FRAUDULENT PREMISES OF ANATOLIAN ISTORIOGRAPHY AND EARLY HITTITE INVOLVEMENT IN AND DIRECT CONTROL...

Anadolu Kültürlerine Bir Baki§Some Observations on Anatolian Cultures

Armagan ErkanaTn ArmaganCompiled in Honor of Armagan Erkanal

Editörler Kurulu / Editorial Board

Nazli (Jinardali-Karaaslan Ay^egül Aykurt

Neyir Kolankaya-Bostanci Yigit H. Erbil

Hacettepe Üniversitesi

Yayinlari

Anadolu Kültürlerine Bir Baki?

Some Observations on Anatolian Cultures

Armagan Erkanal'a. Armagan

Compiled in Honor of Armagan Erkanal

Editörler Kurulu / Editorial Board

Nazli (Jinardah-Karaaslan

Ay§egül Aykurt

Neyir Kolankaya-Bostanci

Yigit H. Erbil

ISBN: 978-975-491-372-9

Kapak Fotografi (Tasanm Zülfikar Akyüz) / Front Cover Photo (Design Zülfikar Akyüz)

Armagan Erkanal, Panaztepe, 1995 (Photo by Bora Uysal)

Panaztepe, 1992 - AV tholos mezanndan Levant silindir m ühür baskisi ((^izim, Derya Yalgkli)

Panaztepe 1992 - Levant cylinderseal Impression from tholos AV (Drawn by Derya Yalpkh)

Tasanm I Book Design by

Suna Güler-Hökenek

Baski I Printed by

Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hastaneleri Basimevi Hacettepe University Press, Ankara, Turkey

1. Basim 2014 / First Puplished 2014

Her hakki saklidir. Degerlendirme di$mda yayinci yazili izni olraadan kitap i<;erisinden hiqrbir kisim kullanilamaz ve <;ogaltilamaz. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission from the Publisher except in the context

of reviews.

FRAUDULENT PREMISES OF ANATOLIAN ISTORIOGRAPHY AND EARLY HITTITE

INVOLVEMENT IN AND DIRECT CONTROL OF CILICIA-KIZZUWATNA

Ahmet ÜNAL*

“As in all malters o f antiquarian Science

there are wide differences o f opinion about this ” (Mark Twain)

Özet

Karma§ik tarihi olaylarm yeniden kurulmasinda önyargili ve bazi tarafli tutumlar, beige yetersizligi yaninda gerfek tarih yazicihginm önündeki en ciddi engeller arasinda sayihr. ifimizden her biri kendi ugra§i sahasindan sayisiz ömekler verebilir, dolayisiyla ben de a^agida bazi umumi yorumlar sunmak ve konuya kendi dar ara^tirma saham Eski Anadolu Tarihi agisindan yakla^mak ve kendi algilama §eklimi sunmak istiyorum. Eski Anadolu tarihinde bazi hassas konulara degindikten sonra, bu fah^mamn asil konusu Kilikya-Kizzuwatna ile ilgili özel duruma gelecegim. Onun tarihine olumsuz etki yapan Ü9 temel yanli§lik vardir, birisi Adaniya’nm sorgusuz sualsiz Adana kenti veya Kizzuwatna ülkesi ile e§itlenmesi, digeri de Hiyawa’nm Ahhiyawa, Miken ve Aka ile e§itlenmesi suretiyle burada en eski Hitit hakimiyetiyle ilgili anahtar bir sözciigün kasitli olarak yanli§ tercüme edilmesinin dogurdugu sonuflardir. Hakikaten Telepinu Fermanmda ge9en Hititge kururiya- fiilinin semantik agidan kesin temellere oturan “sava§mak, sava.$ durumunda, dü$manca tavir ifinde olmak” esas anlami yerine, göz göre göre ve kasitli olarak “isyan etmek” olarak algilanmasi, görünü§e göre Kilikya’da 90k daha erken bir Hitit hakimiyeti (MÖ 1600) telkin etmek amaciyla yapilmi§ olup, ara§tirmacilan bölgenin tarihiyle ilgili a§inya ka9an temelsiz tahminlere ve görü§lere sürüklemi§ ve orada Hitit Imparatorluk Qagi, yani MÖ 1380’ler yerine, daha Eski Hitit Dönemi’nde sanal bir Hitit üstünliigü aramaya itmi§tir. Sanal siyasi hakimiyet, etkilerini arkeolojik alana da yaymi§tir. Burada yanli^liklarm perde arkasinda sakli nedenlerini ortaya 9ikarmaya ve ge9mi§in yeniden canlandinlmasi sirasinda yamlgilann büyük bir ibretle ger9ek tarihi nasil a§in

* Prof. Dr. Ahmet ÜNAL, Hitit Universitv. Department of Archaeology The Faculty o f Science and Letters, Qorum. [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

470 Ahmet Ünal

derecede tahrif edilebildigini göstermeye galiâcagim. Bunun yanmda, Hitit gücünün sözüm ona Anadolu’nun tüm bölgelerine hakim olup olmadigi ve “Hitit Arkeolojisi”nin oralara girmeyi ne derece baârdigi da tartiîlmistir. Antik Lawazantiya kentinin umumi olarak ve yanli^likla Sirkeli’de veya dar anlamda Amanos silsilesinin batismda kalan dogu Qukurova’da yerle§tirilmek istenmesi de mutlaka ve acilen düzeltilmesi gereken hatalar arasmdadir ve özet §eklinde de olsa bunun da gerekfeleri gösterilmi§tir. Popüler fevrelerde sadece kralife Puduhepa’mn memleketi olarak bilinen bu önemli kentin büyük bir olasilakla asil Kilikya di§mda, yani Amanoslar dogusunda ve Islähiye Ovasmda aranmasi 90k daha muhtemeldir, fünkü belgeler bizi bunu yapmaya zorlamaktadir. Lawazantiya’ nin kesin yeriyle ilgili geni§ kapsamli bir 9alis?ma tarafimdan hazirlanmaktadir.

General Remarks and Fallacies of Historiography

There are essential deficiencies created by the nature of historiography as a human Science itself and its tools. The insufficient quality of the primary sources on the one hand and arbitrary attitude towards the interpretation of the sources

on the other are among the most common reasons. Whereas it is, so drudgery it might be, the prime objective of the

historian to establish a complete reconstruction of past events solely on the basis of information culled from this nucleus,

many impediments occlude the accomplishment of this task. Firstly, the fragmentary nature of sources, especially in

cuneiform texts, generally makes it impossible to assemble a thorough historical record and to reach an objective

conclusion which is diriment of any speculations. The case becomes worst if clear-cut sources lack entirely, fantasies

set on and candor fails to function. Prime examples are the never-ending discourse about the Indo-European homeland problem which has been distorted on ideological and racial grounds from Sayce, to Kossina, Childe, Gimbutas, Renfrew

and others,1 Mesopotamian roots of the stories told in the Old Testament, and the phantom Trojan archaeology.

Besides the insufficient primary material, methodological and ideological exploitations and the deliberately distorted

interpretation of the written sources are often among the main causes of an incomplete reconstruction of the past. It is

this subjective approach towards text interpretation that leads immediately to false perceptions of past events: prüdem et sciens, qua res inclinatura sit.

Since historiography and historicism are direct products of the Western Civilization, without knowledge of the

principles of Western philosophy of history it is hardly possible to fathom its immediate outcome. Moreover, attempts

at reconstructing history and understanding cultural processes might, betimes, be dependent upon one’s own social,

religious, ethical, ideological and ethnic values, and national standpoint. Principally the overall picture of historical

events consists of “inconspicuous” components. Consciously or not historians sometimes are wrong about the

reconstruction of these events. Since at first sight it seems to be inconsequential, nobody cares about them. Now if we

consider that the entire structure of historical events consists of such “unimportant” trifles, thus the overall presentation

of history is doomed from the outset to be wrong!2

One common source of mistakes in Ancient Anatolian history is the a priori assumption that the political, military

and cultural hegemony of a temporarily dominant power in a particular geographical region would have progressively

encompassed a wider, or even the entire area. Several striking examples of this fallacy can be cited: the invention

1 Described superbly by Mallory 1989, 143ff.; outlined by Ünal 1999,1-11.

2 Ünal 1989, 283ff.

Fraudulent Premises o f Anatolian Istoriography and Early Hittite Involvement in and Direct Control of Cilicia-Kizzuwatna 471

of a great “Mycenaean Empire”, comprising mainland Greece, virtually the entire Aegean archipelago and the west

Anatolian littoral, of an extensive trading activity of the same “power” in contexts wherever pottery of “Mycenaean style” is discovered, and the artificial implantation of Central Anatolian Luwio-Hittite archaeology in most distant

regions such as Troy, west Anatolia and north Syria. I have grave reservations about these phantasms and have already

noted the details and the commensurate strictures elsewhere.3 The Iron Age history of the country, especially the

existence of a ghost Median empire in the entire Near East, which was allegedly one of the responsible powers in destructing the New Assyrian Empire, and the Greek presence in Cilicia, has been much more distorted than the Bronze

Age history.4 Scholarly opinion has also tried to reconstruct a bidirectional “great caravan inland route” or a “maritime”

connection between Cilicia (Tarsus) and Troy5 from as early as the mid-third millennium onward, but without supplying

us with exact information about the nature and extent of the Commodities and items (except easily dispersed pottery)

which would have been imported and exported between these two target regions. A similar instance of the same mistake has occurred when scholarship has inferred the presence of certain languages, such as Hittite, Luwian, or of members

of the Semitic population groups, and identified them with local ethnicities, on the basis of purely onomastic material. Accordingly, in recent years it has been claimed that language is an adequate marker for determining and reconstructing

ethnic distributions.6 Thus “phantom empires” have been created on Anatolian maps too and, indeed, in some respects

the nature of Anatolia’s geopolitical position and its history are conducive to the generation of such unfounded assumptions.

Yet historians often forget that, with the exception of the modern Turkish Republic, the Anatolian land mass, in terms of

today’s definition, has never been united under a single govemment or empire. During the late phase of the Early Bronze Age there existed at least forty principalities in Central Anatolia. In the course of the Middle Bronze Age the Hittites

were the sole leading power, but their military and political sway encompassed only the central and southeastem parts

of the country. In the Iron Age, however, a single central authority did never exist and power was shared among at least

a dozen regional bases, which included the Late Hittite principalities and other locations mainly inhabited by Urartians, Phrygians, Lycians and Lydians. By times their number soared to sixty, if not more! Thus we can testify that following

the disappearance of cracking Hittite military tyranny the country once again obtained its Early and Middle Bronze

Age political and geographical features. Threadbare proposals conceming centralized govemments are comparatively

harmless so long as they are not accessed by general readers; the danger becomes not only acute, but also poisonous, if these peremptory statements are widely disseminated in more populär works, such as the ever-increasing number of

populär publications on Ancient Anatolia, exhibition catalogues, encyclopedia articles, hand books and school history books, and becomes a mainstream among the scholars.

The Geographie Scope of the Hittite Politico-Military Rule in Anatolia

In the context of sweeping statements conceming an overall unifying political and military absolute rule, historians anachronistically and grotesquely speak of Hittite domination in every nook of Anatolia, disregarding the particular

3 Ünal 1991,16ff.

4 Ünal 2005b, 453ff.

5 Efe 2007,47ff.

6 Rubio 2006, 5ff.

472 Ahmet Ünal

geographic features which ensured that North, South, West, East and Southeast Anatolia, as well as North Syria, remained free of political domination, and consequently such cultural influence. Essentially Hittite direct rule was restricted to the very narrow core of Central Anatolia and, as a corridor to North Syria and Mesopotamia, Southeast Anatolia. It raeans that there have been dormant, relatively inaccessible areas on the Anatolian map, such as Rough Cilicia, Isauria, Lycia, Caria, the Aegean islands, the Troad, Mysia, parts of the Black Sea region, and Eastem Anatolia, which neither knew nor cared about Hittite power in the Anatolian highlands and its belligerent kings boasting of

their greatness and omnipotence. Nevertheless, wherever a single “Hittite” rock monument or a few pot shards, seal impressions, texts or weapons have been found, or where erroneous geographical affiliations have been established on the basis of mere onomastic affinities, as in Lycia, i.e. Parha/Perge, Milawanda/Miletos, Apasa/Ephesos or Troad, i.

e. Ilion/Wilusa, archaeologists have immediately assumed a Hittite political, military and cultural involvement in that locality.7 Consequently, in texts and on maps such regions are claimed for the Hittite archaeological sphere of influence, and, what is worse, for its political sway. In some cases even a sporadic Hittite or Luwian ethnic presence is envisaged, as if a series of mass population shifts would have occurred. In doing this, though, scholars unknowingly transgress the basic principle that material culture, as represented by seals, buildings, and pottery need not coincide with ethnicity.8 As a rule linguistic “fossils” should not be employed as ethnic markers.

Geographic and Physical Limits of the Hittite Archaeology

Moreover, in this error, scholars assume or suppose that the communities living in peripheral regions, allegedly under Hittite political dominion, would have imported all their industrial tools, including household gadgets, kitchen Utensils and agricultural implements, all sorts of jewelry, pottery (and pot marks), heraldic and glyptic artifacts, and weaponry and all sort of art works from Central Anatolian “Hittite” pottery manufacturers and other industrial production centers. On the other hand we must state that the chronological sequence of the Hittite pottery has not yet been established even within its core land Hattusa with its most abundant ceramic findings.9 A similar effort has been done in case

of Trojan archaeology, trying to identify a variety of archaeological relicts adhering to different ethnic groups living at Troy; nonetheless the results are disappointingly meager,10 and not succored by further evidence. One thing is

certain: archaeology has not yet progressed to the point where it can distinguish native products from imported ones. Remarkably, in the face of numerous ongoing excavations, no attempts have yet been made to treat the above-mentioned politically and culturally autonomous regions independently and to establish their own authentic archaeology and cultural hallmarks. Since in some instances, “postage-stamp” archaeology, as Gordon Childe appropriately labeled it, is still practiced, excavation reports are replete with cultural links and a vivid commercial exchange activity with all the surrounding areas of a particular region, but scarcely any consideration is given to the issue of the central locality’s own distinguishing cultural traits. In this context, to take one example, a volume of a joumal is full of “trans”cultural relations

and interregional contacts within Anatolia.11 Thus we miss, for instance, an “Ahhiyawaean”, Arzawaean, Luqqaean,

7 On the rock reliefs and hieroglyphic inscriptions as demonstration o f Hittite central power see Seeher 2009,119-139.

8 Mellaart 1986,75f.; on the problem as a whole see Wendowski 1995.

9 Schoop 2008,44ff.

10 Cline 2008, 14f.

11 Trans-Anatolia, Examining Turkey as a Bridge Between East and West, AnSt. 57 (2007), among too many papers dealing with different aspects of alleged “relations”, see for instance Graeves 2007, 1-15.

Fraudulent Premises o f Anatolian Istoriography and Early Hittite Involvement in and Direct Control o f Cilicia-Kizzuwatna 473

Kizzuwatnaean or Kaskaean archaeology, not to mention the Trojan archaeology (See immediately below). As already implied, even one of the furthermost comers of Asia Minor, Cilicia-Kizzuwatna in the southeast, cannot escape the prejudiced treatment of historiography, as I will presently discuss.

Reality and Dreams in Trojan Archaeology

Heinrich Schliemann’s figments about Homer, Troy and apocryphal Trojan War recurred once more one hundred fifty years later. The fashion of “Dream Archaeology”12 unfortunately came again to prominence during the late 1980s, with the revived archaeological activity at the ruins of Hisarlik, funded by immense financial support and sustained by a naive belief in the historicity of the Homeric epics. On account of an immense propaganda and public relations the tacit and desolate heaps of earth and stone, known as »the ruins of Troy«, became once more the cynosure of all eyes, promulgating us Homeric tall tales. Since Homeric legends make up the fimdaments of Western Civilization, the Western scholars are concemed by all means to take care that they do not tum topsy-turvy! Unfortunately all of this fuss has been resuscitated not for the sake of archaeological science per se, but for personal fame and avarice! Since, especially in Turkey, the host to the legendary Troy, the archaeology became the warp and the woof of antiquarian sciences, it rivets most people’s gaze. For a while public attention and the mass media were engaged, but only a small number of scholars, with the exception of those who acted in a blind faith in the historicity of the Homeric tales, were ever involved. Much of the interest was gained through the deployment of pseudo-archaeological and -philological analyses {Auftragwissenschaft) by the former excavator, to the detriment of scientific Standards. There were unfortunately scholars who unquestioningly put their service at his disposal, and his sympathizers procured a pseudo-scientific fa it ä compli and good public propaganda in the entire world and were putting about by every occasion that Troy putatively was a large Bronze Age city and a commercial center, surpassing all of Homeric expectations.13 They all together fagged by every occasion to impose their own views and banned the voices of opponents. Pressure, personal show-ups in international congresses and meetings, organization of symposia, press propaganda, engagement of overall political and cultural issues in archaeology and legal litigations were among the most effective means of methods employed. The apparent volatility of this unconventional and populist approach was predictable from the very beginning:

“In recent years the Ahhiyawa question has begun to attract scientific and populär interest once again, not because o f the discovery o f new material but because o f the often volatile nature o f the subject, which, particularly in this case, depends less upon scientific research than upon populär appeaD 4

Archaeology and Agitations: Göbeklitepe Substitutes Trojan Fantasies, But Meanwhile Troy Moves One

Thousand Kilometers to Southeast

The unexpected and untimely death of the leading excavator, the main proponent of these controversial ideas, was, in

spite of all efforts of his followers to keep the public excitements vivid15 immediately followed by the cease of intensive

12 The title of one of the Trojan exhibitions was »Dream and Truth«!

13 Details of these deceits can be read Hertel and Kolb 2003,1-88.

14 Ünal 1991,16.

15 Details in Ünal 2010c, 917 ff.

474 Ahmet Ünal

propaganda and an absolute silence in scientific circles. At the same time, public opinion, which became suddenly aware

of the uncertain character of the concepts put overall forward, was disappointed by the collapse of a vivid and seductive thesis. As a result a vacuum ensued. To fill this gap a shift of cynosure to Göbeklitepe, presented in the populär media

as the “Biblical paradise” could not satisfy the demands of public curiosity, nor fill the huge vacuum in the meanwhile

with Homeric lullabies addicted mass media the requirements. It seems grotesquely like a virtual game, the protagonists

of whom change at the arbitrary will of opinion makers pulling the strings between Homer and Biblical patriarchs. An avant-garde essayist has used the occasion to associate the Homeric debate with the traditions of Cilicia and Karatepe;

this shift of location looks certainly to provide the next focal point for Homeric dreams. I do not find the title of the book

to be worthy of mentioning here, but I like to express my joy that it could not rise the expected sensation in publicity and layman circles. To me, the disbeliever of the Homeric legends and such intellectual »jokes«, one of the benefits of the

book in antiquarian sciences is its revelation, how spurious the alleged location of Troy at Hisarlik is. Are we scholars

expected to praise as “stimulating “ and encourage a further increase in such figments of the imagination, as is done by

a distinguished scholar in a populär joumalistic article16 instead of correcting, scolding, not to say condemning?

Cilicia’s Position as a Setting of Political Structures

Indeed, Cilicia possesses all the preconditions, including all sorts of positive geographic and climatic characteristics,

and a rieh but presently endangered hydrological system, to produce, of course on a smaller scale, its own indigenous civilization and culture comparable to those of Mesopotamia and Egypt. It is an enigma why it could not achieve the

cultural status of these two countries and step up to a more significant position of power. Note that the territories of most

of the Early Dynastie Sumerian kingdoms were no larger than Cilicia! Apart from its physical size (smaller than that of

its neighboring regions), we should mention an essential difference that is immediately apparent. All four of its rivers,

Calycadnus (Göksu), Cydnos (Tarsus), Saros (Seyhan) and Pyramos (Ceyhan) were, as all Anatolian rivers17, navigable only to a limited extent, in the sections across the plains.18 They were also fast flowing and very difficult to cross.19 But,

admittedly, in ancient times the rivers were more navigable, as Strabo notes for Calycadnus.20

On account of whatsoever reasons Cilicia became a subsidiary player in a crucial area, threatened on both sides by

larger geographical regions and greater political powers: the Hittites in the central Anatolian highland and Assyrians,

Babylonians, Mitannians and Egyptians in North Syria.21 It was therefore susceptible to the imposition of foreign rule

from either of these directions. In analogy to other regions we may assume that it was a »contested periphery«22 between Central Anatolian and Mesopotamian powers. For this reason, and as a natural consequence of geographical factors,

it always tried to survive on the basis of multiple political connections with its neighbors on the Syrian plains and in

16 Burkert 2008, 33.

17 Akkan 1962,263 ff.

18 Literature is given by Ünal and Girginer 2007,45ff.

19 Anonym 1942, 150-158.

20 Strabo XIV 5, 4f.

21 Cf. Steadman 1994; see further Godfrey 1942-43; Schaffer 1903; Dewdney 1971, 180; Hütteroth-Höhfeld 2002, passim; Steadman’s book was unavailable to me. For minute details o f Cilicia’s physical geography, refer to Anonym 1918,1919, which is unfortunately very hard to find in libraries.

22 On the term see Cline 2008,12.

Anatolia. We may, thus, venture to speak of a contested periphery or “Doppeluntertänigkeit”23 during certain periods

of its history. Even New Kingdom Egyptian Pharaohs were involved in the politics of the country. In view of the fact

that Egypt had political and written contact with remoter Arzawa in West Anatolia during the Amama Age,24 Egyptian

interest at this early period, long before the Ptolemaic Dynasty and the era of Mehmet Ali Pa§a, should not surprise us.

In spite of all these disadvantages, Cilicia was nonetheless a self-sufficient country, especially where natural resources

and essential food supplies were concemed. Of course, the richness of the land in terms of agricultural products

during ancient times did not relate to the “industrial” plants, such as rice, cotton, maize, peanuts and citrus fruits, that

predominate today and which were, of course, unknown in the early period under discussion. In brief,from the point

of view of modern economic geography, “La Situation geographique merveilleuse de la Cilicie”2S was never valid

for antiquity.26 For the early societies, among them the Hittites, the terrain did not possess much attraction, even with

regard to agricultural production and metallurgical resources which achieved an undeserved reputation in later periods.

Nevertheless it is certain that, centuries before Dioscorides of Anazarbos, most of the numerous drugs mentioned in

Hittite medical texts and Kizzuwatnaean magical rituals as well as tropical Mediterranean fruits such as olives, figs,

dates and pomegranates in festive and magical rituals were supplied to a great degree from Kizzuwatna.

The Aim of the Article

One of the specific purposes of this article is to highlight the dramatic case of Cilicia-Kizzuwatna, a peripheral territory

on the borders of central Anatolia and north Syria. In this relatively vast region an early Hittite military suzerainty and

a dense Luwian ethnic and Hittite presence have been postulated and false ethnic identities and assumed languages

have been assigned to its autochthonous population by evaluating Hittite and Babylonian sources and considering

retrospectively later palimpsests from Greek, Aramaic and Old Testament records in a way that has led to a biased

reconstruction of its history, disregarding often the dangers inherent in the transmission of these records.

Focus and Periphery: Cilicia’s Irrelevance for Anatolian Highlanders

When a terrible drought and consequent famine ravaged the land of Hatti in the 13th Century B. C. and the population was

starving, food aid in the form of grain did not come from Kizzuwatna, but from Egypt via the harbor and trade town Ura

which lies somewhere in westem Cilicia. Agriculture and husbandry seem neither to have been the basic occupations of

the Kizzuwatnaeans. Until the much discussed and often misinterpreted production of iron during the time of Hattusili

III there was no Hittite interest in securing metal reserves and trade routes between Anatolia and Kizzuwatna, because

the Hittites did not import any kind of metal from there. Deposits of silver, iron, copper, alabaster and probably tin (if

any?) in the Bolkar and Aladag Mountains on the periphery of Kizzuwatna, which were famous from the Old Akkadian

23 F. Schachermeyr used this phrase for the share of powers over AUiiyawa by the Hittites and Mycaneans, Schachermeyr 1986,106.

24 The two documents known as the Arzawa letters from the early days o f Hittitology provide clear evidence of the Egyptian involvement in Westem Anatolia: see the letter of Amenophis to the king of Arzawa VBoT 1,2.

25 Redan 1921,1.

26 Exhaustive geographic description is given by Schaffer 1903.

Fraudulent Premises of Anatolian Istoriography and Early Hittite Involvement in and Direct Control o f Cilicia-Kizzuwatna 475

476 Ahmet Ünal

down to the New Assyrian period, could be exploited without physically entering Kizzuwatna from central Anatolian

side. For instance, the iron ores of Radandos-Faraja (modern Camlica), south of Yahyali, were transported from the

earliest times until the Byzantine, Ottoman and modern periods, to Cilician and Central Anatolian ironworks, as is done

today from the same region to ironworks at Iskenderun. We may surmise only that the Hittites occasionally attempted

to raid Kizzuwatna, as they often did other surrounding territories, but did not have a permanent conquest in mind. But

in opposite to all other Anatolian regions such as Arzawa, Kaska, Pala, Azzi-Hayasa and Southeast Anatolia war reports

in the famous Hittite annals are strikingly lacking. This can only be explained in a way that Kizzuwatna’s position

was peripheral, the more important focal point being North Syria. The question arises, what the Hittites would have

put on the list of booty goods from Kizzuwatna.27 As already suggested, Kizzuwatna was compelled by its position to

live in constant interaction with both bordering regions; otherwise it would have been politically confmed and denied

a meaningful existence. Even though we may state that Cilicia achieved its status through contact with its neighboring

“Kulturregionen”, Central Anatolia and Syria, it must be placed in the larger cultural context of Mesopotamia.

Primary Sources of Early History of Kizzuwatna

Since the early history of Kizzuwatna is little known and the origins of its local dynasty are wholly obscure, a cohesive

and continuous narrative of events is impossible to construct. It is mostly due to the fact that Kizzuwatna has not yet

yielded its own written records; therefore the nature of Hittite sovereignty over the country, its beginning and duration,

has always been a subject for discussion. The Hittites’ inrush into North Syria, which started much earlier and was

more extensive in nature, provides a parallel example and thus contributes to a better understanding of Cilicia’s case.

Consideration of the Hittite political and military presence in Syria and evaluation of the archaeological material reveal

that the Hittites had little cultural impact on Syria, although it had been the main focus of Hittite imperialism from the

Ancient Kingdom onward. The results of a comparative study is outlined as follows: “ Während die Geschichte der

politischen Beziehungen zwischen dem hethitischen Reich und Syrien in der Spätbronzezeit aufgrund von Textquellen

zumindest in groben Zügen bekannt ist, wurde den archäologischen Zeugnissen für eine hethitische Präsenz in Syrien

vergleichsweise wenig Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Ein kurzer Überblick zeigt, dass es sich fast ausschließlich um Objekte

aus dem Bereich der Administration wie Verwaltungsdokumente, Siegel und Bullen handelt. Dies legt den Schluss nahe,

dass die Hethiter nicht an einer kulturellen Einflussnahme in den eroberten Gebieten außerhalb Anatoliens interessiert

waren. Dies steht in starkem Gegensatz zu der Situation in der südlichen Levante, wo die Ägypter in der 18. und 19.

Dynastie eine kulturelle Einbindung zumindest der lokalen Eliten aktiv propagierten”.28

This critical observation owns a stronger validity for Cilicia-Kizzuwatna, Arzawa in the west and the territory of East

Anatolia, where Hittite presence has always been volatile, and, in opposite to Syria, written documentation is absolutely

lacking. Eastem Anatolia displays more links with Caucasia than with the Hittites in the west. In all three regions, the

Hittites were merely tax collectors and administrators; the Situation was similar to that under the Roman dient clientele

kingdoms and the Ottoman fief system (timar and zeamet).

27 See below in regard to the „red garments” !

28 Genz 2006, 37.


Old Assyrian Colony Period and Hittite Military and Trade Routes to North Syria Eschew the Cilician Gate

(Gülek) and Cilicia Compastris

The exceptional geographical configuration of Cilicia has also not been adequately assessed, because it has so far been

considered tout court as a tramping ground of armies and merchants between Anatolia and Syria, and to judge from the

Hittite and Hurrian cuneiform texts, an odd place of curious and occult rituals, i.e. itkalzi, (h)isuwa and others. Since

the Hittite military engagement with north Syria started as early as the reign of Hattusilil(ca. 1650 BC), historians have

broached that Kizzuwatna in any event must have been previously conquered by him, to be used as a gateway to North

Syria29 or at least must have stood under Hittite control.30 The well-known existence of the Cilician Gates, and some scattered and obscure Hittite archaeological material from the Empire period have misled historians retrospectively over

this issue. First of all, we must put aside the artificial role assigned anachronistically to the Cilician Gates as a major

geographic passage. As I demonstrated clearly some fourteen years ago, neither the Old Assyrian merchants nor the Old Hittite military forces took this pathway in communicating with North Syria.31 The “mythical and legendary” importance

assigned to the “Pylae Ciliciae,,n is a retrospective invention on the basis of its importance during the Classical

Times and later, as it was used frequently, for instance by Alexander the Great, Romans, Byzantines, the Crusaders,

Arabs, the Turks and Egyptians. In reality it did not constitute an avenue of approach in earlier eras. “Aus diesen und

weiteren Gründen neige ich persönlich dazu,fiir die Verbindung zwischen Nordsyrien und Zentralanatolien eine Route

anzunehmen, die Kilikien nördlich umgeht..... Um durch die Qukurova nach Nordsyrien zu ziehen, hätten die Hethiter

zuerst ihren Weg gegen Kizzuwatna freikämpfen müssen. Daraus geht deutlich hervor, daß der Weg durch die Kilikische

Pforte als Heeresstraße im 2. Jt. v. Chr. noch nicht die Bedeutung hatte wie in späterer Zeit unter den Persern, Griechen

und Römern, sondern eine regionale Rolle spielte als Verbindung zum westlichen Teil Kilikiens mit seinen bedeutenden

Städten Mer sin (Yümüktepe) und Tarsus, neben einem einzigen Siegel vom Horte von Soloi (Viraneehir) dem bislang einzigen Fundort von Keilschrifttexten und glyptischem Material in Kilikien-Kizzuwatna",33

Impediments and Traps of Cilician Plain For Great Scale Transportations and Military Marches

Now let us ruminate over the ecological structure of Cilicia’s landscape in Ancient Times. The topic is the more important

since the ignorance of its physical and natural features gave way to incredible assumptions. In the face of the transformed

and dramatic disfigured geography of the modern landscape, it is hard to imagine and reconstruct the once prevailing

original topographical conditions. Numerous lakes, marshlands, deltas and rivulets in the Plains of Qukurova, Amik and

islähiye have been dried up. Who knows and cares that today the airport of Antakya occupies the basin of former Amik Lake? In the past the landscape was quite different and life in Kizzuwatna, especially during the searing summer months,

was made insufferable by a combination of heat, humidity and dust. A trackless marshland of brushwood and reeds,

which only partially dried out in the long summer months, formed a vast plain hemmed in by thickly wooded forests.

29 See, for instance, Gumey 1973, 661 f.; Beal 1986; Klengel 1999, 74; Bryce 2003, 36; 2005,104; Miller 2004, 7; Freu-Mozayer 2007a, 75, all of whom regard Kizzuwatna as part of Hatti before the reign of Ammuna.

30 Haas 2006,4.

31 Ünal 1997, passim, esp. 146; see also Ünal and Girginer 2007, 37ff.

32 The modern name Gülek comes from Armenian Gouglag, which goes back to New Assyrian Hilakku of unknown ethymology and meaning.

33 Ünal 1997,145,146f.

478 Ahmet Ünal

The movement of wheeled vehicles34 or sledges was severely curtailed, while the depredations of wild beasts35 made life

a burden that could scarcely be bome. “D ust may be unpleasant, but it does no tpara lyze traffic; but m ud does”.36 “From

it (i.e. Cilian Plain)”, says Woolley, “Communications with the E ast are not easy; thep la in is really an enclave cut o ffb y

the Taurus and Amanus ranges from the H ittites o f H alys basin alm ost as effectually as fro m the much more important

M esopotamian centers”.37 C.L. Woolley argues further that in the Amanus Mountains there has not been a single vestige of ancient inhabitants; the dwellers must, therefore, have been wild men such as huntsmen, woodcutters and perhaps

miners who lived in scattered huts which would leave no vestiges behind for us to discover.38

The usage of sledges in Anatolia, which was in all regions much more marshy and snowy in Ancient Times than today,

has so far not been considered in archaeological and written record. They can certainly be pulled under given conditions

by a yoke of oxen or bulls as easily as oxcarts. The representations of ox-pulled vehicles in the reliefs of imamkulu and

Hanyeri, in close proximity of the Gezbeli Pass, can be interpreted in term of sledges. The foot paths were probably indicated by means of primitive “mile stones”, as H. H. von der Osten observed “We observed stone heaps, each about 1

m eter high. These were sta ted to be pa th indicators fo r the winter months when the p lateau is covered with snow ” .39

In short, any army entering Cilicia with heavy baggage train would wallow. Climate was for the timing of military

campaigns of critical importance. The temperatures on the Syrian and Cilician Plains are 7° C higher than those on the

Anatolian highland, and the famed humidity was much more severe, although not that much heavy as today and dust

was also less intensive. For this reason, the Byzantines, for instance, avoided the heat of summer months.40 The Old Assyrian traders chose to avoid it by taking an alternative northerly route that, although it lengthened the joumey by a

few hundred miles (in accordance with the maxim “The shortest way is not the m ost straight one ” (Der kürzeste Weg ist

nicht geradester), was nonetheless without dust and mud. The routine commercial and military roads run therefore from

Kanes-Kültepe in an easterly direction to Elbistan and from there to the south, to Mara§ and Islähiye. That is why, as I

argued earlier, scarcely any Cilician city was mentioned in the copious records of the Old Assyrian traders from Kültepe-

Kanes,41 and no Contemporary archaeological fmdings appear in the same area. Nevertheless, Cilicia was of course not completely impassable, all what is said above is due to great scale military and commercial Communications.

Hittite “Mountain Pathway” Through Gezbeli Pass

There is another route connecting Hatti with Cilicia, which also misguided the scholars. This route can be reconstructed

on the basis of the rock monuments at Fraktin, Ta§9i, Imamkulu, Gezbeli and Hemite and was only in use from the thirteenth Century on and did not run through cities or even caravanserais except for a small settlement mound at Fraktin.

Obviously, the way was opened as an “express footpath” following the annexation of Kizzuwatna in the second half of

34 Garstang 1953, 211 ff.; Seton and Williams 1954, 121ff., esp. 128.

35 Langlois 1861, 103f.; Hopwood 1990, 339; Özbayoglu 1998, 131ff.

36 Childe 1942,1964,247.

37 Woolley 1938, lf.

38 Woolley 1938, 3.

39 Osten 1929, 120.

40 Garrood 2008,128.

41 Ünal 1997,145 with note 112.


fourteenth Century BC, and used frequently, especially under Hattusili III with his wife Puduhepa, and facilitated easy

and quick communication. In my Turkish publications I use the fittingly “Hitit dagyolu”, “Hittite mountain path One might call it “ceremonial road” as well. It is Hattusili III who set up alongside this route all these rock monuments, and

because of Puduhepa’s origin at Kummanni, he has visited, as also did Puduhepa, Kizzuwatna on almost every occasion,

especially for the celebration of numerous festivals and rituals. The route is mountainous and runs through the 1960

meter high pass of Gezbeli, which after running the steep slope down to Hanyeri rock monument, one branch continues eastwards to Commana-$ar, while the other bows to the south, and passing through forests, mountains, numerious

branches of Seyhan, Doganbeyli and Saimbeyli, arrives the Cilician Plain around Kozan; therefore it was open only

during the summer time and was not suitable for wheeled vehicles or great scale military movements. It was passable

only from May to October. On account of heavy snow I had to use snow chains mid-April to climb up the summit. For

the reconstruction of this pathway, a similar study using GIS system as is done in the basin of middle Calycadnus valley would be desirable as well for Gezbeli and upper Seyhan region.42

Wrong Premises on the Early Hittite Conquer of Kizzuwatna

Kizzuwatna’s dramatic eminence and genuine impact on ethnicity, culture and religion under the New Hittite kings,

especially Hattusili III and his Kizzuwatnaean wife, Puduhepa, have misled historians retrospectively to presume that

the imposition of Hittite direct rule must have occurred much earlier than in fact was the case. As we have repeatedly stressed, they have omitted the fact that, Kizzuwatna’s history and cultural relations were more closely interwoven with

Syria, Mesopotamia and Egypt than with Central Anatolia; except for instances of political faits accomplis recognized

through state treaties, there is no evidence of Hittite influence and engagement in the Old Kingdom until the early

empire period. In previous times, and even after its inclusion in the Hittite administrative system of feudal bondage, traces of Central Anatolian impact were very slight. In other words, Kizzuwatna never became a Hittite demesne.

Without Mesopotamian connections and ties it is impossible to envisage any civilizing developments in Cilicia too, and

Kizzuwatna without Mesopotamian impact meant nothing to the Hittites’. The same is true of the Hittites; their political,

military and economic interests were specifically and consistently connected with the core region of Mesopotamian civilization. They were attracted by trade with Mesopotamia, and by its writing system, literature, religious ideas,

arts, architecture, natural sciences, technology, manufacturing techniques, and mostly politico-administrative system.

As a consequence, the Hittites were motivated to overcome all kinds of obstacles and difficulties to hold North Syria

and the Levant, a process that culminated in the notorious battle of Kades. One might claim, with an ironic reference to the present day, that to the Hittites “Europe” always meant only Mesopotamia - the Near East, then the matrix of

entire civilized world, which now suffers so much from a tragic war, and has lost all of its historical and archaeological

significance. Kizzuwatna’s supposed relations with Cyprus, founded on the presence of so-called Cypriote painted pottery, have also been unnecessarily overstressed.

Beside historical clues scattered and doubtful archaeological evidence has also led scholars to the false conclusion that the Hittites were present in Cilicia from an early period and were prolific in erecting buildings and producing pottery43

42 Newhard, Levine and Rutherford 2008, 87-102.

43 See for instance Gates 2001 ,137ff.; 2006, 239ff., and on the alleged “Hittite” pottery in Kilisetepe between Karaman and Seleuceia, Symington 2001,167ff.; Postgate 2007,141 ff; Postgate and Thomas 2007 passim.

480 Ahmet Ünal

and seals. Examples cited include architectural remains from Mersin-Yümüktepe and Tarsus-Gözlükule, the rock relief at Hemite and that of Muwatalli ii at Sirkeli, seals, seal impressions and a cuneiform tablet from Tarsus. Among these findings pottery has particularly been as usual singled out. The existence of Anatolian-Hittite pottery at Kinet Höyük in the eastem fringe of Cilician Plain from 16th Century onward will now be correctly explained not as a result of Hittite political dominance but rather by means of trade and cultural relations. However, it might sound a bit exagerated, when the excavator maintains that most aspects of Kinet’s Late Bronze Age archaeological record would reflect the imprint of Hittite material culture.44 As we shall see, such an interpretation is somehow misguided.

Kizzuwatna’s Cultural Heritage and Its Spoil

One other important reason for the common misapprehension and distortion can be observed concealed behind the ideological issue which has been expounded by Jones: “The role o f archaeology in the construction and legitimization o f collective cultural identities is coming to be perceived as one o f the most important issues in archaeological and practice. Throughout the history o f archaeology the material record has been attributed to particular past peoples, and the desire to trace the genealogy o f present peoples back to their imaginedprimordial origins has played a significant role in the development o f the discipline ”.45

With regard to candidates of Cilicia’s historical (and ethnic) heritage, two major population groups contend with each other: the Semites and the Indo-Europeans, the latter represented by the Hittites, and (disproportionally) Luwians. In recent years increasingly Greeks i.e. Ahhiyawa-Myceneans and Hiyawa in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age have been added. It is the Iron Age attestation of a Hiyawa on the hieroglyphic Version of Cineköy inscription46 which appears as the equivalence of Adana in the Phoenician version, and immediately afterwards the mention of Hiyawa-men engaged in an obscure mission in Lukka (see below) on two parallel letters from Ugarit that accelerated the discussion around the presence of Ahhiyawaeans, i. e. Achaeans-Mycenanaeans in the region. Subsequent attempts following the publication of these two source material fared no better in identifying the Hiyawa with Ahhiyawaeans. The efforts of more ardent scholars should be taken due reservation. While Cineköy inscription has lavishly and abundantly, not to say euphorically been treated enough, Ugaritic letters are less known, and I like to give here the gist of them.

Both missives, RS 94.2530; RS 94.2523,47 including this curious message from the house of Urtenu are companion letters, and were dispatched to Ammurapi of Ugarit by the Great King of Hatti and the Great Scribe Penti-Sarruma. The royal letter is longer and more detailed. The Hittite king can only be identical on many grounds with Suppiluliuma ii, as Singer states.48 RS 94.2530, 31-38 reads according to Singer49 as follows: “This time, didn’nt Isendyou Satalli? Now, I ’ve been told(that) ‘the Hiyawa-man is in the [land] o f Luqqa and there are no rations fo r him Conceming this matter, don ’t teil me that there is nothing to do. Provide ships to Satalli and let them take the rations for the Hiyawa-men

42 Newhard, Levine and Rutherford 2008, 87-102.

43 See for instance Gates 2001 ,137ff; 2006, 239ff., and on the alleged “Hittite” pottery in Kilisetepe between Karaman and Seleuceia, Symington 2001 ,167ff.; Postgate 2007,141ff; Postgate and Thomas 2007 passim.

44 Gates 2006.

45 Jones 1997,1; for claims of attribution of material culture to particular ethnic groups see Banks 1996; for Mesopotamian archaeology see Roaf2005, 306ff.

46 Tekoglu and Lamaire 2000, 961ff.; Singer 2006, 250ff.

47 Calvet and Yon 2001, 8; Lackenbacher and Malbron-Labat 2005,227-240.

48 Singer 2006, 243.

49 Singer 2006, 250ff.


S. Lackenbacher, Malbran-Labat, as well as Singer equate without any hesitation the Hiya(wi)-men with Ahhiyawa of the Hittite texts, attested here for the first time in a text written in Akkadian. This new mention of Hiyawa shows that the typical aphaeresis in certain Luwian dialects developed already in the second millennium, long before the £ineköy bilingual, in which hieroglyphic Luwian Hiya(wa) is equated with Phoenician Adana.50 Singer tends to accept that Qawe-

Que, denomination of eastem Cilician Plain, developed from Hiyawa,51 which can be hardly possible. According to the

publishers of the letters the Hiyawa-men in question were mercenaries or workforce of Ahhiyawaean origin employed by Hittite administration. And the letters would concem transportation of food rations to them from harbor of Ugarit.

But, as Singer, afiter scrutinizing of all attestations has showed, PADMEä means in Hittite context not food ration but metal ingots.52 Accordingly the cargo of the ships destined to sail for Luqqa could have consisted of metal ingots rather than

food rations. We do not know whether the ingots were employed as means of payment for mercenaries or they were rough materials like the ones from the Uluburun ship wreck to be used in producing weapons or other implements.

T. Bryce has also taken up the Ugarit letters.53 He notes that the presence of Hiyawa-men in Lukka does not indicate

anything about the Ahhiyawaean-Mycenaean settlers on the Anatolian south coast. He however, prefers the interpretation

of Hiyawa-men as mercenaries and PADMEä as metal barrens by means of which these soldiers have been paid or, in the

case, the ingots were bronze and tin, they might have been used in the production of weapons, as I suggested above. In any case the existence of Hiyawa-men in Lukka, howsoever they might have been employed by the Hittites on the eve of their downfall, does not say anything about the ethnic structure of Cilicia.

According to one viewpoint, the anthropological diversity was further enriched by the presence of Mycenaeans, or rather

a “Mycenaeanized” state, during the first half of second millennium BC. In this connection, the name of the Cretan

Rhakios, father of Mopsos, has been associated with Urikki of Que from the Iron Age Cilicia.54 All other ethnic groups,

including the anonymous and autochthonous population of the region archaeologically attested from the Neolithic

period onward (if not earlier), and the Hurrians, who infiltrated the country at least as early as 2200 BC and probably founded a ruling local dynasty of Kizzuwatna, are all ignored. According to a prominent Hittite scholar “the language

of the Kizzuwatnaeans is Hittite and Luwian”.55 Such a sweeping Statement disregards the fact that Cilicia became a hub of cultural and religious activities only afiter the penetration of the Hurrians into the region. Tendencies of some

historians to only rely upon the sources such as Herodotus and the Old Testament is flawed and misguided in this matter.

It is appeasing to know that there are at least scholars who label Herodotus as “the father of lies”.561 have outlined these

Problems in every detail in my comprehensive book dealing with the history of Cilicia-Kizzuwatna57 and my studies on Orientalism.58

50 Tekoglu, Lamaire 2000, 980ff.

51 Singer 2006, 251 note 33.

52 Singer 2006, 254.

53 Bryce 2010,4-53.

54 Jasink and Marino 2007,409. Claims relating to an Armenian connection are based upon an erroneous chronology and a mistaken reconstruction o f its history, and a misguided view of Cilicia’s demographic Situation during the Crusades.

55 "Die Sprache der Kizzmatnäer ist luwisch und hethitisch ", Haas 2006,4.

56 Fehling 1989.

57 Ünal and Girginer 2007,61ff., 91ff. and Ünal 2010b, 96ff.; see further Pollock, Bembeck 2005 with contributions o f Yahya, 66ff.; Pollock, 78ff.; Liverani, 223ff.; Zimanskv, 308ff.

58 Ünal 2002b, 6-13; idem 2003.159-198; idem 2010c, 935.

482 Ahmet Ünal

Fictious and Historical Hittites in Cilicia

Conceming the assumption of Old Hittite political involvement in Cilicia I will eite here only one scholar as a

representative example.59 According to this author “during the Hittite Old Kingdom, what was later known as

Kizzuwatna, wouldappear to have been apart ofHatti known as theprovince o f Adaniya”. The author knows well that

he tergiversates, he therefore cites the voices of disbelievers, but concomitantly he clinches the argument a priori, saying

that Adaniya was “more or less” synonymous with Kizzuwatna. He further purports that the Hittite conquer of Adaniya

must have taken place already under Hittite overlordship during the first campaign of Hattusili I, who solely on account

of his canonical annals will curiously be lionized as conquerer of Arzawa, Southeast Anatolia, Cilicia and North Syria.

Although he does not have any substantive evidence for this proposal, he argues solely on Strategie grounds that, without

prior possession of Kizzuwatna, the Hittite king would have been threatened by Syria. A hostile Kizzuwatna at his back,

west of the Beylan Pass, would have made it impossible to conquer Alalah. Accordingly Hattusili I must have had control

over Adaniya-Kizzuwatna: “Had Adaniya/Kizzuwatna been hostile to Hattusili, he could not have crossed its territory,

and therefore he would have needed to take a route by-passing Kizzuwatna This view is hardly acceptable in the face

of too many contradictory facts. Indeed there are other historians who bring Hattusili from northwest directly into Syria

without touching Kizzuwatna.60 All these claims imply in general as if Adaniya was a well attested town or region, and

its identity with modern Adana were beyond any doubt. Surprisingly Adaniya is scarcely attested elsewhere; and one of

the essential difficulties with this place name is, because of the awkwardness of Hittite texts which do not distinguish

“town, city” (URU, happira-) from “land” (KUR, udne-), that it is not known whether it is a town or a country name,

or if it lay within Kizzuwatna-Cukurova and thus can be identified with modern Adana. In spite of numerious efforts

to prove its origin to be Semitic or Indo-European, one thing is sure, that the name comes with certainty from the

designation of a Hurrian cultic object, adan, atani and adaniya61 and its identity with modern Adana (Tepebag, Velican

Höyük or somewhere eise?), introduced for the first time by Olmstead,62 is in no way certain.63 It is probable that it

appears for the first time in connection with “blue textiles” and the town of Aruna in an Old Hittite historical text which

is unfortunately very fragmentary.64 This is followed by the Decree of Telipinu under discussion here, and after a gap

of some hundred years in an historical text of Amuwanda i. Here he conducts as a prince under his father Tuthaliya i

wars on various fronts against Zunnahara, Adaniya, Sinuwanda, Ullita, Arzawa, Masa and Arduqqa.65 In the Sunassura-

treaty (see below) Adaniya appears in connection with border disputes. The rest of attestations comes from religious and

festival texts such as divination, conjuration, and offering66 and some fragments67 which are ambiguous in regard to its

localisation and equation with Adana.

59 Beal 1986,424fF.

60 Klengel 1992, 81.

61 On the speculations conceming its origin and meaning see the strictures of Ünal and Girginer 2007, 67ff.

62 Olmstead 1922, 230 footnote 4.

63 On the probleme del Monte, Tischler 1978, 54; Ünal and Girginer 2007, 120ff.

64 KUB 48.81,1, considered as the annals o f Mursili I by de Martino 2003 ,150f.

65 KUB 23.21 obv. 5.

66 KUB 20.52 + obv. lff.; KUB 46.37 rev. 14; KUB 30.31 + iv 7; KBo 47.7 obv. 17.

67 KBo 20.69 + rev.? 2; KBo 12.14 obv. i? 5(?).

Then the question that remains to be explained is why the Hittite king does not mention in his relatively extensive

annals, that on his way from Hattusa to north Syria, he did pass across the Cilician Plain, let’s say generously Adaniya! I do not think that Hattusili’s military and geographical actions within the scope of Kizzuwatna were not included in the

annals, because Kizzuwatna was allied with the Hittite king.We must consequently confess that the area had no military

or geopolitical importance at this early time and, what is more important, that Cilicia was almost impassable during that epoch, as we have seen above.

Hattusili’s terse but detailed and unambiguous description of the route in his annals implies only that he circumvented

Cilicia and passed further north via Pinarbasi, Elbistan, Mara§, islähiye and then east, Crossing the river Mala

(Euphrates), as clearly stated in KBo 10.2 iii 29-31: “Nobody crossed previously the Euphrates River. 1, Tabarna the great king, crossed it on foot ”.68 With regard to the reference to the minor river Purana/Puruna/Puratta,69 it can be stated

that its identity on account of its phonetic affinity with Apre, modern Afrin and its fitting geographic position is beyond

any doubt.70 It is certainly not correct to equate it again on account of its phonetic similarity with ancient Pyramos,

modern Ceyhan.711 am not confident that all the attestations of Puramti, Puran(a), Puranti/zi, Puruna, Puratta refer to one and the same toponym.72 We would also expect Hattusili’s records to state that he had crossed the two main Cilician

rivers, the Saros and Pyramos, if he had ever marched across the Cilician plain. The Crossing of the Puruna (Afrin) must

have taken place in a westward direction, as he was coming from an eastem direction on his way to attack and destroy

Hassu, modern Tilmen Höyük (see immediately below). He might have “destroyed” in the same way Alalah, marching from an easterly direction, if Alha in his annals really is identical with Alalah.73 The New Assyrian king, Asumasirpal

ii, traced the same route and crossed also the Apre/Afrin coming from the east, marching on his way from Kargamis,

Arpad and Hazazu (modern ‘Azaz) to Kunulua in Unqi.74 Kunulua, the Capital of Unqi, might now be sought in or

around Rhosos, modern Uluqnar/Arsuz, 33 km southwest of Iskenderun, where recently many good preserved Late

Hittite reliefs and Hieroglyphic inscriptions have been discovered. Fortunately we now have strong archaeological and

topographical data to establish Hassu’s location at the impressive settlement of Tilmen Höyük on the bank of the Karasu stream in the middle of a region of volcanic lava in the Islähiye Plain.75 This excludes its former identification with

Zalwar/ Zalpa. Needles to say, all this area lies beyond the Amanus Mountains and outside of the ränge of Kizzuwatna- Cilicia. Furthermore, the Decree ofTelipinu in its section on the deeds of Hattusili I teils us nothing about the conquest

of Kizzuwatna (Adaniya?), and this too is in dire need of explanation by those who would like him to wander around the

impassable marshlands and thickets of Cilicia, and waste unnecessarily time.

There is a third source of mistaken historical facts, namely the misinterpretation of the salient point in the Telipinu Decree

(Tel. ii lff.), generally seen as an outline narrative history of the Old Hittite period, and construction of the passage as a

sweeping Statement about Adaniya and its ad hoc identity with Kizzuwatna. Almost all scholars dealing with this period

68 [DMalan UL kuiski piran zais n=an uk LUGAL.GAL Tabamas GIR-it zihhun.

69 KBo 10.2 ii 17ff, quite different from Puratti=Mala “Euphrates” !, for exact determination which branch of Euphrates Puratti=Mala refers to see Ankan 2007, 39ff.

70 See Astour 1998, 8f.; Miller 2001, 77ff; see also with previous literature Wilhelm 2006,118f.

71 Cornelius 1973, 25 and, independently, by Gumey 1992, 217 and Collins 1998,15.

72 del Monte 1978,543; 1992, 208f. For New Assyrian Apre see Bagg 2007, 289.

73 See for instance Klengel 1992, 81.

74 Hawkins 1982,389.

75 Astour 1998,14.


484 Ahmet Ünal

Start from the assumption that in this text passage the semantically well-established Hittite verb kururiya- means “to

be at war, hostile ”,76 because only by so doing can they imply that Adaniya/Kizzuwatna was formerly a dependency of Hatti and that, by means of this supposed revolt, it had thrown off the already existing Hittite suzerainty. This needs

to be proven. This presumption alongside the nai've reliance in the Hittite history writing as a result of the process of

“historical thinking” assigned to the Hittites as an Indo-European people glossed the entire Situation. Fortunately, the

semantics of the verb kururiya-, which is frequently attested in Hittite war terminology,77 precludes any ambiguity: the

verb denotes not a revolt on the part of a previously “subjected” territory, but a straightforward declaration of war by any kind of enemy. A comparison with then independent Arzawa is in order: If kururiya- is translated as “to be at revolt”,

how can we explain the apparent role of the independent Arzawa as part of the Hittite state during this chaotic time?

Moreover, if Adaniya, together with other regions, had really “revolted”, the Hittite language would have expressed

this action by means of other quasi-synonymous verbs such as BAL (Hitt. waggariya-), harnamniya-, or sallai-(?).

Moreover, Adaniya was not the only country that declared war on the Hittites at that juncture; it was joined by other foes such as H/Zagga, Matila, Kalmiya, Arzawa, Sallapa, Parduwata and Ahhula.78 We do not know what kind of vicissitudes,

of course, besides resisting against the Hittite expansionist politics, caused these places to wage war against Hatti,

nor are we aware if several battles were fought and what the final outcome was. Scholars have mistakenly assigned

a supposed act of liberation on the part of Adaniya to the first Kizzuwatnaean king Partiyawatri, father of Isputahsu. Moreover, it always has to be kept in mind that the Telipinu Decree was as a literary and historical text the product of

turbulent circumstances and dynastic strife among the members of royal family. The king’s intention was not to provide

an objective and succinct history, but to render a picture of the chaotic Situation before he assumed power, and to assist him pragmatically again in establishing law and order in the country. In so doing, he was of course concemed to single

out his own merits in unifying the Hatti Lands. We naturally cannot expect there to be an exact demarcation of the spheres of military action in such a historic document.

A similar instance occurred according to Hattusili’s III terse and canonical account of the so-called Concentric Invasion of the Hittite state under Tuthaliya 1/ II, according to which Kaska, Arzawa, Arawanna, Azzi, Isuwa and Armatana feil

upon Hatti from every direction.79 The pessimistic political and military Situation rendered here seems conspiratorial;

so far as Hittite oral tradition recollected these events, the Hittites could hardly have had any more enemies than those

catalogued here. At the time, these enemy lands must have constituted the most powerful Anatolian communities at the peripheries and evidently, in anticipation of Hittite military colonization of their territories, they seized the moment to

launch “preemptive” defensive counter attacks before it was too late. Remarkably, Kizzuwatna is missing from the list

of enemies. This was certainly due to its isolated geographical position on the one hand and loyalty to the equal peace treaties that already existed as a consequence of bilateral relations between Kizzuwatna and Hatti on the other hand (see

below). The attacks must have taken place prior to the brief expansion of Kizzuwatna into central Anatolia, as we shall

see below. In all probability, this was one of the reasons why Tuthaliya gave up the endangered Hattusa and retreated to

Ortaköy-Sapinuwa as his secondary and more secure residence.

76 Cf. for instance, in a general work the remark on the period of Ammuna »Une revolte generale en est resultee, provoquant la secession d'une serie de pays...«, Freu and Mazoyer 2007°, 127, and most recently »have rebelled«, Miller 2008, 577; so far 1 know only van den Hout’s translation renders the correct sense: “Now, the land became his enemy: The cities o f Adaniniy[a], ... ", van den Hout 1997, 196.

77 Ünal 1983,166ff.; Ünal, 1984, 71 ff.

78 T eliilfF .

79 KBo 6.28 obv. öff., Goetze 1940,25; dated to the time of Tuthaliya 111 by Freu, Mazoyer 2007b, 189ff.


If indeed any Kizzuwatnaean attack upon Hatti took place in this early period, it can only have taken place on the ground

of military considerations. As a result of Hittite “Blitzkriegs ” under Hattusili I and Mursili I, all of north Syria had fallen under Hittite domination for a short period. Kizzuwatna, after realizing that it was threatened also along the eastem

side of the Anti-Taurus Mountains, and that its North Syrian-Levantine ties with Mitanni would be cut off, may have

mounted a counter offensive against the Hittites, either on its own or in alliance with other principalities in North Syria.

This action, which is alluded to in the Telipinu Decree, may have taken place during the reign of Ammuna. Altematively,

there may have been a skirmish triggered as a result of the transhumance population movements in the border region; indeed such an event is known from the Sunassura treaty (See immediately below) and from transhumance communities

of Kurustama, who entered Egyptian territories and triggered long enduring political disputes and crises.80

As a supporting implication for the early Hittite presence in Cilicia schlolars put forward that at least some parts of of

it have been designated as “Hatte” in one Contemporary record. It is the inscription of Idrimi of Alalah and the related passage reads as follows:

“I took to myself soldiery, infantry, and went north again, to the land o f Hatte. Now there were seven fortresses, their market-quays: the cities Passahe, Damarut-re, Hulahhan, Zisi, the district, and cities Uluzi, the Capital, and Zaruna.

Those were the fortresses, their market-quays, and those I plundered again. The land o f Hatte did not assemble, and

they did not march against me. What I would, that I did. I carried o ff their portable property. I tookfor myself their trade goods, their household goods and their personal possessions, and divided them up among my garrison troops, and the

officers my ‘brethren ’ and the officers I maintain. Together with them I myself took (a share) ”.81

Idrimi’s Statement relates to the much later events during the first half of the 15th Century82 and is ambiguous because

we do not know exactly which part of Cilicia-Kizzuwatna was designated by Hatte nor should the allusion be taken as

evidence that Cilicia was in the possession of the Hittites at the time. Idrimi mentioned Hatte probably in connection

with his attacks on various Coastal points, consisting of unimportant market-quays, around the Gulf of Iskenderun and, less probably, the Cilician Plain, sometime between 1500 and 1480 BC.83 Therefore I like to opine, that Idrimi may

have meant the region towards the Gulf of Iskenderun, which he assumed to be “Hatte” because of its strong political

alliance with the Hittites. It is impossible to locate any of the townships as far north as Kozan (Sis) as is done in the case

of Zaruna84 and assign to Idrimi extensive military operations that far north. We should not forget that Idrimi has been operating from his base in the Amik Plain, i.e. yonder the Amanos ränge. Terefore it is also possible that the territories

attacked by him might be in the region of Göksun, Mara§ and lahiye corridor, the main access gate of the Hittites to North Syria.

In addition to misinterpreting geographical circumstances, scholars have made rash peremptory statements on the basis

of subsequent and Empire Period extensive Hittite involvement in Cilicia. The cliche Statement »previously, in the days o f my grandfather Kizzuwatna became part o f Hatti. Later it secededfrom the Hatti country and shifted to Hurrians« in

80 Ünal 1980-1983,373f.

81 Lines 64ff. Smith 1947.19f. and Oller 1977.

82 If Pilliya o f hi> treaty parmer recorded on A1T 3 is really identical with the king o f Kizzuwatna, he is approximately Contemporary with ZidantaII.

83 Bing 1969, 24; Oiler '

84 Forlanini and Mare^r. - v :■* r e = a r Gurney 1992. 217.

486 Ahmet Ünal

the Sunassura Treaty85 seduced scholars to assume, as if Kizzuwatna were part of Hittite Empire during the reign of one of the predecessors of Tuthaliya II (earlier III).86 But in fact this Statement denotes nothing more than that Kizzuwatna

has disregarded betimes the pursuance of the terms in ever since existing interstate parity treaties with Hatti and tumed

its face absolutely to Mitanni. It is yet true that it was even involved in the battle of Megiddo against Egypt’s Tuthmosis

iii during his years 22/23 (ca. 1447 BC) which was promoted by Mitannian king.87 Mitannian rule over North Syrian

(and Kizzuwatnaean) principalities was loose, i.e. it did not prevent the local rulers to an agreeable degree to promote relations with foreign counties. The reason for this tumcoat action might be the ever increasing power and influence

of Mitanni which became to the Hittites a major tribulation. One of the most pressing reasons was certainly that under

Mitannian pressure the Kizzuwatnaean king had obviously been forced to renege on the clauses of the on-going parity

treaty. In fact the main objective of the conflict between the Hittites and Mitannians erupted not on account of the bone

of contention Kizzuwatna as a buffer zone on the periphery of the conflicting powers, but rather the Hittite political

claims and ambitions in North Syria since its very beginnings. Kizzuwatna’s tight political and military allegiance with Mitanni changed now the political scenery dramatically. The united Hurrian power started to undertake retaliatory

military actions deep into the Hittite heartland. King Tuthaliya was occupied very much with inner political problems, scandals and military actions in the remote regions of the country, including Assuwa somewhere in Western Anatolia.

Hurrians conquered entire Central Anatolia including the Capital Hattusa. Tuthaliya’s reaction to this dramatic demarche

was certainly his helplessness. He had to interrupt his expedition in West Anatolia (Assuwa) to never come back and

hurry up to Hatti. The above mentioned Concentric Invasion of the state by Kaska, Arzawa, Arawanna, Azzi, Isuwa and

Armatana,88 might have occurred also at the same time. Further evidence comes from a Ma^at letter, which shows that the Hurrian border reached almost as far as Ma§at.89 This trauma was certainly among the reasons why Tuthaliya moved

his residence temporarily to Ortaköy-Sapinuwa. Ortaköy is not the only city he built and fortified. There is an expansion

of Hittite incursion in direction to the regions east of Hattusa. The shift of urbanization is visible in many places such as

Ku§akh, allegedly Sarissa, and most importantly at newly discovered Kayahpinar, where Hurrian influences are visible as much as at Ma§at and Ortaköy.90

How and by what sort of means Tuthaliya succeeded to repel the Hurrians from Hatti we do not know. Nonetheless

the resulting dramatic changes in the structure of so far parity interstate treaties require a heavy military defeat of Kizzuwatna alongside its military allies in Mitanni. This changed the Hittite’s conduct towards Kizzuwatna dramatically.

For this reason the Hittites, of course, might have used military and political means to foil the political allegiance of

Kizzuwatna with Mitanni, and to start to renege one-sidedly the tenements of the parity state treaties. The more they

might have pushed themselves in this way, the more the Kizzuwatnaeans might have feit resentments against Hittite

ambitions. These dramatic political negotiations and military actions which are expectedly not documented in the texts,

led finally to the violations and altemation of parity treaties changed certainly Kizzuwatna’s independent status and finally culminated in its virtual annexation by Tuthaliya II. We may reconstruct the nature of these Hittite military

85 KBo 1.5, Goetze 1940, 36,41, 50.

86 Cf. Schwemer 2005, 97ff.

87 Klengel 1992, 91 and note 35.

88 KBo 6.28 obv. öff., see below.

89 HBM 74 lower edge 12ff. = Alp 1991, 262f„ 342; 1992,22; cf. Klinger 1995, 85f. and Ünal 1998, 12 with note 18.

90 Cf. for instance the Hurro-Hittite Kizzuwatna ritual Kp 07/78 and the Hurrian mythological text Kp 07/84, Rieken 2009,208ff.

Fraudulent Premises of Anatolian Istoriography and Early Hittite Involvement in and Direct Control of Cilicia-Kizzuwatna 487

actions first as skirmishes and subversions from across the border lines, followed and then by open attacks into the heart

of the country. One example of pioneer actions can be found in the fragmentary annals of Amuwanda I which show him

how he set up strongholds (wete-) and how he was involved in a battle on a bridge.91

Flexibility of Kizzuwatnaean Boundaries

The boundary disputes detailed in the bilateral state treaties, especially the Sunassura treaty, show clearly how flexible

and fluctuating the borders between Hatti and Kizzuwatna were. The transhumance economic system in Kizzuwatna,

which survived as late as the Late Ottoman period and even in our days, contributed to the fluidity of the buffer zones92

The territory of Kizzuwatna increased considerably so as to comprise parts of northem Cappadocia, indicating once

more that the geographical and political entity of Kizzuwatna varied from time to time. Of course, it is possible to detect

Mitannian influence behind these events. It was probably during this period that a Hurrian-Kizzuwatnaean ruling elite was acting in concert with Mitanni, and overthrew and supplanted the Hittite dynasty at Hattusa. Hurrian dominion

remained until Suppiluliuma’s revolutionary counter activity and conquest of north Syria and the Levant, core regions of Mitannian power.

Hittite Parity Treaties with Kizzuwatna as a Clear Evidence of its Independence

From all this, what is said above, I must conclude that there is no evidence to support the existence of a Hittite hegemony

in Cilicia until the early Empire period, c. 1400 BC. Prior to this date, almost every Hittite king drew up a peace treaty

with his Kizzuwatnaean counterpart. The peer to peer state treaties demonstrate clearly that an independent dynasty reigned in Kizzuwatna during the early history of the Hittite state.

List ofKizzuwatna-Hittite State Treaties:93

Hantili I probably with Pariyawatri, father of Isputahsu

(Ammuna or Huzziya Sunassura (I))

Telipinu Isputahsu

Tahurwaili Eheya

Zidanta II Pilliya/Palliya

Hantili II? Paddatisäu

Tuthaliya II Sunassura (II)

(Suppiluliuma I Telipinu the Priest)

91 KUB 23.21 obv.3ff

92 Ünal 2005a, 168vd.; idem 2005c.

93 Gumey 1973, 665; Bryce 1986-87, 88,95.

488 Ahmet Ünal

Hittite state treaties with their famous prologues are so far regarded as a unique Hittite invention. Since the treaties with

Kizzuwatna are remarkably the oldest examples of their genre in the Hittite state archives, I personally believe that the

type was specifically invented for the purpose of political dealing with Kizzuwatna and was deployed for the first time

in these explicit situations.94 Who knows, perhaps the impulse came from the Kizzuwatnaean side; evidence may come

to light whenever the Kizzuwatnaean local archives are discovered. Certainly, no attempt was made by the Hittites to

transgress the terms of the treaties and to overrun Kizzuwatna under the guise of suzerainty. We should not forget that

Mitanni and Egypt were guarantors of Kizzuwatnaean independence, thus helping to keep the balance. Moreover, in

that period, the Hittite state palpably entertained no pretensions to being a great power until the reign of Suppiluliuma

I; up to that point, all of its expansionist activity and military campaigning in Anatolia and north Syria had temporary

objectives and its domination of territory was transitory. Under the father of Suppiluliuma I, Tuthaliya II, who, as

mentioned, was of Hurrian-Kizzuwatnaean origin, the first signs appeared of an increasing ambition to pry into the

internal affairs of Kizzuwatna and, if possible, to subjugate it. These lavish intentions are discemable in the latter’s treaty

with Sunassura.95 As we do not hear of any military struggle or defeat of Kizzuwatna, which would have brought about

the treaty’s unequal, quasi Subordination treaty paragraphs to the detriment of Sunassura, such as may have prompted

the Hittite king to rescind the long tradition of parity treaties between the two countries, and taking into account the fact

that both kings were of Hurrian origin, there could have been a voluntary merger. On the other hand, we do not know

what exactly was going on in Mitanni, Sunnassura’s main supporter to the east. Nonetheless a remark in the Sunassura

treaty (A I 38-39) might conceal a key position: »The Hurrians calledSunassura a slave, andI my Majesty (changed it

and) made him a legitimate king«. From this it is visible that the military pressure on Sunassura on the part of Tuthaliya

was mostly due to Mitannian avarice to subdue Kizzuwatna entirely. A pact may have been peacefully concluded as well

after Suppiluliuma’s defeat of Mitanni. But all these are pure speculations.

Suppiluliuma’s i North Syrian Campaigns and Final Annexation of Kizzuwatna

Nonetheless the Hittites were still inept. The final coup came about 1370 B. C, during the reign of Suppiluliuma I,

when he severed Kizzuwatna’s political and military ties with Mitanni and declared it to be a Hittite province. His son

Telipinu has been bestowed on the office of a priest king, in accordance with the country’s long-standing religious

traditions, and the Hittite hold of the country was still tenuous. From that time on, the Hittites and the Egyptians alone

shared domination over the region. This era signaled a transition in Hittite policy from the prosecution of wars aimed

at plunder and random territorial expansions, to permanent occupation, reorganization and annexation of lands in North

Syria, the Levant and, of course, Kizzuwatna. This structural change marked a key tuming point in Anatolian history

and was crucial to the consolidation of the Hittite state known as the “New Kingdom”. Suppiluliuma did not live long

enough to undertake the same actions in other regions of Anatolian, particularly with regard to Arzawa in the west and

Kaska in the north. Those were tasks accomplished in a similar fashion by his successors i.e. his son Mursili II and his

grandchild Hattusili III.

94 Cf. Altman 2010,1 ff., esp. 24ff.

95 For the entire treaty see Korosec 1993; for additional fragments del Monte 1985,263fF.; for its dating to the reign of Tuthaliya III see Beal 1986, 424ff.; Houwink ten Cate 1998, 34ff. and the bibliography apud Freu, Mazoyer 2007b, 88 note 221.


Thus, direct political rule in Kizzuwatna began with the reign of Suppiluliuma I, c. 1380 BC, after he had defeated the Mitannian king, Tusratta, and repulsed Mitannian influence in north Syria and Kizzuwatna. This new political

framework was of vital importance for the survival of Kizzuwatna, since, with its subjugation, it had entirely lost its

political, military and cultural ties with and support from the Hurrians in Syria. It was obliged now to tum its face

remorsefully to the rising power of the new lords in the Anatolian highlands. The Hittites were in no way vengeful, but generous in their triumph and, perhaps to further enhance their political and military presence, they retained the local

custom of priest kings.96

It is only from this time that historians and archaeologists are justified in speaking of the Hittites in Kizzuwatna and to

look for “Hittite” material findings there. From this era onwards, and especially during the 13th Century BC, Kizzuwatna

was of immense significance to Hatti by virtue of its religious rites, and medical and magical rituals. We do not know

whether the Hittites exported mass artifacts, such as pottery and seals, and set up cities according to Hittite urban and architectural models or restored the existing ones in Kizzuwatna. With regard to all earlier so-called “Hittite” discoveries

and architectural remains, they should be understood as displaying accidental similarities, or viewed as the product

of commercial exchange and cultural interaction. Such forms of influence have been seen in the box style “Hittite

fortification ” walls of John Garstang at Yümüktepe.97 These have been accepted ever since without challenge,98 although no upper constructions on the walls are preserved and the stone foundations do not give any clue as to their relationship

to central Anatolian/Hittite architecture." As I said fourteen years ago, in Mersin the Turco-Italian excavations were

unfortunately unable to show the status of Yümüktepe during the Hittite period.100 The existence of box style walls101 and

other alleged Hittite material alongside a seal impression has also been reported recently from Soli-Pompeiopolis.102

Archaeological and Philological Vestiges of the Hittite Rule in Kizzuwatna

As a consequence of the conjectural reconstruction of Hittite direct rule over Kizzuwatna outlined above, scholars have

looked for material traces and other substantive evidence of a Hittite presence in Cilicia during the Old Kingdom. In this

regard too, proof remains elusive. There are no archaeological traces except a few seals of doubtful chronology. Pottery

is ambiguous, and I already treated the ambiguity of the so-called “Hittite fortification” at Yümüktepe. The famous land grant from Tarsus, written in Akkadian and stamped with an Old Hittite seal is usually cited.1031 have shown elsewhere104

the toponyms mentioned in this text that the fields involved lay not in the territory of Kizzuwatna itself, but further

north, in the vicinity of Saktunuwa/Sakiddunuwa Mountain. This circumstance brings us into the close vicinity of Ma?at

and Ortaköy in northem Cappadocia, which indicates that the tablet has been carried from Northern Anatolia to Tarsus.

96 Details in Ünal 2008, 321ff.

97 Garstang 1953, 236-241 and fig. 153.

98 Cf. Jean 2006, 311-332.

99 De Vincenzi 2007, 217-226.

100 For an interim report see Sevin and Köroglu 2004, 73-83.

101 Yagci 2007a, 46f.

102 Yagci 2007b, 797-814.

103 Gelb 1956,246,253f.

104 Ünal 2002a, 123ff. 24; 2006,24.

490 Ahmet Ünal

Indeed, the tablet was not found in situ, but, as the excavators admit, “in a secondary context” in a trench.105 While the

names of the few peasants allotted portions of land seem at first glance to be Hurrian, this does not indicate a southerly

origin of the tablet, because the region of Ma$at and Ortaköy had been Hurrianized as well from at least the Middle

Hittite period onwards. As I indicated above Hurro-Kizzuwatnaean expansion reached as far north as the Majat-Ortaköy

lines during this period. It should also be bome in mind that the Middle Hittite Dynasty was itself Hurrian in origin,

and therefore, if there is any possibility for dating it later, the land grant document can have been issued for the benefit

of some Kizzuwatnaean lords during Kizzuwatna’s temporary occupation of that region. How can one, otherwise, deny

farmers of Hurrian origin from Kizzuwatna the possession of fields as far north as Northern Cappadocia, while Hethito-

Luwian farmers were generously allotted many acres of fields in Cilicia and all over Anatolia? The so-called anonymous

Labama seals were once dated to the reign of Hattusili I, but scholarly opinion now tends to place them in the time of

Mursili I, if not later.

“New Excavations” at Sirkeli and Elsewhere, and Vivid Expectations on the Position of Lawazantiya

Finally, I would like to make a few observations regarding archaeological activities and their insinuation in the

territory of Cilicia in recent years, and clear up in outline a few moot points in the historical geography of the region.

It is justifiable that excavators are agog with curiosities in regard to the ancient name of their digging place, because

principally every new excavation starts with new hopes and under the premises of clarifying the jungle-like historical

geography of the region, but reality remains unchanged. Injustifiable is, when the excavators, in many cases, even

before their arrival at the site, bear in mind predetermined opinions as far as the settlement history, ancient topography

and name of the place are concemed. Yet archaeological research doesn’t handle with guesses; its prime goal ought to

aspire to the truth. For the realization of such a desire there are many preconditions. This and other subjective issues

compell to take all sort of proposals with due reservation. First of all Cilician plains are still in dire want of a new

minute and extensive archaeological survey and it has not yet been scrutinized since Seton-Williams.106 Recent efforts

to survey the area proved to be fruitless. We must also consider that too many mounds have been levelled and destroyed

for agricultural and industrial purposes since then.107 Secondly, there comes solid archaeological material, naturally and

desirably at first place written documents and other findings which deliver exact clues for the identy of excavated site.

Both are lacking absolutely in the area!

Such a Situation appeared recently when a team started “new excavations” at Sirkeli and broadcasted “sensational”

results on the internet.108 Disregarding the archaeological sequence of the excavations carried out at the same location by

Munich University 1992 onward, they declared that Sirkeli should be identified with Lawazantiya, which was alongside

Kummanni one of the most important nad “prestigious” venues of the country.

105 Cf. most recently Slane 2006, 5.

106 Seton-Williams 1954, 121 -174.

107 Demir et al. 2006,183-197.

108 The interim report o f the excavators arrived me after I have written this, i.e. Ahrens, Kozal, Kümmel, Laube, Noväk 2008, 67-107; other proposals are basicly known from press statements and local lectures given in the circles o f layman.


What makes Lawazantiya more misterious, lavishly desirable and worth of being located at one’s excavation spot is that that it has been the home town of the 13* Century Hurro-Hittite queen Puduhepa. This claim was made without

any supporting arguments and seems to have been based on a Christian era inscription found in the environment of

Kizilbel in the narrow pass in Nurdagi ränge, taking the shorter way from Misis directly eastwards to the “Aleppo Road”

without touching Sirkeli,109 five kilometres east of Misis/Yakapmar, which allegedly mentions a place called Loandos.110

First of all, who would dare to equate this dubious Loandos in the face of the chronological obstacles with Lahusanda/

Lawazantiya of the New Assyrian and Hittite periods?

Lacking any information as to Lawazantiya’s exact location all attempts to find its position are futile. The only thing we

can say about its location is that, as it was such an important city throughout the entire Middle Bronze Age, it must have

lain as far east as beyond the Amanus chain. This is further supported by the fact that during the Old Assyrian Colony

Period Lawazantiya was on the trade route between Kanes and Asur, which, as we know today, never led through the

Cilician Plain.111 It is because of the Old Assyrian texts from Kültepe which show clearly Lawazantiya on the trade route between Kanes and Asur, and the Hittite texts which attest roughly its location within the borders of Kizzuwatna,

Forlanini, having difficulties to reconcile these two traditions, assumes the existence of two cities of the same name, the

northerly one between Commana Cappadociae (§ar) and Darende, the other one in the south.112 The broken name of a city in a text from Ma§at, attesting Ishupitta, Mt. Sakaddunuwa, Sanahuitta,Tupazziya and Isuwa, has recently been restored

as [Lahjhuwazantiya, and thus seems to bring it closer to the Hittite heart land, and thus supporting Forlanini’s theory,

but Lawazantiya, to my knowledge, does not appear in this orthography, and thus the reading must be rejected.113

If indeed the Luhusanda mentioned in the military campaign of Salmanassar iii from the New Assyrian era is really

identical with Lawazantiya, it could be sought in Compastris, ie, the westem fringes of the Amanus Mountains.

Otherwise, if again it is identical with Old Assyrian Luhusantiya, it must lie on the main trade route of the Old Assyrian merchants from Assur to Kanes/Kültepe, east of the Amanus, somewhere in the plain of islähiye. It is from this

ambiguity of reliable topographic indications that Lawazantiya’s assumed geographical position extends as far as the

plain of Elbistan at Karahöyük.114

In principle, archaeological identifications and localizations must be determined on the basis of strong philological

and in situ archaeological evidence. Otherwise we “seek a calf beneath the ox” as the Turks are wont to say. From this

point of view the following observation is of vital importance: Whatever the reasons might have been, Sirkeli shares the fate of many central Anatolian Middle Bronze Age mounds, by having a settlement gap (hiatus) following the

period of the Old Assyrian trade colony period until Iron Age. With this point in mind, Sirkeli is certainly the wrong

choice for Lawazantiya, because it lacks any second millennium BC settlement underpinnings, as I already stated in 1997, in the final excavation report on the Munich University diggings there: “In Kilikien in den archäologisch

erfaßten zeitgenössischen Siedlungen fehlen jegliche Spuren der koloniezeitlichen Epoche”.115 If one is in quest of

------------------------------------------ i ! !109 Ünal 1997,147.

110 Citing a study o f Casabonne, Jean 2005,463.

111 Ünal 1997, passim, esp. 146; see also Ünal and Girginer 2007, 37ff., discussed already above.

112 Forlanini 2004, 297-309.

113 Miller 2009, 4-6.

114 Özgüf and Özgü? 1947 passim; Forlanini 1979,165ff.

115 Ünal 1997, 145.

492 Ahmet Ünal

‘hethiterzeitliche’, not ‘Hittite’(!) fmdings in the nearby region, they might be found at Yilan Kilise, yonder the Ceyhan

river, just across the Muwatalli relief.116 Nevertheless the “new” excavators published in 2007 the following passage on the internet, which defies understanding:

“New excavations conducted by the Eberhard Karls University o f Tübingen (Germany) and the Onsekiz Mart University

o f Qanakkale (Turkey) at the site o f Sirkeli Höyük near Adana (southern Turkey) have revealed the remains o f a stone-

made bastion o f the fortification dating to the Hittite Imperial Period (ca. 1300 BC)

In fact, what they call a “Hittite period bastion”, has nothing to do with the Hittites or the Muwatalli II relief just

undemeath it. It was indeed a passionate longing of the Munich excavators, and, following them, the members of brief

Austrian excavations that the edifice be Contemporary with the relief, if not Muwatalli ii’s “sepulcher”, at least a “cultic

building” (E NMhekurj in connection with this very king! However, the building dates from the Iron Age! Nonetheless,

the report continues by declaring that, “Sirkeli Höyük, [is] one o f the largest Bronze and Iron Age settlement mounds in Cilicia, ” which is also incorrect and to be rejected. The »new« excavations have unearthed a similar construction without

any significant small fmdings in north-northwest of the plateau (Grabungstelle A) which the excavators date straight- ahead in the MBA,117 and interpret this construction as part of a fortification wall."81 am also not quite convinced of the

Late Bronze Age date of the pottery presented.119 The small objects mentioned further120 are mostly from the Iron Age, not from Late Bronze Age.

Indeed, there have been efforts to identify Sirkeli with Lawazantiya, but they antedate the Munich University diggings,

which shed new light on the habitation levels and periods of the site; thus Kohlmeyer, referring to documents dealing

with the military expeditions of Salmanassar III (839, 837,834) that mention Luhusanda, wanted to locate Lawazantiya

here.121 Because of weak argumentation I rejected this view, as well as its identification with Tanakun, Zunahara or

Arusna made by several colleagues fourteen years ago.1221 repeat once again what I have always said, namely that the only Hittite material manifestation of social memory at Sirkeli is the Muwatalli ii relief, on the meaning of which I noted:

„Kann man das Relief als Siegesdenkmal betrachten? Gehörte diese Gegend zu Muwatallis Teilstaat um Tarhundassa,

zu einer Zeit, da Kizzuwatna als selbständiges politisches Gebilde nicht mehr existierte? Starb Muwatalli hier au f dem

Rückweg von Qades, und hat hier einer seiner Söhne, Urhitesub oder Kurunta, ein Memorial errichtet? Bezeichnete das Relief einen Kultort, wie Bossert und Lloyd behaupteten, eine Kultstätte, verbunden mit „sacred springs”, oder

eine 'Repräsentation ‘ des Herrschers, gemischt mit religiöser Bindung, oder war es eine Grenzmarkierung, wie Bittel

ganz früher annahm? Eins steht jedoch fest, daß beide Reliefs von Sirkeli und Hamidiye als Grenzmarkierungen nicht in Frage kommen, da sie, von Hatti aus gesehen, am anderen Ufer des Ceyhan liegen. “.I23 Confessedly I am alone in

116 Ünal 1997, 149.

117 Ahrens et al. 2008, 75ff.

118 Ahrens et al. 2008, 83.

119 Ahrens et al. 2008, 84, 88ff.

120 Ahrens et al. 2008, 84ff.

121 Kohlmeyer 1983, 101.

122 Ünal 1997, 149.

123 Ünal 1997, 148.


denying genuine and typical “Hittite” remains at Sirkeli,124 diverging from the excavators who expectedly would tend to find Hittite small findings and architectural remains.125

Other expectations and Claims in regard of Lawazantiya’s location arise from Tatarli, thirty-five km northeast of Ceyhan.

During the four season’s diggings in some restricted areas the Middle Bronze Age levels have been reached, but

unfortunately without any remarkably and significant finding. Small findings are rare and the architecture is carelessly made of raw stones, compared with Tilmen Höyük’s meticulous masonry work conveying an absolutely provincial taste;

Lawazantiya would admittedly be hiding better findings than these trifles. A stamp seal with Anatolian hieroglyphic

inscriptions naming an hitherto unknown person, possibly Tusutawa,126 and various cylinder seals are the only small

findings worth of mention, which unfortunately are impertinent to the location of the site. One advantagious trait of Tatarli is its richness of water resources which dush undemeath a volcanic Sediment. These springs might temp one, as

happened to me at the incipit, to combine them with the following text of a queen, who without doubt can be identified

with Puduhepa:

“[While the queen came from] the city ofNerik [to Hattusa], the queen has been at Hattusa. The queen came down

from Hattusa and celebrated rituals in the city ofZithara. And the queen (made) a “Ritual ofTears ” to the (dark) earth.

(Thereby) she saw this dream: Tn the dream my father was really as he himselfwas a living person. There he was sucking

up (scooping up?) all the way an ancient water spring(?) (sarunti- in its meaning as ‘spring’is not sue) o f my father. And

he sucked it while he was drawing up continuously water. (Meanwhile) he speaks relentlessly: ‘Why didlfrght against it (spring)? Why didIfight against it? Isucked it. And lifted the wolf which has been inside it. [Whether] this wolfis alive

or [it is not alive? And whether] the sandurisa (an animal?) [is alive] or it is not alive. To him [ ................] It was lifted’.

My father [....] speaks continuously: ‘[Why) did I draw up that sandurisa? ’ 127

There are, however, two crucial points in this text passage which need to be clarified. First we do not know whether in Puduhepa’s dream her father was in Lawazantiya or in another place. The modem-day springs at Tatarli should not

deceit us since tectonic movements can anytime destroy the existing ones or create new sources, and consequently similar water rushes can have existed in many other places.

124 Ünal 1997,143ff.

125 Hrouda 1997,91 ff.

126 Ünal and Girginer 2010.

127 KUB 31.77 obv. 1 ff.

494 Ahmet Ünal

Bibliography

Ahrens, A., E. Kozal, C. Kümmel, I. Laube and M. Noväk. 2008. “Sirkeli Höyük - Kulturkontakte in Kilikien. Vorbericht über die

Kampganen 2007 und 2007 der Deutsch-Türkischen Mission.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 58: 67-107.

Akkan, E. 1962. “Kizilirmak’m A§agi Kesimlerinde Kayikla Nakliyat.’̂ nAara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fakültesi Dergisi

20: 263-270.

Alp, S. 1991. Hethitische Briefe aus Ma$at (HBM). Ankara

1992. “Hitit Caginda Anadolu Cografyasi; Bazi Atilimlar ve Yeni Umutlar.” I. Uluslararasi Hititoloji Kongresi Bildirileri (19-22 Temmuz 1990): 21-24.

Altman, A. 2010. “How Many Treaty Traditions Existed in Ancient Near East.” Y. Cohen, A. Gilan and J. L. Miller (eds.), Fax

Hethitica. Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honor o f Itamar Singer (StBoT 51): 17-29. Wiesbaden.

Anonym 1918, 1919: A Handbook o f Asia Minor III/3: The South Coast Lands Between the Dalaman Chai and the Lamas Su.

London.

Anonym \9AI. NavalIntelligence Division Geographie Handbook Series. London

Arikan, Y. 2007. “The Mala River and its Importance According to Hittite Documents.” A. Archi and R. Francia (eds.), VI Congresso

Internazionale di Ittitologia. Studi Micenei edEgeo-Anatoliei 49: 39-48.

Astour, M. C. 1998. “Hassu and Hassuwan. A Contribution to North Syrian History and Geography.” Ugarit Forschungen 29: 1-66.

Bagg, A. M. 2007. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit Teil 1: Die Levante, Repertoire Geographique des Textes

Cuneiformes 7/1.Wiebaden.

Banks, 1 .1996. “Archaeology, Nationalism and Ethnicity.” N. Ascherson, J.A. Atkinson, I. Banks and J. O’Sullivan (eds.), Nationalism

and Archaeology: Scottish Archaeological Forum: 1-11. Glasgoe.

Beal, R. H. 1986. “The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Sunanssura Treaty.” Orientalia 55: 424-445.

Bing, J. D. 1969. “A History of Cilicia During the Assyrian Period.” Ph. D. Dissertation, Indiana University, University Micfrofilms,

Michigan Ann Arbor.

Bryce, T. R. 1986-87. ”The Boundaries of Hatti and Hittite Border Policy.” Tel Aviv 13/14: 85-102.

2003. Letters o f the Great Kings o f the Ancient Near East. The Royal Correspondence o f the Late Bronze Age. London.

2005. The Kingdom o f the Hittites. Oxford.

2010. “The Hittite Deal with the Hiyawa-Men.” Y. Cohen, A. Gilan and J. L. Miller (eds.), Fax Hethitica. Studies on the

Hittites and their Neighbours in Honor o f Itamar Singer (StBoT 51): 47-53. Wiesbaden.

Burkert, W. 2008. “Zwölf Sprachen, vier Schriften und keine Identität.” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: January (17 January 2008):

33.

Calvet, Y. and M. Yon. 2001. “Le ‘Bätiment au Vase de Pierre’ du ‘Qtartier Residentiel’ d’Ougatrit (fouille 19669” M. Yon and D.

Amaud (eds.), Etudes Ougaritiques: I. Travaux 1985-1995, Ras Shamra-Ougarit 14: 65-82. Paris.

Childe, G. 1942,1964: What Happened in History. PenguinBooks

Cline, E. H. 2008. “Troy as a “Contested Periphery”: Archaeological Perspectives on Cross-Culturaland Cross-Disciplinary Interactions

Conceming Bronze Age Anatolia.” B. J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova, and I. C. Rutherford (eds.), Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites,

Greeks and Their Neighbours: Proceedings o f an International Conference on Cross-Cultural Interaction: 11-19. Oxford.


Cornelius, C. 1973. Geschichte der Hethiter. Darmstadt.

Demir, F., 0 . Din? and K.S. Girginer. 2006. “Ceyhan Ovasi’nda Hava Fotograflan Kullamlarak Arkeolojik Alan Tesbiti.” Cukurova

Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi - Journal o f Cukurova University Institute o f Social Sciences vol. 15:

183-197.

Dewdney, J. C. 1971. Turkey. An Introductory Geography. New York-Washington.

Efe, T. 2007. “The Theories of the ‘Great Caravan Route’ between Cilicia and Troy: The Early Bronze Age III Period in Inland

Western Anatolia.” Anatolian Studies 57:47-64

Fehling, D. 1989. Herodotus and his ‘Sources Citation, Invention and Narrative Art. Leeds.

Forlanini, M. 1979. “Appunti di Geografia Etea.” O Carruba (ed), Studia Medditerranea, Festschrift Meriggi I. Pavia: 165-184.

2004. “Luhuzatija, Lawazantija e la localizzazione delle cittä Kizzuwatna.” Sarnikzel Gs Forrer: 297-309.

Forlanini, M. and M. Marazzi. 1986. “Anatolia: L’impero Hittita.” Atlante Storico del Vicino Oriente Antico 4.3: 180-195.

Freu, J. and M. Mazoyer. 2007a. Des Origines a lafin de L ‘ancien Royaume Hittite. Les Hittites et leur histoire. Paris.

2007b. Les Debüts du Nouvel Empire Hittite. Les Hittites et leur Histoire. Paris.

Garrood, W. 2008. “The Byzantine Conquest of Cilicia and the Hamdanids of Aleppo, 959-965.” Anatolian Studies 58: 127-140.

Garstang, J. 1953. Prehistoric Mersin. Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford.

Gates, M.-H. 2001. “Potmarks at Kinet Höyük and the Hittite Ceramic Industry.” E. Jean Jean, A.M. Dincol, and S. Durugonul (eds.),

La Cilicie: Espaces et Pouvoirs Locaux, Varia Anatolica XIII: 137-157.

2006. “Dating the Hittite Levels at Kinet Höyük: A Revised Chronology.” Byzas 4: 293-309.

Gelb, I. 1956. “Seals.” H. Goldman, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, vol. II: From the Neolithic Through the Bronze Age. Princeton, New Jersey.

Genz, H. 2006. “Hethitische Präsenz im Spätbronzezeitlichen Syrien: die Archäologische Evidenz.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 37:

499-509.

Godfrey, J.H. 1942-43. Turkey Naval Intelligence Division, Geographical Handbooks Series, BR 507-507A1-11. London.

Goetze, A. 1940. Kizzuwatna and the Problem o f Hittite Geography. Yale.

Graeves, A. M. 2007. “Trans-Anatolia: Examining Turkey as a Bridge Between East and West.” Anatolian Studies 57: 1-15.

Gumey, O. R. 1973. “Anatolia 1750-1600.” 1. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond and E. Solleberger (eds.), The Cambridge

Ancient History Vol.2. Part I: History o f the Middle East and theAegean Region c. 1800-1380 B.C: 228-255. Cambridge.

1992. “Hittite Geography: Thirty Years on.”H. Otten, E. Akurgal, H. Ertem and A. Süel (eds.), Hittite and Other Anatolian

and Near Eastem Studies in Honour o f Sedat Alp: 213-221. Ankara.

Haas, V. 2006. Die Hethitiche Literatur. Berlin

Hawkins, D. H. 1982. “The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia.” J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond and E.

Solberger (eds), Cambridge Ancient History III/l: 372-441. Cambridge.

Hertel, D. and F. Kolb. 2003. “Troy in Clearer Perspective.” Anatolian Studies 53: 71-88.

Hopwood, K. R. 1990. “The Indigenous Populations of Roman Rough Cilicia under Roman Rule.” Türk Tarih Kongresi 10: 337-

345

Hout, T. J. van den 1997. “The Proclamation of Telepinu.” W. H. Hallo (ed.), The Context ofScripture 1: 194-198. Brill.

Houwink ten Cate, P. H. J. 1998. “An Alternative Date for the Sunassura Treaty (KBo 1.5).” Altorientalische Forschungen 25:

34-53.

Hrouda, B. 1997. “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungsergebnisse auf dem Sirkeli Höyük/Südtürkei von 1992-1996.” Istanbuler

Mitteilungen 47: 91-150.

Hütteroth, W. D. and V. Höhfeld. 2002. Türkei. Geographie, Geschichte, Wirtschaft, Politik. Darmstadt.

Jasink, A. and M. M. Marino. 2007. “The West-Anatolian Origins of the Que Kingdom Dynasty.” A. Archi and R. Francia (eds.), VI

Congresso Intemazionale di Ittitologia, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 49:407-426. Roma.

Jean, E. 2005. “Archeobotanique et Geographie Historique: L’Olivier en Kizzuwatn.” A. Süel (ed.), Vth International Congress o f

Hittitology: 453-470. Ankara.

2006. “The Hittites at Mersin-Yumuktepe: Old Problems and New Directions.” M. Schoop and J. Seeher (eds.), Structuring

and Dating in Hittite Archaeology, BYZAS 4: 311-332.

Jones, S. 1977. Archaeology and Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. London.

KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi.

Klengel, H. 1992. Syria 3000 to 300 B. C. A Handbook o f Political Hisory. Berlin.

1999. Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches. Leiden Boston.

Klinger, J. 1995. “Das Corpus der Ma§at-Briefe und seine Beziehungen zu den Texten aus Hattusa.” Zeitschrift fü r Assyriology und

und verwandte Gebiete 85: 74-108.

Kohlmeyer, K. 1983. Felsbilder der Hethitischen Großreichszeit Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 15. Berlin.

Korosec, V. 1983. Der Vertrag zwischen Suppiluliuma I. und Sunassura von Kizzuwatna (KBo 1,5) Razprave Dissertationes XIV.

Ljubljana.

KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi.

Lackenbacher, S. and F. Malbroan-Labat. 2005. “Ugarit et les Hittites dans les Archivesde la ‘Maison d’Urtenu’.” Studi Micenei ed

Egeo-Anatolici 47: 227-240.

Langlois, V. 1861. Voyage dans la Cilicie et dans les Montagnes du Taurus Execute Pendant les Annees 1852-1853. Paris.

Liverani, M. 2005. “Imperialism.” S. Pollock and R. Bembeck (eds.), Archaeology o f the MiddleEast: Critical Perspectives: 223-243.

Oxford.

Mallory, J.P. 1989. In Search o f the lndo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London,

de Martino, S. 2003. “Annali e res gestae Antico Ittiti.” Studia Mediterranea 12: 21-79.

Mellaart, J. 1986. “Hatti, Arzawa and Ahhiyawa; a Review of the Present Stalemate in Historical and Geographical Studies.” Philia

Epe eis Georgion E. Mylonan I: 74-85. Athens.

Miller, J. L. 2001. “Anum-Hirbi and His Kingdom.” Altorientalische Forschungen 28: 65-101.

2004. Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation o f the Kizzuwatna Rituals, Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 46.

Wiesbaden.

496 Ahmet Ünal


2008. “Sallapa.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 11: 577.

2009. “Sanahuitta.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12:4-6.

del Monte, G. F. 1985. “Nuovi Frammenti di Trattati Hittiti.” Oriens Antiquus. Rivista del Centroper l ’Antichitä e la Storia dell'Arte

del Vicino Oriente 24: 263-269.

1992. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte, Supplement Repertoire Geographique des Textes Cuneiformes

6/2. Wiesbaden.

del Monte, G. F. and J. Tischler. 1978. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Hethitischen Texte Repertoire Geographique des Textes

Cuneiformes 6. Wiesbaden.

Newhard, J. M. L., N. Levine and A. Rutherford. 2008. “Least-Cost Pathway Analysis and Inter-Regional Interaction in the Göksu

Valley, Turkey.” Anatolian Studies 58: 87-102.

Oller, G. H. 1977. The Autobiography o f Idrimi: A New Text Edition with Philological and Historical Commentary. Ph. D.

Dissertation, Pennsylvania.

1989. “The Inscription of Idrimi: APseude Autobiography.” H. Behrens, D. Loding and M. T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E}-DUB-

BA-A, Studies in Honor ofÄke W. Sjöberg: 411-417. Philadelphia.

Olmstead, A.T. 1922. “Near-East Problems in the Second Pre-Christian Millennium.” Journal o f Egyptian Archaeology 8: 223-234.

Osten, H. H. von der. 1929. Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor (1927-28). OIC 6.

Özbayoglu, E. 1998. “Cicero’nun, Panter Avina lli§kin Birka? Cilicia Mektubu.” Olba I: 131-138.

Özgü?, T. and N. Özgü?. 1947. Türk Tarih Kurumu Tarafmdan Yapilan Karahöyük Hafriyati Raporu. Ankara.

Pollock, S. 2005. “Archaeology goes to War at the Newsstand.” S. Pollock and R. Bembeck (eds.), Archaeology o f the Middle East:

Critical Perspectives: 78-96. Maiden.

Pollock. S. and R. Bembeck. eds. 2005. Archaeology o f the Middle East: Critical Perspectives. Maiden.

Postgate, J. N. 2007. “The Ceramics of Centralisation and Dissolution: A Case Study from Rough Cilicia.” Anatolian Studies 57:

141-150.

Postgate, J. N. and D. C. Thomas, eds. 2007. Excavations atKilise Tepe, 1994-1998. Cambridge.

Redan, P. 1921. La Cilicie et le probleme Ottoman. Paris.

Rieken, E. 2009. “Tontalfunde in Kayalipinar 2006-2009.” A. Müller-Karpe-V. Müller-Karpe, E. Rieken, T. Mühlenbruch,

C. Salzmann, M. Zeiler and J. Wangen,“Untersuchungen in Kayalipinar und Umgebung 2006-2009.” Mitteilungen der

Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 141: 173-238.

Roaf, M. 2005. “Ethnicity and Near Eastem Archaeology: the limits of inference.” W. H. van Soldt (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient

Mesopotamia. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 48: 306-315. Leiden.

Rubio, G. 2006. “From Sumer to Babylonia: Topics in the History of Southern Mesopotamia.”M. W. Chavalas (ed.), Current Issues

in the History o f the Ancient Near East. Publications o f the Association ofAncient Historians: 5-51. Claremont-Califomia.

Schaffer, F. X. 1903. Cilicia, Petermanns Mitteilungen, Ergänzungsband 30. Gotha.

Schachermeyr, F. 1986. “Der kleinasiatische Küstenraum zwischen Mykene und dem Hethiterreich.” Philia Epe eis Georgion E.

Mylonan: 99-107.

498 Ahmet Ünal

Schoop, U. 2008. “Wo steht die Archäologie in der Erforschung der Hethitischen Kultur? Schritte zu einem Paradigmenwechsel.”

G. Wilhelm (ed.), Bogazköy-Hattusa Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients, Mitteilungen der Deutschen

Orientgesellschaft 6: 35-60. Wiesbaden.

Schwemer, D. 2005. “Der Vertrag zwischen Tuthalija von Hatti und Sunassura von Kizzuwatna.” B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm (eds.),

Staatsverträge, Herrscherinschriften und andere Dokumente zurpolitischen Geschichte (TUATNF 2): 97-106. Gütersloh.

Seeher, J. 2009. “Der Landschaft sein Siegel aufdrücken-hethitische Felsbider und Hieroglypheninschriften als Ausdruck des

Herrscherlichen Macht- und Territorialanspruchs.” Altorientalische Forschungen 36: 119-139.

Seton-Williams, M. W. 1954. “Cilician Survey.” Anatolian Studies 4: 121-174.

Sevin, V. and K. Köroglu. 2004.“Late Bronze Age at Yümüktepe: New Evidence from Step-Trench South.” I. Caneva and V. Sevin

(eds.), Mersin-Yumuktepe. A Reappraisal: 73-83. Lecce.

Singer, I. 2006. “Ships Bound for Lukka: A New Interpretation of the Companion Letters RS 94.2530 and RS 94.2523.”

Altorientalische Forschungen 33: 242-262.

Slane, D. 2006. “Middle and Late Bronze Age Architecture and Pottery in Gözlü Kule, Tarsus: A New Analysis.” Qukurova

Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi - Journal o f Qukurova University Institute o f Social Sciences vol. 15: 1-14.

Smith, S. 1947. The Statue ofldri-mi. London.

Steadman, R. S. 1994. “Isolation vs. Interaction: Prehistoric Cilicia and its Role in the Near Eastem World System.” Ph. D.

Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Strabon Geographika.

Strauss, R. 2006. Reinigungsrituale aus Kizzuwatna Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung Hethitischer Ritualtradition und Kulturgeschichte.

Berlin- New York.

Symington, D. 2001. "Hittites at Kilise Tepe.” E. Jean, A.M. Dincol and S. Durugonul (eds.), La Cilicie: Espaces et Pouvoirs Locaux,

Varia Anatolica XIII: 167-184.

Tekoglu, R. and A. Lemaire. 2000. “La bilingue royale Louvito-Phenicienne de Cineköy, avec le concours de M M.” i. ipek and A.

K. Tosun (eds.), Academie des Inscriptions et Beiles Lettres: 961-1007.

Ünal, A. 1980-1983. “Kurustama.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6: 373-374.

1983. “Untersuchungen zur Terminologie der hethitischen Kriegsfuhrung I: “Verbrennen, instecken” als Kriegstechnik.”

Orientalia 52: 164-180.

1984. “Studien über das hethitische Kriegswesen II: Verba Delendi Hamink-/harganu- Vernichten, Zugrunde Richten.” Studi

Mecenei edEgeo-Anatolici 24, in Memoria di Piero Meriggi: 71-85. Rome.

1989. “On the Writing of Hittite History.” Journal o f American Oriental Society 109/2: 283-287.

1991. “Two People on Both Sides of the Aegean Sea: Did the Achaeans and the Hittites Know Each Other?” H. I. H. Prince

Takahito Mikasa (ed.), Essays on Ancient Anatolian and Syrian Studies in the 2nd and Ist Millennium B. C. Bulletin o f the

Middle Eastem Culture Center in Japan 4: 16-44.

1997. “Zur historischen Geographie von Kizzuwatna und Lage von Sirkeli- eine Bilanz.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47:

143-150.


1998. Hittite and Hurrian Cuneiform Tabletsfrom Ortaköy (Qorum), Central Turkey. With twoExcursuses on the “Man o f the

Storm God" and a fu ll edition ofKBo 23.27. Istanbul.

1999. The Hittites and Anatolian Civilizations. Istanbul.

2002a. Hititler Devrinde Anadolu, Kitap 2. Istanbul.

2002b. “Eski Anadolu Uygarhklan, Arkeoloji ve Tarih Üzerine I. $arkiyat£ilik ve Yöntemleri.” Idol, Arkeoloji ve Arkeologlar

Dernegi Dergisi Sayt 12: 6-13.

2003. “Eski Anadolu Uygarhklan, Arkeoloji ve Tarih Sömüriisü.” K. Giray and H. Kaderoglu (eds.), Ankara Üniversitesi Dil

ve Tarih-Cografya Fakültesi 66. Kurulu§ Yildönümü Am Kitabt: 159-198. Ankara.

2005a. Hititler Devrinde Anadolu, Kitap 3. Istanbul.

2005b. “Dogu Akdeniz, Kilikya ve Güney Anadolu Sahillerinde Grek Varligt Sorunu.” M. §ahin and t.H. Mert (eds.),

R amazan Özgan ’aArmagan - Festschrift fü r Ramazan Özgan: 453-474. Istanbul.

2005c. “Hititlerle Gagda§ Anadolu Toplumlarmda Göfebelik.” 2004 Yih Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi Konferanslari.

Ankara.

2006. “Eski Qaglarda £ukurova’mn Tarihi Cografyast ve Kizzuwatna (Adana) Kralligt’mn Siyasi Tarihi.” Qukurova

Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi - Journal o f Cukurova University Institute o f Social Sciences vol. 15:15-44.

2007. Multilinguales Handwörterbuch des Hethitischen-A Concise Multilingual Hittite Dictionary-Hititqe Qok Dilli El

Sözlügü: Hethitisches, Englisches, Deutsches und Türkisches Wörterbuch-A Hittite, English, German and Turkish Dictionary

- Hititge, ingilizce, Almanca ve Türkge Sözlük. Hamburg.

2008. “Cukurova’da Hitit Varligi: Tarihi Yanilgilar ve Ge^ekler.” Ceyhun’dan Ceyhan’a Bildiriler. Ceyhan Belediyesi Kültür

Yaymlari 8: 321-327.

2010a. “Hititler-Etiler, Anadolu Arkeolojisi, Türkler ve Orientalizm.” Acts o f 15"' Congress o f Turkish Historical Society. 109-

138. Ankara

2010b. “Hitit £ukurova ili§kileri.” Aktüel Arkeoloji Mayis: 96-104.

2010c. “Der aktuelle Stand der Altanatolistik im Lichte der Neuesten Forschungsergebnisse. Einige Brennpunkte.” A. Süel

(ed.), VII'1'International Congress o f Hittitology: 917-938.

Ünal, A. and S. Girginer. 2007. Gukurova-Kilikya. Ta$ Devrinden Osmanlüar Dönemine Kadar Kilikya 'da Tarihi Cografya, Tarih ve

Arkeoloji. Istanbul.

Vincenzi, De T. and P. Rinaldi. 2007. “The Development of Hittite Military Architecture: “Kastenmauer” and “Casematte” Building

Techniques.” A. Archi and R. Francia (eds.), VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 49:

217-226.

Wendowski, M. 1995. Archäologische Kultur und Ethnische Einheit. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Idetifikation.Arbeiten zur

Urgeschichte des Menschen Band 19. Berlin.

Wilhelm, G. 2006. “Puruna." Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 11, 1/2: 118-119.

Woolley, C. L. 1938. The Excavations at A l Mina. Sueidia.

Yahya, A. H. 2005. “Archaeology and Nationalism in the Holy Land.” S. Pollock ve R. Bernbeck (eds.), Archaeology o f the Middle

East: Critical Perspectives 66 - ~ 7 . Maiden. MA.

500 Ahmet Ünal

Yagci, R. 2007a. “A Grave at Soli Höyük from the Hittite Imperial Period.” I. Deleman, S. £ o k a y - K e p ? e , A. Özdizbay and Ö. Turak

(eds.), Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoglu ’na 65. Yatj Armagam-F’estschrift fü r Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoglu zum 65. Geburtstag: 46-54.

Istanbul.

2007b. “Hittites at Soli (Cilicia).” A. Archiand and R. Francia (eds.), VI Congresso Internazionale di Ittitologia. Studi Micenei

edEgeo-Anatolici 49: 797-814.

Zimansky, P. 2005. “Archaeology and Texts in the Ancient Near East.” S. Pollock and R. Bembeck (eds.), Archaeology o f the Middle

East: Critical Perspectives: 45-65. Blackwell.

FRAUDULENT PREMISES OF ANATOLIAN ISTORIOGRAPHY AND EARLY HITTITE INVOLVEMENT IN AND DIRECT CONTROL...

Documents

Transcript of FRAUDULENT PREMISES OF ANATOLIAN ISTORIOGRAPHY AND EARLY HITTITE INVOLVEMENT IN AND DIRECT CONTROL...