L E G A C Y O F T H E H I T T I T E S

The Assyrian Empire lasted until the last decades of the 7th century, when its great capitals were sacked by Medes and Babylonians. From that point forward, the cuneiform documentary record on ancient Turkey is very much impoverished, although by no means extinguished. As chroniclers of events in Anatolia, however, the Assyrians always had their limitations. They were never able to conquer or control very much of the highland areas, and their contact with the areas relevant to our study was uneven. It is best documented at times when the Assyrians were intruding, which can hardly be expected to coincide with the primary periods of local prosperity or dynastic coherence. Therefore, one must turn to the evidence of the Neo-Hittite societies themselves and attempt to reconcile it with the historical skeleton provided by their southern neighbors.

KEY NEO-HITTITE SITES

Two innovations of the Hittite Empire were embellished in the Neo-Hittite period, and provide us with most of what we know from native sources on the archaeology and history of the period. The first of these was the use of carved limestone and basalt slabs known as orthostats to protect and decorate the lower part of walls of public buildings. Sometimes the color alternation of these two types of stone was exploited for dramatic effect. Limestone is more subject to weathering than basalt, so there is often an unevenness in the preservation of larger compositions of this type. In any case the sculptures on orthostats, and associated architectural sculpture in the round, provide us with depictions of kings, gods, mythical scenes, funerary banquets, and so forth. In the five centuries and multiple localities in which they were produced, they exhibited changes in style, taking them ever further from the art of the Empire, although some connection can always be recognized. It is generally accepted that these sculptures inspired the development of relief sculpture in Assyria, which was underdeveloped in the Middle Assyrian period and polished to a sublime art form in the Assyrian Empire. Assyrian relief styles, in return, increasingly influenced the art of the Neo-Hittite states as the Empire extended its political influence over them.

The second Hittite imperial innovation the Neo-Hittite states brought to a new level was the use of hieroglyphic Luwian display inscriptions, which we have already noted on several occasions (Figure 8.2). Writing of this type was increasingly used in the latter period of the Empire, particularly by Suppiluliuma II, but in the Iron Age it was even more widespread and served as the only means by which the Luwian language was conveyed. Knowledge of cuneiform cannot have lapsed completely because the Assyrians continued to use it, although the Neo-Hittite princes chose not to. Orthostats inscribed with text, with or without associated sculptures, were the durable historical records of the Neo-Hittite period.

The study of the art, history, and archaeology of the Neo-Hittites principalities is an intricate endeavor, which demands specialties crossing numerous academic boundaries. We highlight here some of the better documented sites, but note that this is only a limited selection.7

297

L E G A C Y O F T H E H I T T I T E S

Carchemish

Carchemish had a long prehistoric occupation and was already an important city when historical documents from Ebla and southern Mesopotamia began to shed light on the area in the midthird millennium BC.8 As we have noted already, it was the key location in the Hittite Empire’s control of Syria. Despite its long and important occupation in these earlier periods, however, almost all of the archaeological exposures to date are of materials dating to the Iron Age. Yet even these, which have given us some of the major monuments of Neo-Hittite art, present a sadly incomplete picture of the site. If ever the archaeological history of a site was vexed by circumstances, it is here at Carchemish. British excavators, including C. Leonard Woolley and T. E. Lawrence, worked here in the years before the First World War, and again immediately afterward. In both instances, the work was interrupted by hostilities and the field notes and storage facilities of the expedition were destroyed.9 After the Turkish War of Independence, the border between Syria and Turkey was drawn along the line of the Berlin to Baghdad railroad, and this has hindered further archaeological work. The citadel and most of the excavated portions of the site are in Turkey, whereas much of the outer town is in Syria.10 Woolley, who went on to direct highly successful excavations at Ur and Alalakh, long hoped to return to Carchemish and deplored his inability to publish the small finds and pottery in the long delayed final publication on the site.11 The excavations, which did not reach Bronze Age levels, were primarily successful for recovering Iron Age sculpture and numerous building inscriptions.

Carchemish stands on the western side of the Euphrates at an important crossing point of the river (Figure 8.3). It has a high citadel mound on which one would expect to find the palace or, if the comparably configured Ain Dara is a reliable model, a major temple. In any event, the top of this mound was apparently removed by Roman builders,12 and a large modern structure and parking lot is visible there in satellite images today. Below the citadel, two fortification systems extend the site to the west and south. The nearer marks off the inner town, in which there was a group of public buildings and monumental structures which were the primary subject of archaeological investigations. The farther wall connects to this, and marks off the outer town, which is largely unexplored.

Reconstructions of the Iron Age chronology of the site find a way to order two long-running dynasties of native of rulers mentioned by inscriptions from Carchemish itself with the names kings of Carchemish noted by Assyrian inscriptions at various times. The latter provide the only fixed dates for the whole sequence. There is now a general consensus on how this is to be done— slotting the native kings into the lacunae of the Assyrian records and counting generations— although the dating is still not entirely secure.

The dynasty of kings of Carchemish established by Suppiluliumi I appears to have survived the fall of the capital at Hattusa, and it seems that Kuzi-Teshub, one of the members of this line, assumed the title of Great King of Hatti early in the 12th century—the first king of Carchemish to do so.13 Although the Egyptian texts of Ramses III that recount the ravages of the Sea Peoples explicitly state that Carchemish was destroyed around 1190 BC, no destruction level comparable

299

L E G A C Y O F T H E H I T T I T E S

Figure 8.3 Plan of Carchemish, with detail of primary areas in which sculpture was found (after Hawkins 1976–80: 427)

300

L E G A C Y O F T H E H I T T I T E S

to the one at Ugarit is in evidence here. The Ini-Teshub from whom Tiglath-Pileser I received tribute around 1100 BC was a descendant of Kuzi-Teshub, and the namesake of the 13th century king of Carchemish whose seal was illustrated above (Figure 7.16: 4).14 No monuments of these kings are found at the site. There are, however, sculptures in very early Neo-Hittite styles together with inscriptions identifying otherwise unknown rulers who claim the title Great King which must belong in period between Tiglath-Pileser I and the 10th century.15

In the middle of the 9th century BC, the Assyrians tell us that Carchemish was ruled by a certain Sangara. Despite his importance and a certain longevity, there are again no inscriptions or other works at the site executed in his name. There is, however, an important local dynasty that must precede him. Known as the “house of Suhis,” four generations of rulers are known, the last of whom was Katuwas, who is associated with a particular style sculpture (Figure 8.2: 1). This includes a distinctive type of curl in the hair of the head and beard, which can be seen in contemporary sculptures at other sites—by such means are synchronisms made in this somewhat dark age. There is no room for this dynasty in the history of Carchemish after Sangara, so it must come before him. We do not know its connection with the earlier rulers who claimed to be Great Kings, but the line should have begun in the 10th century, if not earlier. The last king of Carchemish, Pisiri, appears in Assyrian records in 738 BC. He was replaced by Assyrian governors when Sargon II brought the city into the Assyrian Empire in 717 BC. The “house of Astiruwas,” several generations of local rulers who again produced hieroglyphic monuments— this time associated with an art style that was heavily influenced by Assyria—must be placed in the century between Sangara and Pisiri.16

There are probably more pieces of Neo-Hittite sculpture stretched over a longer period of time at Carchemish than at any other site (Figure 8.4). Most were excavated from the public buildings which had been created at different times and were probably rebuilt and modified a good deal before being abandoned. The primary architectural monuments in the inner town run from a gateway beside the river, along a major avenue, and into an area in which there was a large staircase and a temple in an enclosure. The colorful English names these were given by the excavators (“Water Gate,” “Long Wall of Sculpture,” “Great Staircase,” “Herald’s Wall,” and “King’s Gate”) are not based on ancient texts, and the architecture itself was of secondary importance to the sculptures that adorned it. South of the road there was a palace building of the hilani type, discussed later in the context of better preserved examples from Zincirli. The Temple of the Storm God, on a platform beside the Grand Staircase is a simple, almost square one-roomed affair with thick walls and single doorway on its southwest side.

Neo-Hittite sculpture has been broadly classified into four sequential phases by Orthmann,17 and all are represented at Carchemish. The Carchemish sculptures, which as we have seen can be put into a rough chronological framework thanks to the local inscriptions and Assyrian correlations, can then be used to order works at other sites. The earliest works are very close in style to the imperial art of the Bronze Age, and there is no question of where their inspiration came from. By the time we come to Katuwas in the late 10thor early 9th-century proportions and styles have clearly changed. The sculptures of Yariris, who appears to have been a kind of regent

301

L E G A C Y O F T H E H I T T I T E S

time in Anatolia, with the god riding up in his chariot, and then receiving the king’s libations. The technique of narrative was not carried very far by the Luwians, but it probably had its influence on the Assyrians, who elaborated upon it in depictions of military campaigns. One of the reliefs shows a mythological scene of gods battling some sort of monster (Figure 8.5: 2), sometimes taken to be a depiction of the Hittite myth of the serpent Illuyanka, albeit very speculatively.

Ain Dara

While Ain Dara lies just outside the borders of Turkey, it has an important contribution to make in unraveling the relationships between Anatolian and non-Anatolian elements in the Neo-Hittite tradition. It has the same configuration as Carchemish, but at a slightly smaller scale: a high mound beside a river, in this case the Afrin, and a large walled lower town beside it. Sherds scattered in the fields beyond the city walls hint at the existence of an outer town. Unlike Carchemish and Malatya, the ancient identity of this site is unknown, and although fragments of hieroglyphic inscriptions have been found in excavations, there are no coherent texts from the site. Neo-Assyrian texts establish that this site lay in a kingdom called both Patin(a) and Unqi, which also included the Amuq.24 Although Ain Dara was clearly an important place, it was probably not the political capital, Kinalua, which is thought to be at Tell Tayinat. It was, however, the site of a temple of great importance.

The temple exhibits an interesting mix of traditions.25 Its ground plan bears no resemblance to the Hittite temples at Bog˘ azköy, but rather conforms to a standard arrangement that one can see developing in Syria in the Bronze Age and corresponds rather well to the Biblical description of the Temple of Solomon, which it predates. It is laid out in such a way that the approach to the holy of holies at the back of the building is a straight line from the entrance at the font, and the building has a bilateral symmetry along that axis. There is a broad porch centered on the front of building, with two gigantic column bases on either side of the entrance (Figure 8.6). From there one crosses a broad courtyard paved with large stones to a second threshold, and then another paved courtyard. At the back of this, there is a row of blocks carved in relief, on which the cult room must have been built, perhaps of wood. A raised “annex” runs along the sides and back of the temple, and there are indications that it was open to the outside at points to allow viewing of pieces of sculpture on the inner walls. Unique in the art of the Near East are meter-long humanshaped footprints carved in the entrance and the threshold between the first and second courtyards. There are a pair on the lowest step of the entrance, then a left on the next step, and across the first courtyard there is a right. It is as if a gigantic anthropomorphic god were striding into his home.

The Hittite tradition is seen in the sculptures with which the temple was decorated.26 The row of blocks that held up the cella, now in the Aleppo Museum, are adorned with mountain gods and mixed beings with their arms elevated to support a burden. There can be no doubt about

304

L E G A C Y O F T H E H I T T I T E S

Figure 8.6 Temple at Ain Dara during excavation, footprints near north arrow

their Anatolian origins, and it should be noted that this is the only place where mountain gods appear in post-imperial Hittite art. Other sculpture reinforces the Anatolian connections. The facade of the temple and the wall of the first courtyard facing the entrance were composed of gigantic lions and sphinxes placed on plinths decorated with interwoven bands (guilloche). The faces of these creatures were all damaged, but one complete lion and several others that were in various stages of being carved lay together not far from the temple, so one has a good idea of what they looked like (Figure 8.7). Fragments of faces found at the site have also been reassembled, and their rounded cheeks, distinctive noses, and other features bear a strong resemblance to the art of the Anatolian Plateau from the time of the Empire.

In the absence of inscriptions and with so much damage to the sculptures, the deity to whom this temple was dedicated is unknown. There is one relief of the goddess who corresponds to Ishtar/Shaushga, with both feminine and warlike characteristics.27 This deity is represented on both the male and female sides of the procession at Yazılıkaya. But the relief is probably not the cult image that occupied the holy of holies and so cannot be confidently identified as primary subject of worship here. The dating of the Ain Dara temple is also problematic. Stylistically, the lions and other figures are very close to the earliest of the Carchemish sculptures, and some authorities would thus put them in the 10th century. Broken pieces of sculpture that look even earlier, some

305

L E G A C Y O F T H E H I T T I T E S

Figure 8.7 Sphinx and lion on left of main entrance to Ain Dara temple

of which bear hieroglyphs, were found built into the temple ruins, and there were clearly older, if not Bronze Age versions of the temple. There was also much later rebuilding, and the temple as excavated shows many signs of rebuilding, some of which, such as a dado running around the temple base, were never completed. The temple stood open to the elements for centuries before it was filled with debris from the late first millennium BC, so its contents are of no help with the dating.

The settlement area which stretches out below the temple, however, is quite revealing about the inhabitants of the site in the Iron Age.28 All of the pottery and small finds unearthed there are very much in the dominant tradition of Syria and the nearby Amuq plain. The sequence of ceramic changes here, such as a shift from monochrome painted pottery to red burnished and bichrome wares, are familiar to any archaeologist working in the Iron Age Levant. The only inscribed objects so far discovered are Egyptian scarabs. The Luwian elements of the temple facade do not seem to be reflected in any way in the material culture of the lower town in the Iron Age.

306