Ridgway, T.S. Madison (eds), Ancient Anatolia:
Aspects of Change and Cultural Development. Essay s in Hono r of Machteld J. Mellink. Madison, University of
Wisconsin Press: 103- 11
Bonatz, D. 2007 : ' The divine image of the king: religious representation of political power in the Hittite Empire' in M .
Heinz, M.H. Feldman (eds), Representations ofPolitical Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving
Order in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns: 111- 36
Bowser, B.J, Zedefio, M.N (eds) 2009: The Archaeology ofMeaningful Places. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press
Bryce, T.R. 1998 : Th e Kingdom of the Hittites. Clarendon Press, Oxford
- 2002: Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press
Cammarosano, M. 2012: 'Hittite cult inventories -part two: the dating of the texts and the alleged "cult reorganization"
ofTudl].aliya IV' Altorientalische Forschungen 39: 3- 37 . http: //dx.doi.org/10.1524/aofo.2012.0001
48
Chapter 3:
Han~h.
Monuments, local landscapes and the politics ofplace in a Hittite borderland
Casey, E. 2001: 'Body, self and landscape: geophilosophical inquiry into the place-world' in P.C. Adams, S. Hoeschner,
K.E. Till (eds), Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press:
403-25
Colla, E. 2008: 'Response to Christopher Witmore', paper delivered at the workshop 'Drawing on Rocks Gathering by
the Water: Archaeological Fieldwork at Rock Reliefs, Sacred Springs and Other Places', Brown University
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World, 1-2 March 2008; see Han~h
2014b
CTH = Laroche, E. 1971: Catalogue des textes hittites (Etudes et commentaires 7 5). Paris, Klincksieck
De Martino, S. 1999: 'Ura and the boundaries of Tarhuntasfa' Altorientalische Forschungen 26: 291-300.
http://dx.doi.org/10. l 524/aofo.1999.26.2.29 l
Dirn:;ol, A., Dinc;ol, B. 1996: 'Hatip Amt1'ndaki hiyeroglifyaz1t' Arkeoloji ve Sanat 18.73: 8-9
Ehringhaus, H. 2005: Gotter, Herrscher Inschtriften: Die Felsreliefs der hethitischen Groj3reichzeit in der TUrkei. Mainz,
Zabem
Evans, D., Pettigrew, J., Tamu, Y.K., Turin, M. 2009: Grounding Knowledge/Walking Land: Archaeological Research
and Ethno-Historical Identity in Central Nepal. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
Forlanini, M. 2009: 'On the middle Kiz1hrmak, II' in F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri, C. Corti (eds), Central-North Anatolia
in the Hittite Period: New Perspectives in Light of Recent Research. Rome, Herder: 39-69
Glatz, C. 2009: 'Empire as network: spheres of material interaction in Late Bronze Age Anatolia' Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 28: 127- 41. http://dx.doi.org/l 0.1016/j.jaa.2008.10.003
Glatz, C., Plourde, A.M. 2011: 'Landscape monuments and political competition in late Bronze Age Anatolia: an investigation of costly signaling theory' Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental Research 361: 33-66.
http://dx.doi.org/l 0.56 l 5/bullamerschoorie.361.0033
Gonnet, H. 1983: 'Nouvelles donnees archeologiques relatives aux inscriptions hieroglyphiques de Harpatusa aKiz1ldag'
in R. Donceel, R. Lebrun (eds), Archeologie et religions de l 'Anatolie ancienne: melanges en l 'honneur du professeur
Paul Naster (Homo Religiosus 10). Louvain-La Neuve, Centre d'Histoire des Religions: 119-25
Gordon, E.I. 1967: 'The meaning of the ideogram d KASKAL.KUR ='underground water-course' and its significance
for Bronze Age historical geography' Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21: 70-88. http://dx.doi.org/l 0.2307 /1359360
Gurney, O.R. 2003: 'The Upper Land, matum elltum' in G. Beckman, R. Beal, G. McMahon (eds), Hittite Studies in
Honor of Harry A. Hoffner J1~ Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns: 119-26
Harmn~h,
6. 2013: Cities and the Shaping of Memory in the Ancient Near East. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press. http://dx.doi.org/l 0.1017 /CB0978 l l 392272 l 6
- 2014a: 'Figures carved on the living rock: Hittite rock monuments' in M. Alparslan, M. Dogan Alparslan (eds),
Hittites: An Anatolian Empire. Istanbul,Yap1 Kredi Yaymlan: 566-79
- (ed.) 2014b: Of Rocks and Water: Towards an Archaeology of Place. Oxford, Oxbow
- 2015: Place, Memory, and Healing: An Archaeology of Anatolian Rock Monuments. London, Routledge.
- forthcoming: 'Apparition on the living rock: rock reliefs and landscape monuments in the Near East' in A. Gunter
(ed), A Companion to the Art of the Ancient Near East. Malden MA, Blackwell
Harmn~h,
6., Johnson, P. 2012: 'Yalburt Yaylas1 (Ilgm, Konya) Arkeolojik Yiizey Ara~tlfm
Projesi, 2010 sezonu
Sonuc;larz Toplantzsz 29.2: 335-60
,
sonuc;lan' Ara~tzm
- 2013: 'Pmarlar, magaralar, ve Hitit Anadolu'sunda kirsal peyzaj: Yalburt Yaylas1 Arkeolojik Yiizey Ara~t1m
Projesi
(Ilgm, Konya), 2011 sezonu sonuc;lan' Ara~tzm
Sonuc;larz Toplantzsz 30.2: 73-84
- 2014: 'Yalburt'a c;1kan butiinyollar: Yalburt Yaylas1 Arkeolojik Yuzey Ara~tims1
(Konya) 2012 sezonu c;ah~mln'
Ara~tlfm
Sonuc;lan Toplantis13 1.2 : 377-94
Harmn~h,
6., Johnson, P., Durusu-Tannover, M. 2014: 'A Hittite king at the spring of Yalburt: Bronze Age, cold
waters and the Anatolian landscape' Actual Archaeology Magazine 10: 10- 16
Hawkins, J.D. 1992: 'The inscriptions of Kizildag and the Karadag in the light of the Yalburt inscription' in H. Otten,
E. Akurgal, H. Ertem, A. Siiel (eds), Hittite and other Anatolian and Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Sedat Alp.
Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basnnevi: 259-74
- 1995: The Hieroglpyhic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (SUD BURG) (Studien zu den BogazkoyTexten Beiheft 3). Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz
- 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Berlin, De Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/l 0.1515/9783110804201
- 2002: 'Anatolia: the end of the Hittite empire and after' in E.A. Braun-Holzinger, H. Matthiius (eds), Die nahostlichen
Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zu111 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.: Kontinuitat und Wandel von Strukturen
und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion. Mohnesee, Bibliopolis: 143-51
49
Bordered Places I Bounded Times
Hazenbos, J. 2003: The Organization of the Anatolian Local Cults during the Thirteenth Century BC An Appraisal of
the Hittite Cult Inventories. Leiden/ Boston, Brill
Hopwood, K. 1993 : 'Peoples, territories, and states: the fonnation of the begliks of pre-Ottoman Turkey' in C.E. Farah
(ed), Decision Making and Change in the Ottoman Empire. Kirksville, Thomas Jefferson University Press: 129- 38
Houwink ten Cate, P.H.J. 1992: 'The Bronze Tablet of Tudhaliyas IV and its geographical and historical relations'
(Review of Otten, H. 1988: Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazkoy. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz) Zeitschrjft fur Assyriologie
und Vorderasiatische Archaologie 82: 233- 70
Ingold, T. 2000: Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London/New York, Routledge.
http: //dx.do i. org/l 0 .4 324/9 7 802 0 346602 5
Johnson, P. , Harman$ah, b. 2015: 'Landscape, politics, and water in the Hittite borderlands: Yalburt Yaylas1 Archaeological Landscape Research Project 2010- 2014' in S.R. Steadman, G. McMahon (eds), The Archaeology ofAnatolia:
Recent Discoveries (2011-2014) 1. Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Press: 255- 77
Jonnes, L., Riel, M. 1997: 'A new royal inscription from Phrygia Paroreios: Eumenes II grants Tyriaion the status of a
polis' EpigraphicaAnatolica 29: 1- 30
Karauguz, G., Bahar, H. , Kunt, H.I. 2002: 'K1Z1ldag uzerine yeni baz1 gozlemler' Tiirkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji
Dergisi 5: 7-32
Knapp, B., Ashmore, W. 1999: 'Archaeological landscapes: constructed, conceptualized, ideational' in W. Ashmore,
A.B. Knapp (eds), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Malden, Blackwell: 1- 30
Kohlmeyer, K. 1982: 'Felsbilder der hethitischen Grof3reichszeit' Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 15: 7-153
Lefebvre, H. (tr. D. Nicholson-Smith) 1991: The Production of Space. Oxford, Blackwell
Lightfoot, K.G. , Martinez, A. 1995: 'Frontiers and boundaries in archaeological perspective' Annual Review ofAnthropology 24: 471-92. http://dx.doi.org/l 0.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.002351
Masson, E. 1980: 'Les inscriptions Louvites hieroglyphiques de Koylutolu et Beykoy' Kadmos 19: 106- 22.
http://dx.doi.org/l O. l 5 l 5/kadmos-1980-0206
Mora, C. 2003: 'On some clauses in the Kurunta Treaty and the political scenery at the end of the Hittite Empire' in G.
Beckman, R. Beal, G. McMahon (eds), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffi'ler Jr. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns:
286-96
Neve, P.J. 1987: 'Die Ausgrabungen in Bogazkoy-Hattu8a 1986' Archaologischer Anzeiger 102: 381--412
Nora, P. 1989: 'Between memory and history: Les lieux de memoire' Representations 26: 7- 24 .
http: //dx.doi.org/10.1525/rep. l 989.26. l .99p0274v
- (tr. A. Goldhammer.) 1996: Realms ofMemory: The Construction of the French Past. New York, Columbia University
Press
Okse, A.T. 2011: 'Open-air sanctuaries of the Hittites' in H. Genz, D.P. Mielke (eds), Insights into Hittite History and
Archaeology. Leuven, Peeters: 219--40
Otten H. 1988: Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazkoy: Ein Staatsvertrag Tuthalijas IV. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz
Pancaroglu, 0. 2005: 'Caves, borderlands and configurations of sacred topography in medieval Anatolia' Mesogeios
25-26:249- 81
Parker, B.J. 2006: 'Toward an understanding of borderland processes' American Antiquity 71: 77- 100.
http://dx.doi.org/l 0.2307 /40035322
Pecchioli Daddi, F. 2009: 'Introduction: perspectives in Hittitological research' in F. Pecchioli Daddi, G. Torri, C. Corti
(eds), Central-North Anatolia in the Hittite Period: New Perspectives in Light of Recent Research. Rome, Herder:
lX-Xlll
Poetto, M. 1993: L 'iscrizione lu vio-geroglifica di Yalburt: nuove acquisizioni relative alla geografia dell 'Anatolia SudOccidentale (Studia Mediterranea 8). Pavia, G. Iuculano Editore
Rodseth, L. , Parker, B.J. 2005: 'Introduction: theoretical considertaions in the Study of Frontiers' in B.J. Parker, L.
Rodseth (eds) 2005: Untaming the Frontier in Anthropology, Archaeology, and History. Tucson, University of Arizona
Press: 3- 21
Rojas, F., Sergueenkova, V. 2014: 'Traces of Tarhuntas: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine interaction with Hittite
monuments' Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 27:2: 135- 60. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v27i2.135
Seeher, J. 2009: 'Der Landschaft sein Siegel aufdrucken - hethitische Felsbilder und Hieroglypheninschriften als
Ausdruck des herrscherlichen Macht- und Territorialanspruchs' Altorientalische Forschungen 36: 119-39.
http://dx.doi.org/l O. l 524/aofo.2009.0006
Singer, I. 1996: 'Great Kings ofTarhuntas8a' Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 38: 63- 71
50
Chapter 3: Harnian$ah. Monuments, local landscapes and the politics of place in a Hittite borderland
2006: 'The failed reforms of Akhenaten and Muwatalli' British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 6: 3758
Temizer, R. 1988: 'Introduction' in T. Ozguc; (ed.), jnandzktepe: An Important Cult Center in the Old Hittite Period.
Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu Bas1mevi: xxiii-xxxii
Tilley, C. 2004: The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 1. Oxford/New York, Berg
Ullmann, L. 2010: Movement and the Making of Place in the Hittite Landscape. PhD thesis, Columbia University
- 2014: 'The significance of place: rethinking Hittite rock reliefs in relationship to the topography of the Land of Hatti'
(ed.), Of Rocks and Water: Towards an Archaeology of Place. Oxford, Oxbow: 101-27
in 0. Harmn~h
Van den Hout, T.P.J. 1995: Der Ulmite§ub-Vertrag: eine prosopographische Untersuchung. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz
- 2002: 'Tombs and memorials: the (divine) stone house and Hegur Reconsidered' in K. Ashhan Yener, H.A. Hoffner
Jr, S. Dhesi (eds), Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History: Papers in Memory ofHans G. Giiterbock.
Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns: 73-91
-
51
Building on similarities and exploring differences in the way
scholars undertake their research, this volume presents crossdisciplinary communication on the study of borders, frontiers and
boundaries through time, with a focus on Turkey. Standing at the
dividing/connecting line between Europe and Asia, Turkey
emerges as a place carrying a rich history of multiple layers of
borders that have been drawn, shifted or unmade from the
remote past until today: from Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers to the
period of early states in the Bronze Age, from the pole is of classical
antiquity to the period of the empires defined by the Roman
expansion and Byzantine rule, from the imprints of the Ottoman
state's expanded frontiers to contemporary Turkey's national
borders. Amidst proliferating interdisciplinary collaborations for
the study of borders between social anthropology, geography,
political science and history, this book aims to contribute to a
nascent but growing direction in border studies by including
archaeology as a collocutor and using Turkey as a case study.
9 781898 249382
>