No title

J. David Hawkins

R

ecent discoveries of texts, monuments, and smaller artifacts have begun to fill in our knowledge of the collapse of the Hittite Empire in central Anatolia around 1200 B.C.E. and the rise of the smaller “Neo-Hittite” successor states that developed in the centuries that followed. Here, I will review what we currently know about the demise of the Hittite Empire and transition to the Iron Age, and then examine recent epigraphic discoveries from this “Dark Age” and their historical implications for this formative period.

K_\<e[f]k_\?`kk`k\
Towards the end of the thirteenth century B.C.E. under the later Hittite Empire, it seems that political power was moving from the center at Hattusa to appanage kingdoms, specifically Karkamish and Tarhuntassa. At Karkamish on the Euphrates, the seat of the Hittite viceroys of Syria, the four-generation dynasty descended from Suppiluliuma I shows evidence of increasing power, and its third member Ini-Teshub indeed seems to have been approaching the status of “Great King.” The discovery in 1986 of seal impressions for Kuzi-Teshub, son of Talmi-Teshub, who was hitherto the last-known king of Karkamish, has added a fifth generation to the line, extending it beyond the four generations of descendants of Suppiluliuma I known on the throne of Hattusa itself. The discovery also in 1986 of the Bronze Tablet treaty of Tudhaliya IV with his cousin Kuruntiya, king of Tarhuntassa, revealed for the first time the size and importance of Tarhuntassa. Tudhaliya and Kuruntiya were both great-grandsons of Suppiluliuma I, as indeed was Ini-Teshub of Karkamish. A series of concessions made by Tudhaliya in this treaty seem to reflect his weaker position in relation to Kuruntiya and one of these actually granted the latter the same status as that enjoyed by the kings of Karkamish, inferior only to the Crown Prince of Hattusa himself. But even this may not have satisfied Kuruntiya, since impressions of his seals at Boghazköy and his rock relief at Hatip near Konya have recently been discovered, on both of which he uses the titles elsewhere reserved exclusively for the Great King of Hattusa. The circumstances and results of this arrogation are unknown, but another new find, a Hieroglyphic Luwian historical inscription of Suppiluliuma II, son of Tudhaliya and last-known king of Hattusa, seems to record hostilities between Hattusa and Tarhuntassa and the defeat of the latter.

164 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

The fall of Hattusa and the dissolution of the Hittite Empire must have followed at a not-precisely-determined date between about 1200 and 1180 B.C.E. Earlier excavators of Boghazköy posited that the archaeological evidence pointed to a violent end to the city accompanied by sacking and burning, but recently it has been argued that the traces suggest rather an emptying of the city prior to withdrawal and abandonment. However this may be, the written sources cease abruptly with the reign of Suppiluliuma II, and other contemporary sites provide evidence for destruction by fire at this date, ca. 1200 B.C.E.: Maşat and Kuşaklı in the center; Troy VIIa and Beyce Sultan Level II in the west; and Ugarit–Ras Shamra in Syria. The cuneiform tradition of Hattusa came to an end, and the Hittite imperial system vanished. Such changes were surely the result of a major catastrophe as observed elsewhere at the end of the Bronze Age, even if we are ignorant of its causes and character (for a survey and sources of this period, see Hawkins 2002).

K_\KiXej`k`fekfk_\@ife8^\

The following two centuries ca. (1200–1000 B.C.E.) have been considered lacking in archaeological and epigraphic remains, and characterized as a “Dark Age,” a hiatus between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages. When written sources resume, a very different geo-political configuration is found. Hittites are gone from their former heartland in central Anatolia, the land of Hatti. Only on the southeastern plateau, and in Cilicia and north Syria are “Neo-Hittite” states found, independent city states employing architecture and sculpture visibly derived from that of the Hittite Empire, and writing monumental inscriptions, also probably everyday documents, in the Hieroglyphic script and Luwian language, another Hittite imperial tradition. These states, which have mainly produced monuments attributable to the period ca. 1000–700 B.C.E., were still recognized as “Hatti” and “Hittites” by their neighbors, principally the Late Asssyrian kings, who attacked and ultimately destroyed them. The center of Iron Age Hatti was, as might be expected, Karkamish, which implies a degree of continuity from the Hittite Empire. The site has produced a good range of sculpture and inscriptions for the period ca. 1000–700 B.C.E. but nothing substantial and recognizable earlier, probably from lack of adequate investigation. Malatya on the upper Euphrates, which was an attested, but apparently not prominent, town of the Hittite Empire, called Malitiya, has produced a group

of sculptures with associated inscriptions connected both stylistically and genealogically. The dating of these long-known monuments has been much debated, shifting from the immediate post-Empire period to the early-ninth century, but has now returned to the earlier horizon because of the recognition in the associated inscriptions of the name of Kuzi-Teshub, entitled “Great King, Hero, of Karkamish,” as the grandfather of two rulers and the great-great-grandfather of another. In other words, this information suggests that Kuzi-Teshub survived the disintegration of the Hittite Empire, holding its eastern, Euphrates frontier and controlling the territory at least as far north as Malatya, and that the monuments of that city were executed by his posterity down to several generations ruling in Malatya. Here then would be the continuity of civilization not yet observed in Karkamish. In Gurgum (modern Maraş), inscriptions record a dynasty of seven generations stretching back from about 800 B.C.E. towards 1000 B.C.E., which provides useful points of reference for determining the dates of the accompanying sculptures. In Kummuh (classical Commagene), the site of the homonymous capital city lies underneath the huge mound of Samsat, now lost below the waters of the Atatürk Barrage. Only a few inscriptions from outlying sites record a father–son dynasty of around 800 B . C . E . with the Hittite imperial names of Suppiluliuma and Hattusili. On the Anatolian plateau, the date and historical context of the inscriptions of Karadağ-Kizildağ have been much discussed. The publication of the Yalburt inscription of Tudhaliya IV (Özgüç 1988) showed that Karadağ-Kizildağ by reason of their close similarities with it could not be too far removed in date. The light shed on the geography of the land of Tarhuntassa by the treaty on the Bronze Tablet places Karadağ -Kizildağ firmly within the Tarhuntassa frontier zone, the Hulaya River land. The question now under consideration is the relationship of the Karadağ-Kizildağ Great Kings Hartapu and his father Mursili with the Tarhuntassa dynasty of Kuruntiya, whether they can be accommodated in the period between the reigns of Tudhaliya and Kuruntiya and the end of the Hittite Empire or whether they show continuity into the post-Empire period. Otherwise the years between ca.1200 and 750 B.C.E. are an archaeological and epigraphic blank here with the sole exception of the Karahöyük (Elbistan) stele, which appears to belong within an Anatolian tradition of this date and records the coming of a Great King to Elbistan-Malatya. Only in the years after 750 B.C.E. does the occurrence of a father–son pair claiming in their inscriptions the title “Great King” perhaps point to some unattested continuity over a lacuna of some four hundred years in the region. In Cilicia, the Kizzuwatna of the Middle–Late Bronze Age, the main centers would be expected to be Tarsus and Adana, but these sites have as yet yielded respectively little and nothing of the early Iron Age. Only from the hills northeast of the Cilician plain comes the great Luwian–Phoenician bilingual of Karatepe, which has played such a part in the decipherment of its Hieroglyphic script. The Awariku king of

Adana named in it as the benefactor of the author Azatiwada is almost certainly to be identified with Urikki king of Que named in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II of Assyria, which would place the bilingual very late, approximately 700 B.C.E. or later. East of Cilicia across the Amanus Mountains lies the Plain of Antioch (modern Amuq, Assyrian Unqi), the Late Bronze Age land of Mukish. The adjacent sites, Tell Açana and Tell Taʿyinat, represent the Late Bronze and Iron Age capitals Alalah and (probably) Kunulua, which were excavated before the War by Woolley and by The Oriental Institute Syro-Hittite Expedition. At the latter, a typical Neo-Hittite citadel was excavated with palace buildings and a temple, revealing very badly destroyed sculpture and inscriptions. The area east of the Amuq, between it and the Euphrates (in terms of the Hittite Empire, the lands of Halab [Aleppo] and Nuhashe) had become the lands of Arpad and Hamath by the ninth century B.C.E. The former was an intrusive Aramaean state established shortly after 900 B.C.E. by an Aramaean Agusi from whom it was known as Bit-Agusi. Hamath, which included as its northern province Luʿash (= Nuhashe), was ruled in the ninth century B.C.E. by a father–son Luwian dynasty that left buildings, sculpture, and inscriptions on the citadel and in outlying sites. Two stelae found within the boundaries of Hamath at Meharde and Sheizar where the Hama-Qalʿat el Mudiq road crosses the Orontes were inscribed by Taita king of Wadasatini (as it was formerly read, but see below) and his wife. These were difficult to date and place in context.1

I\Z\ek<m`[\eZ\]ifd:`c`Z`X#k_\8dlh#Xe[8c\ggf This survey of the transition from the Late Bronze Age Hittite Empire to the Neo-Hittite states of the Iron Age has shown that recent discoveries of the last twenty years have revealed a degree of cultural continuity in the Euphrates area of Karkamish–Malatya as represented by the Malatya inscriptions and sculpture; also perhaps in Tabal in central Anatolia as represented by the Karadağ-Kizildağ inscriptions and those of the Kayseri–Nevşehir areas. We may now examine further such new discoveries from the central area of Cilicia and the Amuq and Aleppo, which are suggestive of political formations of the period 1200–1000 B.C.E. Cilicia In Cilicia, the year 1997 saw the discovery of a colossal limestone statue of the Storm God and a basalt base in the form of his bull-drawn chariot in a field near the village of Çineköy (some 30 kilometers south of Adana to the west of the Karataş road). The two have now been erected in the Adana Museum. The base bears a short, eleven-clause bilingual inscription in Hieroglyphic Luwian and Phoenician very close in style to that of the Karatepe inscription. The author gives his name as Warika (Phoen. w[…]), who may be confidently identified with Awariku, king of Adana(wa) named in the Karatepe inscription. Warika styles himself as “son of […], grandson of [Muk]sa (Phoen. “descendant (’šph) of MPŠ”), king of Hiyawa

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 165

In Cilicia, the year 1997 saw the discovery of a colossal limestone statue of the Storm God and a basalt base in the form of his bull-drawn chariot in a field near the village of Çineköy. The base bears a short, eleven-clause bilingual inscription in Hieroglyphic Luwian and Phoenician that confirms that the royal house of Adana (Hiyawa) claimed descent from Mopsos, the hero of Greek legend, who in the period after the Trojan War wandered from western Anatolia through Pamphylia and Cilicia founding cities. This claim has found support in the connection between the toponym Hiyawa and the land Ahhiyawa, the term used in Hittite sources to refer to the Mycenaean Greeks, and from the presence of Aegean-style pottery in Cilicia following the collapse of the Hittite Empire.

(= Phoen. DNNYM).” Among the notable features of the inscription are the claim of descent from Muksa/MPŠ (i.e., Mopsos of Greek legend) and the equation of Phoenician DNNYM not with Adana(wa) as in Karatepe, but with Hiyawa. It is clear that this latter toponym is reflected in the Assyrian name for Plain Cilicia, Qawe/Que, normally determined KUR “land,” but URU “city” by Shalmaneser III in a context that suggests it refers specifically to the city Adana unattested in Assyrian sources. This is supported by the fact the uruQue is the Assyrian designation of the province of Cilicia, named, as was usual, after the capital city. In Luwian terms, it would seem that Hiyawa referred to the country and Adana(wa) to the city. The most extraordinary statement of the inscription is: “The Assyrian (Hier. su+ra/i- = Phoen. ’sr) king and all the house of Assur became father and mother to me, and Hiyawa and Assyria became one house.” From this it would appear that (A)warika enjoyed a client relationship to the Assyrian king, probably Tiglath-pileser III, since Urikki of Que (identified as the Assyrian writing of Awariku/Warika) is listed by him as tributary to him in 738 B.C.E. and probably again later.2 But the Çineköy inscription, besides providing the information outlined above on the conditions in Cilicia in the late-eighth century B.C.E., has very significant implications for its earlier history. It confirms what had already been inferred from Karatepe, that the royal house of Adana (Hiyawa) claimed descent from Muksa-MPŠ (i.e., Mopsos, the hero of Greek legend, who in the period after the Trojan War wandered from western Anatolia through Pamphylia and Cilicia founding cities, some of which bore his name). Such a claim from an eighth-century B.C.E. dynasty in Cilicia suggests a degree of historicity for the figure. Furthermore the editors of the inscription have made the connection between the toponym Hiyawa and the land Ahhiyawa known from the Boghazköy texts and now commonly agreed (though not without dissenting voices) to refer to the Mycenaean Greeks as encountered by the Hittites in their dealings with western Anatolia and the off-shore islands. They have supported this by Greek references (Herodotos, Strabo) to Achaeans in Cilicia, particularly the former’s statement that before adopting the

166 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

ethnonym Kilikes, the Cilicians were known as Hypachaioi. Physical evidence for the connections between western Anatolia and Cilicia comes from the presence of Aegean-style pottery in the latter location, especially Late Helladic IIIC ware, the sudden prominence of which signals a significant change in the post-Hittite Empire period (Mee 1978; Venturi 2007). This connection between Late Bronze Age cuneiform Hittite Ahhiyawa and Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian Hiyawa is further supported by the recent publication of two Ras Shamra Akkadian letters from the Hittite king and from a high Hittite official to the king of Ugarit concerning “Hiyawans” in the land of Lukka (Singer 2006: 250–52, esp. nn. 30, 31). Here Hiyau(wi) may be identified as the Akkadian ethnicon for Hittite Ahhiyawa. The association of thirteenth-century B.C.E. Ahhiyawa of the Hittite Empire texts with the Qawe/Que/Hiyawa of the Assyrian and Hieroglyphic Luwian sources of the ninth to eighth centuries would postulate a movement of people termed Ahhiyawa in the twelfth century B.C.E. or later, from western Anatolia to Cilicia sufficient to establish Hiyawa as the country’s name. The linking of such a migration to Greek traditions of Mopsos and the recognition of Muksa/Mpš as the ancestor of the Cilician royal house lends further plausibility to the hypothesis. We should note however that Mopsos appears to be an Anatolian rather than Greek name (Hawkins 1995). Nevertheless, the new evidence from the Çineköy inscription may be taken to suggest, in however shadowy a form, an outline of events in Cilicia during the “Dark Age.” The Amuq Valley: Tell Taʿyinat Excavations Moving eastwards across the Amanus mountains to the Plain of Antioch, the Amuq Valley, we may review the evidence of the pre-war excavations of Tell Taʿyinat, finds from which are now on display in The Oriental Institute Museum, which we will find to tie up with a new development in the city of Aleppo. The 1935–1938 excavations at Tell Taʿyinat concentrated on the royal citadel, but also excavated two city gates of the lower town, the east gateway (Building IX) and the south gateway (Gateway III).3 The citadel itself was entered by its own east gateway (Gateway VII), and excavation of its northern mound revealed a classic Neo-Hittite palace compound entered by a west gateway (Gateway XII) into a courtyard (Building VIII), surrounded on the south, east, and north sides by the main structure, Building I, with a portico entrance known as a hilani, its annex, Building VI, and another hilani, Building IV. On the south side of Building I, there was a small temple (Building II). The later structure (Building IX) was erected on the other high point of the citadel, which from its poorly preserved remains was identified as an Assyrian governor’s palace.

Two Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions were found broken into pieces in the excavations at Tell Taʿyinat. Tell Taʿyinat Inscription 1 is a series of fragments (nos. 3–6 are shown here) from an ornate throne with a colossal seated figure of which only the head survives.The very fragmentary inscription also mentions the country Wadasatini, perhaps the Luwian designation for the Amuq plain. From Hawkins 2000: pls. 191–192.

Two Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions were found broken into pieces in the excavations at Tell Taʿyinat (Hawkins 2000: 361–75). Tell Taʿyinat Inscription 1 is a series of fragments from an ornate throne with a colossal seated figure, of which only the head survives, and which is now on display at The Oriental Institute Museum. An unattached fragment of the inscription mentions the name Halparuntiya, who could be, but is not necessarily, the author, and who could be the same person as Qalparunda, king of Unqi, named by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III in 857 and 853 B.C.E., dates that appear consistent with the style of the hieroglyphs and of the sculpture’s throne and the head. The very fragmentary inscription also mentions the country Wadasatini (see below for new reading), perhaps the Luwian designation for the Amuq plain. Most of the fragments of Tell Taʿyinat Inscription 1 were stated in the excavation catalog to have been found in the latest pavement of the east citadel Gateway VII, along with six limestone orthostats, poorly carved provincial Assyrian work showing soldiers carrying heads, but investigation by the present excavator finds this unlikely (Harrison 2009: 174). The second Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription, Tell Taʿyinat 2, was also found in fragments. It formed a four-sided block,

The head and throne fragments from the colossal seated figure found at Tell Ta‘yinat are on display at The Oriental Institute Museum in Chicago. Courtesy of Dan Dry, University of Chicago.

perhaps a base, inscribed on all sides. The fragmentary text preserves no personal or place names, or any other identifying details. The sign forms, however, contain an admixture of “cursive” forms, especially the animal heads ma ( M rather than Ö), sà (c rather than d), ta (t rather than <), and mu ( U rather than Ç), which are not found earlier than about 800 B.C.E., and thus date the monument to the eighth century. The statement that one group of these fragments was excavated below the floor of Building II (Hawkins, 2000: 368, Discovery (1), citing Gelb 1939) seems unlikely to be correct, following investigations by the current excavator (see the article in this issue). These monuments allow us to reconstruct, however tentatively, the Iron Age history of the Amuq Valley and Tell Taʿyinat in particular. The Neo-Hittite structures and monuments would have been built perhaps as early as the mid-

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 167

A second Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription, Tell Taʿyinat 2, formed a four-sided block, perhaps a base, inscribed on all sides. The fragmentary text preserves no personal or place names, or any other identifying details, but the forms of the hieroglyphic signs indicate a date after 800 B.C.E. The Neo-Hittite structures and inscribed monuments were built perhaps as early as the mid-ninth century. The smashing of the colossal ruler figure with throne bearing the inscription Tell Taʿyinat Inscription 1 as well as the monument represented by the fragments of Tell Taʿyinat Inscription 2 was probably the work of the Assyrian armies of King Tiglath-pileser III when he conquered the city in 738 B.C.E.. From Gelb 1939: pl. 86.

ninth century when the colossal enthroned figure would have been made. The area was conquered by the Assyrian armies of King Tiglathpileser III in 738 B.C.E. and made a province of the Assyrian Empire. The Neo-Hittite palace complex would have been rebuilt after the Assyrian conquest. A bronze disk with a dedication for the life of Tiglath-pileser (III) was found in the hilani, Building I. Also at this time, the poorly executed Assyrian soldier reliefs must have been made; these were reused in a later Assyrian period, in the latest floor of the eastern citadel (Gateway VII). This outline of the stratigraphic history of Tell Taʿyinat leaves a problem with the temple (Building II). The plan of the temple has b e e n n o t e d t o b e t h a t o f a n The Syro-Hittite Expedition to Tell Taʿyinat dated the temple (Building II) to the period before the Assyrian langraum shrine with the Assyrian takeover, despite the fact that the plan of the temple (Building II) is that of an Assyrian addition of a western-style portico, langraum shrine with the addition of a western-style portico. In addition, the double-lion column base, and the double-lion column base shown here, is purely Assyrian. If we accept the Chicago team’s dating of the temple, the columnreconstructed as one of a pair in the base at least must have been part of a later, Assyrian refurbishment of the structure. From Haines 1971: pl. 80B. Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. portico is purely Assyrian. Could this temple really have been built before the Assyrian takeover as proposed by is paralleled by the colossal seated ruler-figure in the South the excavators? If so, the column-base at least must have been Gate at Karkamish. The figure at Taʿyinat most likely sat in part of an Assyrian refurbishment. the east citadel at Gateway VII. The monument represented by The smashing of the colossal ruler figure with throne bearing the fragments of Tell Taʿyinat Inscription 2, which could hardly Tell Taʿyinat Inscription 1 is also likely to have happened at the have been executed earlier than ca. 800 B.C.E., was probably Assyrian conquest (Hawkins 2000: 366), and such destruction also smashed at this time.

168 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

The Temple of the Storm God at Aleppo One of the great archaeological sensations of the last decade has been the discovery on the citadel of Aleppo of the temple of the Storm God of Aleppo by Kay Kohlmeyer in collaboration with the Aleppo Museum.4 Beginning in 1996, Kohlmeyer had uncovered the complete north wall of the temple with twenty-six reliefs more or less in situ and earlier building phases visible by 2002, and he had also located the corner between the north and east walls. In the 2003 season, he completed the clearance of the east wall, revealing in the center the magnificently preserved figures of the Storm God of Aleppo and the king facing each other (see centerfold), a scene flanked by alternating false windows and bull-men, two of each on either side. Even more dramatic is the presence of an eleven-line Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription (Aleppo 6), incised and almost completely preserved, beginning with the king’s name and titles placed between his raised right arm and face, running on behind him and continuing across the doubly rebated slab behind him. Some superficial damage obscures only a few of the signs. In content, it is a somewhat banal temple dedication with some interesting philological points and is significant in confirming the identification of the temple as that of the Storm God of Aleppo. Its great interest and importance lie in the name, titles, and country of the king. In the years 2004–2006 the south entrance of the temple was excavated, revealing in situ relief figures of a fish man and lion on its west side, and broken figures of a sphinx and another lion each bearing parts of a broken inscription (Aleppo 7; see the photos on p. 196). The Storm God figure of the east wall is identified by a relief epigraph, Aleppo 5, that reads (DEUS) TONITRUS GENUFLECTERE-MI (Gy 8 1; see the photo on p. 192)* gratifyingly confirming what I had argued shortly before the discovery, that this epigraph, known from the great Storm God seal of Mursili III (Urhi-Teshub) and from the Imamkulu rock relief, should be read “Storm God of Aleppo” (Hawkins 2003). Both on the seal and the rock relief, the epigraph identifies the iconic scene of the Storm God in his eagle-shaped chariot drawn by bulls, who of course is the central figure of the Aleppo Temple’s north wall (see the photos on pp. 198 and 200). There, however, the icon is identified by the otherwise unknown epigraph (Aleppo 4) “god-mace,” and this is explained by Kohlmeyer as the cultic weapon of the god (2000: 31–32; with reference to Durand 1993: 43–45; cf. Schwemer 2001: 226–27). How the “Mace God” and the Storm God of Aleppo connect in their respective presentations in two adjoining walls, both as regards iconography and theology, is explained by Kohlmeyer’s elucidation of the temple’s building phases. As a preliminary interpretation, we may perhaps suggest that the “god-mace” refers not actually to the deity himself but to the divine weapon that he shoulders. *Editor’s note: Scholarly convention dictates that logograms appearing in the Hieroglyphic Luwian script are transliterated as Latin words written in capital letters.

Returning to the king and his country, PaDAsatini (DA–former reading, see below), we offer a translation of his inscription, designated Aleppo 6. §1.

I (am) King Taita, the Hero, the King of [the land?] PaDAsatini. §2. For my lord the Halabean Storm God I honored the image, §3. the Halabean Storm God made me . . . . §4. (He) who comes to this temple to celebrate the god, §5. if he (is) a king, §6. let him sacrifice an ox (and) a sheep. §7. On the other hand if he (is) a . . . king’s son, §8. or if he (is) a country lord, §9. or if he (is) lord of a river land, §10. let him too sacrifice a sheep. §11. On the other hand if he (is) an inferior person, §12. (there will be) bread, libation and . . . .

KX`kX#?`jB`e^[fdXe[;Xk\ Who then is Taita and where is his country PaDAsatini? As it happens, we already know of him and his wife from the pair of Hieroglyphic Luwian stelae from Meharde and Sheizar, found at the adjacent sites of those names close to where the Hama-Qalʿat el Mudiq road crosses the Orontes some twentyfive kilometers northwest of Hama (see Hawkins 2000: 415– 19; and above). The former bears on its obverse a frontally rendered female figure in a long dress standing on the back of a couchant lion with a smaller figure to her left also in a long dress, standing on the lion’s head. The inscription identifies the stele as being “(of) the divine Queen of the Land,” thus is a dedication to her. The latter stele, from Sheizar, is apparently the funerary monument of Taita’s wife, doubtless set up close to its find-spot and recording that she lived to be one hundred years old. In both these inscriptions Taita is entitled “Hero, of the land WaDAsatini (King – MEHARDE only)”: note the form WaDAsatini compared with the new occurrence PaDAsatini. Where then is this country W/PaDAsatini? The only other occurrence of WaDAsatini is on the fragment Tell Taʿyinat Inscription 1, fragments 3–5, l. 1, which Meriggi (1975: 225), probably correctly, suggested represents the Hieroglyphic Luwian designation of the Amuq plain. Thus we should consider the possibility that Taita’s seat was indeed in the Amuq Plain and his capital either at Tell Taʿyinat or another unexplored site. The implications of this would be considerable. If Taita’s kingdom were in the Amuq Plain, his range of operations attested by his monuments would be large. Though not king of Aleppo, he controlled the city as shown by his dedication of that particular phase of its ancient and famous cult center. In this context too we should consider the great temple of ʿAin Dara, the connections of which with the Aleppo Temple are unmistakable (Orthmann 2002). Even if this were not the work of Taita himself, it certainly belongs in the same tradition. Then there are his dedication from Meharde and

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 169

Outside of the inscription from the Temple of the Storm God at Aleppo, King Taita and his wife are known from two stelae found within the boundaries of Hamath at Meharde and Sheizar where the Hama-Qalʿat el Mudiq road crosses the Orontes. The Meharde stele, shown here, bears on its obverse a frontally rendered female figure in a long dress standing on the back of a couchant lion with a smaller figure to her left also in a long dress, standing on the lion’s head. The inscription identifies the stele as being “(of) the divine Queen of the Land,” and thus is a dedication to her. The latter stele, from Sheizar, is apparently the funerary monument of Taita’s wife. In both these inscriptions Taita is entitled “Hero, of the land Walistin,” probably the Amuq Plain. From Hawkins 2000: pl. 225.

the funerary stele of his wife from Sheizar, both close to Hama, which are also likely to indicate political control. If indeed Taita’s kingdom included all these monuments, it would have been the equivalent of the Iron-Age Syro-Hittite states of Hamath, Arpad, and Unqi. How might we date such a large political unit? Clearly it must predate the Syro-Hittite states mentioned, which are attested from the early-ninth century B.C.E. (inscriptions of Assurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III), and postdate the break-up of the Hittite Empire in the early-twelfth century. Within the period 1200–900 B.C.E. several criteria of date may be sought, particularly the stylistic links of Aleppo and ʿAin Dara sculpture, the palaeography of Taita’s hieroglyphic inscriptions, and archaeological comparisons of the Amuq, Aleppo, and ʿAin Dara. Clearly we are only at the beginning of the enquiry and each aspect will demand detailed evaluation, but some preliminary observations may be offered here. Hypothesizing that Taita was based in the Amuq Plain, we must ask whether any excavated remains might be of a suitable scale and date to represent his seat. In terms of

170 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

Amuq settlements, Phase N, as originally established by the Chicago Syro-Hittite Expedition operations and supported by recent re-evaluation, is characterized as showing substantial increase in site density and unusual western influence on the archaeology. In Phase O, however, Tell Taʿyinat grew to be the dominant site of the plain. No palatial buildings have been located in Phase N, though Chatal Höyük shows a considerable walled settlement of private houses rebuilt in several subphases. If Taita were to be placed in Amuq Phase O and associated with the expansion of Tell Taʿyinat, the palatial buildings of Building Period 1 (Buildings XIII and XIV) could be considered for his seat. We are then back to the question of what absolute dates can be attributed to these levels, which as we have seen above is largely a matter of guesswork, lacking in firmly established points. The most promising way forward would appear to be the establishment of the correlation between the Tell Taʿyinat building periods and the (unpublished) ceramic phases (see Harrison 2001a: 128; Batiuk, Harrison, and Pavlish 2005: 172–74; and

Harrison 2009). It still remains quite unclear, however, how far back into the tenth century B.C.E. Building Period 1 may extend, thus whether these buildings could have predated the foundations of the states of Arpad and Hamath in the earlyninth century by a sufficient margin to permit their recognition as the palace of our Taita. With present information we may only say that it looks possible, but we may hope that the new round of investigations may succeed in establishing a more exact and reliable chronology for the site. A preliminary word may also be said on the palaeography and connections of Taita’s hieroglyphic inscription. Unlike the inscriptions from Meharde and Sheizar of Taita and his wife, where the signs are in relief, Aleppo 6 is incised, but in some striking respects it agrees with them, notably their characteristic ta (donkey-head with single ear swept forward) and their two forms of i which it renders in linear form. But most significantly it renders za very recognizably as zi+a, more clearly than the also characteristic za and ia of the Meharde and Sheizar inscriptions (for these features, see Hawkins 1979: 146, 150). The zi+a writing is a diagnostically archaic feature that Aleppo 6 shares with Karkamish A14b and the Malatya inscriptions from Kötükale, Ispekçür, and Darende, and probably also Gürün (for these, see Hawkins 2000: 84–85, 296–302). It is likely that this feature signals a date somewhere between the eleventh and tenth centuries B.C.E. We may also note the archaic EGO-sign at the beginning of the text, which resembles that of the Hittite Empire period (bald-headed, ear below eye) rather than those of Iron Age inscriptions (cf. especially the EGO signs of the inscriptions of Suhi and Katuwa at Karkamish).

K_\I\X[`e^f]N&GX;8jXk`e`Xe[@kj@dgc`ZXk`fej

The toponym was formerly read Padasatini, being written pa-TA5-sà-ti-[ní](-za-sa) (also Aleppo 7, [… -s]à-ti-ní-(za-sa), in neither case is the postdeterminative REGIO “land” present). On the inscriptions of Taita and his wife from Meharde and Sheizar, as also on the fragment Tell Taʿyinat 1 frags. 3–5, the toponym is written wa/i-TA4-sà-ti-ni- (REGIO). Recent developments in Hieroglyphic Luwian relating to the readings of TA4/TA5 and of sà transform our rendering of this toponym. It has become clear that the Hittite Empire period forerunners of TA4 and TA5 correspond to cuneiform ali and ala (Hawkins in Herbordt 2005: 289–90, 431). Now it is proposed that TA4 and TA5, the transliteration of which was always somewhat provisional, had in the post-Hittite Empire period fallen together as la/i (Rieken and Yakubovich in press). Further, Rieken argues that a specific usage of the sign sà in the Late period, which distinguishes it from sa and sá, is to represent consonantal s before other consonants (Rieken in press). Accepting these two proposals, we find that our ethnic adjective has become palistin(iza)- (var. walistiniza-), from which we may detach the Luwian ethnicon-forming suffix -iza- (as seen, e.g., in Karkamisiza- “Karkamish-ean”). Given the probable date (eleventh to tenth centuries B.C.E.) and distribution (Hama and Aleppo) of Taita’s monuments, we cannot but consider what connection, if any, our toponym Palistin-/Walistin- may

have with the Philistines, one of the “Sea Peoples,” who appear at the end of the Bronze Age as sea-borne raiders. These are first attested in the early-twelfth century B.C.E. in the Egyptian records of Ramses III among other Sea Peoples whose attacks he defeated. Thereafter they appear in the Old Testament settled on the south Levantine coast from Joppa to Gaza where they remained dangerous enemies of Israel from the times of the Judges through to those of Saul and David. By the time of the Assyrian sources of the eighth through seventh centuries B.C.E., their name survives as the designation of their coastal strip. Egyptian and Hebrew consonantal scripts refer to them as Peleset (Egyptian prst, Hebrew plšt), and Assyrian cuneiform as palast-, later pilišt-. No final -n appears in these forms, so if we are to connect Palistin-/Walistin-, its termination must be explained. In fact an -n- termination does later appear, as early as Herodotus, who uses the term Συρίη Παλαιστίνη, “Philistine” Syria, to refer to just that coastal strip, the gateway to Egypt. Thus the longassimilated Philistines survive simply as a geographical term, later extended to all “Palestine.” Here the -inē is recognized as a Greek suffix forming place names, and this presumably gave rise to the English Bible form Philistine (contrast German Philister). But clearly this could not account for the -n in our Palistin-, for which an alternative explanation must be sought. In the Old Testament, plšt refers to the land, translated “Philistia,” and plšty to a “Philistine,” plural plštym, rendered in the Septuagint Фυλιστιιμ (otherwise Αλλόφυλοι). The Hebrew masculine plural -īm corresponds to Aramaic -īn, and we may perhaps envisage an intrusive group of Sea People settlers in the north Levant and their territory being designated by a form of Palistīn. A king composing a Luwian language dedication for the Aleppo Temple might then form an ethnicon in -iza- to describe himself, thus the “Palistīn-ean King.” The variant wa/i-TA4-sà-ti-ní- also calls for comment. It shows that already by this early post-Hittite Empire Hieroglyphic TA4 and TA5, probably distinct in the Empire period, had fallen together as la/i, as proposed by Rieken and Yakubovich (in press). The alternating pa- and wa/i- show hesitation over the rendering of the initial consonant in Luwian which, if the connection with the Philistines is accepted, Egyptian and Hebrew render as p. On the historical probability of finding a toponym signalling “Philistines” in the north Levant in the eleventh to tenth centuries B.C.E., we may point out that although the people are only attested textually as attacking Egypt, then settling the southern Levant ca. 1200–1000 B.C.E., their origins are sought elsewhere. The recognition of their physical culture has generated an extensive archaeological literature, to which recent research continues to add substantially, especially with regards to the Aegean-style ceramic assemblages (see, e.g., the contributions in Oren 2000; Harrison 2006–2007; Görg 2005; Killebrew 2005: 179–246; Maier 2005). Tell Taʿyinat, envisaged here as possibly the seat of Taita, king of Palistin, later appears as Kinalua, the royal city of the land of Unqi, itself clearly representing West Semitic ʿmq “low-lying plain,” surviving to the present as Amuq. In the ninth century B . C . E ., Assyrian sources also refer to the

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 171

kings of Unqi (and on occasion the populace) by the ethnicon Pa(t)tinayya “The Pattinite” (Hawkins 1973), though only a sole reference (eighth century) to an actual land Pattinu occurs. Even before the appearance of the variant Palistin- (with the modifications here proposed), it had been suggested that this Pattin(ayya) might reflect Wadasatini (as originally read; Yamada 2000: 96, n. 71). Now we would have to envisage a modification: Hieroglyphic Palistin- shifting to Cuneiform Pat(t)inwith the added proviso that the two forms might be nearly contemporary (Tell Taʿyinat 1 with Ashurnasirpal/Shalmaneser III). The idea remains attractive and the phonetic difficulties perhaps not insoluble. To sum up, what is inferred from the material presented above is the existence of a powerful Philistine kingdom in the Amuq Plain during the period ca. 1100–1000 B.C.E., which controlled from this power base a territory including Aleppo and the environs of Hama, thus embracing the known Iron Age states of Unqi, Arpad, and Hamath. The physical center of such an entity may be sought in the early Iron Age levels (Amuq, Phase O) of Tell Taʿyinat, specifically in the massive remains of Buildings XIII and XIV (Building Period 1), lying below the hilani citadel Buildings I plus VI and IV (Building Period 2). Archaeological support for the arrival of a Sea People group (specifically the Philistines) in the Amuq Plain can now be sought in the renewed investigations of the University of Toronto, particularly in relation to the appearance of Late Helladic IIIC pottery (cf. Pruss 2002; Venturi 2007).

:feZclj`fe The “Dark Age” between the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age is becoming less dark, that is epigraphic, monumental, and archaeological artifacts long thought lacking are now beginning to be attributed to the period. In some cases, this is a matter of establishing more precisely the dating of longknown monuments. Thus it is clear that the earliest Karkamish inscriptions and sculpture, along with those of Tell Ahmar, must extend back into the tenth century B.C.E. while those from Malatya can now be confidently placed in the twelfth century, extending probably down into the eleventh century B.C.E. It has been the purpose here to show that new discoveries too are enlarging the picture. The information from the late-eighth-century Çineköy inscription strengthens the possibility that behind legends of the city-founding Mopsos and his migration from western Anatolia to Cilicia, there may lie some historical memory of the descent of the royal line. The discovery of the Taita inscription in the temple of the Storm God of Aleppo provides even more concrete evidence. It suggests a context for the building of the ʿAin Dara temple and by permitting the linking of the two temples with the Meharde and Sheizar monuments and the Tell Taʿyinat 1 toponym, it may point to the existence of a large and powerful political unit in the heart of this dark age, perhaps even to an ancestor of the royal house of Unqi. At present the outline of events is faint and the inferences provisional. Recent discoveries and progress, however, have been such as to give a realistic hope that information will continue to accumulate.

172 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

Efk\j A preliminary version of this paper was presented in a symposium on “Empires in the Fertile Crescent,” held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago in 2005. 1. For the formation of the Neo-Hittite states, see in addition to Hawkins 2002, Hawkins 2000: ch. I–X, The Historical Context, with bibliography. 2. The Çineköy bilingual inscription was published with commentaries by Tekoğlu and Lemaire (2000). For a recent examination of the historical context, see Lanfranchi 2005 and also Jasink and Marino 2007. 3. McEwan 1937; Haines 1971; Harrison 2001a, 2001b; Batiuk, Harrison, and Pavlish 2005. 4. Khayyata and Kohlmeyer 1998; Kohlmeyer 2000; Gonnella, Khayyata, and Kohlmeyer 2005.

I\]\i\eZ\j Batiuk, S.; Harrison, T. P.; and Pavlish, L. 2005 The Taʿyinat Survey, 1999–2002. Pp. 171–92 in Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002. Vol. 1 of The Amuq Valley Regional Projects, ed. K. A. Yener. Oriental Institute Publications 131. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Durand, J.-M. 1993 Le mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage et la mer en Mésopotamie. Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires 7: 41–61. Gelb, I. J. 1939 Hittite Hieroglyphic Monuments. Oriental Institute Publications 45. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gonnella, J.; Khayyata, W.; and Kohlmeyer, K. 2005 Die Zitadelle von Aleppo und der Tempel des Wettergottes: Neue Forschungen und Entdeckungen. Münster: Rhema. Görg, M. 2005 Philister. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10/7–8, 526–28. Haines, R. C. 1971 The Structural Remains of the Later Phases: Chatal Hüyük, Tell al-Judaidah, and Tell Taʿyinat. Vol. 2 of Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Oriental Institute Publications 92. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harrison, T. P. 2001a Tell Taʿyinat and the Kingdom of Unqi. Pp. 115–32 in The World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion, ed. P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 325. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2001b The Evidence for Aramaean Cultural Expansion in the Amuq Plain. Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 36: 13–22. 2006– Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern Mediterranean: 2007 Regional Perspectives of Continuity and Change, ed. T. P. Harrison. Scripta Mediterranea 27–28. 2009 Lifting the Veil on a “Dark Age”: Taʿyinat and the North Orontes Valley During the Early Iron Age. Pp. 171–84 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Hawkins, J. D. 1973 Hattin [more probably Pattin]. Reallexikon der Assyriologie IV/2–3: 160–62.

1979

The Hieroglyphic Luwian Stelae of Meharde-Sheizar. Pp. 145–56 in Florilegium Anatolicum: Mélanges offerts à Emmanuel Laroche. Paris: de Boccard. 1995 Muksas. Reallexikon der Assyriologie VIII/5–6: 413. 2000 Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Vol. 1 of Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. 3 vols. Studies in Indo-European Language and Culture, New Ser. 8.1–8.3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 2002 Anatolia: The End of the Hittite Empire and After. Pp. 144– 51 in Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Kontinuität und Wandel von Strukturen und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion; Kolloquium des Sonderforschungsbereiches 295 “Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte” der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 11.–12. Dezember 1998, ed. E. A. Braun-Holzinger and H. Matthäus. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis. 2003 The Storm-God Seal of Mursili III. Pp. 169–75 in Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. G. Beckman, R. Beal, and G. McMahon. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2007 Que. Reallexikon der Assyriologie XI/3–4: 191–95. Herbordt, S. 2005 Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegel der hethitischen Grossreichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe-Archiv in Hattuša. BoghazköyHattuša: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 19. Mainz: von Zabern. Jasink, A. M., and Marino, M. 2007 The West-Anatolian Origins of the Que Kingdom Dynasty. VIth International Congress of Hittitology. Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 49: 407–26. Khayyata, W., and Kohlmeyer, K. 1998 Die Zitadelle von Aleppo: Vorläufiger Bericht über die Untersuchungen. Damaszener Mitteilungen 10: 69–96. Killebrew, A. E. 2005 Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Canaanites, Egyptians, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 BCE. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Kohlmeyer, K. 2000 Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo. Ed. Gemeinsame Kommission der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Gerda Henkel Stiftung. Münster: Rhema. Lanfranchi, G. 2005 The Luwian-Phoenician Bilingual of Çineköy and the Annexation of Cilicia to the Assyrian Empire. Pp. 481–96 in Von Sumer bis Homer: Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004, ed. R. Rollinger. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 325. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Maeir, A. 2005 Philister-Keramik. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10/7–8: 528–36. McEwan, C. W. The Syrian Expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University 1937 of Chicago. American Journal of Archaeology 41: 8–16. Mee, C. 1978 Aegean Trade and Settlement in Anatolia in the Second Millennium B.C. Anatolian Studies 28: 121–56. Meriggi, P. 1975 Manuale di Eteo Geroglifico. Vol. II/2. Rome.

Oren, E., ed. 2000 The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. University Museum Monograph 108; University Museum Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Orthmann, W. 2002 Die Bildkunst im Übergang von der Großreichszeit zur späthethitischen Periode. Pp. 153–59 in Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Kontinuität und Wandel von Strukturen und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion; Kolloquium des Sonderforschungsbereiches 295 “Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte” der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 11.–12. Dezember 1998, ed. E. A. Braun-Holzinger and H. Matthäus. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis. Özgüç, T. 1988 Inandıktepe: An Important Cult Center in the Old Hittite Period. Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları. V. dizi 43. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Pruss, A. 2002 Ein Licht in der Nacht? Die Amuq-Ebene während der Dark Ages. Pp. 161–76 in Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Kontinuität und Wandel von Strukturen und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion; Kolloquium des Sonderforschungsbereiches 295 “Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte” der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 11.–12. Dezember 1998, ed. E. A. Braun-Holzinger and H. Matthäus. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis. Rieken, E. in press The Hieroglyphic Luwian Sign sà (L104). Paper presented at the VIIth International Congress of Hittitology, Çorum, 2008. Rieken, E., and Yakubovich, I. in press The New Values of Luwian Signs L319 and L172. Schwemer, D. 2001 Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen: Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Singer, I. 2006 Ships Bound for Lukka: A New Interpretation of the Companion Letters RS 94.2530 and RS 94.2523. Altorientalische Forschungen 33: 242–62. Tekoğlu, R., and Lemaire, A. 2000 La bilingue royale louvito-phénicienne de Çineköy. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 2000: 961– 1006. Venturi, F. 2007 La Siria nell’età delle trasformazioni (XIII–X sec. a.C.): Nuovi contributi dallo scavo di Tell Afis. Studi e testi orientali 8, Serie archeologica; Università degli studidi Bologna, Dipartimento di studi linguistici ed orientali 1. Bologna: CLUEB. Yamada, S. 2000 The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmanesar III (859–824 B.C.) Relating to His Campaigns in the West. Leiden: Brill.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 173

Copyright of Near Eastern Archaeology is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

NEO-HITTITES IN THE “LAND OF PALISTIN” Renewed Investigations at Tell Taʿyinat on the Plain of Antioch Timothy P. Harrison

T

he collapse of the centralized state bureaucracies of Bronze Age civilization in the late-second millennium B.C.E. and the subsequent emergence of the small nationstates of biblical fame during the ensuing Iron Age have long fascinated scholars and the public alike. The intervening Early Iron Age (ca. 1200–900 B.C.E.), contrastingly, has remained largely obscure, generally seen as a disruptive historical inter-

lude, or “Dark Age,” marked by political fragmentation, ethnic strife, and cultural devolution. However, recent archaeological excavations and a growing corpus of epigraphic discoveries have begun to lift the obscuring veil on this elusive period, revealing a formative, historically significant era. The emerging picture is of a considerably more complex cultural and political landscape, shaped by powerful forces of both change and continuity.

Tell Taʿyinat is situated near the northern bend of the Orontes River at the point where it turns west and runs along the southwestern edge of the Amuq Plain. The site consists of an upper and lower mound, which together encompass an area of approximately forty hectares, with the lower mound now largely buried by the river’s flood plain. Its location in the Amuq Plain positioned Taʿyinat strategically at the intersection of a series of important transit corridors between the Anatolian highlands to the north, the Syro-Mesopotamian interior to the east, the Levantine littoral to the south, and the Mediterranean coast to the west. Photo by M. Akar.

174 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

The pace of discovery has been particularly pronounced in the Hittite realm of central Anatolia and northwest Syria, and has forced a thorough revision of longstanding views about the Hittite Empire’s political fortunes during its final stages and in the aftermath of its collapse. While scholars have long assumed the Neo-Hittite states of the first millennium B.C.E. were linked culturally and linguistically to their Bronze Age Anatolian forebears, thus far only the “Great Kings” of Karkamish have produced a dynastic line that actually bridges the intervening era, while the archaeological record remains largely devoid of well-excavated cultural sequences for this period. Recent epigraphic discoveries, however, have now raised the prospect of tracing the historical development of another Early Iron Age polity, associated with the “Land of Palistin,” and centered at the site of Tell Taʿyinat in the North Orontes Valley. These discoveries include two Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions recently uncovered in the Temple of the Storm God on the Aleppo Citadel (see the article in this issue) that make reference to an individual named Taita, who describes himself as “Hero and King of the Land of Palistin.” 1 Most recently, David Hawkins, who has undertaken the translation and publication of these inscriptions, has proposed that the Luwian term shares an etymology with the Peleset (Assyrian Palast) mentioned in the Medinet Habu reliefs of Sea Peoples fame, and therefore possibly also a common historical, if not ethnic, origin (see the article in this issue). The archaeological remains of Early Iron Age Ta ʿ yinat thus present an exciting opportunity to explore the historical experience of a community that played a prominent role during this formative era. The evidence points to the emergence of a powerful regional state, comprised of an intriguing amalgam of Aegean, Anatolian (or Luwian), and Bronze Age West Syrian cultural traditions, which appears to have eclipsed nearby Aleppo as the principal power in the region during the Early Iron Age. Taʿyinat resurfaces in the ninth century B . C . E . as the capital of the Neo-

Hittite Kingdom of Patina (or the alternative Unqi) in NeoAssyrian sources, albeit within diminished political borders, and is eventually destroyed in 738 B.C.E. by Tiglath-pileser III, who transforms it into an Assyrian provincial capital.2

K_\8iZ_X\fcf^pf]<Xicp@ife8^\KXʿp`eXk Tell Taʿyinat is situated near the northern bend of the Orontes River at the point where it turns west and runs along the southwestern edge of the Amuq Plain. The site consists of an upper and lower mound, which together encompass an area of approximately forty hectares, with the lower mound now largely buried by the river’s flood plain. Its location in the Amuq Plain positioned Taʿyinat strategically at the intersection of a series of important transit corridors between the Anatolian highlands to the north, the Syro-Mesopotamian interior to the east, the Levantine littoral to the south, and the Mediterranean coast to the west. The Amuq Plain also provided a wealth of natural resources and a fertile environment for intensive agricultural production. As a result, the region preserves an exceptionally rich archaeological record—the Braidwood survey, conducted in the 1930s in conjunction with the Syro-Hittite Expedition (see below), recorded no fewer than 178 mounded settlement sites within the narrow confines of the plain—and it has been the scene of several prominent excavations, including at Tell Taʿyinat, which collectively have produced one of the foundational cultural sequences for the ancient Near East. The Syro-Hittite Expedition Excavations Large-scale excavations were conducted by the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute over the course of four field seasons between 1935 and 1938 as part of its Syro-Hittite Expedition. These excavations focused primarily on the West

The Amuq Plain preserves an exceptionally rich archaeological record and has been the scene of several prominent excavations, including at Tell Taʿyinat, which collectively have produced one of the foundational cultural sequences for the ancient Near East. This map shows the principal settlements in the Plain. Map by S. Batiuk.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 175

This contour map of Tell Taʿyinat is overlaid on a Corona satellite image of the site and shows the excavation areas of the Taʿyinat Archaeological Project. The University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute’s excavations on the West Central Area are visible as a dark shadow in the western part of the upper mound in the map. Map created by S. Batiuk.

Central Area of the upper mound (visible as a dark shadow in the western part of the upper mound in the contour map), although excavation areas were also opened on the eastern and southern edges of the upper mound and in the lower settlement.3 In all, the Chicago expedition achieved large horizontal exposures of five distinct architectural phases, or “Building Periods,” which they assigned to the Iron II and III periods (or Amuq Phase O, ca. 900–550 B.C.E.; Haines 1971: 64–66). A series of isolated soundings below the earliest Phase O floors encountered remains that dated primarily to the third millennium B.C.E. (specifically Amuq Phases H, I, and J; Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 13–14), suggesting a lengthy period of abandonment between the final Early Bronze Age settlement and the first Iron Age settlement. According to the Chicago excavators, Building I, the most famous of Taʿyinat’s bit hilani palaces, and the adjacent megaron-style temple (Building II) were constructed during the Second Building Period,4 the beginning of which they dated to the end of the ninth century B.C.E., based largely on the presence of Hieroglyphic Luwian fragments that were found on or below their floors (see further discussion below; Haines 1971: 66). Renovations to these buildings accounted for most of the activity assigned to their Third and Fourth Building Periods, which they dated to the latter part of the eighth and the seven centuries B.C.E., although stratigraphic links to the artifactual sequence remain tenuous.5 In addition to Buildings I and II, the Second Building Period also included Buildings IV (a second bit hilani) and VI, and altogether formed part of a large complex arranged around a paved central courtyard (Courtyard VIII). The Second

Plan of the Second Building Period complex. From left to right are a bit hilani palace (Building IV), another, larger, bit hilani (Building I), a temple (Building II), and at the bottom right a gateway (Building XII), all arranged around a paved central courtyard (Courtyard VIII). This complex was the most extensive and best preserved architectural phase that the Chicago expedition uncovered in the West Central Area. Created by S. Batiuk; adapted from Haines 1971: pl. 106.

176 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

bit hilani
t
1BMBDFT
CVJMU
JO
UIF
bit hilani style were especially popular during the tenth through eighth centuries B.C.E in northwestern Syria. They are characterized by a monumental portico with columns flanked by large massive parts of the building and approached by a broad but relatively low flight of steps. Beyond the portico lay the great hall, rectangular in shape and surrounded on all sides by smaller rooms. The throne was situated at the far end of the hall. Stairs from the sides of the portico led to a second story. megaron
t Structures built in this style typically consist of a rectangular hall fronted by an open, often pillared, porch or anteroom.

Building Period complex was the most extensive and best preserved architectural phase uncovered in the West Central Area by the Chicago expedition. It also exhibited clear stratigraphic separation from earlier, more fragmentary architectural remains encountered by the Chicago team, which they loosely assigned to their First Building Period. The Syro -Hittite Expedition achieved limited exposures of two large structures, identified as Buildings XIII and XIV, beneath the floors and walls of several Second Building Period structures. The east part of Building XIII extended under Building IV, while Building XIV was sealed by Buildings I and VI, and the southern portion of IV. Since they represented the earliest Iron Age architectural levels encountered by the Syro-Hittite Expedition in the West Central Area, Haines assigned both buildings to the First Building Period (Haines 1971: 64). As with the Second Building Period, both structures appeared to form part of a larger complex that was also oriented around a central courtyard. Fragmentary remains uncovered below Second Building Period levels elsewhere on the upper mound were also tentatively assigned to this First Building Period. This plan of the Building XIV remains excavated by the Chicago expedition gives an indication of its enormous size. The original excavators were unable to determine the building’s function. Created by S. Batiuk; adapted from Haines 1971: pl. 95.

Approx. Dates (B.C.E)

Cultural Phase (Mazzoni 2000)

1200 1150

Amuq Sequence (Swift 1958)

Tell Taʿyinat (Building Periods)

Phase N Iron Age IA

1100 1050

Iron Age IB

1000 950

Iron Age IC

Phase Oa (950–900)

900

Iron Age IIA

Phase Ob (900–800)

BP I (d. 831?) Bldgs XIII & XIV

Iron Age IIB

Phase Oc (800–725)

BP II (d.738) Bldgs I:3, II, IV:2, VI Gates III, VII, XI, XII

Iron Age III

Phase Od (725–550)

BP III Bldgs I:2, II, IV:1, IX BP IV Bldgs I:1, IV?, G VII BP V Bldgs I:G1a, X

850 800 750

725/700 650 600

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 177

Building XIII was excavated during the 1937 season. Unfortunately, except for a few wall fragments along its east side, only the sub-floor structural foundations of the building were found intact. Nevertheless, the general outline of Building XIII was reasonably clear, betraying the unmistakable characteristics of a bit hilani (for the floor plan, see Haines 1971: pl. 94). The building was roughly rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 28 by 35 meters, and was entered from the south through what appears to have been a porticoed entrance with a series of side rooms arranged around a long, rectangular central room, presumably the main reception hall (Haines 1971: 38–39). The building’s foundations were formed by deeply cut, vertically faced trenches filled with unbaked brick, a distinctive construction technique also used in many of the other monumental buildings of the West Central Area (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960: 13). Though poorly preserved and only partially excavated, Building XIV appears to have been considerably larger than Building XIII. As with Building XIII, very little of its superstructure was found intact, and the excavators therefore were unable to reconstruct a composite plan of the complex or establish its function (Haines 1971: 39–40). However, they did succeed in piecing together a fragmentary plan of the architecture they encountered that gives some indication of its enormous size (see Haines 1971: pl. 95), which the excavators estimate to have been at least 49 by 95 meters.

This carved basalt orthostat depicting two charioteers driving over a defeated enemy was said to have been found at Tell Taʿyinat when first reported in 1896, but its association with the site is uncertain. If the association is legitimate, it probably dates to the First Building Period. From Braidwood 1937: fig. 7. Courtesy of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Miscellaneous Architectural Remains A number of isolated architectural finds appear also to belong to the First Building Period, and add further to the scale and grandeur of this early phase at Tell Taʿyinat. In particular, at least two similarly carved basalt column bases, ranging in diameter between 1.3 to 1.4 meters, were recovered from contexts that suggest they originally belonged to either Buildings XIII or XIV. One was found on the surface of the mound (see Haines [1971: 37, pls. 68D and 116B]), while the second was found (apparently in reuse) in the paving of Courtyard VIII, directly above the porch entrance to Building XIII (Haines 1971: 39; depicted in the northeast corner of Square F-17 in pl. 99). Two additional column bases were uncovered in a sounding (T 9) excavated beneath the pavement of Courtyard VIII in the area of Squares H–J 17–18 (see Haines 1971: 41, pls. 89A and 98B). Although

178 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

of uncertain provenance, these column bases clearly predate the Second (and Third) Building Period structures they were recovered from, while their simple architectural style anticipates the smaller, more elaborately carved column bases found in situ at the entrance to Building I (cf. Haines 1971: pls. 78C–D, 103, and 116A). The Chicago excavations also recovered two carved lionheaded orthostats in secondary contexts. The first (T-3269) was found reused in the north wall of Building IV (Haines 1971: 42, pls. 71B and 97) in a context associated with the building’s second phase of occupation (specifically Floor 1, or the Third Building Period, according to the Haines phasing sequence 1971: 65). The second lion-headed orthostat (T-3270) was also found out of context on Floor 3 in Room A,

the stairwell for Building I, a context dated by the excavators to the Second Building Period (see Haines 1971: 65). Both orthostats display characteristics typical of early Neo-Hittite sculpture, and almost certainly should be assigned to the First Building Period.6 A final architectural piece should also be considered, although its association with Taʿyinat is not certain. The piece in question, a carved basalt orthostat depicting two charioteers driving over a defeated enemy rendered larger than life size, was first reported in 1896, and was said at the time to have been found at Tell Taʿyinat (Braidwood 1937: 33, fig. 7). Although dated on stylistic grounds by some scholars to the eighth century B.C.E., the chariot scene resembles similar reliefs found at Karkamish and Zincirli that are typically dated to the tenth or ninth centuries B.C.E. and contains design elements commonly associated with the ninth century or earlier. Perhaps more significantly, the Second through Fifth Building Periods at Taʿyinat, in other words the late-ninth century B.C.E. and later, thus far have produced only plain basalt orthostats.

Luwian Hieroglyphic Monuments The Syro-Hittite Expedition also recovered a substantial number of fragmentary Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions. The Expedition’s field records indicate that these epigraphic remains (a total of almost ninety fragments are reported) were recovered from a wide range of secondary and tertiary contexts in the West Central Area broadly associated with the First and Second Building Periods (Haines 1971: 41, 66). When plotted spatially, the fragments cluster tightly around Building XIV. Several fragments appear to have belonged to a single monumental inscription, designated Tell Taʿyinat Inscription 1 (see the photo on p. 167), which makes reference to an individual named Halparuntiyas, apparently a ruler of the “Land of Walistin” (initially read “Wadasatini”; see Gelb 1939: 39; Hawkins 2000: 365–67). It is possible he may be the same Patinean ruler said to have paid tribute to Shalmaneser III in 857 and 853 B . C . E . (see further in Harrison 2001: 117– 19). More intriguingly, Hawkins has now proposed that the toponym should be equated with the “Palistin” of the Aleppo citadel inscriptions (see the article in this issue). The Wadasatin/Walistin toponym also occurs on two Luwian inscriptions found in the vicinity of Hama (see Hawkins 2000: 415–19).7 Thus, the extraordinary size of Building XIV, the monumental column bases and carved orthostats possibly associated with it, and the rich epigraphic record concentrated in its vicinity unquestionably mark this building as an important Early Iron Age structure.

K_\KXʿp`eXk8iZ_X\fcf^`ZXcGifa\Zk @em\jk`^Xk`fej The Taʿyinat Archaeological Project (TAP) was conceived within the framework of the Amuq Valley Regional Project (AVRP), which has systematically been documenting the archaeology of the Amuq Plain in southeastern Turkey since 1995. Within this broader regional research framework, TAP was initiated as a long-term The almost ninety inscribed fragments that were reported in various contexts in the West Central Area by the Chicago Expedition cluster tightly around Building XIV. Its extraordinary size, the monumental column bases and carved orthostats possibly associated with it, and the rich epigraphic record concentrated in its vicinity mark this building as an important Early Iron Age structure. The fragments are grouped according to their assigned inscription or monument number. Thus, TT1 represents all those fragments that have been assigned to Tell Ta’yinat Inscription 1, and so forth. Plan created by S. Batiuk.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 179

field project, designed fully and systematically to document the archaeological record preserved at the site, clearly identified by the Syro-Hittite Expedition as one of the principal Bronze and Iron Age settlements on the plain. Following preliminary field seasons devoted to surveying and mapping the site (see further in Batiuk, Harrison, and Pavlish 2005), targeted excavations were resumed at Tell Taʿyinat in 2004 and have continued on an annual basis since. The Field 1 Excavations With the commencement of excavations in 2004, an exploratory probe was initiated along the southern edge of the West Central Area to test, or “ground truth,” remote sensing data gathered during the surface survey. These initial excavations, limited to a 3 by 20-meter trench spanning two 10 by 10-meter squares, uncovered the northern wall and portions of the central room of Building II, the megaron-style temple first excavated by the Syro-Hittite Expedition. Building II, in turn, sealed a remarkably well-preserved sequence of Early Iron Age remains, including a wealth of pottery and other material culture exhibiting strong Aegean associations. During the following 2005 season, the 2004 probe was extended laterally to the south and identified as Field 1, expanding the excavated area to four 10-by-10-meter squares, or a total area of 400 square meters. To date, the excavations in Field 1 have succeeded in delineating eight superimposed architectural phases, or Field Phases (FP), with the primary sequence (FPs 3–6) dating to the twelfth through eleventh centuries B.C.E., or the Early Iron I (or Iron IA) period. The earliest Iron Age settlement, represented by FP 6, cut directly into remains dating to the late-third millennium B.C.E. (or the Syro-Hittite Expedition’s Amuq Phase J). Though heavily disturbed by subsequent b u i l d i n g a c t i v i t y, F P 6 nevertheless preserved a number of large storage “silos,”with several smaller pits interspersed between them, some of which contained large concentrations of non-perforated, cylindrical clay loom weights and other artifacts associated with textile production. Field Phases 5 and 4 produced a series of rectilinear structures, some with walls constructed in a header and stretcher technique. Field Phase 4 remains were heavily damaged In 2004, excavations in Building II, the megaron-style temple first excavated by the Syro-Hittite Expedition, uncovered its northern wall and portions of its central room. Plan created by S. Batiuk.

180 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

by leveling that occurred during construction of the substantial foundations and sub-structures of Building II (designated FP 2), and by extensive pitting activity assigned to an intermediate occupational phase (FP 3). The four-phase Early Iron Age sequence delineated in Field 1 appears to correlate well with the Iron I sequences uncovered at other sites in the region. In the Amuq Plain, for example, the Syro-Hittite Expedition’s excavations at Chatal Höyük identified four architectural phases dating to the Iron I (collectively, their Phase IV, or Amuq Phase N), best preserved in Area I (Levels 10–7), but also encountered in Area II (Levels 11–9), and in very limited exposures in Areas III through VI (Haines 1971: 5, 13–14, 17–24). The excavations at Tell Judaidah identified three discrete phases, Levels 11–9 (collectively Phase V; Haines 1971: 27–28). Elsewhere in the region, the Tell Afis excavations have also produced four Early Iron I levels, their Phases Va–IVa (Venturi 2007: 124–25, 137–48, and chart on 301; see also Mazzoni 2000: 31–35; 56, Table 1). In contrast to the Taʿyinat sequence, however, the Early Iron I levels at Afis form part of a longer sequence that spans the LB II/Early Iron Age transition. Stratified sequences spanning the LB II/Early Iron I have also been excavated at Ras el-Bassit and Ras Ibn Hani, and at Tell Kazel, with the Early Iron I levels at the latter two sites producing significant quantities of Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery.8 Similarly, in the southern Levant, a series of sites clustered primarily along the southern coastal plain have revealed Early Iron Age levels with substantial amounts of Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery and other material culture exhibiting strong Aegean cultural associations, including Tel Miqne/Ekron (Strata VII– VI), Areas G and H at Ashdod (Strata XIII–XI), and Grid 38 at Ashkelon (Phase 20 [=Stratum XVII].9

Composite plan of the architecture in Field 1. The Early Iron Age remains are represented by a series of circular storage silos and rectilinear structures (Field Phases 3–6). Field Phase 2 corresponds to the Iron II, and Field Phases 7 and 8 the Early Bronze Age (Amuq Phase J, or EB IVB). Plan created by S. Batiuk.

This Early Iron Age pit in Field 1 contained a cache of non-perforated cylindrical clay loom weights and other artifacts associated with textile production. Photo by D. Lumb.

Pottery The Early Iron I levels in Field 1 have produced large quantities of Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery, which formed the dominant potting tradition over the course of the FPs 6 through 3 sequence. A wide spectrum of forms, motifs, and fabrics are represented in the assemblage. However, I will only summarize the salient features of the assemblage here, since a more thorough description of the pottery analyzed to date has been presented elsewhere (see Janeway 2006–2007: 129–38). Shallow rounded bowls and deeper bellshaped bowls, or skyphoi, are the most common vessel types in the assemblage. The skyphoi are equipped typically with closeset horizontal handles, usually with a painted band applied along the handle, a ring base, and are decorated with horizontal, linear painted bands on the exterior or, alternatively, with a combination of linear and non-linear motifs, and a solidly coated interior. Two color combinations predominate: red painted decorations on a pinkish fabric (RoP), and black painted decorations on a buff, white fabric (BoW). Bell-shaped bowls were also well-represented at Chatal Höyük and Tell Judaidah, with thirty-five examples recorded by the Syro-Hittite Expedition, and grouped according to three decorative schemes (Swift 1958: 66, figs. 19–21). Other painted wares commonly found in the Field 1 assemblage include kraters, amphorae, their handles typically decorated with swirling tassels, and spouted jars, referred to as feeding bottles in the southern Levantine tradition (Dothan and Zukerman 2004: 24). The Field 1 assemblage also includes a distinctive cooking ware that closely resembles the so-called “Philistine Cooking Jug” found in contemporary levels in the southern Levant (see Killebrew 1999; 2005: 222–23). It is distinguishable morphologically and technologically from a Bronze Age tradition that continues into the Iron Age. The typical vessel has an ovoid body with sloping shoulders that lead to an everted rim, usually with a thickened

or rounded lip, and it is equipped with either one or two handles and a disk base. The vessels are made of a dark, gray-brown fabric and tempered with crushed shell (Janeway 2006–2007: 134–36). This distinctive cooking ware tradition is commonly found in the Aegean and on Cyprus, and appears as early as the Late Helladic III (ca. 1400 B.C.E.; Dothan and Zukerman 2004: 28–30; Killebrew 2005: 222–23). The Mycenaean IIIC:1 tradition appears to have enjoyed widespread distribution in the North Orontes Valley. In addition to its predominance at Tell Taʿyinat, the AVRP Survey has reported Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery at eighteen other sites in the valley (Verstraete and Wilkinson 2000: 188–89). Moreover, according to Swift, painted wares accounted for an astounding 90 to 95 percent of the total Phase N assemblage recovered by the Syro-Hittite Expedition (Swift 1958: 64). Clearly the product of local manufacture, the unique formal and stylistic features of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery preserved in the Early Iron Age levels at Tell Taʿyinat

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 181

The Early Iron I levels in Field 1 have produced large quantities of Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery. A wide spectrum of forms, motifs, and fabrics are represented in the assemblage. Deep bell-shaped bowls, or skyphoi, shown here, are among the most common vessel types in the assemblage. Drawing by B. Janeway.

182 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

and in the North Orontes Valley more generally, reflect the local, idiosyncratic character of this distinctive potting tradition, reinforcing the regionalized and heterogeneous nature of its development throughout the eastern Mediterranean. As a result, despite numerous attempts to identify criteria that can chart its chronological development (summarized conveniently in Dothan and Zukerman 2004: 2–3), not surprisingly, no clear consensus has yet to emerge. Nevertheless, over the course of the Iron I, the developmental trajectory experienced in the North Orontes Valley clearly witnessed the gradual eclipse of Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery and its eventual replacement in the Late Iron I/Early Iron II by the Red Slipped Burnished Ware tradition, a trend that also has been observed elsewhere in the region (see Venturi 2007: 297–300 and Janeway 2006–2007: 136–37).

and are eventually replaced entirely by a perforated, spherical type (Cecchini 2000: 217–22), mirroring the similar decline in the presence of Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery. The Field 1 excavations have also produced other cultural remains of possible Aegean derivation, including clay figurines, potter’s marks, and a faunal record that may reflect western dietary habits (Lipovitch 2006–2007). Although analysis of the Iron I levels in Field 1 is still ongoing, it nevertheless has become increasingly clear that the inhabitants of the Early Iron Age settlement at Tell Taʿyinat enjoyed a wide spectrum of shared cultural, technological, and possibly even linguistic knowledge and experience with the Aegean world.

The Field 2 Excavations In 2005, excavations were initiated to the north of Field 1 in the vicinity of Building I, the principal bit hilani uncovered Loom Weights by the Syro-Hittite Expedition. The primary objectives of To date, the TAP excavations in Field 1 have produced the excavations in this area, designated Field 2, were to more than one hundred non-perforated, cylindrical clay loom determine whether anything remained of Building I and then weights. Variously described as spools or spool weights (Stager to excavate the earlier levels associated with Building XIV, 1998: 346; Rahmstorf 2003: 397–400), these distinctive thereby better establishing the stratigraphic relationships by-products of textile production are commonly found in between these two structures. Late Helladic IIIC levels at sites throughout the Aegean, The 2005 excavations, limited to a 10 by 10-meter square, most notably at Mycenae and Tiryns (Rahmstorf 2003: 397, proceeded to uncover a series of large mudbrick walls immediately 400–402; 2008: 59–73). More recently, they have been below the modern plow zone. Our excavations have since exposed recognized in Early Iron Age levels at an increasing number of more than 600 square meters of a large monumental structure. Levantine sites, generally in association The walls of the building average more with Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery (Stager than three meters in width and form 1998: 346; Cecchini 2000: 214–17; a tight grid pattern of small rooms, Rahmstorf 2003: 403–6). The Taʿyinat none of which were equipped with loom weights occur in a variety of sizes entryways. Probes against the faces of and shapes, though two particular types several walls have reached a depth of predominate: a cylindrical form with more than three meters before finding convex, rounded ends and an hourglass bottom. Unfortunately, no internal shape with a tapered mid-section and surfaces or floors corresponding to flattened, distal ends (Janeway 2006– the use-phase of the complex have 2007: 138–39). The Field 1 loom been identified thus far. Clearly the weights typically have been found in foundations of an enormous structure, caches, sometimes of twenty or more, our excavations suggest that the Field deposited in pits (see the photo on 2 walls very probably formed part of the p. 181), although isolated examples southeastern corner of the Syro-Hittite have also occurred. The Syro-Hittite Expedition’s Building XIV (see the plan Expedition also uncovered a cache of on p. 177). these distinctive loom weights at Chatal In 2007, excavations were initiated Höyük, though apparently in an early to the east of the building in an effort To date, the TAP excavations in Field 1 Phase O context (Room T81, Level 5b; to find surfaces that might have have produced more than one hundred Haines 1971: pl. 16B). It is now generally sealed against its eastern exterior. non-perforated, cylindrical clay loom accepted that the warp -weighted These excavations revealed a stone weights. These distinctive by-products loom was re-introduced to the eastern pavement, which in turn sealed a of textile production occur in a variety of densely packed sherd-strewn surface, Mediterranean during the Early Iron sizes and shapes at Taʿyinat, though two particular types predominate, a cylindrical comprised predominantly of Red Age (Cecchini 2000: 211–16), providing form with convex, rounded ends (1) and an Slipped Burnished Ware pottery further support for a western origin hourglass shape with a tapered mid-section (depicted in the lower right corner of this textile productive technology. and flattened, distal ends (2). Drawing by in plan on p. 184). Unfortunately, Cylindrical loom weights become less F. Haughey. the Syro -Hittite Expedition had frequent towards the end of the Iron I

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 183

trenched along the exterior face of the wall, obliterating any stratigraphic connections that might have existed between these surfaces and the wall. Consequently, in 2008, we opened two new squares further to the east in the hopes that similar disturbance would be minimal in this area, and

Tell Tayinat 2007: Field II Late IronI/Early Iron II (Building XIV)

the stratigraphic sequence therefore relatively more intact. Quite unexpectedly, subsequent excavations (in 2008 and 2009) have revealed the well-preserved remains of an Iron Age temple. The building was approached from the south by means of a monumental stone-paved staircase. A small basalt column rested on the western edge of the staircase, just in front of the southern end of the building’s west wall. The staircase led to a porch supporting an ornately carved basalt column base set deeply into its floor. The column base is virtually identical in size, shape, and design to the column bases found in the entrance to the nearby Building I. However, its lowest carved register was largely hidden from view, obscured by the paved surface of the porch, suggesting that an earlier surface, or phase, to the building still lies unexcavated below. The porch was separated from the central room of the building by two brick piers. A thick deposit of burnt brick, apparently collapse, covered much of the floor between the two piers. This material, in turn, sealed three heavily charred

Recent excavations have exposed more than 600 square meters of a large monumental structure in Field 2, probably part of the southeastern corner of the Syro-Hittite Expedition’s Building XIV. Plan created by S. Batiuk.

184 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

Excavations in 2008 and 2009 revealed the wellpreserved remains of an Iron Age Temple. The building was approached from the south by means of a monumental stone-paved staircase, viewed here from the south. A small basalt column rested on the western edge of the staircase, just in front of the southern end of the building’s west wall. Photo by J. Osborne.

Aerial view and plan of the Field 2 temple. The floor of the central room, though badly burned, appeared to have been plastered. The room contained a substantial quantity of bronze metal and several fragments of carved ivory inlay, suggesting it had been furnished. A thick layer of collapsed burnt brick sealed the entire room, vivid evidence of the intensity of the conflagration that had consumed the structure. Photo and plan by S. Batiuk.

wooden beams, at least one of which appeared to have been set directly into the floor, and therefore possibly part of a threshold for the doorway. The floor of the central room, though badly burned, appeared to have been plastered. The room was largely devoid of pottery or organic remains, but it did produce a substantial quantity of bronze metal, including riveted pieces and several fragments of carved ivory inlay. Though heavily burned and damaged, these remains suggest the central room had been equipped with furniture or wall fixings. The room also produced fragments of gold and silver foil, and the carved eye inlay from a human figure. A thick layer of collapsed burnt brick sealed the entire room, and in some places had fused with the brickwork of the building’s outer walls, vivid evidence of the intensity of the conflagration that had consumed the structure. A second set of piers separated the central room from a small back room, the inner sanctuary, or “holy of holies,” of the temple. This northern-most room contained an elevated, rectangular platform, or podium, that filled almost the entire room and clearly represented a renovation to the original design and intended function of the space. The surface of the podium was paved with clay tiles, and accessed by steps in its two southern corners. The room had also been burned in the intense fire and contained a wealth of cultic paraphernalia found strewn across the podium and around its base, including gold, bronze, and iron implements, libation vessels, and ornately decorated ritual objects. The surface

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 185

Burned in an intense fire, the temple’s inner sanctuary (the northernmost room) contained a wealth of cultic paraphernalia, including the smashed cultic vessels and cuneiform tablet seen in this photo. Photo by J. Jackson.

A view of the Syro-Hittite Expedition’s eastern probe, conducted in 1938, including an orthostat-lined square installation or platform that may have supported a freestanding monument. Fragments of a Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription were found in its vicinity. Was the inscription a part of the monument that once stood on the platform? From Haines 1971: pl. 74B. Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

186 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:1 (2009)

debris also contained a cache of cuneiform tablets, written in Late Assyrian script, very probably part of a Neo-Assyrian provincial archive. The construction methods used to build the exterior walls of the temple are identical to those typically found in the other public buildings of the West Central Area, including the distinctive “woodcrib” construction technique (for more detailed description, see Haines 1971: 45–46). In addition, the exterior face of the temple’s west wall was decorated with a bright white painted plaster and the building was surrounded on its west and south sides by a flagstone pavement, the same pavement cut by the Chicago excavations, clearly part of an expansive open courtyard or plaza. Significantly, several Hieroglyphic Luwian fragments were found scattered on this stone pavement. Moreover, we have been able to link some of the stones in the pavement south of the temple entrance directly to a section of pavement uncovered by the SyroHittite Expedition in their eastern probe, excavated at the end of their final season in 1938. The probe also uncovered what appears to have been a foundation, or platform, roughly square in shape and built of finely dressed basalt orthostats, perhaps support for a freestanding monument (see Haines 1971: 45, pls. 74B, 103). The SyroHittite Expedition also reported finding numerous Hieroglyphic Luwian fragments in the vicinity, including parts of a block-shaped inscription, Tell Taʿyinat Inscription 2 (see p. 168 and for a detailed description and commentary see Hawkins 2000: 367–68). It is tempting to propose these all came from a single monument that once stood on the platform. Unfortunately, nothing of the original structure remains intact, having been removed, or destroyed, following the Chicago excavations. Thus far, our excavations of the temple in Field 2 have only uncovered its terminal phase, which almost certainly dates to the late-eighth or (more probably) early-seventh centuries B.C.E., during the settlement’s Neo-Assyrian provincial phase. Its earlier construction history and dating therefore remain unclear. Nevertheless, the distinctive architectural style and design of the building’s original structures suggest that it was constructed together with the adjacent Buildings I and II and thus should be assigned to the Second Building Period, or sometime during the lateninth or eighth centuries B . C . E . Functionally, the newly found temple emerges as part of a larger religious complex, essentially a sacred precinct, adjoined to the royal palace of the Neo-Hittite kings of Patina/Unqi or, perhaps more accurately, of Palistin/Walistin. Despite the stratigraphic break and lack of internal surfaces in the monumental building to the west of the temple in Field 2, the associated pottery suggests a Late Iron I/Early Iron II date (ca. tenth to early-ninth centuries B.C.E.) for this complex. Since its southern wall was sealed over by soil loci that in turn sealed against the north wall of Building II in Field 1 to the south, it also seems clear that the structure is stratigraphically earlier

between these reduced enclaves of Hittite influence, rival political centers, perhaps most importantly at Zincirli (ancient Samʾal) and Tell Rifaʿat (ancient Arpad), also began to materialize, reflecting their own newly emergent cultural and linguistic traditions. The result was a highly fragmented, or “balkanized,” political landscape within which a diverse <Xicp@ife8^\KXʿp`eXkXe[k_\ÈCXe[f]GXc`jk`eÉ cultural and ethnic milieu was able to develop and flourish. Although the collapse of the Hittite Empire at the end This cultural and political ferment provided the stimulus that of the Late Bronze Age clearly created a political vacuum forged the small vibrant nation-states that would come to that fostered an era of prolonged regional instability, there define Iron Age civilization in this region. is also growing evidence of cultural and political continuity. In the North Orontes Valley, the existing archaeological In key centers of Hittite power, such as at Karkamish, Hittite evidence supports this view of continuity and change. Survey imperial control appears to have survived in the form of data indicate significant levels of settlement continuity diminished “rump” states ruled by dynastic lines with direct during the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron ancestral links to the royal family in Hattusa. Interspersed Age. 10 At the same time, there is also evidence of change, attested perhaps most revealingly in the shift of the primary settlement in the valley from Tell Atchana (ancient Alalakh) to nearby Tell Taʿyinat. Whether the terminal Late Bronze Age settlement at Alalakh was destroyed or abandoned remains unclear, but the renewed excavations at Taʿyinat have now demonstrated conclusively that the site was resettled in the Early Iron I (or early-twelfth century B.C.E.), after an eightcentury hiatus corresponding to the period of Alalakh’s ascendancy. Somewhat unexpectedly, however, the Early Iron I levels at Taʿyinat have also revealed a material cultural signature that betrays an intrusive Aegean influence, if not direct evidence for the presence of foreign settlers. Superimposed over these distinctive remains, in turn, are the monumental structures of the First Building Period, with their Hittite stylistic features and rich Luwian epigraphic record, followed by the late-ninth to eighth century bit hilani complex of the Second Building Period. While the specific historical circumstances remain elusive, the accumulating archaeological and textual evidence point to the existence of a powerful regional kingdom, associated with the “Land of Palistin,” which emerged in the aftermath of the Hittite Empire’s collapse, ruled by a line of kings with Hittite names and very possibly with direct ancestral links to the royal dynasty. Intriguingly, this Early Iron Age polity also exhibits strong Aegean cultural ties, both in its material culture and now also epigraphically. Moreover, it appears to have eclipsed Aleppo as the dominant regional power, shifting the locus of power west to the North Orontes Valley. Centered at Tell Taʿyinat, the cultural character This composite plan of the “sacred precinct” in the West Central Area illustrates and wealth of this Early Iron Age kingdom are how the newly found temple was part of a larger religious complex, essentially a reflected in the impressive buildings and standing sacred precinct, adjoined to the royal palace of the Neo-Hittite kings of Patina/Unqi. monuments that once crowned the upper mound Plan created by S. Batiuk. and formed its ancient citadel. in date than the buildings of the Second Building Period, and thus very probably belongs to the Building XIV complex of the preceding First Building Period. Nevertheless, these stratigraphic correlations are contingent upon further excavations and therefore must remain tentative for the time being.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 187

8Zbefnc\[^d\ekj The Taʿyinat Archaeological Project has received research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC), the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), the Brennan Foundation, and the University of Toronto, for which we are deeply grateful. I wish also to thank the Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums of Turkey, which has graciously awarded the research permits necessary to conduct each of our excavation seasons, the landowners who have generously permitted us to work on their land, and our project staff, whose dedicated efforts have ensured the successful results of each field season.

Efk\j 1. For a more detailed treatment of the broader historical context of these inscriptions, see Hawkins 2002; Harrison 2009. 2. For further treatment of this later political history, see Harrison 2001, 2005. 3. For a more thorough description of the topography and archaeological history of the site, see Batiuk, Harrison, and Pavlish 2005. 4. For detailed descriptions of these structures, see Haines 1971: 44–55. 5. For more on this phase of Taʿyinat’s settlement history, see Harrison 2005. 6. Mazzoni has also dated the second lion figure (T-3270) to the Early Iron Age and has used it as evidence to argue for an eleventh to tenth century B.C.E. date for the foundation of the Iron Age city (1994: 322, n. 20; 1995: 188, n. 45). 7. The shared etymology of Wadasatini (as originally read) and Patina (p>b>w, with a dropping of the intervocalic ds/ts) was first noted by Yamada (2000: 96, n. 71) and further strengthens the historical link between the two entities. 8. Ras el-Bassit and Ras Ibn Hani: du Piêd 2006–2007: 162–63; Tell Kazel: Badre et al. 2005: 32–36; Badre 2006: 92–93; see also Capet 2006–2007). 9. Tel Miqne/Ekron: Dothan and Zukerman 2004: 3–4; Gitin, Meehl, and Dothan 2006: 29–49; Ashdod: Dothan and Zukerman 2004: 4–7; BenShlomo 2005: 9; Ashkelon: Stager et al. 2008: 257–61. 10. For more on these settlement trends, see Harrison 2009: 175–76 and Pruss 2002.

I\]\i\eZ\j Badre, L. 2006

Tell Kazel-Simyra: A Contribution to a Relative Chronological History in the Eastern Mediterranean During the Late Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 343: 65–95. Badre, L.; Boileau, M.-C.; Jung, R.; and Mommsen, H. 2005 The Provenance of Aegean- and Syrian-Type Pottery Found at Tell Kazel (Syria). Egypt and the Levant 15: 15–47. Batiuk, S.; Harrison, T. P.; and Pavlish, L. 2005 The Taʿyinat Survey, 1999–2002. Pp. 171–92, in Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002. Vol. 1 of The Amuq Valley Regional Projects, ed. K. A. Yener. Oriental Institute Publications 131. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Braidwood, R. J. 1937 Mounds in the Plain of Antioch: An Archaeological Survey. Oriental Institute Publications 48. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

188 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

Braidwood, R. J., and Braidwood, L. S. 1960 The Earlier Assemblages: Phases A–J. Vol. 1 of Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Oriental Institute Publications 61. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Capet, E. 2006– Les peoples des céramiques “barbares” à Tell Kazel (Syrie). 2007 Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: 187–207. Cecchini, S. M. 2000 The Textile Industry in Northern Syria During the Iron Age According to the Evidence of the Tell Afis Excavations. Pp. 211–33 in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Suppl. 7. Louvain: Peeters. Dothan, T., and Zukerman, A. 2004 A Preliminary Study of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 Pottery Assemblage from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 333: 1–54. du Piêd, L. 2006– The Early Iron Age in the Northern Levant: Continuity and 2007 Change in the Pottery Assemblages from Ras el-Bassit and Ras Ibn Hani. Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: 161–85. Gelb, I. J. 1939 Hittite Hieroglyphic Monuments. Oriental Institute Publications 45. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gitin, S.; Meehl, M.; and Dothan, T. 2006 Occupational History-Stratigraphy and Architecture. Pp. 27–69 in Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations, 1995–1996: Field INE East Elope: Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period), ed. S. Gitin. Tel Miqne-Ekron Final Field Report Series 8. Jerusalem: Albright Institute of Archaeological Research/Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. Haines, R. C. 1971 The Structural Remains of the Later Phases: Chatal Hüyük, Tell al-Judaidah, and Tell Taʿyinat. Vol. 2 of Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Oriental Institute Publications 92. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harrison, T. P. 2001 Tell Taʿyinat and the Kingdom of Unqi. Pp. 115–32 in The World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion, ed. P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 325. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2005 The Neo-Assyrian Governor’s Residence at Tell Taʿyinat. Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 40: 23–33. 2009 Lifting the Veil on a “Dark Age”: Taʿyinat and the North Orontes Valley During the Early Iron Age. Pp. 171–84 in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, ed. D. Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Hawkins, J. D. 2000 Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Vol. 1 of Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. 3 vols. Studies in Indo-European Language and Culture, New Ser. 8.1–8.3. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2002 Anatolia: The End of the Hittite Empire and After. Pp. 144– 51 in Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Kontinuität und Wandel von Strukturen und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion; Kolloquium des Sonderforschungsbereiches 295 “Kulturelle und sprachliche

Kontakte” der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 11.–12. Dezember 1998, ed. E. A. Braun-Holzinger and H. Matthäus. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis. Janeway, B. 2006– The Nature and Extent of Aegean Contact at Tell Taʿyinat and 2007 Vicinity in the Early Iron Age: Evidence of the Sea Peoples? Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: 123–46. Killebrew, A. 1999 Late Bronze and Iron I Cooking Pots in Canaan: A Typological, Technological, and Functional Study. Pp. 83–126 in Archaeology, History and Culture in Palestine and the Near East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Glock, ed. T. Kapitan. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2005 Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100 BCE. Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Lipovitch, D. 2006– Modeling a Mycenaean Menu: Can Aegean Populations Be 2007 Defined in Near Eastern Contexs Based on Their Diet? Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: 147–59. Mazzoni, S. 1994 Aramaean and Luwian New Foundations. Pp. 319–39 in Nuove fondazioni nel Vicino Oriente antico: realtà e ideologia; atti del colloquio 4–6 dicembre 1991, Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche del Mondo Antico, Sezione di Egittologia e Scienze Storiche del Vicino Oriente, Università degli Studi di Pisa, ed. S. Mazzoni. Seminari di orientalistica 4. Pisa: Giardini. 1995 Settlement Pattern and New Urbanization in Syria at the Time of the Assyrian Conquest. Pp. 181–91 in Neo-Assyrian Geography, ed. M. Liverani. Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5. Rome: University of Rome. Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age: A Cross-Cultural 2000 Perspective. Pp. 31–59 in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age,

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Timothy P. Harrison is Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology in the Depar tment of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto. Prior to his appointment at Toronto, he was a Research Associate at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, where he began working on the Megiddo Stratum VI Publication Project. He earned his Ph.D in Near Eastern Archaeology from the University of Chicago in 1995, completing a dissertation on the Early Bronze Age in the Highlands of Central Jordan. Since finishing his doctoral studies, he has directed excavations at the Bronze and Iron Age site of Tell Madaba, in Jordan, and more recently at Tell Taʿyinat on the Plain of Antioch in southeastern Turkey.

ed. G. Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Suppl. 7. Louvain: Peeters. Pruss, A. 2002

Ein Licht in der Nacht? Die Amuq-Ebene während der Dark Ages. Pp. 161–76 in Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Kontinuität und Wandel von Strukturen und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion; Kolloquium des Sonderforschungsbereiches 295 “Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte” der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 11.–12. Dezember 1998, ed. E. A. Braun-Holzinger and H. Matthäus. Möhnesee: Bibliopolis. Rahmstorf, L. 2003 Clay Spools from Tiryns and Other Contemporary Sites: An Indication of Foreign Influence in LH IIIC? Pp. 397–415 in He periphereia tou Mykenaikou kosmou 2: Diethnes Diepistemoniko Symposio, 26–30 Septemvriou, Lamia 1999 [The Periphery of the Mycenaean World. 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, 26–30 September, Lamia 1999], ed. N. KyparisseApostolika and M. Papakonstantinou. Athens: Hypourgeio Politismou. 2008 Kleinfunde aus Tiryns: Terrakotta, Stein, Bein und Glas/Fayence vornehmlich aus der Spätbronzezeit. Tiryns: Forschungen und Berichte 16. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Stager, L. E. The Impact of the Sea Peoples. Pp. 332–48 in The Archaeology 1998 of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. Levy. New Approaches in Anthropological Archaeology. London: University of Leicester Press. Stager, L. E.; Schloen, J. D.; Master, D. M.; Press, M. D.; and Aja, A. Stratigraphic Overview. Pp. 215–326 in Ashkelon 1: 2008 Introduction and Overview (1985–2006), ed. L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen, and D. M. Master. Harvard Semitic Museum Publications; Final Reports of the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Swift, G. F. 1958 The Pottery of the ‘Amuq, Phases K to O, and Its Historical Relationships. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago. Venturi, F. La Siria nell’età delle trasformazioni (XIII–X sec. a.C.): Nuovi 2007 contribute dallo scavo di Tell Afis. Studi e testi oriental 8, Serie archeological; Università degli studi di Bologna, Dipartimento di studi linguistici ed orientali 1. Bologna: CLUEB. Verstraete, J., and Wilkinson, T. J. 2000 The Amuq Regional Archaeological Survey. Pp. 179–92 in The Amuq Valley Regional Project, 1995–1998, ed. A. Yener, C. Edens, T. Harrison, J. Verstraete, and T. J. Wilkinson. American Journal of Archaeology 104: 163–220. Yamada, S. 2000 The Construction of the Assyrian Empire: A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmanesar III (859–824 B.C.) Relating to His Campaigns to the West. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 3. Leiden: Brill.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 189

Copyright of Near Eastern Archaeology is the property of American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

The Temple of the Storm God in Aleppo during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages Kay Kohlmeyer

T

ravellers are deeply impressed by the citadel hill of Aleppo, which is the most important Islamic medieval military construction in Syria and a national heritage monument. But the hill is not only important for the Islamic period when the fortified medieval palace town covered its whole surface and its flanks. During the pre-Hellenistic periods it was the seat of the Storm God of Aleppo (ancient Halab). The natural outcrop with its fantastic view across the region is comparable to other seats of storm gods, the most famous being Djabal al-Aqra, “the throne of Baal,” a landmark for sailors on the way from the southern Anatolian coast or Cyprus to the harbor of Ugarit. The storm god, first venerated as Hadda, then as Addu, Teshub, Tarhunta, and Hadad, played a supra-regional role in the ancient Near East, which explains the enormous size of his temple at Aleppo and the brilliance of its relief decoration.

The Storm God of Aleppo played an important role in ancient Near Eastern religion, which explains the enormous size of his temple at Aleppo and the brilliance of its relief decoration. In this view of the northern part of the cella, remains of the main periods of the temple’s construction are visible. The Middle Bronze Age wall made of plain orthostats and the Early Bronze Age cult niche made of roughly hewn blocks are visible at the top. Below this, the “pedestal wall” with relief decoration lines a platform in front of the Hittite southern façade of the north wall (only poorly preserved). The reliefs belong to the Iron Age, except for three blocks that date to the Hittite Empire.

190 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

In this view of the northern and central part of the cella, the ten-meter-wide Middle Bronze Age northern wall is visible in the far left. The Hittite Storm God and the image of King Taita, which was added in the eleventh century, are depicted in relief along the eastern wall at the top of the photo.

The temple, which has been excavated by a Syro-German mission since 1996 (Kohlmeyer 2000; Gonnella, Khayyata, and Kohlmeyer 2005), can be traced back to the middle of the third millennium B . C . E . in the Early Bronze Age. During this period, the settlement was probably confined to the high ground where the sanctuary was situated. The history of Aleppo’s storm god is partly illuminated by cuneiform texts. Tablets from Ebla (Tall Mardikh) mention that the ruling house of Ebla offered sacrifices to Hadda twice a year, and also carried out restorations at his temple. During the Middle Bronze Age (early-second millennium B.C.E.), the storm god Addu increased in significance with the rise of the kingdom of Yamhad, ruled by the Halabean royal dynasty. Texts from Mari (Tall Hariri) describe the god’s image in the Aleppo temple as a huge seated sculpture in the round with a smaller sun god on his knee. During the Late Bronze Age, the storm god was known as Teshub, and together with his wife Hepat was worshipped in the Hittite capital Hattusa, where he served as a divine witness (i.e., an oath deity) in Hittite international treaties. The archives of Hattusa also give an account of the entourage of the Halabean Teshub, which included other storm gods, several protective gods, Ninurta, the sun and the moon god of the heavens, mountains and rivers, Shaushga, and Shaushga of Nineveh. The Storm God retained his pre-eminent position in the early-first millennium B.C.E., when he was called Tarhunta (or Tarhunza) by the Luwians.

The entrance chamber to the Middle Bronze Age temple, facing east. In the foreground (west) a room adjacent to the entrance chamber had been destroyed by a medieval cellar. In the background (east) is another partially destroyed room, with evidence of a staircase. A nearly four-meter-wide entrance opened to the cella from the south (right center). Sculptures originally lined both sides of the entrance. Only the western side of the entrance chamber has survived, the eastern section having been destroyed completely by a Byzantine period structure.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 191

The Hittite period renovations to the temple included replacing the plain orthostats with new ones carved in the form of false windows and bull-men. Bull-men are common in Hittite art. The false windows may have been in imitation of the windows typical of Hittite temple construction, but which would have been difficult to install in the pre-existing temple in reality.

The Storm God himself is depicted facing King Taita on the eastern wall. The relief may have served as the cult image, and indicates that the temple’s orientation shifted in the Hittite period so that the east (rather than the north) wall was the focal point.

192 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

The Storm God stands two meters high, in a “smiting” posture, and wears the typical conical cap with two pairs of horns, a rosette-decorated shirt, and rhomb-patterned kilt. His epigraph, displayed above his head in Hieroglyphic Luwian, identifies him as DEUS TONITRUS GENUFLECTERE-MI, that is, “Storm God of Aleppo.”

Three blocks of the northern pedestal wall date to the Hittite period and depict a mountain god and two composite monsters (shown above) with the bodies of winged lions. One has a human head with horned headdress, and a small lion head on its breast, while the other has a bird’s head and a small snake’s head on its breast. Note the more cursory rendering of the monsters and the mountain god compared with the elaborate detail of the depictions of the Storm God, the fish-man, and the bull-men.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009) 193

K_\CXpflkf]k_\D`[[c\9ifeq\8^\K\dgc\ Here I focus on the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age temple complex, but a description of its earlier layout in the late-third and early-second millennium B.C.E. is necessary first in order to understand the conceptual changes that occurred during the Hittite Empire period in the Late Bronze Age. To date, the known parts of the earlier temple layout are its cella, the entrance chamber, and parts of two adjacent rooms. The cella of the early Middle Bronze Age structure forms a “broadroom” of 26.75 by 17.10 meters with a 4.4 by 7.8-meterdeep cult niche in the center of the north wall that is aligned on a direct axis with the building’s entrance on the south. It would have been very difficult to roof such a large hall. The only tree suitable for this is the Lebanese cedar, which can grow to forty meters in height, and paleobotanical evidence has indicated that this was indeed the wood, together with oak, used for the roofing. The temple’s northern wall was 10 meters wide. A limited sounding along its outer edge provided a glimpse of its exterior, preserved to a height of 4.5 meters: a 3-meter-high mudbrick structure on 1.5-meter-high slabs of undecorated but wellsmoothed limestone. Curiously, in front of the orthostats we did not find an exterior floor, but instead a stone pavement covered with thin layers of clay and ash, clearly belonging to some kind of corridor. Mudbricks of lower quality were set against the northern wall, thereby preserving large parts of its plastered surface. We have not been able to date this “corridor” precisely, but it is comparable to the temple at ʿAin Dara, some forty kilometers northwest of Aleppo, and must date later than the Middle Bronze Age. Undecorated limestone orthostats with a height of 1.2 meters covered the inner façade of the north wall. The construction technique of the orthostats is comparable to other examples of Middle Bronze Age architecture, such as that found nearby at Ebla. The Middle Bronze Age cella had an Early Bronze Age predecessor, which dates to the middle of the third millennium B . C . E ., and must be the remains of the temple mentioned in the Ebla archives. It was constructed of roughly hewn stone blocks that sit directly on the natural rock, which were reused as foundations for the later building. An entrance 3.8 meters wide opened to the cella from the south. Two large pivot stones in the Middle Bronze Age pavement suggest a two-winged door. Those exiting the cella through these doors would have passed between stone sculptures that lined both sides of the entrance. After four meters, the visitor would then have passed through a portico on the south, or, more likely, a room with an outer gate, about 8.85 meters wide and at least 6.55 meters in length, before leaving the temple structure altogether. Only the western side of the entrance chamber has survived; apart from the corner foundation stone, the eastern part was destroyed completely by a Byzantine period structure, but can be reconstructed as a

194 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 72:4 (2009)

mirror image of the western side. Towards the west, a gate 2.13 meters wide opens into a room that is cut by a medieval cellar and also completely destroyed. The plain orthostats of the western wall belong to a renovation during the Late Bronze I, and share technical similarities with buildings at Tilmen Höyük and Alalakh. We found the low steps in the chamber that led to the entrance almost completely destroyed. The room adjacent to the entrance chamber in the east can only be inferred from parts of foundations of the Early Bronze Age predecessor and of a burnt floor at a higher level. The traces of fire in this room probably belong to the conflagration that destroyed the Middle Bronze Age temple. There are indications of two subsequent destructions. The architectural remains suggest a staircase with a wooden stair construction. The general layout of the Middle Bronze Age temple, with its almost square shape, a broad-room cella, and an entrance chamber with an adjacent staircase, is comparable to the contemporary Level VII temple at Alalakh. From the Middle Bronze Age on, the Aleppo temple undoubtedly had at least one, and perhaps even more, upper stories. This conclusion is supported by the enormous thickness of the walls and the partially preserved staircase. It therefore is not a typical templum in antis (with rectangular cella and portico) but rather appears to belong to the so-called migdol, or tower, temple type. The Middle Bronze Age structure was burned to the ground, to be restored in altered form in the Late Bronze Age under Hittite sovereignty.

:_Xe^\j`ek_\?`kk`k\